PARLIAMENT | PARTY | GRASSROOTS

Red Alert

Archive for the ‘digital’ Category

Wikileaks: the balance between security and civil liberty

Posted by Clare Curran on December 4th, 2010

Wikileaks is an extraordinary event.

It started off as a not for profit media organisation and a website which published leaked information and has now become an evolving situation which throws into sharp relief one of the most important issues of our time.

It’s not about whether you have enough to eat, a roof over your head or a job. But it is about the the balance between the security of a nation and the right to make information available. And the right to publish it. This is the issue:

How will decisions made by private internet and telecommunications companies about what content they will or won’t allow affect the ability of citizens to carry out informed debate on important matters of public concern? What are the private sector’s obligations and responsibilities to prevent the erosion of democracy?

I’m not getting into the rights and wrongs of the content of Wikileaks.  But I would like some discussion on the above.

Consider this published yesterday on CNN’s website by Rebecca MacKinnon.

There isn’t much question that the person who obtained the WikiLeaks cables from a classified U.S. government network broke U.S. law and should expect to face the consequences. The legal rights of a website that publishes material acquired from that person, however, are much more controversial.

There are many prominent Americans — and a great many ordinary Americans — who have made their views clear over the past week that WikiLeaks’ “cablegate” website should not be considered constitutionally protected speech. Others, however, believe equally strongly that now that the material is out, news media and website owners have the right to publish the material.

What is troubling and dangerous is that in the internet age, public discourse increasingly depends on digital spaces created, owned and operated by private companies. The result is that one politician has more power than ever to shut down controversial speech unilaterally with one phone call.

After suffering aggressive cyber attacks last weekend, Assange removed his “cablegate” site from servers in Sweden and purchased a new home for it on Amazon’s web hosting service. On Tuesday, Amazon talked on the phone with the office of Sen. Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate’s committee on homeland security.

Shortly thereafter, Amazon booted WikiLeaks.

MacKinnon goes on to say this, which is really the guts of the issue that I want to discuss:

Amazon’s dumping of WikiLeaks at one senator’s request brings into stark relief one of the core problems Americans have grappled with since before our country even existed: Where is the right balance between security, on one hand, and civil liberties, on the other?

..the WikiLeaks Amazon case also highlights a new problem for American democracy — and ultimately for the future of freedom and democracy more globally. A substantial if not critical amount of our political discourse has moved into the digital realm. This realm is largely made up of virtual spaces that are created, owned and operated by the private sector.

You can read the full CNN article here

Rebecca MacKinnon is a Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation, co-founder of the international bloggers’ network Global Voices Online and a founding member of the Global Network Initiative. Her book, “Consent of the Networked,” will be published late next year by Basic Books.

Tags:
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, comms & IT, democracy, digital, internet, security
28 Comments

Remaining alert on the TPP

Posted by Clare Curran on November 21st, 2010

John Armstrong wrote a good piece in the Saturday NZ Herald on Key’s trip to Japan last week for APEC and talks on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).

I would have missed it because was consumed with other matters, so thanks to Eddie at The Standard for your piece on it.

I first wrote about the TPP on Red Alert in May.

My interest is in NZ ensuring it doesn’t sell out our ability to control out intellectual property, particularly in the digital environment. New Zealand produced content is our economic edge. It’s also our identity.

I remain alert. And thanks for the funny bits in your piece John.

PS: The TPP is a grouping of nine countries – New Zealand, Brunei, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, the United States, Australia and Malaysia -  currently negotiating a free trade pact which would phase-down tariffs to zero in all sectors. Japan is thinking about joining up.

Tags: ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, comms & IT, copyright, digital, intellectual property, trade
5 Comments

The politics of social media

Posted by Clare Curran on November 6th, 2010

I think about this quite a lot. The rise of social media such as facebook, twitter and blogs and what it means to have  more people  communicating with each and building new online communities. Mostly it’s a good thing.

Many politicians, such as myself, are increasingly using social media to communicate, test ideas and have conversations with people across a broad range of backgrounds, interests and political attitudes.

I find it interesting, exciting, thought provoking and a bit of an outlet for my own views, but also as a way of just building new friendships and adding to my knowledge.

But it can also be dangerous. And it’s this that I want to explore your views on.

What happens when, in the cut and thrust of election campaigning, all the stops get pulled out and the political trolls use anything that a politician (or aspiring politican) has said on social media (potentially) taken out of context to discredit them.

The US mid term elections has again put this issue in the spotlight. I came across this piece today via Twitter:

…today’s generation of future leaders has grown up in an era when letting one’s guard down for one’s Facebook friends to see is an afterthought.

Ms. Ball, a Democrat, was stunned when she found out that six-year-old party pictures were circulating online. In them, she was wearing a Santa cap and provocative lacy hosiery while holding and putting her mouth around a sex toy. The story went viral, getting attention from news media outlets as varied as Gawker and National Public Radio.

“I think I was the No. 3 most-Googled term in the whole world over some stupid gag I played when I was 22 years old,” Ms. Ball said in a phone interview on Wednesday, the day after she lost her election.

While her opponent already had a comfortable advantage in the Republican-leaning district by the time the pictures came out, Ms. Ball’s experience raises the question of whether American culture will ever evolve to the point where voters tolerate pictures of future leaders in various states of inebriation and undress.

Ms. Ball, a certified public accountant, has used the experience as an opportunity to warn of a potential chilling effect on tomorrow’s leaders. Candidates, she argued, should not be shamed out of a race because of mistakes made in their youth. “I had a whole lot of people who were older than me saying they were feeling grateful that Facebook and digital cameras weren’t around when they were growing up,” she said. “I am not the only person with stupid photos out there, and I would hate to have some young man or young woman think, ‘I can’t run for office because I did something stupid at a party however long ago.’

This may not be the best example. The description of her behaviour didn’t sound that sensible. Let alone having her photo taken. But people do silly things in context. And is it our business? Social media makes those events more visible. And when the media spotlight comes on there can be a shock horror reaction by the public.

We’ve certainly seen that in the US. Will we see it here?

Because politicians are held accountable to a different set of behaviours? Or because the mere fact you are a politician, or standing to become one makes your behaviour suspect? I’m interested in your views.

And as a postscript: This movie has recently been released in the States and NZ. The Social Network is  the story of facebook. I had a bit of a look tonight but I’m not sure you can legally purchase it online yet. You’d think you’d be able to! Maybe someone can help me with that. If you can’t then I think it’s a travesty and it’s the movie studio’s own fault if they’re not across what people are doing in the real world.

Here’s a taste:

Tags:
Filed under: Social media, comms & IT, copyright, digital, economic, politics
52 Comments

No NZers will have internet access terminated in Copyright Bill

Posted by Clare Curran on November 3rd, 2010

Let’s be very clear about this. If Labour and the National Government had not agreed on a compromise around the temination clause in the Copyright Bill, we would have a piece of legislation coming back to the House which could cut off NZers  internet accounts for six months.

Labour would have opposed the Bill.  It might have been a high moral stand but it would have resulted in a bad law.

A law that would be able to require people to be disconnected because they have shared files. It wouldn’t have been easy to achieve and would have required a convoluted journey of receiving several notices by mail from your internet service provider (such as Telstra Clear, Telecom etc)

You may have been taken to the Copyright Tribunal. Or the rights holder (of the film, music clip or video game) that you downloaded may have decided to make an example of you and had the matter referred to the district court.

No matter that you had downloaded whatever it was for your own enjoyment, not to profit from it in any way. The court could order you to be disconnected.  Never mind if you were 12 years old and part of a family that relied on the internet for all kinds of things. Or if you were elderly and lived alone and used email and the internet to communicate with the outside world.

In coming years the internet will become increasingly more essential in all of our lives. Disconnection is a disproprotionate remedy for file sharing.

A Bill that enacted a termination clause would have seen termination used as a remedy. This way it wont. Unless the copyrights holders manage to push for a review and the Minister of the day decides to enact termination as a remedy. In which case it is on that Minister’s head.

National’s position was immoveable. Termination would remain in the Bill. Labour’s position was that we opposed it.

In reaching this compromise, Labour believed it was better to have a piece of legislation that did not use termination as a remedy even if it remains in the Bill as a future possibility.

We would prefer it wasn’t there at all. But we also believe this is the best possible outcome we could achieve as the Opposition. This is not our Bill. It was originally our Bill (Section 92A) and despite the good intentions to make it work, it resulted in a grand stoush between the different parties which required a rethink. Labour pushed for and supported that rethink. What we’ve ended up with is better. If not perfect.

We are concerned that the government appears to have said today there will be a two year review of the decision not to enact the termination clause. This is news to Labour. It wasn’t put before the select committte and you should note that there will be an election in NZ before that two year period is up. Labour would not support a govt-led review and this could become an election issue.

But we still have concerns about a number of aspects in the Bill and believe there could well be room for further compromise.

A couple of comments:

It was always my view that a fine for copyright infringement was much more appropriate than termination of internet access. The view expressed in the commentary to the Bill that an award made by the Copyright Tribunal could include a punitive element and not just be compensation-based is justififiable.

We believe and hope that the notice and notice system established between ISPs and rights holders will be sufficient for the bulk of cases.

We do however retain concerns that the process will be too cumbersome and bureacratic and that the costs involved in setting up and maintaining a process that identifies and makes contact with potential infringers will be cumbersome.

We note the concerns raised by some around  section 122MA of the Bill around where the burden of proof lies for infringement. We are keen to talk further with those who are concerned about this.

On balance we have tried to convince the government to strike a balance between the rights of copyright
holders to have their intellectual property rights protected, and the reality that the Internet has now allowed far greater access to copyrighted works through file sharing.

And finally, it’s time for the debate to shift.

It’s time to move on from the issue of penalties for copyright infringement to looking at how we as a country can support new business models which enable our innovators and creators to benefit from their creativity and to control and distribute their own content to boost our economy and provide widespread access to information and entertainment. That’s what I want to see. Don’t you?

Tags: ,
Filed under: comms & IT, copyright, digital, economy, intellectual property, internet
35 Comments

Here’s something to celebrate

Posted by Clare Curran on October 25th, 2010

I’ve become a bit of an internet zealot. Because I reckon that New Zealand’s geographical isolation is actually our biggest strength rather than our biggest weakness.

Tourism, our landscapes and trying to maintain our clean green brand is  part of demonstrating that strength. The other part is our connectivity with each other and the rest of the world and the creativity, innovation and ingenuity that it can unleash. The internet knows no boundaries.

I just discovered this site. It’s called Down to the Wire, and it’s the story of New Zealand’s Internet and how it has changed our Nation. Starting in 1989, it features video interviews with over 50 Internet personalities and players.

And I agree with the blurb which says: downtothewire.co.nz brings alive a journey that has revolutionised our lives and shaped our future.

New Zealand record label Flying Nun Records is offering a free iconic Kiwi MP3 download each day for 21 days. Today’s song (from 2003) is The Verlaines, Doomsday. To get the free downloads you have to go to downtothewire.co.nz.

I’ve just started looking through it and it’s fascinating.Today they’re talking about what happened in 2003. I might do a wee series on some of the things that stand out for me. And I urge you to have a look.And tell people about it.

Because how we use and connect with each other via the internet is an important part part of our future. And this tells us how far we’ve come.

In 2003:

Tourism New Zealand had launched a well-received portal to attract visitors to the country a few years earlier under the ‘Pure New Zealand’ brand. But, by 2003, the government wanted to lay claim to the newzealand.com domain to give both tourists and business prospects an easy-to-find location to knock on our virtual doors. The problem was that this was already owned by an offshore company called Virtual Countries that had been savvy enough to buy the .com variants of many country names.

So our government took them to the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) to claim rights to the domain. Unfortunately, the panel unanimously decided that the New Zealand government not only had no rights over the name (holding no trademark), but had also acted in bad faith and was guilty of reverse hijacking. Our handy duly slapped, we ‘opted’ to purchase the domain from Virtual Countries for NZ$1 million.

Tourism Minister Mark Burton defended the move in parliament upon being questioned by the opposition. He said, “There is no question that this domain will provide an invaluable portal for commercial entry into New Zealand for those interested in tourism, commerce, and industry”. Whether the domain had any effect or not, the tourism portion of the site would go on to win Webby awards, the ‘Oscars of the Internet’, in years to come.

And here’s Peter Harrison, the Vice President of the NZ Open Source Society talking about the concept of open source:

Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, comms & IT, digital, internet
7 Comments

Can the internet be regulated?

Posted by Clare Curran on October 14th, 2010

Simon Power today announced a Law Commission review of the regulations around how the internet interacts with the justice system.

It’s timely to have a public discussion.

The Law Commission will treat the issue seriously, There are good people leading it. They have more than a year to report. But there are some big issues to discuss and I worry that they may not be able to if the terms of reference are too narrow.

If this inquiry is all about shutting down the likes of Cameron Slater (aka Whaleoil) who delights in flouting the name suppression laws then it’ll be a great shame and will create more problems than it tries to solve.

Slater regularly posts the names of people accused of various crimes which he deems to be not worthy of name suppression. He’s on a crusade. He describes himself as a citizen journalist. Others have more colourful names for him.

I don’t like his style. I try not to read his blog. Though sometimes I do. But I’d hate to see an inquiry happening just because of him.

I do believe there’s an important discussion to be had about one set of standards that applies across different media. But it’s not just about new media vs conventional media.

As David Farrar at Kiwiblog pointed out this afternoon one set of rules for conventional media (print and broadcast media) does not exist now. So the issues are complex.

People’s attitudes and behaviours are changing rapidly with the rise of new media. The discussions and debate around copyright and filesharing have shown this.

We need good law. And we need it to reflect where people are at.

Here’s what Simon Power said in question time in Parliament today. I’m looking forward to contributing to the review.

3. PAUL QUINN (National) to the Minister of Justice: Has he recently referred any projects to the Law Commission; if so, what?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : Yes; earlier today I asked the Law Commission to undertake a review regarding interaction between the Internet and the justice system. It is my view that the law must keep pace with technology, and that we must have one set of rules and ethical standards for all news media. It is my view that that may not be the case at present.

Paul Quinn: Why has the Minister referred this review to the Law Commission?

Hon SIMON POWER: I am concerned that the lack of regulation or professional or ethical standards for bloggers and online publishers has created a bit of a Wild West in cyberspace. The specific issues I am concerned about include how trials can be potentially prejudiced by information posted on websites and seen by jurors, real-time online streaming of court cases, breaches of court suppression orders, and republication of a libel.

Tags: ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, comms & IT, copyright, digital, internet, justice
27 Comments

2013 Digital switchover right decision

Posted by Clare Curran on September 16th, 2010

Will blog more on this later. Am at NZ Computer Society 50th anniversary conf in Rotorua and about to speak, but want to say that it’s the right decision. Am a bit suprised. it loooked as though the government was going to delay til 2015.

Wonder why they changed their minds. The mobile companies investing in 4G will be pleased.  And it means that we wont lag in the next generation of ultra-fast broadband over mobile.

It means that a comprehansive education campaign will be needed to make sure that low income, and older people are left out and without TV coverage.

But it’s the right decision. Haven’t had time to look at the detail yet. Will have more to say later.

My colleague Brendon Burns, Broadcasting spokesperson, is also tied up (doing a public meeting on the earthquake in the Chch Central electorate). Good excuse. He told me that  this announcement should now be followed by Cabinet announcing a willingness to open up to some public input on future of public service broadcasting, as per Future of Television.

He also commented that doing Digital Switchover by regions, could benefit Sky as they will be able to systematically put in sales teams region by region. Freeview hasn’t got the budget to do that.

NBR has written a piece here.

They point out that: The switch date will put New Zealand on a par with other OECD countries, with the United Kingdom switching over to digital by 2012 and Australia by 2013. The US and parts of the EU have completed the switch.

Tags:
Filed under: Television, broadcasting, comms & IT, digital, technology
6 Comments

Is there a bigger picture on broadband?

Posted by Clare Curran on September 13th, 2010

A few observations following an actual announcement late last week which inches the govt closer to taking some action on its biggest election promise: to spend $1.5 billion on ultrafast broadband. Three electricity lines company consortiums will be negotiated with in Northland, Central North Island and Timaru to get the ball rolling.

Steven Joyce knows he has to lay some fibre this year. Otherwise he’ll lose face (a lot of face). So no doubt he’ll make sure he gets his picture in the paper in a hard hat somewhere laying out a millimetre or two of fibre with taxpayers money.

But who will roll out broadband in the three biggest centres: Auckland, Wellington and Chch remains a mystery.

Telecom isn’t happy. They’ve gone very quiet. They wanted the whole thing, urban and rural and to do it their way. Doesn’t look like that’s going to happen.

But while the government works out what it will do, and when, in both urban and rural NZ on broadband, there are some bigger questions.

Such as what’s it all for? Is it just to deliver on an election promise and tick the box? Or is it part of a wider plan (a pretty important plan) to take NZ into the next few decades with a robust and integral new network to drive our economy and make our society more equal and digitally skilled?

When Labour went into the last election it didn’t have a headline $1.5 billion broadband plan. But it did have a fairly substanial broadband plan that was part of a wider digital strategy for the nation. This government has no wider plan and certainly no digital strategy. It’s a banned phrase in MED I understand.

There’s more to a new fibre network than sticking it in the ground.

Expect more discussion on this.

Tags:
Filed under: broadband, comms & IT, digital, economy
6 Comments

Is this the future for music distribution?

Posted by Clare Curran on August 9th, 2010

The changing dynamics of how artistic content is being delivered and promoted on the Web.

For those of you who have an interest, this is a live issue.

 

Tags:
Filed under: comms & IT, copyright, digital, internet
3 Comments

Obama’s open govt guru to talk at OpenLabourNZ public event

Posted by Clare Curran on August 2nd, 2010

US President Barack Obama’s Deputy Chief Technology Officer Beth Noveck will be a key note speaker at a public event to provide input into Labour’s policy on open and transparent government.

Labour will hold a public event on 28 August in Wellington to bring together ideas generated over the last four months on how to deliver open and transparent government.

OpenLabourNZ was announced  at the end of April on Red Alert as a new way of doing things; our first open policy process, inviting the public to participate in developing its policy on what an open, transparent government might look like.

OpenLabourNZ is an experiment in how Labour could engage with the community, seek their input, build support and use new technologies and methods to develop policy.

This is new territory for us and we want people to contribute by saying what they think a good policy on open and transparent government would look like.

To date OpenLabourNZ has attracted hundreds of responses by blogs, twitter and facebook and direct communication with the Party.

We are  serious about being open and transparent. It’s  a new initiative, but through it we hope to demonstrate that we mean business and will take the policy to the election and into government.

A bit of info about Beth Noveck

A fulltime law professor at New York Law School, her professional career has focused on developing technologies that increase participation in democracy. In the Obama administration, Noveck leads the open government initiative at the Technology Office at the White House focusings on incorporating more voices into policy planning. To do this, she has already created several online forums where readers can comment on White House proposals and add their own ideas.

She has been Deputy Chief Technology Officer at the White House since February 2009. She was a  Volunteer Policy Advisor to Obama (2007 to 2008); Law Professor, New York Law School (since 2002); Bodies Electric, President and CEO (1999 to 2002).

Beth will appear at the Labour public event via video link. Further speakers and the venue will be announced shortly.
The public event is free and open to the public but has limited places. We will shortly be announcing the process to register for the event. It will be live streamed so that people in other centres can observe and participate.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, Labour Party, comms & IT, democracy, digital, policy
15 Comments

Gee the Aussies actually think ICT issues matter

Posted by Clare Curran on July 26th, 2010

The key ICT political figures in the Federal Election are expected to go head to head in a debate at the National Press Club on 10 August.

The Australian Computer Society (ACS) has extended invitations to communications minister, Stephen Conroy, the Opposition shadow communications minister, Tony Smith, and Greens ICT spokesperson, Scott Ludlam to take part in the event.

Computerworld Australia will seek to clarify each party’s policy commitments on the following ICT-related issues in the lead up to the vote:

  • The National Broadband Network (NBN);
  • e-Health
  • Digital education (computers in schools)
  • Gershon Review changes
  • Government 2.0
  • Security and cyber crime
  • The Internet filter
  • Defence cyber capabilities and oversight
  • ICT skills development
  • ICT innovation
  • Privacy Act changes
  • Sustainable ICT
  • Smart grids, transport and environment systems
  • Online piracy and copyright protection
  • ICT advocacy
  • Online services
  • Departmental IT transformation program

I wonder whether Steven Joyce (the Minister of Communications and many other things)  could have a debate with me on any of these issues (other than broadband).

Tags: , ,
Filed under: broadband, censorship, comms & IT, digital, infrastructure, internet
9 Comments

At last some NZ discussion begins

Posted by Clare Curran on July 1st, 2010

Jonathan Penney, the Cyberlaw Fellow at Victoria University tonight gave a public talk about the idea of “internet as a right” and whether there is any basis for this in current New Zealand law.

I think I’ll acknowledge that I’m becoming a bit like a broken record on this issue.

But glad there’s some NZ discussion happening about it. Because access to the internet is access to the future.

Tags:
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, comms & IT, digital, human rights, internet
24 Comments

Today Finland becomes first country to officially make broadband a legal right

Posted by Clare Curran on July 1st, 2010

Just saw this on Twitter. Have blogged about it going to happen. Now it has.

Starting today (July1), every Finnish citizen now has a guaranteed legal right to a least a 1Mbps broadband connection, putting it on the same footing as other legal rights in the country such as healthcare and education.

As we reported last year, Finland was the first nation in the world to pass this type of legislation, followed by Spain in November.

The Finish government has promised guaranteed speeds of 100Mbps by 2015 for all of its citizens, and currently about 97% of Finns already have access to broadband connections.

Tags:
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, broadband, comms & IT, digital, human rights
16 Comments

Our Govt has its head in the sand on copyright issues

Posted by Clare Curran on June 5th, 2010

Sometimes it takes me a while to feel as if I understand an issue. Especially one that involves the digital world.

When I’m trying to get my head around something I try to take it back to a principle. Is it fair? Who to? Is it too complex? Will it work? Is it fostering innovation and creativity? Is it where we want to be heading?

Copyright is one of those issues.

Copyright in 2010, has become a brand, or a code. The prevalence of illegal downloading both in NZ and globally is a very real and important issue. The balancing act between protecting the rights of creators of content and allowing and encouraging access to information and material is a delicate and increasingly tricky issue which is currently exercising the minds of parliaments across the world.

Intellectual property, who owns it, who should have access, how they should have that access and what should be the penalties for infringing the rules around that access are all very live issues being hotly debated.

There’s a bunch of international treaties and agreements currently being negotiated where intellectual property features large. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and more recently the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) are just two. There is intensive lobbying going on, driven largely from the US.

It seems that the big elephant in the room is who’s interests are being served.

I’ve just come across this piece on The Hill which could cast some light on what is really  going on behind the scenes.

Three key US tech industry groups have urged a rethink on the US position on ACTA. The Consumer Electronics Association, TechAmerica and the Computer & Communications Industry Association plan to oppose the current draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

Though the groups favor copyright enforcement, they worry the agreement will not include copyright exemptions that currently benefit some technology companies under American law.

The agreement may lack a “fair use” standard that allows using copyrighted content in limited circumstances. Google, for instance, relies on this exemption to store Web content in its search engine memory.

Wikipedia defines “Fair use” as a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship.

The lack of “fair use” could make American tech companies vulnerable to repercussions abroad, these groups say.

“We would expect the administration to be as concerned as we are about the existing trend of foreign countries imposing unjustified civil and criminal liability on U.S. technology companies and their executives,” the groups wrote.

ACTA has drawn widespread criticism as serving corporate interests. So just who are these corporate interests? Who do they serve and why do they have so much influence? And what principles do those interests serve?

And does our government really understand these issues?

In the Commerce Select Committee on Thursday I asked Commerce Minister Simon Power whether the government was considering a wider review of copyright issues in the light of all the controversy around Section 92A. “No” was the response. They just want their re-write of S92A passed.

I think that’s short-sighted. And not serving the interests of NZ creators and our emerging digital industry. As well as the public interest.

Hat tip @Tom_Watson

Tags: , ,
Filed under: comms & IT, copyright, digital, economy, intellectual property, internet, trade
28 Comments

The thing about data

Posted by Clare Curran on June 1st, 2010

Don’t want to be esoteric. And never expected I’d be writing posts about the data explosion. But it appears to be important and it’s all part of teasing out the bigger issues about where government sits and can/should play a role when it comes to ownership, management and transmission of data. Because Govt generates a lot of data.

This article has come via twitter. A new way of communicating. A new community.

The coming data explosion is a piece from Readwriteweb

One of the key aspects of the emerging Internet of Things – where real-world objects are connected to the Internet – is the massive amount of new data on the Web that will result. As more and more “things” in the world are connected to the Internet, it follows that more data will be uploaded to and downloaded from the cloud. And this is in addition to the burgeoning amount of user-generated content – which has increased 15-fold over the past few years

ReadWriteWeb is one of the most popular technology blogs in the world. Founder Richard McManus is a New Zealander.

Hat-tip @socialspace

Tags: , ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, blogs, comms & IT, digital, internet
9 Comments

More talk of internet access being a human right

Posted by Clare Curran on May 31st, 2010

In France and Greece consumers have a legal right to internet access. In Spain, Finland and Estonia it has been (or is being) enshrined as a human right. Earlier this year, the BBC commissioned a survey of more than 27,000 people in 26 countries that found that 79% of adults regard online access as a fundamental right.

This time the Sydney Morning Herald reports discussion initiated by Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre executive director David Vaile, backed by the former head of GetUp! Brett Solomon, who is now executive director of AccessNow.org in the US.

Red Alert ran a bit of a discussion on this issue last year. It is particularly relevant given the government’s intention to include a suspension of internet access clause into the new Copyright Bill about to come before the Commerce Select Committee. Labour supports the Bill (mostly) but opposes suspension.

I am interested to hear the Australian Human Rights Commission president Catherine Branson QC’s comments that:

while the Commission had not yet looked at internet access as a human right; it did recognise internet access may raise issues “relevant to the right to freedom of expression” as defined in a United Nation’s covenant on civil and political rights.

Filed under: comms & IT, copyright, digital, human rights, internet
85 Comments

New thinking: careful experimentation #OpenLabourNZ

Posted by Clare Curran on May 29th, 2010

The future is all about data. Stuff that’s produced by people like you and me. And how it is distributed, used and re-used.

Data you generate. Data that cannot exist without you. Now that data is valuable, it is the new lock-in. Anyone can build another auction site, but 200 million ratings can’t be acquired overnight. Anyone can build another bookstore, but 10 million reviews can’t be acquired overnight. Google. Amazon. eBay. Flickr. Facebook. YouTube. Everything where the value is created via data you create in the first place.

Is there such a thing as digital philosophy? If so, I think I’ve found one. A digital philosopher that is.

JP Rangaswami is chief scientist at British Telecom (BT). He writes a blog under the name Confused of Calcutta. I only discovered him today.

And I’m not sure I understand everything he’s saying. But what I like is that he’s challenging our existing paradigms (man after my own heart).

This piece, sent via twitter today is called Musings about evil. And he talks about the importance of data and careful experimentation.

It took IBM 40 years to “become evil”. It took Microsoft 20. It took Google 10. It took Facebook 5. It took Twitter 2.5…….

Actually nobody “became evil”. Becoming evil is not suddenly getting easier. What we’re seeing is the confluence of a number of trends:

  • Growth in the power of the consumer, in consumerism, a post-Nader, post-Sixties phenomenon
  • Advances in information transmission and reproduction, particularly with the advent of the internet and the web
  • Emergent affordability and ubiquity of edge devices that increase the number of people connected to each other

He contends that despite the huge amount of change that is occurring, business,  and ways of doing business, have not changed. Which is creating problems.

No new business models have emerged … since the year dot, there have only been three ways of collecting value for services provided: pay-per-drink, all-you-can-eat, get-someone-else-to-pay. We have a litany of terms for the third way: advertising, sponsorship, patronage, gifting, subsidy, freemium, it doesn’t matter. There are still only three models.

The way we store, share and use data is becoming incredibly important.

These are some of the reasons why privacy and sharing and not-sharing are needing to be discussed, understood, legislated for. These are some of the reasons why identity and intellectual property and net neutrality are critical issues, issues that must be resolved in a sensible way.

It’s going to take some time before we have the conventions, practices and laws to make the digital landscape the land of the free and the home of the brave. Until then, our watchword should be careful experimentation. But experimentation nevertheless.

Read his piece. And think about this stuff.

This thinking lies at the heart of the issues that underpin copyright in the digital age. We must do some new thinking about what we produce, how important it is, who gets to use it and how they use it. Government can and should have an enabling role in this I believe.

If you’re interested,  my speech in the first reading of the Govt’s Copyright Bill (replacement to Section 92A) raised some of these issues. The big question is, what to do about it?

Hat tip: @LaurenceMillar

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, comms & IT, copyright, digital, intellectual property, internet, policy
10 Comments

Advertised vs actual broadband speed: there is a difference!

Posted by Clare Curran on May 28th, 2010

Slide1

Slide2

A wee bit hard to read but kind of speaks for itself. Refer to previous post for context. Glad we are having this debate. What should be done?

Filed under: broadband, comms & IT, digital, economy, infrastructure, internet
51 Comments

Watching the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

Posted by Clare Curran on May 22nd, 2010

It looks like intellectual property is the focus of another treaty negotiation affecting NZ.

The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is an existing free trade agreement (FTA) between NZ, Singapore, Brunei and Chile signed in 2005. It allows for more countries to join and the USA, Australia, Vietnam and Peru have all indicated that they are interested. Substantive negotiations began in March.

There are claims mounting that the USA wants to reframe the agreement around IP protection on behalf of its content industries and limited concessions in all other areas.

The concern is that it’s not about a meeting of mutual interests but a game of how much wiggle room can be found on the edge of the US demands.

I’ll keeping an eye on it and happy for more information or different views.

Tags: ,
Filed under: comms & IT, digital, intellectual property, internet, trade
6 Comments

How equitable access to technology can transform our future

Posted by Clare Curran on May 18th, 2010

New Zealand is at a turning point in its history. We are poised to create a new network. A network that will deliver critical infrastructure for our nation.

What that network can deliver is transformation, social and economic. On many levels.

I don’t think the bigger picture has been properly articulated and therefore isn’t there to be strived for. I gave a speech in Auckland today which attempted to spell out a Labour view on how important access to technology is for our social and economic future.

Ultrafast broadband is not an end in itself. It does not constitute by itself the big picture for New Zealand. It is however, a critical component. Because it’s the means to connectivity. But there’s much more to it.

Imagine how our country could be in a decade. Even less than a decade.

Where pretty much all people are connected. With a fast connection, whether you live in the city or the country. Where poorer communities, both rural and urban have more options to develop and to keep families together.

Where data caps are much less relevant and people can afford to be connected.

Where children bring home laptops from school and teach their parents how to use them. Where at risk adolescents who may have in the past ended up leaving school and hanging out on the streets gather together in groups and make music, games and movies. And end up in jobs.

Where schools teach creative content, ICT is an integral part of teaching and learning across the curriculum, where there are clear pathways from school in further training and a myriad of careers. Well paid jobs that are transforming the New Zealand economy.

Where the ICT industry is seen, and placed at the forefront of NZ’s economic growth. And is delivering.

Equitable access to technology isn’t going to solve all our social problems. It’s not going to stop domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse. It wont stop kids ending up at school without breakfast and shoes. It wont stop gangs and the drug trade. And it wont stop people get diabetes, obesity and cancer.

But it could help make us more equal and if it boosts the economy, there’s more jobs and less poverty.

Read the rest of my speech here:

Tags: , ,
Filed under: Energy, Red Alert, broadband, comms & IT, digital, economy, education, health, inequality, infrastructure, internet, jobs, regulation
11 Comments

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »