Red Alert

Archive for the ‘internet’ Category

Politics, media and the internet

Posted by Clare Curran on February 15th, 2011

Now that I’m the new spokesperson for broadcasting, there’s a few things I should say upfront:

First, thanks to Brendon Burns for his efforts in the portfolio. He and I worked well together; he’s done some fine policy work and has stood up for the craft of journalism and the ethics of public broadcasting.

Second; I believe passionately in the craft of journalism and the importance of public media.

Third: I am also the spokesperson for communications and IT. I see a rapidly changing media landscape and despite the continuing need for good journalism and content, many of the traditional institutions that provide platforms for media are struggling to survive,  dispproportionately dominate, or struggle for relevance.

The internet is the key. Whether you work in print, radio or TV, our news is rapidly being delivered via the internet, along with other content, such as music, video, movies and access to opinion and social media.

We are witnessing the rise of the citizen journalist. Blogs, facebook and Twitter are rapidly making their presence felt in how people consume information and communicate. Mainstream (traditional/old) media is struggling to adapt.

A few weeks ago I gave  a talk about politics and the internet. I said (because it’s true) that despite the crisis for many media outlets about how to adapt, the content that they produce and the craft they practice  is still vitally important.

Consider this:

The paradigm of New Media vs. old Media is now overstated.  New Media and Traditional Media need each other to survive.

Blogs still rely heavily on mainstream media for content. A recent study by the Pew research Center  found that 99% of stories linked to in blogs came from legacy outlets such as BBC, CNN, The New York Times and the Washington Post.

Two quick examples: 

The tragic events in Tuscon on 8 Jan 2011, which killed six and left Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords fighting for her life -the news broke first through Tweets, blogs and Facebook status updates. Newspapers first put their stories online and then followed with more detailed print editions. Journalists and publications joined and added to the conversation with their own Tweets and Facebook pages. Broadcast and cable TV networks broke the story simultaneously on the internet and their stations. 

And then the incredible sequence of events in Egypt, which broke on Twitter (that the Egyptian government had effectively shut down the internet) and sparked a storm of response from within Egypt, and outside. Social media was critical for spreading information,and as an organising tool, but the amazing and admirable efforts of Al Jazeera TV should not go unnoticed.

Of course there were other media outlets, including some of our own, that did a very good job.

What this tells me is that the medium is alive and kicking. It needs propelling into the new century (a decade or so late) in how it embraces new technology, and it needs support. A strong democracy needs strong, independent modern, public media. It also needs a competitive and active commercial media. In a modern context, across all media platforms.

This requires a regulatory framework which spans the traditional telecommunications and broadcasting sectors.

Quality journalism cannot be manufactured in a production line with cheap materials. It’s a product that adds value and should be nurtured and valued in any society. Governments don’t always like it, but they need it, and citizens cannot and should not be without it.

Time for change? This is an opportunity.

And the thing is, it doesn’t have to cost government a lot to make it happen.

 


Jane Young – social media and political change

Posted by Trevor Mallard on January 30th, 2011

Jane Young is a leading journalist from Invercargill who now lives in Montreal. Her Pundit blogs are always worth reading. This one on the role of social media in revolutionary change is great.

A new generation of practical revolutionaries in the Middle East is daring repressive regimes to bow to popular reform rather than resort to brutal crackdowns. They are armed with little more than the power of social media and a belief that the basics in life trump Islamist ideology. 

No wonder dictators and fundamentalists fear social media as it seems to have played midwife to an extraordinary revolution unfolding before our eyes in the Middle East

and

Social media has political power, and has done since text messaging rallied crowds whose sheer force secured the ousting of the Philippines’ Estrada at the turn of this century.

The Chinese, Burmese, Iranian and other repressive regimes work tirelessly to shut down any dissident behaviour that threatens to go viral, but with US assistance to the tweeters and facebookers, the mobile phone users and the rest of the texting generation, surely the autocrats can be left playing catch-up.

Once the the world is delivered the genie of information and pictures, they can’t be stuffed back in the bottle. It is fair to say that stage has been reached.

Iranian citizens put up a gallant fight against all odds with their tweets and phone videos, and while they did not win immediately, they must take heart that the Tunisian domino with its perceptible shift from ideological politics to the call for practical improvements and good governance will eventually reach them…and hopefully their Muslim counterparts and Arab neighbours in the region. This new generation deserves indigenous democracy that is creatively and tirelessly supported by the both the wider Arab world and the West.    


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.


Joyce shouldn’t make broadband decision

Posted by Trevor Mallard on November 9th, 2010

There are lots of broadband issues around. I want to focus on one.

Cabinet has decided that Steven Joyce will decide which of the commercial tenderers wins the $1.5b prize.

I know of no precedent for this. Ministers approve capital inputs (after looking at a budget) and sometimes tender criteria for SOEs.

Boards after advice from CEOs and sometimes outside experts make decisions.

We have a tradition of being corruption free for over a century.

Politicians deciding who wins massive tenders places that tradition at risk.


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?


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:


Parliament gets more transparent

Posted by Clare Curran on October 19th, 2010

Just discovered this. Didn’t know it was happening. But pleased it is.

Wellington Oct 19 – A new website dedicated to the timely and accurate coverage of the New Zealand Parliament was launched today by Scoop Media Limited, publisher of the website Scoop.co.nz, in association with veteran parliamentary journalist Tom Frewen’s InHouse Broadcasting Limited.

ParliamentToday.co.nz will feature a combination of breaking coverage of parliamentary proceedings as they happen provided by Scoop, as well as the daily and weekly radio-ready audio reports from Tom Frewen and Reesh Lyon covering the debating chamber and the select committee rooms.

ParliamentToday.co.nz is hosted and powered by the Scoop.co.nz publishing engine which was originally launched in 1999 as a service providing public access to parliamentary press releases and speeches.

Read more here


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.


Not sure I like the sound of this

Posted by Clare Curran on October 11th, 2010

Government licensing access to the internet. If your computer is thought to be “infected” you get shut down til it is cleansed. A Microsoft executive put up the idea during last week in the US using a health scare (an epidemic or pandemic) as the analogy.

Not sure I like the sound of this. Particularly in the light of discussions around open government and the importance of and need for access to the internet by the population.

But I need to do more research on it. So shall not take a hard and fast view yet.  Privacy issues and cybersecurity keep being raised with me in discussions with a range of tech people across the spectrum.

This is one of the big issues. Keen for your thoughts.

Here’s one take on what Microsoft said

Here’s another :

A new proposal by a top Microsoft executive would open the door for government licensing to access the Internet, with authorities being empowered to block individual computers from connecting to the world wide web under the pretext of preventing malware attacks.

Speaking to the ISSE 2010 computer security conference in Berlin yesterday, Scott Charney, Microsoft vice president of Trustworthy Computing, said that cybersecurity should mirror public health safety laws, with infected PC’s being “quarantined” by government decree and prevented from accessing the Internet.

“If a device is known to be a danger to the internet, the user should be notified and the device should be cleaned before it is allowed unfettered access to the internet, minimizing the risk of the infected device contaminating other devices,” Charney said.

Charney said the system would be a “global collective defense” run by corporations and government and would “track and control” people’s computers similar to how government health bodies track diseases.

Invoking the threat of malware attacks as a means of dissuading or blocking people from using the Internet is becoming a common theme – but it’s one tainted with political overtones


Me 2.0

Posted by Trevor Mallard on October 9th, 2010

IMG_5022

Didn’t get to keep it – more is the pity because I think they are getting close to being the best tool for using around the building – once we get our IT support sorted.

Less obtrusive.

One of my mates is doing a photography course and did the photo. It is good fun to play with it – zooming in and out. And someone else in his class took about a hundred shorts of my thigh as I waited on my bike at Upper willis St lights – wide angle lense.


False identities

Posted by Trevor Mallard on October 2nd, 2010

Not the type condoned by Rodney Hide and his sensible sentencing mates but twitter accounts.

The privacy commission is looking into criminalising and even Kiwiblog’s penguin supports that approach.

I’ve not got into twitter yet, have an account but there are at least two others set up in my name where people have had fun doing pisstakes. One followed by a few people including the US Embassy.

Do I care – no.  If there is real harm being done then I think the general criminal law can handle it.

Parliament has better things to do than try and regulate this area.


Shift happens

Posted by Darien Fenton on September 7th, 2010

This is one version of a variety of YouTube videos on this theme.  It was brought to my attention by some early childhood educators in Albany, North Shore a couple of days ago, when we were talking about the future of education. Some challenging, yet stimulating thinking in this clip : Hang on until the end : it will astound you.


The way the OIA works

Posted by Grant Robertson on August 10th, 2010

I am just staggered that Steven Joyce has said that he wants to withhold the Cabinet paper on broadband because he is concerned it will be misconstrued as reflecting bias.

One of my jobs as a political advisor in the PMs office was to have oversight of processing Official Information Act requests. We did look closely at the information that was being released, and from time to time we did withhold material. We did this on the basis of the criteria in the Act. If there was advice from officials that was free and frank and its release would stop them from doing it again, that is a reason. If there was information that might prejudice a commercial negotiation or was part of a confidential discussion then that was a reason.

Being worried how a paper will be interpreted is not a criteria under the Act. Steven Joyce is the maestro of the government’s strategy and spin we are told. Well that is well and good, but as a Minister he has to follow the rules of the Official Information Act. He needs to be held to account for this decision.


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.

 


Government by Google

Posted by Grant Robertson on August 5th, 2010

A little bit of light relief for the end of the session. I asked the Minister of Finance ” Does he stand by his statement, ” if you know which websites to go to you can get access to high quality advice?”

This came from Bill English on Radio NZ in the wake of the announcement of the review of policy advice that had come up with a figure for the cost of advice by entering “policy” and “policies” in a search of the title field of Budget documents.

It was a pity that Gerry Brownlee was not chosen to answer. It would have been more fun with him, but still nice to have a bit of a laugh at the end of the session.


A new initiative on voting in local body elections

Posted by Clare Curran on August 2nd, 2010

This is a good initiative and something David Farrar (at Kiwiblog) and I agree on.

It was reported in the DomPost.

A website designed to help boost the country’s low voter turnout figures for local body elections has gone live.

The website, elections2010.co.nz, is a one-stop shop that aims to equip voters with all the information they need to vote in October’s local body elections


The annoying orange phenomenon

Posted by Clare Curran on August 1st, 2010

A bit of light relief. Also a slightly scary insight into how an odd and crazy idea can become a phenomenon.

This is what the ten year olds are watching on YouTube. Goodness only knows who the rest of the dedicated audience is. Maybe it’ll be you!

Annoying Orange is a comedy web series created by Dane Boedigheimer, under the name “daneboe.” By June 2010, it had amassed over 137 million views on YouTube. Starting on January 11, 2010, the Annoying Orange got his own YouTube channel, and as of July 13, 2010 is currently ranked as the 15th most subscribed channel of all time.

This one is called Back to the fruiture.


Internet access: is the issue widening?

Posted by Clare Curran on July 26th, 2010

Access to the internet. How important is it? This article shows the debate is widening in NZ. And elsewhere.

I think it’s important. Obviously a few others do too.

The latest stats show that 1.3 million (80%)  households have access to a computer and 1.2 million (75%)  households have access to the internet. Almost 1.5 million households (89%) have a mobile phone.

Am not expecting a rash of new opinions. But keep watching this issue. It’s not going away. And watch the discussion around disconnection (suspension) to the internet, a measure contained in the Copyright Bill which is currently before the Commerce Select Committee.


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).


Apathy sucks#3

Posted by Clare Curran on July 25th, 2010

Electronic voting. This looks promising.

Early voting and the option of a repeat vote may become a feature of electronic voting in New Zealand, according to the country’s Chief Electoral Office.

The possibility of a vote well in advance of polling day, and of a re-vote in case of doubt, is being studied as a way to boost confidence in an electronic ballot.

A draft strategy document, drawn up by the Office late least year but only recently released, suggests voters who choose the electronic channel would be allowed to cast their ballot in the “advance voting period” of up to 17 days before polling day. This period is normally made available for voters who cannot get to a polling place on the official day.