Andrew's shared items in Google Reader

Hadron Collider faces closure after child traps Higgs Boson in jam jar

2010-03-10T12:00:37Z

Henry Brown, a six year old primary school pupil from Devon is the toast of his school after trapping an elusive Higgs Boson particle in a jam jar during morning playtime today, earning him the Nobel prize for physics in the process.

Scientists from CERN, the international nuclear research facility in Switzerland, were said to be ‘humbled’ by the news and have commenced dismantling the now redundant Large Hadron Collider which was built at a cost of £2.6 billion to detect the particle and is the most complex experimental apparatus developed by mankind.

Professor Marzio Nessi from CERN said ‘well done to Henry for beating us to it. I’m sure there’s a bright future in the world of science for him, assuming of course that he doesn’t drop the jam jar and suck the entire planet into a black hole.’

Promoting Open Government in New Zealand

2010-03-10T00:18:00Z

Recently we provided our views on the New Zealand Government's draft Open Access and Licensing Framework (NZGOAL). We welcomed the NZGOAL proposals as a strong move towards the creation of an open access framework for the release of government-held information.

Our view is that government-held information should be released quickly, in full, in multiple (open) formats and leveraging available technology solutions (e.g. Sitemaps), under permissive and transparent licence terms (such as a Creative Commons licence), and generally for free. Google supports the use of Creative Commons licenses as a practical system to enable the release and licensing of information across government bodies in a uniform manner. Opening up government-held data and information for wider use has the potential to release a wave of innovation and creativity, with significant benefits for the public, in terms of better access to public services, and for government, through cost savings and better public engagement and input to policy formulation.

Google considers that data should be provided by government primarily in ‘raw’ form, and government should see its role more as a ‘wholesaler’ of information, leaving it to industry or individuals to add value or create ‘retail’ consumer experiences with data sets and information. Google considers this approach is likely to be cheaper, quicker and more effective for government.

It is encouraging to see the gathering momentum of initiatives in New Zealand to free up government-held information, and leverage the benefits of the Internet as a platform to widely distribute content at no cost, or a minimal cost, to the government. As an example, the Department of Internal Affairs has created data.govt.nz, a directory of publicly-available New Zealand government datasets. Through this site, users can easily find and access a wide range of datasets – from Agricultural and Forestry Exports from New Zealand to Working on Roads (Auckland)

In our experience in other jurisdictions, a change in culture within government is fundamental to opening up access to government-held information and is more important than any individual policy or regulatory change. A commitment at a senior level within government is vital to drive such culture changes and to ensure momentum is built across all of government and we urge that active consideration be given to developing a strong over-arching policy commitment to open government.

Of course, not all government-held information is appropriate for release. In our view, the key grounds which would justify a government organisation withholding information are protection of national security, privacy, protecting the process of policy formulation within government, and to preserve commercial sensitivity and confidentiality.

In recent days the Government issued an update on its activities with NZGOAL. We look forward to seeing the NZGOAL proposals progress.

Posted by Iarla Flynn, Head of Policy, Google Australia and New Zealand

We fair humans of Earth believe Internet access to be a fundamental human right

2010-03-09T15:00:00Z

Filed under: Internet

Today seems to be 'rights for all!' day, or something. It's quite easy to get rights and privileges mixed up, which is the only explanation for the results of the BBC World Service survey: four in five people believe that Internet access is a fundamental right. Like the right to marry, or freedom of speech, Internet access should be chiselled into our constitution.

The BBC survey also has some other interesting findings: unsurprisingly, Nigerians and South Koreans believe the Internet should not be regulated by the government under any circumstances -- while in the UK, 55% believe that some regulation is necessary. The urge towards nationwide unregulated Internet access was strongest in South Korea, where 96% of those surveyed think Internet access is a fundamental right (Starcraft junkies!) -- while in Japan, Russia and Mexico, 75% said they 'could not cope without Internet access'.

I wasn't going to react, but then I also heard the news that Vegans are about to be protected by the Equality Bill here in the United Kingdom. Basically, just like religion, Veganism is being classified as a 'belief'. Cool huh? Anyway, that got me thinking about rights -- inalienable, from-birth, thou-shalt-prise-from-my-cold-dead-hands rights. Is Internet access really something that we should expect, without taxation, without anything in return? We're not talking about 'world peace' or some kind of intangible: we're talking about a network that is actively expanded and maintained.

'A fundamental right' is too strong a term. Breathing air is a human right, but Internet access? Speaking your mind to those that are near you is one thing, but the right to rant like a headless chicken into the infinite ever-reverberating space of the Internet? I don't buy it.

We fair humans of Earth believe Internet access to be a fundamental human right originally appeared on Download Squad on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

BBC World Service - Mexico - South Korea - Internet access - Human rights

Disconnection is disproportionate

2010-03-09T00:44:00Z

Two weeks ago the government released its proposed replacement for the hated s92A: the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. The bill would establish a regime of infringement and warning notices against those accused of violating copyright on the internet (for example, by file-sharing), and ultimately allows copyright holders to have people disconnected from the internet for six months. At the time, I complained that the proposed law did not recognise what a pervasive part of people's lives the internet had become. And reading the background documents, that's even more apparent.

First up is the bill's Regulatory Impact Statement [PDF] - carefully hideen away in a corner of the internet to reduce public scrutiny in accordance with the government's new fear-driven policy of secrecy. And right there on the first page, there's this:

The RIAT [Treasury - I/S] considers that the analysis shows there is a case for intervention, but that, due to the uncertainty about the scale of harm done by illegal peer-to-peer file sharing, the impact analysis does not point to a preferred option.

The options presented were basically "wait and see what everyone else does", send out "education" notices, the old s92A guilt by accusation regime, or the "preferred option" of escalating notices followed by fines and disconnection. The analysis points out that according to a UK survey, "up to 70% of illegal file sharers would, at least initially, stop file sharing if they received an education notice" - which suggests that that option of warning but no disconnection would largely achieve the policy objective in an unintrusive way. So you can see why Treasury had concerns.

The Ministry of Economic Development, which performed the analysis, considered that disconnection was a "proportionate" response to the harm of file sharing. But there's no acknowledgement in the RIS of the impact of this move. It seems to be assumed that all disconnection does is stop people from infringing copyright. But people use the internet for far more than that: for work, shopping, staying in touch with friends and family, paying your taxes, finding out what the government is doing and organising with your friends to speak up about it. This means that disconnection has very serious implications for freedom of expression (not to mention just the unlegislated right to participate in society). And those implications are not considered in the RIS.

Neither are they really considered in the Attorney-General's frankly laughable Bill of Rights analysis. Oh, it recognises that there is a prima facie inconsistency with freedom of expression - but it seems to consider the expression to be the copying of copyrighted works. It's not - it's everything, not just the freedom to speak, but the freedom to seek and receive information.

The Attorney-General considers that a six month ban on sending and receiving information through what has become the primary means of communication is "proportionate" to the important and significant objective of protecting copyright. Bullshit. It's screamingly disproportionate - as anyone who actually used the internet would immediately understand. Its like punishing an unauthorised singing of "Happy Birthday" by banning someone from talking for six months - or cutting out their tongue. Except that only captures half of the problem. The inability to receive information means that it is effectively putting out their eyes and cutting off their ears as well.

These comparisons to barbaric punishments are not lightly made. Disconnection from the internet is effectively a mutilation of us as citizens. It cripples our ability to function in modern society. It doesn't just steal our voice - it blinds and deafens us to our family, our friends, our community, and the world.

Today, the BBC reported that a survey of 27,000 people around the world found that almost 80% of humanity considers internet access to be a fundamental right. Its time the government recognised this, and scrapped its plans for digital mutilation.

Kay Burley trapped under collapsing Sky News Wall

2010-03-04T05:00:35Z

‘It was horrendous,’ said fellow presenter Adam Boulton, ‘Kay was just standing there when I heard the noise of breaking news. By the time I turned round, the entire wall had collapsed and she had been crushed by the full weight of events.’

The Sky News presenter, now trapped under the rubble of the giant interactive video screen, continues to give regular live updates. ‘I am reporting to you quite literally from inside the news,’ said Burley, ‘around me all I can see are the shattered remains of events, stories that have been tragically cut off in their prime, news items that will never now see the light of day. But one story remains. A story of hope. A story of triumph over disaster. And that story is me.’

A search and rescue operation is already underway, led by Sky Weatherman, and all action hero, Francis Wilson. ‘If I have to pull the rubble apart with my bare hands then I will do it,’ said Wilson, ripping off his shirt and adjusting his hair, ‘I will do whatever it takes to save that woman.’

There is increasing concern that Burley, who is caught within a multi-media air pocket, will soon run out of the oxygen of publicity. ‘We will report on her plight for as long as we can,’ said Dermot Murnaghan, ‘but, inevitably, there will be a point when we get bored of her and move on to another more important story. We can only hope and pray that during this critical period all sports stars stop having affairs.’

It is unclear what caused the News Wall to collapse although many had warned that it was structurally unsound. ‘A lot of the wall was held together by much weaker items that were not made of actual news,’ said media expert, Raymond Snoddy, ‘Within the rubble we have already found the remnants of celebrity gossip, tittle tattle and idle speculation. These features will have severely undermined the integrity of the wall and made it vulnerable to collapse.’

Hopes were beginning to fade for Burley last night, who is being kept alive by a 24 hour news feed. ‘We don’t know how long she can survive in there,’ said a tearful Eamonn Holmes, ‘but we really need to get her out soon because tomorrow she’s got a very big interview with Peter Andre.’

Bliki: ToyotaFailings

2010-03-03T00:45:00Z

One of the arguments used to support the adoption of lean techniques in software is the success of Toyota. So do Toyota's recent quality failings undermine the case for lean software development?

One answer for this is to take a sense of proportion. Lean manufacturing techniques were the underpinning of Toyota's rise from an insignificant company in the 1950's to a global giant in the 2000's. By the 1990's other car companies, and many other manufacturers, were busily copying Toyota's techniques. The general sense is that copying these techniques did much to raise the overall quality of cars in the last decade or so. I would be very surprised if the recent problems at Toyota are enough negate that half-century of success.

But a better answer is to remember that Lean manufacturing is about manufacturing not software. The application of lean ideas to software development is a consequence of MetaphoricQuestioning. Lean ideas can help us come up with better ideas for software development, and as such are valuable. But in the end their usefulness lies with how they are used in software and they should be judged on their record here. Their history in manufacturing, both good and bad, is another industry.

National Series: A Harmonious IT Environment through Realitsm (Wellington, 30/3/2010)

2010-03-03T08:39:48Z

National Series: A Harmonious IT Environment through Realitsm

30 March 2010: 5:30 pm - 7:00 pm

PowerHouse People L4, Deloitte House 10 Brandon Street, Wellington (5:30pm for a 6pm start)

NZCS are proud to kick off the new National ICT Series, beginning with well-known IT Skeptic Rob England presenting on what would appear to be regarded as the utopia of service management, RealITSM...

Free for NZCS members, inexpensive for others.

A Harmonious IT Environment through Realitsm

Idealised models such as ITIL®, COBIT and ISO20000 are all very well for theoretical discussions, but more and more people are discovering these models just don't fit the way we do things in the real world.

Join the movement that is sweeping the ITSM community. Find out about Real ITSM, as it is done in the real world.

Making IT Real. Get Real. RealITSM, that is...

In this light-hearted and humorous presentation Rob England, the wellknown "IT Skeptic", introduces Real ITSM, as documented in the book "Introduction to Real ITSM" (see www.realitsm.com).

RealITSM is the methodology of implementing IT service management as it is done now in the real world, thereby saving costs, minimising impact and ensuring acceptance.

Realitsm (pronounced "realism" with a slight lisp) is the underlying philosophy of primarily ensuring a tranquil life for IT staff. After all, life is hard for us IT types!

The main threats to IT stability, or at least the stability of the IT team, are change, accountability and reduced spending. Realitsm is about eliminating these threats from the IT environment, in the best interests of all in IT. A harmonious IT environment requires adherence to the following Realitsm principles:

Ensure a stable operating environment
Maximise adaptability to change
Promote involvement through collectivist decision-making
Maintain morale through reduced group accountability
Maximise revenue and funding for the IT department
Maximise benefit and value for the IT staff

Realitsm may be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, however by reflecting on the motivations of teams and managers that unknowingly subscribe to some of its principles, a level of clarity on the importance of service management becomes apparent.

This is a not-to-be-missed presentation for anyone in the Service Management space or those interested in a humorous presentation from one of the more colorful figures in New Zealand's IT scene.

About The Speaker

Rob England, an IT Certified Professional (ITCP), is a "portfolio entrepreneur" working on multiple activities via his company, Two Hills. These include IT commentator, speaker and consultant (ITSM, culture change...), blogger, speaking coach, sales coach, trainer, published author, small business researcher, and nascent internet businessman.

Rob does remote consulting, writing and editing for a variety of clients internationally. He provides local consulting and training to a number of business and government clients on Service Management (ITSM) topics, especially ITIL. He also specialises in helping change IT culture, through a CC plan, workshops and structured courses such as The Seven Tasks of EnGrok.

Rob is also well known for his controversial website, The IT Skeptic (Google page-rank 4, tens of thousands of readers worldwide).

He runs a stable of other diverse sites including Real ITSM (a funny one), Ops4Less (cut the cost of IT operations), He Tangata (IT is the people), Chocolate in the Morning, and others, all built in his own Drupal-based technology stack.

Rob's goal is to maintain his relaxed lifestyle while becoming a millionaire by the end of 2010. Details of the plan are somewhat sketchy.

He lives in idyllic but breezy Pukerua Bay, Wellington, New Zealand with his wife and son. Pukerua Bay is most famous as the home town of Peter Jackson, but Rob hopes to change that.

Rob's profile (including links) is at http://www.twohills.co.nz/profile

About the National ICT Series

The NZCS National ICT Series is a series of monthly presentations bringing some of the country's top ICT-related thought leaders and speakers on a national circuit to present their view on interesting and informative subjects.

These events are designed to be informal and interesting, and are ideally suited for open-minded individuals interested in expanding their understanding of a range of different IT topics. From service management to open data access, from technical presentations to ICT in disaster zones, there'll be something there for everyone.

Launching in March 2010 in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, Hamilton and Dunedin, these events promise to be informative and educational, often challenging the traditional view of ICT and its role in the organisation and wider environment.

Registration Details:

Places are limited and these events may well sell out, hence Registration is essential.

NZCS members may register below.

Non-members and staff of Corporate Partners may register for this event via Credit Card online now by using the link below, or alternatively call 0800 252 255 with your Credit Card details.

NZCS Corporate Partners and approved organisations can opt to pay by invoice by calling 0800 252 255 or emailing attendee and business details through to registrations@nzcs.org.nz. Credit criteria and other conditions apply.

(More Info)

Basic Data Format Lessons

2010-03-03T02:07:06Z

Shared by Andrew
Self Validation and encodings
Comment by Amateur Layman on March 2nd, 2010 at 9:04 pm.

I have experience in designing B2B systems and I agree wholeheartedly with all the advice above.

Automatic Self validation before delivery is important, often you dont know exactly what is going into your xml. There will be assumptions and bugs you don't know about. For instance I had the case where special microsoft quotes were pasted into my app from MS Office, they weren't valid ascii characters so broke my xml (for some xml parsers anyway).

Datatypes by Staffan above, yes I also agree, and additionally specify whether it will be DATE only, or Date + Time and number of seconds and fractions of seconds accuracy.

KISS is extremely important, even if you have standard dataformats that might cover the data, if you use them it may complicate the outcome. For instance I had an datafeed xml that included three XNAL schema, my schema and the file management schema and I didn't even include GML. The resultant mess was hard to get right and would be hard to consume except for the agency receiving it.

Principal of least surprise is a useful guideline. Dont surprise the consumer of the file.

Try not to use dynamic datatypes/structures or other surprising features.

Provide a simple example xml with all the allowed tags and attributes, so the consumer can test against that 'most complex' file before looking at the actual data.

Design for change, allowing for extensions over time, with versioning at an appropriate level (document or tag). This also might mean using some simple dynamic structures such as unconstrained name/value lists.

At the consumption end wholly different design constraints apply.

Andrew.

[This is the second post in a series on best practices for government datasets by Harlan Yu and me. (previous post)]

When creating a dataset, the preferences of developers may not be obvious to those producing the dataset. Seemingly innocuous choices by data providers can lead to major headaches for developers. In this post, we discuss some of the more basic challenges that developers encounter when working with a dataset. These lessons may seem trivial to our more technical readers, but they're often learned through experience. Our hope is to reduce this learning curve by explaining how various practices affect developers. We'll focus on XML datasets, but many of the topics apply to CSV and other data formats.

One of the hardest parts of working with a dataset can be figuring out what's in it and how it's organized. What data comes inside an "<FL47>" tag? Can a "<TEXT>" element ever contain a "<PARAGRAPH>" element? Developers rely heavily on documentation to explain the structure and contents of a dataset. When working with XML, one particularly relevant item is known as a schema. An XML schema is a separate file with an extension such as ".dtd" or ".xsd," and it provides a blueprint of the permitted structure for corresponding XML files. XML schema files tell developers where they can recover the information that they need from a dataset. These schema files and other documentation are often a necessity for developers, and they should be treated as such by data providers. Any XML file supplied by an agency should contain a complete URL address at which its schema can be found. Further, any link to an XML document on a government site should have prominent links near it for the corresponding schema file and reasonable documentation describing the contents of the dataset.

XML schema files can be seen as an informal contract between data providers and developers, effectively promising that a dataset will match the specified structure. Unfortunately, sometimes datasets contain flaws causing them not to match that structure. Although experienced developers produce software that detects the existence of structural errors, these errors can be difficult or impossible for them to isolate and correct. The people in the best position to catch and fix structural errors are the people producing a dataset. Numerous validation tools exist for ensuring that an XML document is well-formed and valid—that is, the document is structurally sound and matches its XML schema. Prior to releasing a dataset, an agency should run a validator on it to check for structural flaws. This sanity check can take just a few moments for an agency but save hours of developer time.

When deciding on the structure of a dataset, an agency should strive for simplicity while logically representing the underlying data. The addition of elements, attributes, or children in a schema can improve the quality and clarity of the dataset, but it can also add unnecessary complexity. When designing schemas, there's a tendency to include elements or other structure that will almost certainly go unused in practice. Schema designers may assume that extraneous items do no harm, but developers must cautiously account for them if allowed by schema. The result can be wasted developer time and increased software complexity. The true cost of various structural choices is not just the time necessary to encode these choices in a schema but also the burden these choices impose on developers. Additional structural complexity must provide a justifiable benefit.

In some cases, however, the addition of elements or attributes is not only justifiable but highly desirable for developers: logically distinct pieces of data should appear in separate XML elements or attributes. Suppose that a developer wishes to access a piece of data in a dataset. If the data is combined with other information, the developer will need to figure out how to extract it from the combined field. This extraction can be difficult, time-consuming, and prone to errors. For example, assume that a data provider includes the following element:

<DOCINFO>Doc No. 2001345--Released 01-01-2001</DOCINFO>

To extract the document number, a developer might look for all characters following "No." but before a dash. While this is straightforward enough, other parts of the same or future datasets might instead use the document number format "2001-345" or separate the document number and release date with a space rather than a double-dash. Neither case would lead to invalid XML, but both would break the developer's extraction tool. Now consider this alternative:

<DOCINFO>
  <DOC_NO>2001345</DOC_NO>
  <RELEASE_DATE>01-01-2001</RELEASE_DATE>
</DOCINFO>

Using extra elements to separate logically distinct data can prevent extraction errors. This lesson often applies even when the combined data is related. For example, the version number 5.3.2 could be broken into major version 5, minor version 3, and revision 2. In general, agencies should separate such items themselves when they can do so more easily than developers.

Even when the basic structure of a dataset is ideal, choices about how to provide data inside this structure can affect developers. Developers thrive on consistency. Suppose that a dataset details various costs. Consider all possible ways of writing cost: $4,300, 5938.37, 74 dollars and 63 cents, etc. Unless an agency decides on, documents, and adheres to a standard format, developers' software must handle a large number of possibilities to avoid unexpected surprises. Consistency in a dataset can make a developer's life far easier, and it reduces the possibility that surprises will break an application. Note that a schema can be helpful for enforcing consistency for certain fields—for example, cost might be defined as a decimal field with a constraint on the number of fractional digits.

Redundant information is another source of difficulty for developers. Redundancy can appear in numerous ways. Suppose that a dataset contains the element "<VERSION>Version 5</VERSION>." The word "Version" is unnecessary, and developers must go through additional trouble to extract the version number. In so doing, developers must consider the possibility that "Version" could be misspelled, abbreviated, or omitted. Supplying a version number alone ("<VERSION>5</VERSION>") would avoid this issue altogether. More subtly, suppose that a dataset contains all bills introduced in Congress on a certain date:

<INTRODUCED_BILLS>
  <DATE>11-12-2014</DATE>
  <HOUSE_BILLS DATE="NOV 12, 2014">
    [...]
  </HOUSE_BILLS>
  <SENATE_BILLS DATE="NOV 12, 2014">
    [...]
  </SENATE_BILLS>
</INTRODUCED_BILLS>

Date information appears three times even though it must be the same in all cases. The more often a piece of information appears in a dataset, the more likely that inconsistencies will occur. These inconsistencies can lead to software errors requiring manual resolution. While redundancy can serve as a sanity check for errors, agencies typically should perform this check themselves if possible before releasing the data. After all, the agency is in the best position to fix inconsistencies. Unless well-justified, agencies should avoid redundancy.

Processing datasets often requires a significant amount of developer time, so adherence to even basic rules can dramatically increase innovation. What other low-level recommendations do FTT readers have for non-developers producing datasets?

Tomorrow, we'll discuss how labeling elements in a dataset can help developers.

Basic Data Format Lessons

2010-03-02T14:45:01Z

[This is the second post in a series on best practices for government datasets by Harlan Yu and me. (previous post)]

<DOCINFO>Doc No. 2001345--Released 01-01-2001</DOCINFO>

<DOCINFO>
  <DOC_NO>2001345</DOC_NO>
  <RELEASE_DATE>01-01-2001</RELEASE_DATE>
</DOCINFO>

<INTRODUCED_BILLS>
  <DATE>11-12-2014</DATE>
  <HOUSE_BILLS DATE="NOV 12, 2014">
    [...]
  </HOUSE_BILLS>
  <SENATE_BILLS DATE="NOV 12, 2014">
    [...]
  </SENATE_BILLS>
</INTRODUCED_BILLS>

Tomorrow, we'll discuss how labeling elements in a dataset can help developers.

PublicACTA and SecretACTA

2010-03-02T22:16:09Z

There are two important meetings in Wellington in April this year.

The first meeting is InternetNZ’s “PublicACTA”, an open meeting for people to voice concerns and “critique the known and likely content of the ACTA proposals, providing a counterpoint to the secrecy of the negotiations.”. Details of some high profile guests will be announced by InternetNZ shortly. “We’re going to give the public the chance to have their say – in contrast to the secrecy of the negotiation process,” says Jordan Carter, InternetNZ Policy Director.

The second meeting is round 8 of international negotiations of the secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. There have been several leaked drafts of this secret treaty, but no official information. The leaked ACTA details include prison time for copyright infringement, criminalization of breaking DRM, ISPs eavesdropping on their customers’ internet activity, and “Internet Enforcement” of copyright hidden behind the name “counterfeits”. The leaks so far reveal ACTA drafts containing things that thousands of New Zealand artists already said they don’t want done in their name, such as the three strikes and “Guilt on Accusation”.

PublicACTA is on the 10th of April. All are welcome.

SecretACTA is on the 12th of April. And it’s secret.

We encourage New Zealand artists to attend PublicACTA, to have your voice on heard and to hear more on what governments are doing to international copyright laws in the name of creativity. Creative Freedom’s Luke Rowell will be there also.

The gathering storm

2010-03-02T23:36:16Z

Shared by Andrew
Powerful piece by Colin.

I make no apology for using Sir Winston Churchill’s title for the first volume of his history of the Second World War to describe the culture war between those who would capture ideas for their exclusive use and those who would disseminate them widely.

It’s not a straightforward issue. On the one hand, most of us would accept that there is value in providing an incentive to create clever things that ultimately benefit many people. That’s the public good argument for copyright and patents. On the other, our culture and our technology are built on the work and ideas of others and controlling people’s access effectively controls our development as a species.

These are important matters that need a global consensus. What I’m seeing at the moment is an attempt to enclose the commons of ideas for the benefit of a few and to detriment of us all. That’s been the case for a century at least, but the arrival of the Internet has pushed things to a whole new level.

That brings me to ACTA, the treaty being negotiated in secret by our government and others, which is at least partly about the interaction of copyright and the Internet. I’ve railed against the secrecy around ACTA before, because it prevents the ordinary people whose lives will be affected from having a say in it.

There have been some remarkable revelations about ACTA in the last few days. Firstly, there have been three leaks. The text of the Internet chapter, an analysis of some countries’ views on transparency of the agreement, and an analysis of each country’s negotiating position on the Internet chapter of the draft ACTA agreement. We don’t know where the leaks are coming from, but it’s clear that many people negotiating the agreement are unhappy with the insistence of secrecy coming from (we now know) the US, South Korea and Denmark.

Nat Torkington has analysed the New Zealand positions from the latest link. New Zealand’s negotiators are pushing for clarity, for reasonableness and for transparency. Good on them. It looks as though New Zealand is making its view more felt than many other countries. Even so, what we end up with, of course, is not just up to New Zealand.

People in our government are listening about the lack of transparency. Our negotiators have just issued a call for submissions on some points of the Internet chapter ACTA by 31 March. This, coupled with the leaks, offers ordinary people a chance for some kind of say. So does the PublicACTA event to be hosted by InternetNZ on April 10th, right before the next round of ACTA negotiations which are to be held here in Wellington the following week.

It’s good that we have found out more about ACTA – even if it is mostly through unacknowledged “leaks”. It’s good that New Zealand is pushing for transparency. We need to empower our negotiators and those in like-minded countries to reject the extreme positions that some of the other countries are taking. Do consider sending a submission, even if it’s just “the current model works well, don’t change it”. I’ll write some more detailed points and publish them here well before the deadline.

However, it’s still appalling that a treaty that will affect everyone is being negotiated in secret, with an agenda being pushed by one industry based mainly in one country which won’t let the secrecy be lifted for fear that other countries’ citizens won’t let them stay in the negotiations.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. We’ve had a glimpse of it. Let’s throw the curtains wide.

Relationship status

2010-02-14T20:15:41Z

By now, you’ve probably had the same experience I have of learning about a close friend’s marriage breaking up because their status changed on Facebook. There’s something a little alienating about the fact that a server somewhere in Facebook’s infrastructure had the goods before I had even an inkling of trouble in paradise.

But then, the whole relationship thing in Facebook is fraught. I have to imagine there have been screaming, tear-filled fights because one partner clicked “In a relationship” while the other clicked “Hey, let’s not rush things.” Or, maybe worse for some people, “Sweetheart, what are you putting down for ‘relationship status’?” “I’m glad you asked, because I’ve been meaning to talk to you about that.”

No matter which checkbox you’ve been ticking – no, that’s not a smutty double-entendre – have a happy Valentine’s Day.

Seen Alex’s and my 2010 Valentine to you from Social Signal? Here ya go!

Why code reviews are good for you « Otaku, Cedric's weblog

2010-03-02T00:41:07Z

Shared by Andrew
Code reviews keep me to a higher standard, hard to bear at first but worthwhile.

New ‘Banksy’ hailed after discovery of yellow lines on road

2010-02-28T19:00:08Z

Art critics are claiming that a new urban graffiti artist is at large, following the discovery of a major conceptual work on a public highway in Blackburn. The abstract piece, which consists of two parallel yellow lines running the length of either edge of the street was spotted yesterday and is similar in theme and style to a number of lineal artworks that have appeared on roads around the country.

Art critic Rupert Soames believes that the genius of this new anonymous street artist is that he encapsulates the essence of several masters. ‘He is like Banksy in that he works outdoors, fleetingly – yet permanently – marking the urban landscape. He is also a Richard Long, walking and journeying across landscapes, leaving a trail of markings built of elemental materials. Often we see the scattered drip technique influence of Jackson Pollock and I also detect traces of Mark Rothko and early Mondrian in this bold and logical work.’

Holes have appeared in roads where art collectors have dug up sections of the road in order to keep works such as ‘Yellow Criss-Cross Box at Busy Junction’ and the ‘Two Red Lines on Busy Road.’ The Tate Modern are now planning an exhibition showing such minimalist classics as the ‘Broken White Line Down Centre of Road’ Series, the ‘Double Yellow on Bends’ triptych, and ‘Yellow/ Broken White on Asphalt 1-68.’

Meanwhile Rupert Soames was hurrying to Blackburn in the hope of seeing new examples of the mystery artists’ work, though unfortunately he was delayed on his journey there. ‘Bloody workmen, with their contra flows, cones and traffic lights – I’ve no idea what they were doing this time…’

Assisted suicide guidelines permit feeding of Bruce Forsyth to lions

2010-02-25T12:00:08Z

The Director of Public Prosecutions has confirmed that new suicide guidelines will be based on how annoying the deceased is, and how inventive the method of killing.

Examples used to develop the guidelines also include suffocating Jordan with a pair of enormous fake breasts and chocking Alistair Darling on his caterpillar eyebrows.

‘These guidelines give us a unique opportunity to have a general clear out of people who we’re all a bit sick of,’ he said. ‘We believe that killing irritating people in amusing ways is in the public interest and hope that the new guidelines will allow concerned citizens to proceed in assisting such suicides with no fear of prosecution. Especially if it’s that bloke off the Go Compare advert. ’

ED209

#599; The Boilerplate Clause

2010-02-26T08:00:12Z

Nominate your favorite examples of horrible business communication for a WonderMark Award! Deadline is March 1; see my blog post for details.

BBC cost-cutting leads to 80s news repeats on Falklands

2010-02-25T15:00:18Z

The BBC was today accused of excessive cutbacks, as news on the Falklands War and the Ethiopian famine was repeated nearly 30 years after it was first broadcast.

The director-general claimed that the organisation was committed to delivering ‘classic and modern bulletins in its News programmes’, and denied that repeating items every 30 years was excessive.

Supporters of the repeats have pointed out that re-runs of the Germans invading Europe provided the mainstay of the BBC’s news agenda in the 40s, and that US channels had been repeating news of Americans invading random countries every five years without complaint.

ED209

US Government Consults Public On Illegal File-Sharing

2010-02-24T21:30:09Z

The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act was one of the last pieces of legislation passed by President Bush back in 2008. The purpose of the act is to toughen current anti-piracy measures.

Among other things the act calls for harsher punishments, the creation of a dedicated FBI anti-piracy unit and a copyright czar who reports directly to the White House. Last year President Obama appointed Victoria Espinel as the new copyright czar and she is now going full steam ahead with the new anti-piracy plans.

For these new plans Espinel is now looking for comments and input from the United States public. Although this might come across as an open and transparent process, the czar already seems to have made up her mind, indicated by the leading nature of the questions.

Yesterday a request for written submissions from the public went out and the copyright czar wants answers to two basic questions, answers that may or may not be used for the development of the new anti-piracy plans. Let’s take a look at what the Government is asking.

In the request we read that the first question the public should respond to is “regarding the costs to the U.S. economy resulting from intellectual property violations, and the threats to public health and safety created by infringement.”

The second part deals with “detailed recommendations from the public regarding the objectives and content of the Joint Strategic Plan and other specific recommendations for improving the Government’s intellectual property enforcement efforts.”

To summarize, the copyright czar wants the public to come up with examples and ideas detailing how piracy affects society and how it should be combated. Unfortunately the request seems to indicate that it is already concluded that piracy has a negative impact and that tougher measures are needed.

It is not too late of course to prove the opposite and voice our concerns. Let’s elaborate a little on the two questions.

The first question is an easy one. Although piracy might hurt some parts of the entertainment industry there is no objective and conclusive report that proves how it negatively effects the entire industry, let alone the United States economy as a whole.

One of the most authoritative reports on the economic and cultural consequences of file-sharing on the music, movie and games industries was published last year. The report, which was commissioned by the government, estimated that file-sharing has a positive effect on the Dutch economy. While it was recognized that the entertainment industry suffers some losses, these don’t outweigh the positive effects of file-sharing.

Other academic publications mainly show that music piracy has no, or a positive effect on actual sales. The more people download through illegal channels, the more they tend to pay for music. This indicates that music fans do want to pay for music but that they download in addition, which could be due to the lack of unlimited download services.

The second question posed by the czar deals with the enforcement side of copyright infringement. One of the main questions here is how to deter people from downloading files illegally.

Again we’d like to start off with pointing to the Dutch report mentioned earlier. In the report it was concluded that measures to combat piracy should not be implemented before the entertainment industries have come up with sufficient legal online alternatives. This suggests that the entertainment industries are in part causing piracy by failing to offer decent competitive DRM-free products.

Furthermore, it is very doubtful that harsher punishments and stricter enforcement will have any effect. Last year the RIAA won two major lawsuits against individual file-sharers and this hasn’t changed the attitude or behavior of the average file-sharer at all. If anything, tougher enforcement will drive piracy underground, motivating the public to hide their identities online.

The bottom line is that the enforcement question is irrelevant. Technology will always stay ahead of any new type of legislation. The new three-strikes law in France for example can be easily circumvented and the same will be true for other measures. Much more can be done by focusing on the core of the problem, that is, taking away the incentive to download illegally.

The issues we have briefly touched on here are just the tip of the iceberg, and we assume that our readers can easily list many more. If so, please take this opportunity to have your voices heard. The US Pirate Party, who alerted us about this public consultation, has a mailing form which you can use, but regular email works fine too. For those who plan to comment we would advise to include as many credible references as possible.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Airports to introduce self-scan check-in for terrorists

2010-02-25T05:00:41Z

Major delays caused by terrorists being stopped by airport security could be a thing of the past following the introduction of self-scan check-in for international terrorist organisations.

Under the new system, terrorists can walk into a full body scanner that will identify their cause, their mission and what kind of explosives they are carrying. At this stage the machine issues them with a boarding pass. ‘Admittedly the self scan system does rely on the terrorists being honest and handing themselves in,’ said Home Secretary Alan Johnson, ‘but I am told that most of them are pretty devout.’

However, critics say the system is far from perfect. ‘These scanners do not always recognise terrorists,’ said Gatwick check-in assistant Kimberly Smalls, ‘last week we had one terrorist who came up as ‘item unknown’. I tried to scan him three times before eventually having to type him in manually. Then I had to ask him how to spell ‘martyr’. It was all very embarrassing.’

Other proposals include the introduction of a ‘10 Suspicious Items or Less Check-In’. ‘This is an absolute godsend’, said one terrorist, ‘We don’t usually bring much with us and it’s such a nightmare being stuck behind a family pushing a trolleys of holiday luggage. But try telling them that there’s no point bringing any of it on board. Will they listen?’

Meanwhile Luton airport have been piloting a ‘help-with-your-packing’ service. ‘These terrorists have no idea how to pack,’ said check-in assistant Edna Sparks, ‘Many of them just shove a bomb down their pants without even thinking about the consequences. That’s why I’m here to help them pack their explosives sensibly and without causing any unsightly creasing.’

‘We need to accept that terrorists are now part of modern life,’ said Mr Johnson, ‘That is why we have decided to fast track them. If I thought it would speed things up I would give them their own planes but I don’t suppose we’d ever see them again.’

New Zealand Introduces File-Sharing Amendment Bill

2010-02-23T20:49:07Z

In 2008, the New Zealand Government proposed new legislation to deal with illicit file-sharing. Section92A was the subject of widespread protests which eventually caused the Government to scrap their plans and go back to the the drawing board in order to remove the “guilty upon accusation” elements.

Today, Commerce Minister Simon Power will introduce The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill which will repeal Section 92A and replace it with a modified regime intended to reduce illegal file sharing.

“The major feature is the three-notice process, which educates the public about illegal file sharing and provides effective methods for copyright owners to enforce their copyright,” says Power. “It ensures that file sharers are given adequate warnings that unauthorised sharing of copyright works is illegal.”

Despite the more-gently named “three notice” regime (versus the more commonly used “3 strikes” term) the effects are the same. The bill will enable copyright owners to claim damages and make requests for the Internet subscriptions of infringers to be suspended.

That said, the element most criticized in Section92A was the lack of a right to reply to an accusation, and that appears to have been addressed. The Bill will extend the jurisdiction of the country’s Copyright Tribunal, which will hear both sides of the argument and will be empowered to rule on cases of alleged infringement.

“It’s important that account holders are given a reasonable time to stop infringing before enforcement takes place. The bill prescribes timeframes so account holders have the opportunity to address illegal file sharing activity occurring on their internet connection before enforcement action is taken,” says Mr Power for the Government, adding, “They will also have the chance to challenge notices and may request hearings at the Copyright Tribunal to contest infringement claims.

Yesterday it was revealed that Peter Dengate-Thrush, a lawyer specializing in Internet and IP law, has been appointed to the three-person Copyright Tribunal.

Dengate-Thrush, who was legal advisor to InternetNZ for 3 years and is the chairman of Internet policy-making body ICANN, will serve on the Tribunal for five years.

“I straddle both camps, in that I have got a history of involvement in developing internet institutions, practices and rules and also my daily practice is as an intellectual property barrister,” he said in a recent interview.

“I make my living out of advising trademark owners and copyright owners and fully appreciate the consequences of infringements. These are bad things for the economy, communities, inventors and creators of good ideas.”

The Tribunal will be able to fine persistent infringers up to $15,000 ($10,539 USD) with the exact amount linked to damages alleged to have been suffered by the copyright owners. It will also be able to order the suspension of Internet accounts for six months.

“[There] will come a time when disconnecting them [repeat infringers] for a period is the right thing,” added Dengate-Thrush.

While welcoming most of the amendments, InternetNZ, the group which oversees the Internet in New Zealand, says the account suspension clause needs to go.

“The only major flaw remaining in the legislation is that its provision for the suspension of people’s Internet accounts. Internet users would simply start a new account at another ISP,” says Policy Director Jordan Carter.

“While suspension would require an order of the District Court, it is still unworkable and unnecessary. InternetNZ will argue strongly that suspension be deleted by the Select Committee.”

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.