☝ Your Rights Or Their Copyrights?

What crime do you have to commit where you live to be forbidden to walk on the streets? Removal of basic rights is a matter of criminal not civil law so moves to make “internet bans” easy are an unacceptable expansion into criminal law for something that was never even meant to affect ordinary citizens in civil law.

Read the rest of the article on ComputerWorldUK.

☝ The Typhoid Mary Of Three-Strikes

Over the last year, we saw them spring up all over the world, notably in Australia and in France but also in many other countries. It seemed odd that so many legislatures should simultaneously feel the urge to create extrajudicial protection for mainly foreign – American – copyright holders, especially in a market where the emergence of alternative models favours local rather than imported talent. But I believe Wikileaks has identified the carrier of the disease.

Continue reading over at ComputerWorldUK

☆ Bite-Size Privacy and Anonymity

Peeping SquirrelA discussion 1 2 3 4 broke out on Identi.ca recently where it became clear that the distinction between anonymity and privacy is not clear for some people. It led to the opportunity to discuss the nature of both concepts (albeit in 140-character bursts) with some smart people devoted to both, people I respect greatly. I’ve been left with some bite-sized explanations that I hope others will appreciate as well.

  • Privacy is the lifecycle of secrets once you have chosen to share them. Anonymity is where an act is publicly known but the actor is not.
  • Privacy is the duty to respect the data that has been disclosed to you. Anonymity is the right not to disclose the data in the first place.
  • Privacy is the duty of each and every entity with which we engage. Anonymity is a privilege each of us should be entitled to on the rare occasions we need it. (By privilege I mean that we are able to secure anonymity only by the grace of those who choose to supply the means for it to be possible. It is not a given – notably in China –  it must be granted.)
  • In daily life, we routinely expect our privacy to be respected by those with whom we engage. We rarely expect or need anonymity but on the occasions we do it must be absolute.
  • To create privacy, we need policies backed up by law that each recipient of our personal data must adhere to. To deliver anonymity, there needs to be a place where our connection with the net is anonymised, and the provision of that capability needs the active grace of its provider.
  • Anonymity requires privacy, but privacy does not require anonymity. (By this I mean that your connection to the internet is known to your ISP, and much else is known to many others, so to secure anonymity in a specific case requires the discretion of those individuals who could identify you if they chose to – and that discretion is called privacy.)

I’ll add further points as they arise. Discussion welcome!

Update: Just a few moments after posting I saw this great Bruce Schneier posting about the dynamics of privacy:

“So privacy for the government increases their power and increases the power imbalance between government and the people … Privacy for the people increases their power. It also increases liberty, because it reduces the power imbalance between government and the people.”

Update: I really like this initiative to create icons for privacy policies by the way.

⚡ Web Karma?

http://twitter.com/#!/webmink/status/15099397595463680

⚡ The Non-Practicing Entity Defence

http://twitter.com/#!/webmink/status/12631742363992064

☝ The Risky Cloud

Heavy CloudIt used to take a bailiff and a man with an axe for the door, but the cloud makes it so much easier. If I told you that your entire business infrastructure could be taken offline by a government employee, or even a commercial provider, without judicial review, useful explanation or workable recourse, perhaps because a politician has philosophical issues with your activities, would that worry you? Yet it seems that the most popular brands on the market for cloud computing and web services place you at that risk if you follow the trend to cloud hosting for business infrastructure.

 

Continued over on ComputerWorldUK

☝ Defending Wikileaks’ Ability To Exist

Logo used by Wikileaks

Image via Wikipedia

Let me say up front that I am not a massive fan of WikiLeaks. It seems to me that taking stolen correspondence and publishing it for everyone to read is a fundamentally sociopathic act, whether it is a rival’s love-letters or a government’s diplomatic cables. There’s no doubt that there’s a role for whistle-blowing journalism, but each betrayal of trust and privacy needs to be justified by the greater good it delivers, and I remain unconvinced that the cloud of hacktivists at WikiLeaks has taken on board that the demand for great responsibility to accompany great power also applies to them.

For me, it falls into the same category as The Pirate Bay; there’s plenty to disagree with in what they are doing, but the crisis they provoke is fundamental to the operation of the Internet. In reacting to WikiLeaks and The Pirate Bay, both business and government have shown their true colours when it comes to citizen liberty and software freedoms. What’s disclosed is not pretty.

Read on over at ComputerWorldUK

☂ Essays Now Creative Commons Licensed

I had a request on Identica to make one of my essays available under a Creative Commons licence so it could be translated. I thought that was such a good idea I’ve now applied a Creative Commons licence to the whole Essays section. I’d welcome any translations and will gladly post them alongside the originals with attribution.

Sharp-eyed free-culture mavens will note I have used CC-BY-SA-NC. I’m actually perfectly happy for commercial uses, but past bad experience with a certain commercial user exploiting my work in a way I regarded as unethical have left me wanting to check each commercial use in advance. It’s entirely possible I can be talked out of this, but the distaste for that episode remains strong.

☝ RAND: Not So Reasonable

Fair, Reasonable, Non-Discriminatory – surely that all has to be good stuff?  RAND sounds so good. It shows up in the negotiation of licenses for patents that apply to standards, and it stands for “Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory“, excellent words that it’s hard to criticise. Sometimes it shows up as FRAND, with “Fair” in front making it sound even better, or as RAND-z, with the Z indicating that whatever the license terms are they will have a zero pounds price ticket attached.

Great though it all sounds, it has sinister consequences. Read more on ComputerWorldUK

☝ Links: Copyright Reform

Following the UK government’s announcement last week, I’ve posted a link collection related to copyright reform with commentary over on ComputerWorldUK today.