Transparency, Social Media and Cultural Patterns » transparency

Guest: Who is stealing from who? Where is the ‘quid pro quo’?

@collentine — Fri, 11 May 2012 20:52:45 +0000

Who is stealing from who? (A guest post by Antonio Garcia under a CC-BY license)

“The Statute of Anne had a much broader social focus and remit than the monopoly granted to the Stationers’ Company. The statute was concerned with the reading public, the continued production of useful literature, and the advancement and spread of education. The central plank of the statute is a social quid pro quo; to encourage “learned men to compose and write useful books” the statute guaranteed the finite right to print and reprint those works. It established a pragmatic bargain involving authors, the booksellers and the public.[14] The Statute of Anne ended the old system whereby only literature that met the censorship standards administered by the booksellers could appear in print. The statute furthermore created a public domain for literature, as previously all literature belonged to the booksellers forever.” (source)

What has become of that social focus, the social quid pro quo?

I do not believe many of us grasp the real situation here. The problem of the editors with the Internet and digital copying is not principally the fact that we copy today’s books, films and music even before they hit the shelves… it is the fact that people only have X hours a week to devote to leisure under the form of reading, watching and listening to artistic production, and besides time at a far second place there is the need for a budget.

While production of books, films and music relied on physical media and they were difficult to copy in good quality, the editors could discontinue production of older creations and make them rare, in such a way opening the market of attention for new creations because the old, even if you wanted them, could not be found easily anymore.

With digital copying as production mechanism and the internet as distribution medium… what they face now is the fact that all those discontinued productions that are in the public domain but did not become available because they ceased to produce them physically (not keeping their part of the bargain -remember, the continued production of useful literature, the quid pro quo? they took the quid, and forgot the quo!-) do now become available to all in enormous quantities. Enormous quantities of top quality works… for free (with only the effort to digitalize once generously donated by a few) become available through the Internet that acts as a worldwide, immediate and very convenient distribution system.

More works… means less of the chunk of the available time per work, and as commercial selling works are now only a fraction of what is available, they get only a tiny fraction of our time. That is bad news for an industry that has been working on the optimization of their production through economies of scale. Say you invest in a printing plant because you can sell 100.000 copies a week, and you take a 40 years mortgage because selling 100.000 copies a week you will earn enough to pay for it… and 10 years into that bargain, the internet and digital copying emerges. That leaves you with 30 years of mortgage you do not know how to pay. Sad but true, I know about newspapers that have had to sell their new printing plants because they could no longer pay the fixed costs of their maintenance, renting part of their production capacity back to continue printing the newspapers.

Another aspect is the budget part… as we are being squeezed into austerity, the first thing people can forfeit is optional culture and leisure, so less and less people have enough to spend to keep the industry in the black numbers, and more and more people find it convenient to pay for a good internet access and fill their leisure time with anything free that can be accessed (for the ethically strict) or anything that can freely be accessed (for the not so ethically strict and those that are so pissed off that they strike back where they can).

There is only one way the industry can really stall its demise: close the Internet to downloading.

Prolonging the terms of copyright protection (like when they avoid Mickey Mouse to enter the public domain) is only short term relief.

Pursuing those that download productions actually under copyright is nothing more than a harassing technique intended to scare people and stall the inevitable.

And they can harass us… because the governments are using their struggle as an excuse to impose measures through which they can censor the Internet without coming out as the ones that really want it… for reasons that have nothing to do with the copyright industry.

[pic: CC-BY-NC-ND, BCLT BerkeleyLaw]

Transforming Into a Digital Government: Organizational Development

@collentine — Wed, 09 May 2012 17:37:05 +0000

Part of an assignment I wrote in a course about ‘the digital government’.
Part 1 Fundamental Changes
Part 2 Citizen Interactions

—

Part 3/3 – Organizational Development

“There’s no final solution, no definitive theory, no solve-all methodology. We have to constantly test and explore new temporary solutions. Change, uncertainty, ambiguity and complexity must not be seen as sources of problems to be subsequently solved, but as transitions, potential sources of opportunities, innovation and profit” (Angell&Ilharco 2004, p.55).

Looking forward and reaching for our visions keeps us in course. Having something to strive for makes us find new solutions and constantly evolve. This is why it is good that the 24hour government has high visions and ambitions.

Some old and some new problems will arise from the digitalization. Integrity issues is a major problem that gets amplified by the increased amount of information available from an electronic government. Another issue that the 24hour government has to deal a lot with is security in protecting all of their sensitive data. Some of the problems are diminished with the digitalization, we no longer have the same time and cost for transportation of data. Amplified problems are not only bad. They enable us to see problems that previously went undetected due to being too small. Once a problem is detected we can work on changing the organization to fix the problem.

All the time “organizations are emergent, undergoing continual change driven by social and environmental dynamics” (Baskerville&Land 2004, p.264). When encountering problems and trying to find a ’final solution’ you do good as long as you keep trying. If you manage to find a ’final solution’ it probably means you have failed by letting the organization become static and obsolete.
—

Josef Ohlsson Collentine, 24 Aug 2010, josef@collentine.com
CC-BY, please link to http://collentine.com if you use this material. Written for the course ’Verksamhetsutveckling i den digitala myndigheten’

[pic: CC-BY-NC, fairfaxcounty]

REFERENCES

Angell, I. & Ilharco, F. (2004). Solution is the problem: a story of transitions and opportunities. In Avgerou, C., Ciborra, C. & Land, F., ed. The social study of information and communication technology. New York, Oxford University Press. Ch. 2.

Baskerville, R. & Land, F. (2004). Socially self-destructing systems. In Avgerou, C., Ciborra, C. & Land, F., ed. The social study of information and communication technology. New York, Oxford University Press. Ch. 13.

Transforming Into a Digital Government: Citizen Interactions

@collentine — Wed, 02 May 2012 17:07:43 +0000

Part of an assignment I wrote in a course about ‘the digital government’.
Part 1 Fundamental Changes
—

Part 2/3 – How Internet changes the citizen interactions

Internet breaks down a lot of barriers in society. We are now able to communicate easily across time and space with each other. This conversation without borders is one of the visions in the 24hour government. When technology changes and is improved it is important to consider all aspects of the change. “In most cases the development of electronic services is considered a technical project. Even if [...] questions concerning users, usability and organization are more important they are fully [ignored]” (Grönlund 2001b, p.191, translated from Swedish)

“Information systems needed to be seen as social systems, admittedly with an increasingly technical component—but not as technological systems per se” (Galliers 2004, p.248). We live in a social revolution when more and more communication is taking place across the Internet (mainly through Social Media tools like Facebook, blogs or Twitter). It’s important for the Government to be able to take a part of this social revolution and be a part of the discussed.

With the shift towards a participatory culture in our society people become more collaborative. Tools on the internet are increasingly improved to work in a collaborative fashion. Some examples are Piratepad.net (allowing people to work in the same notepad at the same time) and dropbox (allowing an easy sharing of documents between people). Another very important example for political change towards participation is the use of liquid democracy.

Involving the citizens in collaborative project that would help the government and the society is one of the opportunities an electronic government brings. To enable easy citizen engagement it is important building a platform system enabling participatory use. By building a platform and sharing a lot of the data freely it would enable citizens with specific interests to have access in a collaborative environment where they could create new data or knowledge. This new information might not have been constructed if it was not easily available.
—

[pic: CC-BY, ssoosay]

REFERENCES

Galliers, R. (2004). Reflections on information systems strategizing. In Avgerou, C., Ciborra, C. & Land, F., ed. The social study of information and communication technology. New York, Oxford University Press. Ch. 12.

Grönlund, Å. (2001b). “The long and winding road”. In Grönlund, Å. & Ranerup, A., ed. Elektronisk förvaltning, elektronisk demokrati. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Ch. 5.

The Day Sweden Stopped Trusting Their Citizens, #DLD

@collentine — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 07:20:10 +0000

Today is a sad day in Sweden since the government voted through a directive called the data retention directive (Datalagringsdirektivet in Swedish). What it basically means is that everyone is considered a suspect and put under surveillance by the government. The directive says that telecommunication data from all citizens must be stored 6-12 months. Some of the examples of what will be stored (including locations and times) are: IP addresses, e-mails, phone calls and text messages. In today’s connected world this would effectively allow the government to track most of your steps and activities any given day.

Left picture shows Sweden before the data retention directive where citizens are considered innocent until something makes them into suspects. They are considered innocent until proven guilty in court. The right picture shows how the citizens are always considered suspects and kept under surveillance. There are no innocents, only suspects and people judged as guilty.

Considering everyone guilty infinitely creates a very punitive atmosphere. This world view is something that needs to be looked at from behavioral science. Theory X and Y is created by McGregor where he explains human motivation.

Theory X signifies a world view where people are considered lazy and will avoid work. To motivate people to work the manager uses threats and benefits (whips and carrots). This leads to distrust, supervision and a punitive atmosphere. Theory Y signifies a more positive world view where people are considered ambitious and self-motivated. The satisfaction of doing a good job is motivation in itself. This worldview gives the people more room to be creative and come with their own suggestions.

A parallell between McGregor’s X/Y model and the data retention directive can be seen. If the Internet is seen as something that needs carrots and whips to make people more productive one needs to have more surveillance and control. This control over production restricts new creations to what is “approved by the managers”. The opposite world view would be seeing people and Internet as theory Y. This theory would put trust in a free internet, believing people can be productive and create good things on their own.

The consequences of implementing a directive like the data detention directive is that one declares everyone a suspect for an infinite amount of time. Everyone is put under surveillance 24/7. Even with “no secrets” to hide the directive will affect people’s behavior. The fact that people are under constant surveillance will make them adjust their behavior towards things that will look good and thus in effect make people less creative. Even with “nothing to hide” there is still a need for privacy and integrity e.g. toilet visits, love whispers, passwords, doctor visits, gift shopping etc. Knowing your tracked through your phone might make you avoid visiting the suburbs or the gift shop next to a harley davidson club since you might be suspected of doing something else there.

Transforming Into a Digital Government, Fundamental Changes

@collentine — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:13:37 +0000

Part of an assignment I wrote for a course about ‘the digital government’
—

Part 1/3 – Fundamental Changes for the Government

Internet has changed how the government needs to work and think. Previously the speed, accessability and shareability was severely limited by physical factors. The cost of creating, storing and accessing information was also higher before the digital government. It is important to start making use of more “dynamic flows of activities and functions instead of static structures” (Grönlund 2001a, p.51, translated).

The shift of turning into an Electronic Government means a lot of changes to the ways the government is accustomed to work. A lot of boundaries are erased, some new problems emerge but also new possibilities that were unthinkable earlier. “Digitization raises the mobility of what we have customarily thought of as not mobile, or barely mobile. At its most extreme, this liquefying dematerializes its object. Once dematerialized, it gains hypermobility — instantaneous circulation through digital networks with global span” (Sassen 2004, p.81).

With the Internet the citizens are able to access information fast and require this from the government as well. A willingness from the citizens of not waiting for opening hours is part of the changes into a 24hour government. Sending digital information is also a lot faster and has increased the pace in the ways of working.

The citizens also want to be able to access the information wherever they need it. Internet has broken down some of the physical barriers. Now it is possible to access information from a computer from whatever country you might be in or even through you cell-phone out on a boat on a lake. With digital information and storage not costing much anymore, the government is able to make a lot more material available.

This information comes to good use for the citizens interested in it. The information age has enabled an easier way of cataloging the vast amounts of information the government has. Making this information more free and shareable will benefit the citizens and society.
—

[pic: CC-BY-NC, paul_clarke]

REFERENCES

Grönlund, Å. (2001a). En introduktion till Electronic Government. In Grönlund, Å. & Ranerup, A., ed. Elektronisk förvaltning, elektroniskk demokrati. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Sassen, S. (2004). Towards a sociology of information technology. In Avgerou, C., Ciborra, C. & Land, F., ed. The social study of information and communication technology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Why Lawmakers Don’t Like New Technology

@collentine — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 18:18:08 +0000

“Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything that is invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things” – Douglas Adams

The quote explains why new technology has such a hard time when facing legislation and adjustment. Many politicians are over 35 when they come to a powerful position and definitely judges that are meant to decide whether people using new technology are breaking old laws. Being a judge you are supposed to always be very objective but there is always some subjectivity and cultural shaping no matter how hard one tries to be objective. Backed by an old law system that supports older technology and the way everything used to work the people adjusting to new technology and possibilities are at a disadvantage when facing the law.

This is a problem in our “information age” when everything is moving faster and new technology gets invented all the time. How do we manage to not digitally exclude an older generation that have a natural restriction against learning new technology? Earlier I wrote about the digital divide that currently excludes 70% of world population from the access to information that Internet gives us.

With information comes knowledge and with knowledge comes development. Based on this I feel it’s important for countries to focus on IT aid on a higher level than what is done today. ICT (Information Communication Technology) should be seen as a horizontal solution for all systems. With the help of ICT and integration in most aspects of our society we can reach into the future.

Internet is not a luxury, it’s a right in the information age we live in today

[pic: CC-BY-NC-ND, aahyeah]

Downloading Physical Objects, 3d Printing Disrupts Property

@collentine — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 20:50:07 +0000

The ability to download physical objects in the form of a 3d file and print it out in a 3d printer will change how we perceive material possessions in the future. The shops will work very differently when in many cases it’s easier, cheaper and quicker to print something at home than finding it in a shop or ordering it online. Today 3d printers are becoming affordable for most people but they are still too technically advanced to use for the average person. With the ability to print physical objects it will put further strain on the current way that copyright and patents work. Copyright was invented during a time when digital copies didn’t exist and the flow of ideas and objects went slow. Today when a 3d file of an object can be downloaded or a music file transferred almost instantly and at no cost we see that copyright is broken. When it was created copyright was there to act as an incentive for creation, today it’s often blocking the ability to create.

The above TED video gives a quick introduction to some of the possibilities of 3d printing. The 3d printing possibility is becoming a reality for average persons soon and will be a great shift in the way we live when you can print almost anything. This includes structures that were “impossible” to make with normal manufacturing techniques due to the cost and detail of some creations. The ability to print only a few objects based on an idea, instead of having to order a bulk of objects to get cost reasonable with traditional manufacturing, the 3d print will change the industry. When instead of having to go between shops looking for something that you like you can make or modify a 3d sketch and have it printed on demand. Want a light in the shape of a ball with two feet and one hand? No problem with the ability to customize products. In the earlier stages some companies will allow you to modify the product through a simple 3d interface before ordering and buying it from them.

With the help of a scanner one can recreate and modify a lot of products. Being able to scan your body and order clothes afterwards will make a future with perfectly fitting clothes. Another area that will benefit greatly from 3d printers is the medical sector. Being able to layer cells in a printer and create body parts will end the problem with not having enough donors.

Building houses can be done with the help of giant 3d printers in the future. The research into Contour Crafting will make housebuilding much quicker and cheaper in the future. A documentary about The Man Who Prints Houses will be done in April and should make for an interesting watch.

Being able to transfer data in the form of a 3d design instead of sending the finished product will be a big win for the environment and the time wasted looking for the right shop. Also smaller everyday uses like downloading a 3d print for a spare part of a discontinued product (e.g. an old vacuum cleaner) will stop some of the capitalistic “use and throw” that exists today. Culture and other material information will be more accessible (maybe print a Smithsonian statue to put in the garden?).

With the accessibility of printing objects piracy will become a problem for some creators. The Pirate Bay already has a section for 3d designs and alternatives like Thingiverse will allow creators to be inspired by others and create their own objects instead of going to the shop. What creative use of a 3d printer can you think of?

[pic: CC-BY-NC-SA, Euphy]

A Democratic Periscope, Making the Government More Transparent

@collentine — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 03:00:01 +0000

One of the main reasons behind my activity for Piratpartiet is that “people should keep track of what the government does and not the other way around”. I believe in the good of people and that they work towards the good for others. Power corrupts which is one of the reason the “common man” must keep track of those in power. The best way is making the system transparent and hold people accountable for their actions.

There are many tools created for better keeping track of governments and whether they are keeping their promises. One example being the American site Politifact keeping track of promises. The best designed and easy understood one I’ve seen is an Estonian one which you can see above (use Google translate unless you know Estonian).

Another way of making politics more transparent can be through constructing open buildings. The new Tallin City Hall is constructed to act like a “democratic periscope”. By using the same methods as a periscope with mirrors in the ceiling of the city hall they manage to create a possibility for people to look into the city hall. Seeing who’s there and what they are doing creates radical transparency and invites for more public participation in politics. Giving everyone a political overview and public insight into the depths of the city hall. Any other ideas on how the goverment can be more transparent towards its’ citizens?

http://valvurid.err.ee/

How the German Pirate Party Wants to Change School Politics

@collentine — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 17:30:26 +0000

I’m on my way to a political conference to discuss pirate politics. The conference will take place this weekend and discuss thoughts and views on school politics and “rule of law” (justice policies). Since I’m very interested in communication and learning environments I digged into ‘school politics’. I tried scraping together information and views on school politics from different pirate parties in other countries around the world but the only country with an expanded view on school politics is German’s Piratenpartei. With the help of LaTeX and Google translate I compiled together a document with the views of piratenpartei on school politics. Will post some of my own thoughts and comments on this document in a later post.

The document can be reached here.

—

This document was compiled from the German pirate party Wiki page. It has been translated through Google Translate and I take no responsibility for accuracy of translations or that this is the current stances of Piratenpartei. Might have missed some newer versions of programs as well if they were not on the Wiki. Tried finding other stances towards education change in other countries wiki’s but didn’t find much. Sweden has a few specific for education and Catalunya has a few both not very detailed. See this compilation as inspirational samples to form your own ideas

Moscow Convention for the Copyright

@collentine — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:55:42 +0000

The Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has earlier urged the G20 to “move faster to reach an agreement on reforming the global financial system”. He has also been positive towards a change for copyright earlier. At the last G20 conference he mentioned that the Internet shouldn’t be regulated or censored and that the system of copyright laws needed to be changed. Medvedev took help from the Association of Internet Publishers, Wikimedia Russia and a group of experts in forming a possible replacement for the Berne Convention. The creators of this ‘Moscow Convention for the Copyright’ believe it will be presented at the G20 summit in Cannes, France on November 3-4.

I found this text through Lola Voronina who is the International Coordinator for Pirate Party of Russia.

The concept of the Moscow Convention for the Copyright

The need to reform the copyright law

The need to reform the copyright law, under national and international levels is the conclusion, to which the professionals (lawyers, artists, economists and representatives of the content industry) come worldwide. Established in the industrial age, the system of author rights was fully consistent with the way of functioning of the industry in the 19th and the first half of the 20th century but it is no longer corresponding to the digital age. The principles of the protection of authors’ rights that are set out in the main international agreements – the Berne and Geneva Conventions and WIPO Copyright Treaty, – may not be fully realized in an environment where the methods of production, distribution, access and use of the culture have changed under the influence of digital technology and the Internet.

In the last few years it’s appeared to be a number of fundamental new ways of communication and collaboration. The basis for economic development is the speed the creation and sharing of works, as well as ease of their revision. Often the product is no longer even and complete, but represents a complex of individual results of intellectual activity, which can constantly change. Basically the whole Internet society has become authors. Anyone who was actively using the network, was creating the protected works, often without knowing it. This led to the fact that on the one hand, the amount of available information became enormous – for one day people create more protectable works, than in all of the XIX century. On the other hand, the commercial value of most of the results of intellectual activity is very low and often non-existent. So the value of the potential actions in protecting them are many times bigger than their value. Usually the authors of such works and do not mean that their creations will be protected, but not making efforts to make the public aware of it or allow to use their works for free.

Besides that, the Internet has aggravated the problem of so-called “orphan” works, the search for authors and copyright-holders of which is impossible or requires a lot of effort, so many of these works fall out of the public turnover.

To tighten security is the way to a dead end

The conclusions that seem to be logical – the tightening of the protection requirements and increasing of the control over the content distribution – do not stand a technical audit and do not meet the capabilities of the control services, as well as they contrary to the way of life of the digital age people. Copyright law definitely needs be changed, and not by bringing the new restrictions, but by a new understanding of it’s principles.

The basic principles of the reform

The basis of a new international convention on copyright should form a realistic and realizable principles, corresponding to the interests of society, protecting the creator law in using the works, and the public’s right of access the culture. Only by following these requirements, the copyright will be respected, and will give the new opportunities for the creativity and social development.

To protect the protected

The state must protect the personal rights of the author (moral and nonproprietary), his proprietary rights of commercial use of his creations, the right of free distribution of works and also the cultural heritage that is in the public domain.

The protection of the creators rights has to distinguish the difference between two kinds of rights – proprietary (commercial disposal) and non-proprietary (personal or moral). Personal rights – in particular the right of name, must be protected independently throughout the duration of protection of copyright. Protection of the right of commercial use is provided to the author by the state as a benefit for a limited period of time. The way of protection should depend on the context of the publication and the way of its use. In particular, the use of the product for personal, nonprofit matters should not be a subject to state regulation or any restriction.

Registration of commercial exploitation of the works

Implementation of these principles is possible through a reference to historical legal experience, which some countries do have – for example a registration of works designed by the authors for the commercial turnover with the financial rewards to them. The use of the product for personal nonprofit use is impossible to control, because you can only monitor the information which is available. To obtain the material rewards the work should be registered. The registration shall be maintained under the control of the state, which thus learns what works should be protected. Perhaps the paid registration may be implemented, similar to any property registration. The implementing of the registration would solve the problem of “orphan” works, would limit the amount of state control, would make the authors make serious decisions regarding their rights, and will lead to the increase of the information in the public domain.

The freedom of using

The authors, who wish to establish the conditions for distribution of the works, can express their wishes in the form of a free public license. Free licenses for the works, do not imply any material reward for the author and do not require a formal registration, they are recognized and protected by the state. The works in relation to which the authors have not expressed their will in a free public license, or have not registered for commercial use will be deemed to have passed into the public domain.

The registration period

Registration of works to be undertaken for a certain period. This period may be 5 years, as proposed by a joint team of the Green Party and the European Free Alliance, or 14 years as offers the well-known expert on copyright Lawrence Lessig. A specific period of registration may be discussed at a new convention on copyright, but it should be fairly short and manageable. The registration itself may be renewed various times, if the author thinks that the commercial exploitation of the work is still relevant.

The deadline for protection

The registration can not be extended indefinitely and should be limited by the deadline for protection. That may be, for example, 20 years from the date of publication or even 50 years after his death (a period specified by the Berne Convention).

The duration of the deadline is the subject of future discussion of specific proposals of the new convention on copyright. However, it is absolutely clear that for the vast majority of the works of art and science embodied in most countries, the period of protection should be reduced – “70 years after his death” in reality means “life inprisonment” for such works.

The limit should depend on the format of the work – the same protection for films, scientific articles, computer programs and comments on blogs, is obviously irrational. In particular, this applies to the scientific texts, whose term of protection is advisible to limit to the bare minimum due to the rapidity of changes taking place in science. This will lead to a more rapid turnover and multiplication of scientific knowledge.

Support of the public domain

The state is obliged to care not only about the interests of authors, but also about the interests of the society, the state has to protect and support the public cultural heritage. According to the principles of a new convention on copyright, public domain sector will be increased by the works which protection period has expired, with works, non-registered for commercial use and for which the authors haven’t expressed their will in the form of free public licenses, as well as works created at the expences of the government.

The state should not allow the reverse transition of the works from the public domain, and should take care of the public domain sector and provide the access to it in a digital form.

The transitional period

After the adoption of the Convention the transitional period is required, it should last not more than the registration period. During this period the authors and their heirs get the opportunity to register their works for the commercial use, or to dispose them through the public distribution under a free license (if the protection period for the work has not yet exceeded the time limit for protection, approved by the Convention). Otherwise, these works go into the public domain.

“Soviet” warranty

Regardless of the prospects and timing of the Moscow Convention on copyright, as an act of good will and caring for the protection and enhancement of the world public cultural heritage, the Russian Federation may recognize that all the works created in the Soviet Union and which economic rights that are currently disposed to Russian Federation, federal services and municipal authorities, as well as other government agencies, or been disposed at the time of changing the form of government, should go into the public domain. In addition, in case that the protection period has expired the work can also be transfered into the public domain.

Association of Internet Publishers, Wikimedia Russia and the group of experts

If you managed to read this far you might be interested in more detailed suggestions described by the Association of Web Publishers.