SRoC: Slightly Right of Centre

Time for a new plan for corporation tax to re-level the field for local employers

2013-05-17T12:38:00.000+01:00

What keeps me mad throughout the ongoing corporation tax bunfight is that I agree with no-one.

On one [typically right] side, there is the argument that companies such as Amazon, Vodafone, Starbucks, Google, etc, etc... should not be criticised because they're only doing what they are obliged to do: minimise their tax bill.

Fair enough, but we live in a democracy, so claiming they shouldn't be criticised or the subject of peaceful protest is a bit far fetched. If enough people feel aggrieved enough to protest outside a shop then in a civilised democracy there's not much we can or should do.

On the other [largely left] side there is the view that such companies are not pulling their weight and should contribute more.

Well, I don't agree wholly with this either.

Many (but not all) of the companies criticised have a UK workforce and end up paying considerable sums in employer's tax (AKA employer's National Insurance contributions) at around 13.8% of salary, plus provide employment (useful, right?) and hence generate even more tax through PAYE paid by their employees.

The trouble with corporation tax in a global economy is that it is unfair to many smaller, local firms; in that they cannot afford the set-up costs of an offshore headquarters to launder their profits through.

Competition theory largely states that governments should encourage entrepreneurship and regeneration to keep the markets competitive; a market which makes it hard for new entrants tends to get lazy, with the incumbents carrying on as before, unchallenged.

But non-global new entrants find it hard to challenge the global giants if they end up paying more tax - until they get big enough to avoid tax. Get the idea? The market becomes skewed against the new entrants.

So one answer - and the left won't like this - is to get rid of corporation tax altogether.

But this creates a new problem. Not all companies provide such large returns to the exchequer through employment taxes. E.g. city fund managers may rake-in millions yet employ a handful of staff, whilst large retailers such as Marks and Spencer, Tesco, etc each employ tens of thousands of workers.

So to me the answer appears obvious. Companies should be allowed to offset their corporation tax bill against their total employer's Class 1 National Insurance contribution.

Essentially many companies making modest profits yet already paying millions of pounds a year through employment taxes would be exempt from paying any corporation tax, yet companies who didn't employ many UK staff would be left with a largely unchanged corporation tax bill.

This would perhaps have a secondary advantage of making it more attractive to employ UK staff, as the employer's tax - widely seen as a disincentive to employment - would be offset against corporation tax.

And, importantly, it would allow smaller, growing UK firms who choose to have UK-based staff to pay corporation tax on a similar rate to the global giants.

@JamesFirth

The Data Plutocrats and a need for a Data Democracy

2013-05-14T10:31:00.004+01:00

Yesterday certainly wasn't the first time someone opined the term privacy was counter-productive in relation to data.

"Privacy" is a one-sided open-ended discussion about risk with no consideration of reward.

"Privacy" is an amorphous concept easily spun by proponents of one side or the other.

Privacy: is wholesome, positive, for victims of crime themselves becoming victims of press intrusion; or, privacy gives terrorists and child abusers the space they need to hide amongst us in society.

Discussion about data privacy and related topics could, perhaps, be more constructive if framed as a discussion about balance of power.

After all, privacy primarily concerns us because of our fear that our secrets can be used against us, creating an "information asymmetry" (ht @OrwellUpgraded) that could be abused by the nefarious and amoral.

So should privacy advocates instead be arguing for a data democracy?

Taking a step back, democracy is not a goal in itself. The end game is a comfortably stable, affluent and sustainable society; which, if one trusts in the inherent good in human nature will itself be a fair and just society.

Similarly, in data terms, we want a society where we are all "data wealthy" - ie have access to information, communications, entertainment; and benefit from the resulting advances in science, medicine, etc only possible through smart use of data.

We want relative stability - a society nimble enough to keep pace with advancing technology, yet resilient enough not to be cajoled into dangerous change.

We want a just and fair society where individuals, corporations and governments can't use our personal data, our everyday secrets, to exert undue control on anyone.

Democracy is probably the best place to start - at least in analysing and attempting to understand the problem.

Today we probably have a data plutocracy, where data power is concentrated in the hands of a few global corporations.

No-one knows for sure whether this itself is inherently dangerous.

Data power has certainly been used for good: the rapid emergence of useful services, the construction of data infrastructure on a truly massive scale, a level of free "social" services.

Data plutocrats like Google provide services like Blogger, which in turn strengthens the power of the individual to challenge traditional autocracies and, for the time being at least, discuss the issues associated with a data plutocracy.

But clearly such concentrations of data power could easily be abused; either by sticky-fingered employees dipping their hands in the data till, by governments, or by corporations themselves in search of profit.

So maybe we should be looking to promote data control structures and data economies that are inherently more democratic.

But how can we go about understanding the data power balance?

I believe we'll find, over time, that many democratic (and economic) concepts are applicable to data.

Already I see a clear left-right political spectrum, at one end "the state" or other controlling force being responsible for administering and apportioning "data fairness" if you like. The "clean internet" brigade - a worthy cause... But, as we all know, some data animals are more equal than others. Who governs the governors, who watches the watchmen?

And at the other end, the right-libertarians, who argue the state should not interfere, leaving the question of who will protect the "data weak"? Who will guard the technologically incapable from losing out when real-world services increasingly rely on the internet? Who will provide their broadband, guard their personal data, and defend their computers from hackers?

Over the last two decades the data privacy debate has entered the mainstream - that itself is a good thing, but it's now time to move on to talk about the wider issue: a data democracy.

@JamesFirth

Marks and Spencer latest victim of automated content filtering

2013-05-13T13:19:00.001+01:00

Your can forget using Marks and Spencer's free ecard service if your friend is called Dick (or, presumably, lives in Scunthorpe).

After reports that a pensioner was unable to send a card to her friend Dick due to the firm's automated profanity filter, a spokesperson claimed the filter was there "to protect people from harassment" and consequently would not be altering their policy.

Which got me wondering how much protection their automated system offered...

Here's an ecard I sent to myself that didn't get blocked (forgive my childish use of language):

There's a serious point: time and time again I see a reliance on automated content blocking to offer some level of "protection" that impacts legitimate uses of the system whilst being relatively easy to workaround.

In this case I could harass someone simply by spacing-out the insults.

If the service provider then tried to catch insults with spaces in between they would undoubtedly end up blocking even more legitimate uses, like a card to my good friend* Alf Ucker.

I have no issue with companies like Marks and Spencer using such content filtering to warn people against a thoughtless use of offensive language, but to claim such systems are there to protect people from harassment is a stretch - especially since, as I have shown, they can't stop all offensive messages getting through.

(* = imaginary!)

@JamesFirth

The Tech Chasm Series: 1. The Delivery Window

2013-05-07T15:18:00.003+01:00

Over the last 20 years technology has changed so many aspects of life it's now hard to imagine a time when flights had to be booked in person at a travel agent and a vandalised phone box was a good enough reason for not letting your parents/partner/butler know you were going to be a bit late home.

But in some areas a technological overhaul is well overdue, leading to a widening chasm between the theoretical capabilities and the practical application of technology.

1. The Delivery Window

The list of items that can't be [legally] ordered online for home delivery can be written on the back of a Royal Mail "I'm sorry we missed you" delivery card, yet few delivery firms provide a delivery window smaller than ten hours.

In fact you're lucky to get word of a delivery before you've missed it, with many firms relying on drivers themselves to give notice of delivery by buzzing your doorbell, before deploying a missed delivery card worded to make you feel like a naughty schoolchild late with a homework assignment: 'You have one more chance to receive these goods'...

I'm sorry for putting your driver out by not waiting by my door for the entire estimated delivery window of 1st May-7th May. Next time I will help your driver by driving myself to PC World, running the gauntlet of credit offers at 26.3% APR and over-priced extended warranties costing nearly as much as a replacement laptop, only to find what I want is out of stock - but can be dispatched immediately for home delivery...

Now where was I...

Oh yes, once upon a time the avid mail-orderer needed to know the location of just 2 buildings: the nearest "main" Post Office and the local Parcel Force warehouse.

Today, each expedition is a veritable adventure; a 60-mile round trip to the "local" depot for Generic Delivery Services Ltd whose postcode, at least according to any satnav on the market, is just far enough away from the actual building to render your chance of getting to the collection office after work before it closes about as good as getting the full delivery charge refunded from the vendor if the delivery ends up boomeranging back because you failed to collect the package within a week.

That's assuming your package made it back to the depot, unlike the soggy books inside the soggy cardboard box left on my doorstep last October...

Or the pillow thrown over the gate - of the wrong house! Eventually finding its way to its intended recipient a week after the replacement had been delivered - and returned.

Are we to believe that tracking a parcel within these delivery operations is computationally impossible? At least given the computing power of a ZX Spectrum (with 48k Ram Pack and ZX Microdrive)..

Granted, we have an extremely complex problem: a parcel at location A needs to get to location B, and the recipient R needs to be notified somehow.

You'd have to request their email address and everything...

Plus you'd need to know how long it takes for a parcel to reach the trunk network, travel the trunk network; I mean, it would take some effort to plan shipping routes and schedules (rather than leave them to the driver's discretion, as I assume they must do now), collect actual data - maybe even build a database if it doesn't all fit on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet...

And provision delivery vehicles with the latest state-of-the-art satellite technology - or at least ask delivery drivers to keep their phones switched on whilst working.

Maybe NASA could help? After all they seemed to predict the landing time of Curiosity on Mars to a better accuracy than Rural Link Express can track a parcel from Manchester to Woking.

Is it really that hard for a company the size of a small country to divert some of the money it saves avoiding tax in to technology that lets its customers know with reasonably accuracy:

What day, at the time of ordering, a parcel will arrive; and,
At some point the day before the time, to within a couple of hours, the parcel will be delivered?

And, instead of marketing this service as an optional extra, provide it to all customers, as it will surely save everyone time and money if a higher proportion of parcels are delivered on first attempt.

@JamesFirth

Life in Waverley, Surrey

2013-04-30T16:29:00.000+01:00

Depressing reading, for anyone wanting to buy property in my locality.

Mortgage companies are currently offering around 3.5 times basic salary in home loans, and requiring around 20% deposit to access the bulk of their deals, meaning one needs to earn around £70,000 per annum and have £60k equity in their existing property or tucked away in order to afford the average semi.

Even the average flat requires a £40k salary plus a £40k deposit.

Waverley

Average house price
£422,155

Detached	£636,759
Semi-detached	£361,069
Terrace	£299,749
Flat	£199,568

(source: BBC, data date: Oct-Dec 2012)

Compared to my birthplace the difference is stark...

Calderdale

Average house price
£150,071

Detached	£270,960
Semi-detached	£149,053
Terrace	£109,777
Flat	£126,373

Still, things could be worse. I could be based in a London borough such as Hammersmith...

Hammersmith and Fulham

Average house price
£653,439

Detached	£0
Semi-detached	£1,334,153
Terrace	£1,092,643
Flat	£493,058

@JamesFirth

What the Letzgo Hunting vigilantes can teach the Home Office

2013-04-25T11:37:00.000+01:00

One of my many criticisms of this and recent governments' obsession with online snooping is that it diverts resources away from other policing methods.

Governments are obsessed with creating (or restoring, depending on who you talk to) a power imbalance they say is necessary to maintain order and prevent serious crime and terrorism.

I and many other technologists argue to the contrary - that blanket surveillance will have little long-term impact on seriously organised criminal and terrorist activity as perpetrators will adapt quickly to evade today's proposed imperfect monitoring systems as technology continues to evolve quickly.

At most such technology will trap mid and low-level criminals, giving a short-term advantage that will soon be lost as even petty thieves learn how to hide their online trail more efficiently.

Whilst reducing crime of any description is undoubtedly a good thing, this must be balanced against the cost and risk to all non-criminals in society who face having even more of their secrets held by state agencies and other third parties without their consent.

Additionally, such monitoring carries a significant cost.

Not just the monetary cost in siphoning off, storing, filtering and retrieving large quantities of data - but a cost to technological progress. Internet service providers may shun network upgrades because of the added complexity of accommodating the surveillance regime, denying customers increased bandwidth and other benefits of the latest technology.

Additionally - or so a network engineer at a very large mobile phone network once told me - network changes required to meet today's data retention laws made the system, in his opinion at least, more vulnerable to failure because all transactions had to be routed through one of a few data collection points.

Police in the UK still don't carry guns on routine patrols - why? Because the risk outweighs the benefits. Society is generally better off with a softer balance of power - consensus policing - and not carrying a firearm is a powerful reminder to the public.

The benefits of a more consensual approach to policing is that the public are more likely to do their bit to help the police in their duty; contrasted with more militaristic approaches, which pit the public - even the law abiding public - against the police, whom they often live in fear of.

I believe analogies can be drawn with policing the internet. I'm afraid of snoopers taking a snippet of my data out of context or misidentifying someone else's transaction as originating from me. I'm afraid of a large mountain of my personal data leaking, leaving me vulnerable to identity theft.

I'm afraid of police creeping around in bushes watching ordinary citizens go about their lives - because this, quite frankly, just freaks me out.

Of course the state must be involved in some way; a free-for-all leaves the weak unprotected.

But the level and manner of involvement I have in mind usually contrasts strongly with what governments around the world are pushing for.

I believe the internet should be policed to a large extent via the front door, not by creeping around the back or hiding in bushes with the digital equivalent of a long-lens camera and parabolic microphone.

The Home Office often cites the hunt for dangerous paedophiles as justification for blanket surveillance, playing to the public's fears.

A group of vigilantes recently showed us all that progress in the fight against paedophiles can be made without snooping around behind the scenery planting bugs in the very fabric of the network.

Police condemned the action of vigilantes as potentially illegal itself, but this perhaps says more about police wanting to maintain an illusion of control, or says something about the contradictory state of current privacy laws which are seen by some as limiting police operationally whilst allowing the state to watch us all via our mobile phone activity, etc.

If we could find some way for police to use the internet via the front door, connecting via an ISP to inhabit the places people hang out online - in a similar way to the mix of visible and plain clothes patrols inhabiting the streets; then this surely will be more proportionate and more sustainable than relying on blanket surveillance.

@JamesFirth

Hell, yeah! Let's flood our public spaces with lots of "clean", porn-free WiFi...

2013-04-24T14:56:00.001+01:00

I have no idealistic or moral objection to the Prime Minister wanting to appear to be doing the good and proper thing to appease campaigning children's charities and electors with kids.

But technically what the Prime Minister wants (and this smells like another shambolic policy emanating from the general direction of "Minister for the Internets" Ed Vaizey) - porn-free WiFi in open spaces, is both unworkable and misguided.

Misguided because it sends the message that pornography is the biggest danger kids face on the internet.

Not even close. I haven't got references to hand but I've read studies showing the effects on children of exposure to sexualised imagery are minimal in most cases.

Bar a minority who have a tendency to become obsessive, most children can adapt to effectively "block out" sexual imagery and it loses its effect.

Yes it can normalise abnormal behaviour (such as sexual violence) but even here the jury's out and the debate is along similar lines to violent films and video games: is a society which does little to discourage the availability of violent imagery more violent than one that discourages it?

My premise is that the biggest danger children face on the internet is physiological. Just one example: interacting with others online in text-based formats with the absence of non-verbal cues (such as facial expressions) seems to lead to some extremes of behaviour (eg flame wars) and passionately entrenched arguments can become an obsession.

Also in that department there's bullying (again exacerbated by the shielding the internet brings, ie being unable to see the effect bullying has on the bullied), mob behaviour, and other extremes that can sometimes lead to illegal activity such as harassment or hacking in order to get a greater hold over a perceived opponent.

And unworkable for two reasons.

On the legislative front it will be very hard to impose what amounts to state-mandated decency rules on all "public" WiFi. The risk of being fined for allowing a bare nipple to slip through your modesty filter will merely discourage businesses from providing WiFi.

So instead I'm hearing what the Prime Minister wants - "clean, porn-free WiFi" - won't be enforced by legislation. It will instead be secured by a classic fudge that I've heard Ed Vaizey mutter tens of times: an industry code of conduct. The threat being if the industry doesn't enforce the rules, legislation will follow.

But which industry? The cafe industry? Or the hotel industry? Or the ISP industry? If the latter, then will ISPs providing a service to a cafe have to block porn at source? And if so, how will the cafe owner get his daily fix of flesh if he or she requires, behind closed doors, of course?

And on the technical front it's a running battle to filter all porn. A battle the filtering companies aren't winning and probably will never win - particularly in regards to over-blocking of 'legitimate' sites.

Plus there's the tricky issue of "dual-use" mainstream websites such as Flickr.

Flickr wasn't blocked when I tested a multitude of content filtering systems 18 months ago whilst with Open Digital.

But if you're over 18, not easily offended, in a private space and not using a work internet connection, you might try this:

Sign up to the 74th (according to Alexa at time of writing) most popular website in the world
Type your favourite sex words* in to the search box
In the results, click on Advanced Search and change the SafeSearch setting to "SafeSearch off"

It's not hard to find flesh. From there you can even get list of users who have favourited such images, and from there find other similar images favourited by that user. Or so my research assistant tells me!

So I assume Flickr will have to be blocked in internet cafes across the country.

Now imagine the following scenario: a tourist visiting London, uploading their day's photos to one of the world's most popular photo-sharing websites...

David Cameron's wish for clean public WiFi - noble, but utterly unworkable.

What we should be telling all parents is that they must work with their children on what is the digital equivalent of the green cross code re internet safety. Be aware of the dangers, mitigate the risks, and be careful chosing the devices you allow your children to use - consider devices with built-in locks on internet use for younger children, allowing only supervised access.

@JamesFirth

What's the real reason for Amazon resetting customer passwords?

2013-04-10T09:19:00.002+01:00

I got an email this morning from Amazon. A legit email, DKIM signed by Amazon's email server.

Amazon have reset my password because they say I 'may have been subject to a phishing scam'.

But why now? Running my own mail servers and a string of public email addresses I'm subject to Amazon phishing scams on an almost daily basis, as I am with many other companies.

And why did Amazon suspect I've been subjected to a phishing scam? Have they read the phishing emails on my private mail servers?...

No, of course they haven't. Phishing Amazon customers is an activity that only involves Amazon infrastructure when the scammers use credentials phished from me to perform illegal transactions on my account.

And since I'm pretty certain my credentials haven't been phished from me - as a professional involved in this area I'm on high alert for odd emails - the only reason I can think of for Amazon to suspect I'm at increased risk of phishing is if my email and perhaps other personal details have somehow leaked from Amazon.

I don't mind my password being reset as a security precaution.

But I do mind the tone of the email they sent, which makes it sound like it's my fault for being at increased risk of phishing, along with handy links to protect myself.

When I reset my account I will take the precaution of removing all my credit card details. Much as it is a pain to re-enter whenever I buy music I suspect there is more going on here.

Here's the email in full (my bold - I'm curious why they don't want me to use my previous password if I know I haven't been subject to a phishing attack...):

Hello J * Firth,

This is an important message from Amazon.co.uk

As a precaution, we've reset your Amazon.co.uk password because you may have been subject to a "phishing" scam.

Here's how phishing works:

A scam artist sends an e-mail, which is designed to look like it came from a reputable company such as a bank, financial institution, or retailer like Amazon.co.uk, but is in fact a forgery. These e-mails direct you to a website that looks remarkably similar to the reputable company's website, where you are asked to provide account information such as your e-mail address and password. Since that website is actually controlled by the phisher, they get the information you entered.

Go to amazon.co.uk/phish to read more about ways to protect yourself from phishing.

To regain access to your Amazon customer account:

1. Go to Amazon.co.uk and click the "Your Account" link at the top of our website.

2. Under Account Settings, click the link that says "Forgotten your password?"

3. Follow the instructions to set a new password for your account.

Please choose a new password and do not use the same password you used with us previously. If you have used the same password for your email account as on your Amazon.co.uk account, you should also change your email account password to prevent phishers from reading and/or stealing your emails.

I hope this helps.

We look forward to seeing you again soon at Amazon.co.uk

Sincerely,

Amazon.co.uk

Please note: this e-mail was sent from an address that cannot accept incoming e-mail. To contact us about an unrelated issue, please visit the Help section of our website.

@JamesFirth

The Stirling Engine and the iPhone

2013-02-22T11:16:00.001Z

The Epiphany One Puck
Credit: Epiphany Labs

A couple of weeks ago I read about a Kickstarter project to develop a phone charger powered by a hot cup of coffee. The device is nicknamed The Puck, or the Epiphany One Puck in long form.

Two things interest me.

Will it work? I'm interested not just from an engineering perspective but also curious as to whether Kickstarter and other crowd funding platforms will ultimately end up pushing developments in engineering and technology or simply fund lifestyle projects with no realistic use, value or chance of success.

And the resurgence of the Stirling engine - invented nearly 200 years ago - used not just in The Puck but undergoing something of a renaissance of late, featuring in a variety of other micro-generation and transportation projects that have come to my attention.

How can a technology conceived of in 1816 suddenly come of age like this? A lesson perhaps for any inventor or entrepreneur hoping to make a fortune from a Killer App or other gadget.

~~~

If The Puck works - as in is capable of charging a mobile phone from a common domestic heat source - it could spawn a revolution in micro-generation which until recently has focussed on fuel cell technology.

The physics says it could work - but it's on the margins and a lot will depend on how efficient The Puck is at turning heat into electricity.

A typical smartphone battery stores around 18,000 joules (5 Watt-hours) or energy and is surprisingly efficient to charge - manufacturers claim 80-90%.

So we'll need around 5.5-6 Watt-hours of energy to fully-charge a phone.

A 350ml cup of boiling water has theoretical stored energy of 117,600 joules (32.7 Watt-hours) in a room at a temperature of 20 degrees C (weight of water in grammes multiplied by the specific heat capacity of water (4.2) multiplied by the temperature difference in Celsius/Kelvin).

So in theory the Stirling engine in The Puck need only achieve 17% efficiency to fully-charge a modern smartphone, and the laws of thermodynamics says the Stirling engine is - in theory at least (and yes, I do hold a Physics degree) - extremely efficient at turning heat energy into mechanical motion.

~~~

But that is sadly just theory. In practice larger Stirling generators on the market have an efficiency of between 10-28% (example) without heat regenerators.

Running at a lower temperature difference means the theoretical thermodynamic efficiency of The Puck will be far higher (Carnot cycle), however the lower power output at lower temperature differences means mechanical friction will play a much greater role in lowering the overall efficiency.

A low temperature difference could also add to the engineering challenge in building a usable generator into a small space.

And then, in the efficiency equation, we have the dynamo required to turn the mechanical energy into electricity, and the voltage stabilisation circuitry to provide a clean 5v of power to your phone.

If I had to guess I'd say the manufacturers will struggle to top 10% efficiency in turning heat into 5-Volts of electrical power but this is just my opinion. I've been unable to find any published claims by the manufacturers.

~~~

Still, that would charge even the most power-hungry phone to two thirds from one cup of coffee, which ain't that bad... Or would it?

When talking about the theoretical energy in a cup of boiling water I didn't mention leakage - heat lost into the local environment through a surface other than the Epiphany One Puck.

Heat rises - or rather the heat energy in the cup of hot water concentrates at the top due to convection currents in the water, and consequently far more heat is lost through the top of the cup than the sides or bottom, where The Puck sits.

And then there's evaporation. A large percentage - it can be as much as 70% from a well-insulated cup - of heat energy lost from a hot liquid is via evaporation.

Without taking extra steps to insulate your heat source (coffee), using a lid to minimise evaporation and perhaps placing The Puck above rather than below your well-insulated cup you could end up losing 90% of the energy stored in the boiling coffee.

And now we're only talking about charging 6% of your phone's battery and being left with stone-cold coffee in the process.

And I haven't even mentioned a potential mismatch between the rate of cooling of your coffee and the power consumed by your phone. My phone takes a couple of hours to charge from mains electricity - making insulation of the heat source used by The Puck essential over this time frame.

~~~

Yet I'm still quite excited by the project. Coffee is only one heat source - there's always the sun (in some countries) and in cold countries it's easier to find a heater on e.g. a train in the UK than it is an electrical socket.

I like the idea of having a handy, portable, well-packaged Stirling generator even though I might need a dozen cups of coffee to charge my phone. If Epiphany Labs can pull this off they'll have solved a number of engineering challenges that make projects like this very worthwhile.

@JamesFirth

Inventiveness and the noble art of shirking

2013-01-09T13:31:00.002Z

This post isn't meant to be politically motivated, but politicians right now do seem obsessed with "work" in a Dickensian sense: hard work; dividing the population into two disparate groups: those striving to get by and shirkers.

The problem? It's nearly 150 years since Dickens died and automation means only a modest portion of the total workforce is required to maintain the supply of essential goods and services needed to keep the country running.

That is, we aren't all needed to tend to the fields and keep the factories running in order to make sure the population is fed and clothed.

And as machines get cleverer and more versatile even fewer workers will be required for essential jobs.

The problem with the Victorian juxtaposition of hard work and valour is twofold. It rewards needless labour and stigmatises those who struggle to find a way to make themselves useful.

And it can end up punishing some sections of society in a perverse way - notably those who care full time for a relative or child.

Should these people be forced against their wishes to work, leaving their loved one in the care of a stranger?

Logically it makes no sense; swapping one person's labour for another so that the one more suited through a family bond can go and earn money to pay for the labour of another to look after their relative.

Laziness, the root of all evil?

I'm incredibly lazy - at times. I've been known to put-off boring tasks for months. Yet I've worked round the clock - literally - on some projects to ensure things that need to happen do happen.

How I respond to "work" is pretty much based on the reward on offer.

And reward is a complex equation, not a chunk of money.

Reward can be intellectual nourishment or satisfaction in some way, knowing I've solved a problem or made life easier for myself and others in future.

What I see as my inherent laziness often drives my inventive side. Many years ago I was tasked with a very tedious job setting up and running software tests using a complex, buggy, outdated and laborious system.

At 24 I was mortified that my new relatively senior job at a major company had been reduced to following a long list of detailed instructions; effectively pressing the right button at the right time.

And I was horrified that no-one had found the time to fix the situation.

I didn't want to do this well-paid job but my manager at the time wouldn't listen to reason. Do the assigned work or get fired (I was on a 3-month trial).

Was I a shirker? Probably.

I just couldn't be bothered to do this mind-numbing task, doing pretty-much nothing for a week, before resolving to re-write the whole system - no small feat given the size of the project I was working on.

But I was already behind on running the tests, so I worked 14-hour days to automate the testing process, leaving a legacy saving effort on future projects and bagging a promotion.

If it wasn't for my laziness I'd have done it the way it had always been done - the hard way.

@JamesFirth

ePetitions: 5 million signatories per year, run on a modest budget. An eGovernment success story?

2012-12-18T12:16:00.003Z

Not every FOI request reveals a costly waste of taxpayer's cash.

I requested some statistics on the government's ePetitions service epetitions.direct.gov.uk and was pleasantly surprised by what I found.

I was - still am - quite concerned that a deal of effort seems to go into moderating what petitions are allowed, with some petitions rejected e.g. for duplication when the text is substantially different to the nearest similar petition.

I'm a bit of a purist. I believe a petition is a petition and it's not up to the government to decide which are valid and which are not. Duplication is a fact of life with user-generated content and the online crowd seems to deal with it in its own way.

Some petitions will get forgotten and others will rise to prominence on some trend or other.

Anyhow, that aside I was pleasantly surprised to find the epetitions service runs on a relative shoestring of £25,680 per annum in the last financial year.

Between April 2011 and March 2012 it serviced 5.1 million signatories, created around 15,000 new petitions and was relatively popular with 13.4 million visits (55.2 million page views).

In my opinion this service provides good value.

Whereas online popularity, signatory counts, etc are notoriously easy to game; the government's own service requires a UK address one assumes is validated in some way. If not correlated with the electoral role, storing a physical address should make it easier to detect all but the most modest anomaly.

It's logical to assume the government trusts the signatory count on its own service far more than it would a. n. other ePetition service.

Assuming the Cabinet Office uses the feedback on this service when developing government policy I'm more than happy to have public funds spent in this way.

Full details here, with thanks as always to MySociety.org's FOI tool WhatDoTheyKnow.com.

@JamesFirth

Richard O'Dwyer fined £20k - but what of the "missing" £120k, or did the prosecution exaggerate?

2012-12-07T09:36:00.002Z

The Guardian this morning reports Richard O'Dywer was fined £20,000 and ordered to undergo 6 months of some kind of US-UK remote probation as part of a deal which resulted in extradition proceedings against Richard being dropped.

Now, I don't blame Richard for accepting a deal in which this blog understands will result in no criminal record for Richard on either side of the Atlantic. Proceedings against Gary McKinnon dragged on for ten years; the deal allows Richard O'Dwyer to put this behind him and get on with his studies and the rest of his life.

But I have a serious question about the fine, which is reported in the Guardian as (my bold):

He was also ordered to pay the US dollar equivalent of £20,000, which represents profits earned by his website between December 2007 and November 2010. The money will be used to "repay victims whose copyrights were infringed by TVShack", according to the agreement.

Comparing this to Westminster Magistrates' Court records, where the prosecution alleged:

Complaint is made of the operation by Richard O’Dwyer of a website “TVShack.net” by which, in essence, he is said to have enabled the web surfing public free access to copyrighted feature films/ “movies” and TV programmes earning “over $230,000 in advertising revenue”. The complaint runs from about December 2007 to 29th June 2010 when a U.S. “seizure warrant” seized the domain name “TVShack.net”.

The prosecution alleged TVShack received the equivalent of over £140,000 in revenue, yet settled for £20,000 as equivalent to the profits of the venture.

So if the Guardian has got its facts straight here either TVShack had operating costs of £120,000 over 3 years - equivalent to £40,000 per year for what can't be more than a couple of servers - or the figures provided by the prosecution in the extradition request were a gross over-estimate.

Either way the deal, whilst a relief to Richard and his family, is quite distasteful.

"Pay or we'll extradite" is a high-stakes extension of the "pay or get sued" letters about to hit the doormats of 1,000 UK ISP subscribers for paying the internet bill in a house where someone allegedly used the internet to watch porn.

I don't doubt the extradition collapsed because either the prosecution realised its case wasn't as strong as presented to Westminster Magistrates' Court; or the Home Secretary, whilst publicly supporting extradition, realised how unpopular the decision would be and so privately warned the US Attorney General in his visit last month that they wouldn't get their man.

Either way this fine and charade of 6 months remote probation is a face-saving exercise.

We need to ensure that people who commit crimes whilst in the UK are tried in the UK.

And we need to keep a check on the scam forcing people into cash settlements because the cost, stress and risks in clearing their name through the courts are disproportionately higher than the settlement figure.

@JamesFirth

Want a knowledge economy in the UK? It's time for the UK government to freeze-out the dominant voices of the big guns

2012-12-06T09:41:00.001Z

From Wikipedia:

Regulatory capture occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.

In a similar vein, I am increasingly worried about the UK government's reliance on advice from global (US) tech firms in drafting public policy and initiatives for the UK.

It's a difficult relationship. On one hand we cash-in on the funding and expertise of tech giants to help our own tech economy.

On the other hand we have a proud history of innovation in technology, science and engineering that was pretty much drowned out by the US giants of the 80's and 90's (IBM, Microsoft).

Reliance on advisers linked to Google and the like is in danger of creating a culture of subservience in technology. Building an engineering resource tailored to the demands of today's tech giants.

Moreover, initiatives like Google's Campus London are nothing more than a government-sponsored business development tool for Google.

In exchange for housing Britain's innovative tech companies, Google gets to forge links allowing it to cherry-pick the best investment opportunities.

And investment from a giant like Google isn't necessarily about growing strong, independent companies. It's about growing Google through acquisition to bolster its own portfolio and, on occasions, quell competition.

Subservience also comes in other forms. For example, a business mainly reliant on Twitter's data feed can suddenly find itself on the wrong side of Twitter's Terms and Conditions and the whole business fails, losing investors - UK tech investors included - substantial sums.

If your tech business is reliant on a parent organism then there are only three realistic outcomes: become moderately successful, be bought out, or fail.

For if the venture becomes too successful then the parent organism will pull the plug one way or another in order to retain its dominance in the space.

One reason tech giants bend over to allow third party integration with their products is that it provides low cost, risk free innovation. Private capital funds the 3rd-party application. If the application proves successful then the company is bought out by the lager company, if it fails the company is forgotten.

I'm sure there are benefits to the approach, but I'm also sure it leaves many innovators and investors chasing dreams.

I'm not knocking the approach in itself. But everyone, governments included, need to see through the gloss when turning to US tech giants to grow Britain's tech sector.

@JamesFirth

#Leveson is excellent on internet free speech. He didn't brush over it, he robustly defended it

2012-11-30T15:55:00.000Z

Leveson says 2 things about the internet.

Firstly, he draws a clear distinction between a news outlet which claims to provide trusted reporting and the internet in general, where there is no implied trust (although Leveson uses the term ethical rather than trusted, which in this particular case I believe are interchangeable as trust in news output flows from ethical journalism).

Chapter 7, section 3.2:

"... the internet does not claim to operate by any particular ethical standards, still less high ones. Some have called it a ‘wild west’ but I would prefer to use the term ‘ethical vacuum’. This is not to say for one moment that everything on the internet is therefore unethical. That would be a gross mischaracterisation of the work of very many bloggers and websites which should rightly and fairly be characterised as valuable and professional. The point I am making is a more modest one, namely that the internet does not claim to operate by express ethical standards, so that bloggers and others may, if they choose, act with impunity."

Leveson doesn't say this but there is also a jurisdiction issue online. It's not strictly true that bloggers may act with impunity if based in the UK, as there's always the possibility they will be traced using existing legal instruments and prosecuted or face civil proceedings for libel or privacy breach.

7.3.3:

"The press, on the other hand, does claim to operate by and adhere to an ethical code of conduct. Publishers of newspapers will be (or, at least, are far more likely to be) far more heavily resourced than most, if not all, bloggers and websites that report news (as opposed to search engines that direct those on line to different sites). Newspapers, through whichever medium they are delivered, purport to offer a quality product in all senses of that term."

Secondly, he draws a distinction between content being available (to those who search out such information) and being actively promoted, e.g. on the front page of a tabloid:

7.3.4:

"There is a qualitative difference between photographs being available online and being displayed, or blazoned, on the front page of a newspaper such as The Sun. The fact of publication in a mass circulation newspaper multiplies and magnifies the intrusion, not simply because more people will be viewing the images, but also because more people will be talking about them. Thus, the fact of publication inflates the apparent newsworthiness of the photographs by placing them more firmly within the public domain and at the top of the news agenda."

This I feel is a crucial point often overlooked when talking about privacy and defamation in an online context. Just because someone tweeted something doesn't mean anyone read it.

Having said all this I do feel Leveson is brushing over the effect of e.g. high profile tweeters, but it takes time and patience to feed an elephant.

@JamesFirth

The elephant in the anti-Leveson editorials: privacy and libel, and the paradoxes they bring

2012-11-30T13:03:00.002Z

Leveson's free press paradox. He wants a free press. He wants a regulatory framework.

Cameron's voluntary body paradox. If major papers don't sign up, he'll pass laws to force them.

Leveson's voluntary body paradox. There are benefits for joining and, through exemplary damages and court cost arrangements, potentially hefty punishments for not joining.

Sitting at the heart of all these seemingly paradoxical positions is one reality: we do not have, today, a press that is entirely free from all state control.

And the shackles of privacy and libel law would become far more restrictive should we have an effective enforcement regime for all.

Whether or not we want or need privacy and defamation rights enshrined in law is itself a question I can't answer without tying myself in knots.

But we have them today.

Day-to-day enforcement is through the civil court, and because the judiciary is independent of the state, some argue there is no "state control" of the press.

And here is the problem at the core of Leveson: the state has granted us all a right of privacy and a right to defend our reputation, yet today we don't all have access to defend these rights due to the cost of access to the civil courts and the threat of being bankrupted by the opposing side's costs should we lose.

So Leveson is proposing a tribunal of sorts that should offer a means of redress for anyone wronged by the press without having to resort to a court.

Whilst Leveson conveniently (and thankfully) ignored the far more complex online questions - complex because we all become publishers and potential victims of intrusion - defamation and privacy are becoming increasingly important rights for everyone.

Particularly victims of crime and those falsely accused of a crime, who can suffer at the hands of the press and, the latter at least, at the hands of online publishers too.

Inevitably any such tribunal will face the accusation that it is restricting a free press unless the body is run entirely by the free press; which is where we were with the "toothless" and "ineffective" Press Complaints Commission.

Full circle.

A war by proxy on privacy rights and smaller publications

However you analyse it, attacking Leveson's findings is a war by proxy against effective redress for privacy violations and defamation for the less wealthy.

We need to have this debate now. A debate about privacy and defamation rights and access to redress.

It upsets me to hear politicians arguing in parliament that newspapers should be prevented from "printing rubbish" as behind such words seemingly in the public interest lies a desire to control the output of the press in some way that is quite frankly unacceptable.

And it upsets me to see powerful publishers - the country's biggest - rubbishing the debate before its already started because there's another power play bubbling under the surface. Protection of the old media's established position against smaller publishers and online sources.

Supporting the status quo leaves questions of privacy and libel in the sole care of the court. And this leaves smaller publications disproportionately affected by the threat of high court costs - even when defending well-founded and valid criticism of powerful people.

I'm absolutely convinced that dominance and monopoly is a major contributing factor to the collusion, corruption and unethical workplace behaviour that became normalised in a small but notable section of the tabloid press. A small section that commandeered a very large audience.

The "guardians of democracy" became complicit in the subversion of democracy. But not all the "guardians", and this is crucial because there won't be a perfect solution - there'll be a least-worst option - and we might have to put up with such abuses as an unavoidable side effect of the benefit of a free press.

We need plurality but we also need large, powerful news outlets capable of going where smaller organisations cannot afford or find the balls to go.

Freedom to, freedom from (again)

I see no clear answers. But perhaps more worrying I see very little honest debate.

I sympathise with much of what David Cameron said yesterday, yet he spent half his time at the dispatch box trumpeting the questionable fact that Leveson had exonerated him and his then media minister of collusion in the Murdoch affair. The rest of the time he merely deflected, rather than answered, his critics.

Grossly unfair generalisations and simplistic statements flowed back from the opposition benches.

Anyone following the debate would be lead to believe we are a country void of honest journalism; when in fact we have today a free press, one of the freest in the world - and yes that is a considered opinion - which consistently exposes issues in the public interest and, tabloids aside, generally behaves itself.

And yes it's not perfect. The MPs' expenses scandal was exposed. Arms to Iraq was exposed. Yet neither Jimmy Savile nor Cyril Smith were exposed; and I suspect the true scale of corruption at the heart of the North Wales child abuse scandal and other pockets of localised corruption have so far evaded press scrutiny.

We need a debate not about press abuses but about privacy, defamation and redress.

A debate that is focussed on protecting freedom, properly balancing the "freedom to" publish against the public's right of a "freedom from" intrusion.

Past debates on privacy and defamation have in my view been steered by vested interests towards the concerns of the powerful in defending their own reputation and privacy, hence why court costs are rarely seen as a problem and why corporations have defamation and some privacy rights.

Yet "freedom from" protection in a free society should be aimed primarily at protecting the vulnerable against the strong; not the powerful against the public, for the powerful should use their platform to defend themselves, not fall back to laws which encumber free and open discussion.

I imagine it's hard for an MP, the protection of whose image and reputation is vital to his or her chances of re-election, to see privacy and libel from the perspective of an ordinary person wronged in the press or defamed on Facebook, whilst acknowledging their own rights as an elected representative must necessarily be curtailed to facilitate open political debate in a democracy, but I hope one day this debate will take place.

Can we draw clear lines to weed-out unacceptable abuses, to provide strong but well-defined protection, a "freedom from", without impinging too far on free speech - a "freedom to"?

Can we have effective privacy and defamation laws that protect all regardless of ability to pay without creating a monster which eventually shackles the free press? I genuinely don't know the answer.

@JamesFirth

What hand did the British government have in halting the Richard O'Dwyer extradition, and why are they not claiming credit?

2012-11-29T10:32:00.001Z

Here's a thought. US prosecutors demanding extradition of Sheffield student Richard O'Dwyer for copyright infringement definitely did not wake up one morning feeling generous.

Granted, it might have started to dawn on prosecutors, pressured by film and record studios to pursue the case, that their demand for extradition might be a tad flimsy.

Plenty of lawyers have been in touch with me with the view that, whilst Richard, some argue, should have faced prosecution in the UK, the case for extradition was very thin indeed.

The novel Deferred Prosecution Agreement deal reached with O'Dwyer is almost certainly a face-saving exercise.

But the timing of the deal suggests to me the British government had a welcome hand in bringing the case to a relatively speedy resolution (18 months, compared to the ten years Gary McKinnon remained in legal limbo).

16th October: Gary Mckinnon's extradition was halted. US Attorney General Eric Holder was reported to be "very disappointed" and "completely screwed" by Theresa May's decision.

7th November: Obama is re-elected, ending months of political uncertainty in Washington. Note in his 2nd and final term, Obama is no longer fighting for campaign dollars from traditional Democrat supporters like the Hollywood movie studios.

21st November: Attorney General Eric Holder visits UK on a charm offensive. Accepts he was "disappointed" but denies saying he felt "completely screwed" re McKinnon in a Radio 4 Today interview.

Whilst I tweeted the BBC's Sarah Montague that she should have asked about O'Dwyer, Eric Holder trotted off for tea and biscuits with Theresa May.

Just one week later..

28th November: The extradition of Richard O'Dwyer, hugely unpopular amongst British voters according to a YouGov survey last June, is dropped.

Just 9% of respondents thought O'Dwyer should be extradited, whilst 46% believed he should not be prosecuted at all. 26% thought he should be tried in the UK.

Crucially for Theresa May, the same poll showed even more Conservative voters (33%) thought he should be tried in the UK, with 45% believing he should not face prosecution at all.

It's well known international diplomacy is mostly about positioning and face-saving so it's hardly surprising the British government, if it did have a hand in this very welcome outcome, is staying quiet.

But it's a shame for democracy that we don't have a bit of transparency on the positions adopted by our elected representatives.

The US studios take something home from the Deferred Prosecution Deal struck with O'Dwyer - the press hysteria over a student potentially being shipped abroad as punishment for serving films from his Sheffield flat has almost certainly made a whole generation wary of crossing the big guns who control the world's supply of western music and film.

Whether or not Theresa May did have a hand in halting the extradition in reality there's not going to be another O'Dwyer.

The US prosecution authorities walked naively into a political minefield.

Whilst the Hollywood studios lapped up the publicity as a massive, free anti-piracy commercial carrying a potent warning, I doubt Washington ever envisaged the burgeoning publicity and political backlash in Britain around O'Dwyer - nor in New Zealand for Kim Dotcom.

The message sent back across the Atlantic is simple: the UK/US extradition deal is a political hot potato in Westminster. Any attempt to abuse the process to nab petty criminals who've never set foot in the US may seriously hinder future attempts to ship terrorists, rapists and murderers back to the US.

I doubt anyone will try a stunt like this for quite a while.

@JamesFirth

Signals drowned by noise: top 5 conspiracy bullshit lines

2012-11-26T16:57:00.000Z

The online signal-to-noise ratio is approaching 1:∞ and some of the nonsense repeated by blog after blog gets so tiresome I can't believe anything online gets taken seriously any more.

Or maybe the massive increase in the noise bed is just all part of a disinformation cover-up conspiracy??!

Either way readers need to get a bit more discerning in a world where anyone can publish anything.

Here's my top 5 of the dodgiest crap cropping up over and over again, no matter what the conspiracy is.

5. Documents snatched by police/MI5 or other shady intruder

Yes it's convenient for your alleged foe that your cache of documents was disappeared. But it's also convenient for your conspiracy you were too lazy or stupid to take precautions.

You're bright enough to spot the value of the evidence you hold but not clever enough to work a photocopier and find a hidey-hole?

Since 1987 you could walk into most local shops and libraries and copy away without raising an eyebrow. Deposit said copy with a friend, a solicitor - in the event of my death, etc, etc.

There's even fewer excuses today. Scan them onto a USB stick or set an email to go out in the event of your death from ifidie.org or similar.

4. The unnamed military/political/intelligence insider

When a newspaper runs a story from an unnamed insider you can bet your life at least one other person - a senior editor at the paper - thoroughly checked the reporter's notes and that publication has been discussed at the highest level. Papers hate running important stories with unnamed sources.

Why? Because it's so bloody easy to invent secret sources to back up any story. Check The Wire Season 5 for a picture penned by journalist David Simon.

And just assuming the person stepping out of the shadows to tip you off does exist, and he or she is actually affiliated to MI5 or whatever... How do you know they're not just yanking your chain? Leading me on to...

3. The story that mainstream media can't/is too scared to publish (or is subject to a D-Notice)

Why did your unnamed military/political/intelligence insider come to you and your crappy little blog and not the mainstream media? (Yes, yes... I've had people leak stuff to me - but it's hardly been explosive. Falls into the category: too niche for mainstream media).

Wait a minute, a D-Notice you say? The D-notice system, being voluntary and known as DA-Notices since 1993. Whilst I'm sure the D-Notice system has been abused in the past there's little hard evidence; which is weird, considering journalists are a talkative bunch.

Even contemporary assertions such as use of a D-Notice to cover up an "embarrassing" 1971 bank robbery are at odds with what was printed in The Times in the 1970s (see Wikipedia for sources).

Recently we know there was a widely reported blackout over Prince Harry's Iraq deployment and a reminder to editors of the standing DA-Notices over Wikileaks, the existence of both was quickly reported, you'll note.

News of Prince Harry's first tour was outed by overseas media and Wikileaks is publicly accessible - hardly evidence of effective media censorship. The MOD seem to have realised secrecy is futile for Prince Harry's second deployment.

So the question remains: why feed this ground-breaking story to your crappy little blog?

2. Person X is linked to person Y

Take one person who maybe did die in suspicious circumstances or has proven dodgy connections, person X. Combine with the person you want to implicate, person Y. Add to Google. Discover the wife of the cousin of person Y sat on some school or charitable board with person X. Bingo!

"Person Y, who has proven links to disgraced/jailed/dodgy person X..."

Sometimes the connection is even more tenuous, like both living in Hampshire.

1. It's always a Freemason/Bilderberg/Common Purpose/Priory of Sion conspiracy

Yes, the bulk of evidence offered up by conspiracy theorists still plays to that most basic of human emotions: social rejection. A secret society that you'll never be able to join.

They must be up to no good. How very dare they gang together behind closed doors with all their weird rituals? They must be murdering children and orchestrating world domination!

Freemasons are responsible for everything. Including Britain's love of CCTV cameras. Apparently. BS.

Buy the book!

One true fact I did uncover trawling the web of conspiracy. Many of the bloggers and "truth-seekers" quite conveniently have a book for sale through the marvels of self-publishing. How convenient. Sure signs of a conspiracy if you ask me!

One notable conclusion from the above: secrecy breeds conspiracy.

@JamesFirth

Alcohol minimum price, economically flawed?

2012-11-26T11:05:00.001Z

There are two questions regarding action on alcohol abuse. Should the government act to artificially raise the price of alcohol and should it do this through duty (taxation) or setting a minimum price per unit.

I don't much care for the ideological debate about whether the government should act; but if it does intend to act, is minimum price setting the right way forward?

I have a major concern about how the wholesale market will work. In a free market there is no legal distinction between someone who sells to an end user (retailer) and someone who sells to other traders (wholesaler).

Whilst many wholesalers erect, for various reasons, artificial barriers, e.g. only admitting customers who can prove they are working on behalf of a vat-registered entity; there is nothing in law to prevent a member of public buying direct from a wholesaler.

Nor is there anything to prevent a retailer buying discounted goods from another retailer and selling themselves at profit (although again there are sometimes attempts to prevent this by the retailer).

It's the free market. We are free to buy and free to sell.

So if a minimum price per unit for alcohol is set, will this also apply to wholesalers? And breweries?

It's an important question, because either way it really messes up the economy. If it does apply to all sales, then there will need to be a mark-up each time the alcohol is traded. A 45p minimum unit price could easily reach 60p at retail.

For this reason small shops who can't afford to buy direct from the brewery will be disproportionately affected (supermarket chains rarely if ever buy from wholesalers).

If it doesn't apply to wholesale then what's to stop those of us with access to a wholesaler bulk-buying cheaper alcohol for personal use? In fact wholesalers could be in for a cash bonanza.

Whilst officially they don't like members of the public shopping there, secretly it's positively encouraged. Cash is cash. Someone once told me the only reason they have membership requirements is because the manufacturers insist on it in order to qualify for huge buyer discounts.

Buying in bulk from wholesalers will encourage stockpiling, and this is known to be bad for health. I haven't got references (sorry) but a Swedish researcher once told me experience in Sweden where shops were banned from selling alcohol at weekends was that people stockpiled on Friday, over-stocked for fear of running out, yet invariably drank all they bought.

And of course many will be encouraged to illegally resell wholesale alcohol if the profits available made up for the risks of getting caught. After all, who's going to dob in the guy selling 4-packs down the Crown that *didn't* fall off the back of a lorry?

I can see why the government favours minimal pricing over taxation - the middle classes don't want to see a £9.99 bottle of Cab Sauv rise in order to hike the price of Buckfast and Tennent's Super.

But I seriously wonder if this well-intended move will either do little for public health (maybe encourage home brewing too?) or cause a major headache for the alcohol trade.

@JamesFirth

The IT 'community' - conspiracy and scandal for future decades?

2012-11-23T11:32:00.002Z

A lesson from history?

History has shown those who control a useful commodity become powerful, is it sysadmin's turn asks @jamesfirth feedproxy.google.com/~r/sroc/yteT/~…
— Simon Burall (@sburall) December 5, 2012

There is a whiff of conspiracy in the London offices of global tech giants.

Policy advisers - senior guys - from several companies have in the past assured me over the years they are taking a more robust line internally towards protecting free speech online than they're prepared to admit in public.

On one hand it's sad that Jimmy Wales is one of the few tech giants who has consistently taken a stance protecting internet freedoms (e.g. campaigning against SOPA, Richard O'Dwyer extradition, Russian web controls, etc.)

On the other hand it's reassuring that many in tech, at all levels, are quietly working behind the scenes to defend freedom and human rights.

Or is it?

Will the duplicity, secret deal-making and lack of transparency over the "corporate line" end up threatening democracy?

And that's without considering the international angle - how the "corporate line" for China sits with the ethics and values of a company headquartered at the home of the first amendment.

Take the recent Twitterstorm over McAlpine libel madness. Watching conversations on Twitter, blogs, etc I saw the beginnings of a conspiracy emerge along the lines of (not verbatim as I didn't capture logs):

"Twitter are about to strike a deal with McAlpine's lawyers as soon as the Met Police investigation gets underway..."

"No they're not, a friend actually works for Twitter, they're going to do all they can to stop this"

"Someone inside Twitter is on our side, they suspended that account for spreading unhelpful disinformation"

Of course the above is probably nothing more than idle speculation, but it did make me wonder whether the IT community would become tomorrow's "in club" to fear.

After all, the sysadmins at two of the companies I previously had association with were incredibly well-informed when it came to company gossip - on account of them reading my and presumably others' files and emails.

I established this by laying traps, sending private links to redirectors I controlled and checking when they were being accessed; plus, when possible, checking the "last access" time-stamp on my mailbox. In one case many years ago I overheard a sysadmin telling a joke I'd just sent to two colleagues via email.

History has shown those who control a useful commodity become powerful.

The high priests of ancient Egypt controlled your spiritual destiny. Few questioned why when they suggested you must be buried with your most valuable possessions, at a location where only they knew...

Biblical "money-changers" were the early bankers and became powerful through controlling the supply of money.

And as the law became more pervasive and important to all sections of society, the lawyers who understood the complex instruments became powerful as the gatekeepers to justice (for all who could afford their fees).

Now data, or connected data, has rapidly become a commodity vital to us all. Our social lives lived out through Facebook, our entertainment through video download and our daily business conducted online.

One challenge for the future, as well as ensuring no one company or nation controls the majority of internet communications, will be to prevent those who understand the complex domain becoming the gatekeepers in order to subvert the power for their own gain.

Preventing rogue employees dipping into the data, playing their own power games on users whose accounts they control, etc, is challenge enough. But here technology can solve technology's problem through end-end-encryption, access controls, logs and safeguards to detect anomalous access patters.

The other challenge will be to ensure the minority with the skills to understand connected data systems - and it will always be a minority - is a sizeable and diverse minority and not one which closes ranks and forms shady select groups to profit from their access and cover each other's back.

The challenge is to ensure that freedom remains at the heart of the online agenda, and also in the heart of those who have become the gatekeepers to our data.

@JamesFirth

Allegedly defamatory content definitely de-indexed from Google UK, Google does not do this lightly, injunction likely

2012-11-22T09:41:00.002Z

One of the websites I've been keeping an eye on as part of my reporting of the McAlpine saga and my series on how rumour, fact and falsehood spread online (1, 2, 3) has been de-indexed from Google UK; and this is most likely the result of a court order (injunction), as I will explain.

"In response to a legal requested submitted to Google,
we have removed 1 result(s) from this page."
Notice on Google.co.uk this morning

The website is still available when searching from overseas locations using Google.com.

For very obvious reasons in the current climate I will not say more about the website in question than I need in order to report the significance. The website makes several serious allegations about UK politicians relating to events over a decade ago.

For full clarity there is no evidence to suggest the removal has anything to do with Lord McAlpine or his legal team, as the website mentions several other politicians.

To those not familiar with Google's stance on free speech this might not be surprising, given the recent furore over false identification.

False allegations of the most serious nature have elicited an emotional response - from both sides of the debate.

Even some free speech advocates are wrestling right now with the question of whether some "regulation" (for want of a better word) might be necessary, whilst others are arguing that cover-ups will continue whilst the establishment continues to maintain a grip on communications.

That said, I have it on extremely good authority from multiple high level sources within Google that the company does not take down defamatory content lightly.

"Normally, in the UK, that would require a court order" said one of my contacts.

This raises the likelihood that there is at least one court injunction in place preventing allegations being made about one or more of the people mentioned on the website in question.

From Google's own Transparency Report, over 80% of UK take-downs for defamation in the last 2 years stemmed from a court order, the rest from "Executive, Police, etc":

Google UK take-downs requests by category
Source: Google's Transparency Report (UK)

It is not thought that Google will remove defamatory content merely on application from the subject or the subject's lawyer, without a court order; therefore it's reasonable to believe either a court order exists (>80% probability, based on the stats), or the request originated from the police or the security services (<.20% probability).

The above stats are for requests, not take-downs. Similar statistics are not available filtered by compliance. Google's take-down ratio is around 61% as of this summer so it's highly likely the ratio of court orders to police, etc requests for content actually taken down is higher than 80%.

Google have so far taken a firm line with requests from UK police in the absence of a court order, highlighting (under United Kingdom section):

"We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove 14 search results for linking to sites that criticise the police and claim individuals were involved in obscuring crimes. We did not remove content in response to this request. In addition, we received a request from another local law enforcement agency to remove a YouTube video for criticising the agency of racism. We did not remove content in response to this request.

The number of content removal requests we received increased by 98% compared to the previous reporting period."

In any case we may soon be able to view the actual order at some point due to Google's participation in the Chilling Effects project.

@JamesFirth

Two takes on McAlpine's attempts to make a criminal complaint

2012-11-21T14:15:00.000Z

Not content with a BBC apology, damages, resignation of its Director General; ongoing attempts to extract damages from ITV for a flash of a card that anyone without specialist software and an inkling what to expect on the card could read; targeted action against several high profile tweeters and mass action against thousands more...

It was reported today that Lord McAlpine's lawyers have approached the Met Police with a view to making a criminal complaint.

If you want the legal ins-and-outs of criminal malicious communications try David Allen Green.

But it's also interesting to look behind this complaint at what might be happening.

There's two schools of thought. @Syn0nymph has had some interesting observations to date and he speculates that a criminal complaint will make it easier to extract user information from Twitter than through the civil courts.

"Earlier in the week a spokeswoman for Twitter in the U.K. pointed out the company’s statement on requests for personal information:

“U.S. law authorizes Twitter to respond to requests for user information from foreign law enforcement agencies that are issued via U.S. court either by way of a mutual legal assistance treaty or a letter rogatory. It is our policy to respond to such U.S. court ordered requests when properly served.”

Read his full post here.

It's worth noting that South Tyneside Council is reported to have spent £142,725 trying in vain to unmask one user in the infamous "Mr Monkey case".

It could get very costly for McAlpine to unmask hundreds of tweeters via the civil courts, with no guarantee of success. A criminal complaint might be very handy indeed.

My own take on this relates to the online backlash since McAlpine announced he'd take action against 10,000 tweeters.

Opinion in my own circle is split - with the majority sympathetic of McAlpine - whilst I argue many tweeters could be forgiven for their folly and that such moves risk dramatically narrowing the range of voices and participation in online debate.

However I have noticed through keeping an eye on certain noisy quarters of the internet that McAlpine's attempts to rein-in Twitter have created a pretty awful backlash.

Not quite the Streisand Effect but a degree of anger and rage at perceived injustice and cover-ups in general in relation to child abuse inquiries.

I'm wondering whether McAlpine's approach to the Met Police might actually be in relation to the strong abuse and re-statement of serious allegations by a minority online.

Obviously personal attacks can't be condoned but I can't help feel that the best way to put this and so many other rumours doing the rounds to bed is not criminal action against the angry mob but a wide-ranging inquiry into historical mistreatment of children in care and a historical unwillingness for police to investigate allegations at the time.

@JamesFirth

The de-democratisation of democratised media

2012-11-20T11:26:00.000Z

Ignorance is no defence in law.

No-one gets off a murder charge just because they thought it was legal to shoot a Welshman with a longbow in the city of Chester.

But what happens when laws get so complex that the vast majority of people genuinely have no grasp of what they can and cannot do or say?

What happens when laws are so far removed from natural concepts of justice and fairness that the vast majority of the population have no idea that such a law even exists?

What happens is this. We create barriers and social divides that alter the way that the public participate in mass media such as Twitter and Facebook; and this, ultimately, leads to the de-democratisation of what is inherently a democratic medium where each participant starts on a relatively level playing field.

Let's take some recent examples.

Libel

The basic principle is actually well aligned to principles of natural justice. We should expect everyone to understand that it is simply wrong, morally and legally, to smear someone without proof.

Especially of serious crimes such as child abuse - smears that can lead to vigilante attacks and fundamentally alter lives.

But there are genuine areas where I'd guess that well over 50% of the population are understandably confused. E.g. if you retweet, like or share a libellous post.

On one hand yes, it's clear the person doing this is contributing to the spread of a lie. On the other hand though, especially on Twitter, it's useful to retweet someone who you don't agree with just to show that person A is making a dumb statement.

Where the law gets even more unfathomable is in relation to innuendo and other "mischief". Say you tweet the name of a person without context, in the hope of starting a trend that will provide the missing piece in a libellous jigsaw.

You might know a bit about libel law. You might check your "publication" - your tweet - for correctness. It might simply ask why a person's name is being mentioned. On its own you might be sure that your tweet is not, as the lawyers say, "actionable".

Injunctions and court orders

Other cases could put a tweeter in the dock for mentioning something that is subject to a court injunction, without actually being served by the court or even aware of the existence of the order.

One recent case put the name of a child in the public domain in order to find that child. An order was subsequently imposed to prevent further reporting of the name in order to protect the child.

Now, journalists and those familiar with the law in relation to media reporting see it as obvious that a child would be protected in this way. And privacy advocates argue it is right that privacy should be protected wherever there is no public interest to use a child - or anyone's - name in a public forum.

But the general public are understandably gob-smacked to find that someone's name previously plastered across the media now can't be uttered on Twitter or Facebook on penalty of a £5,000 fine.

Malicious Communications

Even legal commentators are surprised at recent legal action in the UK against people posting things online that others find offensive.

There is a worrying and growing list of cases where people have mocked the dead, particularly dead children and soldiers to make a joke or a political statement, and found themselves with a criminal conviction and in at least one case behind bars.

There is much to say on this in other contexts but I'll stop at a simple note in this post.

Conclusion

Conscientious citizens are understandably becoming wary about the public statements they make.

On one hand this is seen as a good thing. Some commentators are taking a rather simplistic line that the online world will be better if everyone thought before tweeting.

And a nudge in the right direction - there is a consequence for each of your actions - can't be a bad thing.

But this becomes a problem if the nudge becomes a shove so hard it dissuades people from participating in the debate.

When a conscientious majority are dissuaded form participating because the rules are unfathomable to mere mortals, the online debate will be steered by a minority.

On Channel 4 news last night a studio guest actually suggested it wouldn't be a bad thing if people just used Twitter to discuss life in general without, presumably, the political debate.

This made me fume, my wife will testify to the huffing.

The internet has the capacity to change the evolution of the human race in two ways. In science and technology, through the sharing of ideas and developments instantaneously throughout the world; and in politics, where the news agenda is no-longer the sole preserve of an elite media clique and even the weak and oppressed can find a voice.

If ordinary folk sit on the sidelines for fear of transgressing laws they don't understand or even know about then the old media elite and their oft corrupt ways will simply be replaced by a new media elite.

The online message will be dominated by those who understand the law and those who don't care about the law (through e.g. being based outside the UK or having nothing much to lose through any court action).

Neither of these voices will necessarily be representative of society as a whole.

The upshot of laws designed to keep the old print and broadcast media in check might be to extend their reign, with a few notable newcomers.

I don't mean to be completely dismissive of established news-gathering organisations, democracy would probably be weakened even if one of my most hated news outlets went under.

But I want to see the "comment agenda" snatched from the likes of the Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Murdoch Press, etc and moved into the hands of real people. Instead of a millionaire paid by the Guardian telling me what it's like for a job-seeker on benefits I'd actually rather read it in a blog.

Yes, I *know* nothing discussed above prevents a blog on life as a job-seeker. But it will stifle the blog of an abuse victim, as it will someone treated unfairly by a corrupt organisation or politician.

In summary the "chilling effect" that many - especially in power - seem to dismiss as a mythical highbrow theory bandied around by free speech enthusiasts becomes reality when large sections of the population are afraid to participate in a debate for fear of not understanding the UK's laws on what you can and cannot say online.

If ignorance is no defence we at least need clear and concise laws.

@JamesFirth

How to remain as untraceable as practically possible on Twitter

2012-11-16T12:24:00.001Z

I've thought long and hard about whether this post is irresponsible or in the public interest. I decided to publish, due to the numerous issues it raises.

The first thing to remember is that online, at a transaction level, there is no guaranteed way to ensure your online behaviour is untraceable. There's always a chance that someone with sufficient access to enough of the network might be able to link your actions to you.

No method of so-called online anonymisation is foolproof. In addition, your behaviour over time when using Twitter might give you away.

To use Twitter with minimum chance of being traced you need at least two things:

Access to the internet that cannot be linked to you, or anonymisation software such as TOR
A Twitter account that can't be linked to you

This may sound like stating the obvious but it's vital not to forget that a Twitter account you created using e.g. your home internet connection or an email address you used for other purposes can probably be linked back to you.

So you may be forced to start by creating a "clean" email address in order to register with Twitter, not forgetting to do this using robust anonymity software or an internet connection that can't be traced to you. If you're in an internet cafe, check for cameras and don't pay by plastic!

This itself is getting increasingly difficult. Gmail along with some other email providers now require you to supply a telephone number or secondary email account. Ostensibly to prevent spam, such checks also make it far harder to create an untraceable email account.

So you're in. You now have a shiny new Twitter account... with zero followers!

No, you can't take your existing healthy Twitter following with you. You're starting from scratch, tweeting to an empty chamber. Whether you want to get up to mischief of some description or protect yourself whilst blowing the whistle on misbehaviour, you face an uphill struggle to get an audience.

No, you can't simply re-tweet the information you put on the hidden account using your real account, as this will be a dead give-away. Any investigator would question how the tweet came to your attention? A twitter search is plausible but would be a big coincidence, especially if you become a major cheerleader for your hidden self.

In any case this might not be practical, if your aim is to release information without getting sued. In most cases re-tweeting doesn't shield you from liability for the content.

And anyway you might want to release information about your employer that you couldn't possibly re-tweet into your own stream without getting fired.

It's also risky to start @-mentioning your existing followers. Being familiar with the Twitter API it is possible for a skilled programmer to build up a network diagram of who follows whom.

If I was tasked to investigate such a case I would start by looking at the followers and followees of each of the tweeters mentioned. I speculate that as few as a dozen data points might narrow a list of suspects to less than 10 in many cases.

Of course you could blow some smoke by mentioning people at random, but it will still be a challenge to build an audience using an untraceable account in order to get your message out.

If you're lucky you might be able to catch the attention of someone willing to take up your cause. But this largely assumes you're attempting to do the right thing with your anonymous presence, because others are unlikely to propagate your message if your motives are suspicious. Of course the right thing here is highly subjective.

Maybe, as the law threatens to get to grips with online content, you decide it is worth the effort, and you decide to use your "anonymous" twitter account at all times to build a completely new following. Now the fun and games really start.

Want to tweet on the go? Does your phone and network support your choice of anonymity software?

Want to upload a picture? Can you be sure your camerphone is not embedding information about your location, or even your identity?

Want to live tweet from an event? Forget it. Talk about your real-life experiences? Risky. Follow the same people you had previously followed? A dead give-away.

Will anyone even follow you? And even if they do, will they treat your output as credible?

I personally prefer to follow names and faces, people who stick their head above the parapet, simply because the only badge of trust you have in the online scrum is your identity.

How do I know real people sit behind these names and faces? That's another challenge, but to date I'm yet to be surprised.

In reality, truly untraceable communications for anything more than a one-hit wonder is practically impossible.

But that's not to say some or all of the above methods aren't legitimately useful, depending on your circumstances.

The conclusion for lawmakers though, when they're tempted to come down hard on technology they don't understand, is that there are already plenty of safeguards to prevent abuse of the system. It's just that these safeguards are largely determined by the participants themselves, not Parliament or the courts.

@JamesFirth

McAlpine Libel Madness

2012-11-15T16:42:00.001Z

Amid reports "angry" Lord McAlpine is 'Set To Sue' Sally Bercow, ITV's This Morning and 'Long List' of Twitter users let's just take a step back.

Okay, it's very bad indeed to be falsely labelled a child abuser (yet not as bad as being abused, I'll get back to this later).

But in this particular case, with many days of headlines charting the subsequent implosion at the BBC, this false accusation was corrected in double quick time and in a rather spectacular fashion.

It's inconceivable that more than a handful of individuals would have seen the original allegation on Twitter yet missed the fallout.

So the overall reputational damage should be framed in this context. A few people for a short space of time heard through highly unreliable channels that the missing piece of the jigsaw laid out on BBC Newsnight was Lord McAlpine. A claim that was quashed within a week.

Now I *know* being outed in this way was wrong and less than perfect, but let's not forget this all could have been avoided had Waterhouse or the police properly investigated and acquitted McAlpine when his name first surfaced back in the late 90's.

Secrecy just fuels suspicion, which bubbled underground on certain websites for years (and were published, apparently unchallenged, in at least one book back in the 1990's). Had the judicial process run its course, and been seen to run its course, then the allegation would have been put to rest many years ago.

This kind of mob justice is a last resort from a mob who felt, however wrongly, that justice had not been done. Not the kind of behaviour to be encouraged but far from malicious.

I wonder whether the acquittal, if/when it comes, for Freddie Starr or Dave Lee Travis will receive as much publicity as Lord McAlpine's very public correction.

Secondly on to Twitter. Sally Bercow for instance asked why a name was trending, she didn't do more than make a slight innuendo "*innocent face*". The BBC did not name names. A classic jigsaw re-identification puzzle data privacy theorists talk about daily.

It will be an interesting libel case and for this reason alone I hope it goes to full trial so all these issues can be tested.

Also Twitter is a highly untrusted channel. Anyone reading twitter regularly knows to take each tweet at face value. The law should not assume that word-of-mouth allegations carry as much weight as a reputable news organisation like the BBC, and the BBC gave nothing away that I'm aware of to make the allegations sweeping Twitter any more credible.

Still on Twitter, the practicalities of unmasking each user is a costly, multi-stage process for those not Tweeting under their real names.

First, McAlpine's team will need to subpoena Twitter to get what little data Twitter holds on its users. South Tyneside Council is reported to have spent £142,725 trying in vain to unmask one user in the infamous "Mr Monkey case".

This first round of action is likely to result in little more than an email address and a list of IP addresses from where the account was accessed.

A second round of action will then be needed against the Internet Service Providers to translate IP addresses into physical locations, and even then lawyers will have to prove that the tweeter is the ISP account holder. There is no law to force account holders to identify who was using their internet at the time of the alleged tweets.

Maybe IP addresses will lead up blind alleys, such as internet cafes, privacy proxies or TOR relays. In which case a third round of action will be required to find information from the email service provider.

Information from the email provider may itself be just an IP addresses, which will require more legal action to unmask, and so on.

Yes, what happened to Lord McAlpine is bad, but it's not as bad as children being abused, then having their stories ignored for a generation. Two wrongs are definitely not justified, but without some level of public debate I fear it might never be possible to get to the bottom of the allegations.

Again I'm not justifying what happened, just trying to explain it in the wider context.

Tweeters were only relaying allegations from other online sources, allegations that have been online for many years.

And finally, if oppressive damages are awarded in this case despite all the above and despite the false allegation being the result of an honest mistake by a victim of abuse, the press will surely be very nervous about investigating cases where it appears the justice system has failed victims.

Leading to a problem: how can the press apply pressure on the police and justice system to correct what appears to be a historic injustice?

The false accusations were just the latest in a long catalogue of more serious errors. A care system which allowed the vulnerable to be abused. A system which allowed the rich and famous (e.g. Savile) to exist above suspicion.

A failure to take victims seriously at the time followed by a reliance on secrecy to hide unproven allegations rather than a full transparent investigation.

Libel action might help educate the masses to their collective responsibility not to pass-on tittle tattle. But in the grand scheme of things I doubt it will achieve much, bar forcing the baying mob to hide their tracks when participating in social media.

A few weeks ago we asked how was Savile allowed to get away with his apparent crimes for so long. I doubt many today are asking that question.

@JamesFirth

A reverse ion drive as a hydroelectrical generator

2012-11-14T16:55:00.002Z

Bujagali Falls, Jinja, Uganda in 2003
prior to the dam. credit: J. Firth

Nine years ago to the month I sat on a bank of the Nile in Jinja, Uganda, discussing the then proposed Bujagali Falls hydro project with an international development expert.

Hydroelectric power is attractive, especially in developing countries.

But hydroelectric power comes with a reasonably high price tag and high ecological impact both at the dam site and downstream - which, with a very long river like the Nile, is a substantial area.

I began to plot ways of capturing energy from the flowing river without such large capital outlay whilst minimising the environmental impact.

I was especially keen on micro generation at the time as that would come with the added advantage of not requiring lengthy power transmission cables.

I had the idea for a kind of reverse ion drive, where the water in the river is ionised before passing through a strong magnetic field to create an electric current due to the motion/thrust in the river's downhill flow.

I'm not sure if this has been tried before and I have, for many years, intended to test out the theory with a practical experiment.

A reverse ion drive as a hydroelectrical generator

Since I have failed in nine years to build a scale model of a fast-flowing river and I doubt I'll get time in the next 9 years I thought I'd kick the idea out there to see what comes back. If there's any research in this area I'd be interested to read it.

The advantage of such an approach over conventional hydro power is it should be cheap to build relatively small generators for use in developing countries. With no moving parts it should also be easy to maintain, but I have no idea at this stage if the approach will work and, if so, what power it would supply for any given volume of water passing through.

@JamesFirth