I attended the keynote speech, of course, which amongst other things laid patent for all to see how lucky we still are in the UK to have some civil servants who want to think: who are interested in trying to understand the background and essence of the complex digital issues which continue to assail us.  The cynical and money-laden brute force of American lobbying simply doesn’t bear contemplating, nor – at least for the moment – excessive comparison.

The first post-keynote session I attended involved discussions around data-protection regulation, with representatives from ORG itself, academia, privacy interests and the ICO.  The ICO representative came in for quite a bit of pointed questioning, which – under the circumstances – seemed a little unfair.  His main beef wasn’t with the essential direction of proposed new European directives so much as with the potential for the bureaucratisation of their implementation.  In a sense, perhaps, this strand of thought was used a little like a battering-ram to defend our shores from the encroaching hordes of data-privacy fundamentalists.  Nevertheless, data privacy is an issue of considerable importance: its potential for abuse allows large corporations and other interests not only to take advantage of our lives as profiled in everything we do online but also to reduce the advantage we ourselves, as rather more modest citizens, can extract from a supposedly empowering digital economy.

Another suggestion which came up, in this case in relation to datasets such as medical records, seemed to me analogous to copyright legislation in countries like Spain: if my understanding is correct, in Spain it’s impossible not to assert your intrinsic moral right to be recognised as the author of a work you’ve created.  This approach in relation to a broader definition of data, the data trails which for example we lay down through our usage of social networks, would make it utterly unnecessary (ie legally impossible) for there to exist Terms of Service which could undermine our inherent right to maintain the integrity and ownership of our digital profiles, particularly with respect to the right to delete or modify data laid down in such away.  In such a circumstance, and with this new legal figure, our data could not be taken away from us by a default acceptance of a private ToS contract.

The second session I went to, after a snatched lunch, involved the right to be offensive.  Here, we had representatives from ORG, online media and lobbyists especially involved in the subject of free speech.  A fascinating and wide-ranging discussion ensued, captured – as all were – on video.  Hopefully, the material will be edited down and made available to an online audience shortly.

Finally, I attended two unconference sessions.  The final one was a productive discussion on the subject of passwords – perhaps, more usefully, to use the terminology of one person present, “credentials”.  The conclusions were a bit scary, to be honest.  Not much more one could do than carry out a damage limitation exercise, as a rule.

But the most interesting session, for me at least, mainly because of my interest in crossover dynamics, was an unconference session called “Bursting the bubble”.  Led by a member of the Pirate Party UK, it started out looking like an indirect (or not very indirect) PPUK appeal for ideas to help further its future election strategies.  To be fair, it did also interface with ORG’s own presence and efforts; one attendee, in particular, did wish ORG and other digital rights’ activists were better able to “sell” their wares.  One idea that came up was a kind of products division, where specific and highly focussed needs (browser plugins, websites for checking mobile phone blocking etc) could be identified and satisfied in a programmed and properly marketed way. Adding value to members and supporters of organisations which carried out such development would certainly help to raise their profile in the eyes of ordinary people.

Everyone did agree that ORG punches way above its size, which is a credit to the professionalism of the resources it provides.  But, even so, the digital bubble still exists, and whether we wish to reframe digital rights as human rights (for the latter is also, sadly, a term plagued with its own set of very English prejudice) or, alternatively, argue that the best strategy might be to interface one step away – as ORG is already beginning to – with charities and other interested parties whose mission it is to work with the poor who are, by the by, also digitally disadvantaged (better placed as they may be to interpret the language of digital activism in such a way that those most affected but least knowledgeable might begin to benefit from the research taking place), in truth the pursuit of a wider evangelisation must be a long-term objective of everyone interested in what we might term an evermore digitally-underpinned justice.

It’s possible, therefore, that ORG must remain a focussed teller of frank truths for it not to lose the value it consistently adds to UK digital-rights debate.  But there is little point in forever telling the truth to the politicians, legislators and thoughtful civil servants if you leave behind the very people you are trying to protect and defend: that is to say, the citizens themselves.

There must come a time when digital rights are sold differently – when, in fact, they are sold as the rights that underpin the laws which software engineers now make, every day of the week, behind closed corporate doors; outside of Parliament; within the recesses of their brilliant and unpredictable minds.

A true digital economy would be one which matched the power of transnational corporations to innovate astonishingly with the rights of individuals to continue living their lives with sense and sensibility.

The question really being whether this isn’t an impossible pipe-dream amongst a humongous mass of virtual pipes: a digital economy which becomes not a dream but a nightmare, where we end up counting on the fingers of one hand the real beneficiaries of all those ever-so-unprivate online profiles we almost gladly deposit – even as the once-expected empowerment of consumer-producer ecosystems becomes just another foolish hope to be discarded on the road to that unstoppable corporatisation of society.

Adobe Connect is fine at screensharing, whiteboard and video.  Its audio performance, even after running the wizard, doesn’t seem as robust as Skype’s though.  That is to say, voice performance was better when we used Skype alongside Adobe for the sound, as when we used Adobe on its own.  This is a little strange.  I could understand a separate telephone network working better, but not a separate VoIP software using exactly the same bandwidth.

And though Skype has its detractors, its interface and optimisation procedures continue to be more user-friendly than the enterprise-environment of Adobe’s product.

I’d be interested in any thoughts any of you might have on the subject – especially technical explanations for the above circumstances.  And if you have any experience of other systems or combinations of systems out there, I’d also be most interested in learning from you.  In my case, I’m beginning to come to the conclusion that if Adobe Connect could be made to work on its own, I’d go for it – even though it’s about seven times more expensive than Skype Premium.  But if I can become comfortable with Skype’s screenshare facilities and lack of back-office features, I may skip the undoubted bells and whistles – easy-to-manage record of sessions, invitation procedures, attendee management etc. – that Adobe Connect clearly offers.

Especially if I need to use a separate facility for reliable audio.

I’m now looking for false beginners, pre-intermediate students and upwards who are interested in improving their ability to speak.  I’m currently using Skype in Premium mode and testing a far more complex system, Adobe Connect.  If any of you have had experiences in either of these two systems of video-conferencing – or, indeed, know any other systems you might want to point me in the direction of – please do get in touch.

So if you’re interested in a couple of classes – or know someone who might be and who might, at the same time, be good at providing technical feedback on systems such as these – please do point them in the direction of my contact page.

<ducks as flood of emails hits the virtual mat>

<or not, as the case may be …>

If you’re interested in finding out more background information to this bill and its process, you might want to read ORG’s summary of how the Home Office has failed to provide its minister with the support it could have done had process been otherwise.  Meanwhile, on ORG’s always useful wiki, we can find recommendations of the Joint Committee.  They seem, in general, to make sensible, useful and measured reading:

Joint Committee

A motion in the Lords was agreed that a Draft Communications Data Bill Joint Select Committee should consider and report on any draft Communications Data Bill and report on any draft Bill by 30 November 2012.^[13] The 12 member committee was chaired by Lord Blencathra.^[14]

Commons MPs sitting on the committee were Julian Huppert MP, Nicholas Brown MP, Michael Ellis MP, Stephen Mosley MP, Craig Whittaker MP, David Wright MP.^[15] Lords were Lord Blencathra (chair), Lord Strasburger, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, Baroness Cohen of Pimlico, Lord Faulks, Lord Jones^[16] (See committee website.)

Report

The final report was published on Tuesday 11th of December 2012.^[17] Available online as HTML or PDF.

Written evidence is available as written_evidence_Volume.pdf. Oral evidence is available as Oral_Evidence_Volume.pdf.

Summary of recommendations

278.

• It is the duty of government—any government—to maintain the safety and security
• For this the law enforcement authorities should be given the tools they need.
• Reasonable access to some communications data is undoubtedly one of those tools.

279.

• Government also has a duty to respect the right of law-abiding citizens to privacy

280.

• These duties have the potential to conflict.
• Where and how the balance should be struck between these conflicting duties in a mature Parliamentary democracy Parliament has to decide; indeed perhaps only Parliament can in the end decide.

281.

• Our overall conclusion is that there is a case for legislation which will provide the law enforcement authorities with some further access to communications data, but that the current draft Bill is too sweeping, and goes further than it need or should.
• We believe that, with the benefit of fuller consultation with CSPs than has so far taken place, the Government will be able to devise a more proportionate measure than the present draft Bill, which would achieve most of what they really need, would encroach less upon privacy, would be more acceptable to the CSPs, and would cost the taxpayer less.

282.

• Part of the data gap is down to a lack of ability on behalf of law enforcement agencies to make effective use of the data that is available. Addressing this should be a priority.

284.

• Before re-drafted legislation is introduced there should be a new round of consultation with technical experts, industry, law enforcement bodies, public authorities and civil liberties groups.
• on the basis of the narrower, more clearly defined set of proposals on definitions, narrower clause 1 powers and stronger safeguards which are recommended in this report.
• CSPs should be given a clear understanding of the exact nature of the gap which the draft Bill aims to address so that those companies can be clear about why the legislation is necessary.

285.

• [CPSs should] be told what obligations might be imposed on them

286.

• Meaningful consultation can take place only once there is clarity as to the real aims of the Home Office, and clarity as to the expected use of the powers under the Bill.

287.

• The Home Office has however made clear that it does not currently need the power under this legislation to require other types of data be retained, and does not for the present intend to issue notices going more widely (except to CSPs which are not covered by the EU Data Retention Directive, which might be asked under this legislation to retain for 12 months data which they already create for business purposes). Clause 1 therefore should be re-drafted with a much narrower scope,

288.

• We do not think that Parliament should grant powers that are required only on the precautionary principle. There should be a current and pressing need for them.

289.

• Parliament and government both need to accept that legislation that covers the internet and other modern technologies may need revisiting and updating regularly.

292.

• Whether clause 1 should allow notices that require CSPs to retain web logs up to the first “/” is a key issue. The Bill should be so drafted as to enable Parliament to address and determine this fundamental question which is at the heart of this legislation.

294.

• We acknowledge that storing web log data, however securely, carries the possible risk that it may be hacked into or may fall accidentally into the wrong hands, and that, if this were to happen, potentially damaging inferences about people’s interests or activities could be drawn.
• Parliament will have to decide where the balance between these opposing considerations should be struck.

297.

• The Home Office has also given a commitment that no CSP will be asked to store or decrypt encrypted third party data. These commitments should be given statutory force.

299.

• The Request Filter will speed up complex inquiries and will minimise collateral intrusion. These are important benefits. On the other hand the Request Filter introduces new risks, most obviously the temptation to go on “fishing expeditions”. New safeguards should be introduced to minimise these risks.

300.

• Any public authorities which make a convincing business case for having access to communications data should, like the six we have specified in paragraph 25, be listed on the face of the Bill.

302.

• The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that any additions to this list should require primary legislation. We agree. Clause 9(7), which allows the Secretary of State to add further permitted purposes by order, should be deleted.

303.

• we recommend that the Government should consult on whether all the permitted purposes are really necessary.

304.

• The language of RIPA is out of date and should not be used as the basis of new legislation. The Bill should be re-drafted with new definitions of communications data.
• The challenge will lie in creating definitions that will stand the test of time.
• There should be an urgent consultation with industry on changing the definitions and making them relevant to the year 2012.

305.

• A new definition of subscriber data is needed that simply covers the basic subscriber checks that are the most commonly used.
• How to define subscriber data should be a key element of the consultation,

306.

• A new hierarchy of data types needs to be developed. Data should be divided into categories that reflect how intrusive each type of data is.

307.

• It is imperative that everything is done to make clear that content cannot be requested under the provisions of this legislation. Content is not defined in the draft Bill.
• it is nevertheless important that the content should be expressly excluded from all categories of communications data.

308.

• The SPoC process should be enshrined in primary legislation. A specialist centralised SPoC service should be established modelled on the National Anti-Fraud Network service which currently offers SPoC expertise to local authorities.
• This new service should be established by statute, and all local authorities and other infrequent users of communications data should be required to obtain advice from this service.

310.

• The IoCC should carry out a full review of each of the large users of communications data every year.
• For this the IoCC will need substantial additional resources, both as to numbers and as to technical expertise. There should be full consultation with him on this. His role should be given more publicity.

311.

• The IoCC’s brief should explicitly cover the need to provide advice and guidance on proportionality and necessity, and there should be rigorous testing of, and reporting on, the proportionality and necessity of requests made.

312.

• The IoCC will need the necessary expertise properly to examine the operation of the Request Filter.
• He will have to report on the scale of searches via the Request Filter and rigorously test the necessity and proportionality of requests put to the Filter.

314.

• Work should be done to rationalise the number of commissioners with responsibility for different areas of surveillance.

317.

• The Bill should provide for wilful or reckless misuse of communications data to be a specific offence punishable in appropriate cases by imprisonment.

321.

• We are concerned that the Home Office’s cost estimates are not robust. They were prepared without consultation with the telecommunications industry on which they largely depend, and they project forward 10 years to a time where the communications landscape may be very different.

It looks, to my very unpractised eye, that the Home Office civil servants have not been up to the task that was assigned them.  Perhaps this is because of the timeframe or resources that were imposed; perhaps because, simply, in a matter as complex as digital rights, communications and data, to forge ahead with ideas but without properly consulting the industry in question is bound to lead similarly unpractised eyes to inadequate conclusions.

My only motive for meeting with my MP tomorrow is to gauge the potential for cross-party cooperation – and not just political cross-party cooperation but in relation to all interest groups – in an issue as important as the above clearly is for the future of both our shared economy and our democratic state.  And that the Joint Committee has criticised so unreservedly a key plank of proposed government legislation is a question which should worry us all.

Especially those of us who understand that the job of democracy is to treat its citizens with interest, support, care and consideration – and not with the instant, permanent and overarching suspicion this draft bill, if implemented as is, would almost certainly lead it unhappily to manifesting.

Faster, in fact, than some lines he’s installed in the city centre.

So I have a favour to ask of those of you who follow my occasional posts.  I’m currently setting up a website to administer and market online English training.  You can find this site here.  It’s not going to be a grand business venture – I’m more interested in generating enough income to pay the bills for the moment.  But I am looking for a very specific market of learners who have been learning English for a couple of years or so, and still find – for whatever reason – that they cannot speak as fluently as they would like.

That group, that group which can read OK and listen decently but still finds that in important moments they tend to be tongue-tied, is the group I would like most to attend to.

If you do have any feedback you’d like to provide, please leave a comment or two at the bottom of this post.  And if you have any suggestions on how the site might be usefully improved – official launch time, if the fibre settles down reliably in the meantime, will be some time in December – please do not hesitate to let me know.  We’re all sensitive souls of course, especially when receiving criticism – but if this criticism is constructive, there is no reason why we should be unhappy!

Now is there?

Reputation, whilst a clear indicator of knowledge in a particular field, depends precisely on one choosing to specialise in just one area of knowledge.  Is this really what our society needs right now?  It seems to me that specialisms are crowding out our ability to communicate with each other, creating – in a way – Chinese walls that don’t allow us to understand the implications of another area for our own.

In this sense, we may be missing out on many otherwise fruitful connections which could help our complex civilisations out of the holes they are gradually finding themselves sinking in to.

What do I propose then?  A series of search processes which allow us to discover and define the quality and value of a piece of content in absolute, potentially productive and creative terms – not in terms of how many people have linked to it or who the author is or which website has published it.

Yes.  To mention just one kind of latterday endeavour, this would inevitably turn the world of online advertising upside down – but aren’t such distortions of our access to truly imaginative and original work already negatively affecting the futures of our communities?  Don’t we need to turn upside down how “really good stuff” is being ignored?  Isn’t it time we focussed on properly added value – rather than that cleverly massaged SEOed information we generally get these days?

A disclaimer before we finish: I regularly blog over at 21st Century Fix – and I blog on a broad range of subjects.  In a way, it’s a kind of Renaissance Man-style blog – not because of its quality (that, after all, would be for you to judge not me) but simply because I’m prepared to take on any range of subjects.  Yes.  It’s a brainstorming blog, where I follow trains of thoughts to their ultimate consequences.  As such, it’s very difficult to build up a reputation in anything.  Hits-wise, it’s a modest blog.  Ambition-wise, it’s pretty significant.

From the kind of algorithms I’m suggesting we develop, I would be the first to benefit.

Even so, and in the light of such self-interest, don’t you think I might have a point?

I’ve really nothing against the Canon I bought – perfectly happy as far as that goes.  On the other hand, there is the fact that I’ve hardly used it.  Which is just as well, considering the price of the ink …

*

If you know Spanish, you know what HP really stands for.  My most recent purchase comes from that manufacturer.  The sneakiest purchase of all, I think.  But more on that subject in a minute.

I’ve generally had good results with Epson and its multiple colour-cartridge system.  This it did way before the other manufacturers, and I think it did help to save a little bit of money.  However, although the last model I bought is still perfectly functional – you can see it sitting next to my computer as I write, dormant and utterly unused – whether it has original cartridges or not seems to make not a blind bit of difference: the printer always believes they are empty, even when they’re still half-full.

I spent about a year throwing away half-full cartridges before I decided it was time to invest in something cheaper to maintain.

Which is when we returned to HP.

It was supposed to be a wireless web-connected printer which could wirelessly connect up to the web, computers and router at the same time.  I documented my trials and tribulations with this promise on a blogpost which’ll almost certainly come up on any Google search for the printer in question.  To be honest, I claimed to have succeeded in my aim to make it work – but, in reality, it didn’t happen consistently.

To an extent it works perfectly now, mind.  But only because we decided to cable it directly to the router which runs the intranet and acts as a gateway to the Internet.

So it can’t really be connected wirelessly to three functions at once.  Two out of three (where one is not the router), yes.  But not all three.

Where am I at the moment then?  I’ve managed to make it work so that it’s possible to print from both a Windows and a Linux computer; and from laptops, desktops and netbooks.  No sweat.  I’ve even managed to make the “mobile-phone to web” facility function, so in theory you can print to it from anywhere in the world.  I tested this feature by printing to it from my sitting-room.

It’s the only time I’ve used it.

Recently, however, a problem has arisen.  It can’t print colour properly.  It doesn’t matter whether you use originals or not, the colours simply don’t render.  On using some refilled originals I’d purchased from a third-party supplier on Amazon, there did appear a rather ominous error message.  Something along the lines of: “If you proceed with these cartridges, the printer will explode.”

Not exactly.

But you get my drift.

Since then, whether originals or not, the printer won’t print colours properly.  And as we get to the end of a cartridge’s life, we get a friendly email from HP itself, suggesting we buy some more originals that – now – won’t work.

Sometimes I’m willing to accept that this web-based printer idea really was to empower users and enable worldwide “mobile-phone to printer” access.

And sometimes I wonder if it wasn’t rather more obviously designed to allow its manufacturer to track and disable printers whose users dared to buy third-party cartridges.

Remember HP’s jocular Spanish translation – and then you might wish to wonder yourself.

:-)

And although it isn’t the prime purpose of this space, even so it’s clear that politics has a place.  If you ignore it, and think that’s enough, you’ll soon sadly discover that in your absence it won’t ignore you.  As Lawrence Lessig has so clearly outlined: perhaps more importantly than Left and Right, the political world is made up of Insiders and Outsiders.  And most of us fall into the latter category.  We just want things to work whilst we are allowed to get on with our lives.

Things which work also include, of course, democracy and justice.  We’re not talking of a fascist state where, apocryphally, the trains run on time.  We’re talking about Peter Levine’s definition of Good Democracy: inclusive and efficient at the same time.

So although you may not consider yourself on the Right or the Left, you can’t escape being either an Insider or Outsider.

In England right now, it appears our government is planning to turn the world of education upside down – without trials too.  Meanwhile, the Labour Party and its leader, Ed Miliband, look set to suggest parallel vocational qualifications in order to provide the skilled pool of labour all modern technological societies require.  I imagine, though don’t know for sure, that this will lead to a plethora of newly-focussed technical colleges, designed to separate out at the age of sixteen (or maybe even earlier) those who plan to go to university from those who plan to study, say, film editing.  I think we’d be losing a lot if that really was the suggestion.  Here’s why.

The great thing about the idea of comprehensive education was physically bringing people together at a young age to engineer a society where difference was seen to be culturally constructive, not something to be shied away from.  Of course, its actual implementation was, as is often the case, underfunded in relation to the ambitions and expectations the policy raised at the beginning.

This was an attempt at social engineering on a massive scale.  And why not?  After all, a society made up of sub-groups unable to appreciate the other’s value is hardly the most efficient way of constructing the foundations any Good Democracy needs to build on.

So comprehensives generally failed – but I would argue not as a concept.

What do both the Coalition and Labour seem to be proposing now?  Placing society once again into two massive streams of behaviours and rights: on the one hand, the governing elite which will be extracted from those who go to university; on the other hand, we get the worker bees who will actually do the Knowledge-Society work which, in turn, will create the wealth the elites will have to rely on.  Clever, ingenious, intelligent and highly-educated worker bees.  But worker bees all the same.

But what I fear, even more than that, is the physical separation of one from the other in different and distant institutions.

This isn’t good – and I’d hope you’d agree with me on this.  Cultural dissonance – or rub as I’ve called it before – is where the sparks of invention and progress really come from.  Without sustained and consistent contact amongst those very different societal sub-groups I mention, especially from the moment we go to school and acquire our most fundamental prejudices, we will not be able to save our societies from a slow-burn destruction of all we’ve treasured to date.

No.  I really don’t think this is the way.  If we must have two streams of learning in our schools, let them occupy the same buildings; let citizenship be a common and core subject; and let permanent contact amongst these in each be the essence of what English education becomes.

No.  It’s not the mild-mannered Mil you’ve become accustomed to who’s posting here today.  If you live in England, or read up on what happens here, you’ll have just heard that our Minister of Education, Michael Gove, has decided to throw years of experience and consultation processes out of the window by taking a snap decision to introduce end-of-year exams in order to test our sixteen-year-old students.

I fear he confuses a snap decision with decisiveness – perhaps it’s time someone gave him a lesson.

In fact, they’re not end-of-year exams but end-of-two-year exams, for they will be taken by our children as a once-in-a-lifetime shot at their futures after two years of study.  Back to the good-old-bad-old days of yore, then.  Everything riding on an asthma attack or moment of youthful stress; hay-fever city here we come!

But the reason I despise this omnipotence which Gove is showing (more foolish acts of wasteful bravado here) is rather more grounded in the practice of learning itself than out of any admittedly irrelevant personal distaste from my side of the political fence.

Learning styles is why I argue that end-of-year exams are anti-democratic.  There is a lot of controversy these days about what was once clearly accepted practice – but my experience as a teacher of languages shows me that a varied approach to learning materials helps everyone acquire knowledge more efficiently.  Whilst there are students who will want the grammar and study notes first, there are others who care little for such a measured way of understanding a language’s inner workings – far preferring to launch themselves into the abyss of humorous misunderstanding before assessing the dangers that always lie ahead.

And whilst it may now be argued that we all have a little bit of each style that may be out there, it’s surely also true that in a technological age we can afford ourselves the luxury of adjusting the needs and preferences of all our learners.

If our governments believe that capital has the right to choose its destination; that patients should be able to choose their doctors; that consumers should be able to choose their brands; that utility users should be able to choose their suppliers … well, why can’t they accept that our sixteen-year-old children have a similar right to choose their learning paths – as well as the evaluation systems which measure them – in plain and simple terms of what works democratically for them?

Is this a democracy we are constructing – a plurality of beings and experiences?  Or is it yet another straitjacketed society where those at the top use, without due professional discussion or debate, their own personal and anecdotal experiences in order to impose their prejudices on the rest of us?

Your call, I think.  I’m signing off for the moment.

:-(

Rant over ….

We drove back from Spain over the weekend.  The traffic was painful around Bordeaux; lovely towards the north of France; and awful the other side of the Channel.  We crossed from Dieppe to Newhaven, but the saving over the Portsmouth-Le Havre crossing was negligible compared to the additional driving-pain incurred on either side.

I find flying very challenging which is why we don’t do it.

I love going by train – but the family hates it.

So we compromise – as this world should surely show us we must – by going in a mode of transport no one actually despises too much.

Back to work.  Back to school.  Back to raising a family.  Back to searching out ways and means of communicating and editing reality as constructively as we can.

“Welcome back home!” they’ll say.

But I live between three.

An arrival and gain which are always simultaneously a loss.  That is the nature of multicultural life.

And “[s]o we beat on, boats against the current …” – ceaselessly as the great man loves to say; until – that is – we stop.

:-)