Twitter is struggling to overcome a denial-of-service attack, they wrote this five hours ago:
We are defending against a denial-of-service attack, and will update status again shortly.
Update: the site is back up, but we are continuing to defend against and recover from this attack.
Update (9:46a): As we recover, users will experience some longer load times and slowness. This includes timeouts to API clients. We’re working to get back to 100% as quickly as we can.
On several occasions I have had the opportunity to discuss digitalization of traditional media. In particular to images that are no longer covered by copyright. Those who act as caretakers and gatekeepers for these cultural treasures have long been positive to digitalization – but were quick to discover that digitalization alone is not enough. The turning point of public opinion occurred when the Library of Congress began its pilot project with Flickr in the Flickr Commons. Read more about it on the Library of Congress blog or the report from the pilot.
Despite the anecdotal evidence, the gut feeling and the report some gatekeepers are still concerned about what will happen to “their” images if the plebeian mass can access them freely.
At first I thought their fears stemmed from a loss of income from selling prints, but this seems not to be their main concern even if some do refer to this. There main concern is the way in which the images will be treated.
They fear the disrespectful handling of digitalized cultural artifacts.
Now you may well ask yourselves how a digitalized artifact may be manhandled? Obviously it is not about destruction but there are concerns about use. The legal protection is long gone. The photographs are long since in the public domain and can be used and abused at will. This is of concern to the caretakers/gatekeepers since they have been entrusted with the images in physical form. In almost all cases they have received the photographs with a promise that they are preserving a part of cultural heritage. They believe that in their role as cultural preservers lies a duty to ensure that the photographers honor is not sullied by disagreeable online use.
And they know all too well that once digitalization and access has been granted there is no longer any control.
While I am a copyright minimalist and I think our protection terms are way too long I do feel there is a point here. How can museums and archives fulfill their duty to preserve what they have received in trust while maintaining their duty to provide access to culture?
Then I look at the work done by the Swedish National Heritage Board in relation to this question. They have put a small selection of their images on the Flickr Commons. A mere 274 photographs by Carl Curman (1833-1913).
The photographs have been accessed over 200 000 time since 17 March this year, that’s less than four months! Or 50 000 views per month (K-Blogg).
Besides pushing the almost unknown Carl Curman to a portion of internet fame the project at the Swedish National Heritage Board has brought back to life a set of dead photographs. Image how many times a photograph is seen in it’s lifetime. The average must be depressingly low. The most popular photograph in their project has been viewed 7805 times. Stop. Read the numbers and think. Seven thousand eight hundred and five times.
Stockholm by Carl Curman now seen by one more person: You…
Sure the photo will be ripped off. It will be posted on websites, stored on computers, used in presentations and the name of Carl Curman will be disassociated from the picture he took. Even more certain is that the Swedish Cultural Heritage Board will not be attributed enough for their thankless task of bringing this dead cultural artifact to life. But let us remember the old adage – no good dead goes unpunished.
The role of the caretaker/gatekeeper is, not a they once believed it to be, to prevent access. In the real world, grubby fingers and clumsy handling destroy the real artifact and lose it to the whole world. That is why we should be kept away from the real thing. But in the digital world the same is not true. What the flickr commons shows beyond a doubt is that while digitalization is good, it is nothing without access.
Ask Carl Curman.
In case anyone missed it President Sarkozy recently decided to attack the Burka
In our country we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity,” Mr Sarkozy said to applause in the parliament’s ceremonial Versailles home. The burka is not a religious sign. It is a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement,” he added. “It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic.”
So ok the man has a point. Equality cannot be achieved in a society when one group has the power to enforce dress codes on another group. The intentions behind forcing a sub-group to behave or dress in a special manner is irrelevant. As the saying goes: “the road to hell is paved with good intentions…”
Photo: Stencils Oslo May 2009 by svennevenn (CC BY-NC-SA)
So even we can agree with Sarkozy what can be done? Sarkozy seems to be attempting to regulate the wearing of a specific style of clothes in public. This is not the same as refusing to allow different types of clothes inside public buildings such as schools or courts. Attempting to enforce such a rule would in itself be a form of denial of freedom. Can you imagine police arresting burka wearing women on the street? This would hardly strengthen the image of France as a democracy.
Another question is what other forms of dress would be prohibited? Are we to focus on the fully dressed aspect then maybe wearing hoods, scarves and masks would be considered wrong. On the other hand if we were to see the lack of individual freedom as an important aspect then wouldn’t all the slaves to fashion be violating the intent of the law?
Times Online has a list of dress related regulation:
— In France a law was passed in 2004 banning pupils from wearing “conspicuous” religious symbols at state schools, a move widely interpreted as aimed at the Muslim headscarf
— In Turkey where 99 per cent of the population is Muslim, all forms of Muslim headscarf have been banned in universities for decades under the secular government. In June 2008 the country’s Consitutional Court overruled government attempts to lift the ban, prompting protests
— In Britain guidelines say that the full Islamic veil should not be worn in courts, but the final decision is up to judges. Schools may forge their own dress codes and in 2006, courts upheld the suspension of Aishah Azmi, a Muslim teaching assistant who refused to remove her veil in class
— German states have the option of choosing to ban teachers and other government employees from wearing Muslim headscarves; four have done so
—The Italian parliament in July 2005 approved anti-terrorist laws that make hiding one’s features from the public — including through wearing the burla — an offence
— Tunisia, a Muslim country, has banned Islamic headscarves in public places since 1981. In 2006 authorities began a campaign against the headscarves and began strictly enforcing the ban
— The Dutch Government said in 2007 that it was drawing up legislation to ban burkas, but it was defeated in elections in November and the new centrist coalition said it had no plans to implement a ban
Here is an interesting podcast of James Boyle on his book The Public Domain (via BoingBoing)
Professor James Boyle describes how our culture, science and economic welfare all depend on the delicate balance between those ideas that are controlled and those that are free, between intellectual property and the public domain —the realm of material that everyone is free to use and share without permission or fee
Intellectual property laws have a significant impact on many important areas of human endeavour, including scientific innovation, digital creativity, cultural access and free speech. And so Boyle argues that, just as every informed citizen needs to know at least something about the environment or civil rights, every citizen in the information age should also have an understanding of intellectual property law.
From Boing Boing:
Wikileaks is currently overloaded by readers. This is a regular difficulty that can only be resolved by deploying additional resources. If you support our mission, then show it in the way that is most needed. On average, each donation catalyzes the publication of around 150 mainstream press articles, exposing human rights abuses and corrupt government around the world. These exposures result in substantial reforms and have changed national election outcomes.
Among the hi-tech tools used by the police in their work is the DNA database. Most countries have or desire one but few have implemented this desire as effectively and frighteningly as Great Britain with their National DNA database.
The Guardian reports that Britain’s National DNA database “is proportionately the biggest in the world and includes the profiles of more than 7% of the population, according to Home Office figures. Almost everyone arrested for a recordable offence is required to provide a DNA sample. Whether or not criminal proceedings follow, DNA records stay on file until the person reaches their 100th birthday.”
Considering the number of innocent (legally not necessarily morally) children stored in the database the 100 year old limit is possibly ageism. The Guardian again:
Genetic information taken from nearly 1.1 million children is now stored on the national DNA database, official figures show, and campaigners believe that as many as half of them have no criminal convictions… The figures show that 1.09 million DNA profiles of people aged under 18 were held on the database with 337,000 under 16.
Terri Dowty, of Action on Rights for Children, said: “Many children get arrested, have their DNA taken and there is no further action against them or they get a reprimand or final warning. We are collecting massive amounts of data on children, including how likely they are to be criminals, and it runs the risk that we will prejudge them.”
It is more than a little bit scary that despite the protests and criticism the police and politicians in Britain struggle to maintain a system which clearly violates human rights not only of children but even of adults. Since the protesters are now focusing on the negative effects on children it almost feels as if the struggle for innocent adults stored DNA is a losing battle.
—
[1] European Court Rules DNA Retention Illegal (04/12/2008) Decision of the Court (Doc), Press release from the Court (PDF) & Privacy International amicus brief to the Court (PDF)
The recent regulations in Sweden created the Pirate Party. The even more recent controversies with FRA (massive surveillance legislation) and ipred (strengthening copyright holders rights) and the Pirate Bay trial have driven the new parties marketing for them. Yesterday the party passed the 10 000 member level.
The Pirate Party is now larger than both the established Left Party and the Environmental Party making it the sixth largest party (counted in members) in Sweden. Swedish wikipedia has a table of party members here.
That the implementation of strickter internet regulation would increase the popularity of the Pirate Party should hardly be surprising. It is possible that few politicians in other parties were aware of the amount of popular anger was brewing under the surface and how this was organised and created into a more organised protest movement. In this way the growth of the Pirate Party is definately unintended but not unexpected.
Paying for your own wedding is expensive, paying for your childrens weddings is probably even more expensive but paying for someone else’s wedding is just plain stupid. So why on earth should people claim to be happy when the crown princess is going to marry her boyfriend?
Personally I have always considered myself as a disinterested royalist. Who cares if there is a king but since we have one why bother to change the system? I doubt that any other system would be more cost efficient or cheaper. There is the democratic deficit of course but then again the Swedish king has no power – so how much of a loss for democracy can it be?
But now that we have a royal wedding in the future it makes me think… The family is wealthy enough to pay for their own damn party. If not then they may want to think about some cash saving tips and ideas just like other poor slobs. But what really pisses me off is that the state will have to provide extra funds for the police, the foreign office, the royal family, department of transport, department of sanitation etc etc
So basically, to the couple: I would congratulate you on your upcoming wedding if I didn’t have to pay for a party that I am not invited to… And no! being a spectator to the event does not count. Get married on your own time and money.
Vive la republic!
The United Kingdom is going totally bananas in it’s misguided battle against terror. For a long time they have been hounding photographers with very bad results for the countries image but hardly preventing any crime or terror. But this next step is absolutely misguided.
Basically it’s an amendment to the the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 that will have the result of criminalizing, amongst other things, the photographing of a police officer. Here is a quote from the British Journal of Photography:
Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer.
The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who ‘elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces) … which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’.
A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.
Now we have all seen silly laws before but can you even begin to imagine who could sit down and think this is a good idea? I think almost any tourist to London could look through their snaps and find a picture of a bobby with the distinctive helmet. Also this law will be used to prevent civilians taking photographs of police abuse. Imagine the effect if the reporters who took the Rodney King video faced ten years in jail?
This is a serious blow against civil rights and individual freedom – not a step towards ending terrorism.
Reporters Without Borders has come out with a new version (Update: I am a year late with discovering this book see RSF release article) of its Handbook for Bloggers and Cyber-Dissidents. The handbook offers practical advice and techniques on some easy and some quite complex issues.
Everything from how to create a blog, how to make entries and get the blog to show up in search engine results. It gives clear explanations about blogging for all those whose online freedom of expression is subject to restrictions, and it shows how to sidestep the censorship measures imposed by certain governments, with a practical example that demonstrates the use of the censorship circumvention software Tor.
The handbook is very useful on many levels so blog about it to make sure it gets out there.