Interns to the Open Rights Group

The Open Rights Group is looking for summer interns. If you have the time and inclination this is a really worthwhile pursuit.

Are you a student thinking ahead to the long summer months? Are you itching to contribute to an exciting and socially beneficial cause? If you fit this bill and are interested in computer science, politics, law or culture online then come and intern for Open Rights Group.

The Open Rights Group works to  raise awareness in the media of digital rights abuses and to protect digital rights online.

Eight hours

Eight hours lecturing in two days. My mind is going, my feet hurt, my throat is raw… This is why lecturing is a cool sport.

No energy left for real blogging so I will leave you with this picture of another sign I saw in Brussels…

2228545035_982e389a69.jpg

picture fundamental right by Klang (CC by)

the sign is intriguing since it this was the only fundamental right they seemed to feel the need to inform the passers by about…

Artefacts & Embedded Values

One of the themes that I have been trying to get across to audience in some of my recent lectures has been the philosophical and political implications of technology. The point I am trying to illustrate is that technology is embedded not only with the designer’s ideas about the user’s needs, the way in which the technology will be used and the marketability of the product – but each product also contains a depth of philosophical and political beliefs.

Therefore while in Borås I spoke about a chair that happened to be in the lecture hall. It was a typical Scandinavian conference room chair. The fact that we can recognize a chair as typical Scandinavian is, in itself, telling.

The chair’s “Scandinavianess” was revealed in the result of multiple design choices.

The choices of shape, the weight, the cloth, the pattern on the cloth and the wooden frame make the chair and also reveal its economic, social, moral, political and philosophical background. The most obvious give away was the choice of pinewood. This honey color has come to symbolize Scandinavian design from high culture Aalto to mass production Ikea.

The shape reveals that it is intended for audiences, the shape and the cloth show that it is not for schools. The pattern of the cloth ages the chair and shows it belongs to a bygone era of design (it’s the early 90’s).

While it is relatively easy to illustrate these points it is more complex to show the connection to the way in which the technology controls and regulates our behavior. This control is particularly relevant in technologies that manipulate and alter the way in which we communicate.

A recent development on Facebook illustrates the way in which technology controls and enables what users can do. The Facebook profile has long had an obligatory “is” in the way in which the user can describe what is going on. The result can be something like “Mathias is at work”, “Mathias is sleeping” and “Mathias is feeling good”.

The little “is” limits the way in which the user can communicate. Maybe the user is no longer, maybe the user wants to be “was” or why even a verb of being? By removing the compulsory state of being the user now is free to express much more than a state of being. “Mathias wants…”, “Mathias runs…” or “Mathias eats”.

This change enables the user and dares him/her to make an existential shift from the Heideggerian state (as Christopher puts it). The question, of course, is whether or not the user will dare to going beyond the “is” now that the freedom to do so has been enabled.

Robot Ethics

Some people seem not to be able to find anything to write about. Me on the other hand I am stuck with the problem of finding too many things fascinating. The topic of Robot Ethics is one which I would love to have time to engage in. I was reminded of this by the Humlab Blog

Peter Asaro will present a lecture on â??Robot Ethicsâ?? in the HUMlab.

This lecture will be an overview of his research at the HUMlab on Robot Ethics, particularly on the ethics of military robots. Peter is one of the new Postdoctoral Fellows at the HUMlab and the Department of Philosophy.

His film Love Machine will be shown in HUMlab at 15:30 on this Friday, June 1.
This is part of the â??Love, War & Robots Film Seriesâ??

Love Machine flyer

Love Machine (2001), directed by Peter Asaro, 110 min,

My fascination with robot ethics is the border between man and machine. When does a machine become complex enough to be granted rights on its own? Some may argue that no matter how sophisticated the software the machine will always be a machine. Fair point. But what happens when we begin to mix tissue in the machine. What happens when we begin to put more foreign objects into the human body. At what stage will the limits between man and machine become blurred enough for us to seriously discuss the limits of the man/machine dichotomy.

I have used some of these questions in my computer ethics courses but I never seem to have the time to explore this more deeply.

A howto for the Fascist Dictator

Naomi Wolf has written a provocative article entitled Fascist America, 10 Easy Steps in the Guardian Online.

  1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
  2. Create a gulag
  3. Develop a thug caste
  4. Set up an internal surveillance system
  5. Harass citizens’ groups
  6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
  7. Target key individuals
  8. Control the press
  9. Dissent equals treason
  10. Suspend the rule of law

Her motivations show that the ten easy steps are easily fulfilled by the US administration. It is also interesting that all this is done in the name of freedom and democracy. In other words in order to rescue freedom and democracy we must remove your freedoms and suspend the participatory democracy. This is doublespeak and spin at its best.

Shocking.

Employee's Privacy: No Monitoring

This comes straight from the latest EDRI newsletter:

The Welsh Government, through Carmarthenshire College, was found in breach of human rights by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for having monitored one of the college employee’s e-mails, internet traffic and
telephone calls.

As the College is publicly funded, Lynette Copland sued the government for infringing Art.8 of the European Convention on Human Rights that says “everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home
and his correspondence”.

The government argued that the monitoring was carried out in order to establish whether Copland had extensively used college resources for personal communication, but the court ruled that: “The court is not convinced by the government’s submission that the college was authorised under its statutory powers to do ‘anything necessary or expedient’ for the purposes of providing higher and further education, and finds the argument unpersuasive”.

Copland claimed that her correspondence had been monitored for about 18 months by the headmaster of the college who even contacted some of the people with whom she had communicated to ask for the nature of their communications. The government admitted the monitoring but stated it had lasted only a few months.

The Court ruling was that “According to the court’s case-law, telephone calls from business premises are prima facie covered by the notions of ‘private life’ and ‘correspondence’ ” and that “It follows logically that emails sent from work should be similarly protected under article eight, as should information derived from the monitoring of personal internet usage.”

“The applicant in the present case had been given no warning that her calls would be liable to monitoring, therefore she had a reasonable expectation as to the privacy of calls made from her work telephone. The same expectation
should apply in relation to the applicant’s e-mail and internet usage.”

The college had no policy to inform employees they might be monitored and Copland had received no warning on this.

“The ruling is important in that it reinforces the need for a statutory basis for any interference with respect to private use of a telecommunications system by an employee… The lawful business practice regulations [part of RIPA] allow an employer to monitor and intercept business communications, so the Court is implying that private use of a telecommunications system, assuming it is authorised via an acceptable use policy, can be protected.” said Dr Chris Pounder, a privacy specialist at Pinsent Masons.

The Court awarded Copland 3,000 Euros in damages and 6,000 Euros in costs and expenses.

European Court of Human Rights – Copland vs. The United Kingdom (3.04.2007)
http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/253.html

EU court rules monitoring of employee breached human rights (5.04.2007)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/05/monitoring_breached_human_rights/

Court of Human Rights protects the private use of the Internet (4.04.2007)
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/87867

Monitoring of employee breached human rights, says European court
(4.04.2007)
http://www.out-law.com/page-7936

Stallman in Göteborg

This is really cool. Richard Stallman will be giving a lecture in Göteborg in May.

The Free Software Foundation Europe and Göteborg University are pleased to invite you to a lecture with Dr. Richard Stallman:

Free Software and Beyond: Human Rights in the Use of Software and Other Published Works

Dr. Richard Stallman will speak about the goals and philosophy of the Free Software Movement: defending essential freedoms for the users of software. In addition, he will address how the ideas of free software do or don’t extend to other kinds of published works. He will also explain what the Pirate Party must change in its program to avoid unintended negative consequences in the software field.

Dr. Stallman is the founder of the GNU project and president of the Free Software Foundation. He has received an honorary doctorate from the Royal Institute of Technology, the University of Glasgow, Free University of Brussels and Universidad Nacional de Salta. In 1990, he was the receiver of a Macarthur foundation fellowship and has been elected member of the US National Academy of Engineering and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

The lecture will take place at:

University Aula
Göteborg University
Vasaparken
Göteborg, Sweden

May 16th
From 5pm to 8pm

While the lecture is a public event, and we invite you to forward this invitation to whomever you feel might be interested, we kindly request that in order to participate, you register via http://www.rms2007.se/registrering

Bad Attitude

The blog Bad Vista puts a nice perspective on the difference in attitude between free and proprietary software:

As the GPL preamble says:

The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software–to make sure the software is free for all its users.

In contrast, a typical Microsoft Vista EULA says:

The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways.

See the difference in attitude?

Interesting Mix

In a mail from the careers office at my university they managed both to inform that S�PO (The security police official English name: The Swedish Security Service) were looking for trainees and that Amnesty International in Göteborg was looking for volunteers. Is is only me or is this a strange mix to have in one email? Maybe its just me.