Greenpeace has a very nicely designed site to pressure Apple into becoming more environmentally aware. The site is called â??I love my Mac. I just wish it came in green.â??
The focus of the campaign is a letter-writing action where we all email Steve Jobs and tell him we want to be more green. We want the design without the major guilt of raping the environment.
Read the information at iTox & iWaste then join the campaign to persuade Steve to go greenâ?¦
When Europe strengthens legislation against toxic waste a sad side effect is the fact that exporting our poisonous mess to countries with less ability to enforce such legislation. Read the detailed reports of the toxic waste trade and the Panamanian flagged ship, the Probo Koala, in Der Spiegel and Greenpeace.
The Probo Koala scandal deals with a load of highly toxic waste. Discharging it in Europe was too costly. Therefore the company and crew dumped the waste on less regulated shores of West Africa. The result was seven dead and more than 40,000 in need of medical help. The government fell earlier this month as a result of the scandal. (via Other Bhopals).
After dumping its deadly cargo on the poor and unprotected the ship sailed to Europe and recieved a clean bill of health. On monday Greenpeace sailed alongside the ship with their vessel Arctic Sunrise up alongside the tanker in Paldiski, Estonia sprayed the slogan ‘Toxic Trade Kills‘ on the tanker and preventing it from leaving.
(via The Orchid)
In 2000 a report on IT related crime was released by the BRÃ?. BRÃ? is the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebyggande rÃ¥det – BrÃ¥). Since first reading this report I have been very critical of its presentation of gender in relation to computer crime.
When I began this blog in 2005 it was only natural that I would quote this report in an entry and air my criticism at the same time. So in a post entitled Boys, girls & computers (in November 2005) you can read:
In a report on IT related Crime (XXX & XXX) from The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention from the year 2000 we find the wierd and wonderful quote:
â??Män misstänks för dataintrÃ¥ng, de manipulerar, raderar och stjäl program, filer eller data. När kvinnor misstänks som gärningsmän handlar det mestadels om interna dataintrÃ¥ng â?? obehörig registerupplysning och radering av filer, program eller data. Endast tre kvinnor misstänks för databedrägeri.â??
Källa: IT-relaterad brottslighet, BR�-rapport 2000:2
Loosely translated: Men are suspected of breaking into computer systems, they manipulate, erase and steal programs, files or data. When women are suspected it is mostly internally accessing computer systems – unauthorised looking at files and erasing files, programs or data. Only three women are suspected of computer fraud.
The authors therefore state that men are actively carrying out manly tasks of destruction while women are driven by curiousity to peek into files. Men â??break, manipulate, erase and stealâ?? while women look and erase. Even to the most untrained this is a joke. Men are doers who do macho stuff while women are either driven by curiousity or erase (by incompetence?).
I realise that the report is from 2000 butâ?¦ come on!! Can they have written this with a straight face?
Since then the post has been peacefully hanging around the database waiting for a reader. Today it solicited a reaction. An email arrived from someone claiming to be one of the authors of the report (it is not an official BRÃ? email address). I will reproduce the email in Swedish so as not to be accused of interpreting the content.
Hej Klang!
Jag såg att du hade citerat våran Brå-rapport på ituniv.se för ungefär ett år sedan. Jag blev en aning fundersam över ditt sätt att tolka vad vi skrivit i rapporten. Så jag tänkte att jag kanske kunde förklara hur du ska tolka det du citerade.Vi påstår inget, vi redovisar ett resultat från en undersökning av polisanmäld brottslighet. Det vill säga den delen av brottsligheten som kommer till polisens kännedom. En del av dessa polisanmälningar innehöll uppgifter om en misstänkt gärningsmän. Vi sammanställde dessa uppgifter och fick fram ett antal kvinnor som misstänktes för brott. Så vad vi skriver är endast ett resultat av vad som framkom i undersökningen.
Således gör vi inga slustater om skillnader mellan mäns och kvinnors brottslighet, det råkade bara falla sig så att de kvinnor som fanns med i undersökning misstänktes för interna dataintrång.Jag hoppas att jag förklarat så att du förstår vad du har läst. Och du, när du citerar något bör du ta med allt som står i avsnitt du tanker citera.
Mvh
The letter begins â??Hello Klangâ?? and goes on to explain that I have misinterpreted the report and the quote. The writer goes on to explain that the authors of the report were not drawing any conclusions but simply reporting. It ends with on a condescending note explaining how one should handle quotes.
To which I replied:
Din förklaring hjälper inte alltför mycket. Min kritik dÃ¥ – och nu – handlar om det vinklade sättet ni okritiskt presenterar er data.
I detta stycke som jag citerar kan man läsa att kvinnor begår brott på grund av nyfikenhet eller okunskap medans männens brottslighet är aktiv och kunnigt.
När en undersökning visar resultat som verkar helt skumma har man ett ansvar som forskare/författare/utredare att problematisera de resultat man får. Erat sätt att presentera siffrorna ger den oreflekterande läsaren en felaktig könsbild i relation till brottslighet.
Tonen i ert sprÃ¥kbruk i rapporten förstärker tydligt budskapet om kvinnans tekniska inkompetens. Du skriver i ditt mail: “Vi pÃ¥stÃ¥r inget, vi redovisar ett resultat…” jag hÃ¥ller inte med. Genom att skriva pÃ¥stÃ¥r man (i detta fall ni) nÃ¥got. Genom att citatet finns i en BRÃ? rapport sÃ¥ är det inte lösa ord utan semi-officiell sanning. Era ord skapar en verklighet som andra förhÃ¥ller sig till. Det sistnämnda kanske lÃ¥ter dramatiskt och överdrivet – framförallt i detta fall – men som utredare bör man inte anse att man endast rapporterar neutralt och sakligt.
Neutralitet och saklighet är något man strävar efter men det kan knappast uppnår.
Jag anser att ni har fel, att ni borde tänkt igenom vad siffrorna betyder och, framför allt, att ni borde uttryckt er på ett helt annat sätt.
Basically I criticise the authors again for their gender-biased report which shows men as active and knowledgeable, while women are ignorant, passive and nosey. I go on to state:
1) Researchers must question and problematise results which seem odd.
2) Presenting results without questioning creates, in this case, a slanted or biased view of gender in relation to IT crime.
3) The tone in the report re-enforces the gender bias.
4) The claim in the email that they are not interpreting but simply reporting is both wrong and harmful. Every time one writes anything it is an act of interpretation.
5) The presentation or interpretation in a report issued by BRÃ? ensures that the words are taken seriously.
6) Neutrality and objectivity are things writers should strive for but are not attainable goals.
I conclude by saying that I believe they are wrong in their report, they should have reflected upon what the numbers meant and, above all else, expressed themselves in a completely different manner.
I have edited out personal names so to enhance the principle discussion rather than those involved. Besides the important lack of gender understanding, the point I want to push across is the idea that a report can be neutral. All writing is an act of interpretation. All reading is an act of interpretation. The fact that one of the authors contacts me to “teach” me how to interprete his work demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of the role of the official report as a political and social artefact. If this had come from the writer of a lesser work I would have ignored it. But when the admonishment to interprete official sources in the “correct” manner comes from an official source my feeling of concern grows rapidly.
There is a danger when we accept at face value what we read (even in official sources). This danger becomes even more serious when the author attempts to lecture, teach or scold the reader for his or her interpretation.
In an earlier post (What is wrong with DRM?) I wrote that Microsoft’s new Zune wrapped all content in DRM mechanisms. This was based on this announcement. Apparently this is wrong. Only content which has DRM mechanisms attached is wrapped with the Zune DRM limitation. This means that the Zune does not interfere with the CC anti-DRM clause. Sorry about that Microsoft.
However this does not go against the arguments in the post. The use of DRM has the effect of both limiting legal uses of content and of narrowing our understanding of what is permissable – we move slowly to a society where the default concept is that everything innovative must be illegal…
The 3rd of October has been announced as the â??Day Against DRMâ??. All over the world action groups are going out to protest against the uses and abuses of DRM. Naturally we will be active in Göteborg – more information below.
The point of the day is to be able to bring forward information to the general public and to show that the public concern about DRM is not limited to online virtual activity.
Anti-DRM actions in the past have taken the form of protesters, often wearing yellow (preferably haz-mat) suits protesting and handing out material.
Here is an example of an anti-DRM action which was held in Chicago on June 10, 2006
Naturally there will be an anti-DRM action in my hometown of Göteborg. So if you want the opportunity to see me in a yellow safety suit, why not join in and take a stand against DRM.
So you want to join in? or just watch the party? Well the dates and times are
3 October 08.30-10.15 Chalmersplatsen (outside Chalmers main entrance)
3 October 11.45-13.15 the corner of �. Hamngatan & �. Larmgatan (next to Kopparmärra)
If you let me know if you are interested in joining in then maybe I can organise a yellow suit for you!
For those of you who maybe follow this blog you will realise that the 3 October is the day after I defend my PhD. So this will be the day after the party…
More about DRM on Wikipedia
Today is election day in Sweden. Yesterday all the political parties were fighting for the last undecided voters. It was also a very nice sunny day. Close to the place were the Social Democrats were going to speak in Göteborg I came across this protest:
The image is blurry but it is a person sitting on a chair with a table in front of him/her. On the table are plates filled with earth. The person is covered from head to foot with what may be a burkah. On his/her head a small childs shoe is balanced.
There was no information just the protest – at least I saw it as a protest. The whole protest was situated on a traffic island separating two roads.
The result was disturbing. There are many interpretations for what this could be symbolic of but no real knowledge…
Freeculture are organising a video competition to coincide with the Down with DRM day.
Enter the Down with DRM video contest for a chance to win a Neuros OSD – a portable digital VCR!
Joining in Oct 3rd – Day Against DRM, Free Culture will select the 5 best anti-DRM video entries and award a Neuros OSD to each creator. DefectiveByDesign.org is also looking to air selected anti-DRM videos on their website during the week of October 3rd, and we want to give them a hand.
Here are the official rules to enter Free Culture’s Down with DRM video contest:
What is wrong with DRM?
Most people tend to steer clear of three letter acronyms that they donâ??t immediately understand. DRM (Digital Rights Management) began as a vision of using technology to ensure that owners of intellectual property could maintain control over their property. In other words it would be impossible to do that which was illegal. So far so good. Making it impossible to do that which is illegal is good. Frustrating illegal behaviour is right.
The problem is that DRM can also prevent behaviour that is not illegal.
A current example is the media player â??Zuneâ?? from Microsoft.
To maintain control over the music stored in the media player Zune is designed to limit music sharing. If music is shared between friends it can only be played three times or stored for three days.
The problem occurs when the music shared is either (1) not copyrighted, (2) in the public domain, or (3) shared with permission.
Supposing you create a song. Really. Or maybe a you create a snappy little limerick. You send it wirelessly to a friend. After three days. Or your friend plays it three times â?? it is gone. This is because Zune wraps all music which is sent in this way in DRM nomatter the rights you have as a creator or listener.
Therefore Microsoft Zune limits the legitimate rights of the user in an effort to comply with or control intellectual property. This is bad.
But wait â?? it is worse!
In the book 1984, Orwell introduces a method of control through the language called Newspeak. The idea was that by limiting the meaning of words we the party in power would eventually limit the way in which the citizens think. In the book the example given was that the term free would loose all connections with freedom and only be used with the idea to be rid of something. The example in the book is that a dog will be free of lice. But the concept of freedom as liberty will be lost.
This is the most damaging part of DRM systems. By controlling what is physically possible they create amongst the users an illusion of what can be done. A technical limitation to our use becomes a law of nature. Copying becomes bad not because it is illegal but because it is impossible.
Therefore by controlling the physical reality the manufacturers of DRM are slowly changing the way in which we see what is possible and impossible. In extension this will also limit our ability to envision what could be possible.
I came across this picture of a great statue symbolising fat justice as a burden of the third world. Does anyone know anything about it? The artist, the location etc etc…
So I am late, again! But in going through some old mails this was particularly interesting. It is relevant to a post I wrote (4 Sept – Call for Copyright Activists):
Rome, August 7th 2006.
For the first time in Italy, Siae (the Italian collecting society), with a non-expiring resolution active from July 25th 2006, (documento protocollato presso l’Ufficio Multimedialità al nr. 1/290/06/FDP) recognizes the opportunity and right for the public playing of ambient music inside a commercial space, without compensation to be paid, thanks to the adoption of copyleft licensing schemes (like CC, Art Libre, Copyzero x, Clausola Copyleft) or in the public domain.
Inside the ice cream shop Fiordiluna, in the heart of the Trastevere district in Rome, there is a multimedia space (32″ lcd monitor and Bose speaker system) managed by a Linux pc with free software on it, through which audio, video and literary works with copyleft-like licenses or in the public domain are publicly played.
This major historical achievement has been made possible by the work of Ermanno Pandoli (Giapster and Quindicino) who is a member of the Liberius digital window of the FrontiereDigitali network and who has represented the Fiordiluna ice-creamery to Siae.
Those interested in exposing their works inside the ice-creamery may inform the relevant groups inside the FrontiereDigitali network. To obtain more information on the legal and logitical procedures to follow it is also possible to contact the Liberius digital window.
English translation by Luigi Canali De Rossi, Master New Media Association.
This is an excellent way of bringing about change in the present copyright regime. By enabling businesses to avoid paying the collecting societies and (as in the case above) making a name for themselves we can see how creativity can make a difference. And how it can work outside the narrowly defined conventional music models.