Change of State

Do you read First Monday? Well to be honest I don’t usually have the time to read through every issue but I get the email alert for every new issue – its out on the first Monday of every month – and I tend to browse through the titles and find something interesting to read each month.

First Monday is one of the first openly accessible, peerâ??reviewed journals on the Internet, solely devoted to the Internet. Since its start in May 1996, First Monday has published 795 papers in 132 issues; these papers were written by 951 different authors. In addition, eight special issues have appeared.

This month has a focus on Wikipedia which is naturally interesting but what really caught my eye was a chapter from Sandra Braman’s book Change of State: Information, Policy and Power.

Thanks to MIT Press and Sandra Braman, First Monday is pleased to present an excerpt from Sandraâ??s latest book Change of State: Information, Policy, and Power. This book examines the implications of the change of the governments from welfare states to informational states. Sandra describes how information policy in areas as diverse as intellectual property, border protection, privacy, and research funding affect issues such as identity, the nature of technological systems, and organizational structures.

The table of contents for Change of State follows with a link to chapter 9, â??Information, Policy, and Power in the Informational State.â??

The book is naturally amerocentric but promises some interesting ideas. It looks like another book to add to the reading list – check it out.

The Third Draft

The third draft of the GPLv3 has been released. The draft is a result of feedback from various sources (general public, official discussion committees, and two international conferences held in India and Japan). The draft incorporates significant changes since the previous draft (July 2006). This draft is planned to be the penultimate draft prior to the formal release of the official GPLv3.

Changes in this draft include:

* First-time violators can have their license automatically restored if they remedy the problem within thirty days.
* License compatibility terms have been simplified, with the goal of making them easier to understand and administer.
* Manufacturers who include the software in consumer products must also provide installation information for the software along with the source. This change provides more narrow focus for requirements that were proposed in previous drafts.
* New patent requirements have been added to prevent distributors from colluding with patent holders to provide discriminatory protection from patents.

    The draft will be open for comments and discussion for sixty days. Following this the FSF will release a “last call” draft, followed by another thirty days for discussion before the FSF’s board of directors approves the final text of GPL version 3.

    Richard Stallman, president of the FSF and principal author of the GNU GPL, said, “The GPL was designed to ensure that all users of a program receive the four essential freedoms which define free software. These freedoms allow you to run the program as you see fit, study and adapt it for your own purposes, redistribute copies to help your neighbor, and release your improvements to the public. The recent patent agreement between Microsoft and Novell aims to undermine these freedoms. In this draft we have worked hard to prevent such deals from making a mockery of free software.”

    GPLv3 Update

    The work on version three of the GNU General Public License (Wikipedia) is moving along nicely. A news update on the progress reads:

    The second discussion draft of GPLv3 was released eight months ago, in July 2006. We had never planned to let so much time pass between public releases of the license. We felt it was important to fully discuss a few specific issues, including the recent patent deal between Novell and Microsoft, before proceeding with the process. A new discussion draft will be released on March 28 at 10:00 AM US Eastern time; it represents the outcome of those discussions, and the rationale document that will accompany it explains how we arrived at these decisions. However, we remain absolutely committed to hearing input from as much of the free software community as possible before publishing a final version of the license. We are adjusting the drafting process to make sure that everyone interested has an opportunity to make their voice heard.

    The third discussion draft will be open for comment for sixty days. Based on the feedback we receive during this window, we may publish new language from time to time for additional review. For example, if someone points out a side effect of some term that we hadn’t considered before, we may publish updated text for that section aimed at addressing the issue. These changes will be announced on the GPLv3 web site and mailing list.

    We will continue to take feedback from public comments and discussion committees as before. In addition, if there are common questions about the license, we will address those in blog posts on the GPLv3 web site. Our goal is not to preempt discussion or criticism of the draft, but rather to enhance that discussion by helping the community fully understand the text. We are also considering other ways to solicit input, which we will announce as they are planned.

    After this discussion period is over, we will publish a last call draft. That draft will be open for comment for thirty days, and the final license will be published shortly afterwards. We would like to thank everyone for their continued support during this process, and their assistance as we work to make the our licenses the best they can be.

    Read more about the GPLv3 and the progression of its development at the GPLv3 site.

    Lectures vs Student Presentations

    My “eCommerce & eGovernment” course is drawing to a close and the time comes for a moment of reflection on the way in which the course was handled. This time in order to engage the students in the subjects I decided to let them take more space in the course. Instead of having my (I know it’s politically incorrect to speak of my students) students sitting passively through my lecturing I wanted to activate them.

    In order to do this they had three larger pieces of work to present and a written examination at the end. The first presentation required them to pick a government agency and assess the website from different perspectives such as clarity, openness, human computer interaction, technology used and services offered. The second project focused on the digital divide and the students had now to pick another government agency website and evaluate if from different digital divide perspectives such as age, computer literacy, language skills, physical handicaps and more.  The third presentation required that the students presented a chapter each from the book. The point here was that the students both understand and communicate the content and add external thoughts (both their own and those of others).

    Letting the students become more active requires a different approach from me. I need to support them and to critique what they do. At the same time it is difficult (and unfair) to critique people when they are maybe presenting material to a group for maybe the first time.

    The results were predictable. Some students seemed to enjoy presenting, they had good presentations and a relaxed attitude towards the situation. While others were very uncomfortable with whole process and the task of standing up to speak in front of others.

    While sitting and listening to all these presentations I was forced to think about the point of this system. While I really believe that the students profit from a more detailed reading of the material which a presentation requires I was unsure as to what the learning effects have been. This naturally leads to the whole question of what the point is of any teaching situation. In particular what is the point of the lecture.

    Most of us are hard pressed to remember anything specific that a lecturer has said. We remember an astonishingly small amount of what we hear. At the same time memories tend to revolve around the performance rather than the content. A good lecture contains a lot of showmanship. But then what is the point of requiring this from the students? Does the course really deal with showmanship?

    Of course not. None of the credits are awarded on the ability to perform live. I still believe that this system actually does promote a better level of student participation and understanding among the students but it is difficult to think of this when some particularly nervous students are attempting to survive their time at the head of the class. The learning part entailed in preparing the lecture is effective and important. But there must be a better way of relieving the anxiety of the students who dislike standing center stage?

    Activists and Technology

    This term has the main load of my teaching which means that I spend lots of time close to the students discussing and attempting to capture their attention for subjects ranging from eCommerce to Computer Ethics. It is very difficult to conduct larger research work in between teaching so most of the extra time is spent attempting to plan future work. This entails discussions of future work: meeting other researchers, planning projects, writing research applications and doing basic reading to cover the groundwork. This is useful in the sense that it lays the foundations for future work but it is also very frustrating since it is not real research work (some of you may disagree â?? but then thatâ??s the point of blogging).

    One of my larger planned projects is developing well. No real results as yet (funding, publisher contacts etc) but it is still promising in that the basic reading reveals a good field ripe for additional research which may reveal very interesting results. The people around are enthusiastic, open and friendly.

    The basic project idea is to gather empirical data on the use of technology in political resistance. To do this I intend to spend time interviewing activists to understand the way in which they use technology. The hope of this project is to understand both their mundane usage and the more â??exoticâ?? technology use. The point of this work is to first collect data on actual use and then hopefully penetrate the reasons for their use or lack of use of technology.

    In particular I want to find out if the recent changes in attitudes towards activists has encouraged them to use more secretive technologies such as encryption and covert messaging. Ideally the project would like to understand what it is they believe to be threats to their activities and how they set about countering such threats. Alternatively the work will look at the reasons for their non-use of different technologies.

    In order to do this I need to get into contact with diverse groups of political activists. In order to limit the study I will also be focusing on groups which primarily deal in non-violent methods within the participatory democracy ideal.

    To me this is very exciting and I hope to begin data collection this summer and continue with this until February. In parallel with this will be data analysis and writing. The chance to do more detailed empirical work and connect it to my analytical background is an exciting prospect.

    As I write this the train (yes another trip â?? but short this time) is speeding through a foggy landscape and two deer were walking slowly through a field itâ??s a mystical uplifting experience looking at nature â?? even if it is through the window of a speeding train.

    Last Lines

    The opening lines to any work are obviously of great importance. Many writers spend a lot of time and effort to get the line just right. One of my favourite opening lines is from Camus “The Stranger”. The confusion and sadness in the opening lines both sets the stage and sums up the confusion of the character.

    Mother died today. Or maybe yesterday, I donâ??t know. I had a telegram from home: â??mother passed away. Funeral tomorrow. Yours sincerely.â?? That doesnâ??t mean anything. It may have been yesterday.

    Closing lines rarely recieve the same amount of attention – which is strange. The importance of opening and closing is not limited to fictional works. Academic works also attempt lift their work with opening and closing lines. Here are a few examples:

    Democracy and its critics (Dahl 1989): Yet the vision of people governing themselves as political equals, and possessing all the resources and institutions necessary to do so, will I believe remain a compelling if always demanding guide in the search for a society in which people may live together in peace, respect each other’s intristic equality, and jointly seek the best possible life”

    Water Wars (Shiva 2002): The struggle over the kumbh, between gods and demons, between those who protect and those who destroy, between those who nurture and those who exploit, is ongoing. Each of us has a role in shaping the creation of the future. Each of us is responsible for the kumbh – the sacred water pot.

    A Theory of Justice (Rawls 1971): Purity of heart, if one could attain it, would be to see clearly and to act with grace and self-command from this point of view.

    Free Speech: A philosophical enquiry (Schauer 1982): There will always remain some hard cases, but many of them are not as hard as they may at first sight appear.

    My own last line: Discarding the technology entails a limited, regulated use but will fail to recognise the full potential of disruptive technologies as an agent of change within the participatory democracy.

    Some last lines attempt to sum up the whole work, some attempt to sum up the last chapter, others simply finish of the final chapter. Obviously there must be a last line in a book and this line need not have any particular function in itself – but it seems a bit of an anti-climax when the last line of a good book has no other desire than to end the book.

    Privacy Attitudes

    One of the problems faced by researchers working with privacy is the fundamental question of why people do not care about privacy? It is easy to see either from studies or by simply looking at peopleâ??s behaviour that privacy is not a big thing for many people.

    Oh course if you were to ask the question: Is you privacy important to you? Then most people would reply that their privacy was important. But if we look at the way in which people act with their privacy then we get the real picture. There is a radical difference between the way in which people want to be perceived (i.e. privacy conscious) and the way in which they act.

    What does this mean? Well some of the discrepancy between the peopleâ??s theoretical and real standpoints can be explained by the lack of knowledge and awareness of the privacy threats. So for example, it is difficult to blame people for being unconcerned with their privacy simply because they us gmail or similar services.

    A similar argument can be made to cover those who have no choice but to use less private alternatives. But wait! before you begin to argue that there is always a choice not to use the technology at all, I want to point out being a Luddite is not an option for many people and neither is it for you, considering where you got a hold of this text.

    Why is peopleâ??s perception of privacy a problem? Well if we argue the right to privacy (and I often do) then the fact that people do not care about privacy makes this a problem. Can there be a human right if it is unwanted? For a long time I used the smoker analogy.

    Smokers want to be healthy but still do not quit smoking despite all the information available. This is not meant to be understood as smokers do not want to be healthy, nor does it invalidate their right to healthcare. The problem with privacy however is that either you have it or you donâ??t.

    Recently Paul Saffo wrote about the online habits of the young be warning them that they will come to regret their openness and online presences:

    Which is why I pity teens today, for in a few decades their sophomoric musings will deliver a vast embarrassment utterly unknown to earlier generations. It is not that their words are any sillier than earlier generations; rather teens today have had the misfortune of being the first generation to record their thoughts in cyberspace where those thoughts will remain perfectly preserved until some wag drags them out at a school reunion or the authorâ??s children discover the IM affections that passed between mom and dad.

    Saffo’s post seems to come as a reaction to (or proof of concept) the peice by Emily Nussbaum in the New Yorker “Kids, the Internet, and the End of Privacy: The Greatest Generation Gap Since Rock and Roll“.

    Basically people (many of them young – but by no means all) are putting their lives online – innermost thoughts, bad poetry, homespun politics, private erotica and everything else that was previously covered by privacy. Add to this the number of cameras and videos that surround us – almost one in every pocket. We have a situation where every embarassing situation is recorded and transmitted to the rest of the disinterested world. The material is also stored away for no reason to resurface at a later date – even though I think most of it will be lost on trashed computers long before the future.

    So the concern is: children doing things today with technology will live to regret it later.  And it will be a lot worse than when “we” were young since there will be texts and photos around to prove it.

    I disagree.

    The mass of material produced today will sink into obscurity. Yes some material (potentially embarassing) will remain to be found. But this change will not create the scandal that such material cuases today. Finding an embarrasing image from the teenage past of a prominent figure of today is hardly newsworthy – but it is considered to be news. In twenty years it will not even be news.

    The self publication of ones teenage life and angst will not create a generation of people neurotic about the fact that someone may remember them or their thoughts, it will create a generation of people who can say that they were teenagers in much the same way as all other teenages were.

    What about privacy?

    This is not the death of privacy. Privacy is a “floating” value. Ideas of what is, and what should be, private change in culture, time and space. The only shock that we are seeing here is the death of the privacy concept as it has been understood by the “others” or “outsiders” – in other words it is the attempt of those outside the group to dictate norms on those inside the group.

    More free books

    Books that are free (as in beer) are simply irresistible and these two seem particularly relevant to my interests thats a big additional bonus! They are available online for free download or the old fashioned dead-tree version. Actually I shouldn’t be like that – I prefer the dead tree versions…

    A collection of essays (edited by Joseph Feller and others) called: Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software some of it is familiar but it is nice to have it all collected in one place. It can be downloaded all at once here or chapter by chapter here.

    The second one is John Logieâ??s book Peers, Pirates and Persuasion which is about the rhetoric of the peer-to-peer debates. A good analysis of the rhetorics of file sharing has been missing so I am really looking forward to reading this book. Download if here.

    (Via Lex Ferenda)

    Incompatible Licenses

    This morning a short question was posed on one of the Creative Commons mailing lists (cc-community).

    I have a simple question. Why are all the Creative Commons licenses incompatible with the GPL?

    This was an excellent little question and since then the mailing list has been busy sending in responses and thoughts. Since this is an open mailing list it is ok to quote one of the answers which I found very well written and helpful in explaining this important issue. The reply comes from Greg London and is as follows:

    (broad brushstrokes follow.
    Nit-pickers need not apply)

    If you’re talking about converting
    content between the CC-SA and GNU-GPL
    licenses, then the problem is basically
    a side effect of copyleft.

    Copyleft licenses keep the content Free
    by demanding that the content and any
    derivatives are always available under
    the same license as the original.

    This prevents someone from putting more
    restrictions on the work and taking a
    version of Free content private.

    Almost counter intuitively, copyleft
    protects the content by disallowing
    someone from removing restrictions on
    the work. This could be abused by allowing
    someone to first convert the content from
    a copyleft license to a public domain license,
    and then allowing the person to create
    proprietary forks.

    So, copyleft keeps the work Free by demanding
    that the content and its derivatives must always
    be held under the same license as the original.

    Which means that if you have two copyleft
    licenses, but they have different requirements,
    they are incompatible. The GNU-GPL and CC-SA
    licenses are both copyleft. But the GNU-GPL has
    a source code requirement that the CC-SA does not.

    If you took CC-SA content and converted it to
    GNU-GPL, you would be adding a source code
    requirement to the content that did not exist
    before. And if you took GNU-GPL content and
    converted it to CC-SA, you’d be removing the
    source code requirement.

    And since both say you can’t change the requirements,
    converting between either license is disallowed.

    The idea CC is apparently working on for making
    licenses inter-operable is to put language into
    the license that allows the content to be licensed
    under the original license, or any license that is
    deemed to be similar enough, for some fuzzy definition
    of “enough”.

    They already have something like this that makes sure
    that, for example, the different language versions
    of CC-SA are compatible with each other. The way I
    understand it, they’re are going to try to use the
    same approach to expand compatibility outside of the
    CC-SA licenses.

    Since no CC license has a “source code” requirement,
    I don’t think any CC license will ever be directly
    interchangable with GNU-GPL. But they are trying to
    solve the problem of license proliferation by building
    in a mechanism that will allow all the content to be
    transferred to licenses that are deemed “close enough”.

    I hope this helps.

    You can join the list and/or read the archives.

    Open Access Petition

    Have you signed the “Petition for guaranteed public access to publicly-funded research results”? No? Well there is still time. The purpose of the petition is to register support for free and open access to European research and for the recommendations proposed in the EU’s ‘Study on the Economic and Technical Evolution of the Scientific Publication Markets of Europe‘.

    Read more about the petition and sign it here. Over 18000 have already signed but there is always room for more.