23 days

Todays production was +1478 bringing the total up to 177 pages and 87 064 words. It was a good day.

And the countdown is still in the twenties. Today was lots of work on filters & censorship (Look at OpenNet iniative). On Yahoo! helping China chase cyberdissidents and Google creating a ideologically clean (Chinese style) search engine for China. Its obvious that the companies are bending over backwards to gain access to the Chinese market. Despite all the corporate retoric their actions speak louder than words.

censorship
Censorship by Eric Drooker

Reading tip for the weekend: Rosemary Coombe “Commodity Culture, Private Censorship, Branded Environments, and Global Trade Politics: Intellectual Property as a Topic of Law and Society Research

human enhancement

A new book from the on the subject of human enhancement entitled â??Better Humans? The politics of human enhancement and life extensionâ?? (edited by
Paul Miller & James Wilsdon) is out now and available for download.

This is from the online blurb:

We all share a desire for self-improvement. Whether through education, work, parenthood or adhering to religious or ethical codesâ?¦more consumerist pursuits hold the key to self-improvement: working out in the gym, wearing makeup, buying new clothes, or indulging in a spot of cosmetic surgery.â?¦Within the next 30 years, it may become commonplace to alter the genetic make-up of our children, to insert artificial implants into our bodies, or to radically extend life expectancy.

The book is a collection of 12 essays on the implications of human enhancement technologies and includes chapters like â??Is it wrong to try to improve human nature?â?? (by Arthur Caplan, â??Brain gainâ?? (by Steven Rose), â??Better by designâ?? (by Sarah Franklin) & â??The unenhanced underclassâ?? (by Gregor Wolbring).

via Techne

What is Google?

Google is many things. To some its a symbol of the success of the dotcom ideal. To others it has become an activity online (to google), and to others it is almost synonmous with our experience of the Web and maybe the Internet since most people no longer differentiate these two things.

The position of Google has taken such proportions that we no longer remember the time before Google. Not many years ago the main search engine was Altavista – its still there, but it no longer commands the position it once did. Google has been moving in all manner of interesting directions. Just to menation a few: Google desktop, Gmail, Google Scholar, Google Maps and Google Earth.

Google’s position has spawned some interesting spoofs: for example Googlism – which shows what google “thinks of you, your friends or anything”. Another example is the mirror version world of elgooG. A final example is Woogle which uses the picture search to tell stories in pictures.

Even prior to this diversification there were voices being raised about the position which Google was creating for itself in the everyday online lives of users. The question, stated basically, is what happens if we become dependant upon a private company for our information? Google is not a public office but is a private company whose primary goal is not truth but profit. In this vein we have seen that Google stores vast amounts of information about its users and has acquiesced to Chinese demands to censor information to users in China.

The role of search engines is becoming an important area of research, recently Matthew Rimmer at the Law Department of the ANU has organised a public forum on Google entitled “GOOGLE – Infinite Library, Copyright Pirate, or Monopolist?” (9 December).

The audio files from the Public Forum are online so for those of us who could not make it to Australia in time we can now listen to the presentations.

Less integrity in Sweden – again!

The Minister of Justice in Sweden wants to allow the police to bug telephones even when no concrete suspicion of crime exists. A proposal to amend the law to allow this will be presented in autumn.

The minister says that this is part of a policy to combat terrorism â?? but he also states that politics is not being formulated by terrorist attacks.

As usual the concern for personal integrity is not high on the political agenda.

Maybe someone should tell him that the whole point of combatting terrorism is to preserve an open society. If we loose this the terrorists are not only dictating policy & politics but actually winning. If European countries such as the UK & Spain remember this in spite of terror attacks then why cannot Sweden (which has not been attacked) be more interested in integrity?

Free Software/Open Source: Political Science Course

The deadline for applying to the Free Software/Open Source: Political Science Course has now passed and with almost 200 students from all over the world the course promises to be an exiting example of collaborative distance learning.

Here is the blurb on the course:
The purpose of this course will be to study the effects of technology on the political process by studying how the free software/open source movements organises itself and acts to lobby and affect political decisions in favour for the fundamental messages and ideologies. The course has the intention to help the participant to achieve a greater understanding of the political goals of the free software/open source movements. In addition the course will look at the political and economic conditions for the development of open source and free software.

The course will study the development of politics, policy and law in relation to the role of software in society. Subjects which will be treated in depth are the role of free software/open source in relation to property theory, the politics of technology, community governance and the economic foundations for the assessment of free software/open source development.

First Monday – paper accepted

Free software and open source: The freedom debate and its consequences
– Mathias Klang

“To most outsiders the ethics of software is not something usually considered. To most proficient computer users with a passing interest in this question the ethics of software is recognised as one of the fundamental questions in the digital rights area. To most of the latter, terms such as free software, open source, and their derivatives (FLOSS, FOSS, Software Freedom) are interchangeable. Choosing one over the other is a matter of taste rather than politics.”

First Monday March 2005

Open Source/Free Software: Political science

The purpose of this course will be to study the effects of technology on the political process by studying how the free software/open source movements organises itself and acts to lobby and affect political decisions in favour for the fundamental messages and ideologies. The course has the intention to help the participant to achieve a greater understanding of the political goals of the free software/open source movements. In addition the course will look at the political and economic conditions for the development of open source and free software.

The course will study the development of politics, policy and law in relation to the role of software in society. Subjects which will be treated in depth are the role of free software/open source in relation to property theory, the politics of technology, community governance and the economic foundations for the assessment of free software/open source development.
The course

The course is given as a part time course from April to June (2005). Teaching on the course will be carried out with the help of lectures, readings and group discussions. Examination is carried out through two shorter written assignments and a longer essay (4500 words).

Open Source/Free Software: Political science

Abstract submitted to First Monday

www.firstmonday.org

Recently the University of Göteborg held an online course in the theory and philosophy of free software and open source. During this course a lively discussion on the terminology took place, in particular the concept of free was discussed. Without arriving at particular conclusions the posts included views in part on the lack of user awareness on what was property within the computer, on the difference between free, gratis and libre in different languages and cultures and the need for both a common terminology and infrastructure. This paper is not an attempt to resolve these issues but to bring these questions to the attention of a wider audience in the hope that the discussion will continue.

To most outsiders the ethics of software is not something usually considered. To most proficient computer users with a passing interest in this question the ethics of software is recognised as one of the fundamental questions in the digital rights area. To most of the latter group terms Free Software, Open Source and their derivatives (FLOSS, FOSS, Software Freedom) are interchangeable. Choosing one over the other is a matter of taste rather than politics. However, to most insiders the question is not one of taste. There is a fundamental difference between the two areas even if they share a similar root. Free Software is not the same as Open Source. The two groups differ in their fundamental philosophical approach to software and its importance to society as a whole. This paper examines the two groups? differing philosophies and explores how their actions have affected software development, access to fundamental software infrastructure and the development of the concept of freedom.