Regulation

Another idiotic regulatory attempt

The latest idiotic proposed legislation comes from Italy. The proposal is that all blogs and websites need to be registered (and taxed).

Beppe Grillo writes

Ricardo Franco Levi, Prodi’s right hand man , undersecretary to the President of the Council, has written the text to put a stopper in the mouth of the Internet. The draft law was approved by the Council of Ministers on 12 October. No Minister dissociated themselves from it. On gagging information, very quietly, these are all in agreement.
The Levi-Prodi law lays out that anyone with a blog or a website has to register it with the ROC, a register of the Communications Authority, produce certificates, pay a tax, even if they provide information without any intention to make money.

Oh my God, Lets start with the easy stuff.

First, How will they intend to police this law. The law can apply to all Italian sites. What is an Italian site? Is it:

  1. a site with an Italian domain
  2. a site on a server in Italy
  3. a site in Italian

Second, what happens when the site is based in several locations with data pulled from several sources? Do they get a tax reduction?

Third, what is a website? Can you define it legally? Is there a difference between the site, server and domain? What about:

  1. A facebook profile
  2. A blog on blogger
  3. An advert on ebay
  4. A wikipedia page
  5. A flickr profile

These may be unique individual websites – but they can also be seen as part of a larger domain.
Fourth, what about free speech rights? Basically an unregistered website would be in violation of the law but would/should the reaction be to close down the site? What happens if a newspaper does not register can they be closed down?

Fifth, administration. How much money and resource can be used to police a law such as this? Can the revenue it brings in even begin to cover the investigative resources required? No of course not. Imaging attempting to chase every Italian blog. How do you know when they are Italian?

Proposals to regulate the Internet come at regular intervals. Often they are barely thought through and will collapse before they even reach the enactment stage. Some laws on Internet regulation have been enacted but are then thankfully forgotten by those who should enforce them.

In the end proposals such as these show that regulators seem to lack even a basic understanding of the technology which most of us use. They also lack a fundamental modern historical approach to regulation. It is really a case of being condemned to repeat the past since we cannot remember it. All the earlier crappy failed attempts to regulate the Internet have failed but since the people proposing regulation have no memory of this we are doomed to see the same mistakes repeated again and again.

At best this provides a form of light relief and humor.

(via BoingBoing)

Posted on by mklang

Regulating Violence

Is the regulation of violence in video/computer games censorship? Or is it a question of protecting the innocent? Naturally paternalism in all forms includes a “pappa knows best” attitude however there are cases of censorship/control/paternalism which we can accept and other forms which we tend to react against.

The forms of Internet censorship (more here) displayed by states such as China and Saudi Arabia are usually criticized as forms of censorship unacceptable in democratic societies while they themselves argue the need to protect their cultures and citizens against the corrupting influences online. It is, it may seem, a question of perspectives.

Then what of the regulation of violent computer games? Are computer games supposed to be seen as forms of speech to be protected? Or are we on a dangerous slippery slope when we start excluding forms of speech? The New York Times has an article showing that the US courts tend to find laws against computer game unconstitutional.

Considering the US approach to Free Expression this is not surprising. The European approach – in particular the French, German and Scandinavian models could not be as clear cut in this question. This only means that the US is against censorship and feels the cost of this decision is worth it, while many other jurisdictions feel that the damage caused by this extreme acceptance of free expression may cause discomfort and hardship to individuals and groups beyond the eventual benefits of the speech.

The ever eloquent Judge Posner is quoted in the article:

“Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low,” he wrote. “It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.”

The problem is that there is often great value (moral rather than economic) in quixotic pursuits and the practice of subjecting people to hardships in order to prepare them for eventual future hardships is really only useful in military training and never a satisfactory way of raising children.

Posted on by mklang

Nothing to Hide

An often used argument against privacy is “nothing to hide” – this refers to the concept that if you have nothing to hide then you should not be concerned about your privacy. In part it is built on a reversed no smoke without fire idea. The problem with this is not that people have something to hide but rather the problem is that innocence is not necessarily an defense against bad consequences.

Often the nothing to hide idea is use against those who argue for more privacy regulation i.e. stronger protection against invasion of privacy. The numerous examples of innocent people getting hurt should provide an abundance of material to ensure that such an argument is not used but again this is wrong. We tend to forget past injustice and often believe that our legal system will only act against the guilty.

Daniel Solove has written an interesting article on the other use of the nothing to hide argument. This is from the abstract:

In this short essay, written for a symposium in the San Diego Law Review, Professor Daniel Solove examines the nothing to hide argument. When asked about government surveillance and data mining, many people respond by declaring: I’ve got nothing to hide. According to the nothing to hide argument, there is no threat to privacy unless the government uncovers unlawful activity, in which case a person has no legitimate justification to claim that it remain private. The nothing to hide argument and its variants are quite prevalent, and thus are worth addressing. In this essay, Solove critiques the nothing to hide argument and exposes its faulty underpinnings.

Read ‘I’ve Got Nothing to Hide’ and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy.

Posted on by mklang

How DRM Becomes Law

Cory Doctorow has written a short must read article on how DRM becomes law in Information Week. I know that there is a lot of stuff out there which is must-read but DRM is really important. It has already reached a point where the regulation of our access and use of technology is controlled not by a transparent process of law and regulation but by the interests and technology of those who manufacture technology.

Imagine if road traffic where regulated by the groups who made asphalt, air-traffic by airplane manufacturers and what you could say on the phone was controlled by the mobile phone companies! Nobody would agree to that. And yet we accept DRM.

By the way, Cory also has the most decorated laptop I have ever seen. I just had to take a picture of it in Dubrovnik.

 

Posted on by mklang

Politics of Regulation – Violent games

The EU met yesterday to discuss the regulation of violent computer games to minors. This follows situations such as the German guman who last year shot several people before taking his life at a secondary school.

A European Union Commissioner, taking advantage of the shootings last year, has called for stricter regulations in the video game industry. A motion introduced last month calls for legislators to â??put in place all necessary measures to ban the sale of particularly violent and cruel video games.â?? (From Lawbean)

The impact of violent games, films and magazines on people (in particular impressionable minors) is questionable. Researchers have found results both to support and to deny any serious impact. The main problem is that no real study can be undertaken to ensure reliable data.

A research method would be to take two groups of children and allow one full access to violence while the other group was fed with “better” material. The drawback with this method is that it would (if true) require the creation of a group of disturbed people.

The next drawback is that the interpretation of the results would also be under question. Are the children being affected by the violence in the games or simply by the long use of computers and/or television?  Would long term exposure for long periods to peaceful activities (flower arrangement?) not lead to an equally a-social development?

This is not to say that I find the regulation of violent computer games to be a wrong goal. I just dislike bad science and the misuse of “scientific data” for political goals.

Posted on by mklang

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

Posted on by mklang

Internet Curfew

The BBC reports that one of the top engineering schools will be shutting down their dorm Internet access every night in order to improve academic performance. Students will still be able to log on to the library or their departmental laboratories.

The authorities in India’s premier engineering institute, the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in Bombay (Mumbai), have cut off internet access to students in hostels at night.

They feel that 24-hour internet access is hampering students’ academic performance and overall personality development…Ms Thosar-Dixit said they were beginning to see a drop in attendance during morning lectures and a noticeable decline in students’ participation in extra-curricular activities.

“In the morning the students would not be fresh and attentive and their socialising patterns were changing as they preferred to sit in their rooms and surf the net rather than interact with their mates.

This is an exciting example of technology regulation. If the school chooses to regulate in this fashion it curtails free choice among students and punishes all students – even those who have a “good” relationship to technology.  But if the school chooses to ignore the problem then the overall performance of the students (and the school) will decline.

The decision to turn of the Internet at night may be well-intentioned but the question of concern is not the regulators intention but rather the results of the regulation. In addition to the results an important consideration in regulation must be the signal regulation sends to the regulated. In this case the students are told that their behavior patterns are incorrect and unacceptable. Whether this is true or not is not the relevant issue. Right and wrong change over time.

I disagree with blanket prohibitions such as these. The paternalistic approach creates a great deal of tension between groups. Between them and us. The regulated and the regulators. I know for a fact that it is not only students at the IIT in Bombay that have “unusual” nocturnal habits. Therefore the school is attempting to impose a normality on a weaker group while the regulators themselves do not subscribe to the concepts of normality they are trying to impose.

Orwell again: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Posted on by mklang

Defence and Environment

What do the Minister of Defence and the Minister of the Environmnet have in common – besides politics? Well today I recieved a letter from the Minister of Defence thanking me for sending my PhD to him three months ago. The Minister of the Environment thanked me in January. Therefore they both have good manners. All the other ministers (including the Prime Minister) either have no manners, no staff or both – since they have not said thank you.

Actually since they were all part of a new cabinett selected close after the election and my thesis defence I sent all the newbies copies of my thesis  Disruptive Technology: Effects of Technology Regulation on Democracy. I didn’t expect a reply from any of them but it’s nice to see that at least two ministers are polite.

Posted on by mklang

Andrew "Da-Man" Murray

Can you believe that I almost forgot to tell everyone about it? My friend Andrew has just published his first solo work! Too cool. Andrew’s book is called “The Regulation of Cyberspace: Control in the online environment” and is an excellent mix of academia, anecdote, politics, law, raw power and technology.

He cites examples as varied as the online coffee pot at Cambridge to the Live8 ebay scandals of 2005, draws from academic fields of information technology, law, philosophy and physics. His point? Basically the world of Internet regulation is much more complex than we care to accept. Regulation is neither hierarchical nor a question of social practice therefore we must bravely accept this and come to terms with the uncertainty of the situation…

Andrew D. Murray – The Regulation of Cyberspace is going to be influential and long lived. Get it from Amazon here!

Posted on by mklang

Internet as Democracy

Among the many misconceptions about internet communication is the democratizing effect.

This myth begins with the idea of the marketplace of ideas. This is fundamentally an idea that as long as ideas are allowed to freely compete the best idea will emerge. This is a myth since it does not explain why bad ideas and regimes gain in power. If we add to this the techno-optimism of the early internet (which is still sometimes present) which put forward ideas such as John Gilmoreâ??s famous quote: â??The Net treats censorship as a defect and routes around it.â?? Similar sentiments were reflected in Yochai Benklerâ??s new book â??The Wealth of Networksâ?? (download as pdf here).

These sentiments are overly optimistic and mythical since the reality is far less utopian. It is important to understand the difference between the Internet and the World Wide Web.

Stated simply the Internet is all the hardware and cables which connects the world of computers. The Internet is the necessary technology on which different applications can be run. The World Wide Web (WWW) is one such application which is run on the Internet. eMail is another. Filesharing is another etc. You can have file-sharing without the WWW but you cannot have any of the applications without the Internet.

Since the Internet is based on physical cables and physical equipment. Technical, social, economic and legal pressure can ensure that regulation (both good and bad) can be applied to the Internet. Thus we can see that Internet censorship is a growing phenomena. Among those studying and reporting on this phenomena are the Reporters without Borders and the Open Net Initiative.

What their work clearly shows is that by using a mix of hi-tech and low-tech states are ensuring that the Internet is not an automatic democratizing tool.

Posted on by mklang