Access

Code v2 out now

When Professor Lessig published his book “The Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace” in 1999 the book quickly became both a bestseller and a highly influential component in the discussion on the regulation of technology.

After the publication Professor Lessig set up a wiki about the book. The idea was to allow anyone who was interested to help to develop version 2 of The Code. That version is still accessible here. Lessig took the Wiki text December last year, and then added his own edits. Code v2 is the result. Now the work of compiling the new version of The Code has been completed and it is available for download here. The new text is also available in a Wiki.

Posted on by mklang

Rule of Law

Lord Bingham gave a lecture on the Rule of Law (at the Cambridge Centre for Public Law, 16th November 2006). In the lecture he sets out the eight criteria that a society must meet if it is to be said to be obeying the rule of law. Download the pdf or listen to the MP3.

Lord Bingham is infuriatingly modest in his introduction: “I have identified eight such rules, which I shall briefly discuss. There is regrettably little to startle in any of them. More ingenious minds could doubtless propound additional and better sub-rules, or economise with fewer.”
The eight rules which must be fulfilled by a state if it is to claim to be following the rule of law:

  1. the law must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable.
  2. questions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not the exercise of discretion.
  3. laws of the land should apply equally to all, save to the extent that objective differences justify differentiation.
  4. the law must afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights.
  5. means must be provided for resolving, without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay, bona fide civil disputes which the parties themselves are unable to resolve.
  6. ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them reasonably, in good faith, for the purpose for which the powers were conferred and without exceeding the limits of such powers.
  7. adjudicative procedures provided by the state should be fair.
  8. the existing principle of the rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law, the law which whether deriving from treaty or international custom and practice governs the conduct of nations.

Read the lecture, download the MP3 this is a clear concise call to arms. Instead of allowing societies to be persuaded by politicians claiming that law is important this is a list by which such claims may be held accountable.

(via Memex 1.1)

Posted on by mklang

Angry, upset & annoyed

My computer crashed. MY computer CRASHED. I cannot access my stored mail! Actually all my mail is gone. All of it. Gone. I have not backed up my work for at least two weeks. I cannot even see my appointments.

When technology dies – it really dies. The problem was that I was lulled into a false sense of security with the shiny mac. It’s user-friendliness made me forget the vunerable situation.

If it cannot be repaired and rescued then I will be cursing out loud for several months to come.

DAMN!!!!!

Posted on by mklang

DoS from Grey to Black

Sometimes denial of service attacks have been called â??greyâ?? areas under UK law. This is no longer so since the UK has now enacted the Police and Justice Bill 2006. Honestly what a ridiculous name. Does this imply that other acts are not about justice?

The new act contains a provisions that make it an offense to impair the operation of any computer system. Other clauses prohibit preventing or hindering access to a program or data held on a computer, or impairing the operation of any program or data held on a computer.

The maximum penalty for such cybercrimes has also been increased from 5 years to 10 years.

This can be seen as a development of the previous Computer Misuse Act 1990 (CMA) which previously regulated this area but left a certain room for interpretation. But not much in my opinion. The question is now – how far does the new bill go in it’s attempts to prevent DoS attacks? Which legitimate or desirable activities will it prevent.

(via News.Com)

Posted on by mklang

Knuth versus Email

For some time now Donald Knuth is no longer doing email. But did you read his reason? He has a great online explanation where he writes:

Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of things. But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things. What I do takes long hours of studying and uninterruptible concentration. I try to learn certain areas of computer science exhaustively; then I try to digest that knowledge into a form that is accessible to people who don’t have time for such study.

On the same page he also quotes Umberto Eco “I don’t even have an e-mail address. I have reached an age where my main purpose is not to receive messages.”

Knuth wrote this almost 17 years ago. It’s still right. It is very impressive. I am particularly impressed today since I spent a great deal of time yesterday cleaning out my inbox dealing with over 200 little tasks which had piled up there.
—-

PS. For those of you who do not know who Knuth is: Before you even start to think about attempting to call Knuth anti-technology or using complex words like Luddite make sure you read up, why not try wikipedia?

—-

Posted on by mklang

Denying Censorship

Georg Greve of the Free Software Foundation Europe is present at the Internet Governance Forum in Athens and he posts daily reports. On the second day of the forum the discussions turned to openness â?? a topic which many states that censor Internet traffic may find embarrassing.

So it was natural to expect hostile reactions towards countries which have a well documented history of Internet censorship. One way of dealing with bad news is simply to deny everything which Mr Yang Xiokun of the Chinese mission in Geneva did.
He stated that China has no access restrictions â?? at all.

Here is Georg Greve report of the exchange:

NIK GOWING:  Could I — may I ask you a question?  How would you define, for those who are not familiar with your government’s policy and the detail of it, what is the principle on restrictions of openness in China?

YANG XIAOKUN:  We do not have restriction at all.

Lets not forget that China is not alone in censoring the Internet. Organisations like the Reporters without Borders publish a list of â??15 Enemies of the Internetâ?? and many (most? all?) enlightened (?) European/Western countries intimidate, censor or limit access to information through alternative means – but at the same time it is almost impressive to be able to deny everything.

For more information about China and Internet censorship read the Open Net Initiative report on Internet Censorship in China between 2004-2005.

Posted on by mklang

Mobiles, Trains and Rules

For the second time within seven days I am on my way to Stockholm. Taking the train makes this a simple and comfortable three hour journey with access to coffee and wifi as opposed to a one hour flight filled with trips to airports, queuing and cramped conditions. Basically either way you arrive at your destination almost at the same time – only difference is on the train I can work.

An old addition to the train is the implementation of mobile free compartments. In these compartments the travellers must keep their mobile phones turned off. Since I am not bothered by people speaking loudly about their personal or business affairs I tend not to choose mobile free compartments.

On my last trip I was speaking with a friend of mine on the phone. When I hung up a person in the seat furtherst from me across the aisle rather haughtily pointed out that this was a mobile free compartment. I was very polite but since I was sure it was not I informed him of where the compartment was. He apologised.

Now to the part that is interesting. Not long after this event, his own mobile rings and he answers it and has a conversation!

This makes me very curious as to his desire to inform me (wrongly) of the rules concerning mobile telephones and trains. I have a few alternatives:

A) He is a rule-driven Kantian obsessivly concerned about rules. Yet he is also an active civil disobedient and wants to make a political statement about mobile phone rules.

B) He really thought that the compartment was mobile-free and when he realised he was wrong he overcame his annoyances about people talking loudly in phones and gratefully answered his own phone.

C) He was conducting a social experiment dealing with the enforcement of rules.

D) He is a prat who does not feel that rules apply to him but are only there to stop others from annoying him.

Considering the fact that most other travellers in class I choose wear suits and I do not – I am inclined to choose D.

Posted on by mklang

Bush Signs Torture Law

Yesterday President Bush signed the infamous Military Commissions Act of 2006 (fulltext pdf).

In case you have missed this one it is the law that grants the CIA legal right to continue operating torture facilities in undisclosed, foreign countries. It also allows individuals designated as â??enemy combatantsâ?? to be held without habeas corpus.

Habeas Corpus is basically the right that guarantees that the courts should decide whether a person is lawfully imprisoned. By removing this right the CIA now can legally detain people indefinitely without having to seek court permission.

The law also â??establishes military tribunals that would allow some use of evidence obtained by coercionâ?? â??  In the legal systems of most sane countries evidence obtained by torture is not considered good evidence. This is because the point of law is justice. Torture a person long enough and they will admit to anything just to make the torture stop. Only weak-minded incompetent fools can think that the use of torture is a good idea to obtain the truth.

So now the US has reached an all time low. It joins the company terror dictatorships like Stalin’s Soviet Union, Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China or Pol Pot’s Cambodia where anyone deemed an enemy of the state can be picked up, hidden in a foreign jail, tortured until they admit to anything and then sentenced.

The point is, of course, that this move also removes any legitimate moral standpoint the US might have had. While the bill was being signed, protesters outside the White House shouted, â??Bush is the terroristâ?? and â??Torture is a crimeâ??. Those who refused to move were arrested by police. (Times).

To add a bit of the surreal to the event: the table where the president signed the bill had a notice with the words â??Protecting Americaâ?? written on it. If that were true then you wouldnâ??t need the sign would you?

Land of the free, home of the brave? Not likely. Nice one Georgeâ?¦

Posted on by mklang

Today is Annual International Right to Know Day

Privacy International has released a review of the Freedom of Information (FOI) situation in nearly 70 countries around the world, including almost 40 countries from Europe.

The “Freedom of Information Around the World 2006 Global Survey of Access to Government Information Laws”, shows the growth in legislation and practice within this area.

The report also points to many problems that exist, such as poorly drafted laws, lax implementation and an ongoing culture of secrecy in many countries.

The report is being released just prior to the Annual International Right to Know Day on 28 September – thats today…

Events on Annual International Right to Know Day.

Posted on by mklang

Neutrality and Objectivity (or the beginning of a brawl)

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.

Posted on by mklang