Group items tagged

US President Barack Obama would be granted powers to seize control of and even shut down the internet under a new bill that describes the global internet as a US "national asset"!!!!!!!!!!!!

SeeClickFix is a free mobile phone and web app that enables citizens to take care of their neighborhoods by seeing non-emergency issues in their neighborhoods, clicking to create 'tickets' describing the issue and how to resolve it, and fixing the issue or reporting it to whoever can. This article discusses the technology and tools working to help citizens get involved in their communities and their governments. It also discusses the Gov 2.0 Expo held recently in the US. I found the discussion of mobile citizen governance apps particularly interesting, as it would be something that could be rolled out fairly easily.

Interview with Jason Lanierm, an apparent "digital guru" who has changed his view of open culture to that which promotes a "digital maoism". He proposes that we need to pay people for the brain work that they do instead of encouraging them to be labourers of sorts. 

Describes how twitter is being used for citizen participation and "democracy" in various countries from Moldova, Iran and now China. The author proposes that the best way to reduce censorship and promote "democracy" is not political pressure, but to "flood the Chinese market, and those of other countries that restrict freedom of expression, with cutting-edge technology". My opinion: Although Twitter seems to be good at allowing citizens to organise and to create consensus, it does not seem to translate well to actual policy outcome. 

If users are to blame, who should provide media literacy programs?

Amendments made to the digital economy bill last week, handing courts the power to force internet service providers (ISPs) to block certain websites, threaten freedom of speech and will lead to British websites being blocked without due judicial process, the chief executives of leading technology companies said in an open letter to the Financial Times. The heads of the four largest UK internet service providers as well as Google, Facebook, eBay and Yahoo have all co-signed the letter, along with consumer groups and academics, objecting to amendment. Theoretically the amendment could lead to sites such as YouTube being blocked in the UK.

Nobel prizewinner Shirin Ebadi accused German engineering giant Siemens and Finnish telecoms firm Nokia of supplying Iran with technology to help it suppress democratic dissent. The European Parliament also supports that arguement and strongly criticised international companies, in particular Nokia Siemens for giving Iranian authorities the tools needed for censorship and surveillance. Both companies argue that they could not be blamed for the misuse but that their technologies "play a significant role in the development of societies and the advancement of democracy"

Very interesting article on Hollywood vs. downloads and ISPs. 

Really enjoyed this article and its historical account of Hollywood on the defensive to any new emergence of technology is apt. Unlike the open source software movement, this industry fails to understand that the circulation of its content, whether licensed or not, eventually produces indirect benefits. Hollywood defends its position through laws created in a time when the internet was yet to be conceived. The obvious flow on discussion here is that the law simply can't stay abreast of rapid technology changes.

Media hyperbole or a serious threat? Threatening posts on the '4chan' boards has the government ad the SMH worried...

Although in some respects, the public response to Australia's push to impose mandatory internet filtering, there has been a violent and disturbing response from a select group calling for the assassination of Stephen Conroy and advising on how to make bombs.

"When ICANN last considered ".xxx," board members also expressed worries that the suffix would leave the agency in the business of regulating content, or the type of material that would find itself there." Aside from all the ways, this is unworkable and unlikely to bring the results anticipated, let's not make ICANN or TLD administrators responsible for regulating anything... else.

"When ICANN last considered ".xxx," board members also expressed worries that the suffix would leave the agency in the business of regulating content, or the type of material that would find itself there." Aside from all the ways, this is unworkable and unlikely to bring the results anticipated, let's not make ICANN or TLD administrators responsible for regulating anything... else.

"Australia's biggest technology companies, communications academics and many lobby groups have delivered a withering critique of the government's plans to censor the internet." (quoting smh, 23/3/10, 4.40pm)

An interesting interview with Austin Heap, a programmer from California who created 'Haystack', software that allows people to avoid the internet censorship imposed by governments. This software was created as a reaction to the increased censorship imposed by the Iranian Government during and after the elections. It allowed Iranians to skype, email and surf the net in relative safety. Other points of discussion include the apparent values of free speech embedded in the software, the relationship between Google and China, and Australia's proposal of censorship.

"A national review of computer game classification laws is currently in progress and work is also under way to develop proposals to improve compliance by retailers."" The article also leads with the factlet that Aust is one of only Western nations WITHOUT an R18+. On this front, the current internet governance proposals looks like a lay down misere.

A media rights watchdog has listed Australia in a report on countries that pose a threat of internet censorship.

Why does everyone get so worked up with the word "censorship"? In some cases, like with child porn, if a medium is used to violate a human right or indeed foments a crime, then there should be some sort of control. Why look at it from a b&w perspective when there are so many grey areas?

Is this really where Australia's future in censorships is heading?

For Google, the project is a pre-emptive move to get a foothold in the living room as more consumers start exploring ways to bring web content to their TV sets.

The Internet is changing every seconds and obviously getting to be worriyng in some aspects. However, free access to information, free expression and participation, and thus free access to the world is now becoming narrowed due to govermental regulations and censorship. And who is going to decide which websites should be banned or not? It seems to be worried that increasingly soficiticated leak could be created by computer geeks to retrieve the freedom of the internet.

This article is dealing with the recent disclosure by Google that it had fallen victim to a cyber attack. It renews the growing sentiment that a global response to the issue of cybersecurity is needed with particular emphasis on the cooperation between the government and business sectors.

Interesting comparison was made in this article regarding President Obama's priorities. It stated that "Obama has made cyber security a top priority for his administration, and has listed the threat from cyber weapons along with other weapons of mass destruction - such as nuclear, chemical and biological weapons." Is it fair to make a comparison between the threat of nuclear weapons and threats which exist within the world of computers?

We all know video content is one of the most popular types of content on the web, driving some of the most innovative and popular web based applications (for example Skype, ChatRoulette, YouTube). However, new video-centric applications, which combine real-time, social networking and broadcasting are putting an even more intense spotlight on questions of privacy than ever before. This particular article profiles examples that are surely just web minutes away from the tipping point, giving users the chance to broadcast their lives in ways Twitter can only dream of. Surprisingly, the article only touches on privacy issues, suggesting that we are too willing to post personal information about ourselves. Reader comments rightly point out we are moving into very murky territory where the attitude seems to be that anything posted on the web is fair game and can be used against the person who posted it.

What does it mean for both your privacy and personal reputation if you are putting everything online? If governments/corporations/employers etc can access so much personal information about you, how will this affect your life and the 'control' that such organisations have?

More evidence presented by Morozov on how the new media can serve the purposes of radical organizations. He is been arguing for a while that new media and new technologies (in this case the wikis) are not necessarily pro-western democratic tools.