Crashed Pips - Computers, politics, emetic trash

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Andrew Burnham: Clueless

 

The Hon. Andrew Burnham, courtesy of 2-5 Media GbR

The Hon. Andrew Burnham, courtesy of 2-5 Media GbR

Andrew Burnham, the Minister for Culture (sorry, Culture Secretary - what exactly is his job?) has said in an interview with the Telegraph that cinema-style age ratings for Web sites are ‘an option’.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Andy Burnham says he believes that new standards of decency need to be applied to the web. He is planning to negotiate with Barack Obama’s incoming American administration to draw up new international rules for English language websites.

The Cabinet minister describes the internet as “quite a dangerous place” and says he wants internet-service providers (ISPs) to offer parents “child-safe” web services.

Giving film-style ratings to individual websites is one of the options being considered, he confirms. When asked directly whether age ratings could be introduced, Mr Burnham replies: “Yes, that would be an option. This is an area that is really now coming into full focus.”

Compelete and utter nonsense. It’s totally unworkable.

Firstly, let’s remember the original goals of the Internet and the World Wide Web. The whole point was to create a medium where anyone could freely express himself, and be out of the reach of governments and censorship. This idea undermines the whole principle of ‘net neutrality’ on which the Web was founded.

Moreover, let’s not forget that filters are used all the time: and there are always ways to circumvent them. Just ask any twelve-year-old how they access Bebo during their ICT lessons: proxies are available and for every website blocked, another mirror or identical proxy will spring up somewhere else.

What Mr. Burnham appears not to understand is that the Internet is very much decentralised. Any computer can host a Web site with the right software installed, and when that’s connected to the Web, it can be accessed from any machine in the world. Mr. Burnham’s understanding of the Internet appears to be like a spider: with all information in the centre and clients all outside. It does not work like that.

It worries me that the Government is getting more heavy-handed with regards to the Internet, and, for once, even it’s now becoming worthwhile to host one’s Web site outside the UK. Guido Fawkes’s blog is moving to a host outside Great Britain, because, in his words, ‘Google UK likes to please governments.’ Even the Daily Mail (and most of its commentators!) agree that the whole idea is barmy.

Tom Watson MP, a Labour MP and cabinet minister who does understand technology, is inviting the public’s opinion on his Web site, which he will forward on to Burnham. It might be worth heading over there and giving your opinions on this cretinous proposal.



Thursday, February 14, 2008

What constitutes potential libel/slander?

Filed under: Politics, The Law and Technology, The News — Tags: , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 17:56

In response to the insane and irrational proposed legislation to turn ISPs into ‘net traffic cops’, banning users who download illegal files from the Internet, I attempted to create a petition on the Prime Minister’s web site. I’ve blogged about this before.

My petition was turned down. In the automatic E-mail I received, the text said that (this is a direct quote)

Your petition was classed as being in the following categories:

* Potentially libellous, false, or defamatory statements

Further information: No such proposals have been put forward.

Potentially libellous? False? Defamatory? No proposals have been put forward? Well, the draft consultation seems to be a proposal. While it may not have come to the House of Commons (or Lords, in fact) it is still a proposal, or a plan.

Here follows the original text of the petition:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to: ‘drop plans to legislate that ISPs should cut off Internet access for those who share copyrighted music files over the Internet.’

The proposed legislation to force ISPs to cut off Internet access to those who share files illegally on the Internet are impractical, invasive, and against the public interest.

I myself do not see anything libellous or slanderous in that. I shall be editing and re-submitting the petition with this text:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to drop the draft consultation proposing legislation stating that ISPs should cut off Internet access for those who share copyrighted music files over the Internet.

The draft legislation, which will force internet service providers (ISPs) to cut off Internet access to those who share files illegally on the Internet are impractical and against the public interest. They would turn Internet service providers into an invasive Internet ‘police force’ which would limit the public’s freedom to access information digitally.

Now we wait.



Saturday, November 3, 2007

P2P music downloaders are better customers

Filed under: The Law and Technology — Tags: , , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 17:54

So, Mr RIAA, put this in your pipe and smoke it. It’s emerged that people who download music illegally using peer-to-peer (P2P) networks are then more likely to spend money buying legitimately.

Very interesting, considering that the entertainment industry’s copyright abuse is a perennial topic on this blog.



Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Why Windows should be unbundled from PCs

Filed under: Microsoft, The Law and Technology — Tags: , , , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 18:45

Con Zymaris has written this very interesting blog post about why Windows should be unbundled from PCs. It leaves most of the arguments from OEMs dead in the water, and is certainly worth a read.



Monday, October 8, 2007

Hear copyrighted music accidentally? Prepare to be sued

Filed under: The Law and Technology — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 13:19

The ridiculousness of this case astounds me - and especially that this is in the UK, which is overall a lot more lax on copyright, due to the fact that the RIAA and MPAA don’t operate their dracionian lawsuits this side of the pond.



Friday, September 28, 2007

The OS That Won’t Die

Filed under: Microsoft, The Law and Technology — Tags: , , , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 19:47

After bowing to pressure from consumer demand and the EU, Microsoft has agreed to extend the lifecycle of Windows XP.

Is this really any surprise? Windows XP is more stable, more compatible, less resource-hungry, more secure, and generally a better OS (although of course it doesn’t have a patch on Linux or OS X).

Computer users are finally seeing the light in the fact that Vista is a completely botched operating system compared to the Longhorn vision that appeared… well… it seems like aeons ago now. And all we have now is a slow, clunky, and generally dreadful OS.

Is this all Microsoft could come up with? It’s no wonder people are staying with XP.

Another point that irks me about Vista is that, instead of getting on with it, Microsoft seemed to try to juggle that with trying to introduce tit-for-tat competition for every product Apple and Google pumped out, desperate to remain the market leader.

The Zune. Windows Live Search. Windows Desktop Search. Windows Live Maps. Windows Onecare. Internet Explorer 7.

Even Vista’s start button looks suspiciously like it was pinched from Aqua, OS X’s interface.

It’s even released a few (practically useless) open-source tools. Why are they useless, you may ask? Not just because of rubbish, clunky functionality, but because of the fact that they need Microsoft’s proprietary code to run!

The only decent software Microsoft has turned out lately is Office 2007, and that works magnificently on XP. So there. All the more reason to dump Vista into its own recycle bin.

(Incidentally, I hear that Vista DVDs make a great light show when microwaved.)



Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Bricking unlocked iPhones: something of a moral dilemma

Filed under: Apple, The Law and Technology — Tags: , , , , , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 19:25

According to this Slashdot story, Apple is planning to turn iPhones that have been unlocked from AT&T Wireless into very expensive and elaborate paperweights.

Now, I personally believe this is wrong. A person has the right to use their mobile phone as a client on whichever network they would like.

However, I am finding it difficult to place the blame on anyone in particular.

On the one hand, Apple could be blamed for wanting a commission from each iPhone call, and therefore resorting to locking the iPhone into only one carrier.

Alternatively, AT&T could be blamed for the fact that they’re generally such a rubbish mobile provider, and that they also earn a huge commission off the iPhone (probably bigger than Apple’s, as you’re tied into a rolling contract, feeding AT&T with $59.99 a month).

In the end, I can’t really point the blame at anyone for this situation. However, I do have a suggestion to Apple for the next version of the iPhone.

Instead of tying iPhone users to a single provider, why not program the iPhone to charge x proportion in addition to the call price from either your credit/debit card or SIM card and credit that to Apple? That means that it could be SIM-independent, the iPhone could work with whichever carrier you want, and everyone’s happy. (Except AT&T, but they deserve it.)



Powered by WordPress 2.7 Comments are the responsibility of their respective author. The Rest © 2007-2009 Jonathan Rothwell, unless otherwise stated.