Pick up the pitchforks

Powerful stuff from +Clay Shirky who describes the US entertainment and media industry thus in his call to ‘pick up the pitchforks’ re SOPA and PIPA:

“[...] This is an industry that demands payment from summer camps if the kids sing Happy Birthday or God Bless America, an industry that issues takedown notices for a 29-second home movie of a toddler dancing to Prince. Traditional American media firms are implacably opposed to any increase in citizens’ ability to create, copy, save, alter, or share media on our own. They fought against cassette audio tapes, and photocopiers. They swore the VCR would destroy Hollywood. They tried to kill Tivo. They tried to kill MiniDisc. They tried to kill player pianos. They do this whenever a technology increases user freedom over media. Every time. Every single time.And they don’t just want control — they want it at low cost, and high speed.”

Embedded Link

Pick up the pitchforks: David Pogue underestimates Hollywood « Clay Shirky
Writing in his blog on the New York Times yesterday, David Pogue, one of the Times’ tech columnists, advises toning down the alarmist rhetoric over SOPA, suggesting that opponents of the bill (and…

Google+: Reshared 1 times
Google+: View post on Google+

Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.

Related posts:

Get ready for the cookie law

icocookiessm

A lot of attention was focused earlier this year on cookies, those little snips of coded text that websites automatically place on your computer when you visit those sites with your web browser.

The attention on cookies was all to do with a European Union directive on individual privacy and personal data that came into effect in May 2011, requiring each EU member country to implement national laws that, broadly speaking, give website visitors the power to explicitly accept or reject the placement of cookies on their computer.

In the UK, the government deferred implementation of the directive for one year until May 2012, saying that “it will take some time for workable technical solutions to be developed, evaluated and rolled out so we have decided that a phased in approach is right.”

What that means is quite simple: you still have time to figure out how to implement the UK law – The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 – before it comes into effect next May.

The website of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) – the law’s regulator – offers a glimpse of how an organization might address the way in which permission is actively sought of a visitor when he or she lands on their website – a one-time request that requires you to accept or deny it.

The ICO’s request text reads:

The ICO would like to use cookies to store information on your computer, to improve our website. One of the cookies we use is essential for parts of the site to operate and has already been set. You may delete or block all cookies from this site, but parts of the site will not work. To find out more about the cookies we use and how to delete them, see our privacy notice.

While you could argue the wording – I’d like to see something a little more attuned to the benefit for the visitor, not solely for the website owner – the text is clear enough and as a website visitor you need to take a specific action, ie, accept the request. If you don’t accept it, parts of the website won’t work correctly as the request wording says.

Will that be enough to enable people to really understand what they being asked? I doubt it, frankly. The best example I’ve seen so far is that of AllThingsD, the Wall Street Journal’s tech site, which has a lengthy explanation in plain English of what their site wants to do with cookies.

For most people, though, it’s a murky area to be exploring. How do you set this up on your site? Does every website owner, business or personal, have to do this? What about third-party cookies? Will there be penalties after May 2012 if you don’t have this sorted out? (In a word, yes.) What about blogs – how will this work on those? (Interesting but unresolved discussion thread about this on the WordPress.org forum.)

You can find plenty of information on the ICO’s website. Read it now – you have less than six months to get ready for the cookie law.

How to hack a phone like News of The World journalists did

Via Reuters:

World renowned computer hacker, Kevin Mitnick, shows you step-by-step how the News of the World journalists hacked into private voicemails.

Shockingly easy to do with some open source software as Mitnick explains. If you access your mobile phone voicemail without a password, is that a risk worth taking?

(Background: News International phone hacking scandal)

Related post:

Common sense prevails on social disorder and social networks

bbmYesterday, Home Secretary Theresa May met with representatives of Facebook, Twitter and BlackBerry Messenger and the police in a widely-reported get-together to discuss the rights and responsibilities of the users of social networks, and the rights and responsibilities of the networks themselves, in times of civil disorder.

If you take some newspaper headlines at face value, you’d think the very fabric of freedom of speech had been under threat by a government hell bent on shutting down such social networking services – all communication tools used for good and bad during the England riots of a few weeks ago.

Cameron ditches his pledge to shut down Twitter, Facebook and Blackberry during riots,” was the Daily Mail’s headline today. “Ministers back down over Facebook blackout for trouble-makers,” proclaimed the Telegraph. And “Government backs down on plan to shut Twitter and Facebook in crises,” said the Guardian.

I’m hard-pressed to find a record of any politician talking about actual plans to shut down such social networking channels. Certainly, the mainstream media seems to have interpreted David Cameron’s speech to the House of Commons on August 11 as plans. And if you read the reports in each of those newspapers, they bear little connection to the dramatic headlines.

In any case, yesterday’s discussion seems to have been pretty level headed with a good outcome and much common sense reportedly in evidence.

This, for instance, as reported by the Mail:

[...Theresa May] told the firms that she was not there to talk about restricting internet services. Instead Mrs May appealed for help, seeking advice on how law enforcement could more effectively use social media. Social networking firms are said to have advised police to employ internet monitoring firms to help keep an eye on public chatter on the web.

The Telegraph says:

[...] the discussions looked at how law enforcement can more effectively monitor the networks for criminal material and have it removed under existing arrangements.  A Home Office spokesman said afterwards: “The Government did not seek any additional powers to close down social media networks.” [...] A spokesman for Research In Motion (RIM), which makes BlackBerry, [said] the meeting had been “positive and productive.”

And the Guardian had this:

[...]  According to sources at the meeting, police acknowledged that they “needed to do more” with regard to learning how to use social media. The Metropolitan police are understood to have said they were “slightly behind” other forces when it came to Twitter and Facebook.

[...] A spokeswoman for Facebook said the discussion was constructive, building on work her firm already did to ensure Facebook was “one of the safest places on the internet”. She said: “We welcome the fact this was a dialogue on working together to keep people safe rather than about imposing restrictions on internet services.” A Twitter spokeswoman said: “Governments and law enforcement agencies around the world use Twitter to engage in open, public, communications … we’ve heard from many that Twitter is an effective way to distribute updates and dispel rumours in times of crisis or emergency.”

So a focus on helping the police and others understand how to use social networking tools and channels more effectively, working with and learning from those social networks and others.

The final word from Nick Clegg reported in the Telegraph:

[...] let’s not forget that during the riots, social media was very helpful to lots of people in finding out what was going on and in bringing communities together.”

Common sense.

NLA licensing creates FUD says Meltwater

newspaperlogosThe idea of having to pay to share links to online content published by the mainstream media is one that has stimulated much debate in the UK in recent months. Not only that, it’s generated strong opposition in the PR community, and has been to court. It’s also been the subject of an awareness-raising campaign with members of Parliament.

It’s a big topic, one that has attracted opinion and commentary from many voices, and was a central feature in a debate in London last month about the future of content.

Things came to a head in London on July 27 in a ruling by the Court of Appeal in favour of the Newspaper Licensing Agency (NLA) and its right to levy a fee on commercial consumers of web content who, from January 2010, require a licence to legally view or share such content.

I’ve written about it in this blog and, in the interests of transparency, I want to make it clear that my views are aligned with those who oppose the NLA, notably SaaS company Meltwater and the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA).

In this guest post, Meltwater CEO Jorn Lyseggen attempts to diminish what I describe as the NLA’s FUD by explaining his perspectives and motives. He makes it clear that this week’s Court of Appeal ruling is far from the end of this matter.

Continue reading