Vint Cerf, one of the scientists credited with helping to creat the internet and now in the pay of Google, was interviewed on the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning, discussing the regulation of the internet.
Broadly, he was put on there to argue against regulation. Although we're delighted to see the issue getting air time, the level of the debate was not as high as it could have been. o be fair to John Humphreys though, it was Vint Cerf who was most at fault for not engaging with the question being put to him.
The idea that the internet is not currently 'regulated' is a bit daft. Of course it is, in many of the same ways that any other form of communication is. Harrassing or abusing someone by email is as much a crime as doing it by phone, if a little harder to detect.
But Cerf, responding to accusations that You Tube (owned by Google) often showcased inappropriate matetrial, said that the website would always stay within the law, and that was enough. Very true, the company cannot really be accused of flagrant abuse of the law (leaving copyright aside for the moment).
He also says that parents can filter internet searches to prevent certain material from being available to children (provided the filters are effective).
Is this enough? After all, we don't ask parents to filter pre-watershed television broadcasting to stop children seeing sex and violence. Instead we impose a rule to say that it can't be shown. When similar things appear on the web, why expect parents (who may not have the know-how to filter) to take on this extra responsibility?
Cerf says the web is a mirror of our society, and can't be divorced from what happens in the real world. Of course it can - China does it, with Google's full complicity.
In my opinion it is Cerf who is trying to divorce the web from the real world. In the real world, responsible people take care of the vulnerable and protect the innocent. We do this within our families, our workplaces, and our media - or at least we try to.
Cerf is suggesting that the web is detached from all of this, and not subject to these norms.
He's right to say the web is the greatest communication tool we've ever seen. Untold opportunities exist there - just like they said about the wild west.
Wednesday 29 August 2007
Monday 13 August 2007
Scottish Broadcasting Corporation?
The SNP's victory in Scottish Parliament elections in May has now brought to a head a debate that has been rumbling for, well, forever. The issue is the degree of independence public service broadcasting in Scotland should have from UK provision.
The SNP have long disliked the BBC. They say it represents English cultural dominance of the union. Others dispute this, pointing to the many examples of Scottish talent flourishing within the BBC, and arguing that this shining example of harmony on the island is what the SNP really object. (More coverage here.)
The first target for the SNP is news coverage. They want the main news programmes broadcast in Scotland to be Scottish productions (that is, they wouldn't get the main Six O'Clock news on terrestial TV, but rather a 'Scottish Six'). Beyond this, the SNP would like to remove Scotland from the BBC altogether, setting up their own equivalent.
Now, as an Englishman who strongly supports the union, I still find myself entirely comfortable comfortable with talk of Scottish independence. I would advise them against it, and if the English ever proposed breaking up the UK I would vote against it. However, Scotland's future is up to Scotland, and they can do whatever they like.
I think the idea of a main Scottish-produced news bulletin is a perfectly reasonable one. With digital switchover coming, people will have access to news from wherever they want anyway, so those who want a UK focus can get it easily. With more decisions being made in Edinburgh now, it makes sense to have these up front at the top of the bulletin.
But would Scotland be better off with its own public service broadcaster? This is more difficult to back. On the one hand it would guarantee more air time for Scottish talent - with the "SBC" more able to fund and air Scottish productions. Hoever, I question whether this means more Scottish talent finding its way onto Scottish TV. The pull of the much larger BBC is still going to be very strong for Scottish production companies, writers, actors, filmmakers, and so on. Look at the Scottish Premier League in football - completely independent from England, but it is still routine for the best Scottish players to travel south where a bigger stage (and more money) is available.
The viewers are likely to go this way too. Here it will be even worse than it is with football. People will always follow their local football team, so Scottish clubs are guaranteed a captive audience even if their brightest stars leave. The public has no such loyalty to the favourite sitcom for instance. Unless Alex Salmond is going to 'do a China' and block English/British television from being transmitted into Scotland, he will be unable to stop people from tuning in to Eastenders, however much he may want to promote the Scottish alternative.
I don't believe bigger always equals better, but the fact is that Britain remains a distint cultural entity, its population still sharing a single cultural speace (although contested and overlapping with many others). The goal of policy should be to help our creative talent to exploit this cultural space, not creative artificial structures intended to help politicians hive people off into silos.
The SNP have long disliked the BBC. They say it represents English cultural dominance of the union. Others dispute this, pointing to the many examples of Scottish talent flourishing within the BBC, and arguing that this shining example of harmony on the island is what the SNP really object. (More coverage here.)
The first target for the SNP is news coverage. They want the main news programmes broadcast in Scotland to be Scottish productions (that is, they wouldn't get the main Six O'Clock news on terrestial TV, but rather a 'Scottish Six'). Beyond this, the SNP would like to remove Scotland from the BBC altogether, setting up their own equivalent.
Now, as an Englishman who strongly supports the union, I still find myself entirely comfortable comfortable with talk of Scottish independence. I would advise them against it, and if the English ever proposed breaking up the UK I would vote against it. However, Scotland's future is up to Scotland, and they can do whatever they like.
I think the idea of a main Scottish-produced news bulletin is a perfectly reasonable one. With digital switchover coming, people will have access to news from wherever they want anyway, so those who want a UK focus can get it easily. With more decisions being made in Edinburgh now, it makes sense to have these up front at the top of the bulletin.
But would Scotland be better off with its own public service broadcaster? This is more difficult to back. On the one hand it would guarantee more air time for Scottish talent - with the "SBC" more able to fund and air Scottish productions. Hoever, I question whether this means more Scottish talent finding its way onto Scottish TV. The pull of the much larger BBC is still going to be very strong for Scottish production companies, writers, actors, filmmakers, and so on. Look at the Scottish Premier League in football - completely independent from England, but it is still routine for the best Scottish players to travel south where a bigger stage (and more money) is available.
The viewers are likely to go this way too. Here it will be even worse than it is with football. People will always follow their local football team, so Scottish clubs are guaranteed a captive audience even if their brightest stars leave. The public has no such loyalty to the favourite sitcom for instance. Unless Alex Salmond is going to 'do a China' and block English/British television from being transmitted into Scotland, he will be unable to stop people from tuning in to Eastenders, however much he may want to promote the Scottish alternative.
I don't believe bigger always equals better, but the fact is that Britain remains a distint cultural entity, its population still sharing a single cultural speace (although contested and overlapping with many others). The goal of policy should be to help our creative talent to exploit this cultural space, not creative artificial structures intended to help politicians hive people off into silos.
Thursday 9 August 2007
Oxford Internet Survey: The End of the Beginning
I know you won't mind our multiple posting on the publication of the Oxford Internet Survey. It's a big issue. In the world of an information society think-tank, it's as big as they get.
We welcome the Survey. We are extremely grateful for the work of the Oxford Internet Institute over the past several years. But the Survey seems to ask more questions than it answers. Knowing what is happening on the world wide web is not the same as knowing what to do about it. We don't claim to have all the answers either, but the time has come to look for them.
We now know that the digital divide persists, in Britain let alone the world in general. It is time to act on this. The internet - the most brilliant technological development of modern times - is not being made accessible fast enough to the worst off. The Survey was largely reticent, for one thing, on the class dimension to internet usage.
I think the main issue surrounding internet usage we are going to have to confront is the power of the private sector. We need to abandon the romantic image of the internet as a network of individuals. It is not. It is just as much another means for private firms to make money. There is nothing wrong with that, in principle. But there is a need to assess how the internet is affecting economic activity and outcomes in practice. E-commerce is a particualr concern, especially since the UK government is supporting its development so strongly.
Social networking sites are another concern. There is nothing wrong with individuals using such sites to communicate in new ways - but what about the rights to privacy we are unwittingly giving away, on these sites and through various other services. It is up to democratically elected representatives to discuss such concerns.
The Survey, to reiterate, is very welcome. It is the end of the beginning for the internet - we know now more clearly than ever how it is being used. It is up to us as a society to decide what happens next.
CB
We welcome the Survey. We are extremely grateful for the work of the Oxford Internet Institute over the past several years. But the Survey seems to ask more questions than it answers. Knowing what is happening on the world wide web is not the same as knowing what to do about it. We don't claim to have all the answers either, but the time has come to look for them.
We now know that the digital divide persists, in Britain let alone the world in general. It is time to act on this. The internet - the most brilliant technological development of modern times - is not being made accessible fast enough to the worst off. The Survey was largely reticent, for one thing, on the class dimension to internet usage.
I think the main issue surrounding internet usage we are going to have to confront is the power of the private sector. We need to abandon the romantic image of the internet as a network of individuals. It is not. It is just as much another means for private firms to make money. There is nothing wrong with that, in principle. But there is a need to assess how the internet is affecting economic activity and outcomes in practice. E-commerce is a particualr concern, especially since the UK government is supporting its development so strongly.
Social networking sites are another concern. There is nothing wrong with individuals using such sites to communicate in new ways - but what about the rights to privacy we are unwittingly giving away, on these sites and through various other services. It is up to democratically elected representatives to discuss such concerns.
The Survey, to reiterate, is very welcome. It is the end of the beginning for the internet - we know now more clearly than ever how it is being used. It is up to us as a society to decide what happens next.
CB
Wednesday 8 August 2007
What the Oxford Internet Survey can tell us
In a valuable contribution to the debate surrounding the 'Digital Divide', the Oxford Internet Survey (OIS) 2007 results have been released by the Oxford Internet Institute. This follows on from their 2003 and 2005 reports.
Some unsurprising trends crop up in the report, such as the increase in Internet usage, the greater use of broadband connections and the fact that you are more likely to use the internet if you are male, a student, educated to a higher level and have an above-average income.
However, there are also some interesting trends, beyond the 'Digital Divide', which are likely to raise questions about the direction of online scrutiny of M.P's, the internet as a wider communication forum and just how such a vast, fragmented and ever-changing web of knowledge should be regulated.
17% of internet users have created a profile on a social networking website in the past year. Considering the substantial growth in websites such as Facebook, which now boosts over 30 million members, this seems an accurate percentage of those online. Given its growing popularity among students (42% having created a profile), and the likelihood that they will continue to use the service as a way of keeping in contact with others, this is sure to grow by the time of the 2009 survey.
Barely a day goes by without Facebook itself hitting the headlines in the mainstream media, and it is increasingly being used as an investigate tool. The daughter of Rudolph Giuliani, nominee for the Republican nomination for U.S President, was recently challenged over her profile showing her as a both a 'liberal' and a member of a group supporting Democratic nominee Barack Obama. Many M.P's are also creating online profiles in addition to the many parliamentary blogs already being written. The effect this will have on UK politics has yet to be fully tested, but providing such platforms are used as an accountable tool, rather than just an online soap box, a useful contribution could be in the making. However, as the survey also points out, participation in civic society online remains low.
An additional debate that the OIS provides useful statistics on is that of Internet regulation. Caution seems to be exercised by those not using the Internet to a much greater extent than individuals who are actually online! 'Non-users' are more keen on government regulation and greater protection for children using the Internet. While the latter is certainly of importance, government regulation would have some users crying 'censorship' on blogs and forums before a law was even passed. If the OIS makes one point clear, it is that internet users are now in the majority, and should not be sidelined as too irresponsible for a spot of self-regulation. Although problems certainly do exist, the benefits are too great to be missed.
KC
Some unsurprising trends crop up in the report, such as the increase in Internet usage, the greater use of broadband connections and the fact that you are more likely to use the internet if you are male, a student, educated to a higher level and have an above-average income.
However, there are also some interesting trends, beyond the 'Digital Divide', which are likely to raise questions about the direction of online scrutiny of M.P's, the internet as a wider communication forum and just how such a vast, fragmented and ever-changing web of knowledge should be regulated.
17% of internet users have created a profile on a social networking website in the past year. Considering the substantial growth in websites such as Facebook, which now boosts over 30 million members, this seems an accurate percentage of those online. Given its growing popularity among students (42% having created a profile), and the likelihood that they will continue to use the service as a way of keeping in contact with others, this is sure to grow by the time of the 2009 survey.
Barely a day goes by without Facebook itself hitting the headlines in the mainstream media, and it is increasingly being used as an investigate tool. The daughter of Rudolph Giuliani, nominee for the Republican nomination for U.S President, was recently challenged over her profile showing her as a both a 'liberal' and a member of a group supporting Democratic nominee Barack Obama. Many M.P's are also creating online profiles in addition to the many parliamentary blogs already being written. The effect this will have on UK politics has yet to be fully tested, but providing such platforms are used as an accountable tool, rather than just an online soap box, a useful contribution could be in the making. However, as the survey also points out, participation in civic society online remains low.
An additional debate that the OIS provides useful statistics on is that of Internet regulation. Caution seems to be exercised by those not using the Internet to a much greater extent than individuals who are actually online! 'Non-users' are more keen on government regulation and greater protection for children using the Internet. While the latter is certainly of importance, government regulation would have some users crying 'censorship' on blogs and forums before a law was even passed. If the OIS makes one point clear, it is that internet users are now in the majority, and should not be sidelined as too irresponsible for a spot of self-regulation. Although problems certainly do exist, the benefits are too great to be missed.
KC
Tuesday 7 August 2007
Frontiers conquered
Today, 7 August, Knowledge Politics finished off in style our groundbeaking series of publications on the future of intellectual property rights in the digital age.
View the whole series here, or download the latest pamphlet here.
Vera Franz of the Open Society Institute, Dr Duncan Matthews of Queen Mary College and Tove Gerhardsen of Intellectual Property Watch were our contributors for this pamphlet, which is the culmination of many months' work. We argue for greater attention to be paid to how the developing world is affected by the global IP regime.
The debate goes to the very heart of theoretical concerns about what knowledge is and what rights it's creators have. Our Western assumptions simply may not apply elsewhere in the world. There's also a political argument - whatever the philosophical issues involved, the goal of any global policy regime should have as an end-goal the advancement of the interests of the world's poor and marginalised. IP is no different - in fact in an information society it will become all the more important.
We've come full circle, then, with these reports. We think recent months have seen the development of a stronger consensus about IP and development, with even the likes of the US acquiescing, albeit reluctantly. Progress on policy is always painfully slow, but there are reasons for optimism.
Thank you to all of our contributors in this series, and also to those who've helped put the publications together, including Laura Smith and Dave McLaughlin on this final instalment.
RB
View the whole series here, or download the latest pamphlet here.
Vera Franz of the Open Society Institute, Dr Duncan Matthews of Queen Mary College and Tove Gerhardsen of Intellectual Property Watch were our contributors for this pamphlet, which is the culmination of many months' work. We argue for greater attention to be paid to how the developing world is affected by the global IP regime.
The debate goes to the very heart of theoretical concerns about what knowledge is and what rights it's creators have. Our Western assumptions simply may not apply elsewhere in the world. There's also a political argument - whatever the philosophical issues involved, the goal of any global policy regime should have as an end-goal the advancement of the interests of the world's poor and marginalised. IP is no different - in fact in an information society it will become all the more important.
We've come full circle, then, with these reports. We think recent months have seen the development of a stronger consensus about IP and development, with even the likes of the US acquiescing, albeit reluctantly. Progress on policy is always painfully slow, but there are reasons for optimism.
Thank you to all of our contributors in this series, and also to those who've helped put the publications together, including Laura Smith and Dave McLaughlin on this final instalment.
RB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
