Posts Tagged ‘Politics and technology’
Internet tax plan shelved until election
Posted by: Gadget Boy in Technology on August 17th, 2009
• No enthusiasm for £6 levy to pay for fast broadband
• Business leaders warn of cost of ignoring rural areas
The government looks ready to ditch controversial plans to tax phone lines to pay for next-generation broadband internet.
Labour MPs are concerned about levying the £6-a-year tax on consumers so close to a general election, while parliamentary convention means the government would require support for the measures before putting them in the pre-election budget. The Conservatives, however, have little appetite for a so-called broadband tax.
Dumping the plan would be one of Stephen Timms's first moves as the new minister in charge of the Digital Britain ideas announced in June. "When you face a general election you tend to have a short finance bill before the election and a longer one afterwards. It [the levy] is unlikely to make it through the short finance bill without Opposition support and that does not look likely … In that case, it would have to wait until after the election," he said.
Asked if that meant the levy was unlikely to happen, he said: "Possibly, yes."
The idea of levying 50p a month on every UK phone line to pay for new super-fast broadband surprised many in the industry when it was proposed in Lord Carter's final Digital Britain report in June.
When Timms replaced Carter, executives hoped that as he was retaining his place in the Treasury, while also taking up a role within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, meant he would push hard for the levy. But the fact that the government now seems to have abandoned its plan means that Britain is likely to lag far behind many of its competitors. Other countries such as Australia have proposed using government cash to help build super-fast networks.
Adam Marshall, of the British Chambers of Commerce, said: "Both political parties need to find a consensus about how the next generation of broadband will be delivered, regardless of who is in Downing Street. Businesses need sustained, efficient infrastructure investment in place to deliver growth and jobs."
Clive Davenport, of the Federation of Small Businesses, said: "The government must secure funding to ensure the next generation of broadband speeds is put in place … This is vital if we want the country to be internationally competitive."
Virgin Media and BT have been introducing super-fast networks that allow consumers to download music tracks in seconds and DVD-quality movies in minutes. But there is little economic case to push this expensive infrastructure into rural areas – the broadband tax would have provided several billion pounds for this.
Under the Digital Britain plan, these networks would have been open to any company that wanted to use them. The fact that the levy appears dead in the water means that most rural areas are likely to have to wait many years before they see anything other than a basic service.
The Country Land & Business Association said: "If the promised 50p-a-month levy is not implemented quickly, the digital divide between urban areas and the countryside will become even greater."
The Tories, however, have no desire to support a new tax before an election. They believe BT should open the ducts that house local phone lines so rivals can install their fibre-optic cables. Industry experts do not believe this will be sufficient to push super-fast networks much beyond the half of the country that is already served by Virgin Media and will be served by BT in the next few years.
Google: We defended Cyxymu attack to protect free speech
Posted by: Gadget Boy in Technology on August 17th, 2009
Keeping Blogger.com up and running during a politically-motivated attack indicates Google's dedication to free speech, says the company. But is that just spin?
The saga of Cyxymu, the Georgian blogger who was at the heart of the recent spate of attacks on major websites, continues with a piece of intriguing spin from Google.
Blogger product manager Rick Klau has released a public statement which points out the political nature of the attacks - but also seems to suggest that Google's main objective in repelling the attacks was defending the right to freedom of expression.
"Google collaborated with the other targeted services... to help identify the origins of the attacks and minimise their impact," he writes on the Google Public Policy Blog. "While Blogger was able to withstand the attack this time around, we hope that governments and companies will recognize the threats to free expression that exist today and will work together to ensure that the internet continues to provide many safe havens for dissidents."
While I am a fierce advocate of everyone's right to say what they want, I am interested in the way the company's presenting this story as a successful defence of liberty - and not a more straightforward business decision to keep a valuable service up and running.
For Twitter, Facebook and LiveJournal (which did suffer during the attacks) the cost is more likely to be measured more in terms of lost revenue or inconvenience to other users than how successful in defending right to free expression.
Am I misreading Google's intentions with the post? Possibly, possibly not. Certainly Evgeny Morozov, the cyberfreedom academic who we interviewed on Tech Weeklyabout Cyxymu and is referenced by Google, sees it as a presentation of Google's "good corporate citizenship".
Is Google being genuine? Is it just presenting a kinder side? Does liberty trump prosperity for any public company?
Former minister defends Twitter
Posted by: Gadget Boy in Technology on July 28th, 2009
Tom Watson says providing the public with access to specialist information via Twitter should be encouraged
Tom Watson, the former Labour minister and prolific Twitterer, today defended government attempts to boost departmental use of the microblogging website, insisting it was a good way of getting a message across.
The West Bromwich East MP spoke out after a Whitehall official wrote a 20-page strategy paper for government departments on how to use the medium, which has a limit of 140 characters per message.
Even its author, Neil Williams, the head of corporate digital channels at Lord Mandelson's Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, admits the 5,382-word official "template" might be regarded as "a bit of over the top".
Boasting 36,215 characters and spaces, it would need roughly 259 separate "tweets" to be sent via Twitter.
But Watson today insisted that attempts to provide the public with access to specialist information using Twitter was less cumbersome than an all-encompassing website and ought to be encouraged.
"Generally, departments Twittering is a good thing because it allows them to build their own communities of interest and get their message out," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"You give interesting links, you give informative information, you give a flavour of what the department are doing at the time and what the issues are, and frankly if the Foreign Office don't give that, people unsubscribe from their link and they're not being very good Twitterers."
Watson did admit that he did not envy the guide's authors. "I feel very sorry for the poor young civil servants that have had to define this," he said. "There are some very bright, digitally enabled civil servants who unfortunately have to write these documents for their bosses, the mandarins, who still get their secretaries to print off their emails so they can read them in the afternoon."
Indeed, Williams said that when he sat down to write a proper plan for his department's corporate Twitter account he was "surprised by just how much there was to say – and quite how worth saying it is".
Whitehall's official use of Twitter was pioneered by Downing Street, the Foreign Office and the Communities and Local Government department.
Their low-profile experiments have grown into a regular feature of their official digital output.
Now Williams, a self-confessed web geek, has turned his template into an official Whitehall Twitter guide and posted it on the Cabinet Office's digital engagement blog.
He suggests that nothing too onerous is involved. Each department's "digital media team" should only need to spend less than an hour a day running their Twitter streams. A quick discussion of potential tweets at the morning press-cuttings meetings should be followed by emails to minister's private offices to gather more material, and any incoming messages should be replied to.
However, the idea of official government use of a tool that provides a confidential and confessional glimpse into somebody's personal life and views appears at first sight to be something of an oxymoron.
The official guide seems to acknowledge this when it recommends that exclusive content such as "insights from ministers" and "updates on their movements" in a light or humanised style will be needed for the Twitter stream beyond the "business as usual" content of daily press releases and announcements.
The guide also concedes there is a problem with one of the basic Twitter features, the ability to "follow" any other users. It admits that if government departments start following individual users on Twitter uninvited, this may well be interpreted as "interfering 'Big Brother'-like behaviour".
However, once anyone does follow a Whitehall Twitter stream it recommends they should automatically be "followed back" on the grounds that it is not only good etiquette, but could result in a poor Twitter reputation if not done – and in extreme cases could lead to the account being suspended.
In urging his fellow Whitehall civil servants to use Twitter, Williams sets out several groundrules for the kind of content that needs to make it work:
• Human: he warns that Twitter users can be hostile to the "overuse of automation" – such as RSS feeds – and to the regurgitation of press release headlines: "While corporate in message, the tone of our Twitter channel must therefore be informal spoken English, human-edited and for the most part written/paraphrased for the channel."
• Frequent: a minimum of two and maximum of 10 tweets per working day, with a minimum gap of 30 minutes between tweets to avoid flooding followers' Twitter streams. (Not counting @replies or live coverage of a crisis/event.) Downing Street spends 20 minutes on its Twitter stream with two-three tweets a day plus a few replies: five-six tweets a day in total.
• Timely: in keeping with the "zeitgeist" feel of Twitter, official tweets should be about issues of relevance today or events coming soon.
• Credible: while tweets may occasionally be "fun", their relationship to departmental objectives must be defensible.
Alongside the promised tweetable content of minsters' thoughts and reflections following key meetings and events is something rather more sinister sounding called "thought leadership". Also known as "linked blogging", the idea is that by highlighting relevant research, events, awards and other action elsewhere on the web, the department's Twitter feed gets a reputation as a reliable filter of high-quality content.
It even holds out the promise of "crisis content" in which the Twitter feed becomes a primary channel alongside the official website for up-to-the-minute guidance and advice in the event of a major incident.
Perhaps the biggest stumbling block is that in true Whitehall tradition everything that goes out has to be approved and cleared first. So news releases are to be cleared for use only if they have first been paraphrased for Twitter. All other tweets have to be cleared by staff at information-officer grade in the digital media team and colleagues in ministers' private offices and communications units have to be consulted as well.
The guidelines recommend that "light-touch controls" will also be needed to prevent "inappropriate content" being published in error – for example embargoed news releases, information about the location of ministers that could put their security at risk, or other commercially or politically sensitive content. Steps are also to be taken to avoid hacking or vandalism of content.
But it is perhaps the "tone of voice" that is most troubling about the idea of Whitehall twitter stream. "Though the account will be anonymous (ie no named officials will be running it) it is helpful to define a hypothetical 'voice' so that tweets from multiple sources are presented in a consistent tone (including consistent use of pronouns)," recommends the official template.
"The department's Twitter voice will be that of the digital media team, positioning the channel as an extension of the main department website – effectively an 'outpost' where new digital content is signposted throughout the day. This will be implicit, unless directly asked about by our followers," it advises.
Williams, the author of this template, launched the first ever blog by a British cabinet minister. He admits he once ran a comedy website called idiotica.co.uk but the Cabinet Office confirm that his Twitter guidelines are genuine.
Activate 09 sees calls for free data access
Posted by: Gadget Boy in Technology on July 8th, 2009
It is "totally unacceptable" for Ordnance Survey not to provide maps suitable for the digital economy, said former Cabinet Office minister Tom Watson at the Guardian's Activate 09 summit - part-sponsored by Ordnance Survey - last week.
Watson, the Labour MP for West Bromwich East - who appeared on the platform with Adam Afriyie, the Conservatives' shadow minister for science and innovation - said that as taxpayers, we have already paid for the information the organisation holds and sells to commercial companies. But he also said that privatisation would make matters worse.
Afriyie, who has previously encouraged the idea of better access to government data, backed the idea of better access at the local government level and pushed for local versions of They Work For You - the MySociety-created website which mashes up Hansard into a more usable form.
Meanwhile, Ed Parsons, geospatial technologist at Google UK, said government agencies should allow greater access to more of their data so the mobile industry could take full advantage. The early optimism about the possibilities from GPS (a US government-provided free data service) had been premature, but, said Parsons, "it's a reality now" and government needed to develop services "to allow the geeks out there to produce services and products in the near future".
Parsons cited the National Rail Enquiries iPhone app, which offers localised UK train times but costs £4.99 - having forced a free version of the same application from a different company to shut down."That's ... because developers have to pay National Rail for access to the times," Parsons said. However, National Rail is owned by the train operating companies, not the government, meaning its data would not fall under the Free Our Data remit.
For Ordnance Survey, Liz Ratcliffe, the head of product marketing, admitted OS had been through a "painful period of self-reflection" but that had led it to launch its OpenSpace API more widely in April. She encouraged people to work with OS to create new online maps.
• The search for Ordnance Survey's "internationally recognised expert" who read and approved its report on funding models goes on. Last week, one commenter on the Free Our Data blog wondered if it might have been Max Craglia, of the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, a specialist in geographic information policies. But Dr Craglia told the Guardian: "I regret I am not the expert you are looking for." OS says it is awaiting the permission of the expert before releasing their name. Further information is due by 23 July under an FOI Act request.
• Join the debate at the Free Our Data blog
Cameron: Patients should store health records with Google or Microsoft
Posted by: Gadget Boy in Technology on July 6th, 2009
Lib Dems complain that plan could give Google undue commercial advantage
Patients would be encouraged to store their medical records with companies like Google and Microsoft under plans being drawn up by the Conservatives.
David Cameron wants people to use services like Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault, which both operate in the US, as an alternative to the £12bn national patient record database ordered by the government.
But the Liberal Democrats have complained that the plan could give Google undue commercial advantage.
Cameron has repeatedly cited Labour's planned electronic patient record database as an example of how centralised government programmes can go wrong. The database is not due to be ready until 2014, four years behind schedule.
At the recent Conservative spring conference in Cheltenham, the Tory leader said that his party would have adopted a different approach to the issue of how to improve access to patient records in the internet era.
"We would have said, 'Today you don't need a massive central computer to do this,'" he said. "People can store their health records securely online; they can show them to whichever doctor they want. They're in control, not the state.
"And when they're in control of their own health records, they're more interested in their health, so they might start living more healthily, saving the NHS money. But, best of all in this age of austerity, a web-based version of the government's bureaucratic scheme services – like Google Health or Microsoft HealthVault – costs virtually nothing to run."
The Tories are still working out how this proposal could be implemented. One problem is that the Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault systems would need to be adapted for them to work in Britain.
Under the plan, it is thought that patients would be given the option of storing their records with private companies but they would not have to do so. Patients would also be given a choice of private provider, meaning that no one company would get a monopoly.
A Conservative party spokesman today refused to discuss the proposal in detail. He said that an independent review of NHS computing services being carried out for the party was due to report within the next few weeks and that the party would say more about its plans then.
The proposal has aroused controversy because of Cameron's close links to Google. Steve Hilton, his most important policy adviser, is married to Rachel Whetstone, a senior Google communications executive.
Norman Lamb, the Lib Dem health spokesman, told the Times: "It leaves a nasty taste in the mouth that there are repeated references to Google, given the closeness of Team Cameron to that organisation, and it leaves concerns about commercial advantage."
Internet has changed foreign policy for ever, says Gordon Brown
Posted by: Gadget Boy in Technology on June 19th, 2009
In exclusive interview with the Guardian, prime minister says web era 'more tumultuous than any previous economic or social revolution'
Foreign policy can never be the same again — and it's all because of the internet, Gordon Brown said in an exclusive interview with the Guardian.
Referring to the so-called Twitter revolution in Iran, the prime minister said technological advances and the democratisation of information mean "foreign policy can no longer be the province of just a few elites".
"You cannot have Rwanda again," he said. "This week's events in Iran are a reminder of the way that people are using new technology to come together in new ways to make their views known."
He described the internet era as "more tumultuous than any previous economic or social revolution". "For centuries, individuals have been learning how to live with their next-door neighbours," he added.
"Now, uniquely, we're having to learn to live with people who we don't know.
"People have now got the ability to speak to each other across continents, to join with each other in communities that are not based simply on territory, streets, but networks; and you've got the possibility of people building alliances right across the world."
This, he said, has huge implications. "That flow of information means that foreign policy can never be the same again.
"You cannot have Rwanda again because information would come out far more quickly about what is actually going on and the public opinion would grow to the point where action would need to be taken.
"Foreign policy can no longer be the province of just a few elites."
During a frank and personal interview in Guardian Weekend magazine, published tomorrow, he also discussed the return to favour of the business secretary, Peter Mandelson.
Brown said that there was now a "common purpose" between the two of them, and that the Labour party – famously resistant to Lord Mandelson's charms, had finally come round to him.
"People are coming to appreciate his talents in a way the Labour party didn't before ... I think there's a great affection for him now," he addedd.
• Read the full interview in Guardian Weekend tomorrow
Shining a light on the shadowy Misc 13
Posted by: Gadget Boy in Technology on September 2nd, 2009
Why the debate about information sharing should concern more people than readers of government papers
How time flies. It's three years since I reported in the Guardian that, in the quest for "transformed", IT-based government, ministers were planning to overturn a basic principle of data protection .
My report followed a briefing from a cabinet office official who told me it had been decided that sharing personal data was fine unless it had been explicitly prevented. This policy, couched in more cautious language than my report, featured in a "vision statement" in September 2006.
My article mentioned that the new policy had emerged from a cabinet committee called Misc 31. That reference intrigued at least one reader. In April 2007, David Bowden, a solicitor who operates under the name Lobby and Law, put in a request for six sets of information concerning Misc 31, including minutes since the committee was formed.
Bowden must have realised he was pushing his luck – ministerial communications enjoy an infamous exemption from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). However, he argued that exemptions are not mandatory and that there was a strong public interest in the issue.
The information commissioner's office wasn't impressed. Turning down the initial request, it ruled that although there was a public interest in greater accountability, the conventions of cabinet government came first. "Great weight" was attached to the protection of collective responsibility, the polite fiction that all ministers agree with every government line. Revelations of ministerial exchanges, as well as "any differences of opinion" would put that in peril.
Bowden took his case to the information tribunal. He claimed 25 grounds of appeal, including, provocatively, that Misc 31's work looked like an attempt to cook up, behind closed doors, a data regime contravening European laws. This, he claimed, amounted to a prima facie case of wrongdoing – in which case the FOIA would support disclosure.
The cabinet office didn't like that one bit. At the appeal tribunal, it fielded evidence from a senior mandarin, Dr Robin Fellgett. He dismissed the wrongdoing claim, saying the work of Misc 31 "proceeded on an understanding that any data-sharing had to be in accordance with the Data Protection Act". Fellgett said ministers would be reluctant to put forward dissenting views if they knew they were to be made public.
The tribunal agreed, ruling that the type of information Bowden wanted represented a classic illustration of the "safe space" needed for making government policy. As you'll have guessed by now, the appeal was turned down.
So, there we have it. Misc 31 was wound up in 2007, when Gordon Brown became prime minister, and has not been directly replaced. It looks as though we will have to wait until 2037 to find out what was discussed.
Is this the end of the matter? I don't think so. The tribunal's report includes the extraordinary statement that there was no compelling public interest in disclosing Misc 31 papers because "there is no doubt in the tribunal's view that the public was sufficiently well informed not only about the fact of Misc 31's existence, but also of its aims and functions".
Flatteringly, one reason for this assertion was my 2006 Guardian report; the tribunal also cited the 2005 Transformational Government strategy itself.
This is not good enough. The debate about information sharing by public bodies should concern a lot more people than readers of government papers, or even the Guardian. Ministers are always calling for a mature public debate on the topic. As the information tribunal reminds us, the conventions of cabinet government mean that a cabinet committee is not the right place to hold such a public debate. So, where is?
Comment, Data protection, guardian.co.uk, Politics and technology, Privacy and the net
No Comments