The Great Debate UK
from UK News:
Jeremy Hunt unveils Tory technology platform
As the three main UK political parties vie for positioning ahead of a general election to be held by June, the Conservatives unveiled their "Technology Manifesto" on Thursday in London outlining the key issues they would address if they form the next government.
Shadow Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Shadow Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude presented ideas on everything from improving broadband speeds to making government data accessible online.
Boosting broadband speeds would play a crucial role in stimulating growth by providing new areas of financial competitiveness, they said.
"This is central to the growth of the UK economy and will create hundreds of thousands of jobs," Hunt said.
The Conservatives say they would break up the dominance BT has over the Internet and find a way to open up access to other firms.
"Our plans will stimulate a massive increase of investment in our digital structure by allowing anyone to invest in BT's ducts and pipes," Hunt told Reuters.
Hunt spoke with Reuters about Conservative plans in the video clip below.
Remembering how to forget in the Web 2.0 era
Amid ongoing debates over the hazards of excessive digital exposure through such Web 2.0 social networking platforms as Facebook and Twitter, a new book by Viktor Mayer-Schonberger extols the virtues of forgetfulness.
Since the emergence of digital technology and global networks, forgetting has become an exception, Mayer-Schonberger writes in “Delete”.
“Forgetting plays a central role in human decision-making,” he argues. “It lets us act in time, cognizant of, but not shackled by, past events.”
Mayer-Schonberger shared his theory on how to fight back against the digital panopticon with Reuters before giving a lecture at the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce in London.
Interesting concept, even though I dont quite agree that “forgetting” is a virtue.
Since it’s easy to find information as and when we want it through Internet, that means we do not have to try our best to memorize. We can free our brain cells to focus on application of information, rather than memorizing the information.
This does not imply “forgetting”. It just means that we utilize our brain cells in other way.
Tackling digital copyright theft
-Lavinia Carey is Chair of the Alliance Against IP Theft, and Director General of the British Video Association. The opinions expressed are her own. -
The proposals contained within the much anticipated Digital Economy Bill have prompted lively debate among politicians, industry and consumer groups. Unfortunately, some have characterised the debate as industry versus consumer, when in fact both industry and the consumer have an interest in reducing copyright theft.
The proposals will benefit millions of people, and significant consensus exists about the need to tackle the issue by first warning and ultimately taking action against those who distribute other people’s content online without permission.
Whilst some have criticised the Government’s proposals on temporary broadband account suspension this is one of a number of potential measures, implemented only after due process and a robust appeals process, which may be used as a last resort against those who have ignored multiple warnings and continue to persist in illegal file-sharing. Research also shows the important role the existence of such a deterrent has to play in changing people’s behaviour.
Equally, most parents would surely welcome a warning that alerted them to the fact that the activities of their children were exposing the whole family to security breaches. That is what happens when people file-share – the software they download to access illicit music or film files, for example, also provides access to other users to all the files on their computer, some of which may contain very personal and private information and it’s a great propagator of malware and viruses.
Many internet users find broadband speeds unsatisfactory, particularly during the heaviest use of bandwidth by file-sharers between the hours of 6pm and midnight, so consumers who use legitimate services will probably welcome the fall in illegal traffic, which significantly contributes towards congestion on the networks.
Those who rely on the creative economy for their livelihood, including musicians, directors, software developers, lighting and camera operators, make-up artists, costumiers, designers, producers, grips, writers and sound engineers to name just a few deserve to have their creativity protected. They are consumers too. If they are not properly rewarded for their work, our creative economy will suffer. This is not something our country can afford to risk. This is one of the fastest growing industries in the UK, 8 percent of GDP, and in many parts of the sector we justifiably lead the world.
While it is commendable to suggest we should correctly recompense the many hard working individuals in the media industries which have been impacted by the file sharing pheomenon, it is erroneous to assume that the movement to tackle this with countermeasures has been implemented for their benefit.At the end of the day, the pressure on the Government is being put forward by the corporations who have seen significant dents in their profits simply because they were too greedy in the first instance to be willing to ride the wave of file sharing in the first place.The whole crux of this issue lies with the principal concern these corporations have. This is not a concern for their staff or their artists’ general wellbeing. This is ultimately a concern over their profits. The Governments, who ultimately benefit from the taxation of the end products, are simply acting to secure their own revenues as well. They’ll stand behind the shield of more noble reasons, but never acknowledge any reasonable counterarguments from the other side of the fence.Money does make the world go round, unfortunately. But it is possible that there has been some net benefit to global society as a whole on account of the greater proliferation and dissemination of great works of art, across several media platforms.Regardless of right or wrong, legal or illegal, this file sharing business has been the catalyst for a great wave of change throughout the entire world. Which, as an evolving and tech integrated species, can only be a good thing for us in the long run.
Is the Internet a dangerous playground?
- Caroline Cockerill is the Internet Safety Advocate at Symantec, UK. The opinions expressed are her own.-
Today’s children have grown up with the Internet, they know more about it than their parents, but do they know the perils it holds?
As the Internet becomes increasingly integral to our lives, children spend as much time in front of their PCs as the TV. Children’s access to social networking sites, instant messaging applications and chat rooms, makes them as connected to their peers as if they were standing in the playground.
However, while a playground is a visibly regulated space for children to interact, many parents are unaware of their children’s activity online and consequently unaware of any problems they may be having.
In fact, UK kids are spending more than twice as much time on the web as their parents think they are – 43.5 hours per month – as opposed to the 18.8 hours parents estimated, according to the 2009 Norton Online Living Report.
The Internet hides the darker side of children’s lives. Bullying as you and I, and their parents knew it, is very different to what children experience now. Teasing and other problems are rife and exacerbated in digital lives, hidden from the eyes of other peers, teachers and parents.
The bullies who harass others online feel like they can hide behind the anonymity of the Internet. They feel uninhibited by “normal” social restrictions and can be much more cruel online than they would be in reality. In some cases, the psychological impact on victims has greater consequences than physical violence.
I worry about kids being online alone. It’s a good strategy to have a family computer and keep it in a busy family room instead of in a more private office.





brilliant IF its realistic to bring 100 Mbgs to most citizens – given so many now have very slow (or no) speeds, due to the old BT infrastructure of landlines – in particular aluminium lines, not fit for purpose for broadband.
will some citizens, who already are failed, continue to be left with very slow broadband, while the lucky ones will rush ahead with 100Mbgs?
i would argue for the universal human right to broadband, so that this provision is available to all, wherever one lives in the UK….broadband is a utility, not a luxury.