UK News
Insights from the UK and beyond
from The Great Debate UK:
Rory Cellan-Jones on virtual democracy
Direct, real-time communication among politicians and the public through social media platforms is reshaping democracy and the news media, but questions remain about how the fabric of society might change as a result, argued a panel at an event hosted by the BBC on Tuesday evening at Westminster.
The Web provides a de-centralised opportunity for users to communicate from various points on the political-economic spectrum, but gatekeepers are emerging who try and curtail the dissemination of information they find objectionable, suggested panellist Aleks Krotoski, who recently completed work on the BBC series "Virtual Revolution".
"Innovative social-media platforms start off being interactive, but then they can become broadcast tools," cautioned Rory Cellan-Jones, the BBC's new digital election correspondent.
The panel was chaired by Peter Horrocks, director of BBC global news, and included Pooneh Ghoddoosi, a presenter with BBC's Persian service and Peter Barron, director of communications for Google in north and central Europe. BBC is producing a series about the Internet titled "Superpower".
Cellan-Jones spoke to Reuters after the panel discussion about social media and the upcoming UK general election. You can watch the video clip below or if you can't see it, please click on the headline of this post to see it.
Raging against the X Factor machine
Simon Cowell says the Internet campaign to keep X factor winner Joe McElderry from the coveted Christmas No. I spot is aimed at him rather than the type of music the show produces.
He calls the campaign stupid.
But critics of the show loathe what they call the “karaoke” of X Factor and thousands have backed the push to get an anti-establishment track by American rockers Rage Against the Machine up into the top slot next week.
The band’s guitarist Tom Morello told the BBC: ”I think people are just fed-up of being spoonfed some overblown sugary ballad that sits on top of the charts. It’s a little dose of anarchy for the holidays, it’s good for the soul.”
It’s good for Sony too, analysts have noted, since both records are on its label.
Critics of the Internet campaign note that record numbers of viewers watched last weekend’s X Factor final and millions voted for McElderry. If so many people like him, why should he not be No. I they ask.
What do you think?
How pointless. 20 Million people watched the X factor final. Why campaign to keep them out. An insult to Geordies. Also the RAM record is crap!
from Reuters Soccer Blog:
You can still watch Ukraine v England on TV … you just have to come to Croatia
A quick look around the blogosphere suggests that for many England fans the idea of watching the World Cup qualifier against Ukraine in front of a computer screen at the mercy of an ISP, or at a crammed cinema, sounds about as appealing as making the long trip to Dnipropetrovsk.
But do not despair, England fans, because there is an option for those of you determined to watch it on telly.
Croatia's HRT 2 state television, also viewable in Serbia on cable, is showing the game live, so here is your chance to combine a bit of light football watching with an autumn dip in the Adriatic somewhere along Croatia's mesmerising coast, or an evening spent sampling Belgrade's unique and vibrant nightlife, epitomised by boat-bars and clubs along the Danube.
And fear not that the Croatian faithful might have a go at you after their team's recent 5-1 drubbing at Wembley. They will be praying for an England win that would leave their boys in the driving seat for a runners-up spot in Group Six.
PHOTO: A subscription page is shown on a laptop computer at a cafe in central London October 5, 2009. REUTERS/Toby Melville
from The Great Debate UK:
Does the Internet empower or censor?
What if the Internet is not really a utopian democratic catalyst of change?
The Web is often seen as a positive means of instilling democratic freedoms in countries under authoritarian rule, but many regimes are now using it to subvert democracy, Evgeny Morozov, a contributing editor at "Foreign Policy", proposes.
The Internet can actually inhibit rather than empower civil society, Morozov, argued in a lecture on Tuesday at London's Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce.
Social media platforms are being used by certain governments to create a "spinternet" to influence public opinion. They are also being used as part of a process of "authoritarian deliberation" to try and increase the legitimacy of authoritarian rule, he said.
Morozov spoke with Reuters after the lecture.
Sadly I missed his talk at the RSA however the issues which he raises I have thought about. Namely how non-democratic states use the web. In terms of exploiting the potential of the web to communicate misinformation and propaganda this does not surprise me at all. That they can carry out this task with a high degree of skill and creativity would also be consistent. In the 20th century both the Nazis and Communist regimes were adept at using cinema (though communist regimes produced better cinema than the Nazis) to control and subvert with propaganda. Like the web cinema was a new technology and Lenin would take cinema to the masses on a train trip throughout Russia.
What Evgeny Morozov portents is and I hazard a guess is a kind of free world web which encourages, welcomes and develops the tools for people to interact with, create content for and broadcast to anyone they wish. While on the other side a web grows up were interaction is limited and broadcast is the key feature of web use and only a limited amount of people have the means to broadcast. Morozov has highlighted an issue that I need do much more thinking and he opens up a debate that is marginally more interesting than whether we download a music track for free or not.
Cutting off the music file-sharers
Repeat offenders who persist in illegally downloading music from file-sharing sites such as Limewire could be blocked from accessing the Web under government proposals.
“Technology and consumer behavior is fast-changing and it’s important that Ofcom has the flexibility to respond quickly to deal with unlawful file-sharing,” says Minister for Digital Britain Stephen Timms.
Opponents of the idea are more succinct. They say cutting people off is unnecessary and potentially illegal. Human rights have been invoked.
Business Secretary Lord Mandelson, they say, has been successfully leaned on by lobbyists for the creative industries whose products are being hijacked.
The music industry, which is losing millions through illegal downloads, is naturally pleased. The industry body UK Music says: “UK Music is pleased that Government is proposing accelerated and proportionate action to meet their stated ambition of reducing illegal file-sharing by 70-80% within 2-3 years.”
What do you think? Is there a case for such drastic measures?
Related blog: Who benefits from a file-sharing crackdown?
Would you vote for the Pirate Party?
The Pirate Party, which originated in Sweden, is now a registered political party in Britain and set to run candidates in the next general election. Its aim is to reform copyright law, abolish the patent system and ensure privacy rights for all citizens.
The party, with branches in more than 25 countries, argues that file-sharing and peer-to-peer networking should be encouraged rather than criminalized, based on the idea that “the Internet could become the greatest public library ever created.”
Combatting levels of surveillance and control put in place by governments in response to the 9/11 attacks in New York are also top of the agenda.
The party wants to introduce an alternative to pharmaceutical patents throughout Europe that it says will save on drug costs to governments.
Would you vote for the Pirate Party in a general election?
Hey, any info on a branch in the US? All I could find was an out of date website that seems to be down all the time…thanks.
Do you object to Google Street View?
Google’s “Street View” service has survived calls to have it shut down. The UK’s privacy watchdog has ruled that removing the service, which allows users to navigate around a 360-degree view of streets and houses in 25 cities, would be “disproportionate to the relatively small risk of privacy detriment.”
Google promised to obscure images of pedestrians or car licence plates but some slipped through the net. The media reported a number of embarrassing images including a man walking out of a sex shop and another being sick outside a pub.
The residents of one village, meanwhile, tried to block the cameras, claiming the service would allow burglars to scope out their homes. The campaign group Privacy International complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
A spokesperson for the ICO said: “Google Street View does not contravene the Data Protection Act and, in any case, it is not in the public interest to turn the digital clock back.
“In a world where many people tweet, Facebook and blog it is important to take a common sense approach towards Street View and the relatively limited privacy intrusion it may cause.”
He also said there was no law to stop anyone taking pictures of people in the street, providing they were not harassing them, while members of the public appeared every day on TV reports.
Google has promised to address people’s privacy concerns and said that all requests to remove or black out images would be carried out.
I love it!!!! I don’t see how it invades privacy. These images are a year or more old taken in public place. I can take picture of people walking out of buildings etc. anytime, and I won’t even blur the face or I can hire a private detective if I am a jealous wife to take pictures for me, it’s perfectly legal. Google does not do harm, if anything it’s beneficial as I can look around the area before going there, saving me time and money on petrol, saving the planet as I don’t have to drive or fly there! Well done google! The only people that object this are the ones they are either paranoid, or do something they shouldn’t. People that are honest have not fears! Public place is public place and if you don’t want to be caught in a compromising situation just don’t do it! Simple as that!
Is everything “just too damn complicated?”
The trouble with banking, a private equity chief told a hearing of MPs this week, is that it has just become “too damn complicated” and needs to get back to basics.Many readers might agree with those refreshingly candid words — and they might think too that it’s not just banking that has become tangled up in glue.”It used to be so easy — now it takes for ever,” we sigh in unison.Maybe the Internet is partly to blame. It was supposed to simplify things but, for many, it has made whole areas of life vastly more frustrating. “Simply click” may be meant as a breezy invitation to a stress-free transaction — but in reality it is often the gateway to Hell.Need help? – simply phone our 24/7 advisers in Asia. (But let’s not go there…)Could the apparent growth of office bureaucracy also be playing its part? Commentators have frequently bewailed the growing tide of fussy, box-ticking procedure and the swelling ranks of email-happy bureaucrats with grand-sounding titles. Got any of those?Do you find any particular areas of home or office life more complicated than they used to be?If so, simply click on that “post comment” link down there. Easy eh?
It’s a sorry state of affairs when dealing with overseas bureaucracies or bureaucratic procedures at work takes up more time than actually doing the job.I’m afraid there are too many people in these companies who have cornered the outsourcing market that care less about cutomer relations and only about the bottom line.There are too many people more interested in empire building than doing their jobs.
Is file-sharing morally wrong?
A woman who shared a pinball game online has been ordered to pay 16,000 pounds in compensation and legal costs to its creator.
The Patents County Court in London ruled in favour of TopWare Interactive, a U.S. computer game developer that said she had infringed its copyright.
The case is the latest attempt by the entertainment industry to try to protect its music, games and films from growing threat of online piracy, which it says is killing business.
Quicker Internet connections have sparked a boom in people swapping music, films or TV programmes.
The Recording Industry Association of America says file sharing has hit profits, put songwriters out of work and made it harder for new bands to get a contract.
“The crime is theft,” it says on its website. “Everyone who makes, enjoys or earns a living in music is hurt.”
File sharers hotly dispute that argument.
Though I have not had the time to read all the comments here, I think I get the jist of what many of you are saying…same say that since we don’t downlaod books, video games, dvdes, or computer softwear for free, why should that be okay for music? Others say that downlaoding is like lending a friend a book or a video game and that’s not illegal is it? The truth is though that musicians need to put food on their plates. And being a musician myself, it scares me to think about the way the industry is headed. In the comment from Ransack Productions, they stated “Most people understand that major record labels will loss but feel that their artists wouldn’t loss because they make their monies off of tours shows, and other marketable commodities with in the music industry that they can capitalize on” but hoenstly, tours and merch wont pay the bills. Unless you are completly DIY (which is hard to get noticed and gain a fan base) you are going to need a record company to help you out with some cash flow. But what most people don’t know is that they expect you to repay that money back, which comes from touring and soemtimes merch. When people attain music for free they are taking valuble money away from those bands that do infact need to repay those record companies. I think in the end this will cause good music to suffer. All those young kids that want to play in bands will soon realize there is no money in the industry (untill we find a way around this) which in turn will cause many potential musicians to turn other ways to support themselves.
So, I don’t know if I would saying the act of downlaoding is morally wrong (like theft or what not) but I think technology has come back to bite us in the ass. We did this to ourselves. And I think it sucks. Untill we find a new way around this mess…the future of the music industry is looking pretty gloomy.
Should the public police the Internet?
In an age of viruses, fraud and identity theft, who should be responsible for policing the Internet?
Governments, private security companies and law enforcement agencies all play a part in tackling cyber-crime.
But author and academic Jonathan Zittrain argues that we should be wary of “locking down” the Internet with increasing amounts of centralised rules and sealed gadgets that can’t be tinkered with.
In a new book published by Penguin and Yale University Press, he says part of the answer lies in greater freedom and trust, rather than more rules or technological solutions.
We don’t have police on every street corner in the real world, so why have that online, he asks?
People should be encouraged to see themselves as “netizens” — active participants in the online world, rather than passive consumers of Internet content.
They could share the load of policing the net, reporting threats and working together to combat the risks.
Police it where needed – sites or forums that target children should be closed down, as should sites that are scams.The great thing about the internet is that there is such a wealth of diverse information readily available, even if it is information on how to grow stronger strains of skunk cannabis or make homemade drugs and bombs. Freedom of expression and freedom of information are paramount and it sometimes seems as though the internet is their last sanctuary.Of course people should report crime if they come across it on the internet, just as they should in ‘real life’ but people should also mind their own business and get out more.
-
The Wall
