Filtering the internet, but not choice

The Rudd Government is currently coming under heavy fire from the public about its proposed mandatory internet filtering for all ISPs, (Internet Service Providers) which would effect every Australian and content they could "possibly" view on the internet. But while some are heralding such a plan as a proactive step towards protecting children, others are claiming it gives the capacity for the government to become an overbearing big brother, diminishing our democracy. With the proposed policy in its current form, both sides of the argument have valid points. Though there is an effective solution, that could appease both sides of the debate.

The proposed policy, in its current form, will force all ISPs to block all RC (refused classification) websites on international servers. RC websites are not legally permitted to be hosted on Australian servers and are currently removed or blocked. However this policy classifies sites hosted internationally, and blocks these. Who chooses which sites to block was originally up to the government, but it appears they will opt for an independent organisation to review or choose which sites to block. The types of sites to be blocked are meant to be "offensive", though they range from illegal pornography and bomb making sites, to currently legal pornography and pro euthanasia sites. The list of sites to be blocked is not to be released publicly (which has caused just as much controversy as the blocking of sites), but earlier on in the year a list was leaked, which included a non harmful, not offensive, Queensland dentist's website. The main aim of the filter is to protect families and children from accidentally accessing "offensive" and dangerous websites. However the government has acknowledged the if people want to 'illegally' get around the filter, they can.

The main argument against implementing the filter is that the government has, and can, secretly block websites of its choosing. Former High Court judge Michael Kirby has criticised the proposed policy, as he, along with over 90% of the Australian public if news polls are to be believed, see an opportunity for government abuse to arise and the stifling of democratic process through restricted access to information. This is because it gives the government power to block sites it doesn't see as appropriate, such as pro euthanasia sites. Hence reducing the amount of information available to the public to continue fueling public debate and opinion. However if people can easily get around the system in an illegal way, it will still be ineffective in its purpose. And in this tech savvy world, it doesn't take much to get around firewalls. All this filter really does is stop people accidentally stumbling across such information.

The debate surrounding this particular piece of the Rudd government's "internet" policy, which is to be introduced into parliament next year, is also muddied by arguments that internet speed will decrease and that not all offensive material will be blocked. On the subject of speed, an internet filter will most likely slow down speed, but only by an insignificant margin. Though the belief that not all offensive material will be blocked does hold a lot of weight. While most RC sites can be blocked, it is easy to circumvent the filter, but also new sites can pop up, to which it comes a game of 'website creation' vs 'government finding and blocking'. Breeding complacency among the public with an internet filter is also dangerous. People still need to be careful about what sites they visit, and the content their children have access to.

So if the current proposal is ineffective yet to intervening, what's the solution? Firstly, to increase the range and type of RC websites to be blocked; which would include all pornography, scam and virus sites etc. (just think, any website you wouldn't want to be associated with opening in public). Secondly, list the websites blocked; transparency and accountability will not hurt here. If people want to find and access these sites, they will find away to do so. Thirdly, make it an "opt out" system; households and internet users who wish to remove such a filter, must register with their ISP to have it removed. This means the 'average' family has a safer internet, the complacent internet user who couldn't be bothered contacting their ISP is safer, and those who are wishing to access such information will be able to access it (because they would be able to with the proposed policy anyway)

The internet is the 21st century's digital figure-head for liberalism and democracy. It is also the greatest source for illegal and immoral content. However while governments should not be able to dictate what's morally acceptable (with legal exceptions), or diminish the capacity for individuals to access information consensually, they should be able to provide the choice for people to protect themselves and their families. 

Links

Net filters 'thin end of the wedge': Kirby - SMH online

Critics blast 'great firewall of Australia' - ABC news

Green light for internet filter plans - ABC news

Computer says no: Google slams filter - ABC News

The darker side of China's prosperity

While China is continuing to enjoy its strong economic growth that is fuelling the global economy, its intentions to "westernise" and be accepted as a good international citizen is again coming under fire. After vehemently denying the existence of "black jails", illegal detention (and sometimes torture) centres which hold civilians who attempt to make a complaint against the communist government, have formally been acknowledged by a high profile government newspaper and several officials. China continues to claim that it is improving its human rights record. However the cloud of Tienanmen Square still hangs over China and leaked reports of human rights abuses continue to plague the Chinese government.

Western nations, such as the UK, US and Australia have historically criticised China for its human rights abuses. Though as seen throughout 2009, these diplomatic condemnations of China's actions haven't occurred. Instead, because of China's economic growth, statements like this were made - "We won't let human rights get in the way of trade with China" (Hillary Clinton's statement when visiting China earlier this year). This is because of the strength of China's economy. Its newly found economic power is able to overpower international condemnation from its reliant trading partners. Western nations are also being held accountable to their human rights abuses and neglects, such as the US and Guantanamo Bay, UK and invasion of Iraq, Australia and the neglect of Indigenous Australians. Hence China's economic prosperity is able to diminish the capacity for dialogue about human rights abuses.

The recent report about human rights abuses and "black jails" however has come after much international concern and condemnation, especially from non government groups, such as Human Rights Watch, that aren't restricted in their opinion by lucrative trade deals. And with the acknowledgement of misconduct coming from a high ranking communist party paper, it signals a move by Chinese ministers that human rights abuses can not be overlooked or so easily swept under the carpet. However the reason these jails exist is just because of this. When a Chinese citizen wants to make a complaint, they must go to their local officials. These officials performance are not ranked or decided by a vote by the people in a democracy. They are judged by the amount of complaints that are made against them. Because there is little accountability within the communist government, these officials ignore and do not file these complaints. Hence these citizens who want to make a complaint must travel to the "State Bureau for Letters and Calls" in Beijing in person to make the complaint. And this is where the government employs civilian security forces to capture and detain those who have travelled to Beijing to make a complaint. About 10 000 Chinese travel to Beijing to make complaints a year. An unknown amount end up in "black jails".

While the Chinese Communist government is able to more effectively manage and regulate and economy, proven through its continued strength and resilience to bad foreign debt, it is unable to have effective accountability to the Chinese people. Millions more Chinese are enjoying to luxuries of a middle class life, such as owning a fridge, car, house and consumer technology. Though those who aren't on the 'golden coast' (East coast of China) aren't receiving these benefits. Their issues they wish to take up with their government aren't being heard, but instead they are being punished. The minor acknowledgement about these black jails is another step in revealing the failing process of accountability and transparency. China still strongly pursues its aim of internal stability, most notably created through military crackdowns (Tibet, Xijiang) and economic growth (the 'golden' East Coast). Though maybe more accountability, transparency and filing would work better than guns or money!

Links
China admits it runs illegal black jails - Telegraph.co.uk 

China must be held to account for its political repression - Guardian.co.uk

China 'running illegal prisons' - BBC News

Where in the world is Osama bin Laden?

As Barack Obama pledges to put 30,000 more US troops into Afghanistan by the start of 2010, the US Defence Secretary admits that they don't know where Osama bin Laden is, and have had no accurate intelligence about his whereabouts in years. Towards the end of Bush's presidency, and since Obama has taken office, the "war on terror" and US occupation of Afghanistan has changed from capturing and killing terrorists, to nation building and stopping Afghanistan and surrounding areas from becoming a terrorist safe haven.

This admission from Defence Secretary Robert Gates highlights the changed intentions of the US in regards to fighting terrorism, but also to the inadequacies and failures of US intelligence and military operations. It is believed that bin Laden was able to escape from the remote mountain caves of Afghanistan into boarding onto Pakistan during the 2001 invasion, because of a lack of US military concentration in that area. It makes us question the true amount of effort the US military and intelligence services put into finding bin Laden, and how serious their efforts are now. At the time of the invasion, Fox News (not the most accurate to be quoting as a common example) was reporting during the invasion of the possibility of large, underground lairs being used by al-Qaeda operatives as training facilities. Hypothetical diagrams were made to demonstrate the vastness of these caves, which included stairs, multiple levels and a hydro power generator. The very reality of the situation with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, or even all over the world, was and still is far from this fearfully fanciful prediction.

The huge al-Qaeda network the US was estimating to find was never really found. Only what was found was a very loose connection between financiers who hated the west, and people who also hated the west and were willing to kill themselves for it. Osama bin Laden only managed to blur these lines even further, by being a very supportive financier, in monetary and ideological perspectives. The widely spread opinion (mostly among conservative circles in the US and other western nations), that bin Laden and other radical terrorists are out to kill westerners, and that they are trying to get into the country now has amazingly crumbled to bits, and is now lying scattered around their ankles. The loose 'networks' that existed all shared one common trait. A hatred towards the US from invasive action and believed persecution and marginalisation from it. These "terrorists" have been shown to not exist in vast numbers, but quickly appear when poor, unemployed and disenfranchised young males believe they are being marginalised by the US. This has been proven again throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan war. Young men fight against the US, on the belief that the US is the 'evil' invading force (often brought upon by the accidental killing of family and friends, livestock and destruction of homes due to US military activities). This has been proven again with the US drone program in Pakistan, killing 50 civilians to 1 terrorist. This has created more anti US sentiment and reason for young Pakistani men to conduct terrorist affiliated activities within the region against the US and westerners.

Hence most terrorists are not made in training camps in Afghanistan or are willing to fly planes into buildings. They are 'grown' (in the case of the UK, home grown) from actions conducted by the west against the Islamic community or particular Middle Eastern groups. The US has admitted that there is only around 100 al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan at the moment. So with the new troop surge, it isn't going to be 1,300 US troops per al-Qaeda member. It is nation building and prevention of radical groups establishing themselves with their anti western ideology in Afghanistan. The outcome of the Afghanistan war will depend on rebuilding the government, communities and the country, not finding or killing Osama Bin Laden.

So where is he now? Most likely dead. If not hiding somewhere in the remote mountains in Pakistan or anywhere in Africa. Though the real threat of terrorism doesn't come from him any more. It comes from those within the Middle East that we don't help or assist, or hurt, oppress and marginalise even more.

Links:
No news on bin Laden for years, US admits - ABC online

No Bin Laden information in years, says Gates - BBC news

President Obama's Secret: Only 100 al Qaeda Now in Afghanistan

Abbott in - more than just the ETS put out!

It's not often I find myself detesting a particular politician. The one Australian politician that really grinds my gears would have to be Tony Abbott. So while my jaw hit the ground when the news broke that he became "leader" (and I do use the term very loosely) of the opposition, it's now firmly back up in its place, grinding away at my teeth.


With Tony Abbott winning the position as Liberal Party leader, the conservative faction of the Liberal Party has taken over again. But at least they have stopped pining the Howard years (I hope). This is in line with his view not to implement the Emissions Trading Scheme within Australia, claiming that it was a pointless tax that was only going to ruin the economy and not cut carbon emissions. However he also takes the position "we won't be having a tax as part of our policy going to the next election". Instead, Abbott has taken the stance of supporting nuclear power for Australia, and is wishing to start up the nuclear debate. 


Firstly, (and also strangely), I support his view that we should reverse the current policy of not selling uranium to India. As one of the fastest growing economies in the world and an equally growing contributor to climate change, having access now to a low carbon energy source is a necessity for environmentally friendly growth. Because without it, growth will still continue but with more emissions!
Secondly, as discussed in Nuclear the way, but not for Australia on this blog, with Australia having such a relatively small impact on climate change, more long term solutions, such as investment in renewables that thus far can not deliver base load power, is a responsible (and less costly) option. 
But thirdly, Tony Abbott, playing politics as he does, is just muddying the waters around the debate of Australia's responsibility for action and the implementation of the ETS. This magical alternative, is also not to be "rushed into". Methodical debate and planning is necessary for a plan to reduce Australia's carbon emissions, though that's occurred with the ETS. I'd point out an example that didn't have scrutiny or debate, like 'Work Choices', but as John Cleese eloquently put it, "Don't mention the war!"


And even despite the current stance for inaction and a challenge to a verbal joust on nuclear power, a clause for further inaction has been revealed by Abbott - "The right time, if ever, to have an ETS is if and when it becomes part of the international trading system and that is not going to happen prior to its adoption in America." While it may sound like a good stance on environmental policy, the 'Pope of the Parliament' knows that the blocking of the ETS only further cements in the likelihood of an unsuccessful international agreement at Copenhagen. Here's how.

China is the worlds largest emitter, followed by the US. If both come to an agreement to cut emissions, other countries will most likely follow suit (or be made to). However the US and China haven't come to an agreement (despite small cuts and agreements, signalling some hope) , and instead insist on the other a) taking the blame and b) making cuts. When they get tired of this, they look to the rest of the world, claiming no one else is doing something. Those who take the first steps to cutting emissions are leading, are making a difference and most importantly, setting a precedence and signal for the rest of the world to act. This is why the EU trading scheme has been successful. It has had the most impact in forcing China and the US to engage and act! By Australia acting and making cuts, it encourages other countries to do the same, to stick to rules of the "international community". Actions will speak louder than words


But with the recent rhetoric from Tony Abbott and the more outspoken right wing of the Liberal Party, the hot air will continue to flow. So while Abbot may believe "to become leader, you make a new start" and have a "clean break", yesterdays Abbot wasn't good, today he's OK, and tomorrow he'll be gone, and that day, will be "good". (apologies for the very bad religious reference)


Note:
The Copenhagen conference will run from the 7th to the 18th December
The Government plans to reintroduce the ETS on February 2nd, the first sitting of Parliament.

Links
Tony Abbott backs nuclear talks after senate block Labor's ETS scheme - The Australian
Liberals get "one last chance" on climate laws - ABC online
Dead ETS to rise again - SMH online

Bing - up go the pay walls.

One of the most amazing things about the internet is its free access to an almost infinite source of global information. While there is Wikipedia, blogs and other (questionable) online content, reputable information can sometimes be difficult to find. However online newspapers, such as The Age, Guardian.co.uk and the Economist are all reputable online news sources that provide (most) of their news content for free. Like most other media outlets who have gone online, there is an increasing trend towards customers viewing their content online. Though this dramatic shift in readership and consumption of news, is having a catastrophic impact on the revenue to news providers.

Whenever you view something online that is free, you are still paying for it through exposure to advertising. Thus news providers make their revenue and profit from having ads beside, or randomly popping up (annoyingly) on screen beside their content. However not enough revenue is coming from online advertising, thus news providers are complaining about their dwindling profits. Though most of these news providers are blaming Google for their problems, claiming Google is freely providing their content and making money from it. This is because whenever you go onto Google News or do a Google search, small text ads will appear beside the results. This is the advertising scheme that is making Google millions in profits, though news outlets don't get a cent. However it is ironic still that whenever you click on a Google News article, it takes you to the news source, thus these online news providers gain revenue from ads on their own sites. While they are blaming Google, Google is generating over half of all traffic to these news sites.

This culminating anger has seen Murdoch propose to Binge (Google's newest rival from Microsoft, who only corners 10% of the search engine market), to its delight, a proposal to shut out Google and put up pay walls, by allowing only Bing access to its online articles, and charging viewers accordingly. More niche news services (such as some parts of the online section of the Economist) are able to get away with putting up pay walls, as selective readers are happy to pay for its valuable content. However the average reader may be a bit more wary and less inclined to using a "micro payments" service (a small charge per article viewed) or a subscription service for online news content. Hence if pay walls go up, readership most likely will decrease.

Though cutting out Google may just cause even more economic hardship to these news providers, as Google  still does provide the greatest traffic to these news sites, and is the most used search engine on the web. Google itself may even come back with a counter offer if it believes Murdoch and other news providers are serious about selectively signing themselves with Bing. If Google gave half of its revenue from ads on its Google News service to news providers who are being linked to by Google, it could be a compromise that would keep both parties happy, except for Microsoft's Bing .

The age of free internet content may be nigh, though with some clever advertising schemes and a compromise with search engines like Google, free quality news that drives blogs like this and fuels the thoughtful minds of inquisitive individuals may continue.

Links

Will Murdoch's Bing gamble pay off? - Guardian.co.uk 
Web Wide War - the Economist

How China is going green

Barack Obama's recent trip to China has set the tone for the upcoming Copenhagen conference, cue depressing funeral music! Both countries want each other to cut carbon emissions by setting binding targets, yet each don't want to do so themselves. With both countries accounting for over 40% of the worlds emissions, an agreement between these two superpowers is necessary, if any action of climate change is going to seriously occur.

Though despite the depressing tone from the APEC summit and Obama's visit to China in the lead up to Copenhagen, China appears to be making serious inroads into the fight against climate change, which may help push the US into taking a more proactive stance.

Due to the GFC (Global Financial Crisis), the world has seen a reduction in carbon emissions caused by a reduction in global production of goods. Though while stimulus packages have tried to kick start failing economies and boost up production, China has spent the largest percentage (approximately 5%) and amount, on renewable energy and environmental protection as part of its stimulus measures. For in a time in 2008 where the economy dominated the global agenda, China had the foresight to implement environmentally responsible projects and initiatives. This money, while boosting growth and assisting the environment (though to questionable measures), is a positive sign that China is willing to put the environment ahead of its economy. Though from Obama's visit, it only appears that China will do so if the rest of the world (and mainly the US) also takes a proactive stance against climate change, and just doesn't blame the largest emitter and growing emitter, China.

Even from 2008, China has continued to take steps to reduce its emissions and be a more responsible global environmental citizen. Here are just a few of the steps China is taking to reduce its emission.

• Cutting of energy consumption per unit of GDP by 20% by 2010 -reduction linked with economic growth. China appears to just be making it.
• Increase renewable energy to 10% of China's energy production by 2010. 
• "Great Green Wall of China", a wall of 35 Billion trees to stop the encroaching desertification around Beijing 
• An agreement with India to work cooperatively about reducing carbon emissions
• Electrification of 64 000 stoves in homes, to stop dirty coal stoves with health and local environmental implications - however this can just hide the problem, as 70% of China's energy comes from coal fired power stations
• $150 million Sino-America clean energy research centre - however this appears to be more of a token gesture than a real step forward.  

However while China has been making steps towards protecting the climate, the effectiveness of these steps, combined with its continued growth of around 10% appears to be limited. Though with more international support and recognition that China may not just be the problem, but it is the solution, will be step that needs to be taken along with cooperation and engagement, especially from the US. So while the US has a responsibility to cut its per capita emissions (25 tonnes), China also has a responsibility to "grow green" and decrease its overall emissions (its per capita emissions stand at only 5.8 tonnes, despite China being the worlds largest polluter).

So while leadership, initiative, and promises may be called upon or made by other countries like Australia at Copenhagen, proactive action and engagement  from China, and between China and the US will be the worlds greatest hope of creating effective global action against climate change. Otherwise cue Handel's Dead March.

Links

China calls for 'serious soul searching' on climate - Times Online

Hope of  cleaner skies as Beijing Residents switch from coal to electricity - Times Online

Not-so-wonderful Copenhagen - The Economist

Nuclear the way, but not for Australia

With all this hype recently in the media about how Australia should go nuclear to help clean the world of carbon emission, taking a global perspective and stance at reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be the most effective way of combating climate change.

The proposal and renewed focus on nuclear power in Australia has come from an opinion poll stating that 49% of Australian's would accept nuclear power. Possibly not enough of a swing to change the Labour government's mind on the subject, as they directly oppose it. However public support for nuclear energy falls like a lemming off a cliff when the subject of location for the plants arise. This is because the Australian public doesn't fully support the science of nuclear fusion, and changes in the way nuclear reactors operate in order to prevent another disaster.

Though developing countries are quite comfortable with the science of nuclear fusion, because their insatiable demand for energy outstrips public or government concerns, and also because these poorer nations would prefer to have electricity than nothing. Nations such as China and India are soon to become the worlds largest emitters because of their tremendous growth. Ironically Australia produces less than 2% of total global greenhouse gas emissions, though we are trying to stop climate change by enacting policy (CPRS) to reduce our emission. If Australia really wants to make a difference, we need to help tackle other developing countries, like China and India's emissions not ours.

The main source of greenhouse gas emissions from Australia come from the burning of brown or black coal. However 80% of the coal we mine is exported, hence exporting and covering up our true effect on the climate. Instead of Australia becoming a nuclear nation, we should be encouraging through all avenues possible for developing nations to only built nuclear power stations. Because nuclear power is low in carbon emissions and is a proven technology that is effective in supplying power for the next hundred years or more, and it is perfectly suited to their situation. But because Australia has the worlds largest source of uranium, it also means we don't loose, but economically gain from such a pollution reduction deal. Furthermore from this, it also frees up financial and political capital which can be spent on renewable energies, to which Australia's climate and location is well suited.

For Australia to transform its energy industry from coal to nuclear power is a mistake. We can continue burning coal in the interim, because stopping it is not going to save the world. However Australia lobbying and supplying uranium to nuclear reactors in developing nations (hint hint Rudd, India), will be key to reducing global emissions as quickly as possible...not to mention avoiding Copenhagen at the end of this year. 

One step not far enough

With Barack Obama recently being awarded the Nobel Peace prize for creating a renewed focus on reducing the worlds stockpiles of nuclear weapons, his previous actions on banning torture in the US (during the decommissioning of Guantanamo bay), were excellent for human rights, but they didn't go far enough.

Barack Obama's promise and policy of closing Guantanamo bay by January 22 looks like it will fall short. However his promise to close Guantanamo remains strong, with plans and inmate transportation still under way. Though the first hurdle main hurdle in achieving this step was selling to the US public the notion that "convicted terrorists" were going to be housed in US jails, on US soil! Despite the Republican party trying to make the situation look as though US jails would become al-Qaeda training camps, it has been publicly accepted without too much public backlash that these terrorists would be held on US soil, in SuperMax prisons (to which no prisoner has ever escaped from).

But the real concern comes from the 100 or more Yemen terrorists who the US government claim are too dangerous to be released, despite enough evidence for them to be convicted of any terrorist charges. These terrorists, the US government and Barack Obama have acknowledged, may be withheld indefinitely without trial or prosecution (the exact number of terrorists and their sentences has not been released). This blatant disregard for human rights and the US justice system can not continue. If there is enough evidence to prove that these people being detained are terrorists, or are too dangerous to be released, then let that evidence stand up in court. If not, then there is no grounds or evidence to prove that these so called "terrorists" are dangerous to US national security and they should be released. The only benefit that comes from this situation is that US citizens can sleep well at night believing that the bad bad terrorists are rotting away in a jail somewhere. Though infinite detention without trial or conviction doesn't make slumber any more easier for me.

Despite Barack Obama abolishing torture in the US, reaching out to long sworn cold war foes, trying to rid the world of nuclear weapons and with limited success attempt to convince the Islamic world that the US was not at war with them (ending the War on Terror), he didn't take that last step and really prove that the US had changed its ways. The US, despite and new president, needs to follow its own rules and ethics that it would like the rest of the developed and developing world to embrace, freedom, liberty and justice 


Links
Gitmo closure deadline fading - The Age

Perception is reality

I read a book awhile back called Syrup by Maxx Barry, which highlighted one of the most important rules for advertising, "perception is reality". That being that if something appears to be clean, or good, then it must be good or clean. The very power of advertising is enormous. It's what makes a Mercedes different from a Ford. One is perceived to be a better car than the other, despite sometimes their similar construction and driving ability. Advertising however, is entering into the political sphere more profoundly these days.

Barrack Obama created and marketed his catchphrase, and turned it into a powerful icon: "yes we can". His campaign symbol was cleverly marketed and designed, to the point where it has been trade marked and other people were trying to scamp off on the 'Obama high/craze' that swept the US at the very start of his presidency. Kevin Rudd was elected under the banner "Kevin 07", and his whole political advertising campaign was run by a professional advertising company (who are now running the latter mentioned). This is nothing especially new, but both these campaigns were the largest ever run (by size and monetary value). Thus the connection between large expensive and successful advertising campaigns and changed public perceptions (which creates a new reality).

Hence someone else who has a lot of money to spend, and a dirty public image is now going to great lengths to turn their perceptions, into the public's new reality. We're talking about the Coal Industry. They have spent millions across the globe advertising how they're investing in carbon capture and storage (even though it is a far off, untested science that only a handful of small scientific plants are actually doing), making the world a greener place (by putting up green posters, replanting the lawn around the power plant etc), but now they're running a campaign claiming that an ETS in Australia could risk thousands of jobs, cost $14 Billion in lost revenue and not cut emissions. The coal industry is running this advertising campaign in marginal Labour seats to try and force the government to disband the ETS (despite the coal industry already getting massive concessions)

Despite the overwhelming economic, engineering and scientific evidence to prove that a) emissions will be reduced (from marginal to dramatic, depending on who you ask), b) the lost revenue will be minimal, followed by increased revenue from a lowering emissions economy and c) more jobs will be created over 10 years than will be lost, through the creation of new jobs (like building new power plants)

So will this new advertising campaign "Let's cut emissions, not jobs" be powerful and effective enough to change public perceptions about the ETS and coal industry?  Or will it be like McDonald's trying to change its ever sticking image that it is an obesity factory outlet? My personal belief is with enough advertising and money, little public knowledge (and interest), plus mentioning 'jobs', the 'economy', and 'bad' at this time will change enough of the public's perceptions, to change reality. That is the sad power of advertising.

Links
Coal industry launches charm offensive - The Age
Coal firms advertisements hit emissions plan

Facebook and the Law

In this post we discuss the important rights (or lack of rights) of Facebook users and non Facebook users.

Statement of Rights and Responsibilities

1. Your Account

Once you have created an account on Facebook, it is stuck their permanently. You have the option to deactivate your account, which only removes it from view from your friends and the public, not from the Facebook servers. This means that any information that you disclose on Facebook (pictures, posts, comments, likes or even your whole chat history – yes they do keep that to), is stored on the Facebook servers permanently. Facebook retain the right to store your information forever. 

           

2. Privacy – your rights to your information

Anything you post, add or contribute to Facebook, is legally theirs. All information you disclose to Facebook (comments, pictures, notes, anything) becomes the property of Facebook. They legally own it. This means that you have no exclusive right to any material you disclose on or to Facebook, and Facebook do not need to consult you on the release, publication or distribution of such information as they own it.

3. Right to protection of privacy

If your profile gets hacked, account or information stolen, its not Facebook’s fault, and they will not be held responsible or accountable. Facebook does not guarantee that any information/data that is stored on Facebook will never be released “information may become publicly available”. Anything on Facebook is the property of Facebook, to which they can do as they please!

4. Third Party Applications

When you install an “app” on your profile, whether it is a quiz or a game, that application, and the person/s that created it, gains access to your profile. Facebook is not responsible for personal information disclosed to these applications, or what they do with that information. Facebook doesn’t screen applications for what the information is being collected or used for. So if your information is stolen or used maliciously, your problem is with the application manager, not Facebook. A BBC TV program called Click, in 2008 demonstrated the power of application information “harvesting”, when they “harvested” thousands of peoples personal information (name, birth, email, photos, all posts etc) of people who added the application. So it’s your onus to protect your information from these applications. 

5. Interesting rights and responsibilities

If you would like to sue Facebook, or have the police investigate your personal information that may have been stolen, you need to travel to California in the US and get a US court order, which would allow an investigation to take place (that is if Facebook doesn’t assist you with your requests).

If you are a convicted sex offender, you can’t have a Facebook profile or use Facebook (however Facebook still retains the right to own and store your profile and information, and disclose it to anyone, as they own it)

And in Victoria, you can be served legal documents and judgements through Facebook if you fail to turn up to court. (Dec. 15^th 2008. A judgement against the defendant, which included a six figure sum of money, was served to him through his lawyers on Facebook because he failed to show up to court and could not be located).

Changes to Facebook and your privacy

Recently the Canadian government took Facebook to court, and threatened to block the site unless it changed its privacy policy to coincide more effectively with Canadian privacy laws. These changes will hopefully be applicable within Australia.

1. Deletion of Account – When deactivating your account, you will have the option to delete your account. All information collected by Facebook will be deleted permanently, however any other information collected by third party apps will be theirs (or very difficult to retrieve or delete). Also, when you die, your account can be deleted upon your behalf.
2. Privacy and Third Party Applications – when selecting an application, instead of having to give the application full access to your profile and information, you will be able to select the exact information that will be available (ie, can’t access photos, wall posts, personal info etc).
3. Non Users get Facebook Rights! -  If you are one of the few people that doesn’t have Facebook, you now have Facebook rights! (it’s something to celebrate) If you are tagged in a photo, have your email or information that is collected by Facebook, you will be notified by Facebook of the information that has been collected. That information can’t be disclosed ever! It is Facebook’s responsibility to protect your information, which means your information is more secure than a Facebook user’s vast digital footprint!

However, you can’t have that information deleted, unless you sign up to a Facebook account, and request to have it deleted (through the newly created option of deleting your account). The joys of digital bureaucracy.  

How you can change Facebook!

As a user of Facebook, you now have the power to change Facebook’s rights and terms of use. However this process is fickle and holier than Swiss cheese.

When Facebook now makes a change, it has the discretion to open up the idea/proposal to user comments. This means that you can comment on the proposal. (However they do have the discretion not to open the idea/proposal to comments, thus circumventing the following democratic process) If more than 7000 users comment on the proposal, Facebook creates a poll (ie. change rights to x, keep as y or we need a z solution) to which the result will be legally binding if 30% or more of all Facebook user participate in the poll. That requires 6 million people to participate in the poll. This is the best avenue thus far where we can create change within the realms of Facebook.

Head to www.facebook.com/fbsitegovernance in order for you to have your say and see the changes that are occurring on Facebook, and to stand up for your rights.

We are living in the age of revolutionary communication and information change. We need to define, question and articulate what we want, as we are increasingly being given the ability to do so. And if we aren’t, we need to stand up and gain such ability. Our rights in this evolving digital age are increasingly being questioned, and to participate in such discussion and formation of law is critical, if not a moral duty. So while Facebook is a driving force of social change, we need to be the driving change behind this revolutionary digital mechanism.

Google Power

At the teenagehood of the internet age, a giant superpower is emerging, called Google. It has coined the expression "google it". It is able to deliver comprehensive and accurate search results in less than seconds which rivals all other search engines. But is Google, for all of its benefits, becoming too big and powerful?

The majority of internet searches are conducted through Google, which has made it Australia's most popular website. But behind this populism lies a hidden danger. That being as more people become reliant on Google for their information and interactions with websites, Google becomes the 'Key to the Web'. This firstly causes the extinction of smaller search engines, which could deliver 'niche' results, such as blogs, news, images, articles, books - all of which google has incorporated into its 'sub' search engines.This has already caused the merger of Yahoo and Live (Google's main rivals) into a new search engine, Bing. But secondly, it means that Google has has the power to turn our eyes in any direction on the web. If a website doesn't appear on Google, will people still visit that site, or be able to find it? This power that Google has gives it a massive advantage over the market that attempts to regulate it (free market theory). Google has the power to destroy a business if their website doesn't appear within the first page of a Google result.

But moreover from this, Google has become more than a search engine. It is a highly profitable business, as their small ads which are placed beside search results rake in millions of dollars. Their adsense program, which places ads in private sites (such as Blogger blogs), to which both parties split the profits, is also a good cash cow for Google. These large profit margins have helped Google launch into other technological pursuits.

Google is becoming less of an internet based search engine (or advertising company, depending on how you view their business model). It hosts a range of other services, from Google Earth to real estate, and now cloud computing. But Google is stretching (and has stretched) even further, and has developed and continuing to develop software, such as its internet browser Chrome. Google now aims to create a open source computer platform to challenge Linux, Microsoft and Apple. But they don't stop here, as Google has already launched a rival mobile (and mobile platform) in the US to steal sales away from the dominating iPhone. These software pursuits are going to radically change the computing and internet landscape.

So while Google has its many benefits, it has also become its own driving force for web domination. Whether Google becomes too big and starts to causes the demise of the internet age (some would point to Microsoft and software domination as an example), I'm not sure, maybe you should just "Google it".

 Links

Google Monster - The Age

Bingoo - The Economist

Terrorism laws, are they safe?

The Federal Government has just issued a discussion paper, proposing a change to the current terrorism laws. Though this new proposal is a bit of a mixed bag. 


The outline of the proposal is

• to allow police to conduct a raid on the grounds of suspicion without a warrant being granted by a judge
• make it more difficult for suspects to get out of jail on bail
• have a cap of 8 days for suspected terrorists to be held without charge
• make it a crime to urge attacks on someone based on their nationality or religion.
• make terrorism hoaxes punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

The last three points appear to have tangible benefits of clamping down on crime and making the law more clear. However the first point can be highly questioned. 


The current process of entering a property to search or raid on suspicion of terrorism (as well as other types of searches), is to go to a court and apply to get a warrant, which is issued by a judge. A warrant allows the police then to search, raid etc the area. This warrant is a level of security and scrutiny, which makes sure that the raid or search is conducted under enough evidence of suspicion and that there is reasonable cause. With terrorism laws, there needs to be less evidence or suspicion to conduct such a raid. But is these new measures going to be of any benefit in increasing our safety, or is it going to impinge on our rights, and open another avenue for corruption and abuse?


Without having to go to a judge and have a warrant issued, it enables a police squad to conduct a raid at their own discretion. This gives them a greater ability to act quickly, but is there such a need. All terrorism raids in Australia so far have been conducted through the process of getting a warrant, and there appears to be no "close call" situations that have arisen that would require such a drastic changing of the law. 


Though without this safeguard in place (of getting a warrant), this proposed new law in the name of safety could just cause more harm and danger. It allows for more opportunities where our freedom and security can be taken away, as their are less checks and balances in place, which means there is more of an opportunity for wrong raids and searches to be conducted. It enables the police to make impulse raids, which are dangerous because it is typically not the terrorists who are caught, but innocent ethnics who are stereotyped as terrorist (Dr Hanneff). Any backlash can cause more trouble, as these communities attempt to defend themselves from persecution while the police (presumably) defend their actions. And furthermore it sets a precedence which allows the government or police to intervene more into our lives, in the name of terrorism and at the spur of the moment, without safeguards and proper checks being in place.


So it appears that while some of these proposed changes may bring many benefits to clarifying the law, taking away the requirement for police to get a warrant in order to conduct a raid (in the name of terrorism), is an impingement upon our civil rights and freedoms, as it only opens up another avenue for corruption, abuse and harm. 


The discussion paper, outlining the proposed legal changes, is open for public discussion and comments until the 25th September. 

Links

ABC - No warrant terrorism raids proposed

Growing Smaller - Nano style

In March this year, Indian car company Tata released the Nano car. Its basic principle, to provide a cheap, affordable new car to the masses. It is set to revolutionise the car industry, with most big brands (including American and European ones) planning on releasing rival models. This mix of innovation and invention has turned a previously struggling Indian car company around. But they haven't stopped there. Tata are now investing in land development so they can build "Nano" houses.


India is a resource hungry giant, with a massive poor population that is booming into an overgrowing middle class. But allot of these working class are still relatively poor to be able to afford a car or a flat. So this is Tata's main market - the emerging middle class. This emerging class, despite the financial conditions being experienced all over the world, is still expected to grow. So obviously Tata have tapped into a good thing, making money and providing jobs in times of crisis while giving emerging families a better lifestyle. 


But all of this development is going to come at a cost. With more cheap cars on the road, there is going to be even more traffic congestion and air pollution. With cheaper housing being built further out from city centers, urban sprawl and degradation to the natural environment will only continue at a faster rate. 

But providing these services at such a cheap cost is the amazing part. Very little has been invented, only ideas and technologies from around the world have been incorporated to create these cheap and usable products. The cars, instead of welded together, are glued together with similar strength. The concrete in the houses has been recycled and reinforced with extra strong plastic, to give it similar durability to normal reinforced concrete.


Surprisingly, it's not advanced nations leading the way in these initiatives, it is the emerging nations like India themselves. In this environmentally conscience world, advanced nations like America and Britain might have to start following these countries lead at growing smaller. 

LINKS
The Nano home - The Economist

The New Peoples Car - The Economist
Not So Nano - The Economist

Only in Australian Politics

Where else would you ever hear claims of the Prime Minister doing dodgy deals over a second hand ute? Yes, it has been a great month for Australian politics, as MP's sling their last hand full of mud before the winter break.

So what is the issue?

In a nutshell: The Government has a scheme (called OzCar) where it gives financial assistance to struggling car dealers. The opposition alleged there was an email stating that Kevin Rudd recommended giving assistance to an Ipswich car dealer, and that details of such a deal were faxed to Wayne Swan's home. Malcolm Turnbull called for Rudd and Swan to resign, and Rudd called for Turnbull to produce the evidence or resign. No evidence was produced, and after an investigation by the government and the AFP, it was found that the email was a fake. But the mud continues to fly.

So while accusations and mudslinging continue, it appears that no heads are going to roll. There was no substantial evidence to prove that Rudd had given preferential treatment to the Ipswich dealer. The AFP cleared Swan from receiving the email/notification of the deal, plus it was also a fake. Turnbull was clever from the start, by claiming that he never saw the email, so he could accuse Rudd and Swan all he liked.

But aside from this, the timing of these accusations were perfect. Too perfect. The CPRS is about to be put through the Senate, and it appears that it is not going to go through. The Greens are demanding greater cuts, the Liberals lower cuts, and Steve Fielding has to be different, and so is denying climate change (partially anyway). The Liberals are wanting to have a united front when it comes to this particular policy, as they were crucified on this subject at the previous election. So the whole ute/OzCar/email fiasco may not just be muddying the politicians, it may be trying to distract the public from any political 'meltdown' over this piece of legislation.

The sooner this mess is cleaned up, the better! But I wonder, who's got the ute?

LINKS

The Age - Email a fake

ABC - AFP confirm OzCar email

Peter Costello - the right time

Peter Costello, while arguably being one of the strongest on the political field, only ever managed to come in second place. It's just a matter of right place, wrong time.

He may be remembered for his book, smug smile, leadership fights with John Howard (and Malcolm Turnbull) but I will remember him for being "all tip and no iceberg" (Paul Keating). While that quip may be funny and true in a sense, I also think that it is a bit sad. Maybe instead of not having an iceberg, people just didn't see it or take notice of it.

The praise for being the longest serving treasurer, having a massive surplus, setting up the Australian economy to withstand the credit crisis blah blah blah blah.......etc goes on (and will appear to go on) forever. But while there also seems to be as many people who will not sing his praises, Peter manages to come out of this debacle relatively unscathed. It is one of the qualities that I think many people overlook.

Peter never managed to get into the leadership position he wanted, not because he wasn't a good politician, but because he was there at the wrong time. Costello managed to use Downer as a pedestal to position himself as deputy to John Howard, but that was a dead end. Howard, political bias aside, was a true politician. He held a safe seat, led a strong coherent party and was the second longest serving PM of Australia. But Costello could never challenge that massive support that Howard had, even if he wanted to. The Liberal party was fully behind Howard, and so was Costello. But towards the end when the political sands started to change, the Liberal party and politicians didn't, and so they lost. Costello was prepared to change (and held his own views which he later published in his memoirs), but didn't, and rightly couldn't challenge, when he didn't have the support for it. A classic case of being in the right place, at the wrong time.

By the time the Liberal Party crumbled, Costello could see that he himself could not pick up the pieces, and rightly didn't want to be the Liberal party maid. But when someone picked up the sharp and raw pieces instead (and managed to hemorrhage off the political sphere - Brendon Nelson) it reassembled in a way that would be difficult for Costello to gain a support in, similar to Kevin Rudd's (or even Howard's). And even if he did take Leader of the Opposition, the chances that he would take office as the PM would have been very slim. Kevin Rudd has massive support, Costello was tied to a very unpopular leader, and the Liberal Party still didn't appear to be coherent enough on certain policies to gain greater public confidence, which was previously lost. Another case of right place, wrong time.

So I think it is good that Peter now chooses to step out of the political sphere. He made policies that greatly helped our economy, and was prepared to back policies and ideas that would have helped out economy even more. He made valuable contributions to Australia through international forums, and was widely respected in academic circles.

So my hat is off to Peter Costello. Wayne Swan I thought said the best true words about Peter Costello - "while we may have almost always had robust disagreements...I think I'm going to miss him" Peter, I hope that you get to your right place the right time.

LINKS
All Tip and No Iceberg - The Age
Peter Costello - Wikipedia
Peter Costello won't contest another election - The Age

Change in an unchanging state

The one thing that most analysts can predict about North Korea, is that it is unpredictable. And often they are right.

Change is about to come to North Korea, whether we or they like it or not. Kim Jong-il is slowly dying due to obesity and alcoholism. Ironic isn't it...the might of the US, the UN or even the western world couldn't push Kim off his perch of power, but now he is going to silently slide off with a bottle of cognac in his hand.

The son he has chosen to succeed him (reportedly) is the son most like him. They supposedly share the same interests and look alike. Even though he is the youngest son (out of 3), he was the only son not to have been disgraced by embracing western culture and delights. So Kim Jong-un (pictured as a boy) is going to be daddy Kim's protege. So while it may just appear that North Korea is going to have a new leader with an 'un' rather than 'il', it couldn't be further from the truth.

Firstly, like any leader who comes into power, they have to prove they are fit for the job. There is no exception to the dictatorial rule of North Korea. So while 'daddy' may have laid out future plans for Kim Jong-un, 'un' will need to make plans of his own. The communist party of North Korea will be greatly shaken up when their 'dear leader' dies. They will want action to be taken, they will want change. Kim Jong-il was and is seen as a competent leader by most within the party, but those factions that saw him otherwise will let their voices be heard before he is put in the ground. Kim Jong-un will have to prove to the party that he is up to being the leader of North Korea. So there will be guaranteed issues arise within the government itself.

Secondly, the international pressure put on Kim Jong-un will be enormous. The world will see this as a new opportunity to open talks with the secluded North. He will have to react to that, because the UN and US will exploit his official appointment if they are to take any further action against the North. Kim Jong-un may side with the moderates within the government, and choose to improve relations. But he could just as easily do the opposite, and officially declare and start a small nuclear war. He will have to make decisions and take action, because the world will be moving, even if he chooses to stay politically still.

And lastly, even if there is no internal political shake up, or if the world just sits back and watches, there will be guaranteed change. North Korea will have their own "Obama moment", whether they like it or not. And the reason this will occur is because it is what the 'dear leader' taught Kim Jong-un. Vanity. This little protege won't be able to resist making his own changes. It could be turning the state into a capitalist market economy, or just redecorating the wallpaper. He was bred to be vain, to think of himself, and so he will act using his personal judgements, not his fathers. Whatever way he chooses to differ from his fathers rule, we can hope that he chooses the right path, and not redecorate.

Ultimately, the North is going to have a shake up when Kim Jong-il's takes his last bow and falls off his perch. (unlike his father, Kim Il-sung, who was like a "Norwegian blue" parrot, Kim Jong-il is not nailed to his perch) Everyone will push their own agenda, to try and influence the successor's decisions. So while we manage to predict the possible outcomes, we manage to come to the conclusion that the actions of the the North, are unpredictable.

LINKS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8078324.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8078562.stm

North Korea - a very naughty boy

If you haven't watched Monty Pythons The life of Brian, you must. Beg, borrow, steal, do almost anything to get your hands on a copy, it's worth it.

If you've seen the movie, you will most likely remember this memorable quote "He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy." This very same quote can be easily applied to the actions of North Korea.

Kim Jong-il (and the eternal deceased leader, Kim Il-sung) have managed to convince enough (if not most) of the population of North Korea that they are doing a good job. While the whole culture of North Korea evolves around the notion that they are a) the centre of the universe b) have more power than the west and c) are on the 'right' side of the war, the rest of the world looks on and sees the truth. So apart from broadcasting The life of Brain onto every TV set in North Korea, the west is unable to show the people of North Korea what their leader really is.

One of the reasons Kim Jong-il remains in power, is by displaying to the people of North Korea the power of the government and their country. So by firing off missiles and making the earth tremor because of a nuclear bomb test, it is quite effective at demonstrating the power of the government and socialism. This demonstration of power also attracts the worlds attention. While the North may be perceived as acting like a little child throwing a tantrum to get the worlds attention, this demonstration of power may have different meanings.

Who are they demonstrating their power to, and how are they demonstrating it? They have shown to the world they have nuclear material and are technologically capable of turning it into a rudimentary bomb - so their actions could be an advertisement.

By demonstrating that they are a powerful nation, are they requesting more respect from the world? They may want special bilateral sit down talks with the US (as they have wanted in the past), so they can put their demands past the UN and straight to arguably the most powerful state?

Or alternatively, is Kim Jon-Il just a crackpot leader with death wish for his country?

While we can sit and hypothesize and analyse the actions of North Korea, what we can't do, and haven't been able to do, is control those actions. We may not know exactly why they are doing what they are doing, but we can predict that the North is greatly unpredictable and uncontrollable. The key to fixing this rogue state may not be what the rest of the world can do, but what the people of North Korea can do!

You can't win a war if you can't win a battle.

It may be a common saying in popular culture "you may have won the battle but you've lost the war", but the irony of applying that same logic to the fight against global warming, is far from funny.

In Australia at the moment, we are struggling to put in place an ETS (emissions trading scheme) to combat climate change. It has been delayed for a year, the chief supporter and contributor, Ross Garnaut, is see-sawing between accepting and rejecting the proposal plus there have also been large concessions granted to heavy polluters, such as the coal and aluminum industry. Green groups have criticised the Australian government for not doing enough. The proposed CO2 reduction target is a binding 5% on 1999 levels, with a provision to increase that to 20% if there is a global consensus. The proposal for instituting an ETS was suffering many setback, even before the financial crisis hit.

The thing is, if we can't get up a national plan that actively fights climate change, then what hope to we have to get a global agreement up, let alone actual results! If we can't win any battles (nationally or internationally) against climate change, then there is no way we can win a war.

Developing nations see the economic and social prosperity of the developed west, and so they
try to emulate it. What the West have just realised over the last decade, is that it's actions are causing climate change. Because these West nations are more likely to have stable governments and a knowledgeable populous, it would seem that an agreement and a course of actions could be taken. However, short sighted economic prosperity are hindering these efforts. Emerging nations can't be convinced by powerful nations to take economic 'hits' to protect the environment, especially when the West are a) already developed and b) not taking a course of actions themselves. So while diplomatic fingers point at "who is and who's going" to cause climate change, overall CO2 emissions continue to rise.

But despite this pessimistic outlook, there is still hope. In Copenhagen towards the end of this year, we may come to a global agreement and start to see some action. What we must do until then, is keep pushing the 'green bandwagon' and hope that we get where we want to go. Because if no one pushes, the cart won't push itself.

Newspaper Darwinism

There is no doubt about it, the old Newspaper is dying.

No, it's not due to TV or Radio. Its due to what you could consider the greatest invention since the wheel, the Internet.

You're currently reading a blog on the Internet. You've probably been on Facebook, YouTube or Google searched something already. The Internet is a powerful tool, connecting and informing us.

That part of informing us, used to be the job of the Newspapers, but more and more people are moving to the Internet. They're choosing it as their point of access for information and entertainment. Any why not? It's up to date (almost live), can be more comprehensive, you can search for the exact news and information you want, and if that doesn't satisfy you, just Google or look at another news source. And most of this is FREE. So it would seem crazy not to get your news and information from the Internet. But this is where we delve into the murky world of the reliability of the Internet.

The downsides, are that each page you load is full with ads. Most articles are quite brief, and more and more articles are on celebrities or gossip. So it is difficult to read any substantive articles on a screen, and depending on your resource, it may not always be accurate.

But aside from this brief comparison of Internet information, what I want to know (and I hope you want to know too) is where are the newspapers going?

Wherever I find a situation where I can apply Darwin's theory of evolution (it is one of my favourite theories), I apply it, and here it goes. ...

Following the theory of evolution "where the strongest survives", and by strongest meaning those who are able to change and adapt to their situation, and be the best, Newspapers will do the same. The Internet has changed, and will adapt to be even more user friendly, thus becoming the main source of information. Newspapers on the other hand, will become specialised. In becoming specialised, they will be the 'strongest in their field'. Providing detailed and in depth analysis from reputable resources by experienced journalists. They will report on major national and international issues, and attempt to be very broad scoped in who their target audience is. Thus while most of the newspapers will die out, the strongest will remain and fulfil that specialised role.

While most Internet information is free at the moment, in the future, to access quality content, you will have to pay for it! For newspapers as well, the cost of the content will be passed onto the consumer, as advertising goes digital. But I think that it is a good theory non the less. Some people believe that Newspapers will die out altogether, or just go completely digital. That may be the case in the long term future when we all walk around with supercomputer i-phones, but until then I think we will go with the good old paper. Recycled of course in this environmentally conscience age.

LINK

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13649304
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13642689