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.