Expect Resistance & Library Autonomous Zone

Check out and compare these search results from Google China and Google US. I would say that Google has now broken at least 4 of their 10 commandments.

In other google news, the NYTimes reports today that the DOJ suit is not a matter of protecting user privacy, but of protecting trade secrets. Google lawyer Ashok Ramani stated, “Google objects … because to comply with the request could endanger its crown-jewel trade secrets.”

Web Censorship for Dummies. Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted January 3, 2006.

Here’s an interesting story about CP80, a lobbying group pushing the “Internet Channel Initiative,” a “technology solution” designed to limit pornography. Their idea is to put all pornography on one “channel” (i.e., port) and so be able to limit access to that port. However, this television metaphor doesn’t fly because ports are used to differentiate types of communication protocols (http, smtp, etc.), not kinds of content.

But beyond the technological problems with their initiative, check out the corporate sponsors — amazon, iTunes, Best Buy, Sony Musci Store, Hickory Farms(?!) etc. This is even more troubling because these companies have alot of power and pull and they obviously aren’t even thinking about the free speech implications of this “initiative”, only the bottom line. This is the epitome of corporate irresponsibility. I think these companies should be at the top of the “do not shop at” list!

Free Software Foundation GPLv3 draft

The first draft of version 3 of the General Public License was released today. I haven’t read through the whole thing, or compared it to earlier versions, but DID notice this interesting little section on DRM:

Some countries have adopted laws prohibiting software that enables users to escape from Digital Restrictions Management. DRM is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, which is to protect users’ freedom; therefore, the GPL ensures that the software it covers will neither be subject to, nor subject other works to, digital restrictions from which escape is forbidden.

Why we should care about network neutrality, now. Free Government Information, January 13, 2006.

My latest update on network neutrality is on FreeGovInfo.info. It includes cites to Jeff Pulver, The Wall Street Journal, and Financial Times.

Wi-Fi run by cities: Yea or nay?

Harold Feld of the Media Access Project (a media access advocacy organization) squared off against Tom Lenard of the Progress and Freedom Foundation (a free market economic think tank) in a debate about municipal WiFi.

Feld argues that municipal WiFi is an infrastructural necessity on par with roads. Lenard says the private sector should do it and that municipalities will invariably raise taxes to “subsidize” the networks.

I’m obviously on Feld’s side here. Free or highly subsidized municipal internet access is a great boon for both private citizens AND business. And this is one time where corporate welfare will also benefit citizens.

The thing that really irks me about Lenard’s argument is his reliance on the specious “taxes” argument. This anti-tax stance has led to the starvation of local and state governments and the destruction of our local infrastructures, education etc. According to the OECD’s Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, the average and Marginal Effective Tax Rates of the US are already +10% lower than any EU countries (29.4% in the US compared to Germany’s 52%, France’s 48.3%, and UK’s 31.1% — you may need to visit an academic library to access these statistics). And I won’t even get into GDP.

So, we could afford to raise our taxes a small percentage point in order to have better schools, better roads, and of course municipal WiFi networks. There are some things that should be not-for-profit and Wifi certainly fits into that category!

See as background, “Let There Be Wi-Fi” By Robert McChesney and John Podesta.

Data Mining 101: Finding Subversives with Amazon Wishlists | Applefritter

The Electronic Frontier
Foundation points to this article that describes in detail how data mining works. It uses the Amazon.com “wish lists” (which many people make public), open source tools, and a little ingenuity to
locate people who want to read “subversive” books. It even creates maps showing where they live.
This article has a lot of technical detail, but the interest for most librarians will be in how simple it is to use reading interests to create a profile of a person. The author notes:

This is what’s possible with publicly available information, but imagine if one had access to Amazon’s entire database - which still contains every sale dating back to 1999 by the way. Under Section 251 of the Patriot Act, the FBI can require Amazon to turn over its records, without probable cause, for an “authorized investigation . . . to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” Amazon is forbidden to disclose that they have turned over any records, so that you would never know that the government is keeping records of your book purchases. And obviously it is quite simple to crossreference this info with data available in other databases.

On a final note, the FBI is now hiring computer scientists to implement a project that sounds very similar to what I just did…

Boing Boing: What if pizzas came with licenses like the ones in DRM CDs?

What if you had to agree to a license in order to eat a pizza? BoingBoing pointed me to this parody by Groklaw of a restrictive license that is distributed with X&Y, Coldplay’s latest CD. The parody points out the rediculousness of DRM and Virgin’s licensing agreement being shipped with Coldplay’s latest CD. I mean really: “This CD may not play in DVD players, car stereos, portable players, game players, all PCs and Macintosh PCs.” The company is doing all this, “in order for you to enjoy a high quality music experience.”

Open Access, Closed Debate, By Roy Mark, Commentary, Internet News, December 30, 2005.

Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy calls
it “walled gardens.” Now we call it a debate over “open access” vs “net neutrality.” With recent FCC decisions, “Network operators have the right to manipulate traffic with the goal of steering consumers to certain Web sites over others” according to the advocacy group Public Knowledge. As the Center for Digital Democracy says, “An Internet without open access requirements would hardly resemble the Internet as we know it today. Without such requirements, the power to discriminate would be given to those who control the conduit–the few gigantic service providers that will remain.”

As Congress begins to contemplate this, Mark says:

Let’s see, Congress favoring the Verizons and Comcasts of the world over consumer interests? Gee, what are the odds?

The Edge Annual Question - 2006

To the Edge Community,

Last year’s 2005 Edge Question - “What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?” - generated many eye-opening responses from a “who’s who” of third culture scientists and science-minded thinkers. The 120 contributions comprised a document of 60,000 words. The New York Times (”Science Times”) and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (”Feuilliton”) published excepts in their print and online editions simultaneously with Edge publication….

A book based on the 2005 Question — What We Believe But Cannot Prove: Today’s Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty, with an introduction by the novelist Ian McEwan — was just published by the Free Press (UK). The US edition follows from HarperCollins in February, 2006….

This year, the third culture thinkers in the Edge community have written 117 original essays (a document of 72,500 words) in response to the 2006 Edge Question — “What is your dangerous idea?”. Here you will find indications of a new natural philosophy, founded on the realization of the import of complexity, of evolution. Very complex systems — whether organisms, brains, the biosphere, or the universe itself — were not constructed by design; all have evolved. There is a new set of metaphors to describe ourselves, our minds, the universe, and all of the things we know in it.

The Lion, The Witch and The World Trade talks

A hoax press-release describing Narnia’s ambassador’s dissatisfaction with the current round of World Trade Organization talks was picked up and run as news by many outlets including Forbes.