And so it seems to be with Tony Abbott and the NBN. His mumblings are starting to sound like his policy on our telecommunications future is “rollback”; to regress, to move backwards. His latest hysterical suggestion to drop the NBN like a hot potato because of the floods seems patronising and misguided; a cry and a gasp for a headline. What right-minded government, having secured a mandate for an infrastructure project at two separate federal elections, and having already signed numerous contracts binding the nation to agreements to the tune of billions of dollars, would dump the project at the first sign of unexpected external financial issues, or at the suggestion of their political opponents?

One wonders what Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull really thinks about the National Broadband Network, and his leader’s cock-eyed approach to opposing it. What one doesn’t wonder is what Julia Gillard thinks about the Coalition’s “duh….rollBACK!?!!” broadband policy for the years heading toward 2013. Two thumbs up?

Crossposted at Larvatus Prodeo.

© Guy for Guy Beres, 2011. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Abbott Opposition, IT.

There are reports that Facebook creator/evangelist Mark Zuckerberg takes issue with the vast majority of the film’s depictions of real events, but that all in all, he kind of liked the film. That tells you a little something about the movie’s charm. I don’t think anybody is really under any illusion that this film tells the story of the genesis of Facebook with its foundations in absolute fact. This is “a story” of the creation of Facebook, with enough of the emotional and psychological look and feel of how things actually played out to make you buy into it. Jesse Eisenberg may or may not be anything much like Mark Zuckerberg, but he is utterly believable in the role as Facebook’s founder. You empathise with Jesse’s Zuckerberg, and yet you feel that he is of course a complete twat. Andrew Garfield portrays Zuckerberg’s ex-best friend Eduardo Saverin with the kind of honest earnestness that somehow feels just right. Armie Hammer, playing the Winklevoss twins with a little help from body-double Josh Pence, is a complete crack-up. And then, on top of all that, you have Justin Timberlake, of all people, doing frankly more than a decent job playing Sean Parker, founder of Napster before it was legal and today, a part-owner of Facebook. It’s an incredible collision of characters and personalities, proving perhaps once and for all that truth is actually much stranger than fiction.

The other thing this film does is celebrate entrepreneurship; it celebrates invention. The story of Facebook is not just a story of greed, it is a story of “building things”, as Zuckerberg has pointed out. Despite all of its flaws, ethical issues, and annoying ubiquity, Facebook has without a doubt become a lasting fixture on the social landscape of the 21st Century. Zuckerberg might be a billionaire brat, but he’s a billionaire brat who has changed the world and – for the most part at least, and for most people – just a little bit for the better.

© Guy for Guy Beres, 2010. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Film, IT.

Here’s a list of just a few of the serious points that I think the government really needs to think about in relation to this policy:

1) Asher Moses suggests in his article that the proposed filtering would be unable to block content transferred through peer-to-peer file sharing networks. How will the Rudd Government work around this fairly fundamental problem?

2) What is the process for flagging internet content as “illegal”? What lag time can we expect between the time a site appears on the internet and the time that it is black listed?

3) What controls will be in place for determining whether a particular site or web page is considered worthy to be black listed? Can we expect, for example, that the online work of Bill Henson would be blacklisted?

4) Many search engines provide image search technology. How will the service enforced by the Rudd Government here prevent image searches from turning up dubious results? What constitutes a “clean” image file, and is technically feasible to accurately determine this on a real-time basis?

5) Is it really worthwhile to reduce the performance of the Internet for everyone just in order to block what realistically is a handful of sites in the greater scheme of things online? Have the costs of the resulting efficiency losses for Australian business been roughly quantified at this stage, given that every action on the Internet will effectively pass through a filtering layer?

Over the fold is an entertaining exchange from a recent estimates hearing of the Senate Standing Committee on the Environment, Communications and the Arts, which offers some insight into the sorts of problems that Senator Conroy needs to deal with.

I am not sure if this blog fits into the “wild and enthusiastic” category of blogs that Senator Conroy alludes to in the exchange, but he is of course kidding himself if he thinks there are not enormous (in my view – intractable) problems blocking the successful implementation of this scheme as intended.

Senator LUDLAM —I suppose I would put to you that there is a big difference between category of site and category of content. Sites can host all sorts of things. One example that has been put to me, for example, is somebody posting an article on a controversial topic on a website and someone then leaves a comment on that website and neither the ISP nor the person who posted the original article has any control over the kinds of comments that might be added. What are the odds that the filtering software in that case is going to start knocking out content inadvertently and start returning fairly serious false positives?

Senator CONROY —Underblocking and overblocking are obviously issues. That is why we are engaged in conversation with the sector about it—to specifically try to minimise this sort of impact.

Senator LUDLAM —So what are your benchmarks or what is acceptable?

Senator CONROY —We are just at the very early stages. You are actually jumping ahead. I can understand that if you have been reading some of the wild and—

Senator LUDLAM —Some of it is not so wild, Minister.

Senator CONROY —enthusiastic commentary that I keep seeing both in blogs and in the media. But we are actually only in the early stages and we have committed to consult with the sector to work through these very issues. We have not set some of those benchmarks. What we are seeing is what is the impact, but we have not said, ‘Right, three per cent is acceptable and seven per cent is not acceptable.’ We actually have not done that.

Senator LUDLAM —Okay, so there are no benchmarks yet. Are there any countries around the world where this has been tried, where this is actually being attempted?

Senator LUDLAM —Of those countries that you have named, I am not expecting that they are all identical in form, because I understand that your proposal is not opt in or opt out. It will be mandatory content blocking across all Australian ISPs.

Senator CONROY —We are—

Senator LUDLAM —Just let me finish. In terms of the countries that you have just listed for me, it is mandatory or is it an opt-in system that, for example, concerned parents could take advantage of?

Senator CONROY —Illegal material is illegal material. Child pornography is child pornography. I trust you are not suggesting that people should have access to child pornography.

Senator LUDLAM —No. That is why I was interested in asking about the law enforcement side of it as well.

Senator CONROY —No, we are working both angles at it. We are just trying to use technology to enforce the existing laws.

Senator LUDLAM —I am just wondering if I can put these questions to you without being accused of being pro child pornography. That would assist.

Senator CONROY —I was wondering if I could get the questions without being accused of being the Great Wall of China.

© Guy for Guy Beres, 2008. | Permalink | 5 comments

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under IT, Rudd Labor Government.

Twitter is a service for friends, family, and co–workers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?

Basically the idea is that you can subscribe to the twitter feeds of people you know, and whenever they post a message (e.g. via instant messaging, online or SMS), you receive the message on your medium(s) of choice. The service is currently free, although the most dynamic and pervasive medium (SMS) does of course cost you for the messages you send and potentially depending on your carrier and the prevailing conditions, the messages you receive. Depending on the mobile phone plan you happen to be on, the net cost to you of twittering all day long ranges from next to nothing, to being quite prohibitively expensive for obsessive twitterers (e.g. particularly if like me you are on a bare bones pay as you go plan). On the other hand, sending one message (and paying for that single message send) and then having it distributed by Twitter to a cast of thousands represents a massive cost saving waiting to be exploited for those who are addicted to texting.

Of course the rather naïve “what are you doing?” question that is supposedly at the philosophical core of Twitter has been superceded by what is essentially a “what do you want to say?” question. Like so much of what we consider to be “Web 2.0″ technology, the Twitter service has above all become a tool for expressing one’s self and observing the self-expressions of others. Charles Arthur, writing in The Guardian today, does a neat job of summarising the power that this form of communication can have, particularly when coupled with a wireless and borderless transmission mechanism:

An American student is arrested in Egypt, and manages to send a brief text with a single word – “ARRESTED” – which is picked up around the world, and leads quickly to his release, helped by a lawyer hired by his university back in the US. In Britain, the prime minister’s office decides people should be able to find out what their premier is doing; as of today, more than 2,000 people do. During an interview at the SXSW festival in March, audience dissatisfaction with Sarah Lacy’s interviewing style with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg spills over into silent but powerful discourse among the audience: one calls it a “train wreck”. People fleeing from fires in California say where they are; that proves more useful and timely than official goverment information.

The possibilities in a political sense are worth considering for a moment. Arthur mentions above the use of Twitter by Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s staff; already the technology is being used by some of the most important people and in some of the most important organisations in the world. Twitter also provides an additional real-time avenue for social and political discourse, apart from the ubiquitous buzzing of Blackberries, which for the time being at least, remain primarily a plaything for young corporate foot soldiers. Although discussions are of course by necessity going to be abbreviated by the limitations of the SMS and also Twitter platforms (e.g. messages are limited to 140 characters), one can already envisage the node-to-node interactive power that could be leveraged to enhance our experience of the world.

Consider for example a televised political debate between two leaders. Active and co-ordinated users of Twitter would hardly need the infamous studio audience “worm” to get a feeling for how both leaders are faring amongst people whose opinion they respect; the stream of comments flooding in to their mobile phone via SMS would do that for them. It would almost certainly be more entertaining and enlightening than the crusty old “worm” to boot!

In short, Twitter is a service that does not really break new ground in a technological sense – we already have powerful means of communicating with each other in our increasingly wireless and borderless world. What this service does provide, however, is an intelligent and welcoming wrapper for the technologies that many of us are familiar with, but have not yet educated ourselves on or bothered to fully exploit. Twitter is arguably set to do for mobile communications what Blogger did for blogging.

© Guy for Guy Beres, 2008. | Permalink | 5 comments

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under IT.

If the government needed any more persuading that its internet content filtering plan needs to be buried in a hurry, it doesn’t need to look much further than this story from Mark Sweney in The Guardian today. Matt Lambert, Microsoft’s Head of Corporate Affairs, had this to say about top-down online content filtering such as the scheme being progressed by Federal Labor:

But Lambert rejected the idea of a mandatory setting of content filters to a high security level, arguing that it would block too much content that posed no risk to children.Lambert said a better solution would be for parents to be better educated about what their children are looking at online and what content filters are available.

…

“Setting [filtering controls] at a high level is the equivalent to blocking the internet … it would be living in the dark ages in my view.” 

I would be interested to know just how many dollars are being wasted pursuing this sensationalist, curiously backward initiative each day. If the Federal Opposition are looking for a dud policy from Labor to score some easy points on, it is quite unlikely to find one more useful than this. The whole concept seems to only continue to survive on the scent of an oily rag; namely pandering to social conservatives who wouldn’t know what the Internet was if it bit them on the arse. Or what top-down content filtering really means until they can’t find websites describing certain anatomical body parts or “swear words” without calling Telstra and having the rest of the Internet turned back on.

Different people will want different levels of restrictions on content, and the government’s universalist approach on this issue is bound to please just about nobody. Some will be upset that the content filtering does not go far enough. Some will be upset that it goes too far. The numbers of people who are happy with what content is being filtered out are likely to be quite small at the end of the day.

© Guy for Guy Beres, 2008. | Permalink | 5 comments

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under IT.