Why you need to strip-search your child EVERY DAY

By staff reporter Moor L Panic

Irresponsible global technology giants are selling thumbnail-sized devices capable of storing millions of pornographic images and are REFUSING to make such devices safe for children.

Yes, on the very day the government has finally tackled the menace of rogue internet service providers not doing enough to protect your child online, a new threat emerges.

The widespread availability of such tiny devices make it possible for one enterprising youngster to circulate vile pornographic images to hundreds of other children, virtually undetected.

If you're a parent concerned that your child may have access to such devices we can only recommend installing an airport-grade body scanner at your front door until manufacturers of such devices face up to their responsibilities.

Failing that, strip searches on entry act as a major deterrent.

Join the dots - Snowden has defected to China

NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden was quoted last week as saying "I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things"

Yet in a supreme act of irony he may end up living his life in the privacy equivalent of the fires of hell, having leapt there from the NSA's frying pan to expose that the USA does "these sort of things", things that one expects of China or Russia.

First Russia seemed to come out with an offer of asylum.  Then Putin went on telly and seemed to praise the NSA for doing what he would expect then to do to fight terrorism.

But what grounds are there to suspect Snowden has already struck a deal with Beijing?

First there is the lack of arrest warrant and no start of formal extradition proceedings.  This strikes me as strange - surely the USA would want to do what it can, in addition to the persistent threat of a CIA rendition squad on Snowden's tail, to prevent him leaving Hong Kong for another territory.

If the US already knows - or at least suspects - Snowden now has the formal protection of China it wouldn't want to suffer the embarrassment of fighting an extradition demand doomed to fail.

Secondly there's Snowden's interview with the South China Morning Post, in which he alleges US cyber attacks against Hong Kong and China.  

This seems out of character from a man who seemed primarily focussed with the privacy of Americans.

Remember this is a guy who signed-up, at first directly and then later indirectly, to work for military arms of government.  Now he's all squeamish about the odd electronic bombardment..

He must also surely see these kind of revelations might affect his home support; currently one in three Americans see Snowden as a patriot, not a traitor whilst less than a quarter take the counter view.  

So why give that interview?  Or was that part of the deal to keep the extradition warrant at bay.

And thirdly there's the bizarre revelation that Edward Snowden is officially banned from entring UK.  

What purpose could such a ban serve?  Surely as an ally of the US the UK would welcome the leaker with open arms, before promptly attaching a GPS ankle bracelet and assigning a crack team of G4S security guards to enforce strict bail conditions pending extradition to his homeland.

It's possible the UK just didn't want another Assange holed up on its territory fighting a lengthy case against extradition, but it's equally likely he's been classified as a foreign intelligence threat.

If Snowden has won the protection of China he may end up regretting his words:  I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things.

@JamesFirth

Shocking: UK minister promotes commercial tool directly to industry at closed-door ministry meeting

On 30th May I reported yet more delays in implementing the UK's three strikes law to combat online copyright infringement.

I reported sources telling me the first copyright infringement warning letters were now unlikely to go out until 2016.

With thanks to Glyn Moody for pointing me in the right direction, it seems the government's own civil servants agree... Well, to within 6 months.

Published 5 days later on the 4th June, minutes of a recent quarterly lobby parlour, where Ed Vaizey, the UK's minister responsible for the internet, invites copyright lobbyists and global internet giants to tell him how to do his job whilst shutting out the likes of you or I, reveal:

"DCMS expects the first letters to be sent in the latter half of 2015"

Considering the Digital Economy Act was passed in early 2010 this official assessment marks a delay of well over five years.

Sources for my original story were clear that the remaining legislation - two statutory instruments (that might possibly, now, be rolled into a single instrument) - were unlikely to go before Parliament until after the 2015 General Election.

By my own estimates it will then take around 9 months to establish the systems necessary to get the first letter out, including the crucial appeals process, hence my claim of 2016.

It seems the Department for Media, Culture and Sport (DCMS) thinks it can be done slightly faster, hence their note of optimism in their timetable of back-end of 2015.

Commercial infringement tool promoted

The same minutes note an alarming development.

A commercial system by whiteBULLTET,  whose representative was present at this meeting with minister Ed Vaizey, is being touted as a potential tool to prevent online advertisers serving ads on websites hosting copyright infringing content.

Alarming for 2 reasons.  Firstly, what transparency and oversight will there be for an automated system that could potentially ruin any online business unfairly accused of hosting infringing content by an automated system?

What redress will there be for websites unfairly tarred?  Will the government be culpable for any loss suffered by a legitimate business for allowing this solution to be presented to advertisers at a formal meeting held in a UK government ministry?

And the second reason for alarm: have rules concerning market procurement processes and commercial promotion been revoked?

Is it now acceptable for a UK government minister to allow a commercial company to promote what is effectively a compliance product directly to key industry representatives?

How was whiteBULLET chosen? Have any other commercial systems been evaluated? How many companies were invited to bid for this compliance work?

In fact it's even more alarming, given that the compliance element is to unwritten rules drafted by a bunch of lobbyists and endorsed by the chair, a government minister.

@JamesFirth

UPDATE

@JamesFirth Whitebullet also received grant funding of £100k+ from IPO earlier on this year for this development
— Joscelyn (@Joscelyn) June 14, 2013

Another example of that 95-year copyright term fostering cultural innovation

Want to include a rendition of "Happy Birthday To You" in your next film or documentary?  Well, it will cost you $1,500 to license the copyright in the music and lyrics; that is, unless a lawsuit claiming the song actually dates back to 1893 rather than 1924, as held by the current licensors, succeeds.

The case itself doesn't interest me, but it highlights the stupidity of the argument that copyright fosters innovation: when companies can exploit a single work for a lifetime and then some, where's the financial incentive to come up with something new?

If, as I've argued for, copyright terms were limited to 20 years - comparable to patent protection, then producers would be forced to find something new to keep the cash rolling in.

Furthermore, the courts would be freed up from ruling on this guff whilst media lawyers and indemnity insurers skimming from the kitty meant to remunerate original artists would have to find something more productive to do with their time.

One of the symptoms of long copyright terms is that rights owners continue to market their catalogue many years after its sell-by date.

Not only that, but holders of previously successful franchises have a great deal of cash to reinvest in future marketing, keeping the likes of Superman, Batman, Iron Man, Spiderman, etc on our screens in perpetuity.

Is it any wonder that directors like Spielberg and Lucas are predicting a meltdown of the film industry - although perhaps not sharing my view that long copyright terms are to blame.

The market for creative ideas is skewed.  Owners of previously successful franchises have a loud voice, whilst contemporary innovators are often struggling for cash to support themselves, never mind push their ideas to directors and producers.

The result is the same shit, different decade; decade, after decade, after decade...

@JamesFirth

The morning after the weekend the Big Data bubble burst

A cynic might say worldwide intelligence services are only doing to our data what countless Big Data Corporations have done for well over a decade now.

That cynic might say government security services, even with the types of data syphons revealed in the Guardian over the last few days, generally know far less about our lives than our supermarket or bank.

But for some reason, and despite the power large corporations hold over our lives (the power to deny: deny credit, deny access to a service, or erase an online identity...), exposure of a government tap into this data has, finally, causes a shit storm big enough to seriously damage a whole industry.

My surprise is only that it has taken this long for people to realise that there are practically no legal safeguards for the data of non-US nationals held by US companies, wherever the data is physically stored.

Yes, that's right.  If you pay a US company for a service, even if the data is physically stored on servers based wholly in the EU, your data can still be sequestered by the US government.

Last weekend politicians and spy chiefs lined up to defend the actions of the NSA as invaluable in defeating terrorism.

Cut through the rhetoric and there were numerous admissions that spying on electronic communications of foreign nationals was to be expected as just something nations do.  They spy on other nations; they always have, and they always will.

Last weekend was the weekend when the world woke up to conspiracy fact.

It was the weekend that British MPs, many of whom I know to use gmail, Yahoo or Microsoft to conduct their political affairs outside parliament, realised there were no safeguards in place to prevent a foreign government spying on their private correspondence.

Note: MPs are expected to have secondary email accounts, they're essential because MPs only have access to Parliamentary email once elected - they need to get elected first!

It was the weekend that corporations, some of whom were already alerted to laptop seizures at border posts and had previously instructed employees to travel only with a "clean" laptop in order to protect industrial secrets such as pharmaceutical research being cloned on entry, realised all their data was already at risk because they purchased "secure" cloud storage and other data services from a US-based company.

Despite legislation being brought-in over a decade ago, many have only taken note when hard evidence emerged that this was actually happening.

There is in place today a mechanism for US government agencies to read nearly all our email, check our web searches, possibly what websites we visit - since each click may be sent to Google or Microsoft depending what browser features are enabled...

And there are no safeguards or limits unless you are a US citizen.

I hypothesise this revelation has burst the Big Data Bubble.

The immediate effects will be small.  Charities and NGOs lobbying on changes to US policy, politicians worldwide and companies at the cutting edge of innovation will be the first to turn their backs on a jurisdiction that offers no legal safeguards for data that can be shown to belong to a foreign entity.

A jurisdiction, remember, that spear-headed the fight against copyright infringement with extra-judicial take-downs of websites worldwide.

It's a bubble that will take a while to deflate, for there are at the moment few alternatives to many of the services run by US-based tech companies.

But the damage is done and the trend will, in all likelihood, be irreversible - at least in the short term.

Last week I asked whether people cared enough about their data to make a difference.  Today I'm under no doubt that the slow demise of Big Data, and particularly data hosted outside the EU, will snowball as viable EU-based alternatives emerge.

This time next year we may see Silicon Valley bosses scratching their heads and licking their corporate wounds; and, maybe, finally fighting the cause they should have fought a decade ago.

For only when citizens worldwide are given the same legal protection as US citizens will EU-based companies and citizens feel comfortable handing their data over.

@JamesFirth

Bootnote: The British lobby effort against enhanced EU data protection will find it much harder to garner support from the public and businesses alike - which may be a shame as the EU really messed up with the cookie law, focussing on the method rather than the overall trade and exploitation of personal data.

Does the public really care if governments spy on them? The acid test may have just begun...

Beyond what looks like irrevocable evidence that US government electronic surveillance goes way beyond what all but the most conspiratorial of conspiracy theorists have theorised is one uncomfortable question: do people care in sufficient numbers to make a difference?

Even more distasteful for me is the blanket secrecy around surveillance.  If we knew what governments actually did in our name to keep us safe we might worry less.

If there was less secrecy we might trust safeguards to actually guard our data, safely.

But the secrecy was necessary to keep us safe, claim the spies.

In fact we were told we couldn't be told if this surveillance was even going on, the names of companies compelled to hand over our data, or how often such requests were being made.

Blanket secrecy around blanket surveillance is an incredibly convenient way of ensuring surveillance practices are never scrutinised by the public.

Democracy is broken if the voters can't know what the government does in their name.

The acid test?

But now, over the next few years, we will finally get to see how the public react to a large-scale general threat to our privacy.

We will also see how market forces react to that threat.  Will citizens in Europe turn their backs on the US tech giants, sparking a new phase in the internet's evolution?

Or will they find it hard to escape the gravitational pull of the established giants? Is privacy worth the effort?

I'm prepared for either outcome.

The public might not care in sufficient numbers.

The public might actually like the increased security (perceived or actual) that such surveillance programmes bring.

A new era

The secret is out.

Once data leaves the devices under your direct control you no longer control who accesses that data.

But does such spying by governments really skew the power balance today; compared, eg, to how it is understood to have done during the reign of the Stasi, since technology has made us all more powerful?

In fact technology brings tools for privacy as well as tools for surveillance; will ready access to tools such as cryptography blunt the instruments of surveillance?

And, given the decentralisation of power with the emergence of strong and powerful corporations - something the anti-capitalists worry about - coupled with the foreign cyber-threat, are governments even the threat they once were?

Or will the new decentralised global power balance work in a twisted way to improve citizens privacy and autonomy; with corporations fighting to keep valuable commercial secrets secret, challenging governments, and challenging each other.

Realistically, can anything change, or is our future predestined?

Whilst I'm absolutely convinced that excessive secrecy is dangerous to democracy, I'm less convinced that the public will care about mass surveillance in sufficient numbers to make a difference.

Can we even expect to control data that leaves our private network?  Why should we expect to; what makes us think we can transmit bytes into the ether and expect to keep them private?

Additionally, few have any real control any more over what data leaves our local devices; things just happen automatically.

So we're left facing a stark choice: join in and put our data at risk, or stay dark and deny ourselves the benefits.

Is privacy synonymous with democracy?

Even if "privacy is dead" (it's not, by the way - we just have to adapt), does that necessarily mean that democracy is dead?

Or can we focus on the wider goal, beyond privacy, of building a data democracy, with privacy just one aspect?  

Can structures providing effective accountability, strong judicial oversight and public transparency mitigate the democratic risks?

Now that the veil of secrecy has been lifted we might all - even the spies - be surprised to learn how the public reacts in the long term.

Increased surveillance might become an accepted and necessary part of life in a modern democracy.

Granted this may seem an absurd position - especially given my previous bloggings about privacy.

It's a no-brainer, right? Democracy is threatened if the government spies on the opposition - using their secrets against them.

But might we all just adapt, relying on fewer secrets, thereby removing our vulnerability to exposure and becoming inherently stronger, rather that merely being good at exploiting others' weaknesses?

Yes, such widespread eavesdropping is worrying.  But there really is no precedent; and no simple answers.

@JamesFirth

We don't need less lobbyists - we need more, from a wider cross-section of interests

I started lobbying in 2010 when I realised writing blogs and forum posts, whilst useful, had limited reach.

Since then I've spoken in Parliament, had face-to-face meetings with a government minister, been invited to drinks receptions and conferences inside the Palace of Westminster, and got close enough to power to have the vested interests lined up against me - and some lined up with me - close ranks to make it clear my participation was unwelcome.

There is a stench in Westminster, but the lobbyists are only part of the problem.

Lobbyists have the power they have, in some part at least, simply because they have bothered to build a relationship with those holding office.

Parliament is not a closed place. Excluding special events like the State Opening citizens can, on most days Parliament sits, enter the Palace and lobby for themselves.

All you need do is state your reason for attending at the entry gate, join the queue, navigate security and stick to the public areas.

Whilst there's usually a queue to watch the main chambers there are numerous groups and committees which  sit in public.  Some less formal meetings offer the public a chance to ask questions or mingle with the odd Lord or MP.

It helps to plan in advance so that you can explain on entry where you're heading.

But if you want to get your voice heard above the noise you face a string of problems.  After 2 years I ran out of cash - it takes a lot of time and effort to find your way around Westminster and keep track of what's going on and where.

One of the current problems with lobbying is that the lobbyists themselves control many of the groups meeting inside parliament.  They offer "secretariat services"  which usually includes general admin like sending out invites and providing a website - which the lobby group often ultimately controls(!) - and paying for drinks receptions to ensure the attendees are, well, refreshed.

Coming from outside the lobbying clique I had to build my own network to find out what went on, when, and where.

Although many sessions are "public", space is often limited.  Sometimes an invite is needed (although never checked), and turning up ahead of time is always essential to bag space in Parliament's cramped committee rooms.

But the lobbyists offering secretariat services sit at the heart of this information web.  As event organisers they are responsible for sending out the invite lists.  They even get a say over who writes what on the Parliamentary Group's website.

It's a delicate equilibrium - MPs themselves can't hope to organise such a wide and diverse range of discussion groups - known as All Party Parliamentary Groups - themselves.

There are hundreds of them (I haven't counted, a current list is here) - and it's reassuring to me at least that such a diverse range of interests get represented in Parliament.

Lobbyists fund and help run these groups, but in return they get a degree of control and influence.  It's not unbridled power, as MPs and Lords are ultimately left holding the reins - but it's a useful influence.

However it's an imperfect system which marginalises all but the most persistent and powerful voices and encourages the creation of Parliamentary groups which, occasionally, are less than useful.  In fact one could argue some groups serve just one aim - that of the lobbyists.

But I don't argue for radical overhaul - the system on the most part seems to result in vibrant debate with reasonable access to outsiders - which is why I argue that Government and Parliament should look instead at opening up access to a wider group of interested parties rather than focussing on clipping the lobbyists' wings.

One area that badly needs overhauling is access to Government ministries.

I noticed the same faces milling round Westminster and listed on minutes of meetings - minutes which I or other activists struggled to obtain through protracted Freedom of Information requests rather than being published by default.

Whilst a small guy like me occasionally slips the net, for the most part these Westminster Faces usually represent large commercial interests.

Smaller businesses are only usually represented through umbrella groups like the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB).  But groups like the FSB have a lot of bases to cover with limited resources, so the interests of Britain's small and entrepreneurial businesses are rarely heard at the heart of Government - especially on niche issues such as internet regulation.

Ministries need to open up on two fronts: do more to listen to a wider range of voices, and be far more transparent on the meetings they do have - rather than attempt to keep contact with lobbyists under the radar.

But the really seedy side of Parliament that badly needs an overhaul is how the lobbyists themselves trade on their influence.

For example, many of the lobbyists offering secretariat services are given Parliamentary passes by a sponsor MP or Lord who usually chairs the Parliamentary group.

Such a pass to a lobbyist is gold dust - it's a badge of honour, a seal of approval.  The badge says these are the men and women (note: I met far more men than women) with access worth paying for.

These are also the people who I know to have organised banquets and dinners inside Parliament itself.

Invites go out to companies and other people the lobbyist wants to impress.

Where tickets are paid for I couldn't say who keeps any profit, but either way the lobbyist who is seen to organise a dinner inside the Palace of Westminster sits bright on the radar when a company is looking to get their voice heard in Parliament.

Again there is a balance to be struck - my first taste of Parliamentary cuisine was at an event organised by my former university.

I'm not necessarily saying that lobbyists are cash-hungry, power-crazed demons - I'm saying that their well-polished messages delivered on behalf of a narrow but wealthy section of society often reaches the ears of MPs at the expense of a louder but distributed voice from the rest of society.

Again the way to fix this is for more people to get involved to widen the debate and temper the power of the professional lobbyists.

@JamesFirth

Sources: no Digital Economy Act copyright warning letters until 2016 at the earliest

It's been a while since I wrote anything on the Digital Economy Act.

As a quick recap, although the primary legislation to notify and punish those whose internet connection is repeatedly used to infringe copyright was rushed through the dog end of the Labour government - with Conservative support from the then shadow Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt - progress has since stalled.

Two Statutory Instruments were expected to flesh-out how the copyright infringement warning letters will be dispatched, paid for and appealed: a so-called Initial Obligations Code and a shorter Cost Sharing Order defining how the cost of scheme will be split between copyright owners and internet service providers.

Two attempts have so-far been made to enact the shorter Cost Sharing Order, but even this relatively simple piece of legislation only got as far as the notification phase, where other EC member states are notified of draft changes to policy potentially affecting cross-border trade [refs: here, and here].

Both times the Order was quietly dropped, and nothing much has been heard since.

In response to a Tweeted question this morning I thought I'd see if my old Westminster contacts still wanted to talk to me.

Two separate sources told me not to expect the remaining secondary legislation this side of the general election.

Assuming a 2015 general election, and factoring-in time to establish the necessary body or bodies to oversee the operation of the notification and appeals systems, it will be 2016 at the very earliest - and possibly 2017 - before the first warning letters go out.

UPDATE 19-June

5 days after I posted this, DCMS released minutes [link] outlining their expectations:

"DCMS expects the first letters to be sent in the latter half of 2015"

My own sources were clear that the remaining legislation - two statutory instruments (that might possibly, now, be rolled into a single instrument) - were unlikely to go before Parliament until after the 2015 General Election.  By my own estimates it will then take around 9 months to establish the systems necessary to get the first letter out, including the crucial appeals process, hence my claim of 2016.

It seems the Department for Media, Culture and Sport (DCMS) thinks it can be done slightly faster, hence their note of optimism in their timetable of back-end of 2015.

So what's the delay?

One source described the copyright provisions in the Digital Economy Act 2010 as "un-implementable".

The legislation rushed through parliament in 2010 - at the behest of copyright lobbyists asserting prompt action was essential to the survival of the creative industries - was bad.

Since then the UK music and film industries have grown despite the gloom in the rest of the economy and 2012 saw an 11% revenue growth for legitimate downloaded media content in the UK despite progress on the Digital Economy Act stalling.

Do established economic models apply to data, and will they spread wealth, or is Jaron Lanier wrong?

Jaron Lanier's article on the BBC is really worth reading.  His is the first mainstream article in a while that has got me wrestling with my instincts on big data, privacy and digital democracy.

I agree with a many of his observations.

Yet I disagree with his primary thrust, that "open" has backfired and instead created a new data inequity; and, controversially:

"monetising information will bring benefits that far outweigh the inconvenience of having to adjust one's worldview."

That there is a new power "asymmetry" is undoubtedly true.  I wrote about the new data plutocrats just a fortnight ago.

But would monetisation of our data have worked any better?  

I argue not.  I believe the largely cashless and open information society emerging over the last two decades was a necessity in order to overcome intransigence and challenge the existing economic power balance; and that, had our data been monetised along the lines suggested by Lanier, we'd be far worse-off today.

Had data been monetised, the primary beneficiaries would have been those who currently control the money supply; "data" power would be controlled by those who already wield a great deal of economic power, and democracy would have suffered.

Essentially, Google and gang have emerged, warts and all, to counter the dominance of not just the more established technology companies but also the big banks, and even governments.

Not that I don't foresee severe problems ahead with the path we're now travelling, most of these problems adequately covered in his article.

But, for the time being at least, the old economy tempers Google's power just as Google threatens the old economy.


Inherent constraints of cash

Perhaps, even more importantly, monetising data might have constrained innovation because there is not [yet?] an effective mechanism for setting a price on such a rich and nuanced commodity.

What's a Tweet worth? How much should I be paid, or pay, to participate daily in Facebook? Is my social capital worth anything?.. To me?.. To you?

Such questions may prove unanswerable because the concept of money a hundred millennia old has its limitations.

It may simply prove impossible to create a market that accounts for the diversity of the information economy and its many applications: from furtherance of knowledge to private and personal sharing to providing transparency of governments.

And attempting to do so in a flawed way may derail rewarding but otherwise economically non-viable data services.

For it is possible for us to be getting monetarily poorer and richer at the same time when our lives are getting richer in other ways, even as the 'real' economy stagnates.

Data, and with it, cheap access to communication tools, undoubtedly enrich our lives, and this is both the reason data is hard to monetise and the foundation of the data bartering Larnier sneeringly dismisses as "usually associated with the developing world."

Instead of trying to shoehorn data into GDP we should be looking to an evolution of money to measure our overall wealth, and also to restore equity to contributors and remunerate "workers" - something Lanier correctly notes as absent today.


A Necessity: the Open sledgehammer

As well as overlooking the limitations of money, Jaron Lanier fails to address the positive and necessary role the Open movement played in challenging the inertia present in any stable society.

When I started my career in software in the mid 90's there were sizeable barriers to entry.

Firstly, the software tool chain was largely closed, and licencing costs were huge.  A handful of then-dominant global corporations controlled access to most platforms. (In a way that Apple does, albeit with much lower barriers to entry for developers, today.)

To get [legal] access to a software compiler and the rest of the development kit (SDK) companies had to fork out thousands.  Add to that: revision control software, a defect tracking database, operating system licenses for servers and worksations, etc, and you were talking considerable start-up costs.

It was a system that actively prevented the kind of "bedroom innovation" that has created revolutionary apps and services in the last two decades.

In fact, for a while at least, innovation throughout the sector seemed to stall as larger tech companies, in the absence of serious competition, took their foot off the gas in order to consolidate.

Some large corporations placed emphasis on pursuing licensing revenue for existing products above investing in product innovation, choosing to pursue patent and other IPR infringement at the expense of developing better software.

It really was a frustrating time - at least through the eyes of a twenty-something-year-old.

Developers were left with buggy, feature-void tools.

Smaller companies in particular hesitated to buy the latest software.

And suddenly, innovation was threatened on every front: big companies wanted to return a dividend to their investors, smaller companies were stuck doing things the hard way and tiny companies couldn't even afford to enter the market.

Around that time many in my position had been exposed to Linux and the Open Source movement at schools and universities (Slackware for me, circa 1994).

Before long I could build bigger and better software on my home-built server (primarily around Apache and Perl or related CGI scripting language) than I could using the licensed tool-set my company paid for at work.

In asserting that we may have denied ourselves something even better by turning our back on monetisation overlooks how and why we are where we are now and  fails to acknowledge necessity - the driving force for many open source projects.


@JamesFirth

Time for a new plan for corporation tax to re-level the field for local employers

What keeps me mad throughout the ongoing corporation tax bunfight is that I agree with no-one.

On one [typically right] side, there is the argument that companies such as Amazon, Vodafone, Starbucks, Google, etc, etc... should not be criticised because they're only doing what they are obliged to do: minimise their tax bill.

Fair enough, but we live in a democracy, so claiming they shouldn't be criticised or the subject of peaceful protest is a bit far fetched.  If enough people feel aggrieved  enough to protest outside a shop then in a civilised democracy there's not much we can or should do.

On the other [largely left] side there is the view that such companies are not pulling their weight and should contribute more.

Well, I don't agree wholly with this either.

Many (but not all) of the companies criticised have a UK workforce and end up paying considerable sums in employer's tax (AKA employer's National Insurance contributions) at around 13.8% of salary, plus provide employment (useful, right?) and hence generate even more tax through PAYE paid by their employees.

The trouble with corporation tax in a global economy is that it is unfair to many smaller, local firms; in that they cannot afford the set-up costs of an offshore headquarters to launder their profits through.

Competition theory largely states that governments should encourage entrepreneurship and regeneration to keep the markets competitive; a market which makes it hard for new entrants tends to get lazy, with the incumbents carrying on as before, unchallenged.

But non-global new entrants find it hard to challenge the global giants if they end up paying more tax - until they get big enough to avoid tax.  Get the idea? The market becomes skewed against the new entrants.

So one answer - and the left won't like this - is to get rid of corporation tax altogether.

But this creates a new problem.  Not all companies provide such large returns to the exchequer through employment taxes.  E.g. city fund managers may rake-in millions yet employ a handful of staff, whilst large retailers such as Marks and Spencer, Tesco, etc each employ tens of thousands of workers.

So to me the answer appears obvious.  Companies should be allowed to offset their corporation tax bill against their total employer's Class 1 National Insurance contribution.

Essentially many companies making modest profits yet already paying millions of pounds a year through employment taxes would be exempt from paying any corporation tax, yet companies who didn't employ many UK staff would be left with a largely unchanged corporation tax bill.

This would perhaps have a secondary advantage of making it more attractive to employ UK staff, as the employer's tax - widely seen as a disincentive to employment - would be offset against corporation tax.

And, importantly, it would allow smaller, growing UK firms who choose to have UK-based staff to pay corporation tax on a similar rate to the global giants.

@JamesFirth

The Data Plutocrats and a need for a Data Democracy

Yesterday certainly wasn't the first time someone opined the term privacy was counter-productive in relation to data.

"Privacy" is a one-sided open-ended discussion about risk with no consideration of reward.

"Privacy" is an amorphous concept easily spun by proponents of one side or the other.

Privacy: is wholesome, positive, for victims of crime themselves becoming victims of press intrusion; or, privacy gives terrorists and child abusers the space they need to hide amongst us in society.

Discussion about data privacy and related topics could, perhaps, be more constructive if framed as a discussion about balance of power.

After all, privacy primarily concerns us because of our fear that our secrets can be used against us, creating an "information asymmetry" (ht @OrwellUpgraded) that could be abused by the nefarious and amoral.

So should privacy advocates instead be arguing for a data democracy?

Taking a step back, democracy is not a goal in itself.  The end game is a comfortably stable, affluent and sustainable society; which, if one trusts in the inherent good in human nature will itself be a fair and just society.

Similarly, in data terms, we want a society where we are all "data wealthy" - ie have access to information, communications, entertainment; and benefit from the resulting advances in science, medicine, etc only possible through smart use of data.

We want relative stability - a society nimble enough to keep pace with advancing technology, yet resilient enough not to be cajoled into dangerous change.

We want a just and fair society where individuals, corporations and governments can't use our personal data, our everyday secrets, to exert undue control on anyone.

Democracy is probably the best place to start - at least in analysing and attempting to understand the problem.

Today we probably have a data plutocracy, where data power is concentrated in the hands of a few global corporations.

No-one knows for sure whether this itself is inherently dangerous.

Data power has certainly been used for good: the rapid emergence of useful services, the construction of data infrastructure on a truly massive scale, a level of free "social" services.

Data plutocrats like Google provide services like Blogger, which in turn strengthens the power of the individual to challenge traditional autocracies and, for the time being at least, discuss the issues associated with a data plutocracy.

But clearly such concentrations of data power could easily be abused; either by sticky-fingered employees dipping their hands in the data till, by governments, or by corporations themselves in search of profit.

So maybe we should be looking to promote data control structures and data economies that are inherently more democratic.

But how can we go about understanding the data power balance?

I believe we'll find, over time, that many democratic (and economic) concepts are applicable to data.

Already I see a clear left-right political spectrum, at one end "the state" or other controlling force being responsible for administering and apportioning "data fairness" if you like.  The "clean internet" brigade - a worthy cause... But, as we all know, some data animals are more equal than others.  Who governs the governors, who watches the watchmen?

And at the other end, the right-libertarians, who argue the state should not interfere, leaving the question of who will protect the "data weak"?  Who will guard the technologically incapable from losing out when real-world services increasingly rely on the internet?  Who will provide their broadband, guard their personal data, and defend their computers from hackers?

Over the last two decades the data privacy debate has entered the mainstream - that itself is a good thing, but it's now time to move on to talk about the wider issue: a data democracy.

@JamesFirth

Marks and Spencer latest victim of automated content filtering

Your can forget using Marks and Spencer's free ecard service if your friend is called Dick (or, presumably, lives in Scunthorpe).

After reports that a pensioner was unable to send a card to her friend Dick due to the firm's automated profanity filter, a spokesperson claimed the filter was there "to protect people from harassment" and consequently would not be altering their policy.

Which got me wondering how much protection their automated system offered...

Here's an ecard I sent to myself that didn't get blocked (forgive my childish use of language):

There's a serious point: time and time again I see a reliance on automated content blocking to offer some level of "protection" that impacts legitimate uses of the system whilst being relatively easy to workaround.

In this case I could harass someone simply by spacing-out the insults.

If the service provider then tried to catch insults with spaces in between they would undoubtedly end up blocking even more legitimate uses, like a card to my good friend* Alf Ucker.

I have no issue with companies like Marks and Spencer using such content filtering to warn people against a thoughtless use of offensive language, but to claim such systems are there to protect people from harassment is a stretch - especially since, as I have shown, they can't stop all offensive messages getting through.

(* = imaginary!)

@JamesFirth