Tagged: politics

What is Cyberbullying Anyways?

May 11, 2009 5:40 pm by Blaise Alleyne — Law Technology —

This post originally appeared on Techdirt.

We’ve been hearing a lot about “cyberbullying” lately. Cases like the Lori Drew incident have got politicians and teachers all over looking to pass vague new rules and laws (or twist existing ones) to punish behavior they feel is wrong. The problem is, no one really seems to be able to define the term, at least not in a way that really distinguishes it from simply being a jerk online, so it’s encouraging to see a paper from a vice president of Stetson University, Darby Dickerson, calling on educators to slow down and define cyberbullying before creating policies about it, though I’m not sure she gets to the heart of the issue. Dickerson observes that people have been using the term often and easily, without any real consensus on what it includes and what it doesn’t. In the absence of a generally accepted scholarly or legal definition, she calls on universities to take four steps before creating a cyberbullying policy:

  1. consider the types of activity that might be included within the term,
  2. consider the type of harm,
  3. consider the level of intent required by the offender,
  4. determine the extent that it will address off-campus conduct.

This is good advice and Dickerson does a pretty good job of outlining the concerns. She notes that conduct such as “cyberstalking” or “cyberthreats” might be included, while issues of fraud probably shouldn’t be, arguing that “not all misconduct that occurs online should be labelled as cyberbullying.” She cautions institutions to remember “free speech and related constitutional concerns.” She’s skeptical of extending the term to include simply being a jerk online, and he questions labeling students as cyberbullies who don’t display real malice or hostility. She also raises lots of important questions about what it means to be “off-campus” in cyberspace. Dickerson concludes by urging institutions to clearly define the term before enacting policies, highlighting many important questions that must be answered first.

Yet… Dickerson ignores one major consideration: why have a separate policy for cyberbullying anyway? It seems to me that in order to consider these issues sanely, we need to stop pretending they’re separate things simply because we apply a “cyber” prefix to them. What’s a “cyberthreat?” How is that different from a threat in general? Is a “cyberthreat” just a threat made online? What if it’s made with a cell phone instead? What about a plain old telephone? Yes, the medium must be considered (“you’re going to die” is different when shouted in a playground than written in letters cut out of a magazine…), but do we create separate terms or policies for each medium? We do often need to re-examine our laws and policies in the face of new technologies, but it rarely makes sense to have separate “cyberpolicies” instead of ensuring that existing policies are adapted to handle the new technologies. Why not ensure that existing harassment policies cover real harassment that occurs online instead of creating a new “cyberharassment” policy? Without a consideration of the difference between cyberbullying and bullying in general at the heart of this discussion, people run the risk of spending their energy blaming the technology and grandstanding, creating new policies with troubling unintended consequences rather than addressing the real issue, which often may well just be plain old bullying in a new context. The new context can certainly present new challenges that might warrant policy changes, but people should be careful not to get distracted from the issue of bullying just because it has “cyber” tacked onto the front.

Read the comments on Techdirt.

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Canada Permalink | Post a Comment

The Illusion That “Choice” Means That There’s Nothing To Fear From Code

May 10, 2009 8:00 am by Blaise Alleyne — Free Culture Free Software Law Technology —

Adam Thierer’s reaction essay appeared in the Cato Unbound debate on Friday, Code, Pessimism, and the Illusion of “Perfect Control.” He argues that the basis for Lessig’s pessimism in his book, Code, was his illusory belief that code provides a mechanism for “perfect control.” While he levies some strong criticisms of this position and argues that a regulatory alternative could be much worse, he seems to take an equally illusory position of optimism in the essay.

First, Thierer ignores all the bad stuff:

Not only are walled gardens dead, but just about every proprietary digital system is quickly cracked open and modified or challenged by open source and free-to-the-world Web 2.0 alternatives. How can this be the case if, as Lessig predicted, unregulated code creates a world of “perfect control”?

I’ve already agreed with Zittrain that “cracked open” isn’t good enough, but… did I miss the death of walled gardens? What about the iPhone app store, the Kindle approach and Facebook and the walled garden approach to social networking sites? I still believe there’s reason to be optimistic — open strategies tend to win out — but to ignore all of the latest walled gardens is to ignore several elephants in the room (that’s one crowded room…). This was disappointing as Thierer has provided a much more nuanced view at other times.

Second, Thierer has an awkward take on the difference between “open” and “closed” technologies:

Indeed, despite all this hand-wringing by the Lessigites, there exists a diverse spectrum of innovative digital alternatives from which to choose. Do you want wide-open, tinker-friendly devices, sites, or software? You got it. Do you want a more closed, simple, and safe online experience? You can have that, too. And there are plenty of choices in between. It sounds more like “perfect competition” than “perfect control” to me

This fallacy just grates on me. The spectrum of technologies Thierer presents has “tinker-friendly” and “safe and simpler” at opposite ends. Why don’t we demand both? WordPress defies this spectrum; a hosted blog at WordPress.com is safe and simple, but that code is available at WordPress.org for anyone to install and tinker with on their own servers. Few would disagree that Firefox is safe and simple, but it’s also “wide-open” free software with which anyone can tinker.

What bothers me about this spectrum is that Thierer implies — whether intentionally or not — that “tinker-friendly” means complicated and dangerous, while “closed” allows things to be safe and simple (because we all know how safe and simple Windows is…). There is no reason that technology needs to be “closed” in order for it be safe and simple. WordPress and Firefox are not compromises between freedom and ease-of use, but technologies that insist on both. Yes, it’s a challenge to coordinate freedom and simplicity, but these are not opposites, there is not an inverse relationship.

We should demand better from technologies which limit freedom. Demanding better isn’t simply choosing another product to avoid the chains yourself, but it also means helping your neighbour to do so as well. I’m not sure that this is the cyber-collectivism that Thierer ascribes to Lessig, as Zittrain’s argument for civic technologies takes a middle road between cyber-libertarianism and the “technocratic philosopher kings” Lessig is accused of suggesting, but it’s more than just saying that things are fine because we have some choice.

By making it seem like there’s nothing wrong and that closed systems go hand-in-hand with “safe and simple,” Thierer responds to Lessig’s illusions with an illusory picture of his own. He is right that code doesn’t provide “perfect control,” and that pessimism is unwarranted, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t recognize shortcomings and demand better from the makers of technologies on which we increasingly rely.

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Canada Permalink | Post a Comment

Unlocking An iPhone Is Not Freedom; Zittrain Argues For Civic Technologies

May 7, 2009 12:01 am by Blaise Alleyne — Free Culture Free Software Law Technology —

Cato Unbound has an outstanding online debate going on right now about Lawrence Lessig’s book Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace as it hits 10 years. Declan McCullagh started things off with a post entitled, “What Larry Didn’t Get,” offering a libertarian critique of Lessig’s approach and accusing him of favouring “technocratic philosopher kings.” Jonathan Zittrain has the latest post, “How To Get What We All Want,” which focuses on the similarities between McCullagh and Lessig and takes a middle ground between libertarianism and government regulation, arguing for civic technologies. Adam Theier has a post going up on Friday, and Lessig himself will have the last word on Monday. I highly suggest you check it out, if you’re at all interested in these issues and haven’t seen it already.

Now, I haven’t yet read Zittrain’s book, The Future of the Internet — And How To Stop It, but from the sorts of things I’ve read about it, I don’t think I share his pessimism. However, one line in his contribution to the debate really resonated with me. After talking about the dangers and limitations of proprietary technologies controlled by vendors (e.g. iPhone, Kindle, Facebook), he remarks:

This is the future of the Internet that I want to stop, and it’s small solace that geeks can avoid it for themselves if they can’t easily bring everyone else with them. [emphasis mine]

I get so frustrated when people rationalize the locked down nature of the iPhone by saying that they can just unlock it. Unlocking an iPhone is not freedom. (1) It still rewards Apple, the maker of the chains, through the purchase; (2) it’s a disservice to the vast majority of people who don’t have the skills to unlock their devices.

I strongly believe that if geeks want to do something useful to solve the problems that Lessig and Zittrain identify, it has to involve supporting free (libre) technologies that don’t have any chains, instead of just buying into proprietary technologies and removing their own chains.

The counterargument to Zittrain’s thesis isn’t a jailbroken iPhone; it’s an OpenMoko Freerunner.

This is why Zittrain holds up Wikipedia as an example of a civic technology; he notes the fact that Wikipedia is licensed freely. Free culture and free software are what produce civic technologies.

I don’t share his pessimism, but I sympathize with his argument for civic technologies.

Civic technologies seek to integrate a respect for individual freedom and action with the power of cooperation. Too often libertarians focus solely on personal freedoms rather than the serious responsibilities we can undertake together to help retain them, while others turn too soon to government regulation to preserve our values. I don’t think .gov and .com never work. I just think we too easily underestimate the possibilities of .org – the roles we can play as netizens rather than merely as voters or consumers.

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Canada Permalink | Post a Comment

Surprise, Surprise: Canadians Aren’t Interested In ISP Levies

March 19, 2009 11:25 am by Blaise Alleyne — Free Culture Music Technology —

This post originally appeared on Techdirt

Michael Geist points to two new polls released by Angus Reid Strategies, which show that Canadians are overwhelmingly against the idea of ISP levies. It should come as no surprise that 79% of people surveyed about the possible Canadian content levy on new media said it would be an “unnecessary and/or inappropriate fee that would end up being passed along to consumers.” In another survey on file sharing, 45% of people said that downloading music free of charge was just “what people should be able to do on the Internet,” while only 3% believed that downloaders are “criminals who should be punished by law.” 27% said that it’s something people shouldn’t be doing, but that “it’s not a big deal.” 73% of people thought that a music tax was “unnecessary and/or inappropriate” (which ought to disappoint a few Canadian creator groups calling for this sort of thing…).

The survey also found that those who download music are “often the most voracious music enthusiasts,” more likely to buy a CD in the next month (41% vs. 34% of non-file sharers) and more likely to have attended a concert in the past year (65% vs. 52%), which should, again, not surprise many people around here. This is just another bit of evidence that “piracy” is not a problem and, instead of pushing for ISPs to collect levies or act as copyright cops, musicians should focus on connecting with fans and giving them a reason to buy. Though, somehow, I don’t expect the whining to stop anytime soon…

Read the comments on Techdirt.

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Canada Permalink | Post a Comment

UK Online Protest Finds Success In Just 48 Hours

January 29, 2009 5:23 am by Blaise Alleyne — Technology —

This post originally appeared on Techdirt.

Using social networking tools to organize political protests is nothing new or surprising, but online protests have been growing increasingly efficient, especially on Facebook. In Canada, for example, a group protesting copyright legislation caught the attention of federal parliament last summer, and another opposing strict restrictions on young drivers had the Ontario Premier considering Facebook consultations in the fall.

The latest story comes from the UK where, in a mere 48 hours, a campaign run through Facebook and TheyWorkForYou.com by mysociety.org helped stop legislation that would have exempted MPs’ expenses from the Freedom of Information Act (via the Search Engine). Thousands of emails were sent in the two day period, reaching 90% of MPs, before the opposition parties turned and the government backed down. It’s not so much the scale that’s worth noting, but the sheer speed at which the campaign was successful. The legislation was scrapped before most snail mail would have had time to arrive. Now, the online protest likely wasn’t the only factor, but it played an important role in spreading the message. It seems to be getting a lot harder to sneak stuff through the legislature (though that doesn’t stop people from trying) when it only takes a couple days to build an opposition.

Read the comments on Techdirt.

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Canada Permalink | Post a Comment

Are Facebook Groups the New (and Improved) Online Petitions?

December 19, 2008 5:16 am by Blaise Alleyne — Technology —

This post originally appeared on Techdirt.

There was a time when online petitions were pretty common, but they never were that effective at actually lobbying government, mainly because there’s no easy way to validate signatures. The concept was ported straight from the analog world to the digital, but it’s interesting to see how government lobbying has evolved online. The Ontario government recently backed down from proposed restrictions on young drivers in the face of a significant backlash, which included a Facebook group that gathered over 150,000 members. The Premier, Dalton McGuinty, mused about conducting consultations through Facebook and, though that never materialized, the group was cited as one of the major indications that the government had “stepped in it.” Earlier this year, another Facebook group, Fair Copyright for Canada, had caught the attention of the national parliament in Canada.

What is it that Facebook groups have that online petitions don’t? First of all, 150,000 members in a Facebook group is not the equivalent of 150,000 signatures on a (real) petition. A portion of this group’s members are probably not even from Ontario (though at least Facebook provides some assurance that most members are real individual people). But, in the same way that 150,000 signatures isn’t the same as 150,000 people at a rally outside the legislature, you take the context into account. It’s a pretty significant number for getting a sense of a public reaction — the government definitely hit a nerve here. A Facebook group also contains associated debate and discussion, links to other efforts (websites, YouTube videos, etc.) and a means for members to coordinate further efforts online and offline. It’s more about organizing protest efforts than simply presenting a list of names.

Obviously, there are other relevant services besides Facebook (and there are lots of silly Facebook groups), but the Facebook example serves as an interesting illustration of how this sort of political activism has evolved from the digital attempt at petitions to a more involved hub of activity. In Canada, we see examples of politicians now beginning to pay attention, but to get involved — like McGuinty suggested through consultations and like the Obama team has demonstrated through a campaign — would take things to another level.

Read the comments on Techdirt.

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Canada Permalink | Post a Comment

Ontario Government Considers Facebook Consultation

December 5, 2008 6:26 am by Blaise Alleyne — Technology —

This post originally appeared on Techdirt.

The Ontario Premier says he wants to engage young people in dialogue on Facebook (via Michael Geist) over protests against proposed restrictions on young drivers. The strict, zero-tolerance proposals have caused many young people to speak out on Facebook, and one protest group now has over 140,000 members. The Premier has responded publicly, “I think we need to find a way to get on Facebook… I think we need to find a way to engage in a dialogue in a social network where they are,” noting that most young people won’t come to the traditional legislative meetings. There’s one snag though — government computers currently block Facebook.

This isn’t the first time a Facebook group has caught the attention of Canadian politicians (it’s also not the first time this Ontario government has proposed controversial driving laws). Over the past year, a Facebook group, created by Geist, protesting proposed copyright legislation, was mentioned repeatedly by the opposition in federal parliament. This time, the government itself is bringing an online protest to attention. The idea of Facebook consultations drew some criticism in the comments on Geist’s post — why should the government conduct its business on a proprietary, privately owned silo? But Geist isn’t suggesting that the government rely on Facebook or any one service, just that they could make use of services that people are already using. Facebook is especially relevant for legislation affecting young voters. In an earlier column, Geist notes that it takes more than just an “if you build it, they will come” approach. Governments could broaden their online consultation strategies to include a presence on social networks where active dialogue is already taking place. In this particular case, it’s still a bit too early to tell if this is just talk or if the government is serious about experimenting. A good first step might be to reconsider that Facebook ban.

Read the comments on Techdirt.

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Canada Permalink | Post a Comment

NDP Caption Challenge

September 20, 2008 6:28 pm by Blaise Alleyne — —

I figure my submission to the latest NDP caption challenge won’t be approved by the moderators…

Jack, I'm with you! Let's ban Elizabeth May!

Jack, I'm with you! Let's ban Elizabeth May!

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Canada Permalink | Comments (1)

Quebec Lawsuit Highlights Problems With The Software Procurement Process

September 12, 2008 12:25 am by Blaise Alleyne — Free Culture Free Software Law Technology —

[This post originally appeared on Techdirt.]

FACIL, a free software advocacy group based in Quebec, recently filed a lawsuit against the provincial government (via Michael Geist) for favoring proprietary software without considering the free and open source alternatives. This story got plenty of attention a few weeks ago, but it’s important to break down the details to understand what’s really happening here.

The government is required by law to place contracts over $25,000 for tender, yet FACIL cites over $25 million worth of contracts between February and June 2008 alone in which no bids were solicited. The government is not being sued for buying proprietary software, as some headlines suggest (via Slashdot), but for failing to adequately evaluate the other options.

The lawsuit highlights a larger problem the procurement process has dealing with software. In the procurement process, the government publishes specifications for what it wants, companies submit bids and an open and transparent method is used to determine the best offer. This is mandatory except in a few special cases, like when only one supplier can meet the requirement. So, if the government publishes specs for Microsoft Office, rather than “office productivity software” then only one supplier can meet the requirement. It would be like seeking bids on a Ford Taurus. It’s obvious which company is going to win.

This process may work well for tangible goods, but it’s awkward for software because governments tend to use the process to acquire licenses, rather than “software.” Everyone is automatically licensed to use free software, so the process isn’t even needed here — and since only the copyright holder (or someone they’ve authorized) can sell a proprietary software license, the whole process isn’t even legally required. The important decision isn’t where to obtain a license, but which software to use in the first place. In other words, the process has a huge loophole. As long as the gov’t defines what it needs as “Microsoft Office” rather than “office productivity software,” no competitive bid is necessary, and the law isn’t broken. The copyright loophole for proprietary software basically turns the procurement process into an announcement system.

So, the real problem isn’t that the gov’t broke the rules, but that the rules are set up with this huge loophole due to the nature of software.

The process should really be adapted so that it can evaluate both proprietary and free options in the open and transparent setting it’s supposed to facilitate. The government should solicit bids for office productivity software rather than for Microsoft Office specifically — and the process itself should be more open so that the “bid” isn’t limited to just one offering. The answer is more complex though, since one contract has implications for another throughout the software stack (open standards can help) and the financial incentives for participants need to be reconsidered (not all companies sell software), but finding a solution is imperative for the government to truly act within the spirit of the law. That’s what the lawsuit is really about.

[Read the comments on Techdirt.]

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Canada Permalink | Comments (1)

Stéphane Dion finds God (fashionable)

August 25, 2008 5:03 pm by Blaise Alleyne — Catholic —

I’m not really a fan of any of the political alternatives either, but… common, this is the Liberal Party leader? Michael Coren has an entertaining report from a recent appearance Dion made on his television show.

Within the first 10 minutes of the discussion he made several mentions of God… He was, for example, anxious to “reconcile people with God’s environment” and was committed to the planet “given to us by God…”

So I was rude enough to ask Mr. Dion if he was doing this — sounding religious — because he had been told that the station on which my show appears each night, CTS, was faith-based. Frankly, I expected him to deny, obfuscate or simply lie. It says a great deal about the man’s integrity as well as his innocence that he replied on air with a simple, “This is true.” A pause, then, “I have been told that this is important to the people who watch this show.”

*facepalm*

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Canada Permalink | Post a Comment
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Canada
This work by Blaise Alleyne is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Canada.