Category Archives: Ethics

June 21, 2009 · 1:59 pm

Updates on Iran

Most technologies have traditionally be used by those in power to maintain their positions of power.  However, new ICTs, particularly those associated with the Internet, such as Blogging and Twitter, have the potential dramatically to change existing power relationships.  The current situation in Iran provides a classic example of ways in which these technologies can be used to share information and to organise political action.

For just some of the many accounts of ongoing activities in Iran, for example, see:

Other interesting material on Iran and Twitter includes the following:

2 Comments

Filed under Ethics, ICT4D, Social Networking

Tagged as

May 1, 2009 · 9:10 am

World Press Freedom Day debate at the Frontline Club

01052009395The UK National Commission for UNESCO and the Press Freedom Network have convened today’s debate at the Frontline Club on the motion “Governments at war are winning the battle of controlling the international media”.  The proposers are Andrew Gilligan (Evening Standard) and Jamie Shea (Private Office of the Secretary General of NATO) and the opposers are Jeremy Dear (General Secretary, National Union of Journalists) and Alan Fisher (Al Jazeera English). William Horsley is the debate chair.

My interpretations of what was said by the speakers:

  • Wars create a sellers market in news; demand increases but supply reduces in times of war.  Wars are confusing.  It’s in the interest of those running the battle to keep things confused.  Embeds provide most of the reporting on ongoing wars as  in Afghanistan.  This makes news much more uncontroversial than they should be (Andrew Gilligan)
  • The voices of those suffering are given life by journalists.  War on terror has been accompanied by a war on civil liberties.  Journalists have risked their lives and been killed as they try to lift the veil of secrecy. Despite censorship, a complete blockade of news is not possible given the existence of mobile ‘phones, computers and the Internet (Jeremy Dear)
  • “No pictures, no news” – governments are quick learners.  Do governments make mistakes?  “Yes”.  Do they learn from their mistakes?  “Yes”.   Governments keep the journalists always occupied – keeping them in constant briefings, so they cannot go off and find out things for themselves! We no longer need to work through the media – governments create their own media networks – such as NATO TV.  Instead of using the press to get the message out, we now use pundits who are sympathetic to our cause. “Anyone can be his or her own journalist”. The profession has become democratised – so why cannot governments join in?  A good press helps those of us in government who believe in accurate information (Jamie Shea)
  • Journalists can now report immediately from the frontline; in the old days ‘geography’ mattered, but this is no longer true.  Governments are losing the battles because there are now more ways of accessing the truth than ever before – the bloggers and the twitters…  But the answer is not simply as a result of these new technologies.  Technology is one of our biggest assets – it is getting smaller and better all the time (Alan Fisher)

My thoughts and comments from the floor:

  • There was a tendency to imply that journalists are the arbiters of the truth.  But are they?  I think not.  We all bring parts of ourselves to the truths that we espouse.
  • A key theme, though, is the distinction between “independent journalism” and “public sector broadcasting” – independent voices are really important
  • I liked the comment from the floor that “journalists are concerned with their own greed”!
  • I echo the thoughts of a speaker from the floor who said that African governments are taking advantage of so-called press freedom – many African peoples do not have a choice
  • Much of the debate is indeed ethnocentric – despite global telecommunications
  • An African channel about whom the joke is “not wrong for long”!
  • Relationships between governments and the free press have to be based on mutual respect (Jamie Shea)
  • I would agree with Andrew Gilligan that very few people can actually get to the frontline of war zones – and therefore that professional journalists have a key role to play
  • I enjoyed Alan Fisher’s comments on the Georgia-Russia war – journalists on the ground can directly contradict what government spokespeople are saying
  • Do governments collude in disinterest? Is that why we don’t hear much about continuing violence in places such as DRC?
  • From the floor: “credibility has nothing to do with truth”
  • From the floor: “Deep in the Congo forest you cannot use your mobile ‘phone”.
  • From the floor: “In many countries, to get a SIM you still need to give your identity”
  • How many African countries really support freedom of the press?
  • In so many parts of the world, local journalists do not have the power actually to report because of government restrictions
  • Jeremy Dear emphasised the fundamental importance of journalists supporting each other in the face of oppression from governments
  • Andrew Gilligan: “bloggers have no credibility and little reach”

Who won the debate?  In favour: 38; Against: 15; Abstentions: 9.

1 Comment

Filed under Communication, Ethics

Tagged as , ,

April 28, 2009 · 7:44 am

UK Government announces that it has no plans to create a central database for storing communications data

The UK’s Home Office has recently announced that it no longer has any plans to create a centralised database to store all communciations data.  In its consultation paper presented to Parliament in April 2009, and entitled “Protecting the Public in a Changing Communications Environment“, the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith commented that “this consultation explicitly rules out the option of setting up a single store of information for use in relation to communications data”.  This is excellent news for all those concerned that the government was indeed considering establishing such a centralised database of all digital communication (see my comments in February about this). The consultation paper is a very important document, and lays out clearly the various options facing a government eager to get the balance right between privacy and security.

The consultation paper asserts that “The Government has no plans for a centralised database for storing all communications data.  An approach of this kind would require communications service providers to collect all the data required by the public authorities, and not only the data required for their business needs.  All of this communications data would then be passed to, retained in, and retrieved from, a single data store.  This could be the most effective technical solution to the challenges we face and would go furthest towards maintaining the current capability; but the Government recognises the privacy implications of a single store of communications data and does not, therefore, intend to pursue this approach”.

With reference to third party data, two approaches are identified as possible ways forward:

  • “The responsibility for collecting and retaining this additional third party data would fall on those communications providers such as the fixed line, mobile and WiFi operators, who own the network infrastructure”
  • “A further step would be for the communications service providers to process the third party communications data and match it with their own business data where it has elements in common; this would make easier the interpretation of that data if and when it were to be accessed by the public authorities”.

In the light of this, the government intends to legislate “to ensure that all data that public authorities might need, including third party data, is collected and retained by communication service providers; and that the retained data is further processed by communications service providers enabling specific requests by public authorities to be processed quickly and comprehensively”.

The government is particularly eager to receive responses on four main questions:

  • Q1  On the basis of this evidence and subject to current safeguards and oversight arrangements, do you agree that communications data is vital for law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies and emergency services in tackling serious crime, preventing terrorism and protecting the public? Found on page 22
  • Q2  Is it right for Government to maintain this capability by responding to the new communications environment? Found on page 22
  • Q3  Do you support the Government’s approach to maintaining our capabilities?  Which of the solutions should it adopt? Found on page 30
  • Q4   Do you believe that the safeguards outlined are sufficient for communications data in the future? Found on page 30

As the consultation paper concludes, “The challenge is to find a model which strikes the right balance between maximising public protection and the ability of the law enforcement and other authorities to do their jobs  to prevent and detect crime and protect the public, and minimising the intrusion into our private lives”.

Leave a comment

Filed under Communication, Ethics, Uncategorized

Tagged as , ,

April 10, 2009 · 9:23 pm

ContactPoint – the UK State is creating a database of all children

Along with many other parents across the UK, I have recently received a letter from one of my children’s schools informing me that legislation has just been passed “requiring Local Authorities to set up and run a nationwide database, known as ContactPoint, which will contain basic details about every child and young person under the age of 18 who is ordinarily resident in England”.

Why should this legislation have been passed?  Why is it compulsory?  Why should everyone have to be registered? In effect, as young people grow older, this database will eventually record information about everyone “normally resident” in the UK. It will provide yet another means through which the State collects private information about individuals, thereby enabling it to impose greater control over its citizens.

The ContactPoint website claims that ” ContactPoint will be the quick way for a practitioner to find out who else is working with the same child or young person, making it easier to deliver more coordinated support. ContactPoint is an online directory, available to authorised staff who need it to do their jobs, enabling the delivery of coordinated support for children and young people. It is also a vital tool to help safeguard children, helping to ensure that the right agencies are involved at the right time and children do not slip through the net”.

But does this require details on EVERY child in the UK to be recorded on a central database?  The passing of this legislation on 26th January gives rise to very great concern:

  1. Why should every child need to be registered?  Why does the state need to gain information about the name, address, date of birth, and contact details of all parents to be registered centrally?
  2. Given the inability of  the UK government to keep such data secure in the past, there are high risks that this personal information will become accessible to a wide range of people in the future.  Children will therefore be put at risk.
  3. There is no evidence that such a database will make any difference to early interventions when  children really do need the State to intervene to protect them
  4. Who really benefits from this?  Is it not the companies who have persuaded the Government to introduce such very expensive digital systems?
  5. What gives the State any right at all to collect such individual private information.

We must resist this ever great control by the state over its citizens – just because digital technologies enable us to do this, does not mean it is right.

Tim

1 Comment

Filed under Ethics, ICT4D

Tagged as , , ,

April 5, 2009 · 5:42 pm

Google’s brush with the mole men of Broughton

Those interested in the implications of ‘private’ information being made accessible to ‘others’ via the World Wide Web, might be amused by Rod Liddle’s article in the Sunday Times today entitled “The mole men of Broughton put the brakes on Google“.

As he says, “And we should worry a bit about Google, too. It has a suspiciously smiling facade for one of the most powerful and wealthy companies in the world. “Don’t be evil” is its rather cringy message to employees; everybody wears casual clothing, they have days of the week when they can work on stuff which interests them and there’s probably a Red Nose Day every afternoon. At least, in the good old days, with Rio Tinto-Zinc and Lonrho, you knew where you stood; these big corporations didn’t pretend to be nice. Google, however, tells everyone not to be evil and then connives with the authoritarian Chinese authorities in the creation of a firewall to keep out all sorts of stuff that might annoy them. Meanwhile, the company knows more about you than any intelligence agency could dream of. Use any of Google’s services and, like it or not, as a consequence of the much-criticised cookies, your every internet movement will be logged.  All that’s missing, one critic said five years ago, is it doesn’t know precisely where you live . . .”.

This raises very important issues about:

  • the rights that companies, or indeed governments, have to information about individual citizens
  • the amount of information people have about the uses to which such information is put
  • whose interests are best served by making this information available
  • the rights that individuals have to protect information about them being used without their explicit permission

An earlier article in The Times of 3rd April entitled “Village mob thwarts Google Street view car” is also worth reading for background to the story

Leave a comment

Filed under Ethics, ICT4D

March 8, 2009 · 11:41 am

UK surveillance update…

The Times yesterday published another article on CCTV cameras and surveillance in the UK, noting that the frequently cited claim that there are 4.2 million CCTV cameras in use in the UK is based on a survey of only two streets in London seven years ago!  Police forces across the country are now being asked to locate and record the location of every camera in the country – so that they can be used to identify suspected ‘criminals’.

Leave a comment

Filed under Ethics, ICT4D

Tagged as , ,

February 25, 2009 · 11:31 am

Are social networking sites encouraging infantilism?

A recent report in the Guardian has highlighted the lack of research and understanding of the impact of social networking sites such as Facebook, Bebo and Twitter.  The report comments that:

“Social network sites risk infantilising the mid-21st century mind, leaving it characterised by short attention spans, sensationalism, inability to empathise and a shaky sense of identity, according to a leading neuroscientist. The startling warning from Lady Greenfield, professor of synaptic pharmacology at Lincoln college, Oxford, and director of the Royal Institution, has led members of the government to admit their work on internet regulation has not extended to broader issues, such as the psychological impact on children. Greenfield believes ministers have not yet looked at the broad cultural and psychological effect of on-screen friendships via Facebook, Bebo and Twitter. She told the House of Lords that children’s experiences on social networking sites ‘are devoid of cohesive narrative and long-term significance. As a consequence, the mid-21st century mind might almost be infantilised, characterised by short attention spans, sensationalism, inability to empathise and a shaky sense of identity’.”

3 Comments

Filed under Ethics, Social Networking

Tagged as , , ,

February 8, 2009 · 12:36 pm

Is the UK becoming a police state?

The Sunday Times published a front page report today noting that: ‘THE government is building a secret database to track and hold the international travel records of all 60m Britons. The intelligence centre will store names, addresses, telephone numbers, seat reservations, travel itineraries and credit card details for all 250m passenger movements in and out of the UK each year. The computerised pattern of every individual’s travel history will be stored for up to 10 years, the Home Office admits. The government says the new database, to be housed in an industrial estate in Wythenshawe, near Manchester, is essential in the fight against crime, illegal immigration and terrorism. However, opposition MPs, privacy campaigners and some government officials fear it is a significant step towards a total surveillance society.’

This is yet another example of the ways in which the state is using technology to gain unprecedented information about its citizens.  What right does it have to do so?

Even those who believe that the state can legitimately gather such information should be careful –  given the dismal failure of the state so far to keep such information from being ‘lost’ or ‘falling into the wrong hands’, what reassurances do we have that these data will be secure?

We need to encourgae a vigorous and participatory debate about these issues.

4 Comments

Filed under Ethics, ICT4D general

Tagged as , , ,

February 6, 2009 · 1:41 pm

Is the UK becoming a surveillance state?

The BBC has today highlighted a recent House of Lords’ debate, noting that:

‘Electronic surveillance and collection of personal data are “pervasive” in British society and threaten to undermine democracy, peers have warned. CCTV cameras and the DNA database were two examples of threats to privacy, the Lords constitution committee said. It called for compensation for people subject to illegal surveillance. The government said CCTV and DNA were “essential” to fight crime but Liberty said recent abuses of power meant “even the innocent have a lot to fear”‘.

The BBC report goes on to note that:

‘Human rights campaigners Liberty welcomed the report. Director Shami Chakrabarti said: “Liberty’s postbag suggests that the House of Lords is more in touch with public concerns that our elected government. “Over the past seven years we’ve been told ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’ but a stream of data bungles and abuses of power suggest that even the innocent have a lot to fear.”‘

and

‘Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, urged the government to “reassert” its control over the use of data.He said: “Governments tend to think that gathering new information on citizens is a good thing. But that’s not true if our privacy is undermined and our data isn’t secure.”We need to see privacy by design: you can’t bolt on privacy at the end of big government IT projects, we need privacy safeguards built into systems right at the start.”‘

It is good to see this debate taking place.  Britain has more digital surveillance than anywhere else in the world, and this provides the context for very real ethical questions.  There are those who say that states are too inefficient to be able to manage this wealth of data effectively – and there is some evidence to support this.  However, even if this is true at a practical level, it does not negate the importance of the ethical questions.  ICTs are enabling fundamental changes to take place in the relationship between states/governments and societies, and we need to ask whether these are ‘right’.  Just because it is possible to use these new technologies for surveillance purposes,  does not mean that it is right to do so

Leave a comment

Filed under Ethics, ICT4D

Tagged as , ,

February 5, 2009 · 5:54 pm

Google and privacy

A BBC report raises concerns about privacy issues associated with Google’s new tracking service, Latitude.  This uses data from mobile phone masts, GPS, or wi-fi hardware to update a user’s location automatically.  Although it is an opt-in service, there are fears that not everyone may know that their phone is broadcasting their location.

There is, though, huge potential for such a service – not just as a fun way for friends to ‘keep in touch’, but also possibly for people concerned about relatives with dementia, or others who might get ‘lost’.

As ever, Google is pushing the boundaries in terms of how society uses technology, and the ways in which that technology in turn shapes society.

1 Comment

Filed under Ethics, ICT4D general, Uncategorized

Tagged as , ,