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

Digital Britain

The UK’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport (I still think this is a crazy mixture, but…)  published its final report on Digital Britain on 16th June 2009.  It claims that “The Digital Britain Report is the Government’s strategic vision for ensuring that the UK is at the leading edge of the global digital economy. It is an example of industrial activism in a crucial growth sector. The report contains actions and recommendations to ensure first rate digital and communications infrastructure to promote and protect talent and innovation in our creative industries, to modernize TV and radio frameworks, and support local news, and it introduces policies to maximize the social and economic benefits from digital technologies”.

The key measures it recommends are:

  • A three-year National Plan to improve Digital Participation
  • Universal Access to today’s broadband services by 2012
  • Next Generation fund for investment in tomorrow’s broadband services
  • Digital radio upgrade by the end of 2015
  • mobile spectrum liberalisation, enhancing 3G coverage and accelerating Next Generation mobile services
  • robust legal and regulatory framework to combat Digital Piracy
  • support for public service content partnerships
  • a revised digital remit for Channel 4
  • consultation on funding options for national, regional and local news

One of the most interesting statements in the executive summary is that “For individuals a quiet revolution has delivered seamless connectivity almost everywhere. That revolution ranges from personal pocket libraries of music, audiovisual content and increasingly electronic literature on a scale inconceivable ten years ago; inexpensive broadband which allows efficient and family-friendly working patterns in the knowledge sector of the economy – and broadband at increasing speeds – the next generation of which, already available to nearly half Britain’s homes, allows us to send or receive 200 mp3 music files in five minutes, an entire Star Wars DVD in 3 minutes and the total digitised works of Charles Dickens in less than 10 minutes. It has given us access to a wide range of social networks, allowing us to share experiences and swap and create content. The digital revolution has also led to a huge expansion in the creation and availability of professional content. Today, the typical British consumer spends nearly half of their waking hours engaged in one form or another with the products and services of the communications sector”.  The report goes on to assert that “The UK is already a digitally enabled and to a significant degree digitally dependent economy and society. The Digital Britain Report aims to be a guide-path for how Britain can sustain its position as a leading digital economy and society”.

To my mind, the report is overly up-beat.  It fails satisfactorily to address the real challenges associated with a digital Britain, and especially:

  • it focuses primarily on the technological and economic dimensions – and not enough on the social, cultural and political issues raised by these
  • there is nothing overtly on the ethical and moral issues raised by this particular vision of a ‘digital Britain’ (‘ethics’ and ‘moral’ are words that are not even mentioned in the report)
  • although trying to grapple with some of the issues surrounding unequal access, its solutions are unlikely to have a significant impact on the lives of Britain’s poorest people and communities – the concept of a ‘digital divide’ is only mentioned three times, and there is no mention of words such as ‘inequalities’ or ‘inequality’; ‘equity’ is only mentioned twice.  The market cannot provide effective solutions for the most marginalised – and it should be the role of government to intervene to ensure that as many people as possible can benefit from the potential that such technologies can offer
  • insufficient attention is paid to the negative effects of the digital economy – in terms of the ways in which it reinforces power relationships, and enables ever greater ‘control’ and manipulation of the majority by the few.  The anarchic potential of the Internet is also insufficiently explored – and is treated negatively in the only place where it is addressed (“Most consumers, except the minority of the anarchic or those who believe in ‘freedom to’ without its counterbalancing ‘freedom from’, who believe in unsupported rights without countervailing duties, would prefer to behave lawfully if they can do so practically and with a sense of equity” p.110).  “Web 2.0” is likewise only mentioned once!
  • as I have argued elsewhere, one of the implications of Britain sustaining “its position as a leading digital economy and society” is that this will necessarily mean that it will relatively disadvantage those in poorer countries of the world.  Given my own interest in trying to ensure that poor people and marginalised communities can also truly benefit from digital communities, I am concerned by the complete lack of attention that this report pays to issues of ‘development’ – Africa is not mentioned at all, and ‘developing countries’ are only mentioned once to exemplify the impact of mobile ‘phones therein!  I wonder what colleagues in the UK’s Department for International Development have to say about this – another excellent example of lack of joined up government!

The UK government needs to understand that ICTs are about much more than simply the technology and the economy – if we are truly to use them to make the world a better place, we must emphasise the social, political and cultural aspects of their use much more than does this report on Digital Britain.

For other commentary in the UK press see:

  • James Ashton in the Times: A blurred vision for Digital Britain
  • Matthew Horsman in the Daily Telegraph: Only a sketchy road map of Digital Britain
  • BBC News: Digital Britain countdown begins

Leave a comment

Filed under ICT4D

… on serendipitous rigour

Rhinefield-House-smallFor a while now, I have been thinking around the notion of ‘serendipitous rigour’ – which might at first sight appear to be a contradiction in terms.  However, sitting in the luxurious wasteland of the New Forest at the EPSRC Think Free retreat, I have discovered that others are also grappling with this notion.

So, herewith some interconnected  thoughts:

  • there is value in bringing together the concepts of ‘serendipity’ and ‘rigour’ – and in encouraging research practices based upon their intersection
  • serendipity can be defined as the effect whereby someone  accidentally discovers something fortunate or beneficial, particularly while looking for something else entirely – it is therefore crucial for creativity and the advancement of knowledge [note the origins of ‘serendipity’ in the Peregrinaggio di tre figluoli del re di Serendippo published by Michele Tramezzino in Venice in 1557, from which Horace Walpole coined the word]
  • the addition of the notion of rigour to that of serendipity is important for two reasons in that
    • we rigorously need to create ‘places’ where we can actually foster such serendipity, and
    • we also need rigorously to take advantage and benefit from the opportunities that serendipity provides

By encouraging the promulgation of serendipitous rigour, we may be able to escape the shackles and confines of our sterile academic milieu, and develop new concepts and practices that could make the world a better place

2 Comments

Filed under Higher Education, Postgraduate supervision

eLearning Africa, 27-29 May 2009

This year’s eLearning Africa conference in Dakar, Senegal, starts on 27th May with pre-conference workshops and concludes on the evening of 29th May.  It promises to be an interesting opportunity to reflect on how best we can use e-learning to deliver on some of the continent’s biggest capacity development challenges.

The organisers suggest that the highlight will “include:

  • Discussion on the relative merits of one-to-one vs. shared computing which will feature in several sessions including a series of cases studies presented by SPIDER showcasing the way in which one-to-one computing has been realised in large scale equipment roll-outs in Rwanda, Ethiopia and Uruguay.
  • Debate about the extent to which open source solutions can be made sustainable. Are they the only solution for cash-strapped organisations or do they require a level of skills and resources not regularly found in colleges, universities and schools? Input on this topic will come from practitioners from the National Open University of Nigeria; MEF/IMSP, Benin; Makerere University, Uganda and many others.
  • The ongoing debate about the open educational movement in Africa will further develop this theme. Can the OER movement in Africa help to expand access to educational content for Africa’s resource-poor higher education institutions? Does it live up to its expectations? Presenters from OER Africa, the National University of Rwanda and the Shuttleworth Foundation in South Africa will present their experiences.
  • Mobile learning is of particular interest in Africa given the number of mobile devices available and the lack of reliable terrestrial Internet access. eLearning Africa 2009 features many interesting practical examples, such as m-learning for health-care workers, instigated by the Institute of Tropical Medicine in Belgium; mobile learning opportunities by l’Ecole Nomade in France; a study by the University of South Africa on the use of Mxit; and a partner programme of the Mid Sweden University and the Open University of Tanzania, using mobile phones to enhance in-service teacher training.
  • Affordable and reliable access solutions remain a challenge for most education and training practitioners in Africa. Presentation sessions in which access is discussed will include input from the Senegalese Government, the French Foreign Office, Computer Aid International and AfrISPA.
  • The results of new research led by IDRC’s PanAf Observatory will highlight the ways in which the pedagogical integration of ICTs can improve the quality of teaching and learning in Africa.
  • A discussion on the re-use and disposal of obsolete ICT equipment entitled E-Waste: Is Africa Heading for an Environmental Crisis? will feature a lively debate on issues around re-use and disposal of ICT equipment and the impact this has on the environment.
  • Dedicated sessions led by leading organisations active in this field including Agence Universitaire de la Francophonie (AUF), the World Bank, UNESCO and UNEP which will feature some of their projects, initiatives and successes.
  • There will be several inspirational case studies on the development of ICT4E policies, including presentations by IICD, The Netherlands, Ministère des Enseignements Secondaires, Cameroon, the University of Lagos, Nigeria and COFOPS-INTER, Cote D’Ivoire.
  • A special panel to highlight the eLearning initiatives of the Partnership for Higher Education in Africa, the South African Institute for Distance Education, and UCT’s Centre for Educational Technology. This panel will reflect on early lessons learned, explore specific educational technologies, introduce the emerging research agenda, and discuss how eLearning in African Higher Education can be advanced further.
  • University experience in putting in place effective technology- enhanced learning, which will feature presentations from universities including Université Cheikh Anta Diop dé Dakar, Senegal; University of Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania; Université de Nouakchott, Mauritania; and École des Sciences de l’Information, Morocco. They and many others will provide first hand witness accounts of the opportunities and challenges they face.
  • Sessions on the ways in which ICT is being used to support teacher training and the skills of public servants which will include input from the Ministry of Education, Malawi, the University of Education, Winneba, Ghana and the University of British Columbia, Canada.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Africa, ICT4D

WISE awards for outstanding educational achievement

LOGO WISEThe Qatar Foundation has recently announced the launch of its WISE (World Innovation Summit for Education) awards for outstanding educational achievements.  In this inaugural year, the WISE Awards nominations will generate six prizes to existing projects aligned with the Forum’s three main themes: Pluralism, Sustainability and Innovation.  Two prizes will be awarded for each of these three themes. Each of the six laureates will receive a WISE Prize Award of $20,000 at the Gala Dinner on November 17th, 2009. Laureates will also be given the opportunity to showcase their projects during the WISE Forum.

The WISE Awards application process is open to individuals or teams of individuals from across the world and in all education sectors, to be supported by a letter of endorsement from senior management of their organisations. The closing date for applications is 15th July 2009.

Laureates will be selected by a pre-jury and then by an International Jury consisting of some of the world’s leading experts in pluralism, sustainability and innovation in education, drawn from public institutions, civil society, the private sector, international organisations, universities and social entrepreneurs.

Further details are available as follows:

Leave a comment

Filed under Education, Higher Education

Maputo restaurants

Not everyone would automatically think of Mozambique for its culinary excellence – but for those who like fine seafood, Maputo’s restaurants are definitely worth exploring.  Mozambique is a forgiving country, and despite the violent war of independence it still retains certain classic Portuguese traditions, not least the tendency to serve rice and chips with most main courses.  It is also possible to find great Portuguese wines – definitely a step up from most of the South African onesprawns available on the wine lists.  Here are just a few of my favourite places to eat in Maputo:

  • Costa do Sol – on the coast to the north of Maputo – serves fantastic fresh seafood in an art deco atmosphere.  The vinhos verdes go down well with the lobster and prawns!
  • Restaurante Escorpião (Recinto da Feira Popular – Maputo. Tel. 21302180. E-mail: restauranteescorpiao@hotmail.com) – serves typical ‘Portuguese’ cuisine – and has one of the best collections of Portugese wine outside Portugal (try the Borba with one of the meat dishes).
  • Maputo Waterfront restaurante (Av 10 Novembro 74,http://www.paginasamarelas.co.mz/pag/2226032468_PAG_A.html) – serves excellent seafood and meat dishes – try one of the combination dishes, such as chicken and seafood.  As its name suggests, it is right on the waterfront
  • Restaurante 1908 (Av. Eduardo Mondlane,946 – Maputo. Tel. 21424834.) – a sophisticated restaurant in the centre of Maputo, serving Mozambican and Italian food.  As its name suggests it is in a building constructed in 1908!

2 Comments

Filed under Restaurants, Wine

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

What happens when a bendy bus meets a traffic light?

bendy-bus-smallI couldn’t resist posting this – seen on the way back from a meeting this afternoon: the middle of a bendy bus caught around a traffic light near Euston station!  Which ever way the driver tried to move, the traffic light remained enwrapped by the bus!  And the poor motorbike policewoman couldn’t do much to help!  I’ve no idea how the situation was resolved, but I guess that the traffic light came off worse! Have sympathy for the driver!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The proposed High Mosel bridge

Approval has apparently recently been given for the building of a 4-lane 160 metre high concrete road bridge, the B50 High Mosel Bridge.  Campaigners note that this will have a severe impact on the vineyards and villages of Ürzig, Zeltingen-Rachtig and Wehlen, which make some great wines (visual impression).  Where the road is planned to continue on above Graach, it also threatens the stability of the vineyard, and disregards the landscape integrity of the Graacher Schanzen hillfort.  For an open letter written to Angel Merkel about this by Sarah Washington, see http://mobile-radio.net/bridge.html .

1 Comment

Filed under Wine

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