Technology and Democracy

Tom Griffin (London, OK): The Internet Watch Foundation has now removed its block on the Wikipedia page for The Scorpions album Virgin Killer, but the episode has provided an interesting insight into the ways in which access to the internet can be controlled.

The Register reports:

The IWF received a complaint about the image earlier this month, and after deciding it may violate the law, the British net censor added Wikipedia to a blacklist designed to protect the customers of ISPs and other companies "from inadvertent exposure to a potentially illegal indecent image of a child."

In order to block the image, six ISPs - Virgin Media, Be Unlimited/O2/Telefonica, EasyNet/UK Online, PlusNet, Demon, and Opal - began routing all Wikipedia traffic through a small number of transparent proxy servers. In some cases, the ISPs also blocked the entire Wikipedia article - not just the image.

Cory Doctorow highlights one implication of this process: "a third party now monitors every request made to Wikipedia from the six ISPs that participate in the Great Firewall of Britain."

Celia Hannon (London, Demos): In April 2007 charlieissocoollike, a 16 year-old vlogger from Bath joined YouTube. So did the British Prime Minister. Since then Charlie has amassed 70,000 subscribers. The Prime Minister has 5,000. These figures betray a very naked truth - young people are not flocking to listen to their presidents and Prime Ministers when they talk to them via internet videos. Instead, they are seizing power for themselves; taking on roles as reporters, distributors, commentators and artists. It seems that while their parents and grandparents won their freedoms by challenging governments, this generation of young people would rather find their ‘route-around’ existing institutions and forms of media.

Jon Bright (London, OK): OurKingdom was founded partly in the belief that points of "crisis" - when flaws in the current system can no longer be ignored - provide opportunities for democratic change and reform, and that the UK might be approaching one (what Anthony has called a "good crisis"). Several potential crises have already been well documented on these pages, but the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust have  released a report (opens pdf) today outlining another one: the real possibility of large scale electoral fraud in the upcoming local elections.

Felix Cohen (London, oD): AT & T, the quintessential Baby Bell, was one of the sponsors of last week's Westminster e-forum on the 'Policy Challenges of Web 2.0'; Mr Jim Cicconi, from AT & T, talked extensively on the subject of internet infrastructure, the globalisation of knowledge, promoting broadband through public policy and a number of other laudable topics. Unfortunately, he talked rather more extensively on what he coyly called Network Management. Or Intelligence in the Network. Or Traffic profiling. But never Network Neutrality.

Jon Bright (London, OK): Brian Paddick will become the latest politican to dip a toe into the virtual waters of e-politics tomorrow night, when he takes part in some kind of webchat. Somewhat peversely, however, it has apparently been schedule for tomorrow night, at 7.30, when any right thinking person will be soaking up some sun in a post work beer garden. If the pub falls through, however, or you can't think of anything better to do, you can pose your questions here. Live. On the web.

Jon Bright (London, OK): A couple of news items on police technology caught the eye today. Following criticism in the Omagh Bomb trial, the BBC reports that a review undertaken on behalf of the home office has confirmed that "Low Copy Number" DNA testing is "scientifically sound" and can continue to be used in police investigations. And the Telegraph reveals that every Metropolitan police office will soon be fitted with an electronic "tag" which will allow their commanding office to pinpoint their location (overground or underground) anywhere with in London, ostensibly for the purposes of their protection.

Philip Hosking (Cornwall, The Cornish Democrat): With the closure of Goonhilly Earth Station, are the Cornish ever going to look to the stars again?

As a recognized level 1 European region with devolved government that could be something we decide for ourselves. Introducing one possible option - NEREUS - a network of European Regions working hand in hand on the development and use of space technologies in Europe. The European Regions are heavily involved at both ends of the space chain, from infrastructures to applications.

Jon Bright (London, OK): I picked this up thanks to Jon Worth's excellent Euroblog. Romanian Institute IPP have set up a new website which allows you to track the performance of your MEP - and the 750 odd others that are out there. I realise, of course, this will be somewhat of a minority pursuit, and there are more than a few people who would rather do away with the whole lot of them than pick through how they are voting. But, for a Europhile (albeit sometimes sceptical) such as myself it's another small sign that, if such a thing as a European "public sphere" is to develop or could possibly develop (a big if), it is the existence of the internet that makes this possible - its ability to do things the printed press could never have dreamed of. A political union of the type the EU is developing (which is still directionally unclear, and still very much contested) would simply be unimaginable without technological advance - and  tools like this one seem to me to be a small contribution to this project.

Peter Facey (London, Unlock Democracy): The recent Audit of Political Engagement from the Hansard Society found that 55% of respondents felt they knew not very much or nothing at all about politics. There has been a lot of debate about how the Internet can help in promote involvement in politics and a number of exciting innovations. But in reality little of it directly connects to candidates and political parties and to the act of voting. That is why Unlock Democracy has teamed up with the Dutch Think Tank Instituut voor Publiek en Politiek (IPP) to launch Vote Match.

Jon Bright (London, OK): Hazel Blears had a crack at this new technology stuff that everyone is talking about few days ago in a speech to the international e-Participation symposium:

As little as ten years ago, scarcely one in ten of us had ever used the internet. Getting online was expensive, time-consuming, and all too often disappointing.

Jon Bright (London, OK): The conservative party has launched a new campaign today - "You can get it if you really want." The similarities to the Obama campaign are almost overwhelming - the non-specific but positive slogan, the slick editing and upbeat tunes, the constant references to change. Because political parties in the UK are still wrapping their heads around the internet, they haven't posted the video on YouTube (though they have, curiously, posted a video advertising the fact that there is another video, which feels a bit like emailing someone to say you're sending them an email). So I can't embed it - but you can see it here. They also advertise a endorsement video by Matthew Vaughan, the British Lawrence Bender to Guy Ritchie's Quentin Tarantino, which I have been unable to find but have very high hopes for - will David Cameron be persuaded to call Gordon Brown a nonce or tell Nick Clegg and Ed Davey to keep their Alans on?

Robert Colvile (London, The Telegraph & Centre for Policy Studies): Last month, Barack Obama raised almost $1 million a day - the vast bulk of it online. In Britain, meanwhile, our impoverished parties push the rules to the limit - and beyond - to raise sums that look pitiful by comparison.

Here, many politicians don't quite get the web, either maintaining a polite distance (particularly when they read the vituperative comments appended to blogs and news articles) or ignoring it completely. But this, as I argue in a new paper for the Centre for Policy Studies, is a mistake, if only for reasons of basic demography. Of those currently at university, 97 per cent are regular internet users - the "digital natives" who move between online and offline communication with barely a shrug, organising real-life parties on Facebook or swapping instant messages in lieu of a phone call. These are tomorrow's voters - and politicians.

Jon Bright (London, OK): Simon Davies of Privacy International has a good article on the Sadiq Khan bugging affair in yesterday's Telegraph. In it he points out that the catch all defence of the "public interest" is always going to override any weak mechanism for checking surveillance in the current frenzied atmosphere of the war on terror. Privacy International provide an interesting comparative take on the state of surveillance societies worldwide, summed up in this eye-watering map:

Bill Thompson (Cambridge, BBC freelance): There has been a lot of fuss in the British press following revelations that conversations between MP and human rights lawyer Sadiq Khan and his constituent and childhood friend Babar Ahmad (who OurKingdom has written about in the past) were recorded in the prison where Mr Ahmad is being held while awating deportation to the USA.

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): The Home Office's claim that its forthcoming e-borders programme will effectively 'count everyone in and out of the UK' is plausible only if one ignores Northern Ireland.

Both the British and Irish Governments confirmed early on that there were no plans to introduce controls on the 224-mile long border between the Republic and the North. Over the past month it has become clear that the Home Office intends to deal with this gaping hole in the scheme by introducing e-borders checks between Northern Ireland and Britain.

Jon Bright (London, OK): Possibly a little banal this one, but might be worth keeping an eye on, if only to try and ensure something comes out of it. Kieran Poynter, who is conducting the independent review into the bolting of 25 million bank details etc. from HMRC, has coughed up an interim report today. He has a wide enough remit, I believe, to name names and ascertain culpability, though of course he hasn't done so yet.

Moderator: This post is partly a response to this earlier contribution by Jason Kitcat.

Daniel Gray (Bournemouth, Senior Software Consultant): E-Voting systems are, by their very nature, complex systems that involve segregation of processes, advanced cryptography and rigorous development methods, and Jason is correct to point out that administration of such complex systems is a difficult area to address. It is therefore unsurprising that many of the current implementations of e-Voting systems have been, shall we say, lacking in a number of key areas. Academics tend to concentrate on the development of a new idea (for example a cryptographic protocol) rather than attempting to build a complete functional system that can be used correctly by stakeholders ranging from electoral administrators and council workers to the general public.

Jon Bright (London, OK): Fascinating article in the Register here about Shoreditch's "Digital Bridge" scheme, which the council has been using to provide internet services over TV sets. One of the unique aspects of the scheme is that it allows members of the community access to CCTV footage from their area - something which has seen massive uptake:

Jason Kitcat (Brighton, Internet Consultant & Political Activist): It's well known that I'm opposed to the introduction of e-voting and e-counting in the UK. This is fundamentally because the technology of today cannot deliver on the unique requirements of democratic elections. Elections require secrecy, accuracy, anonyminity and verifiability. This is an incredibly difficult combination of requirements to meet. Banks or online shops don't meet all the requirements - while others may not know what you bought (secrecy) unlike voting your identity is known to the bank or vendor (anonyminity) so that they can deliver their services and check if you are a fraudster. By checking your bank statements you have an element of verifiability not available in voting.

Saul Albert (London, The People Speak): In the midst of the furore over rigged TV 'voting' competitions, spurned elections and missing referendums, London-based art collective 'The People Speak' have recently been rekindling enthusiasm in the democratic process. Their latest show, 'Who Wants to Be?', mixes direct-democracy decision making, interactive animation and improvisation into dangerously spontaneous entertainment.