Karlin / EF(F|I)

dahamsta

I've been in touch with Karlin about this forum, and the mailing list I've set up. She's going to try and put people in touch with each other to get something organised. She's posted on her forum, although obviously being a journalist she misunderstood the bit about the forum.

http://radio.weblogs.com/0103966/

adam

DeVore

Much as Karlin is rising in my respects recently (not hard since I dont like tech journos a great deal, though to be fair she seems to do the legwork on her blog)....

...would it have killed her to link this forum?

Will she be joining us? We could well use a vocal voice like hers and the Times behind any campaign.

It means identifying herself on Boards (which she obviously reads) but I dont think that should bother anyone... (we've had other journos here and they were welcomed heartily).

Can we also get a digest of the list posted here or the two locations will diverge and also I dont want to sign up to *another* list.

Lastly if this is going to be an activist group, we need a name or at least a working title so that we can begin to gel together into some kinda committee?


DeV.

vinnyfitz

I don't think many people have found this board yet maybe we could do some targeted promotion on like minded boards like IOFFL and net/comms as well as security?

As for a name I produced a few bad suggestions the other day but have not come up with any better ones yet.

ecksor

I'll throw a sticky onto the security forum.

dahamsta

Hi Tom,

...would it have killed her to link this forum?

I told Karlin that the forum was "going to be dependant on an organisation being set up", and she obviously understood this to mean that it wouldn't be activated until an org was actually created. That's why if you look at her blog, you'll see that she says that one will be set up soon (or somesuch, I'm writing this offline). I've clarified this with her.

Will she be joining us? We could well use a vocal voice like hers and the Times behind any campaign. It means identifying herself on Boards (which she obviously reads) but I dont think that should bother anyone... (we've had other journos here and they were welcomed heartily).

I'm not mad about being a proxy here, but just to ensure that people don't get ticked off for the wrong reasons, I will say that I think Karlin is a little concerned about being directly involved with the organisation itself, because of her status as a journalist. I'm not going to get into the nuances of that -- I hope she does join us, but it's entirely up to her.

Can we also get a digest of the list posted here or the two locations will diverge and also I dont want to sign up to *another* list.

I haven't actively advertised the list, I just posted it here so people have the option of joining it and using it if they want to. But of course, if it becomes active, I'll set up a digest subscription and post it here weekly myself. If it becomes necessary, I'll also endeavour to create a digest of interesting posts here and post them to the mailing list.

Lastly if this is going to be an activist group, we need a name or at least a working title so that we can begin to gel together into some kinda committee?

Again, I think that vinnyfitz's "Electronic Freedom" suggestion is a wonderful working title. I imagine a more permanant title will be decided by the operating council/committee of the group if it comes to pass. And I hope it does, and I hope to be involved.

adam

DeVore

I think Karlin is a little concerned about being directly involved with the organisation itself, because of her status as a journalist.

Well I can understand that if she's thinking that she could be more use as a supposedly un-connected journo.


However... I could equally claim to be "concerned" on the grounds of being a managing director.
Being involved with Boards.ie and other parts of my political/private life sometimes seriously conflict with my role as employeer and head of Spin.

We all have to make decisions like that but I hope hers is more based on how she can best help rather then on protecting her commercial reputation.

Would it kill to come here and talk to us? I mean, she's one of the people who kicked this thing off... it would be polite to at least check in...

DeV.

DeVore

Ok, that kinda reads a bit bitchy.

For the record: I would welcome Karlin's direct involvement on this topic and on Boards in general. She obviously reads it and I'm genuinely sorry that she doesnt interact with us... theres a LOT to be gained by it on both sides (we've seen stark examples of that with UTV, Komplett, other journos, etc etc).

I may mail her offline to talk to her about her concerns.

DeV.

karlin

Hi all --

It's strange to post into a section where one finds they're the subject (or hey -- I guess that's common enough for discussion boards...!). Anyway I just wanted to clear up a couple of points:

1) I didn't post a link to the forum only because I'd misunderstood Adam and hadn't realised the forum had been set up. I thought he was waiting to gauge interest. I have a link up today and will post it again, and news about EFI (or whatever it will be called), on Friday when I tend to get more blog traffic (Mon and Fri are usually the busiest days).

2) I have about 8 people, via the blog, interested in re-forming EFI. I have suggested they immediately sign up for the Freedom list so that a more formal mailing list for the group exists (rather than huge emails of cc's...[grin]). And I suggested they register and get onto this discussion group too. Could I suggest that all here interested in EFI get onto the Freedom mailing list too? Then there will be a common point of contact.

3) From the Irish Times' pov I have a conflict of interest with my job if I join a lobby group, political party, etc, so I cannot be part of EFI as a card-carrying so-and-so but I can of course contribute to discussions, offer some contacts or suggestions, and am happy to speak at any events and so on, or advise on press releases that I happen, purely accidentally of course, to see in advance of their going out.

4) The Boards are a public forum and a good place to hear many points of view (often very informed points of view! [grin]). I like to dip in and out of them from time to time but I usually feel more comfortable not contributing, for a variety of reasons. But I would like to be a contributing part of this forum. I'm using my own name as my user name just so people definitely know it's me and that there's a hack sneaking about!

Karlin

Typedef

Karlin

From the Irish Times' pov I have a conflict of interest with my job if I join a lobby group, political party, etc, so I cannot be part of EFI as a card-carrying so-and-so but I can of course contribute to discussions

I wouldn't want to be blatantly sarcastic, but, during the Nice Treaty debate, the Times and Independant were quite prone to editorialisation (read pontification) about the merits of voting Yes.

Was this a conflict of interest? I think so, it being quite difficult to make 'objective' comments about topic (x) whilst exponenciating one side of that debate (ie a Yes vote).

Yes that is a semantic distinction, but is I think a valid point to make. It just seems like a a fairly illogical disjunction, that on the one hand people from paper (x) can be part of a fairly blatant pro-Yes campaign (read editorialisation) and then not be permitted to participate in something like the EFI, because such participation might be percieved as being unobjective.

That's not a personal attack by the way, simply a statement of what I would consider to be a fairly illogical set of circumstances.

Typedef.

dahamsta

Welcome to Boards Karlin.

Just FYI for everyone, Karlin's gave the people who've expressed an opinion a wee funt this weekend, and things should start moving soon. I'll report back when I have something of substance.

adam

ecksor

If we all start moaning about biased coverage in the press, we'll be here until eternity. Bias in the press is a fact of life. Get over it. (or at least complain about it elsewhere, but I'd imagine you already have).

By the same token, many contributors to discussions regarding anything under activism have biases to some degree, but it doesn't stop them joining the discussion.

Finally, I know what it is like to not be able to take part in discussions or offer a point because it is automatically assumed that you are personally privy to and/or responsible for every action that your employer takes, or that anything but utter condemnation of such actions results in jeering from the gallery.

I think that you should refrain from allowing your opinion of the IT bias your impression of any contributions that Karlin chooses to make to discussion here.

karlin

Most news organisations do not allow their staff to belong to organisations or political parties, especially not in the area that they also report about, just as we are not allowed to own shares in companies in sectors that we cover. Indeed many business journos are only allowed to invest in managed funds where they have no say in the mix of companies.

I am not a staff member of the Times but I follow their guidelines and believe in them. It is often my job to report on both sides of an issue and one side or another would believe all my coverage to be biased if I actually belong to a lobby group as well. It is not that the Times would feel compromised by group membership -- *I* would feel compromised by what I could say without being seen as a spokesperson for a group. I do my best to give both sides of a story -- even when writing an opinion piece.

I don't write about the few company CEOs or other senior management that I am good friends with. I like to keep some distance from groups, companies, govt and industry figures so that my reporting -- and opinion pieces -- aren't influenced by personal friendships or indeed, dislikes. And hey, I know I don't always succeed.

I can do more on privacy etc issues from a distance, with good people to go to for opinions and comments that I can then print.

DeVore

Fair enough, I respect your integrity!

I'm also glad you have "come out" and posted under your own name :^) and I'd like to welcome you officially to the muddy world of Boards.ie...

(If we *only* had "hacks" sneaking about it wouldnt be so bad ... lol!)

I hope you interact further with the Boards.ie community ..or even write something about us for our 5th anniversary! plug plug... (whats that line from the Matrix? "The digital pimp... hard at work?")

I'm also quite intrigued by the rebirth of EFI. I just have to consider how much time I can allocate to it.

I'm concerned that we will split between the mailing list and the board. I honestly dont mind which we use (ok, thats a lie, I much prefer web-boards but I dont mind in the sense of getting all huffy in a going-home-with-my-ball sort of way, that would be utterly childish).... but can we centre on one communications method?

DeV.

dahamsta

I was going to post on that later: I would envision this board being used in very much the same way the IrelandOffline board works, as a sort of open discussion place for members; with discussion between the people in charge taking place on a mailing list or lists. If that was the case, the current mailing list would either be closed altogether, or left open as an alternative, depending on demand. If it's the latter, I don't see any reason why digests couldn't be posted between the two periodically.

Obviously this is only suggestions at this time. There's a lot to hammer out.

adam

DeVore

I think the idea of a mailing list for a small number of organisers is wise... its more immediate. The problem with mailing lists is that when you are the size of IOFFL the noise becomes impossible to cope with. you MUST recieve each mail AS AND WHEN THE LIST SENDS IT TO YOU.... (yes there are some ways around this... most people dont know them though).

So you lose the best people (usually) as they just cant take the number of mails every day.

Add to this the problem that a new member has nowhere to look at historical posts (unless you have it archieved on the web somewhere, with permission of the author).

Anyway, you can see my pov so I'll stop ranting

DeV.

antoinolachtnai

By all means we should get EFI (or whatever) going again. However, before we go too far with it, we should think about what the organisation is actually going to do.

All-in-all we have strong protections of the individual's privacy in this country. It is hard to see what exactly the requirement for improvement is.

In fact, it could be fairly argued now, that the extent of protection of privacy is so great that it can make it more difficult than it should be to monitor certain aspects of our society. For example, the lack of a clear law on identification makes it more difficult for the police to keep good records on criminals or suspects. Clearly there are benefits to this, but there are also downsides.

Another angle could be that of the digital divide. However, I would think of this as a separate area, more akin to exclusion from education and related issues.

Yet another issue is infrastructure. This is clearly very important, but I don't think it's our issue. It seems to be well covered by IOffL and their ilk.

So what exactly do we all have in mind here? If we could think out the message, we can figure out how to deliver it later.

We should look at having a face-to-face meeting in the next month or so.

Regards,

a.

karlin

I think it's useful to keep one thread on this forum just for EFI-organisation related posts that don't go into issues on the broader subject of privacy/civil liberties. I am neutral on mailing lists v. forums at least at the moment!

As to what the group is for, I would disagree strongly with Antoin that strong privacy protections already exist here. There is wide consensus, even privately among privacy advocates who will talk about taking court actions based on perceived violations of the protections in the constitution and by data protection laws and the European convention on human rights, that really, none of these are actually enforced in any meaningful way and tend to be nice but almost useless words. On the least-invasive level, just look at the regular violations in the way personal data is managed by organisations and how direct marketing restrictons are routinely ignored, usually not even intentionally but due to ignorance. Our own Data Protection Commissioner has plenty of examples in every annual report. He's already annoyed that only a handful of solicitors -- and I mean *a handful*, of the thousands practicing -- had registered as handlers of personal data, and yet clearly they are in charge of some of the most sensitive data of all on people. And, er, they SHOULD know the legal requirements in this area. They just don't bother.

And I know *definitely* that, how shall I phrase this to avoid libel..., certain people who are legally required to obtain warrants before obtaining data traffic from ISPs regularly do not. I don't imagine the situation is too different with phone companies. We won't name the country I'm referring to.

And it is incredibly easy to obtain a vast range of information on individuals now, without the govt needing to retain even more data. Ask any private investigator -- they'll tell you how ridiculously easy it is to get information. Law enforcement needs more resources put into good policing and analysis, not into creating large databases that can be used for fishing expeditions. Have you ever spoken to anyone who deals with the Gardai's computer crime unit? I have -- and they say there's hardly anyone in there who actually knows anything about using their own computers, much less doing computer forensics.

On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence that databases are regularly misused, at best in ways that constitute minor harrassment, at worst, in fairly sinister ways, including planning murders. I've documented some of the media reports on such at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103966/stories/2002/12/02/inDefenseOfDataPrivacy.html.

Given that EFF's role since its inception has been as a strong opponent of data retention -- I've never, *ever* heard an argument that law enforcement needs greater tracking capabilities or the right to introduce ID cards from EFF or any other privacy advocacy group, eic.org, privacyinternational.org, statewatch.org, fipr.org, etc -- I am curious as to what you would see as EFI's role, Antoin? Are you more interested in the copyright or direct marketing aspects? I'd argue for a very firm position aligned with EFF on data privacy and data retention issues, otherwise there seems no point in working as an affiliate of that organisation. What do people think?

antoinolachtnai

Well, when I say what I say about having strong privacy protections, I mean in comparison to other countries. The US is a completely different context. There is unfettered freedom to collect information about anything you want over there and to do pretty much anything you like with it. Nobody even bothers to write a report about it, certainly no government body anyway.

Countries in the Far East are in a similar mess. Singapore and Malaysia make widespread use of the state identification number in commercial life. It effectively makes you very traceable.

Also, countries in the Far East specialise in keeping big files of secrets about their citizens. A fairly efficient lid is kept on this kind of activity in Ireland because of the FOIA and the Data Protection Act. Similarly, the US government is seriously curtailed from collecting information about its own citizens.

That's not to say our Irish situation is perfect, or that people obey the rules properly, but our context is very different from the US context. Therefore, we need to take different action.

For example, practical implementation, rather than legislative change would be our goal on a lot of data protection issues. This is a very hard issue in the Irish context, as any campaigner will tell you. Inevitably, you end up in the courts if you want to get anywhere on these sorts of issues. Is that where we want to be?

What you say about ISP records is correct in my personal direct experience. How would we want this to be improved? Presumably we want judicial oversight? That's a reasonable thing to ask, but surely we need _informed_, efficient, fair judicial oversight, rather than some judge blithely signing warrants? (Is that what we would be calling for?)

This, and the issue about solicitors that Karlin mentions is tied back to a bigger-picture issue of Irish life - the power, arrogance and inefficiency of the whole legal system. This is a big issue in its own right, and we obviously have to think about how we would deal with our part of it.

There is certainly a case against data retention, and it is correct in the vast majority of circumstances. Are there ever any cases in which retention of telephone record information to prevent or detect a crime is legitimate? Perhaps not, but it would be good to hear a reasoned two-sided argument on the subject. (I suspect that high-value fraud investigators would have something to say on the subject.)

The thing about the issues is that we have to come up with reasonable arguments that won't get knocked over the first time Michael McDowell comes on the Pat Kenny Show.

As a completely separate issue, the copyright thing is quite shocking in Europe, compared to the US. There is very little concept of fair use here.

However, how could we fight this battle? If the universities, librarians and teachers aren't prepared to battle for the very simple, very basic right to occasionally copy a few pages on an ad-hoc basis for a class (definitely very illegal in Ireland, but perfectly legit in the US), well, then what can we hope to achieve?

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a lot of subtlety around the issues. We have to take account of the local situation as regards what we campaign on and how we do it. Otherwise we'll just get beaten up in public.