Is South Korea's Crazy Experiment Ending?

I've written a number of times about the curious experiment South Korea has been conducting: making its entire governmental and financial computing infrastructure dependent on Microsoft by requiring *all* users to install proprietary security software that is typically an ActiveX plugin (yes, one of *those*).

This is obviously insane, because it forces people to use a piece of technology that has been a major cause of security problems on the Windows platform, and it creates a monoculture, with all the weaknesses that implies.

Despite the manifest folly of this approach, changing it has been hard because of the total lock-in. But apparently change is finally coming, and for a couple of surprising reasons:

For those of you who have followed my blog, you know that it has been 3 years since I first reported on the fact that Korea does not use SSL for secure transactions over the Interent but instead a PKI mechanism that limits users to the Windows OS and Internet Explorer as a browser. Nothing fundamentally has changed but there are new pressures on the status quo that may break open South Korean for competition in the browser market in the future.

In fact, one of the new pressures on the status quo has been the popularity of the iPhone in South Korea, which wasn’t available officially until late 2009 due to a different Korean software middle-ware requirement, WIPI, which has since been deprecated. With WIPI dead and buried, Apple released the iPhone to great fanfare in the Korean market and Blackberry has also launched in the Korean market.

Another pressure on the status quo was a recent report out from 3 researchers (Hyoungshick Kim, Jun Ho Huh and Ross Anderson) from the University of Oxford’s Computing Laboratory, “On the Security of Internet Banking in South Korea.”

...

The popularity of the iPhone (the press claims 500,000 units sold in the few months since it was released) resurfaced the issue that only Windows and IE can be used to make secure transactions with Korean Internet services. iPhone/Blackberry/Android users in Korea (not to mention Firefox/Opera/Safari/Chrome users) cannot bank online or purchase items online or do any secure transaction with the smartphone browser because Korean services only support the PKI mechanism that only works with Active-X in IE and Windows.

This is a rather unlooked-for consequence of the arrival of smartphones in general, and of the iPhone in particular. Combined with pressure from the users of other browsers and other operating systems, we can hope that this will bring the South Korean government to its senses, and end this bizarre and unfortunate experiment in government-mandated monoculture.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

ActiveX: the Law in Korea?

I've long known that the Korean governmnet is pretty benighted when it comes to *insisting* that people use ActiveX in order to interact with it, but now it seems that opponents of this monoculture have just been seriously slapped down:

Open Web, a Korean web forum led by professor Kichang Kim of Korea University is best known for its fight against rampant use of Active X in Korea, lost a lawsuit against the KFTC (Korea Financial Telecommunication and Clearings Comittee). Professor Kim accused that the Korean government's mandate on the use of Active X programs for the internet banking and other public web services should be lifted, as it is against fair trade and "overly favors technology from a single company (that is, Microsoft)".

Professor Kim has also asserted that as many Korean netizens somehow grew to think that Active X is something they have to download anyway, many of them are exposed to security vulnerabilities. Also, as so many entities including virtually all financial institutes in the nation depend on Microsoft technology in Korea, whenever Microsoft announces an update, the whole nation has to upgrade its internet infrastructure, and this leads to various losses on a national scale - Kim asserted.

But Professor Kim's year-long accusation fell short of convincing the court that the government mandate on the Active X is against fair trade and therefore is illegal.

How can a government lock its people into one technology - one, moreover, whose flaws are now well documented? Even the UK government has never been *this* daft.

TTIP Update VI

In my previous TTIP update, I reported on an extremely important leak about the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP), which is the other half of the US attempt to stitch up world trade through supranational agreements.

It's still too early to hope for something similar on the TAFTA/TTIP front – but rest assured, it's only a matter of time (another reason why the insistence on secrecy is not just anti-democratic and insulting, but stupid, too.)  However, Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), one of the key sites dealing with transparency (and lack of it) in Europe has come into the possession of a TTIP document that is very interesting:

CEO has today published a leaked version of the European Commission's communication strategy for overcoming public skepticism about the controversial EU-US trade negotiations, the so-called Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The document was discussed at a meeting with EU member states on Friday 22 November. In order to "reduce fears and avoid a mushrooming of doubts", the Commission proposes to "further localise our communication effort at Member State level in a radically different way to what has been done for past trade initiatives".

It's not very long, so I recommend reading the whole thing on CEO's site; here I'd like to pick out a key passage.  The leaked document spells out what it sees as the three main communication challenges, the first of which is the following:

Making sure that the broad public in each of the EU Member States has a general understanding of what TTIP is (i.e. an initiative that aims at delivering growth and jobs) and what it is not (i.e. an effort to undermine regulation and existing levels of protection in areas like health, safety and the environment).

TAFTA/TTIP may "aim" at delivering growth and jobs, but what exactly does that mean?  The European Commission's own research predicts a range of possible outcomes:

Under a comprehensive agreement, GDP is estimated to increase by between 68.2 and 119.2 billion euros for the EU and between 49.5 and 94.9 billion euros for the US (under the less ambitious and more ambitious scenarios). However, if the FTA would be limited to tariff liberalisation only, or services or procurement liberalisation only, the estimated gains would be significantly lower. For example, an FTA limited to tariff liberalisation would lead to a lower (23.7 billion euro) increase in GDP for the EU and a 9.4 billion euros increase for the US.

There's a big difference between the 119 billion euros – the figure routinely quoted by the European Commission, even though it is only one extreme case – and the 23.7 billion at the other end, for estimates of the boost to the EU's GDP.  From the research document again:

The comprehensive option includes two scenarios: a less ambitious agreement that includes a 10 per cent reduction in trade costs from NTBs and nearly full tariff removal (98 per cent of tariffs) and an ambitious scenario that includes the elimination of 25 per cent of NTB related costs and 100 per cent of tariffs.

NTB refers to "non-tariff-barriers, and basically means things like health and safety regulations, environmental protection, employment rules and financial rules.  In other words, most of the things that make Europe what it is today: an extremely safe and pleasant place to live.  The 119 billion euro figure always quoted by the European Commission refers to "the elimination of 25 per cent of NTB related costs".  If we don't get rid of those, the predicted GDP boost is a much more modest 24 billion euros – hardly worth bothering about, given that the EU's GDP in 2012 was 12,900 billion euros (indeed, even the massively-improbable 119 billion euro figure is still less than 1% of GDP.)

In some cases, it may be possible to remove those non-tariff barriers that without compromising on health and safety standards, but in others, it is clearly impossible.  A symptomatic case in point is the famous chlorine-washed chicken.  In the US, it is permitted to wash chicken carcases in chlorine water, whereas this is not regarded as safe in the EU.  These positions are not compatible.  So how will this "non-tariff barrier" be dealt with?

The European Commission has said that health standards will not be compromised, which suggests that the EU will not accept chlorine-soaked chickens; but the senior vice president of America's National Chicken Council has a different view of what will happen in TAFTA/TTIP [pdf]:

We have been assured on a number of occasions by our trade negotiators that our industry's issues will not be traded-off for some other issue on the EU side.  We trust our negotiators will secure the most favorable outcome possible, but at the risk of being redundant, we will want to be doubly-assured that the end product is worthy of our support.

That certainly sounds like they think that chickens washed with chlorine water will soon be winging their way to European plates, whether Europeans want them or not.  The same confidence that the EU public's wishes will be swept away during the TAFTA/TTIP negotiations can be found in other food safety areas, such as bringing US beef produced with growth hormones to Europe, and the contentious area of GMOs, as well as the EU's rigorous chemical safety framework REACH - another target of US industry.

This exposes the central dilemma at the heart of TTIP: either the European Commission abandons the precautionary principle – something that is actually enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty – in a desperate attempt to realise some of the over-promised financial gains, or it gives up the big numbers and settles for a mere 0.2% GDP growth in order to preserve European health and safety regulations: it can't in general have both.

In fact, even if the European Union *did* deregulate massively – something that industry on both sides of the Atlantic is pushing hard for [.pdf] - with who knows what consequences for public health and safety, it might all be in vain anyway.  It's obviously hard making prediction (especially about the future, as they say), but luckily we do have the past as a guide. 

TTIP (and TPP) are actually part of a series of major trade agreements that the US has been signing  in order to impose its laws and economic philosophy around the world.  The two most important ones prior to TPP and TTIP are the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the South Korea-US Free Trade Agreement (KORUS).  Here's what happened with NAFTA:

The United States ran a $1.6 billion trade surplus ($2.6 billion in today's dollars) with Mexico in 1993, the year before NAFTA. Last year [2011], the United States ran a $64.5 billion deficit.

And here's KORUS:

In the year after the agreement took effect (April 2012 to March 2013), U.S. domestic exports to South Korea (of goods made in the United States) fell $3.5 billion, compared with the same period in the previous year, a decline of 8.3 percent. In the same 12-month period, imports from South Korea (which the administration consistently declines to discuss) increased $2.3 billion, an increase of 4.0 percent, and the bilateral U.S. trade deficit with South Korea increased $5.8 billion, a whopping 39.8 percent.

But maybe the trade agreements are generating jobs at least – that's one of the things that the European Commission says TAFTA/TTIP will do. Here's what happened with NAFTA:

Bill Clinton (1993) and his supporters claimed in the early 1990s that the North American Free Trade Agreement would create 200,000 new jobs through increased exports to Mexico. In fact, by 2010, growing trade deficits with Mexico had eliminated 682,900 U.S. jobs

Well, what about KORUS?

When the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement was completed in 2010, President Obama said that it would increase U.S. goods exports by "$10 billion to $11 billion," supporting "70,000 American jobs from increased goods exports alone"

Here's what actually happened:

Using the president's own formula relating changes in trade to jobs, the growth in the trade deficit with South Korea in the first year since KORUS took effect likely cost more than 40,000 U.S. jobs

So if you were willing to water down health and safety in the hope that you will be recompensed with that 119 billion euros GDP gain, every indication from the past suggests that you are a mug, because the claimed benefits would not flow. 

Actually, that's not entirely true: some companies would indeed save money by being able to dump today's EU environmental, labour, health and safety regulations.  But those savings certainly wouldn't "trickle down" to the public, not even as more (lower-paid) jobs – because, don't forget: one consequence of trade agreements is that companies tend to move their production to the country with the lowest costs.  One way of reducing costs is to reduce wages, and so TAFTA/TTIP may well actually see working people in the EU worse off than the current situation.  And if you think that's just my ill-informed opinion, you might like to read what the Economic Policy Institute has to say on TAFTA/TTIP:

A much more likely outcome [than the European Commission's rosy projections], based on North American experience under NAFTA, is that production workers in all the member countries will suffer falling wages and job losses (Scott et al. 2006), while U.S. and EU investors will profit handsomely, reinforcing the rapidly rising share of profits in corporate and national income that has taken place over the last decade in the United States (Mishel 2013).

Given these incontrovertible facts about past trade agreements, and the fundamental contradiction in the European Commission's stated aim of achieving large GDP gains by abolishing non-tariff barriers while preserving the precautionary principle and maintaining the European Union's uniquely high health and safety standards, you can see why its communication department has a big job on its hands.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

The World Wins South Korea for Firefox

I've written before about the curious case of South Korea, where the use of Internet Explorer and ActiveX is almost mandatory. I rather despaired of anything changing this situation, since there didn't seem to be any way to get around it from outside. And yet, remarkably, change is coming:

Korea's multifaceted e-government services will be made available for those logging on from FireFox or Safari, web browsers that are gaining more popularity worldwide as an alternative to Internet Explorer.

According to the government Sunday, users of these "non-traditional" browsers will be able to file for year-end tax returns, sign up for a new passport or look for job openings and do much more at various service Web sites operated by the state.

The Ministry of Public Administration and Security, which is in charge of directing e-government initiatives, said that it will invest 11.5 billion won this year for technical projects to increase the browser compatibility of 49 e-government service Web sites.

Starting 2011, all of the 150 e-government Web sites are expected to be accessible from any browser.

That's remarkable, as is the reason for the change:

The development is expected to be useful for overseas Koreans or foreigners logging on to Web sites such as www.hikorea.go.kr from aboard through alternate browsers. Operated by the Ministry of Justice, the Web site is a comprehensive online repository of information for oversea Koreans, immigrants and foreign nationals.

Some civic groups have consistently raised the need to consider expanding e-government services to users of non-traditional browsers.

While the percentage of Koreans users of alternative browsers is still minimal, more netizens worldwide are increasingly surfing the net on browsers other than the Internet Explorer.

A ministry report showed that 21.7 percent of Web users worldwide are browsing on FireFox, and 8 percent on Safari, a browser developed by Apple. IE users make up 67.4 percent of the total Web population.

"We believe that enabling minor browsers to host our e-government services will help overseas Koreans to access the assistance they need and increase Korea's status as a leader in e-government initiatives," a ministry official said.

This shows that what's happening outside a country can still have considerable influence on the internal market - provided there is a big enough expatriate community that still "calls home". Given the increasingly globalised nature of computing, that offers hope for other parts of the world that may be lagging in their uptake of open source.

And if you're wondering why it matters anyway that the South Koreans should be able to use Firefox and other "non-standard" browsers - don't you just love that description? - it's because the country's users have some of the fastest broadband connections in the world; that means that new applications based on such connectivity may well emerge there first, so it's important that open source be available and viable for all kinds of uses. (Via Asa Dotzler.)

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

Korea Cottons on to the Microsoft Monoculture

I've written several times about the extraordinary situation in South Korea - otherwise one of the most advanced technological nations - that maintains an almost total dependence on Microsoft's ActiveX technology for banking and government connections. Now it seems that the Koreans themselves are finally waking up to the disadvantages - and dangers - of that situation:

The bizarre coexistence of advanced hardware and an outdated user environment is a result of the country's overreliance on the technology of Microsoft, the U.S. software giant that owns the Korean computing experience like a fat kid does a cookie jar.

It is estimated that around 99 percent of Korean computers run on Microsoft's Windows operating system, and a similar rate of Internet users rely on the company's Internet Explorer (IE) Web browser to connect to cyberspace.

The article points out the obvious security issues with this approach:

This is a risky arrangement, since Active-X controls require full access to the Windows operating system and are often abused by cyber criminals who spread malicious programs to direct the browser to download files that compromise the user's control of the computer.

But it seems that the problem goes *much* deeper:

Even Microsoft seems ready to bail on Active-X, looking to phase out the program over security concerns and compatibility issues. However, in Korea, where most Web sites rely on Active-X to enable a variety of functions from online transactions to simple flash features, the program is abundant and critical as air.

This leads to awkwardness whenever Microsoft introduces a new product here. The release of Windows Vista caused massive disruption when Active-X used by banks and online shopping sites didn't function properly.

And the Korean Internet users sweated over Microsoft's initial plans to reduce its support for Active-X in IE8, the latest version of the company's Web browser. Although IE8 did end up backing Active-X, strengthened security features have made its use more complicated.

The reliance on Active-X has locked Korean computer users into a depressing cycle where they are prevented from venturing off to other operating systems and browsers, and stuck with an outdated technologies their creator can't wait to dispel.

That is, by instituting a monoculture, and becoming completely dependent not just on one manufacturer, but on one particular - and very unsatisfactory - technology used by that manufacturer, the Koreans find themselves trapped, left behind even by Microsoft, which wants to move on.

There could be no better demonstration of why mandating one proprietary technology in this way, rather than choosing an open standard with multiple implementations with the scope for future development, is folly.

Unfortunately, the article quoted above doesn't seem very optimistic on the chances of openness breaking out in South Korea any time soon, so it may well be that all its superb Internet infrastructure will go to waste as it remains locked into aging and increasingly obsolete technology on the software side. (Via Mozilla in Asia.)

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter and identi.ca.

TTIP Update X

Last week I wrote about an attack on Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) by the European Commission over a leak concerning TAFTA/TTIP, which the former had obtained and published.  As my lengthy analysis indicated, what was most remarkable about that response is that it failed to answer the points made by CEO.  That naturally begs the question: so why did the European Commssion bother?

I think the answer is clear.  It was rattled that CEO had revealed its emerging plans to use a new supranational regulatory body to gradually replace the European precautionary system with one that is optimised for profits.  That meant it needed to try to "prove" it wasn't really happening – something it signally failed to do.  More generally, its extremely rapid response shows that the European Commission fears that it is losing control of the TAFTA/TTIP narrative, which is supposed to be all about growth, jobs, profits and happiness sempiternal.

That view is bolstered by the fact that no less a personnage than Karel De Gucht, the European Commissioner for trade, and the person with overall responsibility for the TTIP negotiations, entered into battle himself to rebut an article by George Monbiot in the Guardian.  Monbiot's piece was entitled "The lies behind this transatlantic trade deal", and it rightly concentrates on the threat posed to national and European sovereignty by investor-state dispute resolution (ISDS), and on the extraordinary and unnecessary secrecy:

Panic spreads through the European commission like ferrets in a rabbit warren. Its plans to create a single market incorporating Europe and the United States, progressing so nicely when hardly anyone knew, have been blown wide open. All over Europe people are asking why this is happening; why we were not consulted; for whom it is being done.

De Gucht did not like this:

George Monbiot, in his article on the negotiations for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, claims the European commission has tried to "keep this process quiet" (Chickens in chlorine? It's what free trade's about, 3 December). This is laughable. Every step of these negotiations has been publicly announced and widely reported in the press. The commission has regularly consulted a broad range of civil society organisations in writing and in person, and our most recent meeting had 350 participants from trade unions, NGOs and business.

Well, I suppose you have to admire the bare-faced cheek of denying reality.  As far as I can tell – and I do follow this area pretty closely - there have been no "regular" consultations with civil society organisations; in fact there have been vanishingly small meetings with them on any basis.  As CEO found out (but only by demanding the information under a FOI request), of 130 "meetings with stakeholders" that took place earlier this year, 119 of them were with large corporates and their lobbyists.

And note the clever phrasing: "Every step of these negotiations has been publicly announced and widely reported in the press."  That's true – the *steps* have been announced, but we have been told nothing about what was discussed.  That's like claiming that people have been able to read books even if all they were told were the titles.

Interestingly, the evidence that ISDS is a real danger to democracy is now so strong, that even De Gucht is forced to admit it:

We do understand some of the concerns Monbiot and others have about investor-state dispute settlement. We are well aware of the cases he cites, including the "nuclear company contesting Germany's decision to switch off atomic power" and the fact that "the tobacco company Philip Morris is currently suing Australia [which introduced plain packaging for cigarettes] through the same mechanism in another treaty". That is why we want the EU-US trade deal to fully enshrine democratic prerogatives.

That's a pretty big admission, and shows the power of facts to combat empty rhetoric.  Alas, the "solution" offered is the usual one:

EU investment agreements will explicitly state that legitimate government public policy decisions – on issues such as the balance between public and private provision of healthcare or "the European ban on chicken carcasses washed with chlorine" – cannot be over-ridden. We will crack down on companies using legal technicalities to build frivolous cases against governments. We will open up investment tribunals to public scrutiny – documents will be public and interested parties, including NGOs, will be able to make submissions. Finally, we will eliminate any conflicts of interest – the arbitrators who decide on EU cases must be above suspicion.

Notice the verb here: "will" – designed to convey absolute certainty.  Except that TAFTA/TTIP is a two-sided agreement, and the EU is in no position to demand anything.  I don't doubt that it will indeed ask for all the things listed above in an attempt to address the criticisms of ISDS (not that it will, but at least it is trying); however, I also don't doubt that the US negotiators will simply refuse, since overcoming "the European ban on chicken carcasses washed with chlorine" is one of their stated aims in TAFTA/TTIP.  That's precisely why they want ISDS in the agreement, and precisely why the European Commission would be insane to agree to its presence.

Despite admitting that ISDS is inherently problematic, De Gucht goes on to say:

But we do not take Monbiot's extreme view that investment protection agreements (IPAs) are "toxic" attempts to put monster corporations in charge of our destinies. His exaggerated fears are no reason to abandon a deal with the US that could create £100bn in new growth for Europe. (Contrary to Monbiot's claims, the economic impact of free trade agreements has been positive. For example, Europe's agreement with South Korea has seen our exports rise by 24% in its first two years.)

Readers of this blog will recall my earlier analysis of that £100bn, which is the 119 billion euros that appears in the research carried out for the European Commission.  In any case, it represents the best-case  outcome of TAFTA/TTIP, and this will only be achieved through massive deregulation, with a concomitant lowering of health, food and environmental standards, despite what the Commission claims.  So even if TAFTA/TTIP "could" create £100bn in new growth for Europe, that would only be in 2027, and at huge social cost – something that De Gucht naturally omits to mention.

He also fails to note another salient fact when he writes that Europe's free trade agreement with South Korea saw a 24% rise in exports in its first two years.  According to the European Commission's own Web pages on the agreement:

European companies are the largest investors in South Korea.

That's relevant to TAFTA/TTIP, because the key argument for including ISDS in the transatlantic deal is that such investor protection is vital if companies are going to invest in Europe and thus create jobs.  The interesting thing is that the trade agreement between Europeand South Korea does not have an ISDS chapter, and yet Europeans are happy to invest massively in the latter country.  Why on earth would they risk doing that? Simple: because they trust the legal and political systems to act fairly in the case of any disputes over investments.

It is the height of ridiculousness to assert that ISDS is needed in TAFTA/TTIP in order to provide the same guarantees: the legal and political systems in both the EU and US are certainly as well developed as those in South Korea, and so ISDS is completely unnecessary.  As George Monbiot in his Guardian article quotes me as saying on the subject: "The benefits are slight and illusory, while the risks are very real."  Accepting large risks for small benefits shows appalling business judgement: if De Gucht can't see that, and won't drop ISDS in order to protect Europe from those dangers, perhaps he should hand the job on to someone who does and will.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

GNU/Linux: The Great Unifier

Well, maybe:

South Korea is one of Linux's biggest converts. Since discovering the free operating system in 2003, officials have unveiled plans to switch all government-run offices to Linux. Now under the terms of the agreement signed between the two states, South Korea will set up Linux training centres in North Korea.

Because:

Under the banner of "Hana Linux" - literally "One" Linux - the two countries have agreed to work on a groundbreaking IT development project that might shatter the final Cold War boundary.

Update: But Gen Kanai points out that there are problems with this rosy picture.

South Korea Considers Dumping Draconian Copyright Law Forced On It By The US

As Mike noted a couple of days ago, international trade agreements often have the effect of constraining the power of national legislatures. Indeed, that's doubtless one of the reasons why they have become so popular in recent years: they allow backroom deals between politicians and lobbyists to set the agenda for law-making around the world, without the need for any of that pesky democratic oversight nonsense. In particular, the trade agreement between South Korea and the US is turning out to be a key limiting factor for both TPP and what US politicians might try to do about phone unlocking. This makes two recent moves to loosen South Korea's harsh copyright laws potentially important far beyond that country's borders. 

On Techdirt.

Open Source Software City: Foundations Laid

I've not mentioned Korea's open source software city before because details seemed rather scarce, and there are, after all, plenty of other cities using open source. Now, thanks to ZDNet Korea, we have something more, er, concrete:

Gwangju was designated as OSS City by Korea IT Industry Promotion Agency (KIPA) to bring up its economy and competitiveness through IT industry using open source to construct improved infrastructures in city's key industries like opto-electronics, automobile, mobile, and semiconductor.

The project with total cost of $45.7 million in three phases will run from 2006 to 2010. The first phase began in 2006 has completed Information Strategy Planning, surveying applicable open-source areas for the city to install open-source software as a main operating system of their infrastructures. Basing from the findings the open-source solutions were applied to Gwangju Information & Culture Industry Promotion Agency and Jeonnam girl's commercial high school giving channel to produce specialists through education sector.

(Via LXer.)

Google Chrome to Support ActiveX

I've written before about the parlous state of online computing in South Korea, where practically everyone uses Microsoft's ActiveX technology. As this post explains:

Despite security short-comings, ActiveX had been welcomed into the community and flourished. Surprisingly, more so in banks where security is a top priority. Believe it or not, ActiveX is so widely used that the South Korean government decides to make it compulsory for all banks to have it.

That's bad enough, but the post goes on:

Other major browsers have resisted supporting ActiveX. Until now. Google Chrome has now decided to support ActiveX, but only in South Korea.

OK, so Google wants to increase its market share, but it might do that more usefully by sponsoring a few studies into the poor security that using ActiveX implies. Following sheep-like is not the solution.

North Korean Study Confirms It: People Will Share, Whatever The Risks

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about how the ever-increasing storage capacity of portable hard drives made it unlikely that the sharing of music could ever be stopped. That was a somewhat theoretical piece based on general trends in technology; but here's some supporting data from a rather unusual source: North Korea (aka the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" - DPRK). 

On Techdirt.

Now is Our Summer of Code Made Glorious Winter

After the Summer of Code, now the Winter of Code:

The South Korean government and local tech companies have started an open source student developer contest, similar to Google's Summer of Code.

Dubbed Winter of Code, the competition will begin during Korea's winter recess in January next year. Organized by Korean games publisher NCsoft, local IT firms and the Korea IT Industry Promotion Agency, the contest aims to nurture new developers and promote open source software development in the country.

South Korea Gives Mobile Operators Permission To Ignore Net Neutrality By Surcharging Or Blocking VOIP Services

Net neutrality arguments are often couched in rather theoretical terms, and many people can't really see what all the fuss is about. A recent decision in South Korea gives a handy example of what the loss of net neutrality means in practice: 

On Techdirt.

South Korea Still Paying The Price For Embracing Internet Explorer A Decade Ago

The problems of monopolies arising through network effects, and the negative effects of the lock-in that results, are familiar enough. But it's rare to come across an entire nation suffering the consequences of both quite so clearly as South Korea, which finds itself in this situation thanks to a really unfortunate decision made by its government some years back: 

On Techdirt.

South Korea: Super Fast, and Finally Free

Imagine a country that has one of the best Internet infrastructures in the world, and yet its government effectively forbids the use of GNU/Linux through a requirement that everyone employ a decade-old Windows-only technology for many key online transactions. That country is South Korea, where 1 Gbits/second Internet connections are planned for 2012; and that Windows-only technology is ActiveX.

On The H Open.

South Korea Joins the "Three Strikes" Club

For years, the content industries having been trying to get laws passed that would stop people sharing files. For years they failed. And then they came up with the "three strikes and you're out" idea - and it is starting to be adopted around the world. First we had France, then countries like Italy, Ireland - and now South Korea:

On March 3, 2009, the National Assembly's Committee on Culture, Sports, Tourism, Broadcasting & Communications (CCSTB&C) passed a bill to revise the Copyright Law. The bill includes the so called, "three strikes out" or "graduated response" provision.

...

The provision gives authority to order ISP to send warning letters to the users, delete or stop transmission of illegal reproductions, suspend or terminate the accounts of the users, or close the bulletine boards to the Ministry. It also gives power to order information and telecommunication service providers to block connections to their information and telecommunication network of such ISPs.

...

The modified bill will be up for vote in April, and it is most likely that the bill pass in the National Assembly and come into force in April.

What's the secret? why has the "three strikes" idea caught on where others have failed? And what is the best way to stop it spreading further?

Follow me on Twitter @glynmoody

ACTA's All-out Assault on the Internet

Michael Geist has some deeply disturbing details about what may well be in the Internet section of ACTA:

1. Baseline obligations inspired by Article 41 of the TRIPs which focuses on the enforcement of intellectual property.

2. A requirement to establish third-party liability for copyright infringement.

3. Restrictions on limitations to 3rd party liability (ie. limited safe harbour rules for ISPs). For example, in order for ISPs to qualify for a safe harbour, they would be required establish policies to deter unauthorized storage and transmission of IP infringing content. Provisions are modeled under the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, namely Article 18.10.30. They include policies to terminate subscribers in appropriate circumstances. Notice-and-takedown, which is not currently the law in Canada nor a requirement under WIPO, would also be an ACTA requirement.

4. Anti-circumvention legislation that establishes a WIPO+ model by adopting both the WIPO Internet Treaties and the language currently found in U.S. free trade agreements that go beyond the WIPO treaty requirements. For example, the U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement specifies the permitted exceptions to anti-circumvention rules. These follow the DMCA model (reverse engineering, computer testing, privacy, etc.) and do not include a fair use/fair dealing exception. Moreover, the free trade agreement clauses also include a requirement to ban the distribution of circumvention devices. The current draft does not include any obligation to ensure interoperability of DRM.

5. Rights Management provisions, also modeled on U.S. free trade treaty language.

This is nothing less than the copyright cartel's last stand against the Internet - a desperate attempt to lock down everything. As Geist observes:

it provides firm confirmation that the treaty is not a counterfeiting trade, but a copyright treaty. These provisions involve copyright policy as no reasonable definition of counterfeiting would include these kinds of provisions.

That is, the Powers-that-Be *lied* to us, as usual. We must fight this, or we will be paying the consequences for years to come.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

TTIP Update IV

One of the key issues during the ACTA negotiations was transparency – or rather the lack of it.  Despite a few token gestures from the European Commission initially, TAFTA/TTIP looks like it will be just as bad. Here's a rather nice trick the negotiators have just played:

Surprise!  The second round of negotiations for the massive Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) won’t be happening in Washington, DC in December as planned.  It will be happening in six days.  In Belgium.

…

USTR’s email yesterday invited “stakeholders” to a “briefing session” next Friday where “non-governmental organizations, consumer groups, trade unions, professional organizations, business and other civil society organizations will have the opportunity to exchange views with U.S. and EU chief negotiators.” It just happens to be taking place on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

This may well be the most expensive “stakeholder engagement” opportunity presented by the Obama administration for one of its sweeping “trade” deals. At current prices, the cheapest last-minute flight to “exchange views” with TAFTA negotiators in Brussels would set you back $1977. That may not be a problem for the approximately 600 corporate trade “advisors” who are already deeply involved in helping USTR craft TAFTA negotiating positions. For the rest of us, it’s a bit like getting an email invitation to your friend’s destination wedding in Cancun a week before the ceremony (psst...I don’t really want you to come).

That act of petty spitefulness is indicative of a deep and crucial asymmetry in the TAFTA/TTIP negotiations.  Whereas some of the world's largest companies are given privileged information about what is happening – not least *where* things are happening – the public, which is poorly represented anyway, finds itself cut out from that insider knowledge, and therefore lacks the ability to follow the negotiations properly, let alone give any input to them.

That's obviously disgraceful for something that is supposedly being negotiated in their name – and which is certainly being negotiated using their taxes, which pay the European Commission negotiators their not inconsiderable salaries, and the cost of their plane tickets as they jet to and fro across the Atlantic – first class, no doubt.

But there is an even deeper, more troubling asymmetry at the heart of these talks that concerns the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) element I've written about in my last two TTIP Updates.  That's probably the most problematic and worrying area of the whole agreement, because the core idea of ISDS is that any laws or court decisions that cause even the "expectation" of future profits of companies to be diminished in some way can potentially be litigated before a secret, supranational tribunal able to impose unlimited fines on entire nations.

The subtle implication of this is that legislative changes must tend to increase corporate profits.  So, for example, improved health and safety laws would be stymied by this, as would enhanced environmental protection where it causes a company's profits to be reduced (as is likely, since better protection usually means more costs for the polluters.)

In other words, ISDS introduces exactly the same kind of upward ratchet that copyright laws have produced for the last three hundred years.  Just as copyright laws only ever make copyright longer, broader and deeper – to the benefit of companies and disbenefit of the public -  so ISDS will put huge pressure on the EU and member states only to pass legislation that improves the outlook for corporate profitability.  The fact that these kind of moves may well cause huge social damage – greater health or environmental problems – is completely overlooked, because the framing does not allow the social costs to be taken into account, only private profits.

That makes this proposal in South Korea particularly interesting:

Evaluation of trade agreements have been made in economic terms. But the impact of trade agreements is not limited to economic life. They have human rights dimensions in many aspects. For instance, trade agreements containing the TRIPS-plus provisions may affect the right to access to essential medicine, the right to food and more broadly the right to science and culture, which is protected by the Article 27(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So the UN human rights bodies have tried to develop and propose human rights impact assessments (HRIA) of trade agreements (See The Future of Human RightsImpact Assessments of Trade Agreements).

The recent move of the National Assembly of South Korea to mandate the HRIA was influenced by the efforts of the UN human rights bodies. The lawmaker, Mr. Buh, proposed a bill to amend the Law on the Treaty-Making Process and Implementation of Trade Agreements (Trade Process Act), which includes an amendment making compulsory the HRIA on every trade pacts that are likely to be agreed upon with trade partners.

This is an important move, because it begins the long journey of re-balancing trade agreements around the world so that they take in account human rights and therefore, by implication, the public interest as well as corporate profit.  Although it's not clear whether the Korean initiative will succeed, it does at least raise the issue in a political context.  We now need to start similar conversations here in the EU and in the US regarding TAFTA/TTIP if that agreement is to have any claim to fairness and legitimacy.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Huawei's Global Head Of Cyber Security Wants The Government 'To Have As Much Data As Possible'

In Der Spiegel's recent revelations about the far-reaching nature of the NSA's spykit, it mentions several US companies, Samsung from South Korea, and one from China -- Huawei. Like the others, Huawei denied any knowledge of the modifications to its products that Der Spiegel claims are used by the NSA to break into systems. This isn't the first time that the finger has been pointed at Huawei. Some years back, Huawei was accused of facilitating spying for the Chinese government, but after an 18-month investigation, no evidence was found of this. That fact allowed John Suffolk, Global Head of Cyber Security for Huawei and the former UK Government CIO, to enjoy the irony of Snowden's leaks about backdoors in US products: 

On Techdirt.

Early-Morning Raid Sent To Confiscate 9-Year-Old's Winnie The Pooh Laptop For Downloading Music

One of the biggest problems with the current approach to dealing with alleged copyright infringement is the totally disproportionate nature of the action undertaken in response to it. The "three strikes" collective punishment of households that is available in France, New Zealand and South Korea is one example of this. From Finland, we learn about another completely over-the-top action: 

On Techdirt.