Stop the UK Badger Cull: Letter to My MP

I had been vaguely aware that the proposed cull of badgers in the UK was controversial, but had not fully realised that the evidence against it was so overwhelming.  That was confirmed by this letter in the Observer today, with some of the top scientists in the country coming out against it, and this short video, which usefully explains the issues and why the cull will make things worse.

As a result, I have been moved to send a missive to my MP, using the wonderful WriteToThem service.  Here's what I've written:

I am writing to you to express my deep concern over government plans to cull badgers.

As a Londoner, this is not a topic I normally concern myself with. I naturally have no objection to farmers seeking to minimise losses to their herds from serious diseases such as TB. However, as the letter in today's Observer (at http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2012/oct/14/letters-observer) from 30 leading professors with expertise in this area points out, a badger cull is likely to make the situation worse, not better.

The reasons why are well explained in this video (http://justdosomething.org.uk/badgersmatter), which includes a contribution from Sir David Attenborough among others: shooting badgers will lead to a dispersion of them from their current locations. If any of them are infected with TB, they will carry that with them to new areas. A far better solution would seem to be the use of vaccination of badgers against TB, something that is apparently already efficacious, but which could benefit from funding to refine.

Given the overwhelming – indeed, near-unanimous – view that the badger cull will not only fail to achieve its goals, but will actually exacerbate the situation, I am disturbed that the Government is nonetheless planning to proceed with it. It is crucially important that policy be evidence-based, not the result of pandering to groups that have apparently taken an unscientific view for reasons best known to themselves. I would be grateful if you could convey my concerns to the relevant minister, along with a request that the cull be suspended and more efficient and humane methods deployed instead.

Thank you for your help.

 

Follow me @glynmoody on "http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

The Googlisation of Surveillance

As promised, here is my submission to the Joint Parliamentary Committee considering the UK government's Draft Communications Bill:

On Open Enterprise blog.

Comment on the UK Government's Snooping Bill

The Draft Communications Bill [.pdf] is one of the most controversial pieces of UK legislation proposed in recent years - not least because it represents a betrayal of election promises by the coalition to roll back state surveillance in the UK. As usual, the government is attempting to claim that current plans are "different" because the databases are distributed, not centralised; but the fact that searches will be possible across all the decentralised holdings means that there is no practical difference. This is quite simply another example of politicians promising one thing to get elected, and then doing its opposite.

On Open Enterprise blog.

Digital Society vs. Digital Economy Act

Here's an interesting move:

Britons will be forced to apply online for government services such as student loans, driving licences, passports and benefits under cost-cutting plans to be unveiled this week.

Officials say getting rid of all paper applications could save billions of pounds. They insist that vulnerable groups will be able to fill in forms digitally at their local post offices.

The plans are likely to infuriate millions of people. Around 27% of households still have no internet connection at home and six million people aged over 65 have never used the web.

Lord Oakeshott, a Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, said: "We must cut costs and boost post offices as much as we possibly can, but many millions of people – not just pensioners – are not online and never will be. They must never be made to feel the state treats them as second-class citizens."

As an out-and-out technophile, I have a lot of sympathy with this move. After all, it's really akin to moving everyone to electricity. But it does mean that strenuous efforts must be made to ensure that everyone really has ready access to the Internet.

And that, of course, is a bit of a problem when the ultimate sanction of the Digital Economy Act is to block people's access (even if the government tries to deny that it will "disconnect" people - it amounts to the same thing, whatever the words.) If, as this suggests and I think is right, the Internet becomes an absolutely indispensable means of exercising key rights (like being able to communicate with the government) then it inevitably makes taking those rights away even more problematic.

So I predict that the more the present coaltion pushes in this direction, the more difficulties it will have down the line with courts unimpressed with people being disadvantaged so seriously for allegedly infringing on a government-granted monopoly: this makes a response that was never proportionate to begin with even more disproportionate.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

Welcome to the Civic Commons

One of the core reasons why sharing works is that it spreads the effort, and avoids the constant re-invention of the wheel. One area that seems made for this kind of sharing is government IT: after all, the problems faced are essentially the same, so a piece of software built for one entity might well be usable - or adaptable - for another.

That's the key idea behind the new Civic Commons:

Government entities at all levels face substantial and similiar IT challenges, but today, each must take them on independently. Why can’t they share their technology, eliminating redundancy, fostering innovation, and cutting costs? We think they can. Civic Commons helps government agencies work together.

Why not indeed?

Moreover, by bringing together all the pieces, it may be possible to create something approaching a "complete" solution for government bodies - a "civic stack":

The "civic stack" is a shared body of software and protocols for civic entities, built on open standards. A primary goal of Civic Commons is to make it easy for jurisdictions at all levels to deploy compatible software. Pooling resources into a shared civic stack reduces costs and avoids duplicated effort; equally importantly, it helps make civic IT expertise more cumulative and portable across jurisdictions, for civil servants, for citizens, and for vendors.

Civic Commons is currently identifying and pulling together key elements of the civic stack. If you work in civic IT and would like to suggest a technology or category for the civic stack, please let us know. As we survey what's being used in production, we will adjust this list to emphasize proven technologies that have been deployed in multiple jurisdictions.

It's still early days for all this stuff, but the idea seems so right it must succeed...surely?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

The Bottom-Up View of Free Software

The charmingly-named "Bottom-Up" is one of those blogs that I may not always agree with, but which I know will be intelligently written and well-worth reading. And sometimes I find myself not only in perfect synchrony with its author, Timothy Lee, but wishing I'd put something so well as he has.

Here's a case in point, a post discussing the view that "the government has an obligation to make its decision based on the characteristics of the software, without discriminating based on licensing or business models." This is the "level-playing field" argument that I discussed recently, and pointed out that there were historical reasons to do with vendor lock-in why such "playing fields" actually favoured incumbents.

But Lee comes up with a brilliant analogy:

Suppose federal agencies had a long-standing practice of obtaining their care fleets by renting them from companies like Enterprise and Hertz (or, more likely, government contractors that charged ten times as much as Enterprise and Hertz would). Now suppose the GSA did a study and found that the government would save hundreds of millions of dollars by purchasing automobiles rather than renting them. Suppose further that many agencies were finding that the limitations of their rental contracts (mileage limits, reporting requirements, slow repair service, whatever) were making it harder for them to do their jobs. So the GSA issues new guidelines saying that government agencies should henceforth prefer buying to renting.

Now, there are all sorts of good arguments on both sides of the renting-vs-owning decision. But one argument that doesn’t make sense is to say that government would be “distorting the market” if it decided to buy cars rather than leasing them. A purchased car is a different kind of product than a leased car. If car ownership serves the government’s needs better than car rental, the government is entitled to purchase cars without worrying about how this affects companies in the business of renting cars.

The same point applies to software. The difference between Windows Server 2008 and Red Hat Enterprise Linux isn’t just that one was produced by humorless suits in Redmond and the other was produced by dirty hippies in Raleigh. It’s not even that one costs a lot of money and the other one is free. (Support costs will often dwarf licensing fees anyway).

The key difference is that proprietary software comes with a lot of restrictions about how it may be used—restrictions that don’t apply to free software.

...

The freeness of free software is not an esoteric detail about how software was produced, nor is it primarily a matter of ideology. Rather, free software provides direct and tangible benefits to their users. If property rights is a bundle of sticks, free software vendors give you all the sticks up front, whereas proprietary vendors give you only some of the sticks so they can charge you later for the others. And some of the missing sticks are things that actually matter to government agencies. So it strikes me as a no-brainer that the government would—all else being equal—prefer the type of software that comes with fewer strings attached.

It’s absurd to say that the government has an obligation to be indifferent between firms that attach strings to their products and firms that don’t do so. Obviously, there are circumstances where a firm makes such a great product that it’s worth putting up with the associated strings. But it should be equally obvious that software freedom is a factor to weigh in software purchase decisions. And I don’t anything wrong with reminding government IT workers to keep this factor in mind when they make software purchasing decisions..

The key point here is that different kinds of licensing bring with them very different kinds of benefits, and deciding to favour one over the other is a valid decision. What wouldn't be fair would be favouring a particular type of supplier over another where the benefits they offered were broadly the same: that would simply be a distortion of the software market. But here we effectively have two quite different solutions - different markets - like those of car purchase and car rental. It's a great way of looking at things, and one that I wish I had thought of....

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

Crowdsourcing + Open Source: the Perfect Combination for Startups?

Crowdsourcing represents an interesting attempt to generalise the open source methodology to non-technical areas. The basic idea is to tap into the the vast store of knowledge and wisdom among the general population by providing a mechanism to funnel the best ideas to those who can build on them. Recently there have been some interesting examples in very different domains that suggest crowdsourcing is beginning to enter the mainstream.

On Open Enterprise blog.

Russia Rolls Out Open Source for Government

Russia is rapidly turning into open source's best-kept secret. A little while back I wrote about plans to roll out free software to all schools; more recently, there has been talk about creating a Russian operating system based on Fedora. And now there's this:

На сайте Минкомсвязи РФ опубликованы проекты документов, посвященных переходу органов государственной власти на свободное программное обеспечение. В документе «Методические рекомендации по разработке и приобретению программного обеспечения для использования в органах государственной власти и бюджетных учреждениях» имеется рекомендация органам госвласти и бюджетным учреждениям отдавать предпочтение свободному ПО при выборе программных средств, за исключением случаев, когда СПО не обладает необходимой функциональностью.

...

Также опубликован проект плана перехода органов государственной власти и бюджетных учреждений на использование свободного программного обеспечения. Проект включает ряд действий, необходимых для поэтапного внедрения СПО в российские госструктуры, включающий обучение государственных служащих, проведение пилотных проектов по внедрению СПО, поддержку разработки свободного ПО в России.

[Via Google Translate: The site Minkomsvyazi Russian Federation published a draft document on the transition state authorities to free software. The document «Guidelines for the development and acquisition of software for use in public authorities and budget organizations» has recommended authorities gosvlasti and budgetary institutions to give preference to free software in the selection of software, except when the ACT does not have the necessary functionality.

...

It also published a draft plan of government bodies and agencies to use the budget of free software. The project includes a number of actions required for the phased introduction of ACT in the Russian government, including the training of public servants, a pilot project on introduction of ACT, support the development of free software in Russia.]

Aside from the scale of these plans, which foresee all Russian government departments using free software, and civil servants being trained in its use (a shrewd move), what's particularly interesting is the formulation that open source will be the default except where it does not have the necessary functionality. This approach has been adopted elsewhere, and is reasonable enough, although it's important not to allow lock-in to proprietary formats to lock out open source solutions based on open standards.

Whatever happens in detail, Russia's announcement is not only important in itself, but also provides a useful addition to the roster of governments making the switch to free software. As the latter grows, so will the pressure on other countries to follow suit.

He Wants a Million Quid? Don't Give it to Him

Tom Steinberg has a simple request: he wants a million quid.

If you want to know how I think mySociety could change the world, this is your answer. I don’t want a million quid because I want some sort of open source empire: I want a million quid because we can’t cross this chasm with any less.

I don't think we should give him a million quid; I think we should give him a *ten* million - OK, make it a hundred million - plus the job of overseeing the opening up government in this country to such an extent that its buttons start popping.

Oh, and as another precondition for the dosh, could he kindly respond to my Twitter request to follow him (not that I'm bitter).

After all, it's not a question of how much that would cost, but how much it is costing us - economically, politically and socially - by *not* doing it.

Meet the New Governor: Open Source

Everyone knows that government is dull - dull, but very, very important. So a couple of recent moves in this dull but important world seem pretty significant to me.

First, there's this:

European public administrations that want to use software that is offered for free, such as Open Source software, do not need to organise a call for tender.

This is the conclusion of the Dutch government project NOIV, after studying European rules on tenders. The NOIV published an English translation of its guide for ICT buyers in the public and semi-public sectors, 'The acquisition of (open-source) software', on its website this week.

What that might mean is that it will be much easier to take the open source route than the proprietary one, since government departments (in Holland, at least) will be able to avoid all the hassle of putting out tenders and then sifting through them, and so more departments will take opt for it.

Then there's this:

The French-speaking Brussels Parliament (PFB) is considering to increase its use of Open Source, said Joël Tournemenne, director of the parliament's IT department, without giving more details.

Tournemenne visited the Solutions Linux conference in Paris at the end of January, where he spoke with the developers of Tabellio, an Open Source projects funded by the PFB.

Tabellio should result in an Open Source suite of applications for drafting, managing and publishing legislative documents and is meant for parliaments and assemblies. The project is a joined effort of two Belgian regional parliaments: the PFB and the Parliament of the French Community in Belgium.

What interests me here is not so much the details, but the fact that something like the open source Tabellio even exists: free software for "drafting, managing and publishing legislative documents" that "is meant for parliaments and assemblies"? You can hardly get closer to the heart of government - and hence power - than that.

That's the Way to Do It

Government won't make public data freely available? Simple: just stick it up online.

When the Tardis Connects to the Dilithium Crystals

Chris Long tells it as it is:

my concern about all this is the ignorance of the technical thinking behind these ideas; ideas that have apparently been formulated by people who've learnt their technology from watching, James Bond, Star Trek, Dr Who and Blakes 7.

I can just imagine the conversation: "Q says we have to connect the Tardis engine to some dilithium crystals and throw some tachyon particles at it... What do you think Orac?"

Can you say ID card?

50 Bits and Bobs about Open Source

Well, that's what I'd call it: the blog prefers "50 Open Source success stories in Business, Education, and Government". It's a bit of a ragbag, but an interesting one in places, and useful for giving to people who seem to think that Apache is open source's only success. (Via Digg.)