Heather Brooke: Breaking the MPs' Silence

If any one person deserves credit for bringing openness to MPs' expenses, it is Heather Brooke, who almost single-handedly has fought for their publication. As she points out in her latest post, the MPs haven't given up, or even conceded the principle that we, the electorate, have a right to see what they spend our money on:

Some have asked why I haven’t updated my site to take into account the publication Friday in the Daily Telegraph of MPs’ expenses. Frankly, I’ve just been too busy. I was speaking at a conference for members of the Information Tribunal Friday morning and then doing all the television news rounds that afternoon and evening.

One highlight - debating Stuart Bell of the Members Estimates Committee on Channel 4 news (scroll down to watch). In the Green Room before the show, Bell told me Labour’s latest reactionary plan to hive off the auditing of expenses to a private company ‘like Capita or CapGemini’. These companies apparently picked at random by him. I assumed these were just his initial brainstorming thoughts. But no, apparently this was the government’s latest ruse to stop us, the people, getting a look directly at MPs receipts.

More interesting, perhaps, is the following:

I have a plan which I hope to announce in the coming days. I’m going to set up some mechanism to register the public’s demand for change in Parliament. We need a new system for MPs expenses. One that is simply, transparent and gives the final scrutiny to those people in the best position to provide it - the constituents.

Much more to say, but the demands of work are pressing upon me and unlike MPs I have no taxpayer-funded staff to help me.

Ask, and I'll do my bit - both directly, and in terms of getting the message out to others.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

Open Mapping Considered Harmful

If you want further proof that openness is inherently subversive, try this:

China's Bureau of Surveying and Mapping (BSM) has warned foreigners to turn off the GPS functions on their mobile phones, or risk arrest.

The bureau warned foreigners using GPS devices on mainland China that they could be detained if suspected of conducting illegal mapping.

The bureau has launched a crackdown on “illegal surveying”, the South China Morning Post reported, with foreigners the main targets.

Hmm, nobody seems to have told the OpenStreetMap people, who are merrily mapping China.... (Via James Fallows.)

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

Patent Differences: Canonical vs. Microsoft

I make no apologies for returning to the subject of the European Patent Office's referral of a “point of law” concerning software patents. Dull as many might find the intricate theoretical arguments, the outcome will have very real consequences. If software patents become easier to obtain, it will have a hugely negative effect on free software, which will find itself subject to more attacks on the legal front....

On Open Enterprise blog.

Should Software Developers Be Liable for their Code?

Should Microsoft pay for the billions of dollars of damage that flaws in its software have caused around the world? It might have to, if a new European Commission consumer protection proposal becomes law. Although that sounds an appealing prospect, one knock-on consequence could be that open source coders would also be liable for any damage that errors in their software caused....

On Linux Journal.

Media Vacuums Will Be Filled, Blogs Will Win

Great point here from Adam Tinworth, about why traditional publishers are suffering so badly at the hands of the bloggers:

the new breed of publisher - the ones doing it for pure passion, at virtually no cost - will and up wounding us where we're weakest. Because we've neglected parts of our audience, pandered to our own prejudices and missed opportunities.

*That* is why blogs have succeeded, and will continue to succeed until the gentlemen's club formerly known as publishing has an epiphany and sorts itself out.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

Oh Irony, Thy Name is Westminster

This is rich:

House of Commons officials have today called in the police to hunt down the mole who leaked details of MPs expenses.

The parliamentary officials spent the morning in talks with Scotland Yard, and made the decision this afternoon.

In a statement, officials said: "The House authorities have received advice that there are reasonable grounds to believe a criminal offence may have been committed in relation to the way in which information relating to Members' allowances has been handled.

Now, since said leak has shown probably several hundred "reasonable grounds" that fraud has been committed, might it not be a priority to investigate those first? And might it not look a little vindictive simply going after the leaker? And might not all this sorry saga be a rather strong argument for introducing a public interest defence for such leaks?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

Why We Need Openness, Part 5748

One of the central themes of this blog is that the openness that powers the continuing rise and success of open source can be applied to most other areas – in business, and in life generally. No better proof of that could be found than the revelations today about the widespread and thoroughgoing abuse of the expenses system by senior UK politicians...

On Open Enterprise blog.

DNA Database Doublecross

Oh, look, what a surprise: the UK government's plans implement a European human rights ruling that the "blanket" retention of suspects' data is unlawful proves to be a typical quibble about what "removing" the profiles means:

The genetic profiles of hundreds of ­thousands of innocent people are to be kept on the national DNA database for up to 12 years in a decision critics claim is designed to sidestep a European human rights ruling that the "blanket" retention of suspects' data is unlawful.

The proposed new rules for the national DNA database to be put forward tomorrow by the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, include plans to keep the DNA profiles of innocent people who are arrested but not convicted of minor offences for six years.

The proposal would also apply to children from age 10 who are arrested but never successfully prosecuted.

In cases of more serious violent and sexual crime, innocent people's genetic codes will be kept for 12 years.

It was widely expected that the DNA profiles, samples and fingerprints of 850,000 innocent people kept on the database would be destroyed in response to the ruling by the European court of human rights last December.

Yet again this government shows its deep contempt for international courts, and demonstrates its profoundly cynical belief that the innocent simply haven't been proved guilty yet.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

It's Open, Gov, Honest

Interesting to see Microsoft jumping on the openness bandwagon again - specifically, on the open government bandwagon:

The Open Government Data Initiative (OGDI) is a cloud-based collection of software assets that enables publicly available government data to be easily accessible. Using open standards and application programming interfaces (API), developers and government agencies can retrieve the data programmatically for use in new and innovative online applications, or mashups that can help:

* Improve citizen services
* Enhance collaboration between government agencies and private organizations
* Increase government transparency
* And more…

OGDI promotes the use of this data by capturing and publishing re-usable software assets, patterns, and practices. The data repository already holds over 60 different government datasets that are readily available for use in new applications, and is continuously updated with additional government datasets.

...

OGDI data is hosted in Windows Azure. It is accessible through open, standards-based web services from a variety of development environments, including Microsoft .NET, JavaScript, Adobe Flash, PHP, Ruby, Python, and others. Check out the Community for more information.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

Not a Sustainable Position

Somebody clearly doesn't understand open source:

Despite a mission to make the games as financially and environmentally sustainable as possible, the organisers of London 2012 have ruled out any significant use of open source software.

Open source is the *only* sustainable option for software, because it can be re-used - one of the great advantages of free software. So given that open source should be the only option, why aren't the organisers using it?

“My primary driver here is to deliver the Olympics and that means using proven applications software and by and large that application software does not run on open standards – there are some exceptions to that we are running a little bit of Linux but by and large it is Windows orientated,” he said.

What planet is this man living on? "Proven software...does not run on open standards"? What, like Apache, or Sendmail or BIND or JBoss or MySQL? Well, it's clear which Olympics event *he* would come first in: clueless CIO twit of the year.

"Internet Access is a Fundamental Right"

Not my words, but those of a certain Viviane Reding (NB: MS Word document):

The fourth element I would like to underline is the recognition of the right to Internet access. The new rules recognise explicitly that Internet access is a fundamental right such as the freedom of expression and the freedom to access information. The rules therefore provide that any measures taken regarding access to, or use of, services and applications must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, including the right to privacy, freedom of expression and access to information and education as well as due process.

Surprising news that Amendment 138 was put *back* in its original, stronger form, is welcome indeed, although it looks like the technicalities of net neutrality were beyond the MEPs. Still, kudos to the latter for standing up against the "three strikes" legislation: it's a good start, and an excellent sign for the future.

Follow me on Twitter @glynmoody.

EPO: FSFE Does It by the Numbers

Yesterday I was praising Red Hat's submission to the EPO in its pondering of the patentability of software. Today, it's the FSFE's turn. They've produced a fairly short but sweet document, which has a sentiment close to my heart:

4.(a) Does the activity of programming a computer necessarily involve technical considerations?

No. The reverse is almost invariably true. Any software program is the result of programming, which is in essence combining a series of algorithms, and algorithms are matematics.

Got it in one.

Forking Nagios: Behold Icinga

One of the unique features of free software is that it can be forked. Indeed, it is one of the most powerful incentives for projects to hew close to their users. If they stray too far, someone might decide that enough is enough, and fork the project to produce something closer to their needs.

Whether that project thrives is a matter of support: if it meets a genuine need in the community, it will pick up users and coders. If it does not, it will wither.

Against that background, the following news is rather exciting...

On Open Enterprise blog.

Malcolm Harbour Doesn't Get Net Neutrality

It seems that one of the main architects of the disgrace that is the Telecoms Package is the UK MEP Malcolm Harbour. Here's an indication that he doesn't know what he is talking about:

According to rumours in cyberpsace the proposed new rules will impose conditional access to internet, providers will be able to limit the number of site you're visiting and Skype could be blocked. Is Internet freedom really at risk?

That's pure fantasy. The Telecoms package has never been about anything to do with restrictions on the internet. I am astonished to see this remarkable text from Black-out Europe. There is absolutely nothing in this proposal that says anything about that.

The questioner is wrong to frame this in terms of blocking *sites*: it's about blocking *services*, particularly ones based on new protocols piggy-backing on TCP/IP. The Telecoms Package gives telecoms companies the possibility of blocking anything it doesn't like at this level - killing net neutrality - provided they tell people what they are doing.

So Mr Harbour is absolutely incorrect to say "The Telecoms package has never been about anything to do with restrictions on the internet." He obviously doesn't understand what Blackout Europe is saying, as the latter's own post on the topic points out.

ID Cards Get Idiotically Insecure

Remember how those magic ID cards would provide strong forms of identity, thus protecting us against terrorists, people traffickers et al.? Well, those plans have been watered-down, somewhat:

High street chemists, post offices and photo shops are to be used to record the electronic fingerprints and other biometric data needed for the national identity card scheme, the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, is to announce today.

The decision to use high street shops sidesteps the need for the Home Office to set up a network of enrolment centres with mobile units to operate in rural areas.

Well, yes, it will save money, but it will also blast security holes through the entire scheme. Without rigorous oversight, it will be much easier to create fake ID cards - just what all those nasty terrorists, people traffickers and other ne'er-do-wells need. Which goes to show that the government isn't interested in increasing our security, just in gaining even greater control over us - and security go hang.

What Happens if Microsoft Buys Twitter?

Here's a nasty meme that's beginning to swirl around:

Microsoft (MSFT) is about to finally consummate a search deal with Yahoo -- and that's great. But if Redmond really wants to carve into's Google search business over the next 10 years, it needs to offer whatever it takes -- $800 million? $1 billion? more? -- to buy Twitter right now.

Eeek - that could be problematic, and I don't just mean because Twitter is built on open source software. The idea of Microsoft controlling my twittering is too horrible to contemplate, so what could I do?

The obvious answer is move to Identica, which is free software. The only problem with that is that I would probably lose most of the people following me. No huge disaster maybe, but going from 1000 followers to zero is not the most motivating of situations.

Ideally, there would be an easy way for my followers to opt to follow me on Identica - as easy as them clicking on a link in a tweet. Anyone know if that's currently possible, and if not, whether it's even plausible? But even then, there's the question of support for Identica in Twitter clients (to say nothing of the main Twitter site).

So what would *you* do if Microsoft bought Twitter?

Follow me on Twitter @glynmoody.

Letting Go is Hard to Do

A few weeks ago, Leo Babauta published a great post entitled "Feel the Fear and Do It Anyway (or, the Privatization of the English Language)" about yet another idiocy of the intellectual monopolists. Now he has another, winningly-entitled: "The Culture of Sharing: Why Releasing Copyright Will Be the Smartest Thing You Do." Here's the core message:

Last year I Uncopyrighted my blog, Zen Habits, and my ebook, Zen To Done, and it was one of the best things I’ve ever done. People have used my articles in blogs, newsletters, magazines, ebooks, books and more. And yes, they’ve made profits off me without me getting any of that money … but at the same time, I’ve benefitted: my ideas have spread, my name and brand have spread, and my readership has grown and grown. Since I Uncopyrighted the blog, it has grown from about 30K subscribers to 113K.

You can Uncopyright your blog, your ebooks, and even your print books. And I can almost guarantee you: it’ll be the best thing you can do as a writer.

His heart is certainly in the right place; the only problem is that "uncopyrighting" is not as easy as it looks. Although Creative Commons has come out with what it calls cc0 - "no copyright" - I believe that in some jurisdictions it's practically impossible to renounce your rights as a creator (I'd be interested in receiving confirmation or refutation of this point.)

What you *can* do even there (presumably) is to adopt a licence that grants considerable rights to users (like the GNU GPL). But it's worth noting that most of these *depend* on copyright law, rather than denying it completely.

Red Hat Makes its Position Patent

Six months ago I noted that the European Patent Office had embarked upon a fairly abstruse process....

On Open Enterprise blog.

Last Chance to Save the European Internet

Believe it or not, this saga isn't over, and things are going badly again. The Open Rights Group has a good detailed summary of what's happening, but the short version is this: all of the hard-won victories on the Telecoms Package may come to nought in a vote tomorrow through some outrageous bullying and trickery by national governments (especially UK and France.)

This means we need to write - or, better, phone - our MEPs, and get them to vote as follows:

Here are crucial amendments you should tell MEPs to vote for:

* Trautmann's report
o Amendment 3=7: guarantee of access and distribution of any content/application/service
o Amendment 1CP=2=5=6=9: original 138

* Harbour's report
o Amendment 101=111=117: no discrimination in traffic management policies
o Amendment 102=112=118: regulatory powers against discriminated traffic management policies
o Amendment 62=94=104=119: original 166
o Amendment 96=106=120 : deleting cooperation between ISP and copyright holder about lawful content

As you can see, this has become hideously complicated thanks to the constant to-ing and fro-ing of votes and amendments. Perhaps it's simplest to ask them to vote for the "Citizen's Rights Amendments", and emphasise why it's important to do so. Basically, if they don't, we'll lost net neutrality in Europe, and also the right to judicial reviews before people are thrown off the net on the say-so of companies.

MEPs by country, complete with their direct telephone numbers, can be found on the excellent Quadrature du Net site, which has bags of background info. In the UK, you can find out who your MEPs are by entering your postcode into the WriteToThem service.

Update: This rather poorly-written piece ("digital copyright thieves"? - Sorry, you don't understand the law) suggests that a deal has been done:

Last month, MEPs voted for a bill that read: “No restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities.” But, facing opposition from the Council Of Ministers, they on Tuesday rewrote the passage to read: “Recognising that the internet is essential for education and for the practical exercise of freedom of expression and access to information, any restriction imposed on the exercise of these fundamental rights should be in accordance with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.”

This is particularly nauseating:

“The spirit of the amendment has been respected ... we have avoided the rejection of the amendment.” Trautmann said the compromise writes a “sense of a principle” in to the bill.

No, you just gave in to bullying, love.

Follow me on Twitter @glynmoody.

Another Reason We Need Open Access

One of the more laughable reasons that traditional science publishers cite in their attempts to rubbish open access is that it's somehow not so rigorous as "their" kind of publishing. There's usually a hint that standards might be dropped, and that open access journals aren't, well, you know, quite proper.

And then this comes along:

The Scientist has reported that, yes, it's true, Merck cooked up a phony, but real sounding, peer reviewed journal and published favorably looking data for its products in them. Merck paid Elsevier to publish such a tome, which neither appears in MEDLINE or has a website, according to The Scientist.

Now, open access in itself isn't going to stop this kind of thing, but it seems highly unlikely that anyone would try it, given that the results would be freely available for any Thomas, Richard or Harold to peruse.

One reason why Elseview probably thought they could pull it off was that they knew few people would look at this stuff - which is why it's not in Medline, and why it doesn't have a website. Given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow and all that.

So, next time high-falutin' publishers look down on open access journals - especially if it's Elsevier - just remind them about the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine episode....

Swine Flu in the Nude

This is what the virus really looks like:

1 atgaaggcaa tactagtagt tctgctatat acatttgcaa ccgcaaatgc agacacatta
61 tgtataggtt atcatgcgaa caattcaaca gacactgtag acacagtact agaaaagaat
121 gtaacagtaa cacactctgt taaccttcta gaagacaagc ataacgggaa actatgcaaa
181 ctaagagggg tagccccatt gcatttgggt aaatgtaaca ttgctggctg gatcctggga
241 aatccagagt gtgaatcact ctccacagca agctcatggt cctacattgt ggaaacatct
301 agttcagaca atggaacgtg ttacccagga gatttcatcg attatgagga gctaagagag
361 caattgagct cagtgtcatc atttgaaagg tttgagatat tccccaagac aagttcatgg
421 cccaatcatg actcgaacaa aggtgtaacg gcagcatgtc ctcatgctgg agcaaaaagc
481 ttctacaaaa atttaatatg gctagttaaa aaaggaaatt catacccaaa gctcagcaaa
541 tcctacatta atgataaagg gaaagaagtc ctcgtgctat ggggcattca ccatccatct
601 actagtgctg accaacaaag tctctatcag aatgcagatg catatgtttt tgtggggtca
661 tcaagataca gcaagaagtt caagccggaa atagcaataa gacccaaagt gagggatcaa
721 gaagggagaa tgaactatta ctggacacta gtagagccgg gagacaaaat aacattcgaa
781 gcaactggaa atctagtggt accgagatat gcattcgcaa tggaaagaaa tgctggatct
841 ggtattatca tttcagatac accagtccac gattgcaata caacttgtca gacacccaag
901 ggtgctataa acaccagcct cccatttcag aatatacatc cgatcacaat tggaaaatgt
961 ccaaaatatg taaaaagcac aaaattgaga ctggccacag gattgaggaa tgtcccgtct
1021 attcaatcta gaggcctatt tggggccatt gccggtttca ttgaaggggg gtggacaggg
1081 atggtagatg gatggtacgg ttatcaccat caaaatgagc aggggtcagg atatgcagcc
1141 gacctgaaga gcacacagaa tgccattgac gaaattacta acaaagtaaa ttctgttatt
1201 gaaaagatga atacacagtt cacagcagta ggtaaagagt tcaaccacct ggaaaaaaga
1261 atagagaatt taaataaaaa agttgatgat ggtttcctgg acatttggac ttacaatgcc
1321 gaactgttgg ttctattgga aaatgaaaga actttggact accacgattc aaatgtgaag
1381 aacttatatg aaaaggtaag aagccagcta aaaaacaatg ccaaggaaat tggaaacggc
1441 tgctttgaat tttaccacaa atgcgataac acgtgcatgg aaagtgtcaa aaatgggact
1501 tatgactacc caaaatactc agaggaagca aaattaaaca gagaagaaat agatggggta
1561 aaactggaat caacaaggat ttaccagatt ttggcgatct attcaactgt cgccagttca
1621 ttggtactgg tagtctccct gggggcaatc agtttctgga tgtgctctaa tgggtctcta
1681 cagtgtagaa tatgtattta a

Amazing what a few As, Cs, Gs and Ts can do.... (Via Common Knowledge.)

Why I Blog and Twitter

A question that often comes up is why people blog and twitter. I've given various answers over the years, but once again Mike Masnick says it best of all:

These discussions are like another graduate degree for me, because I constantly have to think, rethink, defend and truly understand the arguments I'm making. It's hard to overstate how incredibly valuable that's been. The fact that many journalists refuse to engage in that sort of conversation actually shows through in their work: they don't want to bother. They like to position themselves as experts, but many don't really understand what they're talking about. Engaging in the conversation may be a lot of work -- and, at times, it can be frustrating or seemingly pointless. But, the massive amount of value I've received from those discussions -- just like the student in the story above -- is almost impossible to quantify. People talk about the importance of ongoing education. That's exactly what these conversations are for me.

Why Pig Flu is Better than Bird Flu: Open Data

As I wrote two years ago, one of the most worrying aspects of bird flu (remember that?) was that virus sequences were not being shared well, which meant that it was hard for experts to track its development and come up with a vaccine. Well, in one respect, swine flu seems to be an improvement over the avian variety:

In contrast to H5N1 bird flu, all the genetic sequences of this H1N1 are being posted on bulletin boards like GISAID, where scientists can access them and compare preliminary analyses.

The GISAID system was set up in 2006 by scientists who protested that H5N1 sequences were not being made freely available.

Here's what the GISAID site says:

This platform is designed and maintained by scientists for scientists from various disciplines e.g. veterinary and human virology, bioinformatics, epidemiology, immunology and clinical analysis etc. From here on, you will find a series of services, including the EpiFlu Database (developed by the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics in conjunction with other partners of this initiative) providing secure storage and the analysis of genetic, epidemiological and clinical data.

Researchers like you have come together to empower this publicly accessible platform, free-of-charge to all researchers in the world who agree to the same terms, to foster a better understanding of the influenza virus. Following the correspondence letter in Nature, we have all pledged to share the data, to analyze the findings jointly, and to publish the results collaboratively, on the basis of open sharing of data respecting the rights and interests of all involved parties.

One fascinating aspect of this is that to view the data you must agree to the data-sharing that lies at the heart of the site:

Before you can enter, you are required to register and agree to the Terms of Use of our platform, as GISAID implements a particular data-sharing concept that has facilitated the flow of influenza sequence data to the public.

This creates an information commons, just as free software does.

Maybe there's hope for us yet.

The Shame in Spain

I've written a number of times about Spain's use of free software, notably at the provincial level. There's even a handy - if rather out-dated - map that shows the extent of Penguin love there. Sadly, it looks like Microsoft is making the Spanish government an offer it thinks it can't refuse:

According to a press release from HispaLinux, Spain's national Linux association, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's government is finalizing a plan that would supply all children who attend state schools with personal computers with touch-screens so to "promote awareness within families of the usefulness of information and communication technologies and encourage their use." Specifically, we're talking about Microsoft technologies.

Despite the enormous load this plan would have on the budget of each autonomous region (which would have to foot the bill), and hence, on the taxpayer, not a cent would find it's way back to any Spanish company. The Spanish Ministry of Education has not considered any other vendor apart form Microsoft, there hasn't been a public contest, and the media and other vendors were not informed about the pilot program until it was over. Furthermore, no other alternative has been considered.

If the plan gets the green light, it would have dire consequences for the communities of Andalucía, Castilla-La Mancha, Extremadura, Valencia, and all the other autonomous regions that already have a Linux-based IT infrastructures, which have already been paid for and are in use, in place within their school systems.

This is really scandalous on so many levels.

It's clearly born of ignorance about what is really being offered - lock-in to Microsoft's systems - in the naive belief that touch-screens are somehow the future, probably just because the iPhone has one.

It is born of arrogance that the government knows better, and therefore needn't consult with others that might have a view or - heaven forfend - knowledge on the subject.

And it's born of sheer stupidity, throwing away the huge lead that Spain had in this area, forcing local governments that had saved money by opting for GNU/Linux to waste money on an unnecessary and doubtless insecure solution from Microsoft, and as a result making the country dependent on a foreign supplier when it could have nurtured its own domestic software industry.

Shame on the Spanish government.

The Sad Intellectual Monopolist's Viewpoint

If you want to see how misguided the British publishing industry's attitudes are to copyright and its users, you could do worse than read what the outgoing president of the Publishers Association has to say on the subject....

On Open Enterprise blog.