Archive for Opinion
Open-source software: A natural fit with SaaS and Clouds?
Posted by: | CommentsAndy Mulholland and I worked together many moons ago at BICC Communications. Andy is now Global CTO of Cap Gemini. This post on Open Source Software makes interesting reading…
By Andy Mulholland, Global Chief Technology Officer Cap Gemini
We talk a lot about new technologies but less about some of the implications. Take the software provisioning model, yes it’s all about ‘as a service’, but go a little further into this. Yes, we are changing the provisioning of software, but that is because the purposes people want to use software for are also changing. It then follows that the development of software itself will also change.
Little more than three years ago open-source software (OSS) was being positioned as something not suitable for the mainstream IT market with a series of implied risk statements about its fitness for use at an enterprise level. The use of Linux as a low cost operating system was acceptable, as was the increasing use of the so called LAMP stack, standing for Linux OS, Apache web server, MySQL database and PHP, Perl or Python scripting languages, to support web-based activities. Today many of the major proprietary software vendors who were vehemently attacking OSS have moved to embrace it as part of their product portfolio and can be found making contributions.
In the USA the White House website has been shifted to OSS, in the UK the London Stock Exchange has adopted it for its high profile ultra reliable environment, and in Norway using proprietary software has become the exception with OSS the de facto approach.
Kenneth Cukier in Interview
Posted by: | CommentsThe February 27th edition of The Economist features a special report on Data, Data Everywhere.
The report author, Kenneth Cukier, features in this interview to discuss the data overload. Our next event focuses on how government is opening up data and how open platforms are increasingly being used to manage data.
Cellan-Jones and Scobleizer
Posted by: | Comments
Scoble and Cellan-Jones
Rory Cellan-Jones, the Tech Correspondent for the Beeb, has interviewed Robert Scoble at his Half Moon Bay home in California. This is quite an intriguing interview – as much for the plethora of Seesmic Desktop screens that Robert has had installed on his desk. I can just about cope with my little Inspiron.
It’s interesting that Robert is predicting that Facebook is going to continue being the gorilla of the social networking space rather than Twitter – largely because, according to Scoble, Facebook acts as a portal into the wider social networking community such as the big blogs and even Twitter itself via the Twitter app. People tend to stick around more on Facebook as it’s more than a one trick pony.
Robert’s relationship with Facebook has been patchy – and he seemed keen to push Friendfeed in the past, although that outfit has had its fair share of woes.
More interesting though is Scoble’s prediction that Google is likely to be the stalking horse in the social networking space. Government needs to take note.
Conservatives, Crowdsourcing and MP Voting
Posted by: | CommentsThe Conservative Party has announced plans to offer a “one million pound cash prize for developers that can create a website to ‘harness the wisdom’ of the general public, in order to test Government policies.”
However, perhaps there is a greater need for a more common sense set of initiatives to improve the system of government at Westminster. The United Kingdom’s system of participative democracy operates through elected representatives at Westminster. The proposed “crowdsourcing” system would appear to seek to replace the current policy-setting agenda with a system based on people power. Perhaps it’s not too dissimilar to Simon Cowell’s X Factor for government idea.
However, there is something more immediate and practical an incoming government could do with technology i.e. replace the antiquated system of voting at Westminster.
Our current system of member voting at Westminster is still based on the system in place when Pitt the Younger sat in the Commons. We still have bell ringing and divisions and MPs scurrying from their offices to the chamber to vote. In many cases MPs don’t even bother to show. My own MP rarely shows up at the Palace to vote in divisions – despite claiming huge expenses.
The current system of in-person voting needs to be replaced with a Web based system that would allow members to vote and participate in extended debates on all legislative issues. Such a system would allow much greater transparency – and the system could potentially be opened up to constituents. MPs could be lobbied through an open and transparent platform and their voting records could be laid bare for all to see.
The MP expenses scandal came about, to a significant extent, because of the requirement for MPs to be present at Westminster and in their constituencies. However, the technology has existed for some time to allow MPs and peers to take part in crucial votes and debates via electronic channels. It is patently absurd that our system of parliamentary democracy has been isolated from advances in technology.
It is unacceptable for elected representatives to participate so little in policy debates. Many MPs, especially in the devolved regions, appear to have lost all interest in legislation that they do not consider applies to them or maps to their areas of interest or expertise. Our MPs should be obliged to participate and act as a conduit for constituency opinion. However, the current system of voting and debate is outdated and irrelevent. It needs to be improved – and technology holds the answer as to how it can be improved.
Dreaming the Dream: Democracy Simon Cowell Style
Posted by: | Comments
Simon Cowell - From X Factor to P Factor?
As we trailed yesterday on Government 2010, Simon Cowell – of X Factor fame – was interviewed by Kirsty Wark on Newsnight last night. And he admitted that he had been considering some type of “referendum” format show to allow the general public to decide on matters of national importance. He referred to big issues such as our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also mentioned knife crime, and the effectiveness of the judicial system.
In short, it would appear that he has in mind a political version of X Factor – P Factor?
To an extent that’s the problem. While 20 million people watched X Factor on Saturday evening I’m just not convinced that Political Factor would be quite so captivating a view. I presume Mr Cowell would propose presenting the various flavours of the argument and allowing the nation to decide. However, that, I presume, would require politicians to present the counter-arguments. Or perhaps academics or other experts would be required. But that is hardly the same as a song show. Political debates are not exactly as engaging for the audience.
Or perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps it’s all about presentation. Perhaps Syco TV and Simon Cowell’s production team could sprinkle their fairy dust over the format and produce something as engaging as the X Factor final – which kept around 20 million viewers engaged for 2 hours on a Sunday evening.
But then there is the voting system. While 3.5 million votes may have been cast on Saturday and Sunday evenings for the X Factor Finalists the main voting channel was telephone. If you squinted hard enough you may have noticed that free voting via the ITV web site was permissible. Sky and Virgin viewers could also vote using their keypads. But the system required no prior registration. Multiple voting was permitted. There was no representativeness in the achieved sample – except that it represented those most keen to spend most money to see their favourite singer win. That’s hardly a basis for deciding on life and death issues like a British troop presence in Iraq. And ITV has also been mired in controversy in its ability – or inability – to run the flawed system it has.
But, let’s return to Cowell’s point. If done right, the mood of the nation can be taken using TV coupled with a feedback mechanism. Moreover we live in a society where technology is so pervasive that perhaps the time is right for mass participative democracy. That would achieve some really laudable aims.
For one thing it might allow less of a reliance on Party-based politics where politicians, increasingly, have to behave more like sycophantic middle-managers than free thinkers. So obsessed has the Party based system become with popular opinion that the very rationale for Party politics is declining. Parties are fragmenting over single issues. And single issues can easily be decided using mass participative referenda.
All-Internet pollsters – such as YouGov – have developed processes for achieving highly accurate predictions of election outcomes by having well structured and representative panels. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that a mass participative panel could be created. It may require a single, secure, registration based Internet based system in the short term – but it is doable. Over time multiple or preferred channels could be offered.
There are arguments against referenda based systems. Mostly the negative arguments are put forward by career politicians who seem to believe that they have a God-given right to decide our futures on our behalf.
However, the time is rapidly approaching where people of all talents – including effective mass communicators like Simon Cowell – should play their parts in deciding what a better system of democracy might look like.
I’ll end with an anecdote. Next year the government will be bringing to parliament a draft Digital Economy Bill that features a highly controversial series of clauses relating to copyright. This is a yawn-inducing issue for most of the population. But it is important. The government’s Digital Tsar, Stephen Timms, has recorded a video explaining the Bill. It’s on YouTube. Last time I looked, just a minute or so ago, it had been watched 865 times. Last time I looked, Susan Boyle’s Britain’s Got Talent Audition video had been viewed over 81 million times.
Go for it Simon.
Sir Tim Berners-Lee on Linked Data and the Semantic Web
Posted by: | CommentsSeveral people have asked me about linked data and the semantic web – given our recent call for interest in an upcoming Government 2010 event focusing on open data, linked data and government apps.
In this interview with Sir Tim Berners Lee (from the BCS web site) Sir Tim talks about HTML, linked data, semantic web, video embedding – and lots of interesting stuff.
Some rather silly questions for Sir Tim via Twitter as well. Video below the fold.
A Busy Digital Policy Week
Posted by: | CommentsThis week is looking like it will be one of the busiest for digital policy – and it is only Tuesday. The news has been flooded with stories from Remembrance Sunday to the shooting at the Army base in Texas. However, we need to look at some of the stories coming out of the digital policy world. Below is a quick summary of them and their potential implications:
Ofcom stall in BBC HD digital rights request
First, in a bit of a shock move, Ofcom has stalled on approving a BBC request for DRM controlled HD content. A number of critics, including the Open Rights Group and Tom Watson, MP, have said that locking down the content will “prevent consumer choice” and “absolute power to control who may access its HD services”. Ofcom is seeking further recommendations and will be reviewing all feedback prior to making its final decision. This news is much welcomed in the sense that Ofcom is thinking twice about policy decisions. However, we must be aware that if BBC ‘locks down’ its HD content it will limit its HD service to only preferred hardware providers. This choice, though possibly preventing some piracy, will be more detrimental in the long run to the BBC and consumers both.
Home Office to monitor and retain data
Second, the Home Office is going to go ahead with plans to have UK communications firms monitor and retain data. It is clear that this story has been flying below the radar of both the media and consumers. Not only is this plan technically challenging, it has widespread budget and policy implications. £2 Billion in funds will be needed in order to support the activities including payments to the communication service providers would be required to retain, sort, and disseminate all data collected and these funds will, of course, come from additional tax revenue. These data requests will burden communication service providers with the additional cost of time, money, and man power. This policy will, no doubt, take resources away from the companies involved in conducting their daily business. Furthermore, privacy policy implications will be widespread. How will terms of service by these providers change? And will consumers know about where their information is residing? This is an ill conceived and not well thought out plan.
Digital Economy Bill to be announced in Queen’s speech
Third, and finally, the Digital Economy Bill will be announced in the Queen’s speech next week. We can not ignore this potentially radical shift in Internet Service Provider (ISP) network management. Various government spokespeople have denied that non-file sharers will feel the impact. However, this is a key bill to watch next week. Not only would ISPs becoming ‘policemen of the Internet’, but ISPs would be required to work with rights holders to manage legal actions. How this Bill is received and ultimately brought into law will impact how ISPs do business, how consumers manage their home networks, and how rights holders deal with their intellectual property. There is a potential for due process to be passed by as ISPs rightly and wrongly accuse their customers of illegal downloading. There will be a presumption of guilt before innocence for the accused and a administrative burden for all involved.
I often think that digital policies are not given the amount of attention in the media that is needed or required. Digital issues impact privacy, government policy, taxes (and their burden on taxpayers), as well as how we communicate, interact, and live our lives. All of these policies announced this week have the potential to impact all of us and those who govern us.
Philip Virgo on The Internet And Free Speech
Posted by: | CommentsThe following article appeared today on Philip Virgo’s blog today over at Computer Weekly…
Whether it was Guido Fawkes or the Twitterers, this morning saw a demonstration of the power of the blogocracy in overcoming the attempt to stop the Guardian from publishing questions tabled in parliament. Not only was the list of full questions posted in comments on Guido’s blog but so were links to the full texts of the Minton report on Trafigura and of the Barclays Tax Avoidance schemes and a mass of scuttlebutt on other Carter Ruck clients. But what if a similar case had happened in the United States? The US-based ISPs and Search engines would have obeyed the injunctions, just as W H Smith obeyed those of Robert Maxwell when he could not silence Private Eye and went for the distributor instead.
CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL ARTICLE >>
Meanwhile in Iran and China the technologies used to target Internet Advertising are turned through 180 degrees and used to identify dissident bloggers and twitterers. What really stops that happening here – beginning with those who swop unlicensed music tracks? Is our main “protection” that the most popular English language servers are not based in the UK.
Had Google and Yahoo not moved their European headquarters out of the UK (and EU) earlier this year, the story might well have been very different. The writs would have been served and Guido’s co-conspirators would not have been able to link to the documents.
Philip Virgo will be speaking in the Government 2010 Panel on Government and The Internet
Lazanski Argues Against Timms Telephone Tax
Posted by: | Comments
Dominique Lazanski
By Dominique Lazanski
(Dominique will be chairing the G2010 discussion panel on The Internet and Government Regulation. The views expressed here are her own)
During a British Computer Society debate on Wednesday, Stephen Timms MP, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and minister for Digital Britain, said that the 50 pence a month tax on landline phones announced in the Digital Britain report would become law before the general election. The tax levy will be added to all monthly landline phone bills in order to pay for the government’s building of the Internet infrastructure. And this levy will be included in a Finance Bill which is to come before Parliament in November.
In my view the levy is ill-conceived for a variety of reasons, but I will argue against it for two very specific reasons. First, the levy hits the people least likely to take advantage of broadband and least likely to benefit from the improved access. Second, and more importantly, the levy expands government control over an area which should be developed by enterprise and competition.
Let’s take a look at the first point. Increasingly, as MP John Whittingdale so rightly pointed out yesterday, those who use broadband do not necessarily have a landline. Younger generations have adopted the mobile phone as the main and only telephonic point of contact. Furthermore, there is almost no need to have a landline for access to the Internet when companies like Sky and Virgin bundle access into their cable and dish access. I, for one, haven’t had a landline in years and I will not be paying the levy if it becomes law. However, my fiancé’s mother and gran will be paying for the tax – and neither of them have or use broadband. My case in point is that it will hit those who don’t and won’t benefit. It makes no sense.
As I have argued many times, the US infrastructure was developed by numerous American telephone companies competing with one another to build better and faster broadband access. The competition continues in the US wireless broadband arena (however current efforts are being hampered by Obama’s ‘social good ‘ policies on the Internet). The bottom line is that the US is one of the world’s most fast-networked countries because of the fact that companies made their own investments and competed in a free market.
The best thing for the UK government to do is to not only avoid this levy, but to relax Internet regulation in general so that telecom companies can compete and develop a more reliable and faster Internet infrastructure. Innovation, competition, and the ability to employ the best and brightest will be the only way to quickly develop a better infrastructure.
Social Media: Fad or Revolution?
Posted by: | CommentsFad or revolution. What do you think?
Check out this video and then decide.
