According to leaked documents obtained by The Times, the UK government is planning a green (discussion/consultation) paper proposing strong action against “illegal file-sharing.” According to the leaked documents they want ISPs to take the primary responsibility for monitoring usage and to ban any of their users who continually share copyrighted materials without permission. Whatever your position on copyright enforcement in a digital age, this is a ludicrous idea.

Logistically such proposals will be almost impossible to enforce effectively. Setting aside the issue that many of us encrypt as much as possible of the data going out from our computers, it will effectively require ISPs to monitor all traffic going through their networks in a far more intrusive way than they currently do.

Most ISPs watch traffic and do some work to “shape” it to make sure that, say, email takes priority over bittorrent, but they can do that at a high-level without looking closely at the content of that traffic. Under these proposals they would have to track all the data moving between your computer and the internet, and piece it all together to detect any material that could conceivably be copyrighted. The privacy issues around that are startling, but the technical issues are only starting.

Once the ISPs have that data, they then need to work out if it is indeed copyrighted and have a mechanism for working out if their users have the rights to distribute it. If I rip the new Ratatouille DVD and stick it on bittorrent it’s fairly easy for them to identify that, and there’s a good chance I’m infringing copyright. But what if I’m a Pixar employee uploading it to an online storage site so that I can pass it along to selected technical or media contacts? Or how’s about an event like Greenbelt were to ask a group of us to make a new promotional video available? That would probably contain multiple copyrighted items under an appropriate license, but torrents may be the most appropriate distribution mechanism and volunteers (rather than staff) may be the best people to get it out there.

In either case, there’s the hassle for me in having to provide a paper trail to my ISP each and every time I want to do something that might appear slightly suspicious, and of course there are the ISPs who will have to be able to process that paper trail, check its veracity, and potentially then provide an audit trail on up to whoever manages the regulations. They’re going to have to charge me more in order to cover those costs, and I’m going to have to put in a lot more effort to perform tasks that are currently simple and will remain entirely legitimate.

TechCrunch UK is among the commentators wading in to criticise the plans. Their technical argument is similar to mine, but the economic one is quite different. Whether or not music ends up mostly being available for “free” there are numerous issues we’ll need to address, particularly that while the cost of distribution may come down that is only part of the cost of production.

Regardless, this issue stretches well beyond music, and the point stands that this is an example of government’s response to new challenges being driven by the desires of companies about to go out of business, and not by a real desire to engage with the future of the creative industries.

Recommend this post:

A couple of weeks back I attended NCVO’s seminar on the Future of Citizenship. Building on a recent report by The Henley Centre that developed four scenarios of how notions of citizenship and civic involvement may change over the next twenty years, the workshop-based afternoon was focussed on the challenges and opportunities that such changes will present to voluntary organisations. It was a fascinating afternoon and I’d highly recommend taking a look at the full report (PDF) and checking out the follow up questions on the Third Sector Foresight website.

Not working directly for a voluntary sector organisation I was definitely in the minority, but it was abundantly clear that whatever direction society moves in, the role of online services can only increase and that it is necessary for those of us building such services to be actively helping those working on the ground analyse the strengths, limitations and possibilities available.

A key concern arising from all scenarios was the likelihood that the coming years will see an increase in levels of social exclusion. Whether we are resource rich or resource poor, active or apathetic, the requirements of the population at large to work out their own access to services and manage their inclusion in society are highly likely to increase and some will be left behind.

In one conversation I had with a representative of an organisation working with an easily identifiable group of contacts I was told that they are increasingly concerned that by putting a heavy emphasis on online support for their constituency, the less tech-savvy are being left behind and it can be hard to see who they are. In such contexts it seems fairly trivial to add a reporting layer to their online services which will identify which of their contacts are not using the system and so should be offered extra support, but with decisions frequently being made based on small budgets and limited IT expertise, there is often little space for such thinking or expertise to customise the off-the-shelf packages that allow for a quick and cheap setup.

It was also clear from the research of the Henley Centre that most people see citizenship as primarily a “horizontal” concern—how we relate with our neighbours—rather than being about the “vertical” connection with government. For those in attendance, working on social issues every day, the need for those two axes to be connected was clear, but that message is not generally understood and in some cases is met with hostility. It’d be interesting to see how more use of tools such as those built by mySociety can make those connections, blur the divide, or maybe even break down the dichotomy to develop new ways of relating between government and society.

Most in attendance foresaw a future where physical resources and access to transport are harder to come by. Between global warming and peak oil we are likely to see far more constraints than we are used to. Many in the voluntary sector are ideally placed to help society through those situations, but will themselves feel the pinch. New ways of working together, sharing resources and optimising travel are needed and will have to go beyond efforts such as Virtual Bali to address more day-to-day issues.

Recommend this post:

Such has been the flood of information since Aaron Gustafson broke the news of Microsoft’s radical new plans for Internet Explorer that I’ve mostly sat back and tried to absorb it all, waiting before contributing anything.

For those who haven’t been following the developments, Microsoft have said that future versions of Internet Explorer will support a new HTTP header and/or meta-tag which will indicate to the browser which version of IE the page is designed for. Unless the page specifies otherwise, all future versions of Internet Explorer will render it just like IE7 would. If you want IE8 to actually use the new features it brings with it, such as (we hope) improved standards support, you will need to explicitly ask it to do so.

There’s been a lot of response and people have fairly quickly become quite polarised. David Emery has a good list but a few I particularly noted were:

Eric Meyer and Jeffrey Zeldman explaining their support, Jeremy Keith suggesting that at the very least this is the wrong way round (the default should be the latest and greatest rendering engine), Drew McLellan (Web Standards Group Lead) pointing out that while members of the WaSP Microsoft Task Force had been involved in the initiative, this is not (currently) a WaSP-endorsed idea, comments from Ian Hickson,
and Sam Ruby and his commenting crowd considering the technical implications.

Reading all the debate it can be hard to separate feelings about this specific idea from a basic resentment against Microsoft that is harboured by most web developers I know. The failure of Internet Explorer to keep up with web standards has cost many of us, in aggregate, months of work, and our clients lots of money. The time we’ve spent supporting broken browsers could have been time spent improving the user experience or developing exciting new uses for the web. It feels very much as if the only way Microsoft can see to fix the mess they’ve created with their lacklustre browsers (and some very poor authoring tools) is to throw us a new type of confusion.

Regardless of it being Microsoft, though, even after reading all the debate I can’t help but feel that this is a very bad idea. Even if we get to the day that Internet Explorer 11 dominates and IE10 is the only other version used by a significant number of users, this would mean there would still be sites out there that are coded not to older standards than we may be used to, but to one of three or four older rendering engine and their unique set of bugs. That’s too much information for anyone to handle.

And then, of course, there’s the question of other web browsers. Sure, we can add a note that a site is designed for “safari 3, firefox 2.0, IE7 and Opera 9″, but that’s not a complete list even now. And we’re already seeing an explosion in the number of mobile devices, app-specific browsers, screen scrapers and other means of accessing the web. I find it hard to see this as anything other than a short-sighted form of browser lock-in.

So what should we do? Clearly the standards process is moving slowly and it’s taking browser developers several generations of their software to fully support the standards we do have. There’s already a lot of discussion of what should happen to the standards process to change that, but in the meantime I quite like the line of thought in David’s blog entry mentioned above suggesting we should have a way to test for support of various CSS properties. I’m not sure about the precise implementation details, but object detection got us a long way when we wanted to escape browser sniffing before, and maybe that’s still a fruitful line of enquiry?

Recommend this post:

When running a campaign a good strategy always used to be to ask your supporters to write letters to their local newspaper. Local newspapers are far more widely read than their national equivalents, you’re much more likely to get your photo published in them, and because of their more tightly defined audience they present a much greater chance to contextualise your message and suggest options for local action.

In many ways, that is the campaign tactic that a strategy for web 2.0/social media should build from. It’s not about having a presence on flickr, delicious, facebook, upcoming, myspace, or any of the dozens of other “web 2.0″ sites, though an official presence may be useful in some cases and personal experiences with all of them is a good idea. Instead it’s about resourcing your key supporters to be there for you, just as they would in their local papers.

Your supporters already have networks of friends/contacts in these settings that it would take you a lot of time to build. Those friends are going to pay attention to what is being said because of who said it, when if it came from an unknown campaign officer they’d be far less likely to read it. You’re likely to be busy at your events, but your supporters are free to take photos they can post on flickr and which their friends will look at whether or not they currently follow your campaign. You can put as much time as you like into creating a facebook group, but unless your friends and your supporters’ friends join it, it’ll never take off in the “viral” style you’re probably hoping for.

The task then is to educate your supporters. Encourage them to create and disseminate their own content, and back that up with good quality briefings, access to take photos, and any other options that make sense in your context. And to keep an eye on that content so you can pick from the best of it. We’ve found asking greenbelters to tag their photos with a given tag for each year hugely effective not only in making sure we get included in “top tags” lists, but also in giving us an easy way to access the resulting content and get a broader view of the feel of the festival than we otherwise would.

It’s never been and never will be possible to truly get your message everywhere. New tools may help push your content into new spaces, but the only way to effectively disseminate your message is to open it up and let others carry it for you, interpreting it through their lenses. It’s not a new idea, but it’s one that’s far more important now than it ever has been.

Recommend this post:

Whether or not you should build your own social networking site and/or make use of sites like facebook is currently a hot topic within the not-for-profit web developer/consultant world. The launch of sites like Amnesty International’s “unsubscribed”, which bears many hallmarks of a social networking site, combined with growing attention for facebook campaigns and tools like SuperBadger bring the options and potential into clear focus. Elizabeth Dunn’s post last month “social networks, walled gardens, and decision trees” makes a compelling argument that non-profits should be focussing on these questions now even if they’re not key for their current audience: sooner or later they will be and you don’t want to be playing catchup.

There are certainly many advantages to having your own social networking site. A facebook or myspace presence may attract attention, but the data you’ll be able to gather about your supporters and the potential for inserting your own branding are limited. Set up your own social network and you have full flexibility to integrate that data with your supporter databases, and to tune the site to your very specific requirements. But not only are they a significant investment of resources, there’s also a significant cost of time for supporters who will need to sign up for yet another site, identify their friends once again and give their attention to even more online data. Online campaigning’s great strength so far has been its low barrier to entry; for cause-specific social networks to really make sense their barriers need to fall.

That desire is definitely not unique to non-profits. As Brian Suda’s “Portable Social Networks: Take Your Friends With You” highlights, finding ways to let users move their data from site to site is a hot topic across the web development world. Sites like traveller network dopplr have succeeded in part by letting their (so far highly tech savvy) users import data from other social networks such as twitter. The real breakthrough will be when the mass-networks of the moment (as facebook is today) become similarly open. That won’t make it easy, but it will mean that there is suddenly a huge audience who can become fully signed up for your site with just a couple of clicks.

Right now most efforts hinge on a set of emerging standards, two of which will be familiar to anyone who’s been reading this blog for some time but which bear some more attention. There’s plenty of information around the web on these so I’ll just touch on them briefly:

Microformats are a way of taking plain old HTML and, by following some conventions, adding meaning to the content that could be understood by machines. While a human might be able to look at some information and infer that it is describing an event, machines aren’t so good at that, so we need standardised ways to say “this is describing an event, that bit is the date,” or “this link is to the homepage of my brother.” There were already ways to do that, but it involved adding extra things to your website. With microformats, so long as you (or your content management system) follow some simple conventions when creating a page, a machine can get the content out of the page as easily as a human reader can. That lets us identify friends/contact lists in a portable way, among other useful functions.

OpenID is a way to get rid of the frustration of having to create a username and password for every new site you visit. Instead when you visit a new site that you want to sign up for, you enter a URL that is your OpenID and that site will check with a central system (which may require you to log in) whether you do in fact own that OpenID. Rather than having to remember dozens of usernames and passwords, you’ll probably just have to remember one URL, one username, and one password. And because you’re using that same OpenID for lots of sites, when you sign up for a new site you can be identified on others. So if you sign up for a new site I’ve created using the same OpenID you use on livejournal my software can identify you on livejournal and import your posts from there. So there’s less work for you to tell that new site you’re creating a profile on how to find your blog and to import the posts, and an easy way to make your profile active and informative.

OAuth is the newest of the standards and goes hand-in-hand with OpenID. It allows you to grant one web application permission to access certain parts of your data in another application without giving your usernames and passwords all over the places. If you’ve ever used a site that redirected you to flickr to get your permission to do something with your photos, you’ve seen something like it. If OAuth is widely adopted, no longer will you have to give every social networking site your webmail username and password in order to have your address book checked for other users of the site, simply trusting that they won’t abuse it. Instead, it becomes easy to give a one-off permission while keeping your details as secret as they should be.

What these pieces add up to is a significant reduction in the psychological hurdles that might prevent your supporters from joining your new social network. Instead of pouring hours into their friendster profile only to find everyone has moved to myspace, and so not signing up for your site because they’d have to go through the whole process all over again, they can sign up with their OpenID, perhaps grant you a few permissions with OAuth (knowing that they’re not handing over the keys to their email, online photos, or whatever) and be signed up with an already complete profile.

In other words, persuading people to sign up and build their profiles is no longer the issue and you can focus on providing them with compelling reasons to keep coming back.

So if you’re wondering whether now is the time to start building out your campaign’s fancy new social networking site, it just may be, but chances are a few months from now will be a better time. As OpenID and OAuth become better established—and maybe even get adopted by some of the big players—your life is going to be easier and provided you pick web developers who’ve been keeping up you’ll be able to focus on your campaign strategy rather than coaxing visitors to spend another few hours re-entering the same old details.

Recommend this post: