Friday, July 27, 2012
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Internet Censorship Map
Pervasive censorship
Substantial censorship
Selective censorship
Under surveillance
No evidence of censorship
Not classified / No datTake a look at the latest Internet Censorship map on wikipedia. Data has been collected from the OpenNet Initiative, Reporters Without Borders, Freedom House, and in the U.S. State Department Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor's Human Rights Reports. Originally published on 26 September 2011 and updated on 22 April 2012, the map shows that Australia is still under surveillance because there has been no formal move to abandon proposed mandatory ISP filtering. Under pressure from the Government, in June 2011 two Australian ISPs, Telstra and Optus, agreed to voluntarily filter sites identified by the AMCA as well as those identified by unknown international organisatons. Those wanting to know more and do something about internet censorship should check out Reporters Without Boarders here. It is interesting to note that copyright law does not appear to be included in the conceptualisation of censorship despite the fact that Graduated Response/Three Strikes schemes, whether introduced through legislation as is the case in France, New Zealand and South Korea or voluntarily as is soon to be the case in the United States of America (although there seems to be some delay at the moment) and perhaps in the near future in Australia, clearly restrict access to information.
Further Reading
Wikipedia, Internet censorship by country (20 July 2012) < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_by_country > at 22 July 2012
ZeroPaid, US 6 Strike Rule Delayed (14 July 2012) < http://www.zeropaid.com/news/101600/us-6-strike-rule-delayed/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zeropaid+%28Zeropaid.com%29 > at 17 July 2012
TechDirt, Is The Six Strikes Plan Being Delayed Because ISPs Are Pushing Back Against Hollywood Demands? (13 July 2012) < http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120713/14591019696/is-six-strikes-plan-being-delayed-because-isps-are-pushing-back-against-hollywood-demands.shtml > at 17 July 2012
TechDirt, Australian Gov't Chooses 'Consumer Advocate' For Secret Anti-Piracy Meetings: The Chairman Of The Copyright Council (8 June 2012) < http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120605/18331419214/australian-govt-chooses-consumer-advocate-secret-anti-piracy-meetings-chairman-copyright-council.shtml > at 18 June 2012
Monday, July 16, 2012
For those interested in internet research, I can highly recommend signing up to the email discussion list run by the Association of Internet Researchers. Recently they had a discussion with respect to books on technological determinism. This will be a great help for the research I am doing and out of curiosity borrowed one of the books in this area to take a look. Here is an extract from the chapter ‘Technological Determinism is Dead; Long Live Technological Determinism’ which is in The Handbook of Science & Technology Studies.
Technological determinism has two parts. “The first part is that technological developments take place outside society, independently of social, economic, and political forces. New or improved products or ways of making things arise from the activities of inventors, engineers, and designers following an internal, technical logic that has nothing to do with social relationships. The more crucial second part is that technological change causes or determines social change. Misa (1988) suggests that what I have presented here as two parts of a single whole are actually two different versions of technological determinism... Over the past 25 years, STS has focussed primarily on demonstrating how limited the first part of technological determinism is, usually by doing empirically rich historical or ethnographic studies demonstrating how deeply social the processes of technological development are. Technological determinism is imbued with the notion that technological progress equals social progress.... Historically, technological determinism means that each generation produces a few inventors whose inventions appear to be both the determinants and stepping stones of human development. Unsuccessful inventions are condemned by their failure to the dust heap of history. Successful ones soon prove their value and are more or less rapidly integrated into society, which they proceed to transform. In this way, a technological breakthrough can be claimed to have important social consequences... One of the problems with technological determinism is that it leaves no space for human choice or intervention and, moreover, absolves us from responsibility for developing new technologies, regardless of whether they are consumer products or power stations. If technology does indeed follow an inexorable path, then technological determinism does allow all of us to deny responsibility for the technological choices we individually and collectively make and to ridicule those people who do challenge the pace and direction of technological change.”
Further Reading
Sally Wyatt “Technological Determinism is Dead; Long Live Technological Determinism” in The Handbook of Science & Technology Studies (2008) 165 – 180
Technological determinism has two parts. “The first part is that technological developments take place outside society, independently of social, economic, and political forces. New or improved products or ways of making things arise from the activities of inventors, engineers, and designers following an internal, technical logic that has nothing to do with social relationships. The more crucial second part is that technological change causes or determines social change. Misa (1988) suggests that what I have presented here as two parts of a single whole are actually two different versions of technological determinism... Over the past 25 years, STS has focussed primarily on demonstrating how limited the first part of technological determinism is, usually by doing empirically rich historical or ethnographic studies demonstrating how deeply social the processes of technological development are. Technological determinism is imbued with the notion that technological progress equals social progress.... Historically, technological determinism means that each generation produces a few inventors whose inventions appear to be both the determinants and stepping stones of human development. Unsuccessful inventions are condemned by their failure to the dust heap of history. Successful ones soon prove their value and are more or less rapidly integrated into society, which they proceed to transform. In this way, a technological breakthrough can be claimed to have important social consequences... One of the problems with technological determinism is that it leaves no space for human choice or intervention and, moreover, absolves us from responsibility for developing new technologies, regardless of whether they are consumer products or power stations. If technology does indeed follow an inexorable path, then technological determinism does allow all of us to deny responsibility for the technological choices we individually and collectively make and to ridicule those people who do challenge the pace and direction of technological change.”
Further Reading
Sally Wyatt “Technological Determinism is Dead; Long Live Technological Determinism” in The Handbook of Science & Technology Studies (2008) 165 – 180
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Support the Restoration of Copyrights to their Original Duration of 28 Years
There is a petition available on the White House website that seeks to return the term of copyright in the United States to 28 years. The text of the petition reads as follows:
Our Founding Fathers established an initial copyright duration of 28-years, but that has been repeatedly extended to up to 120 years to favor corporations like Disney and Sony and authors’ descendants at the expense of the public. Such durations ignore the Constitution’s requirement that copyrights be for limited times and promote progress in science and the useful arts. They actually inhibit scientific progress by restricting the free flow of information, preventing global digital libraries, and withholding information that future generations need to freely exchange and build upon. The original copyright duration provides ample incentive for companies and authors to create, so we ask the President to urge Congress to pass a bill restoring copyrights to their original duration of 28 years.
The petition is available until the 8th August 2012 and aims to reach 25,000 signatures. It was created on the 9th July and so far has only 3,571 signatures. Unfortunately you need to create an account on the White House website to sign it but it is a small inconvenience for such an important issue. Take a moment out of your day if you can to go to the site here and after you have finished signing it spread the word through the Twitter and Facebook tabs.
Our Founding Fathers established an initial copyright duration of 28-years, but that has been repeatedly extended to up to 120 years to favor corporations like Disney and Sony and authors’ descendants at the expense of the public. Such durations ignore the Constitution’s requirement that copyrights be for limited times and promote progress in science and the useful arts. They actually inhibit scientific progress by restricting the free flow of information, preventing global digital libraries, and withholding information that future generations need to freely exchange and build upon. The original copyright duration provides ample incentive for companies and authors to create, so we ask the President to urge Congress to pass a bill restoring copyrights to their original duration of 28 years.
The petition is available until the 8th August 2012 and aims to reach 25,000 signatures. It was created on the 9th July and so far has only 3,571 signatures. Unfortunately you need to create an account on the White House website to sign it but it is a small inconvenience for such an important issue. Take a moment out of your day if you can to go to the site here and after you have finished signing it spread the word through the Twitter and Facebook tabs.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Australia and ACTA
WOW!!! It looks as though Australia is going to reject the ratification of the ACTA Treaty. The Australian Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recently released at statement in which it was suggested that there are a number of issues with the agreement:
This is great news - I was a little concerned when Australia signed the agreement last year but was waiting to see whether or not it would be ratified. It seems that at least in the immediate future this agreement is dead in the water in this country.
Further Information
TechDirt, Another One Bites The Dust: Australian Parliament Committee Recommends Rejecting ACTA (28 June 2012) < http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120628/01500619519/another-one-bites-dust-australian-parliament-committee-recommends-rejecting-acta.shtml > at 3 July 2012
ZeroPaid, Australian Committee Recommends Against Ratifying ACTA (30 June 2012) < http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zeropaid/~3/DA-_Xj4Tdd8/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email > at 3 July 2012
infojustice.org, Australia Parliament Committee Rejects ACTA (27 June 2012) < http://infojustice.org/archives/26450 > at 3 July 2012
TechDirt, What Is ACTA And Why Is It A Problem? (24 January 2012) < http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120124/11270917527/what-is-acta-why-is-it-problem.shtml > at 31 January 2012
TechDirt, As Countries Sign ACTA, Many Finally Admit Their Copyright Laws Will Need To Change (3 October 2011) < http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111002/22262616174/as-countries-sign-acta-many-finally-admit-their-copyright-laws-will-need-to-change.shtml > at 11 October 2011
“The Committee is concerned about the lack of clarity in the text, the exclusion of provisions protecting the rights of individuals, and ACTA’s potential to shift the balance in the interpretation of copyright law, intellectual property law and patent law,”The committee recommended that the agreement not be ratified until the committee has received an independent assessment of the economic and social cost, the ALRC has reported on its Inquiry into Copyright and the Digital Economy and there are further clarifications to the terms of the agreement. There is also significant concern that many other countries will not be signing the agreement rendering it ineffective.
This is great news - I was a little concerned when Australia signed the agreement last year but was waiting to see whether or not it would be ratified. It seems that at least in the immediate future this agreement is dead in the water in this country.
Further Information
TechDirt, Another One Bites The Dust: Australian Parliament Committee Recommends Rejecting ACTA (28 June 2012) < http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120628/01500619519/another-one-bites-dust-australian-parliament-committee-recommends-rejecting-acta.shtml > at 3 July 2012
ZeroPaid, Australian Committee Recommends Against Ratifying ACTA (30 June 2012) < http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zeropaid/~3/DA-_Xj4Tdd8/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email > at 3 July 2012
infojustice.org, Australia Parliament Committee Rejects ACTA (27 June 2012) < http://infojustice.org/archives/26450 > at 3 July 2012
TechDirt, What Is ACTA And Why Is It A Problem? (24 January 2012) < http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120124/11270917527/what-is-acta-why-is-it-problem.shtml > at 31 January 2012
TechDirt, As Countries Sign ACTA, Many Finally Admit Their Copyright Laws Will Need To Change (3 October 2011) < http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111002/22262616174/as-countries-sign-acta-many-finally-admit-their-copyright-laws-will-need-to-change.shtml > at 11 October 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
