“There is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, nothing hidden that will not be made known. Everything you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight; what you have whispered in locked rooms will be proclaimed from the rooftops.” – Luke 12:2-3
The Bible is not really my cup of tea but this quote is spot on.. so too is the article where I found it -on Daniel Ellsberg's blog, citing a press release by the 'Institue for Public Accuracy' about Wikileaks and the American government's problem with integrity, justice and accountability.
It was Ellsberg that leaked the Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam War - and the press release is signed by list of heavy weights all familiar with the predicament Julian Assange & Private Manning now find themselves in.
All power to their elbow... Go read!
Showing posts with label integrity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label integrity. Show all posts
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Monday, 6 September 2010
Putting principles first. Why a 44-year old who has never downloaded music will vote for the pirates.
It is two weeks to the election here in Sweden.. and social democrat Henrik Brändén and centerist Markus Berglund have writtin an article in the national press to explain why they are leaving their parties and will vote Piratpartiet instead. Henrik writes in length on his blog about why after 29 years as a socialdemocrat activist he is placing integrity first and going Pirate. His article is very good.. and reflects a a great deal of the thinking that led me to see the political importance of the pirate movement in opposing the threat to our privacy and integrity. Here is just a short translated extract... (the highlight is mine)
How can a 44-year old who has never downloaded music to vote for the pirates?
When I meet young people today, I see that they, just as we did in my youth, love to talk to each other: about life and love, about politics, philosophy and existential issues. Like when I was young that many make music, poetry, short stories and diaries. But the way is different. My discussions in cafes and on the telephone takes place today with Skype and various instant messaging functions. Where I wrote a letter on paper to send young people today send an e-mail. Where I and my contemporaries had notebooks and loose-leaf with personal notes and literary experiments many of today's young people's have materials in a data space on an external server, so that wherever they find themselves they are be able to access it over the net.
The combination of IPRED-law, the FRA-law and data retention directive does for young people today exactly what it would have meant for me and my friends if there sat microphones under the tables in all Uppsala cafes, our phone calls were tapped and letters ripped up, and also book and music publishers agents always had the right to rummage through our bags. What has happened in recent years is simply that we have taken great strides straight into a surveillance society. Things are a reality today in Sweden and many other Western countries, that in my youth led us to distance itself from East Germany and other Communist states"
Henrik also explains how he squares his choice with his principles.. and not least how as an author he can support a party seeking copyright reform.
Which just remains for me to add my belated welcome to Henrik..
Arrrrrr!! Welcome on board
Piratpartiet : Vote Pirate - Make your voice heard.
How can a 44-year old who has never downloaded music to vote for the pirates?
When I meet young people today, I see that they, just as we did in my youth, love to talk to each other: about life and love, about politics, philosophy and existential issues. Like when I was young that many make music, poetry, short stories and diaries. But the way is different. My discussions in cafes and on the telephone takes place today with Skype and various instant messaging functions. Where I wrote a letter on paper to send young people today send an e-mail. Where I and my contemporaries had notebooks and loose-leaf with personal notes and literary experiments many of today's young people's have materials in a data space on an external server, so that wherever they find themselves they are be able to access it over the net.
The combination of IPRED-law, the FRA-law and data retention directive does for young people today exactly what it would have meant for me and my friends if there sat microphones under the tables in all Uppsala cafes, our phone calls were tapped and letters ripped up, and also book and music publishers agents always had the right to rummage through our bags. What has happened in recent years is simply that we have taken great strides straight into a surveillance society. Things are a reality today in Sweden and many other Western countries, that in my youth led us to distance itself from East Germany and other Communist states"
Henrik also explains how he squares his choice with his principles.. and not least how as an author he can support a party seeking copyright reform.
Which just remains for me to add my belated welcome to Henrik..
Arrrrrr!! Welcome on board
Piratpartiet : Vote Pirate - Make your voice heard.
Monday, 19 October 2009
UK Government out of touch on copyright
The UK is one of the main movers behind the Council of Minister's refusal to accept 'innocent until proven guiilty' as a guiding principle for cutting internet access to suspected copyright infringers... However, at home things are far from quiet in opposition to the government's plans.
Tom Watson's early day motion on illicit file sharing continues to gain MP's support, while the Open Rights Group has published the results of a survey that shows that supporting cutting people off from the internet for filesharing is a clear vote loser. Sixty eight percent thought that internet users should be disconnected only once evidence had been considered by a court - a pretty resounding chorus in defence of our rights to 'innocent until proven guilty'.
If you are one of those sixty eight percent then write to your MP and tell them so... and also write to your MEP (right away!) and tell them to put pressure on the Council of Minister's to accept Amendment 138 as proposed by the EU parliament - it's the first and best way to ensure just due process is protected in law.
Meanwhile the government get a knocking too in the recently published report by the UK All Party Parliamentary group on Copyright. It has lots of interesting reading, with details of the evidence from a wide range of parties on both sides of the debate. On illicit file sharing the group concludes
"We conclude that much of the problem with illegal sharing of copyrighted material has been caused by the rightsholders, and the music industry in particular, being far too slow in getting their act together and making popular legal alternatives available.
We do not believe that disconnecting end users is in the slightest bit consistent with policies that attempt to promote eGovernment, and we recommend that this approach to dealing with illegal file-sharing should not be further considered.
We think that it is inappropriate to make policy choices in the UK when policy options are still to be agreed by the EU Commission and EU Parliament in their negotiations over the “Telecoms Package”. We recommend that the Government terminate their current policy-making process, and restart it with a new consultation once the EU has made its decisions."
Which is pretty blunt, given that this is a cross parliamentary group.
Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party - Working for copyright reform.
Tom Watson's early day motion on illicit file sharing continues to gain MP's support, while the Open Rights Group has published the results of a survey that shows that supporting cutting people off from the internet for filesharing is a clear vote loser. Sixty eight percent thought that internet users should be disconnected only once evidence had been considered by a court - a pretty resounding chorus in defence of our rights to 'innocent until proven guilty'.
If you are one of those sixty eight percent then write to your MP and tell them so... and also write to your MEP (right away!) and tell them to put pressure on the Council of Minister's to accept Amendment 138 as proposed by the EU parliament - it's the first and best way to ensure just due process is protected in law.
Meanwhile the government get a knocking too in the recently published report by the UK All Party Parliamentary group on Copyright. It has lots of interesting reading, with details of the evidence from a wide range of parties on both sides of the debate. On illicit file sharing the group concludes
"We conclude that much of the problem with illegal sharing of copyrighted material has been caused by the rightsholders, and the music industry in particular, being far too slow in getting their act together and making popular legal alternatives available.
We do not believe that disconnecting end users is in the slightest bit consistent with policies that attempt to promote eGovernment, and we recommend that this approach to dealing with illegal file-sharing should not be further considered.
We think that it is inappropriate to make policy choices in the UK when policy options are still to be agreed by the EU Commission and EU Parliament in their negotiations over the “Telecoms Package”. We recommend that the Government terminate their current policy-making process, and restart it with a new consultation once the EU has made its decisions."
Which is pretty blunt, given that this is a cross parliamentary group.
Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party - Working for copyright reform.
Monday, 21 September 2009
Piracy & Telecoms - taking the fight to Europe
I confess I've not seen it mentioned in the British press - but Swedish bloggers - at least the piratical ones - are all aware that the Telecom package is going for it's third round with negotiations between the elected parliament and the unelected council of ministers.
Amongst the things that's up for debate is the provisions of amendment 138 that would ensure that no-one can be disconnected from the internet without it first going to court. For some reason the council of ministers don't really want to sign up for this and have proposed an alternative wording -which leaves it open to each country to decide whether you get a judicial hearing in advance - or get to object after the event. The difference in wording is subtle but the difference in meaning is huge. Innocent until proven guilty becomes guilty until proven innocent... which simply put, ain't good enough.
On top of that the provisions of the bill as is will permit ISPs to filter content and restrict users or traffic types - carving up net neutrality just as the FCC are laying out guidelines to protect it in the US.
Piratpartiet's MEP Christian Engström is among those joining the negotiations from the parliamentary side - It's great to see Christian in the thick of it so soon, working to keeping justice and integrity on the rails - and it's nice to know my vote went to a good home.... Just a bit of bugger that he needs to...
Links: Christian Engström, HAX on the parliamentary delegates, ..and read the truly excellent analysis by Monica Horten of the University of Westminster, Communications and Media Research Institute (CAMRI)
Amongst the things that's up for debate is the provisions of amendment 138 that would ensure that no-one can be disconnected from the internet without it first going to court. For some reason the council of ministers don't really want to sign up for this and have proposed an alternative wording -which leaves it open to each country to decide whether you get a judicial hearing in advance - or get to object after the event. The difference in wording is subtle but the difference in meaning is huge. Innocent until proven guilty becomes guilty until proven innocent... which simply put, ain't good enough.
On top of that the provisions of the bill as is will permit ISPs to filter content and restrict users or traffic types - carving up net neutrality just as the FCC are laying out guidelines to protect it in the US.
Piratpartiet's MEP Christian Engström is among those joining the negotiations from the parliamentary side - It's great to see Christian in the thick of it so soon, working to keeping justice and integrity on the rails - and it's nice to know my vote went to a good home.... Just a bit of bugger that he needs to...
Links: Christian Engström, HAX on the parliamentary delegates, ..and read the truly excellent analysis by Monica Horten of the University of Westminster, Communications and Media Research Institute (CAMRI)
Thursday, 16 July 2009
Against the Stockholm Programme: Jakop Dalunde in translation
I didn't make it to Humlegården yesterday for the demonstration against the Stockholm Programme. For those that also missed it here is a taste plucked from the Stockholm blogosphere...
A translation of the speech by Jakop Dalunde of the Young Greens (Grön Ungdom Riksorganisationen) from yesterday's demonstration in Humlegården, Stockholm.
"Many before and after me will talk about the Stockholm programme's content, on technicalities and details. That is important, because that is where the devil sits. But we must also raise our eyes and see the broader picture.
The surveillance laws that are now being pushed through not only have direct consequences for privacy, but it also affect how we see each other and society at large. We are gathered here today because we know there are no terrorist threats that justify the extent of repressive measures. We do not accept the problem image of hordes of illegal immigrants who must be hunted down.
But I am sadly afraid that the surveillance lobby's propaganda will affect millions of Europeans' views on terror and migrants, and eventually change our whole society. More and more people will believe that migrants are fundamentally a problem and it is actually a terrorist lurking behind the next corner. An important part of the Stockholm program is cooperation with the U.S. so we can check what the terrorist threat debate had for consequences there.
In Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9 / 11 he travels to a small town in the middle of nowhere and interviewing citizens on the street about how they see the terrorist threat. The interviewees respond that they are afraid, and that they now live differently and look out for what could be suspicious. And when Michael Moore then asks what they think would be the target for terrorist attack in this little town, and an interviewee pointed to the local Wal-Mart store, then it is difficult to know whether to laugh or cry.
An example from a major city, New York. When I was there last spring, it struck me how the terrorist threat embraced their society. Cameras everywhere. In the entrance to all shops there were big signs that said "If you suspect terrorism, call this number". Can you imagine seeing a sign like that every time you shop for food? It affects your mentality. It makes people close up, when instead we should open up.
It is not only morally right to open Europe's borders for migrants, we also have a duty under the Geneva Convention to allow asylum seekers the opportunity to test their right to protection. But what is happening right now is that the EU's refugee hunters Frontex stops most of them before they reach the border to, with immigration minister Billström's words "jointly and severally accept responsibility for those who come to Europe". The newspeak is strongly provocative.
I think there were many of us who rucked our eyebrows when justice minister Ask today said "the EU summit must strengthen citizens' privacy." Or try on this sentence, "Our hope is that individual rights and privacy should be strengthened within the EU through the Stockholm programme."
This undermines not only the Swedish language, but also confidence in public debate. Can we trust what ministers say is true? Can a society without faith in their elected officials work?
We are gathered here today because we know that a suspicious and closed society has no future, and that the good power of the red and the blue, the purple and the green must fight together to take back a trusting and open society!"
A translation of the speech by Jakop Dalunde of the Young Greens (Grön Ungdom Riksorganisationen) from yesterday's demonstration in Humlegården, Stockholm.
"Many before and after me will talk about the Stockholm programme's content, on technicalities and details. That is important, because that is where the devil sits. But we must also raise our eyes and see the broader picture.
The surveillance laws that are now being pushed through not only have direct consequences for privacy, but it also affect how we see each other and society at large. We are gathered here today because we know there are no terrorist threats that justify the extent of repressive measures. We do not accept the problem image of hordes of illegal immigrants who must be hunted down.
But I am sadly afraid that the surveillance lobby's propaganda will affect millions of Europeans' views on terror and migrants, and eventually change our whole society. More and more people will believe that migrants are fundamentally a problem and it is actually a terrorist lurking behind the next corner. An important part of the Stockholm program is cooperation with the U.S. so we can check what the terrorist threat debate had for consequences there.
In Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9 / 11 he travels to a small town in the middle of nowhere and interviewing citizens on the street about how they see the terrorist threat. The interviewees respond that they are afraid, and that they now live differently and look out for what could be suspicious. And when Michael Moore then asks what they think would be the target for terrorist attack in this little town, and an interviewee pointed to the local Wal-Mart store, then it is difficult to know whether to laugh or cry.
An example from a major city, New York. When I was there last spring, it struck me how the terrorist threat embraced their society. Cameras everywhere. In the entrance to all shops there were big signs that said "If you suspect terrorism, call this number". Can you imagine seeing a sign like that every time you shop for food? It affects your mentality. It makes people close up, when instead we should open up.
It is not only morally right to open Europe's borders for migrants, we also have a duty under the Geneva Convention to allow asylum seekers the opportunity to test their right to protection. But what is happening right now is that the EU's refugee hunters Frontex stops most of them before they reach the border to, with immigration minister Billström's words "jointly and severally accept responsibility for those who come to Europe". The newspeak is strongly provocative.
I think there were many of us who rucked our eyebrows when justice minister Ask today said "the EU summit must strengthen citizens' privacy." Or try on this sentence, "Our hope is that individual rights and privacy should be strengthened within the EU through the Stockholm programme."
This undermines not only the Swedish language, but also confidence in public debate. Can we trust what ministers say is true? Can a society without faith in their elected officials work?
We are gathered here today because we know that a suspicious and closed society has no future, and that the good power of the red and the blue, the purple and the green must fight together to take back a trusting and open society!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
