Kiwiblog

Jordan Weissmann writes at The Atlantic:

It’s hard to think of any business more inherently obnoxious than a patent troll. These are the tech-world parasites that buy up troves of intellectual property, not so that they can make a product, but so that they can turn around and sue successful companies for patent infringement with the aim of nabbing a quick and profitable settlement. They’ve infested the courts over the last decade, and by one count are now responsible for more than half of all U.S. patent cases, potentially costing American businesses some $29 billion a year.

So kudos to Oregon congressman Peter DeFazio, who Thursday morning introduced a bill aimed squarely at putting the trolls out of commission. His smart and simple legislation, called the SHIELD Act, would force trolls that lose in court to reimburse the companies they sue for their legal fees, which can amount to millions of dollars. That might not sound particularly bold. But it’s a carefully calibrated step that could go a long way to containing the the troll problem by driving up the cost — and risk — of bringing flimsy patent cases. 

I like it.

Trolls have flourished over the last few years largely because it’s now easier and cheaper to bring a patent case than it is to defend against one. Much like personal injury lawyers who advertise on TV, the attorneys who represent trolls often work on contingency, meaning they only take a cut of what they win. Defense lawyers, on the other hand, ask for their pay up front, and usually bill by the hour. As a result, a single troll can file a barrage of lawsuits without putting much skin in the game, while the small companies they tend to target – about 55 percent of the businesses sued make less than $10 million a year — are forced to mount a costly defense that saps their finances with each passing day. 

We’re lucky that generally we’re too small to target, but we have had a few.

There’s also a more subtle way DeFazio’s bill throws a kink into the troll business model. At the start of each patent suit, the plaintiffs will have to show that they are either a university, the original inventor of the patent, or a company sincerely trying to turn it into a commercial product. If they can’t, they will be officially deemed a troll, and be required to post a bond to cover the defendant’s costs, should they lose a case. That will tie up their money, which in turn will make it more cost-intensive to bring lots of suits while simultaneously cutting their return on investment. 

Hopefully he can get it past Congress.

Lee Suckling at Stuff has an in-depth article on trolling and bullying on-line. I’m one of those quoted in the story.

Trolling and cyber-bullying are related phenomena, although not interchangeable terms, argues David Farrar of the Wellington-based Kiwiblog.

“The intention of the troll is to disrupt, be provocative and get a reaction,” he says. “Trolling can be mixed with bullying, but cyber-bullying requires very personal, very vindictive behaviour; either of someone the bully has met in person, or someone in the public eye where there’s lots of personal information out there about them.”

Cyber-bullying often involves a sustained campaign against an individual, while trolling has no rhyme or reason, says Netsafe’s chief technology officer, Sean Lyons.

Trolls are just painful, while bullies are nasty.

A troll, conversely, deliberately goes against the grain of the other posts, with a goal of creating outrage among other commenters, Farrar adds. “Trolls say inflammatory things in lots of places: on popular blogs like Kiwiblog, in sections that allow comments on Trade Me, on Facebook and Twitter.

“They’re persistent for one or two reasons. Either they do it simply for the reaction or they use it as a weapon because they’re ideologically against whatever that blog or page is about.”

And a typical troll:

Farrar says his posts about religion always elicit trolls. “I have one troll, who goes by many fake identities, who I call a ‘Christian baiter’. He’ll jump into a post and say something like, ‘All Catholics are paedophiles’, then sit back and revel in the chaos caused.”

And Greer Berry on troll profiles:

Typecasting the typical troll is difficult. “The presumed profile of the troll is a single, unemployed, overweight white male with two cats,” says Greer Berry, former social media editor of stuff.co.nz.

“But in reality, trolls are working people, and they’re just as likely to be women – though they often go by male usernames online.”

I’ve noticed a lot of women use male usernames.

Miles Godfrey from AAP at Stuff reports:

If you’ve ever viewed Twitter as a gauge of public opinion, a weathervane marking the mood of the masses, you are very much mistaken.

That is the rather surprising finding of a new US study, which suggests the microblog zeitgeist differs markedly from mainstream public opinion.

“Twitter users are not representative of the public,” Washington DC think tank, Pew Research Center, concluded.

Experts in Australia, where Twitter comment is regularly used in media reaction to major new stories or a method of interaction for television programs, agreed with the US findings.

“While Twitter can give you a good idea of the extremes of how people feel about certain topics, when it comes to measuring opinion of the general public about major issues, it’s pretty useless,” Laura Demasi, of marketing firm IPSOS Australia, told AAP.

Pew Research’s study examined eight major US news events, including November’s presidential election, and compared views expressed on Twitter with national polling. …

The study highlighted a decision made in California’s Federal Court which ruled that laws barring same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.

Almost half of the Twitter conversations about the verdict were positive, eight per cent were negative and 46 per cent were neutral.

But wider public opinion on the decision was more mixed – with 33 per cent saying it was a positive ruling, 44 per cent negative and 15 per cent neutral.

The reason, Pew Research Center says, is that only a “narrow sliver” of the population use Twitter.

A recent study by French social media analysts Semiocast showed there were 140 million Twitter accounts in the US – more than one third of the population.

But users tend to be younger and lean more toward the political left than right, the study said.

This story is a useful reminder, with relevance in NZ.

I enjoy Twitter, and you get some great humour there. But it is not a proxy for the overall population.

It’s one thing to take a few quotes from Twitter, but media should be careful about generalisations such as saying “The decision was heavily criticised on Twitter”.

The other area media should be careful about, is choosing whom to quote. I recall one episode of Seven Sharp where the tweep they quoted on a Christchurch issue was the local campaign chair for Labour. Of course, there was no mention of that.

Despite being just two and a half years old my laptop seems to be in need of replacing. I’m having to boot it up in safe mode half the time as it just won’t start up normally.

In the past I have not wanted to consider a non-Windows machine as the transition was going to be too much hassle, but this time I am open to a Macintosh, and in fact that is probably my preference. They just seem to last longer.

As with previous times, keen for feedback from readers as to what they would recommend. My ideal features are:

• Fast
• Long battery life
• Can be used for 12+ hours a day
• Relatively light
• Quick start up
• Can handle multiple apps open at same time
• Resilient
• 1 TB or more storage
• 16 GB or more RAM

Stuff reports:

The Recording Industry Association is not admitting to any disappointment over the size of awards handed down by the Copyright Tribunal against people caught illegally sharing music.

The tribunal has released its third “Skynet” ruling, awarding $797.17 against a CallPlus customer who was caught pirating Elton John and Coldplay tracks.

The Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (Rianz), which represents major music labels, had asked for a $3931 penalty.

However, the tribunal instead ordered $7.17 in direct compensation, the repayment of $250 in fees Rianz had paid to get the case to the tribunal and a deterrent of $180 for each of the three “strikes”.

Now there are three cases decided, we are getting a good idea of the likely penalties.

In all three cases they have got stung for $250 of fees plus the trivial cost of the actual songs.

What has varied is the deterrent penalty which has ranged from $100 to $180 per song. This case had it at $180 and that is because the respondent didn’t file any claim at all,  This is probably the maximum deterrent that will be charged.

The $100 is for now the minimum. However in some cases they may go even lower. None of the respondents to date have had particularly strong excuses. If someone comes forward with a defence that they did take several steps to stop any file-sharing (put a password on the wireless etc) then their deterrent fee may be reduced even further.

“There are 20 legal services in New Zealand, many of them completely free, that give people the opportunity to access music online.

“The cost of the fine would have bought the person five years’ worth of access to Spotify premium, giving them access to more than 20 million tracks playable on multiple devices.”

A reasonable point.

Hamish Fletcher at NZ Herald reports:

The Government says it will not set aside any spectrum for Maori when it auctions it off later this year.

In third quarter of this year the Government hopes to allocate parts of the radio spectrum, which will become available after the switchover to digital television.

The allocation of this spectrum will allow telecommunications companies to build fourth generation (4G) mobile networks that provide much faster mobile broadband speeds.

“Indications are that by using the spectrum for 4G mobile networks, we can expect economic benefits for New Zealand of up to $2.4 billion over the next twenty years,” Minister for Communications and Information Technology Amy Adams said today.

I’m pleased to see this decision. It is stretching credibility to say that the electromagnetic spectrum was what people had in mind as a taonga when the Treaty was signed in 1840.

Equally difficult to claim there was customary usage of it under the common law!

The Privacy Commissioner has published a guide for users of cloud computing. It’s a very useful resource.

Their checklist for small business is:

1. Figure out which cloud services will work for you and what your current risk level is
   
2. Know what information you’ll be sending to the cloud
3. Recognise that the responsibility is ultimately yours
4. Security – lock it down
5. Check out your provider
6. Know exactly what you’re signing up for
7. Be as up front with your clients as you can
8. Location – where will the information be?
9.  Use and disclosure – who sees the information and what will it be used for
10. Ability to exit, and deleting information

I just wish data caps were higher so I could backup my stuff to the cloud in real time.

Telecom have announced:

Telecom, Vodafone and Telstra announced today they have signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding (MoU) to co-invest in the construction of a new submarine cable between Auckland and Sydney.
The new cable, tentatively titled the Tasman Global Access (TGA) Cable, will significantly improve New Zealand’s international telecommunications connectivity as well as strengthen links into fast-growing Asian markets.

The total cost of the TGA cable is expected to be less than US$60 million. The cable will incorporate three fibre pairs with a current design capacity of 30 terabits per second – approximately 300 times the current internet data demand out of New Zealand.

30 terabits a second isn’t bad!

The TGA cable will achieve significant international connectivity benefits for New Zealand at a fraction of the build cost of another, much longer trans-Pacific cable, the consortium partners said.

It would be nice to have another trans-Pacific cable also, but this announcement is good news as it means more competition and more capacity. What is pleasing is that it is not just Telecom (who have the biggest stake of Southern Cross) but also Telstra and Vodafone.

Telecom chief executive Simon Moutter and Vodafone New Zealand CEO Russell Stanners jointly commented: “The business case for a new cable between New Zealand and Australia is compelling, providing greater capacity and global redundancy capability. It also reflects the growing importance of trans-Tasman internet traffic: for example, around 40% of both Telecom and Vodafone’s international internet traffic is now Australia to New Zealand, versus just 10% in 2000.

“We are seeing increased data content being provided from Australia-based servers by global companies and being accessed by New Zealand internet users. An additional cable connection with Australia will strengthen the business case for international data servers to be located in New Zealand.

I’ve blogged on this in the past. NZ will never be big enough to have global datacentres here, but if we can get the Googles and Apples of the world to do regional datacentres in Sydney, then we will pull more and more of our data from Australia rather than the United States.

Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn blogs:

A little over ten years ago, a blog was born. Two days later, on February 18 2003, I made my first post, having been lured aboard by my then-co-blogger Mike (who then wandered off and left me in charge, which may have been his cunning plan from the beginning).

Congrats to No Right Turn on the 10th birthday.

That reminds me that on 27 July 2013 Kiwiblog will be ten years old.

I’ve been thinking for a while that it would be nice to have a 10th birthday party to celebrate the blog, and the impact it has had in various ways.

To allow me to do something a bit more appealing than a function with water and carrot sticks only, I am wondering if there are any organisations or companies out there that would be interested in sponsoring the 10th birthday party. If you are interested, drop me an e-mail and we can discuss possibilities.  Not looking to do anything massively flashy but would be nice to be able to provide a bit of food and drink. In return of course would be some publicity.

The actual party would be in early August as I will be in the United States in July.

The broadcasters have announced:

Broadcasting Industry to Launch Online News And Current Affairs Self Regulatory Body

New Zealand’s major radio and television broadcasters today confirmed the launch of a new industry funded, self-regulatory body, the Online Media Standards Authority “OMSA”, which will oversee online news and current affairs content standards.

Since the Law Commission’s paper, The News Media meets ‘New Media’ was published in December 2011, NZ television broadcasters TVNZ, SKY/Prime, MediaWorks TV, and Maori Television have worked together with Radio New Zealand, The Radio Network and MediaWorks Radio to provide an industry led, cost effective and consumer friendly solution to regulate online news and current affairs content. OMSA will publish a code of standards and provide a free complaints process overseen by the OMSA Complaints Committee.

The OMSA Complaints Committee will be chaired by retired Court of Appeal Judge, Sir Bruce Robertson and including the Chair; will comprise four public members and three broadcasting industry representatives.

The new body will use a similar format to that used by the Advertising Standards Authority and the NZ Press Council, as they are excellent examples of industry funded, self- regulatory regimes working effectively. OMSA acknowledges the advice and guidance that was provided by both organizations. OMSA Chair, Clare Bradley, said

“OMSA enjoys the total support of New Zealand broadcasters and the OMSA code and complaints process will apply to the websites operated by all OMSA members. The Authority has its genesis in the report of the Law Commission which identified a regulatory “gap” in the oversight of news and current affairs content solely published on line. We are delighted to be able to provide the solution to the Law Commission’s “gap”.

This does help plug a gap. Currently broadcaster’s websites are not covered by any code or body. Print media websites are covered by the Press Council.

It’s a step in the right direction, but a poor substitute to what we should have – which is a converged standards regulator for all media – totally independent of Government.

What is no clear is what the membership eligibility for OMSA will be, and associated fees. Should online publishers who wish to be seen as media join OMSA or the Press Council? Will the fees be affordable for non-commercial entities.

The latest article by Pat Pilcher on software patents is somewhat misleading. I actually agree with Pat (and have quoted him before) that software patents should not be allowed. But the issue is about how the current law is depicted.

Pilcher wrote in the Herald:

At the end of the day, should software become patentable in New Zealand, the future winners will most probably only be large law firms and the multinationals who can afford them. In the US over the last 20 years, The estimated cost to the US economy of patent litigation has been an estimated half a trillion US dollars.

This is very misleading, as it strongly implies software is not patentable at the moment. It is. Apart from the normal tests for obviousness etc there are no restrictions at all on software patents.

The law is going to change, and it will ban at least some software patents. So in fact the change in the law will be the opposite direction to what Pilcher implies.

Now what the dispute is about, is the wording of the exemption. As has been described in the past, many worry the Government’s proposed wording which is based on European (and I think Australian) law will still allow some software to be patented. That is a legitimate concern and I prefer the wording backed by the Open Source Society and put forward as an amendment by Clare Curran.

But that doesn’t change the fact that even with the Government’s wording, the law is going to change from all software being patentable to most software not being patentable.

There is a good Wikipedia article on the pros and cons of software patents.

Tracy McVeigh at NZ Herald reports:

Small, volcanic, with a proud Viking heritage and run by an openly gay Prime Minister, Iceland is now considering becoming the first democracy in the Western world to try to ban online pornography.

Yeah, that will work.

Ministers are considering the results. “We are a progressive, liberal society when it comes to nudity, to sexual relations, so our approach is not anti-sex but anti-violence. This is about children and gender equality not about limiting free speech,” she said.

“Research shows the average age of children who see online porn is 11 in Iceland and we are concerned about that and about the increasing violent nature of what they are exposed to. This is concern coming to us from professionals since mainstream porn has become very brutal.

Brutal? Has it? I think this needs a huge research project with lost of taxpayer funding to investigate.

Speculation is growing in Australia that Kevin Rudd will (again) challenge Julia Gillard for the Labor Party leadership in March.

The article linked to has some graphics and stats on their social media usage, which I have summarised below:

Kevin Rudd has an incredible number of followers. Around 1 in 20 Australians follow him (and a few Kiwis). But he doesn’t just broadcast – he engages all the time with people tweeting him. So does Tony Abbott it seems.

Do a traceroute to 216.81.59.173

Very cool.

H/T: Simon Allard

Parliament has announced:

Later in 2013 public hearings of evidence before select committees will be webcast live on this website. This will be part of a pilot to assess how this type of service could be delivered in the future. …

During the pilot, one select committee hearing will be webcast at a time. Webcasting will be able to occur only from certain select committee rooms, but committee rooms will continue to be allocated on the basis of committees’ needs; this will not involve any judgment about the newsworthiness of committee business. A committee intending to hear evidence in public and allocated a room with webcasting facilities will be able to choose whether those hearings are webcast.

I’m pleased to see this initiative. Select Committees are an important part of Parliament and this should allow more people to see what happens at them.

Hopefully eventually we’ll see all select committees available for viewing over the Internet, and also archived for future reference.

Pat Pilcher writes:

For technology to become a fully functioning cog in NZ’s economy, the way we treat intellectual property (e.g. the ideas and concepts behind the software, hardware and other innovation that underpins much of the tech sector) is critically important. In a nutshell, we’d better get our patent laws right or we may find local businesses involved in unwinnable patent fights against lawyered-up multinationals when they could be innovating, exporting and otherwise creating wealth for New Zealanders.

And the patent trolls.

The overarching aim is for the government to provide a balance between innovation and protecting public interests.

Achieving this is no easy feat, and already the bill is mired in controversy as Commerce Minister Craig Foss changed the wording of a clause within the bill which could have huge ramifications for New Zealand’s fledgling software industry.

His amendment has changed some crucial wording in the bill that some say has the government moving away from excluding software from being patented (as per select committee recommendations), to parts of the bill being sufficiently vague that software may indeed become patentable. Clause 10a of the supplementary order paper 120 was amended to read: “..prevents anything from being an invention for the purposes of this Act only to the extent that a patent or an application relates to a computer program as such”

It might only be two words, but from a legal standpoint the addition of “as such” makes all the difference and could see kiwi companies being locked into protracted legal battles against multinationals whose lawyers are likely to emerge as the only real victors, whilst New Zealand could end up on the losing side.

I’m not sure how significant the two extra words are but personally prefer to err on the side of caution and leave them out.

Of equal concern, changes to the bill could see businesses that had invested in New Zealand pulling out. Geomechanica, a Canadian software company had planned to relocate to NZ because they felt that the original patent ban on software as proposed in the unmodified form of the bill would foster an innovation friendly environment. Sadly tweaks made to the patent bill could render a New Zealand business case untenable for them and others, depriving New Zealand of employment opportunities, potentially setting our digital economy back by decades.

According to AJ Guillon, co-founder of Geomechanica, “We have planned our products and marketing based on a relocation to New Zealand, exporting innovative software without the threat of domestic software patents. If the software patent bill passes with the “as such” wording, we cannot justify a relocation to a country with an ambiguous law on a matter that is so important to us.”

Seems like a good case for a clear law that is explicit that software can not be patented.

The Herald reports:

The lowest price of broadband internet access is less important than ensuring consumers move as quickly as possible to high-speed fibre-based services, says Telecommunications Minister Amy Adams.

I disagree. I’m a huge fan of the fibre roll-out but you don’t force people onto fibre by artificially keeping the cost of copper high.

“I don’t think the over-arching criteria in this is ‘what is the cheapest option’,” Adams told BusinessDesk. “If that was the case, we’d be sticking with dial-up. I don’t think you’d find any consumer saying ‘if dial-up’s cheaper, let me have that’.”

I don’t accept that comparison. The difference between dial-up and broadband is massive. My laptop effectively freezes on dialup. The difference between dial-up and DSL is like the difference between a wheelchair and a car. While the difference between DSL and fibre is more like the difference between a Lada and a Porsche. And for some people a Lada is fine.

Her comments followed her announcement the government would accelerate its timetable for reviewing the regulatory regime for telecommunications services. The decision effectively neuters the Commerce Commission, which issued a draft determination late last year that could favour a longer life for the existing copper wire network by pricing it highly competitively with new fibre services.

That draft determination, which Adams described as a “curve ball”, sparked protest from the key players in the ultra-fast broadband roll-out, including NZX-listed Chorus, whose share price recovered 12 per cent today, immediately following Adams’s announcement.

I think it is disappointing that the Government has intervened in this way. The Commerce Commission is doing the job set down by statute. If it has made an error, then that can be challenged in the submissions on the draft and if need be in court. I’ve not see any suggestion the Commission has got the law wrong.

“Carrying on the way it was would have changed the landscape in the way telecommunications services were priced and delivered and we saw some real risks around that in terms of market uncertainty and the market not looking to develop and promote high speed fibre products,” said Adams.

I think the market works better when the Government doesn’t artificially push the price of one product up.

“What became very clear is that this sort of uncertainty and decisions coming out that have really taken everyone by surprise are the last thing that anyone needs in this space.

Not at all. I am not surprised that the Commission found out copper services were over-priced.

Trace Watkins reports:

Australia and New Zealand regulators will get new powers to crack down on exorbitant mobile phone roaming rates both sides of the Tasman.

Prime Minister John Key and his Australian counterpart Julia Gillard are expected to announce the changes today after meetings in Queenstown.

They will give the Commerce Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission the power to set price caps, or force operators to offer local access services that do not require a change of SIM card.

This looks like a good step to me. Fair to mention though things are a lot better now with Telecom’s flat rate roaming deal.

The changes follow a lengthy investigation and horror stories about holiday makers returning home with mobile phone charges steeper than the cost of their holiday.

Literally.

While prices had dropped recently, that was only because the threat of legislation hung over telecommunications providers, she said.

“When the work began on the report, New Zealanders were facing mobile data charges of up to $30 per megabit but the price had now dropped in most cases to 50c per megabit.”

I think you mean megabyte.

Even 50c is massive. Domestic charges are around 0.1c per MB or $1 per GB.

David Fisher at NZ Herald reports:

John Key went to meet Hollywood bosses with a briefing from officials saying studio bosses were looking for easier ways to target New Zealanders who downloaded and shared films illegally.

Officials told the Prime Minister Hollywood objected to the $25 fee it had to pay each time a notice warning against copyright infringement was issued and wanted to pay less.

Yep, they hate it. They say it should be zero or at best a few cents. They think ISPs should act as their delivery agents for no charge at all, and that they should be able to send tens of thousands of infringment notices per month via ISPs at the ISPs expense.

What they also hate is that the NZ charge may set an international precedent of reasonable reimbursement of costs for ISPs.

The briefing stated the support came through the MPAA’s New Zealand arm – the Federation Against Copyright Theft – which saw the regime as becoming a “gold standard” for similar schemes around the world. Despite the support, Mr Key was told the studios behind the MPAA did not use it because the $25 fee paid to internet service providers to send warning notices was too high.

Yep, they threw their toys out. I give RIANZ credit that they are at least using the system they lobbied for.

A recent review of the scheme kept the fee at $25 because lower costs would hurt ISPs, who were forced to pay up to $100 to send each notice. Mr Key was told the MPAA’s involvement would lead to an increase in the number of warning notices sent to people and give a “critical mass” that would bring the cost down.

Opponents of the fee change warned cheaper costs could lead to a rise in vexatious complaints.

As reported, the Government recently decided to not give in to the demands from the MPAA and kept the fee at $25. What is also not widely known is that when the scheme was set up, the (then) MED recommended the fee be only $20 and it was in fact Cabinet that increased the fee to $25.

Tom Pullar-Strecker at Stuff reports:

Government websites will switch to free, open-source software from Wellington firm Silverstripe under an “all-of-government” contract …

DIA last year chose 33 firms to design and develop websites for government agencies through separate all-of-government web services contracts. The decision to pick Silverstripe as its “common web services platform” following a tender means those firms will use Silverstripe’s software in place of about 50 other content management systems when carrying out work for government agencies. …

Don Christie, co-chairman of NZ Rise, which lobbies on behalf of domestic information technology suppliers, said the win was “fabulous” for Silverstripe, which employs 50 people. The company was founded by three Wellington College and Scots College graduates in 2000 – Tim Copeland, Sam Minnee and Sigurd Magnusson, who still own 84 per cent.

Although its software is free, Silverstripe earns money from add-ons and consulting.

Silverstripe rose to prominence in 2008 when its software was used to manage the website for the United States Democrats’ National Convention at which Barack Obama was selected as the party’s presidential candidate.

Air New Zealand switched from a Microsoft content management system to Silverstripe the following year.

Silverstripe is a great local success story, and they go from strength to strength.

I was fascinated to see Annette King commenting on The Standard several times, in different threads. In one comment she said:

I hope more colleagues engage on the Standard, a must read for me. Constructive comment and exchange of ideas would be of two way benefit.

This is quite remarkable considering David Shearer has said how he never reads the blogs, and his caucus and office have tried to poo-poo any influence they have.

I joked on Twitter:

The really impt vote in caucus was to select who would be sacrificial MP to post on The Standard. Annette got short straw

But I think there is substance behind the joke. Smart people in Labour know they can not afford to have the most read blog on the left remain a cesspit of anti-Shearer hatred. So they obviously decided on a strategy of waiting until Shearer wins the leadership vote and then do two things.

1. Have Labour-friendly authors post how it is time for people to accept the leadership is settled, and that it is time to focus on defeating National
2. Send caucus members into The Standard to make them feel less alienated and constructively engaged

It’s a pretty smart strategy. I could guess who came up with it. It won’t be a silver bullet as the depth of ill-well runs very deep. It isn’t just against Shearer, but also Mallard, Curran and more generally the old guard (which makes the choice of Annette to engage with them a very smart one). But I do think it will work in reducing the level of hostility and bile.

Pat Pilcher writes at NZ Herald:

Every once and a while a law is passed that really gives you pause for thought. One such example is an inexplicable piece of legislation about to come into force in the US that will see smartphone users unlocking their phones with the permission of their mobile service provider running afoul of the law.

This bizarre situation came about because the US government applied the same sort of loopy wisdom that you’d associate with walkshorts, cardigans and the public sector.

In a nutshell they worked out that smartphones could contravene the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Bizarrely this then resulted in laws being drafted so that while it is legal to jailbreak smartphones, it will become illegal to jailbreak tablets and even more annoyingly, illegal to unlock phones without permission from the telco you bought your phone from.

How ridiculous.

Whilst most telcos would argue that there is a solid commercial reason for this legislation, in that they’re wanting to ensure that the cost of a subsidised and heavily discounted handset is recovered from the duration of the customers mobile contract and don’t want the customer exiting their plan prematurely.

If they do, then you may have breach of contract. That is what they do in NZ – you have to pay more to change providers early on if you got a discounted handset. There is absolutely no need to have this as criminal law.

This is almost an abuse of law making powers. It will I am sure be widely ignored.

Katie Chapman at Stuff reports:

Porirua City Council is pushing to be one of the first councils in the country to offer internet voting at this year’s election.

Porirua Mayor Nick Leggett addressed the Justice and Electoral select committee, which was hearing submissions on proposed changes to the local electoral act, this morning.

There, he called on the committee to look at including provisions in the amendment bill, allowing internet voting at local body elections.

E-voting would offer a better way for young people to get involved, he said.

The postal voting system was irrelevant to many young voters – most of whom paid little or no attention to local politics, he said.

”It’s fairly safe to say that most people these days have a greater relationship with the internet … than they do with their post box.

”Younger voters were always the hardest to convince to vote, so making it as easy as possible was an important part of the process.

”We can’t afford to disenfranchise more than one generation of people.

”While young people would still need to be convinced to take an interest, it would remove at least one barrier, he said.

I agree that postal voting is dying as an electoral method. For local government elections we need to at least trial an e-voting option.

As I understand it the current law is flexible enough to allow some local authorities to offer e-voting later this year. All that is needed is for Cabinet to pass some regulations to govern how it is done. This should be done in the first quarter of this year. It is ridiculousness that 16 years after the Internet became widely available in NZ, we are still dragging our heels on this issue.

Truth reports:

Over the last couple of hours the usual suspects in our tired old media have cut and paste an article from Computerworld. In their efforts they report that Mega has received 150 copyright infringements since its launch. Mega have provided their flunkies at Stuff and the Herald the usual weasel words about how they are doing everything correctly and they have removed any files that are found to be infringing the law.

All good so far.

However, two points that need to be considered.

1. If Mega is fully encrypted (as an artifice to dodge the rules by the site owners maybe) how can anybody know what is in the supposed infringing files?

2. And by far the single most explosive point to this story is that Computerworld have provided further info that Stuff and the Herald chose to ignore.

If you visit www.mega-search.me you will see that the whole scheme is just like the old scheme. Mega is a file sharing service to allow you to upload data and share it. There are dozens of listings for copied and copyrighted material that are quite clearly illegal.

We are not suggesting that Kim Dotcom owns, runs, manages or even knows anything about the search site but I bet he will be trying very hard to get it closed as it clearly shows exactly what this latest business is. We note that the search utilises Mega’s logo extensively.

It will be interesting to see if further legal action eventuates on this.

Kerry McBride at stuff reports:

The internet should be like a blank sheet of paper for people to write on, says the creator of the World Wide Web.

In Wellington for just one day, Sir Tim Berners-Lee told an audience of tech types last night that the web was at its best when as open as possible.

‘‘It should be like a sheet of paper – without attitude. It’s not concerned about what is written on it.’’

In 1989, the British computer scientist became the first person to create a link between a web page and a server via the internet, establishing the World Wide Web as it is known today.

The lecture, held at Te Papa, was part of a whirlwind tour that also included meetings with Prime Minister John Key, ministers and officials to discuss New Zealand’s approach to the digital environment.

While he would not divulge what discussions he had with the prime minister, he said all people should be able to use the internet without fear that companies or governments were spying, or data-mining.

‘‘We should be able to use the internet without worrying about whether there is someone looking over our shoulder.’’

Part of that included creating business models that allowed people to obtain music, movies and or even cat photos in any format they desired.

Earlier in the day we had a reception and powhiri for Sir Tim and the point was made that he invented the WWW without needing to get permisson from any person or any Government. That is the strength of the Internet.

‘There’s someone out there who next week is going to produce something you could never imagine. And that’s not about technology, that’s humanity.’’

Technology is just the tool. But a damn useful tool.