ICTlogy

The Congress on Internet, Law and Politics has the aim of continuing the task of reflecting on, analyzing and discussing the main changes taking place in law and politics in the information society. This third congress focuses on the questions that currently represent the most important challenges and new developments in the fields of copyright, data protection, Internet security, problems of responsibility, electronic voting, and the new regulation of e-Administration, as well as dedicating a specific area to the current state of the use of new technologies by law professionals.

Presentation of the session
Esther Mitjans i Perelló, Director of ACPD, the Catalan Data Protection Agency.

There is no more innocence assumption: everyone is potentially guilty, so everyone is watched at. And even worse: it is defended as a democratic action, as everyone is watched out equally.

Self determination in an Information Society
Yves Poullet, Director of the Centre de recherche informatique et droit (CRID), University of Namur.

Left to right: Ricard Martínez, Ester Mitjans, Lucas Murillo, Yves Poullet

Technological landscape: ability to store speech, data, images or any combination; with more capacity on transmission, processing and storage; with almost absolute mobility. It is, hence, becoming more and more possible to literally digitally record the whole life of an individual.

Behind the screen, one actually connects to a lot of servers, besides just the website one intended to visit. And this depends on the technology, which is not neutral: while Mozilla Firefox filters (refuses) most of the connections one would be not aware of, Microsoft Internet Explorer just lets each and everyone in.

Besides privacy: the human dignity and the support of other fundamental liberties such as freedom of choice, of information, of expression.

A shift on Data Protection: from Privacy as a right to opacity, towards Data Protection (beyond Privacy) as a way for ensuring a better equilibrium between the informational powers of Data Control and Data Security (a positive approach). Is there a need, now, for a third generation on data protection?

Personal data has been since long centered on personal data, but now there is a need for a specific regulation of anchorage points (permit correlations) and contact points (i.e. cookies, traffic data and RFID), because identity is no more a prerequisite for data processing afecting individuals. We no more need to know who one person is to contact him or her, even not personally, but i.e. offering him something to buy that he might be interested in (and we even don’t know his name).

And indeed, there are also new actors that need being regulated. We should maybe go towards a system of “products liability” in case of implementation of non privacy compliant terminals.

And new objectives: right not to be excessively controlled, continuously exposed to advertising, etc. and over all, the right to remain anonymous, based on a functional non identifiability (which now the Internet mainly does not allow), a privacy compliant communication terminal.

Lucas Murillo, Supreme Court magistrate, Professor of Constitutional Law.

In his opinion the issue is not privacy itself, but data security, with special stress on those who manage important amounts of data: the Administration and some big private actors (ISPs and so on).

And even if Governments have done (more or less) their homework, private corporations (in general) have not. Hence, he believes that a strong State is absolutely necessary to enforce the Law, and private initiative and/or self-regulation either does not work or it is not guaranteed in front of the user/citizen. Of course, punishing is just the other side of information and good practices fostering.

Ricard Martínez Martínez, Professor of Constitutional Law, UOC School of Law

There’s two options that one can deal with data: according to the law or with the owner’s consent. But consent is fragile: as data are priceless, data hunters set up procedures so tough that the user blindly accepts (consents) giving his data away.

On the other hand, the right of data protection can be understood so wide that maybe it could cover almost anything. It is now only related to communications, but some pressures (i.e. need of more data after 11S attacks to prevent terrorism) might make this constraints shift.

Working with Information Society / Digital Divide indicators is a tricky thing to do, as definitions (along with technology) change in short periods of time. Some months ago, Tim Kelly asked me what did I consider “broadband”, as it was one of the hottest issues that researchers, in general, and the ITU, specially, had to deal with. Let’s see an example.

Broadband is defined by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T), in their recommendation I.113, as transmission capacity that is faster than primary rate Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) at 1.5 or 2.0 Megabits per second (Mbits). On the other hand, the OECD gives its own definition of broadband stating that for a service to be considered broadband, [the threshold] in respect to downstream access [should be up] to 256 Kbps. The fact is that, as the OECD itself admits, Network operators widely advertise DSL and cable modem services to users starting at 256 Kbps as being
‘broadband’. Actually, the Core ICT Indicators, promoted by the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development — partnered by the ITU — also defines broadband as technologies that provide speeds of at least 256 kbit/s, where this speed is the combined upstream and downstream capacity.

Summarizing, all of these are technical definitions, based on the fact of transmitting more than one data stream in the same wire by using different frequencies or channels. But for the not-technical user, broadband is strictly tied to “effective” speed, or, in other words, “subjective” speed: if your 1 Mbps is the slowest in town, it is no more broadband. This was Tim Kelly’s point last time we met.

Thus said — and leaving technical issues behind to focus in this “subjective” broadband perception — my proposal is to build a basket of tasks the way economists use to calculate changes in inflation based on a basket of products. Of course, this basket of tasks is also likely to evolve with time, but what is crystal clear is that the technical definition of broadband (the one about channels) is no more useful, and the decision to state that i.e. 256 Kbps is broadband should lean on objective basis more than “network operators advertisments”.

Proposal of a basket of tasks for a broadband definition

• Work in online, synchronous collaborative environments with rich media: VoIP, videoconference, screencasting, presentations/drawings…
• Work intensively/exclusively with online, asynchronous desktop/office applications: word processors, spreadsheets, math/scientific calculators…
• Usually access online applications with richest graphical content: SIGs and mapping tools, 2D and 3D simulators and environments
• Have online environments as primary communication and information channel: e-mail, instant messaging, browser and desktop widgets. It includes software downloads and updates.
• Manage a website: upload files, install applications, change configuration/setup. It does not include writing on a weblog/wiki and other low-tech “webmastering”
• Work with remote computers or in grid computing, including intensive use of P2P networks

This basket of tasks and the minimum speed required to perform them correctly/comfortably should help in setting the threshold of what we could call broadband. As those tasks will evolve dynamically along time, same will happen with the broadband threshold. As an example, some years ago you needed a then-so-called-broadband to check the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection when looking for geographical information, as most maps are some hundreds of Kb weight, being the heaviest up to some Mb. Nowadays, you would browse Google Maps, for which a today-so-called-broadband is required, maybe more than the “official” 256 Kbps to browse at ease.

Proposals, corrections, comments gratefully welcome.

Further reading

• Birth of Broadband – Frequently Asked Questions

Dick de Jong asked days ago whether I could provide with some examples of ICTs contributions to solution of water problems. I must admit I am in no way a water expert. And I must admit too that my knowledge in ICTs is not comprehensive or absolute at all. This said, I will nevertheless try and give some examples that do come in mind when talking about water and ICTs. Not magic solutions, just humble contributions. Some of them are common ideas already working, some others are just little variations of the former ones, some are just… just ideas. On the other hand, I’d like to keep this list as a brainstorming, so feel free to use the comments section.

In my limited knowledge of the issue, I guess that there are three ways of looking at the water problem, the so called 3R measures or actions: Reduction, Reutilization and Recycling. Honestly, I think ICTs can act, over all, in Reduction, a little bit in Reutilization and, maybe — but I don’t see how — in Recycling (besides computerized industrial plants, which is not exactly the issue treated here.

Concerning ICTs, I’d take this 5 step approach:

So, with this framework (on one hand the 3R model, on the other hand the 5 step approach), these are things that ICTs could do to work for a better use of water resources:

Infrastructures

We understand by infrastructures everything to provide support where to run content and services. In ICTs, we can group them in hardware, software and connectivity.

• Domotics (I): devices to optimize the use of water in taps or find leaks. Besides trivial control to avoid leaving taps open, I’m thinking on gathering data on consumption for all and every water source by date and time. Data analysis could show who’s bathing instead of showering or whether we’re using the toilet bowl as a trash bin. [reduction]
• Domotics (II): as lots of energy come from water, everything related to energy consumption. There’s zillions of examples in this field. [reduction]
• Artificial intelligence for irrigation systems (I): not just programming to water at night, but also to test soil and ambience humidity, plant real needs according to species, etc. [reduction]
• Domotics (III) and irrigation systems (II): once used water is collected, ICT assisted water analysis could provide more efficient reuse depending on the degree of water cleanliness, from clothes washing to irrigation to bowl use. [reutilization]
• Office software: not a joke. Taking into account the huge water needs to produce paper, working digitally really makes a difference. Web 2.0 apps just go deeper into this issue. [reduction]
• Connectivity: if all the previous solutions/contributions can work in a digital network, there is no doubt that some synergies will arise. On the other hand, [reduction][reutilization]
• Wireless sensor networks (I): related to the previous issue and with irrigation systems, wireless technologies to monitor the rural environment [and] apply crop prediction models that feed a decision-support system for farmers. [reduction]
• Wireless sensor networks (II): for flood prevention. [reduction?]

ICT sector

This section deals with the existence of an ICT sector in any of the three (hardware, software, connectivity) infrastructure fields.

• Free software community: this is the typical south-south collaboration. Only with a strong software community of developers, truly localized solutions, based on free software, can be possible. Take “south” in the sense you want. I take it as “anywhere where water optimization is required”, which is everywhere. The “south-south” philosophy is, nevertheless, more widely known. BTW, same applies to the closed software sector — just wanted to stress that open is better, specially when there is a need for open communities to provide more/collective wisdom. [reduction][reutilization]
• ICT devices for water optimization: this should be placed before the previous example, but the free software community is a better known issue. So, same thing, but with hardware: localized hardware solutions for local water needs. [reduction][reutilization]

Digital Literacy

While digital literacy is quite a broad concept (technological literacy, informational literacy, e-Awareness…), we take it here in an even broader sense, including ICT driven training. This last aspect clearly belongs to the Content and Services section, but I think it is more pedagogical to deal with it in this section when talking about ICTs as water optimisation tools.

• Digital literacy: as itself, to train citizenship on (a) infrastructure issues, so an ICT sector can emerge and (b) use of digital content and services, so people can benefit from the resources about water in the Net. [reduction][reutilization]
• Advocacy: digital places (websites, brochures, blogs…) to raise awareness on the water problems. [reduction][reutilization][recycling]
• e-Learning: virtual training to develop capacity building in the management of water resources, 3R policies, etc. [reduction][reutilization][recycling]

Content and Services

In other words: the finalist uses of the Internet.

• Digital content: open educational resources to help you reduce, reuse, recycle your water. [reduction][reutilization][recycling]
• Sort of a corollary of the Connectivity issue in the Infrastructures section, a virtual clearing house for second uses of water could be built, thus easily matching supply and demand for used water. Depending on how intelligent is your installation, demanding, supplying and matching could be done with no human intervention at all. [reutilization]
• Geographical Information Systems (GIS): to locate and better analyze field data [reduction]
• Mashups: corollary of the previous one, but somehow more in the web 2.0 trend. Web supported, collectively created/authored/maintained, etc. [reduction]
• Online volunteering: online mentors to help manage your water resources. If payed, volunteering becomes professional consulting: same thing but more expensive. This example is somehow similar to the e-learning one, but the difference is in the means and the hows. [reduction][reutilization][recycling]

Legal Framework

Of course, this legal framework refers to everything to describe the rules of the game in the ICT arena.

• ICT fostered water policies: provided all (or some) of the previous ideas are good, they can be fostered through public water policies or, even stronger, public regulation. Some quality regulations in other sector, all in all, just end up inducing determinate technology adoption by pursuing higher quality levels or industry standards. [reduction]

So, please feel free to contribute in the comments.

Contributors so far:

• Marco Zennaro
• Paolo Massa

Selected links:

• http://commonsense.epfl.ch
  
• http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn10360
• http://topics.developmentgateway.org/water/rc/ItemDetail.do~1048007
• http://topics.developmentgateway.org/water/highlights/viewHighlight.do~activeHighlightId=106821
• http://waterinfo.nic.in/news/ictwr.pdf
• http://www.iwra.siu.edu/win/pdf_file/anderson.pdf
• i4d, Vol. II, No. 7, July 2004. Monographic on Water and Agriculture

Here come my notes on the Open Education 2006: Community, Culture, and Content that we are attending:

Thursday, September 28, 2006
Concurrent sessions

Mellon-funded Open Source Projects for Higher Education
Chris Mackie, Mellon Foundation

Flagship achievements: JSTOR, DAA (humanities Nobel Prize), MM Undergraduate Fellowships.
Openness projects: Sakai, uPortal, Kuali, PKI|OKI, D-Space|FEDORA, LionShare, VUE|SIMILE|Zotero|Didily, etc.
Possible upcoming initiatives: Student Service System, “User Delight” (usability), Coprehensive Text Analysis Framewok (“Scholar’s Workbench”), Humanities Middleware. All emphasize: services-oriented architectures (Java), collaborative, distributed development, for-profit/FP partnerships.

Core values and visions: service to traditional constituencies (arts, humanities, museums…), access (open source), sustainability, generality (compelling use cases), collaboration, synergy, elimination of redundancy via collaborative convergence.

China Open Resources for Education Upadate
Fun-Den Wang, CORE

CORE: China Open Resources for Education.

Translating/localizating MIT OCW from English to Chinese (expected 1,500 courses for end 2006), but also the inverse: Chinese courses into English.

Based on this OCW, there’s tutoring from the faculty to the students that follow the “lectures”.

This is the Annual ICT4D Postgraduate Symposium closing plenary briefing. It took place in Egham, September 15th, 2006, evening. Here come the notes I took on the fly:

First of all, I was given the chance to present ICTlogy as my personal reseach portal in the field of ICT4D. Hope it was found useful for people to benefit from my previous (re)searches. I really encouraged people to contribute (are you reading this? ;)

Following, some of the attendants (representing working groups) presented the “solutions” these groups gave to some “frequenly asked questions” by researchers and PhD students, namely:

• Where to get the funding for field work
• How to survive the “downs”
• How to sustain enthusiasm
• How to keep balance among private life (family, social relationships… life, all in all) and research
• What are the “cyber-policies” and distribution of wealth, resources, etc.
• How to chose a country of fieldwork and sample
• How to find references and how to do the referencing
• What should be the student-supervisor relationship like during the “journey”
• What are the (best) tools to manage your bibliography (and which are FLOSS)

Then Tim Unwin presented some “Concluding Thoughts”.

Among the main commitments for the future, here come some:

• Do be part of / use the SPIDER/PID network, as one means to keep in touch
• There’ll be a Moodle-based discussion forum
• A supportive environment for successful PhD research should be created
• Ways to use environments, contributing to the journals and sites (ITID, KM4Dev, ICTlogy)
• Collaborative, shared peer-learning, pro bono activities, publication in relevant outlets, practical interest, outward looking relevant, critical but supportive
• And of course, keeping in mind the latest goal: development!

Next appointments:

• CDE/ICT4D meeting in London on 10th October (Knowledge Lab)
• November 23rd Cisco-ICT4D lecture, 18:00, Royal Holloway
• Next year’s Symposium
• Collective Book Project: ICT4D Series, edited by Tim Unwin

And of course all the presentations will be uploaded to the ICT4D Collective web page. Stay tuned!

Sincerest, heartly thanks to Tim, Marije, Auch, David. Many many thanks!!

Mentally preparing my participation in the Open Education 2006 Conference I tell my colleagues that open access content and free software are to be the vectors of the oncoming development globally, at all socioeconomic levels. Adding to this that I’m a scholar — being diffusion of knowledge one of my jobs — and that my research interests are the impact of Information and Communication Technologies on Development, the interaction among the digital paradigm, intellectual property rights management and knowledge diffusion is a must for me.

Actually, my reflection goes this way: the two biggest revolutions ever have been caused by the decline of a production system along with a rising but oppressed class:

• The revolution of the bourgeoisie during last XVIII century and first part of XIX century, an oppressed class by the landowners in the framework of a declining system (agriculture) in front of a new system: capitalism
• The socialist revolution during first half of XX century, being workers the oppressed class and Taylorism and liberalism the declining system in front of Socialism/Keynesianism [sorry for the rough simplification]

If it is evident that we’re entering a new era – the Information Society – and that capital is losing importance in front of information/knowledge as a production asset, how and when is the revolution to come? Who’s the oppressed class?

What is evident is that the first mottos – land for all, capital for all – have to be, necessarily, interpreted as:

• content for all
• software for all

Looking for a name to these thoughts, I called it “Hacker revolution”. A simple google search points me to McKenzie Wark and his “A Hacker Manifesto” (Harvard University Press) where he explains almost the same thing as me. His book dates from 2004, so I guess I’m not very original, but at least I don’t feel I’m out (completely) of my mind.

The quotation goes:

The thing about information is that it really does want to be free. It knows no “natural” scarcity. It can escape the commodity economy, at least in part. That’s where hacking — in every sense of the word — has a unique role to play. It’s creating the possibility that something — even if it is only information — can be freed from scarcity and hence from the commodity economy.

• McKenzie Wark, A Hacker Manifesto, version 4.0 edited by Joanne Richardson for subsol
• First Monday Interviews: McKenzie Wark