In this episode we hear the death rattle of an empire in decline. We hear some examples of 21st century information warfare. And we hear just how important the US protesters are to the American people.Continue reading “The 9pm Information Warfare in a Dying Empire”
- NSW Police targeting shows the ethical dangers of secret algorithms, ZDNet Australia, 27 October 2017. There’s more to come on this topic, I think.
- “The 9pm Hallucinating Goldfish”, or The 9pm Edict episode 69, was streamed live and recorded on Tuesday night. You can also listen at SoundCloud and Spreaker. You can support this podcast with a one-off contribution via PayPal or major credit cards. Please consider.
- On Tuesday, I spoke about the targeting of advertising on social media on ABC Canberra.
- On Wednesday, I spoke about encryption policies and, briefly, Nazis for the next episode of the Covert Contact podcast, which will appear very soon. If you haven’t done so, you can still listen to my first appearance, the episode about Australian Cyber Policy.
- My story about an Australian defence contractor’s data breach from a couple of weeks ago was picked up by a Ukrainian news site, and a site in Italian that I didn’t investigate further.
The Week Ahead
Monday will definitely be a jumbled day of editorial planning, research, story pitches, and administrivia. I’m glad I’ve already sketched out the rest of the week.
On Tuesday I’m heading to Sydney for a couple meetings, but I’ve got room for more. I’m also doing a radio spot on ABC Melbourne at 1930 AEDT.
Wednesday will be a day of writing, as will most of the rest of the week.
At some point, I’ll also announce a new crowdfunding campaign. It’s been more than a year since my last concentrated ask-for-money burst, and the gods know my budget needs it. But there’s been some changes in the crowdfunding landscape since then, so I don’t want to rush it. Stay tuned for details.
At this stage, I haven’t locked in anything specific for the rest of the calendar year. Please feel free to make some suggestions.
Last week Collective Shout activist and campaigns manager Caitlin Roper told her story of the horrific misogynist abuse she’d received online, and what can most politely be called a disappointing response from the police.
I reluctantly went to the police station, already knowing that threats against women online are not regarded as a priority. “Why don’t you just close down your account?” asked the officer taking my statement.
I explained how I used Twitter in the course of my work for a non-profit organisation. She pressed further — “but why do you need to use it?” — as if it was somehow unreasonable for me to believe I had as much right as anyone to access social media without threats
Another colleague went to the police after one man described how he intended to mutilate her body and dissolve it in acid. The police officer suggested that the internet was “not a very nice place”, and maybe she should stay off it.
Last night, ABC TV’s Lateline did a follow-up story, the reported being John Stewart, and I provided a few comments.
It’s interesting that the one piece they used was about the internet putting everyone right next to everyone else:
It’s simply that within the past people were in communities, that were mostly made up of people like them or people they grew up with. If there was a violent part of town or a red-light district or whatever it might be, and you didn’t want to go there or you didn’t want to know about it, well you just didn’t go there. The problem is now on the internet all of that is right next to you as well and people are shocked by this. They’re suddenly discovering that there are people not like them. They have different attitudes to women, different attitudes to acceptable language, to religion, to class, to sporting teams, to clothing as we’ve seen in the media lately. Everything.
I also said that thanks to the internet, we are now building a global society, and yet policing is organised on a regional or even local basis.
While these women, and so many others, have experienced appalling abuse, in most cases there’s no credible threat. Even if the police cranked up the mechanisms of transnational police cooperation, there’d be little chance of a prosecution leading to a conviction. Their lack of follow-up reflects that unfortunate reality, as well as many police officers’ unfamiliarity with online life.
I daresay I’ll have further thoughts in this, because this story certainly isn’t going away.
Yes, I know they spelt my name wrong. Yes, I know they said “social media commentator”.
The trial of the alleged murderer of Melbourne journalist Jill Meagher revealed (at least to those who were previously unaware) the importance of evidence gleaned from people’s smartphones.
Just like my previous appearance on The Project, which is produced in Melbourne, I was beamed in from Sydney while sitting in front of a green screen. This time I even managed to get a picture of what it looked like from my point of view.
The video of the four-minute segment is embedded over the jump — which is immediately below if you’ve come directly to this page.
This photograph by Buzz Andersen has been haunting me for the last hour. It’s Aaron Swartz, seen at the first Creative Commons Salon in 2006. And over the weekend we heard news that Swartz is now dead, aged just 26, from an apparent suicide.
My challenge for today is writing something about the meaning of this bold and bright young man’s life and death. Something new to add to the whirlpool of words that has been devouring the internet from its geekier nether regions all the way to the mainstream press.
There aren’t many places in the world where you can openly accuse the nation’s top police and intelligence agencies of having an attitude problem, as I did on Monday, without being visited by the men in the van with the canvas sack. Which is a good thing.
In this week’s Patch Monday podcast, embedded immediately below for your convenience and CBS Interactive’s traffic logging, I departed from the usual format to present a personal opinion.
Data retention for law enforcement is one of the most important political issues relating to our use of the internet now and as far into the future as we care to imagine, I said, and it’s being mishandled.
The Australian government’s current one-page working definition (PDF) of what constitutes communications metadata (which can be requested by law enforcement agencies without a warrant) as opposed to communications content (which generally does require a warrant) is, to anyone with a technical understanding of how the internet actually works and is evolving, virtual gibberish.
“Dangerously immature” is how I described it.
I also raised three points where I think the version of reality being promoted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) is wrong.
- This is a push for more power. We conduct so much more of our lives online than we ever did on the phone, and that means the balance of power is changing. We need to have a conversation about this.
- The AFP says quite specifically that they’re not after our web browsing activity, but I don’t see how the working document supports that argument. And other agencies, including the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC), are after that stuff.
- ASIO and the AFP constantly talk about the powers being needed to catch the terrorists and pedophiles. But the law will probably be modelled on the current law for the phone, which provides access to communication metadata to many other agencies with far less stringent accountability rules for many other, far less serious, crimes.
Please have a listen and tell me what you think.
The podcast stands on its own, but I want to emphasise the thing that still disturbs me…