Yesterday evening approximately 50 people, including many Chinese nationals, gathered in a room at the Stanhope Centre for Communications Policy Research to discuss, with a distinguished panel of experts, to discuss whether Google should be in business behind China’s great firewall. Isabel Hilton, China expert and editor, openDemocracy.net, chaired the meeting. Kenneth Cukier from the Economist, Freelance writer Bill Thompson, and Technology editor Becky Hogge of openDemocracy joined her at the table. Google’s engagement with China’s ruthlessly repressive government has thrown the company into the media spotlight. It seems to have thrown up lots of new questions and some people are asking whether or not it should operate in the country at all. But as the discussion progressed it became clear this is in fact just a new technology raising old issues.

Bill Thompson was quick to highlight that business has a commercial imperative and a responsibility to shareholders. Not entering China would have been foolish. Google, he said, had been as responsible as possible and deserves credit for its level of transparency. Isabel Hilton said the question was not whether Google should be in business in China or not - it should - but under which conditions and with which limits. To say that there are no ethical limits to economic return is to ignore history (cf the slave trade and environmental crime). She provided the powerful example of wartime IBM which was complicit in the holocaust, providing technology - in the form of Hollerith machines - that facilitated the identification and cataloguing programs of the 1930s and the selections of the 1940s. IBM’s position at the time was that evil was not the loss of life but the threat of loss of business – a clear example of business violating ethics. China is not Nazi Germany and does not have a policy of ethical cleansing, but some 80 million citizens have died under the regime.

But can and should business really be responsible for democratisation? Kenneth Cukier pointed out that this issue has been raised before when Rupert Murdoch introduced Sky Television to China. It was generally agreed that constructive and liberalising engagement could eventually lead to change and that, even if there’s not a more open political system in China now, there is more personal freedom and more freedom of information than before. As a major economic force in China, Google would be more likely in the future to be able to push for further change. The internet however, is not only censored but acts as a highly efficient spying network for the government. Isabel insisted that the way a government treats its citizens is of international concern. It is important to engage commercially but we need to take collective action to set out guiding principles with regards to how companies conduct business in such countries. China is sensitive about its image abroad and aware that Tiananmen Square affected its international respectability. It is currently striving for recognition, but Isabel reminded us that we must not let economic size be the only decider of respect.

Becky Hogge agreed, saying that the Internet was not just another product or service but a political opportunity. Blogging communities are the only form of free press in certain countries. In China only very technically able users can access proxy services to bypass the 30,000 strong Internet Police. China also acts as a regional internet service provider in countries such as Vietnam so this raises extended questions of freedom. The internet was a citizen led, egalitarian movement but this is changing. For instance, it is now possible to pay for faster emails. This may create a tiered system which undermines essential qualities of the web. Perhaps, she suggested, it has been through its rebellious phase and now needs regulating and protecting through the Global Online Freedom Act as advocated by Congressman Christopher Smith. ‘Who controls the internet?’ was not a question she’d ever expected to have to ask and, as we haven’t got global governance right yet, not one that is easily answered.

Bill Thompson asked the audience to consider the hypocrisy of the US Senate which supports and endorses theocratic regimes elsewhere, namely Saudi Arabia. The United States is fearful of China’s population growth and its technological and economical advances.

But ethical limits and corporate responsibility were not the only old issues thrown up here. Kenneth Cukier argued that media and sovereignty is a timeless issue. Traditionally media has been resistant to government regulation as it can be used for both freedom and restriction, but here we are asking for a law. Government approaches to censorship are in any case universal, he said. Since 9/11 the United States wants the right to take down the internet if it deems it necessary and this too is a threat to freedom. It is ironic, he said, that the left is so seduced by the idea that US military intervention - a hard power - is abhorrent but that we want to legislate against the internet, which is a soft power.

All governments restrict speech and in China the current system is a vast improvement on prior system of controlled media. Kenneth concluded by comparing the situation to economic liberalisation in the 1980s and encouraged the West to engage and support China in this process.

An interesting article from openDemocracy by Giovanni Navarria which I’ve only just spotted, but I think is worth noting.

In, E-government: who controls the controllers?, Navarria askes whether the promise of e-government as a transparent, accessible, efficient state in a new partnership with its citizens is really an invisible model of political control?

The article should come with a slight health warning, as it is rather academic in its style, however that shouldn’t put anyone off. As well as discussing some of the problems with e-government Navarria gives an inciteful 5 stage model (below) of understanding the transformation of e-government, which could prove useful for those working and thinking about this area:

• basic electronic commitment: rudimentary governmental websites with essential information and documents (description of its work, its duties and the services it offers)
• increased online presence: more dynamic and functional websites with regularly updated news, contacts (few) and inter-agency weblinks easily available; forms and official documents or legislations can be downloaded and printed
• interactive government: the agencies’ websites boost their interaction with citizens providing extensive email contact list, tailored news feeds, specialised and customisable search engines and databases; forms and requests can be submitted online
• transactional government: the website is a single entry portal, which functions as gateway to each and every government agency website; front and back office are fully linked, the intranet is the indispensable backbone for the government staff’s daily working routine (yet, during this stage, agencies are not interoperational)
• a virtual seamless government as the ultimate aim; all government’s agencies and services, information, and transactions are available online and channelled through a single entry-point portal. At anytime and from anywhere in the network, citizens can log on and initiate a process of full interaction with the government as a whole. In this fifth stage, the government and its entire complex structure is “virtually” one click away. Through its new virtual gate, the intricate, hidden and often incomprehensible chaotic net that for citizens once stood for governmental bureaucracy, becomes order, and a synonym of accessibility.

Read article in full >>

THE INFORMATION SOCIETY: A History of the Future
A lecture by Dr Richard Barbrook
Wednesday, 22nd February 2006, 6.15 for 6.30pm
British Computer Society (BCS), 1st floor, 5 Southampton St, Covent Garden, London WC2E 7HA
Cost: Admission is free and everyone is welcome. Bring your colleagues and friends interested in IT, but please register in advance, as soon as possible via the BCS North London Branch web-site: www.nlondon.bcs.org
Nearest tubes: Charing Cross, Covent Garden

This lecture is a history of the future. It will show how our contemporary understanding of the Net is shaped by a forty-year-old prophecy. During the Cold War, the rulers of America appropriated the ideas of Marshall McLuhan for the propaganda struggle against its Russian rival. The USA was building the next stage of human civilisation – the information society – and the rest of the world would have to follow its path into the networked future. . . more >>

Recent research by Gallup Poll on American activities online shows that blog readership has remained stable for the past year. This is a surprising result given that the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that blog readership in 2004 grew by 58 percent.

Considering that research undertaken by Technorati suggests that the blogosphere size continues to double approximately every 5.5 months, could it be that people prefer expressing their own opinions rather than reading other people’s?

Bloggers, such as Steve Rubel, point out that it is difficult to trust statistics as there is no standard method for measuring blog readership. Some also point out that merely asking people if they read blogs (as Gallup did) is not an accurate measurement, as many may not realise that they are reading blogs at all.

One optimistic blogger even makes the comparison of blogging to colour TV stating; “it took a long time for colour TVs to get into nearly every household. A lot of people back then said ‘well I’ve got a perfectly good black and white set, what do I need colour for?’ Today it’s hard to even find a black-and-white TV. We’ve got a long way to go before blogs have reached their potential.”

It certainly seems premature to envisage the beginning of the end of the blog readership.

According to the companies who took part in America International Toy Fair the must-have toys for toddlers this year will be electrical goods. MP3 players and digital cameras were just some of the items on display at the toy industry’s biggest annual trade show.

Apparently children’s electronics are lucrative money-spinners and Fisher-Price is just one of many companies cashing in on this fact by launching an MP3 music player and a digital camera for children aged 3 and above. Both are specifically designed for children with big buttons and a robust design said to survive four-foot drops.

Some may well view this move by toy companies in horror, envisaging 2 year olds clutching at their Blackberrys. Indeed, Marianne Szymanski, author of Toy Tips: A Parent’s Guide to Smart Toy Choices, expressed concern in the New York Times stating: “children need toys that encourage social interaction in the pre-school years, not those that don’t.”

Others on the other hand may well welcome the move from Fisher-Price and embrace this as just another step into the future by getting children used to technology from an early age.

I was sent this invitation this afternoon from Becky Hogge at openDemocracy, which I am sure will be of interest to many of you.
Kathryn

I do hope you can join Isabel Hilton, Bill Thompson, Kenneth Cukier and me for a debate hosted by openDemocracy in London this Thursday entitled “Should Google be in business behind China’s great firewall?”.

Please find flyer attached and here.

Details are:

Date: Thursday 16th February
Time: 18.30-20.30
Place: Stanhope Centre for Communications Policy Research, Stanhope
House, Stanhope Place, London W2 2HH
Nearest tube, Marble Arch; Map
RSVP: becky.hogge@opendemocracy.net

Registration is not compulsory but RSVP appreciated. Please feel free to forward this invitation to anybody you think might be interested in joining the debate. Apologies for the short notice to those unable to attend.

Yours,

Becky

A weblog launched yesterday is encouraging web users to print t-shirts with a parody of the Google logo that reads Goolag. A higher resolution verion of the logo can be found here, or in vector format here. Such a juxtaposition of words will be seen as extreme to some, but to others will point out some of the many human rights atrocities that have occured in the People’s Republic. It is just one of the many ways people across the internet are making their voice heard over Google’s decision to it’s search services to enable the search engine to formerly launch in China with Google.cn.

Google’s official response to the protests against their launch can be read on the Google blog. However this paragraph neatly summarises their approach:

For several years, we’ve debated whether entering the Chinese market at this point in history could be consistent with our mission and values. Our executives have spent a lot of time in recent months talking with many people, ranging from those who applaud the Chinese government for its embrace of a market economy and its lifting of 400 million people out of poverty to those who disagree with many of the Chinese government’s policies, but who wish the best for China and its people. We ultimately reached our decision by asking ourselves which course would most effectively further Google’s mission to organize the world’s information and make it universally useful and accessible. Or, put simply: how can we provide the greatest access to information to the greatest number of people?

UPDATE FROM ELENA: Last week Boeing announced that Air China will be introducing an in-flight internet service. Oh the irony.

Earlier this week, Eric Illsley MP claimed that the government was “drifting” over the implementation of the Bichard Inquiry recommendations. The Labour MP claimed that there was “little will to implement the recommendations as a matter of urgency” and suggested that the government was trying to distance itself from its responsibility.

As if by magic, the Minister of State for the Home Office, Hazel Blears, declared the launch today of the first system to be delivered by the IMPACT programme, INI. INI should allow officers to discover, within seconds, whether any police force in England and Wales holds relevant information on someone they are investigating. Previously, this information would not have been visible outside the force holding the record, a situation that led to the Soham murders.

So does this mean that cynics like Mr Illsley can now sleep soundly? It would appear not.

Whilst the INI system has been implemented with success (throwing up new lines of inquiry in an armed robbery case) it is still expected that the full recommendations in the Bichard Inquiry will not be implemented until 2010. Furthermore, there is some debate as to the effectiveness of the INI as a whole as it is largely dependent on the quality of data and the speed at which that data is inputted. A final concern may come from Human Rights activists, should information on individuals when they have not been convicted of any crime be kept on a system indefinitely?

Watch this space to see if the estimated £2 billion IMPACT system lives up to expectations.

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) suffered a scathing attack from local authority IT managers today who criticised the ODPM’s poor management of the £7 billion Local eGovernment Programme.

The report conducted by Public Sector Forums is thought to be the largest and most thorough of its type, with over 260 local government employees tasked with implementing the Local eGovernment Programme taking part.

The main criticism levelled at the ODPM was an inability to listen to constructive criticism, nonetheless, certain respondents have described the Local eGovernment Programme as a “monumental waste of time”. However, the biggest slap in the face for the ODPM came from the revelation that 65% of all respondents believed that the ODPM showed a poor understanding of local government priorities concerning the Local eGovernment Programme.

We wait to see the ODPM’s response on this matter.

Yesterday the NS online team (ie. Tom and I) went for a jaunt down to Kensington to take part in The Future of Web Apps Summit. There we sat with over 800 others lapping up all the latest thinking from the likes of Joshua Schachter of Del.icio.us, Cal Henderson of Flickr and the UK’s very own Tom Coates, who’s now at Yahoo!.

What came across most strongly was how lean and small you can be these days and yet still be a global player. Both Flickr and Del.icio.us both started with tiny teams and very little money, even the now mighty Yahoo started as a hippy (Stanford) dream. Gone are the days where investors expect millions to be spent simply to get a site or application up and running. Gone too is the idea that products should be developed specifically with the expectation to get bought out, rather than aim to make a profit as soon as possible (although you’ll never hear anyone complain if it happens). What was emphasised was the importance of having a good, financially viable, workable idea.

Whilst this is no news to many of us, it is encouraging, particularly when I think about the New Media Awards. Many of the projects that get nominated are created by very small teams, often made in people’s spare time, yet have a significant impact on public life, and have changed the UK for the better in so many cases.

So if you are thinking that you are not worthy because you’re making do with an old beige tower and some string, think again.

PS. Tom took some photos which you can view here.