atoms-and-bits

a portrait of failed attempts, innovative regulation and the 'it's complicated' side of cyberspace

[nixcraft]

I just wanted some water 😬

[atoms-and-bits-blog]

I think this pretty much sums up much the idea of privacy this week; smart devices that permeate every aspect of our existence for the sake of efficiency, only to fail at crucial moments... 

Oh how I despair for the integrated future.

[atoms-and-bits-blog]

My first rant.

Privacy is an illusion. We’re all thinking it and I’m saying it. When was the last time society was ever truly private? The only time I can think of is when we called caves ‘home’ and a spear ‘innovative’.

I am having such a hard time with the EU’s championing of the right to privacy because to me it just seems so extremely absent of value. Okay yes, fundamental rights are designed to be proportionately limited in order to promote the proper functioning of society but STOP LYING TO EVERYONE ABOUT WHAT THEY’RE ENTITLED TO IF THEY CAN NEVER FULLY ACHIEVE IT.

Technology isn’t neutral and quite frankly we’re pass the point of no return. Selling our souls to the corporate gods of tech who grace our television screens every year to deliver a new product has never been so normal. My laptop knows EXACTLY who I am and to be honest my toothbrush will probably know just as much about me in 2 years time.

So why do privacy advocates keep trying? What’s the point if Amazon already knows how many tissues I ordered that one time whilst listening to the Titanic soundtrack with Alexa on repeat? Should we just stop sweating the small stuff and submit our entire biological profiles to Google right now? Cause that way if I get attacked in an alleyway then my autonomous car will know where I am, collect the DNA profile of my attacker and determine if the nearest hospital has my blood type in stock - potentially saving my life and putting four people out of a job at the same time.

I’ve come to the conclusion that in order for society to regain the level of security and control preached by the classic ‘right’ to privacy; we’d have to suffer some kind of digital apocalypse… 

In all seriousness though, we need to change tack. Privacy is no longer a useful term for the digital age; it was invented to protect the property of the elite. You’ve been profiled. Deal with it.

Having said that: I want to listen to the radio without ‘logging’ in. I want to shop for trainers and not have them suggested to me by Facebook 2 days later. I want Snapchat to stop making me more ‘findable’. I want Google to tell me when they’re tracking my phone (?!?). I want to buy a candle without giving up my email address. I want to know who knows my name, my birthdate, my sexual orientation.

UGH. 

Again, I’m not looking for ultimate secrecy here. Someone, somewhere is going to know that I used to play Club Penguin and that’s fine. I just want transparency. A little bit of communication because: this is me and I’m making you a whole lot of money.

So, tell me what you know, and we’ll get along fine.

[atoms-and-bits-blog]

Hackers are humans too.

I started reading ‘Hacked: A radical approach to hacker culture and crime’ the other day, and the anthropologist in me was hooked. Through a vibrant ethnographic exploration, Kevin F. Steinmetz has managed to draw out the motivation, skill and humanity behind the ‘craft’ of hacking. Yes. Craft. 

And so, I decided that the law on computer misuse deserved a second look.

We’re taught as law students to view hacking as criminal, to put it in a box of ‘unauthorised’ ‘antisocial’ behaviour and leave the judges to impose their retributive justice. However, the law is an absolute struggle fest. I’m not just talking about prosecution rates, I’m talking about substantive oversights and regulatory undersights (is that a word?). Consider R v Cuthbert in which the defendant, wanting to ensure his charitable donation was actually going to the right people, fell afoul of s.1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 when he tested the website’s security. Or Bignell, in which the court determined that unauthorised access was completely distinct from that of unauthorised purpose; an arguably nonsensical decision.

We therefore turn, as one must, to the challenge of regulating the Internet and the following two policy approaches that demonstrate how our current approach to low-level cybercrime can be altered.

Kevin Steinmetz contends that by demystifying the social construction of hacking, legislators would be better equipped to develop an effective regulatory response. In his words: ‘hacking is an intrinsically human social and cultural phenomenon’ (216), which has been criminalised by a capitalist society. This approach illustrates what was effectively missing from early cyber-legislation, focused mainly on emulating the law of trespass and preventing access to computer networks. By developing a cultural understanding of technologically skilled consumers, distinct from that of dangerous criminals, the Cuthbert case would have had a very different outcome.

Furthermore, cultural and practical understandings of computer culture have already proved useful for software developers, who now benefit from exceptions under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Stefan Fafinski suggests that domestic criminal law is inappropriate on its own to control computer misuse. In particular, Fafinski argues that theoretical understandings of criminal law fail to provide a justification for its wide application in the area of computer misuse. Instead, he advocates for a ‘constellation of control’ consisting of global extra-legal solutions. I find Fafinski’s proposal particularly interesting as he suggests that in order to effectively moderate this form cybercrime, regulative responses must attempt to mirror the digital architecture of the internet. More specifically, regulation must employ flexible, extra jurisdictional solutions on both state and individual levels in order to be effective.

In sum, the law of computer misuse has suffered a particularly turbulent history. Its critics have sighted lack of solid theoretical basis, of cultural sensitivity and a one-track regulatory response as the cause. However, there is hope. With many parts of internet law, it takes a Lessig-like recognition of competing influences in order to make this work.

[pbsdigitalstudios]

On the internet, you meet lots of people, have lots a conversations with strangers, end up in spots where it feels like anyone can gain access–so it would be understandable if you thought of the internet… as a public place. But… is it? Is the internet a public place?  

[atoms-and-bits-blog]

Illuminating video discussing the subject of content liability from the perspective of public/private space regulation. Again we raise the issue of equivalency; can Public Order Acts do their job when they were written for town squares? Or do we need to reassess the nature of digital space?

Facebook has just over 20,000 staff for just over 20 billion users. User policy or not, West Coast code makers are way out of their depth here.

[taytay4ever]

The armistice between Taylor Swift and Spotify is good for everyone

Let’s answer the main question right out of the gate: the reason Taylor Swift brought her albums back onto Spotify and to platforms she’s overlooked in the past few years, like Amazon Music and Pandora Premium, isn’t because Katy Perry released Witness (although it may have something to do with the timing) or because Swift’s last album, 1989, sold 10 million copies (this is the official reasoning for the release) — it’s because of the new licensing deal between her distributor Universal Music Group and Spotify, and the realities of releasing music in 2017.

The new deal between UMG and Spotify allows for artists to choose to window new albums (or make them unavailable to free users) for up to two weeks after their initial release — a huge win for the label, and a sticking point for Swift. Streams from paid users pay far better than streams from ad-supported users on Spotify, and Swift is nothing if not fully in control of her content and her finances.

In 2014, the last time Taylor Swift released an album, people still bought albums. She pulled her catalog from Spotify the week 1989 was released, stating the service doesn’t pay artists fairly and doesn’t give them enough control over their content. “I’m not willing to contribute my life’s work to an experiment that I don’t feel fairly compensates the writers, producers, artists, and creators of this music,“ Swift told Yahoo at the time.

The experiment isn’t an experiment anymore.

In 2016, streaming became the dominant revenue driver for the music industry — when 1989 was released, it made up 27 percent of the revenue. Spotify grew from 10 million paying customers in 2014 to 50 million this year. Swift can’t ignore that.

Even Adele, a notorious hater of streaming, admitted that she would eventually catch up with the times shortly after she released 25 at the end of 2015, despite holding the album off streaming services for seven months. “I know that streaming music is the future, but it’s not the only way to consume music,” Adele told Time back in 2015. With an older audience used to buying albums, Adele might be able to stand on this for another release. Swift doesn’t have that luxury.

Make no mistake, Swift is one of the shrewdest businesspeople in the music industry, and she will get every dollar she’s earned. But in 2017, keeping your catalog off streaming services won’t help you maximize your earning potential or appease your fans.

You could argue Swift won both of her corporate fights in the music industry. She got Apple Music to pay artists during its trial period, and Spotify agreed to a two week windowing period for new albums. (The latter had far less to do with Swift and more to do with Spotify trying to stay afloat as a company charging toward an IPO, but a win is a win.)

While Spotify may have lost the initial battle, it didn’t lose the war, and frankly neither did Swift. This is a calculated armistice that allows both sides to retreat to their base and claim victory. 1989 is finally on the world’s largest streaming service, and Swift will get paid more and have more control over her content going forward.

The real winner here is the Swift fans and Spotify users, who can finally listen to the most popular artist in the US without hassle.

-The Verge (x)

[atoms-and-bits-blog]

Interesting analysis from the Verge here: even Adele knows whats up. One rare example of content providers crumbling to creator pressure. I would say its a desperate compromise and not one that will keep the peace for long... Can we expect Apple to keep paying royalties during its trial period? Probably not.

[atoms-and-bits-blog]

Programmed by remix culture

(Source: me)

I love memes. Last Christmas I tried to explain what memes were to my grandma after a very healthy serving of mulled wine. Suffice to say I couldn’t quite get my message across and swiftly abandoned the project…..

Memes, as they exist now, are an integral part of the remix culture that has come to dominate the online millennial experience. They’re as common as pigeons and nearly twice as contagious. Whilst they mainly fulfil a humble, witty function in society, memes have been known to dabble in other parts of life. Take Stefan Bertram-Lee who decided one day that they would move from Essex to Syria and make memes to fight ISIS.

Yet, despite their various uses, memes remain mysterious; why does a meme mutate? If a rare pepe appears on my dash, am I morally obligated to reblog it? How much do I owe Fox for my latest ‘Fry/not sure if’? This last question of memes and copyright ownership is complex, so, let’s consider the stakeholder interest.

We’re all pretty familiar with the distracted boyfriend meme. This simple but effective photo was captured as part of a stock portfolio. When asked about the newfound fame of his work Antonio Guillem replies that:

 ‘he’s “not worried about the meme situation,” and understands that social media remixers are acting “in good faith.” He does plan to pursue legal action in cases where the images could reflect poorly on himself or the models.’

Guillem’s attitude closely reflects my own. Like much of the internet, memes have a dark side which can ultimately impact on the reputation of those like Guillem and his friends. In addition to this, Wired reports rather surprising racial inequalities inherent in the remuneration of meme creators. Therefore, to argue that memes deserve unguarded fair use protection because, ‘that’s just the way things are now’, is to overlook the non-financial protection that copyright often affords.

On the other hand, what if the rights-holder is not readily identifiable due to the degree of mutation? Should the onus be on the user to perform extensive forensic research in order to pay a licence fee, or else, forego participation in the current mode of self-expression? One tumblr site appears to be doing just that, although more as a social experiment rather than to facilitate litigation… Regardless, there is an imbalance in the market. Whilst a right holder can easily identify a user, a user cannot easily do the same. Why? Because it is in the nature of a meme to obscure its origins.

It is this bloggers opinion that fair use/dealing be extended wisely. Remixing is a beautiful thing, but it should not be encouraged in all its forms. Perhaps then, an exclusive creative commons for memes? Or maybe a special compensation fund for original meme creators? Both have their flaws. In the meantime though, I’ll just continue to sit back and watch the memes roll by.

[oncelerfucker69-deactivated2019]

[atoms-and-bits-blog]

Is this blog getting increasingly libertarian? Yes yes it is.

In other news, I found out that Cards Against Humanity offers a CC BY-NC-SA licence.

Off I go to remix my way into cultural history.

[sandandglass]

John Oliver looks at patents and, in particular, the ‘patent trolls’ who make money by threatening people with lawsuits

“If a troll can get a vaguely-defined software patent, they can demand payment for anything that fits that description.”

[atoms-and-bits-blog]

I hope John Oliver never retires. His ability to shine light on legal and political injustice keeps me going...

On a more serious note; the ‘patent vs copyright’ struggle continues to rage. Given this video was posted in 2015, it still reflects a deep rooted US proprietary approach to software protection that perhaps has yet to be balanced out with rights-based considerations. I have yet to see evidence that this battle will ever be won through legislation and think that Lessig’s fight for open source, though before its time, may not be over.

[liberalsarecool]

“FCC chairman Ajit Pai is genuinely one of the nicest people in Washington. He’s smart, personable, and the kind of guy you’d want to have a beer with. But nice guys don’t always make good policy (I’ve been bipartisan on this), and Pai’s record means real danger for American consumers and the internet itself. If you believe communications networks should be fast, fair, open, and affordable, you need ask your senator to vote against Pai’s reconfirmation. Now.”

[atoms-and-bits-blog]

To regulate or not to regulate....

The net neutrality debate has reared its ugly head once again and at its centre is Ajit Pai. Pai’s history in the FCC is laid bare in this article, showing a striking pattern of ISP favouritism and deregulation. Consequently, net neutrality rules are under threat, and the internet is called to arms once more as Pai’s reconfirmation goes to the vote :D

Source article: https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/27/16374136/ajit-pai-fcc-net-neutrality-isp

[fishmech]

Yo check out what I got today! It’s a book from the early 90s that attempts to list every person online with their email address, in the manner of a phone book. This was to be the first in series, but they never released a “1995″ edition much less a later one. Not sure if the free update mailings ever happened either.

Take a close look at the listing pages - you’ll see that they listed people with obviously fake names like “Im Not Iron MAN” as if Man was the last name.

This is close to peak web 1.0.

[atoms-and-bits-blog]

"they never released a “1995″ version” --> wonder why... A perfect example of the unmatched pace of digital advancement.