A "COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT IN THE US" study has found that we appeared to be prepared to pay for online content ......

The American Assemble survey, a respected think-tank, shows that illegal file sharing among family and friends is relatively common – but that people would prefer to use a legal alternative if one was available at the right price and usage point.

Preliminary Conclusions

“PIRACY” IS COMMON. SOME 46% OF ADULTS HAVE BOUGHT, COPIED, OR DOWNLOADED UNAUTHORIZED MUSIC, TV SHOWS OR MOVIES. THESE PRACTICES CORRELATE STRONGLY WITH YOUTH AND MODERATELY WITH HIGHER INCOMES. AMONG 18-29 YEAR OLDS, 70% HAVE ACQUIRED MUSIC OR VIDEO FILES THIS WAY.

· LARGE-SCALE DIGITAL PIRACY IS RARE, LIMITED TO 2% OF ADULTS FOR MUSIC (>1000 MUSIC FILES IN COLLECTION AND MOST OR ALL COPIED OR DOWNLOADED FOR FREE) AND 1% FOR FILM (>100 FILES, MOST OR ALL FROM COPYING OR DOWNLOADING).

· LEGAL MEDIA SERVICES CAN DISPLACE PIRACY. OF THE 30% OF AMERICANS WHO HAVE ‘PIRATED’ DIGITAL MUSIC FILES, 46% INDICATED THAT THEY NOW DO SO LESS BECAUSE OF THE EMERGENCE OF LOW-COST LEGAL STREAMING SERVICES. AMONG TV/MOVIE PIRATES, 40%.

· COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AMONG FAMILY AND FRIENDS IS WIDELY ACCEPTED (75% AND 56%, RESPECTIVELY, FOR MUSIC; 70% AND 54% FOR FILM). IN CONTRAST, ACTIVITIES THAT IMPLY DISSEMINATION OF COPYRIGHTED GOODS TO LARGER NETWORKS RECEIVE VERY LOW LEVELS OF SUPPORT.

 · ONLY A SLIM MAJORITY OF AMERICANS (52%) SUPPORT PENALTIES FOR DOWNLOADING COPYRIGHTED MUSIC AND MOVIES—AND LIMIT THIS SUPPORT TO WARNINGS AND FINES. OTHER PENALTIES, SUCH AS BANDWIDTH THROTTLING AND DISCONNECTION, RECEIVE MUCH LOWER LEVELS OF SUPPORT.

· DISCONNECTION FROM THE INTERNET, IN PARTICULAR, IS VERY UNPOPULAR, WITH ONLY 16% IN FAVOR AND 72% OF AMERICANS OPPOSED.

· AMONG THOSE WHO SUPPORT FINES, 75% SUPPORT AMOUNTS UNDER $100 PER SONG OR MOVIE INFRINGED—HUGELY UNDERSHOOTING THE CURRENT STATUTORY PENALTIES.

· FOR A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS (54%), DUE PROCESS IN SUCH MATTERS REQUIRES A COURT—NOT ADJUDICATION BY PRIVATE COMPANIES.

· SOLID MAJORITIES OF AMERICAN INTERNET USERS OPPOSE COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT WHEN IT IS PERCEIVED TO INTRUDE ON PERSONAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. 69% OPPOSE MONITORING OF THEIR INTERNET ACTIVITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ENFORCEMENT. 57% OPPOSE BLOCKING OR FILTERING BY COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIARIES IF THOSE MEASURES ALSO BLOCK SOME LEGAL CONTENT OR ACTIVITY.

· COMPARABLE MAJORITIES (56%) OPPOSE GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN “BLOCKING” ACCESS TO INFRINGING MATERIAL. THIS NUMBER INCREASES TO 64% WHEN THE TERM “CENSOR” IS USED.

· BLOCKING AND FILTERING BY COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIARIES SUCH AS ISPS, SOCIAL MEDIA SITES, AND SEARCH ENGINES RECEIVE MAJORITY SUPPORT—UNTIL THE QUESTIONS INCLUDE LIKELY CONSEQUENCES. MAJORITIES OF INTERNET USERS SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS THAT ISPS AND SEARCH ENGINES “BLOCK” INFRINGING MATERIAL (58% FOR ISPS; 53% FOR SEARCH ENGINES). THIS SUPPORT RUNS AS HIGH AS 61% FOR A SOFT REQUIREMENT THAT USER-CONTENT DRIVEN SITES LIKE FACEBOOK “TRY TO SCREEN ALL MATERIAL AND REJECT PIRATED COPIES OF MUSIC AND VIDEOS.” BUT THIS MAJORITY DISAPPEARS WHEN BLOCKING BY ISPS IS CHARACTERIZED AS CENSORSHIP (46% SUPPORT), FALLS FURTHER WHEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE BLOCKING OF LEGAL CONTENT (36% SUPPORT), AND STILL FURTHER WHEN IT IMPLIES SURVEILLANCE OF INTERNET USE (26% SUPPORT).

 · WHICH SCENARIO BEST APPROXIMATES THE STOP ONLINE PIRACY ACT? IN OUR VIEW, ISP BLOCKING THAT ALSO BLOCKS SOME LEGAL CONTENT. IN THIS CASE, INTERNET USERS OPPOSE BLOCKING: 57% TO 36%.

The digital world is binary in terms of 1's and 0's but a collection of data is never binary. (yes there are a few exceptions)

We like choices to be black and white but we survive in a world defined by shades of grey. (yes some choices are black and white but very few)

We love the elegance of simplify but live in world full of complexity and chaos with every choice. (do we create complexity to avoid the truth!)

In the same way that Newton's theories provided order and Einstein originally rejected Heizenberg's ideas of quantum/ chaos as the evolution of Newton's laws and wanted to hold onto the simplicity of order, I would content that we have a the same problem in digital privacy…..

We like order but cannot deal with the consequences which are a lack of choice.  The perfect storm here is private and public defined as "if you say it is private then is it, if you don't it is then it is not"  or "you have said it is public so it is"  but why does that allow you to assume that all non-private is non private... because that is what the law says.

Google+ up'd the game in 2011 with circles enabling you more control over who you communicate what with; a system much closer to real life, but the issue we are facing is going to be LAW and REGULATION which will continue to change at a snails pace to hold onto the original order (simplicity, black and white) and not provide a framework to deal with chaos and complexity.  Whilst there will be some binary boundary at the edge: legal and illegal, everything else we do will increasingly fall into grey areas, true life.

I wrote a blog a while ago (May 2010) titled Would Aristotle use Facebook? and looked at private as sitting between two extremes of public.  One extreme was broadcast public and the other internet public.   I could have chosen the other model where public sits between two extremes of private.  One extreme is private for those friends only in that circle and the other is private but within all my circles.  This model perhaps better aligns to what users mean when they mean private, it is the choice. So maybe the problem of dealing with choice and chaos for the user is about the UI and UX…… but the setting still causes problems for the business models and that dilemma is not going away.

AMP v Person’s Unknown [2011] EWHC 3454 (TCC)

Essentially AMP either lost or had her mobile phone stolen (it was reported as stolen with the police) and with it sexually explicit images of the claimant - although the judgement is not clear we can assume she was "sexting" her boyfriend. It is clear that (a) AMP owned the copyright in these images and (b) they were private images obtained illegally via the theft. Soon thereafter the images appeared on a Dutch file hosting site for a short period but were removed from there at the request of the claimant but not before the images had been downloaded by others. As the judgement makes clear a number of blackmail demands followed, possibly from the same person. 

http://theitlawyer.blogspot.com/2011/12/new-approach-to-privacy-amp-v-persons.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76130846/AMP-v-Persons-Unknown

……Whilst you cannot ask Torrent Trackers or the providers of Torrent Clients to block as they essentially cannot do so due to the nature of BitTorrent. What you can do though is prevent people from seeding Torrents if they are within the jurisdiction of the Court. Matthew surmised that as AMP is not a celebrity (or in any way famous) anyone sharing the images was likely to know her personally either from her circle of acquaintances at home (ex school colleagues etc) or from University. These people would be based in the UK (England & Wales) and would be the key to seeding the Torrent. Take out the key Seeders and the Torrent would pretty much wither on the vine. 

The annual report provides (Dec 2011) an overview of progress on the actions of the Digital Agenda for Europe, updating the list of completed actions since the Digital Agenda Scoreboard in May 2011, and outlining the work ahead. This document is part of the efforts of the European Commission on the implementation and governance of the Digital Agenda, further to other activities in 2011 including the Digital Agenda Scoreboard, the Digital Agenda Assembly, and the Digital Agenda Going Local. The overall aim of the Digital Agenda is to deliver sustainable economic and social benefits from a digital single market based on fast and ultra fast internet and interoperable applications. The Digital Agenda is a key component of the Europe 2020 strategy to provide growth and jobs in a sustainable and inclusive manner.

Introducing the idea of CaaS “Crime as a Service”

Why rob a bank “that is where the money is”

Why worry about Big Data “that is where the value is”

Marc Goodman is a global thinker, writer and consultant focused on the profound change technology is having on crime security, business and international affairs. Over the past 20 years, he has built his expertise in cyber crime, cyber terrorism and critical infrastructure protection working with organizations such as INTERPOL, the United Nations and NATO. Marc frequently consults with global policy makers, security executives and industry leaders on technology-related security threats and has operated in nearly seventy countries around the world.

From Strata Summit http://strataconf.com/summit2011/public/schedule/detail/20975

2011 in Review: Nymwars

Original post below is from = https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/2011-review-nymwars, my comments in pink.

As the year draws to a close, EFF is looking back at the major trends influencing digital rights in 2011 and discussing where we are in the fight for a free expression, innovation, fair use, and privacy.

This year, Google launched its social networking site, Google Plus. Many Facebook users concerned about the site’s history of privacy violations and Facebook's “real name policy,” which makes it a violation of Facebook’s terms of service to go by a name other than the one on their government-issued ID, were especially excited about the possibility of an alternative social network. Millions of users immediately flocked to Google Plus, setting up accounts, and praising Google's responsiveness. Upon hearing criticism from women and the LGBT community that the “gender” field of all Google Plus profiles was public, Google acted quickly to give users the option of controlling who can see their gender and referring to the user with a gender-neutral pronoun if their gender was hidden. 

But millions of new Google Plus users were in for a surprise. Like Facebook, Google Plus had chosen to implement a "real names" policy. Unlike Facebook, which relies primarily on community reporting to identify allegedly pseudonymous accounts, Google employed an algorithm that identified likely pseudonyms and automatically suspended their accounts. In addition to the myriad of false positives (mononyms, non-standard and non-Western-sounding names, and even the English names often adopted by Hong Kong Chinese), the real names policy led to the suspension of accounts belonging to everyone from well-known writers (Violet Blue) to Google employees (Skud) and Kaliya aka Identity Woman. To add insult to injury, the suspension of a Google Plus account sometimes cut off access to other services, such as Google Reader. Reinstating a suspended account could be an arduous process, which could include sending a copy of a user’s state-issued ID to Google. And even after jumping through all of those hoops, users could find themselves re-suspended several more times.

While acknowledging that Google is free to set its own policies, EFF immediately advocated for the right of users to choose their own names on social networking sites, whether they're women or minorities concerned about their privacy, activists in authoritarian regimes who want to speak out without the threat of government harassment, or users with persistent nicknames or pseudonyms they'd used online for years. EFF had been loudly opposed to Facebook’s “real names” policy for years, pointing out that community policing of real names silences some of the people who need this protection the most—people with unpopular opinions—because opponents can easily have their accounts suspended by reporting them as pseudonymous. By automatically suspending allegedly pseudonymous accounts, Google was taking a bad idea one step further, with a potential for even more widespread chilling effects on freedom of expression than we’d seen on Facebook. This clash between Google and Google Plus users became known at Nymwars, which has expanded into a catch-all term for the debate over the role of pseudonymity online. 

Since this summer, Google has gone from pro-actively suspending accounts with non-Western or "suspicious-looking" names, defending the real name policy (later amended to an even more vague and inconsistently-applied "common name" policy), and describing pseudonyms as norm-breaking and undesirable to promising that Google Plus will support pseudonyms in the near future and scaling back on the suspension of pseudonymous accounts. 

The Nymwars are not over--Google Plus does not support pseudonyms at this time and some accounts are still being suspended -- but EFF's activism has successfully reframed the debate: if social networks want to be truly inclusive, making room for women, minorities, activists, and people with unpopular opinions, they need to make room for pseudonyms. Expect to see this fight continue in 2012.

----

I raised a glass of good wine to EFF on this issue over the Christmas break as they are spot on… the issue is not over as real names don’t exist.  We have an “identifiable” name that for some reason we are desperate to link back to some made up document (birth certificate) in the hope this give us authority –when in truth it is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.  Why are we so obsessed with using names as identities! In the end when we think about it a name is only a tag, and you can have many tags…..

In reality Tony Fish does not actually exist…. as this is not the name I was given on my birth certificate and therefore is not a real name :)

Neelie Kroes Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda Data is the new gold Opening Remarks, Press Conference on Open Data Strategy Brussels, 12th December 2011 SPEECH/11/872

Brussels, 12th December 2011 Source

Good morning everybody it is a pleasure to be here for such a positive announcement.

Just as oil was likened to black gold, data takes on a new importance and value in the digital age.

Web entrepreneurs assemble and sell content and applications and advertising, based on data. With those efforts they make our lives more convenient and they keep authorities accountable.

They live on data, and increasingly so do the rest of us. (NO: WE LIVE ON THE ANALYSIS OF DATA)

Today, I am proud to present an Open Data package that can drastically increase the possibilities for those web entrepreneurs; the opportunities of businesses, journalists, academics and all citizens, in fact, to generate new and rich content. (YIPEE)

Today's package will radically shake-up how the EU institutions and most public authorities in Europe share their data.

Public data, generated by all administrations in Europe will become automatically re-usable. It will feed new applications and services.

It will change the way administrations are working – for the good of the administrations and the people they serve.

This is a victory for those of us who believe that the best way to get value from data is to give it away.

It is also, by the way, a vote of confidence in the people of Europe. We trust you will do good things with this data – data you already paid for.

And it is recognition for the many heroes who have shown us already what is possible through open data.

Heroes like the governments of UK, Denmark and France, to people like Tim Berners-Lee and organisations like the Open Knowledge Foundation.

Today we are taking their ideas and proposing them as the rule rather than the exception.

We are putting the Commission and Europe at the top of the class.

We calculate that public sector information already generates €32 billion of economic activity each year. This package would more than double that - – to around €70 billion.

That is not coffee money. That is, indeed, a badly needed boost to our economy.

The UK, Denmark and France - who last week opened "data.gouv.fr" – are doing excellent work.

When the Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority (DECA) lowered fees, the number of users of its information went up by ten thousand percent (10,000%)! This generated four times the tax revenue lost from fees charged for data.

Another example is "openspending.org" one of thousands of examples of how citizens can learn about how their taxes and spent, or how big their national debt is.

Next, I want to mention WheelMap – I met the founder of this application last week. He won an accessibility award, and rightly so. It is amazing. Wheelmapcombines public data, and user-supplied data, to give disabled people a clear idea of the best and worst places for them. It helps build the case for greater accessibility.

All of you too can benefit as journalists, as The Guardian and others have shown through data journalism.

Before I go to questions, I want to remind you of the two strands of today's package:

First, the Commission is opening up its vault starting in 2012

During the first half of 2012 the Commission's own data will be available free, open and easily usable on computers from a single portal. We will be pushing the other agencies and institutions to join us.

We are practicing what we preach. We will dare the Member States to improve on us

Second we are proposing to harmonise the way Member States will make their public data re-usable.

This should make it possible for business to gain the benefits of the Single Market. This is a revolution.

Instead of needing complicated authorisations, you will be automatically allowed to re-use the public data you need.

Instead of high charges for this data, fees will be limited to marginal costs.

This will boost business opportunities very substantially.

We are also proposing to include very valuable cultural material, from libraries, archives and museum.

In these cases, re-use will be optional and not free of charge unless the museum chooses to the free option. This exception will give protection the cultural institutions which have particular commercial vulnerability.

The revised Directive will need approval from the Parliament and Council.

But the real message I want to send to public authorities today is: don't wait for this package to become law.

You can give your data away now – and generate revenue and jobs, and even save money from the better information and decisions that will flow.

I also say to private businesses: open their data to generate new services. (MISSING THE POINT, GOVERNMENT DATEA WEHAVE PAID FOR, PRIVATE DATA VALUE IS IN THE ANALYSIS – THIS IS IP, AND THAT IS PROTECTED BY OTHER EU LAW)

In short, ladies and gentlemen, my message today is that data is gold. We have a huge goldmine in public administration. Let's start mining it. (VALUE IS IN THE REFINEMENT NOT THE DATA!)

Start releasing your data now. Join the future. Join the growth.

Facial recognition poses complex privacy issues that do not fit squarely with present laws as explored in the “Seeing is ID’ng,” a CDT report on facial recognition and privacy. The report describes the state of facial recognition technology and its commercial applications, the lack of laws that address facial recognition, and policy approaches to preserving consumer privacy.

The key privacy interest that commercial facial recognition affects is, of course, identification of an individual through facial features alone. Without facial recognition technology, it is very difficult for a stranger to easily and quickly identify an individual on this basis. Individuals in public currently expect that most businesses and passersby cannot recognize their faces, fewer still can connect a name to their faces, and few – if any – can associate their faces with internet behaviour, travel patterns, or other personal information. Facial recognition technology fundamentally changes this dynamic, enabling any marketer or random stranger to collect – openly or in secret – and share the identities and associated personal information of any individual in public.

Publicly available facial recognition is a transformative technology that demands nuanced solutions to preserve consumer privacy and free expression.

Back to my point of the blogs this week – you don’t have control, so don’t pretend you can, do or can get it back….

Image Source: Factors influencing consumer perceptions of brand trust online  http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=857857&show=html

I am spending a lot of time working on issues of trust and how it can be identified from behaviour (looking at your data) and what are the difference between generations… read this article on HBR http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/12/why_trust_matters_more_than_ev.htm This is not a new topic and has been a subject of research for a long time.  The difference now is that we have BIG DATA sets.

Here is my summary and views

We've all been taught that trust and reputation are important elements of branding.

The drivers of brand value have changed over time, and there are 3 forces at play
1. Company valuations, look at intangibles on the BS. In The Brand Bubble, John Gerzema and Edward Lebar highlight the fact that in the 1950s, about 30% of firm value was intangible (at the high end); today it is closer to 62% globally.

Sources of Intangible Value

• Brand: Brands, trademarks, customer goodwill, company reputation (Market Trust)
• Market Position: Contracts, licenses, legal monopolies, customer lists  (Market Trust)
• Business System: Organizational models, software investment, proprietary process, franchise rights (Internal Trust)
• Knowledge: R&D, patents, human capital, IP (Internal Trust)

“So creating value today is not only about the quality of the product or service we deliver. It's very much about the quality of a firm's conduct, both internally and externally. With more consumers, more "noise" from brand messaging, and more people invested in the stock market, there is greater transparency to these elements. It is easy to see how a trust deficit will ultimately slow long-term growth prospects, regardless of favorable macro indicators.”

2. Brand leaders today — Apple, Nike, P&G — are also design leaders.  Trust to try the latest innovation first (external) and trust to innovate (internal)

3.  technology = sensitive personal data entrusted to certain companies QED Interbrand's 2011 global survey, six of the world's top ten brands (IBM, Microsoft, Google, Intel, Apple, HP) today are technology companies. Forging deep emotional connections with consumers.

This aligns with Michael Porters work and rethinking that PURPOSE is a prime power rather than PROFIT.

… It's Apple saying that it will not accept apps for pornography. It's SC Johnson going beyond the industry standard to be more transparent about the ingredients in its products. It's the Tata group retaining every single employee and hotel contractor after the 2008 Mumbai attacks while the Taj Mahal Palace hotel was being rebuilt.

TRUST is the challenger and we don’t quite have the model for it yet or the correlation between Trust and your actions (data)