Clare Curran, an MP in Dunedin and the Labour ICT spokesperson, has blogged in response to last night's dramas around the new Copyright legislation.
Her blog on the Labour Blog Site Red Alert refers to her comments at the second reading on her own website and on review I see where she's coming from.
So Clare, I say to you this:
- As noted by one of the people who responded to Red Alert you have indeed 'played the hand you were dealt'.
- It could indeed be argued that Labour's position created a 'better law'.
- The law is still flawed
- The method in which it was introduced was also flawed (though for many of us who marvel at how slowly the wheels turn, perhaps it's just a nice change to see law change enacted relatively quickly).
- None of this excuses leveraging the Christchurch Earthquake to get the law passed without fair notice to those who care, who are numerous, and
- Labour were not vocal enough about this last point.
You do mention it in your speech, so credit and respect to you. And I do understand what you're trying to achieve in playing closer to the middle of the field.
But we've got a lemon piece of legislation here in at least some respects, and we've had it passed into law in a very, very cheeky fashion. I do hope you're making it known to your opposition in parliament that the populace disapproves.
BlakJak.net returns to the Blackout in protest of the Government taking advantage of Parliamentary Urgency to get the Copyright law passed.
Once again I lose confidence in the New Zealand Government (and anyone who knows me, knows that I like to give the benefit of the doubt to the art of 'due process').
This time it's all over the news, and Twitter has been a storm of it. The introduction of the Controversial Internet File Sharing Law whilst the Government is operating in 'Urgency' (obstensibly to allow the response to the Christchurch Earthquake to be sped-up) is beyond cheeky; it's a disgrace.
Last night I was reading the tweets of folks who were watching Parliamentary TV and was struck by a reported truth; that many MP's are ignorant of Internet related matters. Seriously, comparing the Internet to Skynet? (see the video at the above URL).
Perhaps obviously, it's the youngest MP's who 'get it'. The Green's Gareth Hughes in particular scored a lot of brownie points amongst the twitter-folk I follow for actually making some sane comments (video now below). Labour's ICT spokesperson Clare Curran also apparently was talking some sense, but this doesn't explain why Labour didn't oppose the governments behavior more actively (sorry Clare, but you want to be 'strategic' ? Are you defending the Nats here?)
Even David Farrar who is himself a Nat, criticised the Governments moves here. He appears to have more faith than I retain, however, in the remainder of the process actually holding any value for Kiwis.
Melissa Lee on the other hand, it was pointed out, made an absolute idiot of herself, as did Katrina Shanks. Revised Stuff Article has plenty of useful commentary.
So read the facts, folks, and be warned... trouble is brewing.
Gareth Hughes's speech now on Youtube... worthy of your time!! (A shame the rest of Parliament pretty much ignored him by all accounts.)
Yes I may well be voting Green at the next election, and it sounds like plenty of my IT-industry colleagues may consider the same.
Yessir, this is a great installer for Java's recent update! It even achieves 'smartarse' status.
The left hand panel comes up as you let the Install Wizard do it's thang. "You have successfully installed Java" with a tickbox (ticked by default) that says 'Restart my browser to complete the installation', and a close button.
With several tabs of work-related content open, I don't want to close my browser right now, and figure (like many 'restart required' installers) that i'll simply restart my browser in a few minutes time.
Oh no. Not that simple. Deselecting the tickbox results in the right hand panel popping up. Can anyone explain for me why a full computer restart would be required if I failed to restart my browser when demanded?
At this point I had to laugh; what's the point in providing a deselect tickbox if you're then going to in effect use scaremongering tactics on your users?
I closed down Firefox and then clicked OK. IE was still there (whoopsie) and when that restarted It sent me directly to the 'verify your version of Java' website (instead of opening the tabs i'd had open prior. Interestingly, IE is not my default browser. I clicked 'home' and went on with my life.
In hindsight this probably doesn't seem as bad as it sounds, however, I found the above pretty damn rediculous and actually somewhat rude...
I just want to say that 'dmidecode' is one of the most singularly useful commands i've come across in a while.
Not something you necessarily want every day, but, well, pipe it to less from a terminal and enjoy :-)
One of the many tweets flying around in the last hour or so has been a story about Google Screwing over one of their clients to the tune of Thousands of $$$ because of some obscure contract violations.
From a cold email:
"After reviewing our records, we've determined that your AdSense account poses a risk of generating invalid activity. Because we have a responsibility to protect our AdWords advertisers from inflated costs due to invalid activity, we've found it necessary to disable your AdSense account. Your outstanding balance and Google's share of the revenue will both be fully refunded to the affected advertisers."
... through to no real explanation as to what 'invalid activity' is ...
... through to a crazy analysis of the legal situation:
"The Adsense contract is a beautiful piece of work. One of my subscribers is a lawyer. She looked at the contract and said “wow – this is a beautiful and incredibly expensive piece of work. These guys employ the best.” Her advice? Don’t bother fighting Google.
The contract is designed so that it is almost impossible not to break the Google rules. If you disclose site data then you are in breach. YouTube discloses just the sort of site data that would have me thrown out – but YouTube is Google which is Adsense."
Seriously. Click through and read it. And think about the impact that this has had on the guy, who had absolutely no idea he was doing anything wrong. Is in fact possible not to do wrong? Does this mean that everyone using AdSense is ultimately operating thanks to the good will of Google? And that Google can screw them over, without warning, and quite happily claim it's within their rights?
The entire situation makes a mockery of Google's 'Do no Evil' stance, and I for one am even more put off. The risk of the "cloud" is the amount of dependency you wind up having on it. There's a very good reason I keep the majority of my stuff, under my own direct control, this includes my income.... but notwithstanding this position, Google needs a rocket for screwing over an innocent, loyal customer.
Example of stupidity: An AdSense customer (someone using AdSense for advertising and thus revenue) is in breach of their contract if folks click on the links provided via AdSense and then don't purchase anything from the advertiser? REALLY? I see a run of DoS against AdSense users coming...