I’m not just putting my money where my mouth is.  I’m also standing for the Board of Directors.  I was nominated by the wise and talented duo of Suw Charman-Anderson & Basheera Khan.

As part of the election, I have to produce a 400 word statement.  I want to make ORG more member lead – and I’m starting as I mean to go on. Here’s my first draft – I want your crowd-sourced contributions!

(BTW, If you think I’m talking a load of old rot, feel free to vote for Emma Byrne, Felix Cohen, Neil McGovern, or Christi Alice Scarborough.  All of whom seem like fine people to me.)

This statement has to be ready by Tuesday 12th January – so get your oar in quickly!

ORG

The Internet is no longer a wild frontier.

The hurds of wild GNU have been safely corralled. Every uncharted port has been nmapped.  Huge sums of money are being made in the 24 carat data-mines.

Where there’s money, immorality and new ideas – Governments lay their heavy hands.

Our Problem

We have a technologically literate population – but we don’t have a technologically literate governing class.

Like a teenager to pornography – Governments are irresistibly drawn to the Internet. In much the same way, they don’t really know what to do with it once they get their hands on it.

Our Solution

Government in the UK is run by those who bother to show up.  At the moment that’s only the army of industry lobbyists and the 45% of the population who votes*.

I want to make sure we are listened to and our needs are met with Government action – or inaction.

The ORG must be seen as the de-facto commentators on digital life in the UK.

The “Taxpayers’” Alliance have managed to get their organisation into the front pages of the papers.  I believe our digital civil liberties are just as important as how our taxes are spent.

Striking The Balance

I want the Government to get out of our way.  I don’t want to register my blog with the state. I don’t want my traffic monitored on spurious pretexts.

I want the Government to keep us safe from [cr|h]ackers.  I want tough penalties for spammers.  I want those who breach our privacy to pay the consequences.

How do we reconcile these two opposing views?  By being member lead.  I want to see a much stronger community built around ORG.

I want to use you to shape our message and help us disseminate it.

Members should decide our priorities and be responsible for executing our campaigns.

0. Our Problem

We have a technology literate population – but we don’t have a technology literate governing class.

1. Our Solution

We need to urgently redress this problem.  Government in the UK is run by those who bother to show up.  At the moment that’s only the 45% of the population who vote* and an army of industry lobbyists.

ORG must be seen as the de-facto commentators on digital life in the UK.

I’m amazed at how The “Taxpayers’ Alliance” have managed to dominate the front pages of British newspapers.  I believe our digital civil liberties are just as important as how our taxes are spent.
We need to ensure our message is widely heard.  We have to demand that our needs are met with Government action – or inaction.

10. Striking The Balance

How do we target our resources effectively?  By being member lead.  I want to see a much stronger community built around ORG.  You fund it – you should have a strong say in how it is run and on what it campaigns.

I want to use you to shape our message and help us disseminate it. ORG will lobby Parliament & chat with civil servants if you write to your MPs & stick up posters in your workplace.  Deal?

Members should decide our priorities and be responsible for executing our campaigns.

This means finding better ways to involve all of you.  A members’ web forum, open conference calls, and regular blogging where you can help shape the message.
ORG’s website needs to be kept up to date and be seen as the premier resourse for journalists writing about digital rights.

Finally, I’d like to experiment with a member-get-member scheme. If you can help recruit people, we’ll make sure you are rewarded.

11. About Me

My name is Terence Eden. I got my first 14.4K modem when I was 15. I never looked back.
I have a degree in Applied Computing from the University of East Anglia.
For the last 6 and a half years, I’ve been working for Vodafone.  I currently look at mobile Internet trends.
My blog – http://shkspr.mobi/blog – covers a wide range of technology and political topics.
I am not a registered member of any political party.

*UK Voter Turnout 2005 – http://www.ukpolitical.info/2005.htm

Share This

After reading EU Parliament’s credibility undermined by back track on citizens’ rights on the Open Rights Group blog, I was moved to write to my MEPs.

FOR THE ATTENTION OF:

Sharon Bowles MEP
Nirj Deva MEP
Nigel Farage MEP
Caroline Lucas MEP
Marta Andreasen MEP
Catherine Bearder MEP
Peter Skinner MEP

Dear Nigel Farage, Marta Andreasen, Caroline Lucas, Sharon Bowles, Nirj Deva, Peter Skinner and Catherine Bearder,

Regarding Amendment 138. I understand that the lead negotiator, Catherine Trautmann, has reversed the decision of the Parliament.

I confess I have little understanding in how the EU works in this regard. But I strongly urge all of you to use your considerable influence to protect the rights of all EU citizens to a free and open Internet.

The Internet is our generation’s printing press. It must not be allowed to become restricted or corrupted by private interest – it must stay free of state interference. Otherwise we run the risk of entering a digital dark ages – where only “official” information is sanctioned and our every move is monitored and recorded.

Please, contact Catherine Trautmann and tell her that the citizens of Europe expect her to respect the Parliament and to fight for the rights of citizens.

Further information on the subject is at http://www.laquadrature.net/en/amendment-138-the-parliament-betrayed-by-its-negotiators

Yours sincerely,

I’ve had a mixed response when writing to my MEPs. The Anti-European ones are usually very quick at replying – but their replies often take the tone “Everything the EU does is bad – vote for us and we’ll stop it”. The Greens usually give a detailed response. I rarely hear back from the other parties.

Let’s hope this email gets through to enough of them.

UPDATE 19/10/2009

Lib Dem MEP Sharon Bowles is the first to reply to me with this very well considered email.

Dear Mr Eden,

Thank you for writing to me regarding the Telecoms Package.

I agree with you that net neutrality is a fundamental freedom. As a
Liberal Democrat I am fundamentally unable to support such restrictions
as you have outlined. In particular motions to grant quasi-judicial
authority to ISPs are a dangerous and illiberal step and an open door to
abuses.

For some in industry and in the political sphere the internet poses a
threat to the protection of intellectual property. While I understand
that the internet poses new challenges, it is my firm opinion that those
who see the answer to those challenges in repressive restrictions are
profoundly mistaken. It is clear to me that concern for the short-term
bottom line has blinded the entertainment industry to the need to adapt
to the age of file-sharing.

I should mention that despite these serious issues, the overall Telecoms
package is a good one that is mainly concerned with providing a common
regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and
services. It is designed to facilitate access to spectrum for operators,
foster innovation and make European rules on telecommunications more
consistent. It will also enhance competition in the communications
sector and thereby ensure that all market players have sufficient
incentives to invest in infrastructure and customer services.

These are necessary reforms given the advances in the technology and
changes in the market over the past decade, so I regret that the
legislative process has been hijacked to include proposals of this sort
after heavy lobbying by industry.

We are currently at the third and final stage of a legislative process
that has continued now for two years. The European Parliament has
consistently voted by large majorities to ensure that no restrictions
are imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of internet users
without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities. The European Council
has consistently rejected these amendments.

Both Parliament and Council must give their assent if any legislation of
this type is to pass. The strong consensus remains in Parliament that
such restrictions are not acceptable. It is important that the Council
must accept Parliament’s amendments to remove all potential restrictions
on internet access and allow the good aspects of the telecoms package to
pass.

I have urged those who have written to me in the past on this issue to
petition the British government to change its position on the Council to
support net neutrality and accept Parliament’s amendments. I would urge
you to do the same. At present it appears that the government is
listening more to those interested parties who would benefit from
further restrictions on internet use, than it is listening to the
concerns of ordinary internet users who would be affected by such
restrictions.

There remains the possibility that, should no agreement be found,
Parliament may reject the proposal in its entirety. This would be highly
unfortunate for the good economic measures that this package contains
within it.

Thank you once again for contacting me on this issue.

Yours sincerely,

Sharon Bowles MEP

Hope I get some feedback from the others…

Update 2 21/10/2009 – the Green Party replies

Dear Terence,

Thank you for your recent email about the EU’s Telecom Package. Caroline has asked me to respond on her behalf.

The “telecom package” is in reality a set of 5 Directives. The legislative proposals are designed to protect the rights of the consumers with regard to telecommunication services. During the Telecom Package’s First Reading a number of important provisions won support from MEPs, including access to more flexible contracts, better emergency services and improved information about prices and tariffs for telephone users. However, there was less agreement on the critical issues of data protection and ‘unlawful’ use of the internet. You might know that an initial compromise between the EU’s 3 institutions was reached ahead of the First Reading vote, but that the issue of net neutrality remained controversial.

The text that MEPs were asked to vote on was open to interpretation and could be used to advocate a “three strikes and you are out” approach against anyone eg downloading music in breach of copyright laws. Greens strongly disagree with the three strikes model or any other similar attempts to restrict internet access. Caroline recognises that important questions are posed by the proliferation of new media, particularly in relation to copyright. However, these must be answered in ways that protect important freedoms and do not curtail the emergence of internet based cultural activity or free access to the internet.

Green MEPs from the Internal Market Committee said:

“Unrestricted access to the internet is an essential right for a functioning information society, which should not be curbed simply at the whim of large media firms. For this reason, the Greens will re-table an amendment (originally amendment 138) to protect citizens’ rights and prevent the arbitrary restriction of internet access.”

Caroline was delighted that the main “Citizen amendment” was then carried in plenary; this was proposed originally by, among others, the leader of the Greens in the Parliament, and guarantees that an internet user’s connection will not be cut without a prior ruling by a judge. This is a victory for citizen’s rights.

Unfortunately, in the other chapter of this telecom package, the Harbour report, the definition of net neutrality is not good enough to ensure that traffic Management Policies cannot be used for anti-competitive purposes. Greens will keep working on these issues during this legislature in order to guarantee protection for net neutrality.

It is also critical that you lobby your MP as national governments, via the Council of Europe, are in favour of significant restrictions and of giving internet service providers and businesses greater powers to eg control information flow or monitor individual usage of the net. Parliament has formulated its conciliation team, who are responsible for negotiating with the Council and seeking agreement on the final text of the legislation. The EU’s telecoms ministers have already indicated that the Council would not approve the Citizen’s Amendment so these negotiations will be lengthy. No Green MEPs are part of the conciliation team but Caroline is hopeful that members will fairly represent the view of the Parliament on net neutrality. She shares your concern about any attempt to reverse the decision of the Parliament on amendment 138 and will be working to keep up pressure on the negotiating team to ensure that the MEP’s position is properly reflected in any agreement.

Thank you for taking the time to write to Caroline and please be assured of her commitment to protecting the rights and freedoms of internet users. If you need any further information do not hesitate to get back in touch and you can read more about Caroline’s work at www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk

Kind regards,

UPDATE 19/10/2009 – The Labour Party replies

Dear Mr Eden,

Thank you for contacting me about the ongoing negotiations concerning Article 138 of what is known as “the telecoms package”. Please forgive my delay in replying to you.

On 6 May the European Parliament adopted its second reading on the proposals that constitute the package and we are now still in discussions with the European Council to reach an agreement on a final law.

Labour Euro MPs are committed to achieving an overall package that delivers real benefits for consumers by opening up competition in the telecoms market, while strengthening consumers’ rights and the protection of their privacy.

We have listened carefully to citizens’ concerns about the protection of their fundamental rights in the online environment. I agree with you that the internet is an important tool for education, civil society and freedom of speech and that needs to be fostered and protected. This is why Euro MPs inserted amendments making clear that all laws affecting the internet must respect the fundamental rights of citizens. Legal opinions issued by the legal services of the European Institutions make clear that, under the Treaties that establish the EU’s powers, European legislation cannot go beyond this, for example by requiring Member States to follow a specific legal procedure. As such these issues remain a matter for national law.

The conclusion of the package is important to deliver many priorities that Labour Euro MPs have campaigned for, including limits on contract length in order to prevent consumers being ‘locked in’ to a bad deal, the ability to switch your mobile number to a new network within 24 hours and a guarantee of equal access for disabled people to communication services. The final proposal also adopted amendments I put forward that will ensure the 116 000 missing child hotline, a crucial plank in developing an EU rapid child abduction alert, will be set up in every country of the European Union.

Labour Euro MPs will work towards a final agreement on this legislation that maintains these benefits and upholds citizens’ rights.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Skinner MEP

MEP for South East England
www.peterskinnermep.eu

Share This

Here’s some pornography for you…

Phwoar! Look at the tits on that!

Here’s some child porn.

Sickening. How could Leonardo Da Vinci bear to paint such monstrosities?

My local school is putting on a play full of under-age, pre-marital sex. With foul language, wanton violence, drug abuse and teenage suicide.

My public library has books on how to make bombs!

Won’t someone think of the children and “rate” this sick filth!?

When we look at libraries, art galleries and the theatre, there is very little appetite for censorship. Why?

It’s because such things are old and familiar to us. We understand them intimately. We grew up with them. They’re part of our everyday experiences.

The Internet – for people of Mr Burnham’s generation – is not part of the fabric of his world. It’s new, scary and dangerous.

I first got online in 1994. Compuserve was my gateway to the world at a blistering 14.4Kbps. I’ve known the net for the majority of my life – for longer than I’ve known most friends. The net is entwined in the very fibre of my being.

But I am nothing compared to the kids born in the late 1990s. I can remember the magic of my first homepage – whereas their parents blogged their pre-natal sonograms.
I was astounded the first time I illicitly downloaded a movie. For today’s kids, it’s as natural as flicking through the TV channels is for Mr Burnham.

Andy Burnham has really only ever worked in the political realm. He has never, I suspect, been exposed to the wonders of the Internet. Now that he has a staff of researchers and secretaries – I doubt he ever will. Unless the good voters of Leigh oust him in favour of someone who lives in the real world. Or at least someone who appears to know what they are talking about.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying – it’s not Andy’s fault that he doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. He was born too early to fully grasp what’s going on in the world. I suspect that if he was around when mobile phones first came available, he’d ask us to rate ourselves lest children accidentally rang us.

For those interested in the history of censorship and rating in this country, I suggest the book “The Lord Chamberlain Regrets…“

The book examines the curious fact that every play performed in the UK had to be looked over and rated or rejected by the government before it was allowed to be performed.

This lasted from 1737 to 1968. That’s 231 years. Imagine how competitive the UK’s digital economy will be after 231 years in the wilderness.

Share This