I once went for an interview with Palantir Technologies.
It has great technology for visualisation of data. It can be used to allow operators to see connections in unstructured data where they might otherwise remain hidden.
I saw a demo on the website that showed the system being used for anti-terrorism purposes, and while I thought it looked very cool, it raised the question, which I asked during the interview: From where does the data come?
When people use this software, are they getting court orders for bank transactions, phone calls, emails etc.? The answer I received was about what I would expect: Palantir provides the software and it is up to the users to use it legally. That's totally fine with me. It's the same argument that can be used for guns, drugs (including alcohol and cigarettes), BitTorrent and cars.
I thought that there was nothing about the fact that Palantir makes software that can be used in corrupt, illegal ways to imply that the company itself, or its employees, were unethical.
So, it turns out that in this case, I seem to have been wrong.
Through documents that were obtained when Anonymous hacked the security firm HBGary Federal, it has been shown that Palantir was directly involved in plans to attack WikiLeaks in order to protect Bank of America, about whom WikiLeaks is believed to possess a trove of documents.
Since this has all become public, Palantir has apologised profusely for its part in the scheme. Is that enough though? Who wouldn't apologise when caught red-handed trying to illegally attack another organisation? Surely the test for ethical behaviour is conducted when you don't think anyone else is watching. That's one of the main arguments for promoting the right to privacy: To enable people to choose to be good, rather than just forcing them to be, with no conscious thought.
In this case, Palantir's private actions came out, and it has failed the test. As it stands, no mere apology can compensate for its complicity.
If it truly wants to redeem itself, Palantir should put its money where its mouth is: Donate a large amount of money to organisations like EFF or WikiLeaks.
So, to Palantir CEO Alex Carp, put your money where your mouth is. Don't just talk up freedom of speech. Actively support it.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Freedom of speech for some, sometimes
I'm sick at the moment, so this might come across as more of a rant than a well thought out argument.
It seems to me, after reading a lot of recent anti-WikiLeaks news that there is a problem with free societies: They are run by regular people who are generally good at the art of politics and/or administration. There is no barrier in a free society designed to stop people who do not believe in the ideals of that society from rising to the top. In fact, they are often advantaged by not having to care about the society's rules.
Joe Lieberman and Sarah Palin, and Julia Gillard, among others, have seized on #cablegate as an opportunity to talk down the importance of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In the case of Gillard, while I find it appalling that someone with so little respect for freedom of speech represents Australia, it is somewhat understandable, as Australia has never had particularly strong protections of our freedom of speech. The high court in fact will only recognise a limited right to freedom of political speech.
But the United States is different. The 1st amendment to their constitution reads as follows:
Palin, however, thinks that Assange should be taken down like a terrorist, claiming that he can't be a member of the press and therefore have any freedom. She ignores his personal right to freedom of speech, and the fact that journalists are not defined as people who publish inoffensive puff pieces about what's growing in your fridge. Some Americans have called for him to be tried for treason, failing to notice that treason is a crime committed by a citizen against their own country, and Assange is not American.
Unfortunately, people like Palin and Lieberman just consider government to be a vehicle through which their careers and power can grow. If the U.S. just happened to be a fascist society or a socialist society, they would be exactly the same. They are pushing agendas of convenience; Whatever actions match their whimsical thoughts on a topic should be possible. They don't feel restrained by the fact that their country was founded with explicit protections against what they are trying to do.
I would just like to put out there one more fact that is being glossed over: Despite teams of lawyers working on finding something to charge Assange with, the only reason he is possibly going to be extradited to Sweden is because of what appears to be a smear campaign in the form of a molestation investigation. There is nothing else with which he has been charged or can be said to be suspected of committing. Assange may have committed an act that looks dodgy to some, but without being able to point at a law that has been broken, any attacks against him are unfounded.
I understand that there are others behind WikiLeaks, as there are unsung heroes behind any cause. Assange, however, is the face of WikiLeaks. I consider him to be my hero. Not specifically for releasing the documents of #cablegate etc., which are generally not that interesting, but for highlighting to the world what kind of reactions to expect when freedom of speech is really put to the test. It distinguishes, like nothing else I have seen, the people who actually believe in civil liberties from those who merely don't oppose them until they become inconvenient.
An argument from people who don't understand civil liberties that I really can't stand is "If you haven't done anything wrong, then you shouldn't have anything to hide." It is wrong on so many levels. I won't try to be exhaustive, but:
I understand that there is a need for operational secrecy in many circumstances, but unless there is a reasonable timeline for everything that the government does to eventually become public, then the government shouldn't be doing it. If the government isn't doing something wrong, then they have nothing to hide. And if they are doing something wrong, then the public needs to know.
Democracy is predicated on people having relevant information on which to base their choice for leaders. Julian Assange has helped highlight areas where information has been incorrectly withheld, and just as importantly, he has highlighted the people who would incorrectly withhold information from the public.
Anyway, it's good to see a groundswell of organisations, including the Pirate Party hosting the #cablegate documents, and for every mirror or payment processor that is shut down, more spring up.
If you really want to help make a difference, then join your local Pirate Party as an alternative that won't dither about civil liberties and only endorse them when convenient.
/rant
It seems to me, after reading a lot of recent anti-WikiLeaks news that there is a problem with free societies: They are run by regular people who are generally good at the art of politics and/or administration. There is no barrier in a free society designed to stop people who do not believe in the ideals of that society from rising to the top. In fact, they are often advantaged by not having to care about the society's rules.
Joe Lieberman and Sarah Palin, and Julia Gillard, among others, have seized on #cablegate as an opportunity to talk down the importance of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In the case of Gillard, while I find it appalling that someone with so little respect for freedom of speech represents Australia, it is somewhat understandable, as Australia has never had particularly strong protections of our freedom of speech. The high court in fact will only recognise a limited right to freedom of political speech.
But the United States is different. The 1st amendment to their constitution reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.That's pretty clear to me.
Palin, however, thinks that Assange should be taken down like a terrorist, claiming that he can't be a member of the press and therefore have any freedom. She ignores his personal right to freedom of speech, and the fact that journalists are not defined as people who publish inoffensive puff pieces about what's growing in your fridge. Some Americans have called for him to be tried for treason, failing to notice that treason is a crime committed by a citizen against their own country, and Assange is not American.
Unfortunately, people like Palin and Lieberman just consider government to be a vehicle through which their careers and power can grow. If the U.S. just happened to be a fascist society or a socialist society, they would be exactly the same. They are pushing agendas of convenience; Whatever actions match their whimsical thoughts on a topic should be possible. They don't feel restrained by the fact that their country was founded with explicit protections against what they are trying to do.
I would just like to put out there one more fact that is being glossed over: Despite teams of lawyers working on finding something to charge Assange with, the only reason he is possibly going to be extradited to Sweden is because of what appears to be a smear campaign in the form of a molestation investigation. There is nothing else with which he has been charged or can be said to be suspected of committing. Assange may have committed an act that looks dodgy to some, but without being able to point at a law that has been broken, any attacks against him are unfounded.
I understand that there are others behind WikiLeaks, as there are unsung heroes behind any cause. Assange, however, is the face of WikiLeaks. I consider him to be my hero. Not specifically for releasing the documents of #cablegate etc., which are generally not that interesting, but for highlighting to the world what kind of reactions to expect when freedom of speech is really put to the test. It distinguishes, like nothing else I have seen, the people who actually believe in civil liberties from those who merely don't oppose them until they become inconvenient.
An argument from people who don't understand civil liberties that I really can't stand is "If you haven't done anything wrong, then you shouldn't have anything to hide." It is wrong on so many levels. I won't try to be exhaustive, but:
- it ignores the imbalance of power between those who are allowed to see what is being hidden and those whose privacy is being invaded,
- it assumes that nobody in power is ever corrupt
- it assumes that there is nothing that can legally be done would still want to be kept secret, such as the purchasing of presents, acts taking place in a bedroom/bathroom, or just that some things are just nobody's freaking business, e.g. my best friend, more than a decade after finishing high school, still won't tell me what score he earned. It annoys me, but that's his right.
I understand that there is a need for operational secrecy in many circumstances, but unless there is a reasonable timeline for everything that the government does to eventually become public, then the government shouldn't be doing it. If the government isn't doing something wrong, then they have nothing to hide. And if they are doing something wrong, then the public needs to know.
Democracy is predicated on people having relevant information on which to base their choice for leaders. Julian Assange has helped highlight areas where information has been incorrectly withheld, and just as importantly, he has highlighted the people who would incorrectly withhold information from the public.
Anyway, it's good to see a groundswell of organisations, including the Pirate Party hosting the #cablegate documents, and for every mirror or payment processor that is shut down, more spring up.
If you really want to help make a difference, then join your local Pirate Party as an alternative that won't dither about civil liberties and only endorse them when convenient.
/rant
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Hung parliaments are good for society
Lots of people have been talking about the likely outcome of the Australian election, which is that we will end up with a hung parliament. I have heard opinions that Australian voters have somehow messed up, and that our country will be somehow crippled. I disagree.
I think that a hung parliament is the best outcome in this election, if it eventuates, and I have been hoping for just this to happen. Here's why:
Unless you live in Julia Gillard's electorate, or Tony Abbott's electorate, then no matter what the major parties tell us, you are not voting for Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott. People vote for someone to represent the interests of their electorate, and those of the state, and those of the country. It is a corruption that has led to the situation where people vote for a political party instead of a representative. That corruption is bloc voting.
Let's say that there is a faction in the Labor party that is just over half the size of the party. And let's say that just over half of that faction votes against supporting gay marriage. That faction becomes bound to vote against gay marriage. Sorry Penny Wong. Anyway, now that faction votes within the Labor caucus to oppose gay marriage, which binds the whole party. So, now Labor has to vote against gay marriage. And let's now assume that Labor has just over half the parliament. Because Labor votes with one voice, just over one eighth of the parliament has managed to force through their policy, without even asking the rest of the MPs what they think. This might be an extreme case (though due to the opaque nature of negotiations, we don't really know), but it highlights the issue: A small minority of MPs can force through a policy that binds all of Australia, even though the issue is not core to the electorates or even the party they claim to represent.
So now that no party has a majority in either house of parliament, the bloc voting can only work up to the level of the party, and neither party can pass legislation without the help of a few independents. These independents get elected, despite not having a major party name associated with them, because they work to represent the interests of their electorates. Hopefully, and I may be a bit idealistic here, these independents will require more than "because we told you so" as a reason to pass legislation. Legislation will still be passed, but there will have to be more deliberation, which should help to filter out crap like Internet censorship and the ACTA treaty.
It could even lead to individual MPs taking the same kind of stand that the independents get by default. Kate Lundy might grow the metaphorical balls to vote against Internet censorship or Penny Wong might realise that it's a matter of conscience to redefine marriage to mean something that wouldn't cause Alan Turing to kill himself.
As for who should be Prime Minister, that ill-defined face of the country, well, it's obvious really. Same as everything else, if the bloc voting can be broken, then all the MPs just have an internal election. If I remember correctly, ministers are a real position, according to our constitution, but the PM is not. The PM, if one must exist, should just be an ephemeral position. Whoever has the confidence of the parliament, for a time and for a task, is PM. Things should be expected to change, without the need for knives or tears. This system would result in an understanding that would prevent such complaints like "I voted for Rudd to be PM. I don't want Gillard," because the recognition would return that people only vote for their own representative, rather than a party or a PM.
Anyway, I am making chicken soup for a sick wife, so enough rambling from me...
I think that a hung parliament is the best outcome in this election, if it eventuates, and I have been hoping for just this to happen. Here's why:
Unless you live in Julia Gillard's electorate, or Tony Abbott's electorate, then no matter what the major parties tell us, you are not voting for Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott. People vote for someone to represent the interests of their electorate, and those of the state, and those of the country. It is a corruption that has led to the situation where people vote for a political party instead of a representative. That corruption is bloc voting.
Let's say that there is a faction in the Labor party that is just over half the size of the party. And let's say that just over half of that faction votes against supporting gay marriage. That faction becomes bound to vote against gay marriage. Sorry Penny Wong. Anyway, now that faction votes within the Labor caucus to oppose gay marriage, which binds the whole party. So, now Labor has to vote against gay marriage. And let's now assume that Labor has just over half the parliament. Because Labor votes with one voice, just over one eighth of the parliament has managed to force through their policy, without even asking the rest of the MPs what they think. This might be an extreme case (though due to the opaque nature of negotiations, we don't really know), but it highlights the issue: A small minority of MPs can force through a policy that binds all of Australia, even though the issue is not core to the electorates or even the party they claim to represent.
So now that no party has a majority in either house of parliament, the bloc voting can only work up to the level of the party, and neither party can pass legislation without the help of a few independents. These independents get elected, despite not having a major party name associated with them, because they work to represent the interests of their electorates. Hopefully, and I may be a bit idealistic here, these independents will require more than "because we told you so" as a reason to pass legislation. Legislation will still be passed, but there will have to be more deliberation, which should help to filter out crap like Internet censorship and the ACTA treaty.
It could even lead to individual MPs taking the same kind of stand that the independents get by default. Kate Lundy might grow the metaphorical balls to vote against Internet censorship or Penny Wong might realise that it's a matter of conscience to redefine marriage to mean something that wouldn't cause Alan Turing to kill himself.
As for who should be Prime Minister, that ill-defined face of the country, well, it's obvious really. Same as everything else, if the bloc voting can be broken, then all the MPs just have an internal election. If I remember correctly, ministers are a real position, according to our constitution, but the PM is not. The PM, if one must exist, should just be an ephemeral position. Whoever has the confidence of the parliament, for a time and for a task, is PM. Things should be expected to change, without the need for knives or tears. This system would result in an understanding that would prevent such complaints like "I voted for Rudd to be PM. I don't want Gillard," because the recognition would return that people only vote for their own representative, rather than a party or a PM.
Anyway, I am making chicken soup for a sick wife, so enough rambling from me...
Monday, July 12, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Attorney-General Plans Full Assault on Privacy
Attorney-General Robert McClelland has expanded his plans to accede to the Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention. He now wants to track every contact we make, whether by phone or by email, and store it all for years.
Many people might be ok with the prospect of having the government able to peer in on who they know and communicate with. They might feel that nothing can really be determined from a bit of meta-data. They should look at Palantir Technologies. Palantir's software makes it easy for agents to draw conclusions from the most unstructured data. From sexual persuasion to political affiliation, software that governments worldwide are currently using can easily unveil many of your lawful secrets.
Here's the tally board for the current government:
In the world of George Orwell's dystopic 1984, the size of a secret microphone was about the size of a fist. Back in the real world, a secret microphone could be invisible to the naked eye. We need to be more vigilant than ever to protect against exploitation by possibly well-intentioned, though definitely power-hungry, moves by politicians to control how we live our lives.
If you read this, and you're fed up with the constant incursions into our rights to privacy and freedom of speech, the Vote Pirate Party at the next election (assuming we are registered in time, which should be the case).
Many people might be ok with the prospect of having the government able to peer in on who they know and communicate with. They might feel that nothing can really be determined from a bit of meta-data. They should look at Palantir Technologies. Palantir's software makes it easy for agents to draw conclusions from the most unstructured data. From sexual persuasion to political affiliation, software that governments worldwide are currently using can easily unveil many of your lawful secrets.
Here's the tally board for the current government:
- Filter the internet
- Secret negotiations of ACTA that would erode our right to privacy in the name of copyright protection
- Abdicate sovereignty to countries with less freedom than that to which we are used, with no effective protection for Australians
- Track number plates and faces as part of CrimTrac
- Track communications as part of OzLog
In the world of George Orwell's dystopic 1984, the size of a secret microphone was about the size of a fist. Back in the real world, a secret microphone could be invisible to the naked eye. We need to be more vigilant than ever to protect against exploitation by possibly well-intentioned, though definitely power-hungry, moves by politicians to control how we live our lives.
If you read this, and you're fed up with the constant incursions into our rights to privacy and freedom of speech, the Vote Pirate Party at the next election (assuming we are registered in time, which should be the case).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)