Blogging as Democracy

Please find a concise and thoughtful blog on why a blog network complex is not as devoid of peer review as one might think - particularly when compared to an individual, stand-alone, blog.

http://groupwise-web.newcastle.edu.au/webaccess/webacc?merge=linkurl&Url.linkText=http%3a%2f%2fscottbaldwin%2eblogspot%2ecom%2f2005%2f11%2fblogging%2don%2dblogging%2ehtml

To Bloglovers

Dear People who want to create online communities,

You have several options for creating an online presence.

You can make a website. This is the homepage of NASA http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/nasa_gen/index.html

You can set up your own website on geocities http://geocities.yahoo.com/home/

You can write for wikipedia. This is the homepage of wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikipedia is an online open-source encyclopedia

You can write your own blog. Try http://www.blogger.com/start

You can also try writing for Everything2 http://www.everything2.com/ This is supposed to be a database about "everything".

You can also try writing for Slashdot http://slashdot.org/. This is another user-rated, editted community.

Maybe one of you lot can explain what the difference is between these various services. The funny thing with all of these sites is that they don't seem to explain what it is that they do, that is, their main purpose, their main audience. They have extensive "Frequently Asked Questions" pages, but that basic question doesn't seem to be answered.

Hang on, I've found a very simple solution - to understand what each of these services is all about - just look them up in wikipedia...

- Doctor Thomas

Learning Organisation Project; Democracy Project

Today discussed with Patrick Henry:

1. Creating a learning organisation dedicated to learning how to be a learning organisation.

Wikipedia; Peter Drucker; Lover/Provider; setup dedicated blog; project management; scout badges; how to set good goals; Dipbounced commitment points system; rewarding for participation; gradation of essential life skills

2. Creating a democracy culture. This seemed to be almost a branch of 1. above.

Funding (Soros Foundation?); compulsory participation in an organisation (not necessarily political) with a democratic structure in order to create a culture of democracy, which would make people more participative, which would make our society bloom.

Anonymous Blogging

>>> Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> 4/11/2005 6:28 pm >>>

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Anonymous Blogging
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 01:25:38 -0500
From: Daniel Solove <djsolove@comcast.net>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
References: <4369412C.6040308@well.com>

Declan,

On anonymous blogging, you might find this post of mine analyzing arecently-filed lawsuit to be of interest.

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/11/using_lawsuits_1.html

A company filed a lawsuit in order to unmask the identity of an anonymousblogger, who was a company employee. After obtaining the blogger's identityfrom a subpoena to Yahoo, the company withdrew the lawsuit. The companythen used the information to fire the blogger. The employee has now suedthe company for abuse of legal process, invasion of privacy, and othercauses of action.

Regards,

Dan

Daniel J. Solove
Associate Professor of Law
George Washington University Law School

Website: http://www.danielsolove.com
Blog: http://www.concurringopinions.com


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Court Hears Internet Anonymity Case
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 14:21:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Gregory Hicks <ghicks@well.com>
Reply-To: Gregory Hicks <ghicks@well.com>
To: dave@farber.net, declan@well.com
CC: ghicks@cadence.com
Court Hears Internet Anonymity Case
Nov 02 3:19 PM US/Eastern

By ALEX DOMINGUEZ
Associated Press Writer

ANNAPOLIS, Md.

The publisher of a financial newsletter told Maryland's second highest court Wednesday that he should not be forced to disclose his subscriber list and other information sought by an Arizona company seeking those it says made defamatory online comments. The publisher, Timothy M. Mulligan, told the judges "almost everything we publish could potentially be subpoenaed," putting him in the position of constantly appearing for depositions if his request toquash a subpoena by the Arizona drug company, Matrixx Initiatives, isdenied.[...]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Misuse of judicial process to identify -- and retaliate against -- an anonymnous critic
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 12:08:00 -0500
From: Paul Levy <plevy@citizen.org>
To: <declan@well.com>

I want to call your attention to the newest Internet free speech casethat we have filed.

The case, in which my new colleague Greg Beck will be lead counsel, involves a large company that misused legal process to obtain a subpoena to identify and retaliate against one of its employees. The company, Allegheny Electric, through its attorneys at the well-known firm ofMorgan Lewis & Bockius, filed a John Doe action in Pennsylvania statecourt against a poster on a Yahoo! message board who identified himselfas an employee and criticized various actions of management that wasdriving its stock value down, including, according to the employee, the company's racial sensitivity training which he felt was wasteful. The company claimed that the use of racially offensive language tocharacterize the program violated company policies. However, after thecompany used the lawsuit to subpoena Yahoo! and obtained theemployee's identity, it dismissed the lawsuit but fired theemployee.This case typifies the nightmare scenario the underlies much or ourwork in the Internet anonymity area * we worry that companies andpoliticians are bringing John Doe suits more to find out who theircritics are than for a real purpose of pursuing such cases to judgment.A few years ago, lawyers like Bruce Fischman and others, trolling forbusiness on behalf of those offended by online criticism made no bonesabout the reasons for bringing these cases, but since we startedpointing to the public statements they have become much morecircumspect. This case shows that the problem of bad faith use of Doesubpoenas is a continuing problem. That is why, despite our distress at the offensive way that our clientexpressed himself, we have filed suit in his behalf against both Allegheny and Morgan Lewis, seeking compensatory and punitive damagesfor abuse of process and related torts. We may not approve of ourclient's language, but the First Amendment protected his right to sayit and his right to say it anonymously, and the misuse of the courts byfiling baseless lawsuits for the purpose to economic retaliation is onethat requires a remedy.

Our press release follows:

Paul Alan Levy
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009(202) 588-1000
http://www.citizen.org/litigation

>>> Angela Bradbery 10/31/2005 11:07 AM >>>
PUBLIC CITIZEN PRESS RELEASE
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release:
Contact: Greg Beck(202) 588-1000
Oct. 31, 2005
Valerie Collins (202) 588-7742

Allegheny Energy and Attorneys Abused Legal Processto Uncover Identity of Internet Critic

Company Subpoenaed Yahoo! to Identify AnonymousPoster and then Fired Him

WASHINGTON, D.C. * Allegheny Energy and its attorneys from Morgan, Lewis & Bockius improperly used the courts to learn the identity of an Internet message board poster critical of the company and then fired him, Public Citizen said in a lawsuit filed in federal court inPhiladelphia late Friday.In July 2003, an Allegheny employee * Fairview, W.Va., resident Clifton Swiger * posted anonymous criticisms of the company in aYahoo! message board room dedicated to discussion of the company. Swiger accused Allegheny, which is based in Greensburg, Pa., of poor managementand used a racist term to describe the company's diversity program,which he called a waste of money. Three months later, the company, represented by Morgan, Lewis, filedsuit against "John Doe" in Philadelphia as an excuse to subpoenaYahoo! to disclose information about the poster of the critical remarks. Allegheny claimed the poster had violated a "duty of loyalty" bycriticizing the company in the message board posting. The company then filed an emergency motion to rush the subpoena from Yahoo!, claiming theneed to prevent the poster from posting additional messages that wouldbreach the employee's duty to the company. Allegheny claimed the writer could be a "high-ranking" employee but did not inform thecourt that the poster had identified himself in the message as a"non-exempt" employee ("non-exempt" generally refers to arelatively low-level employee, paid by the hour). Because he was nevernotified of the lawsuit against him, Swiger could not defend himselfagainst Allegheny's claims. Yahoo! complied with the subpoena and disclosed Swiger's information to Allegheny. After learning theemployee's identity, Allegheny and Morgan, Lewis discontinued thelawsuit.

On Dec. 10, 2003, Swiger was fired for "placing racially derogatory postings on the Yahoo! message board in violation of Allegheny Energy's Positive Work Environment expectations," even though the posted comments were not made at work or posted during work hours. It took Swiger more than a year to find a new job, and then for a salary well below the salary he received while employed by Allegheny.

In the civil complaint, Swiger claims that Allegheny and Morgan, Lewis knowingly abused the court's processes by filing civil proceedings toidentify the poster of the critical remarks and then fire him, not to proceed with a legitimate legal action. Additionally, Allegheny violated Swiger's right to speak anonymously on the Internet and wrongfullydischarged him from his position after more than 16 years on the job.

"Although Swiger's use of racist language is abhorrent, the First Amendment nevertheless protects it, and should protect it in a free society," said Public Citizen attorney Greg Beck. "But the real harm to our democracy is that the company and its law firm abused the court's processes to get information for their private use, employing discovery procedures that should be available only to supportlitigation."

Mark Cuker from the Philadelphia firm Williams, Cuker & Berezofskyserves as local counsel for Swiger.

To read Public Citizen's complaint, visit
http://www.citizen.org/documents/ACF2398.pdf.

###

Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit www.citizen.org.

_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)

MPAA kills movie experience

Of course (as Declan always points out) if you don't like the treatment that you are getting at the movie theatre - you don't have to go. The movie theatre is a private organisation, and you are not compelled to use its services (unlike the government).

>>> Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> 5/11/2005 3:58 am >>>
[I'd be glad to share other experiences, or a reply from the MPAA should they choose to send one along. --Declan]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: MPAA kills movie experience.
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 11:22:20 -0500 (EST)
From: James Reid <jamie@vapour.net>
To: declan@well.com

Hi Declan,

My girlfriend and I are writers here in Toronto and I thought I'd share this, as if you needed evidence that privacy abuses are out of hand, here's our completely insane experience with the MPAA from last night.

I wonder what kind of dystopian cyberpunk future we live in when you are physically searched before entering a movie theatre.

Last night (November 3rd), my girlfriend brought me along to see a screening of Derailed at the Paramount theatre in Toronto, which she had to review for a magazine she works for. The lineup for the screening was unusually long, as I think they also fill seats at press screenngs with radio call-in winners, who in hindsight, might have accepted such poor treatment in exchange for
the ostensible privilege of paying for $30 worth of parking and fast food at a free $13 movie.

Anyway, the line was moving slowly because they were asking customers to raise their arms so that they could be electronically frisked with a metal detector, and women's purses were being searched by uniformed security guards. Try to remember that this is Toronto, Canada we're talking about here, not New York, Tel Aviv or London.

People who submitted to the search (everyone from what I could tell) had their cellphones taken from them and checked at a table set up in front of the theatre and they were given a ticket to reclaim it when they left.

I was having none of this, and checked the back of my ticket stub to ensure that there was no mention of being required to submit to a search listed as a condition of sale. As my girlfriend and I made it to the front of the line, the guard looked at me and asked me to raise my arms for the search. I politely declined saying "No, thank you", and proceeded to the ticket taker. I could hear him calling "Sir! Sir!" behind me, but even though I slowed my pace in case he was really going to do something about it, as I had expected, I wasn't stopped.

The ticket taker took my ticket and I waited for my girlfriend just inside the gate, as her purse was being subjected to a thorough going through by one of the guards. Since she was there for work, and her deadline was that night, she was not ready to risk not seeing the movie. Her 150 words won't have room for what happened next.

Her phone was taken from her and put in a sealed plastic bag with a claim ticket, and she joined me where I was waiting, past the gate, and we walked into the theatre together.

To add further insult to the debacle at the gate, near the exits at stage right and left were two uniformed security guards at each door, all four with video cameras scanning the crowd and making themselves very conspicuous.

This was not just a bit of pre-show MPAA theatre, they stood there for the entirity of the movie, red LED's glowing, scanning the crowd to remind us that we were under close surviellence and our actions were being recorded.

If you have sat in a chair in a dark room watching disturbing scenes unfold in front of you, while four uniformed people with video cameras stand in front of your, silently recording your reactions, you might be reminded of scenarios from a Clockwork Orange, Brazil, 1984, Videodrome, and strangely, that 90's relic: SFW.

Security guards regularly use handheld video cameras to harrass and intimidate people, particularly during political rallies and protests, as the guards know that the cameras carry with them a clear implication of future retribution against those being recorded. The cameras are quite literally, a threat. ( The threat is that if you do not behave as the camera holder asks, the recording of your actions will be used to persecute or discrace you.)

Upon leaving the theatre, my girlfriend and I had to stop at the security desk to claim her phone, which involved them searching through a pile of bagged cellphones for the correct one. We took another moment to turn the phone on and wait for signal in the threatre to validate that we in fact had the correct phone.

My girlfriend had said that if she hadn't already agreed to her deadline, she would have made a point of walking out of the screening and giving the PR person a talking to. I did not confront the camera wielding guards in the theatre because she was my host she had a job to do.

Only people who think they have done something wrong, or deserve to be searched, submit to that kind of authority, which is why guards get away with it, and the rest of us continue to be subjected to it and it becomes "normal".

Anyway, apparently this is Alliance Atlantis' idea of how to treat an audience, then I for one can certainly live without seeing any of their films, and we will be skipping movies at the Paramount theatre. I also know that at least one reviewer will also be seeing her movies elsewhere too.

I would also say that this is further evidence that movie studios are losing revenue because of the increasingly poor movie-going experience and general low-quality of the movies they are making, as after this, I can certainly undertstand why someone would prefer to watch a movie on their 14 inch screen than suffer the indignity of a multiplex.

--
batz
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)

Interesting - the political power of perception, as opposed to the technical power of actual control...

>>> Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> 9/11/2005 3:48 pm >>>

Tim is a professor of law at Columbia University who is visiting this semester at Stanford University.

Jonathan's earlier email is here:http://www.politechbot.com/2005/11/08/jonathan-zittrain-on/

-Declan

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Jonathan Zittrain on U.N., Net governance: "I don't get it"

Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 19:01:35 -0800From: Tim Wu <wu@pobox.com>

To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>

Declan,

A response to Jonathan.

I agree with JZ about most things. But I think the reason that the rootmatters is more subtle than he thinks. It has less to do, I think, withactual technological power, and more to do with murky questions of legitimacy, authority, and the evolving balance of power among nations.

Control of the root matters, I'm saying, because people think it matters,and also because it could matter. The first point is a point about the legitimacy of government action. My sense is that because much of the internet's infrastructure is still under American sovereign control(including the root) countries have a sense that regulating the internet is always to challenge the sovereignty of the United States. So long as Americans believe -- as many do -- that in some deeper sense this is still our network, policies like China will always seem an affront. Even far less radical policies in Europe may spark a confrontation.

What non-US countries are trying to do, then, is erode any perception thatthe Internet within their borders is the U.S. Internet. The root remains a symbol, in other words, of persistent American interest, and they want that changed.

Second, the root and naming and numbering could matter more than it does now. I think we may come to see a day where internet membership is heavily qualified - where getting an IP address becomes conditional on good behavior. So long as the numbering authority remains at some level the entity that controls who owns what numbers, its control over membership will continue to have nagging importance.

JZ is right that a Dr. Evil takeover wouldn't mean no more email. But like, say, possession of some holy relic, root control has an undeniable influence on claims to legitimately regulate the Net, and ultimately on the balance of power surrounding the internet.

_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)

Nobel author sees parallel in terror laws

Don't forget - Nelson Mandela is a convicted criminal.

Now he is a "hero" - profiting from his former crimes.

NEWS
Nobel author sees parallel in terror laws
Matt Price
October 24, 2005

NOBEL Prize-winning author JM Coetzee yesterday launched a thinly veiled attack on Australia's proposed anti-terrorism laws, likening the Howard Government's controversial reforms to human rights abuses under apartheid in his native South Africa.

...

You are telling lies but I am selling reform

You are telling lies but I am selling reform

Ross Gittins
11 July 2005
The Sydney Morning Herald

There's nothing new about furious arguments between governments and interest groups opposed to the changes those governments propose.

What's different about the argument over the industrial relations changes, however, is the degree of verbal abuse the Government has been heaping on the ACTU.

John Howard and the normally God-fearing Kevin Andrews have repeatedly referred to the unions' claims as "lies".

That's a pretty tough word to be using in the rough and tumble of political debate, where both sides are likely to be exaggerating their case and saying things calculated to mislead an uninitiated public.

It's an invitation to people in my position to run the old lie detector over the Government's claims. And frankly, those taxpayer-financed newspaper ads at the weekend don't stack up too well.

[...remainder snipped...]

Document SMHH000020050710e17b0001h

WorkChoices more about class war than economics

WorkChoices more about class war than economics

Ross Gittins
Economics Editor
21 November 2005

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/workchoices-class-war/2005/11/20/1132421548493.html

Whenever anyone says the rich don't pay enough tax or wants to cut back his generous grants to top private schools, John Howard always accuses them of trying to take us back to the bad old, long-gone days of class conflict.

But, though it's had remarkably little acknowledgment from commentators, his own industrial relations changes are an undisguised assault on the Liberal Party's traditional class enemies: the unions, unionised workers and workers generally.

By hitting so hard at the long-hated union movement, Mr Howard is also striking a blow against his political opponents of the past 30 years, the Labor Party. This consequence has escaped many people; you can be sure it hasn't escaped the most successful - and thus most carefully calculating - politician of his generation.

And it didn't escape Senator Andrew Murray of the Democrats: "From Coalition questions [at the Senate inquiry into the WorkChoices bill] it has been obvious there is a political motive in play. It is apparent that the bill will disadvantage the ALP, the Coalition's main competitor. "

There are several elements of the bill that will ultimately weaken the union movement and quite possibly see a decline in membership. Given that unions are one of the ALP's largest donors, reduction in union membership will impact financially on the ALP," he said.

[...remainder snipped...]

Document SMHH000020051120e1bl0001m

Workaholism is a sin that must be stomped on

Ross Gittens stirring the possum again.

Workaholism is a sin that must be stomped on

Ross Gittins

The Sydney Morning Herald, 3 October 2005

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/workaholism-is-a-sin-that-must-be-stomped-on/2005/10/02/1128191605200.html

From the way some of them talk, you'd think business people and economists regard us all as lazy loafers, desperately in need of "incentivation" to get us working.

In truth, the statistics show that Australians work as hard as any nationality, including the Japanese and Americans.

And, as it's easier to see when you're at home relaxing on a long weekend, some of us work too much for our own good - and other people's.

With so many of us working such long hours, being on call when we're not working and not taking all our leave, it seems clear many of us are working too hard.

Why do we do it? That's a question canvassed in a recent paper on The Economics of Workaholism, by the well-regarded labour market economist Dan Hamermesh, of the University of Texas, and Joel Slemrod, of the University of Michigan, published by America's National Bureau of Economic Research.

A workaholic is someone who's a compulsive worker. Indeed, workaholism is increasingly being regarded as an addiction, with similarities to more conventional addictions to smoking, drinking, overeating or gambling. According to one psychologist, it works like this. Discomforts in life and work cause the person to seek relief. And the primary form of relief that person has access to is to feel good by accomplishing something as part of their job.

Trouble is, as the person attends increasingly to getting things done at work, their personal life begins to suffer. This causes more discomfort, prompting the person to work ever harder at getting more things done at work.

[...remainder snipped...]

Document SMHH000020051002e1a30001b

More slant than substance in jobs reform ideology

Ross Gittens, the eminent Economics Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, is at it again.

8 October 2005
The Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/more-slant-than-substance-in-jobs-reform-ideology/2005/10/07/1128562999563.html


If you don't like the sound of John Howard's industrial relations "reforms", don't be intimidated by all the politicians, business people and economists assuring you they'll lead to "more jobs, higher wages and a stronger economy".

Why not? Because the empirical evidence in support of such claims is a lot weaker than the urgers ever let on.

There's a lot of fashion in economics. At present, it's the height of fashion to believe that deregulating the labour market is the key to improving the economy's performance.

Just achieve a more "flexible" labour market and you'll get lower unemployment, higher productivity, faster economic growth and improved material living standards.

How do you make the labour market more flexible? Weaken unions, lower minimum wages, lessen employment protection laws and discourage collective bargaining.

...

But though this is the conventional wisdom among economists, not all economists accept it. And it turns out it's more something the majority choose to believe than have actually proved.

The weak foundations on which the conventional wisdom is based are exposed in a recent paper by a man who's probably the doyen of US labour market economists, Professor Richard Freeman, of Harvard University and the National Bureau of Economic Research (which published his paper).

Freeman says there are "substantive and growing objections to the evidentiary base on which the new orthodoxy rests".

[...remainder snipped...]

Document SMHH000020051007e1a800050

Why the Rich Must Get Richer

WHY THE RICH MUST GET RICHER

Nov 10th 2005

Do industrial countries care too much about growth? No, they ought to care more

This is a review (http://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5135504) by the Economist of The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth by Benjamin Friedman, a professor of economics at Harvard University.

There is a common conception on both the left and the right, that while economic growth in poor countries is almost certainly morally good, it is either not so clearly morally good, or perhaps even morally bad, in rich countries.

After a certain point, the pursuit of more wealth may be futile and morally enervating, especially if it burdens other people and future generations. There is more to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than a faster car and an iPod nano.

...

Mr Friedman argues that conventional thinking about economic growth is too narrow: it neglects its moral and political benefits. "The value of a rising standard of living lies not just in the concrete improvements it brings to how individuals live but in how it shapes the social, political and ultimately the moral character of a people." Growing prosperity, history suggests, makes people more tolerant, more willing to settle disputes peacefully, more inclined to favour democracy. Stagnation and economic decline are associated with intolerance, ethnic strife and dictatorship.

[...remainder snipped...]

So...greed is good, anybody?

- Doctor Thomas