Peter Black's Freedom to Differ

I am a Geek

A video from the Society for Geek Advancement:

Guest post: "We Should Re-Think our Stance on Fiji"

Dilan, a regular reader of this blog, has written this opinion piece on Fiji and I have agreed to post it below:

We Should Re-Think our Stance on Fiji

It seems self-evident that democracy is the most effective form of government regardless of how imperfect it may be. But what if the democracy in which you lived was a racist one. Imagine an Australia where a Pauline Hanson type individual was the Prime Minister. Imagine if within that Australia the civil rights of non-white Australians were reduced by the passage of a series of increasingly racist laws. How long would it be before civil unrest occurred? How long would it be before some members of the oppressed minority, if even only a few, sought to strike back? How would the majority react? History has taught us that when these type of things happen, the response is often violent. Would you want to live in this type of country? It would not be the sort of place that a civilized, decent person would want to live. Such a society would soon turn in on itself.

Consider then two countries within the Asia Pacific region: Sri Lanka and Fiji. The latter country, Fiji, has recently been subjected to yet another military coup. But unlike all the other military coups which Fiji has experienced, this coup by Commodore Bainimarama was designed to prevent the furtherance of racist politics within the democracy. The former country, Sri Lanka, embraced a racist democracy almost from the moment of its independence. Sri Lanka had racist laws in the 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s. Under Sinhalese majority rule some Tamils lost their citizenship, their property rights and all Tamils had their education and employment prospects curtailed. The Tamils were subjected to all manner of racist violence. The result was a thirty-year civil war.

That civil war might well be ending now. But Sri Lanka isn’t the type of country in which most people would want to live. You only need to go onto the Austlii database and read through a few of the refugee cases from Sri Lanka to get an idea of the type of mess that Sri Lanka has become. Parts of the Tamil society have almost completely devolved. Education and employment opportunities for ethnic Sri Lankan Tamils seem terribly limited. Crime, perpetrated by both Sinhalese and Tamils, is horrific. And that isn’t even going near the type of violence perpetrated by the military, security forces and the rebels. Violence against women seems to be entrenched. Corruption is rampant. Furthermore, even if the war ends it will be a long time before the Tamils trust the Sinhalese again.

There are three key points that should be remembered whenever you look at Sri Lanka. Firstly, Sri Lanka’s spiral into war and misery really began with one racist politician; Solomon Bandaranaike. Mr Bandaranaike himself is rumoured to have some Tamil ancestry. But he held himself out there as being a Sinhalese nationalist and he exploited the fears and prejudices of the poor Sinhalese. The results of that were catastrophic for so many people. Secondly, probably about half the people who think that they are Sinhalese have some Tamil ancestry. Tamils are Dravidians and the Dravidian race accounts for the bulk of the ethnic groups in South India and thereabouts. There was also so much inter-marriage and cross-migration for centuries. This also underscores the extent to which race really is just a social concept which is open to manipulation.

Thirdly, there was an attempted military coup in the 1950’s when Solomon Bandaranaike was starting up his race-hate politics. It is food for thought to consider what might have happened if the coup had worked and Bandaranaike had been stopped dead in his tracks. Sri Lanka had so much potential. It could have been like Singapore or Malaysia. These countries faced similar challenges to Sri Lanka, but they used different methods to put the race genie back in the bottle. They have fared so much better.

This brings us back to Fiji and General Bainimarama’s coup. This Fijian coup has taken place to stop the pursuit of a racist political agenda. It is certainly true that the coup and the subsequent suspension of democracy are highly undesirable. But we do have to consider what the implications might have been if race relations between the ethic Fijians and the Indian Fijians had deteriorated. We should give some thought to what might have happened in future years if the racist politics had got going. A violent, unstable Fiji would be a poor neighbour.

Race politics brings out the worst in human beings. We need only look at the Holocaust to see what racist politics inspires. In more recent times we have had, Bosnia, Rwanda, Chechnya, Darfur and others. If we could go back in time would we really want to preserve the rights to freedom of speech or the right to participate in a democracy of people like Adolf Hitler, Slobodan Milosevic or others of their ilk? The consequences should not always have to be so extreme before we see some curtailment of the rights of racist politicians. Ideally, strong racial vilification laws and other laws, would stop racist politics from doing serious damage. But Bainimarama may not have had those tools at his disposal.

Provided that Bainimarama is committed to bringing back democracy in the future then we should engage with him. Fijians are best placed to tell us how long it will take to remove racism from their internal politics. Perhaps Bainimarama should have had more faith in the democratic process. In an ideal world democracy would have destroyed the racist agenda. But this doesn’t always happen. Bainimarama’s underlying goal is the correct one, and on that basis, as unsatisfying as a suspension of democracy may be, we should not walk away from him or Fiji. Instead, we should continue to insist that democracy be brought back in the future. But we should also take care to insist that it is a democracy with strong safeguards and one that cannot be subverted for racist ends.

If you are looking for a forum to express your ideas (your freedom to differ, if you like), please let me know and I will happily post your thoughts.

#atNickHodge: "Australian Constitution. Yes, We have one"

Last night I was a guest on Nick Hodge's Ustream show, atNickHodge, where we discussed the Australian Constitution:

 

Podcast on Ice TV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd

Yesterday evening I had a chat with Ben Grubb from Tech Wired Australia about the High Court's decision Ice TV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd.  Ben has posted a podcast of that conversation you can download here.  And see my previous posts on the decision here and here.

What others are saying about Ice TV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd

Yesterday the High Court of Australia handed down its decision in Ice TV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd, bringing to an end legal proceedings that have been going on for the past three years.  (I first blogged about the case in October 2006 here.)  I had hoped to post a summary of the decision as well as some comments by this morning but unfortunately it now appears that I'm unlikely to get the time to write anything until the weekend.  However, a few other Australian blawgers have posted their thoughts on the decision:

• My QUT colleague Kylie Pappalardo has an excellent summary on her blog OctaviaNet here.
• Warwick Rothnie posted his initial thoughts at ipwars.com here before a posting a more detailed summary and analysis last night here.
• On Australian Regulatory Compliance Review David Jacobson highlights a particular interesting part of the judgment here.
• Joshua Gans comments briefly here.
• Law student Katherine Liew has also written up her reaction to the decision here.

I'll continue to update this list as more people post their thoughts on this decision ...

One aspect of the decision that hasn't really been commented on yet was the nature of the divide on the Court.  Although all six justices agreed that the appeal should be allowed, the court divided into two groups of three justices each.  One judgment was authored by French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ, and the other was authored by Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ.  This seems to be part of ongoing trend that suggests that maybe there is a divide on the Court emerging between the more established justices (Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ) and the more recent appointees (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ).  In particular, I can't help but wonder if there is minor battle taking place behind the scenes of the High Court between the new Chief Justice and the longest serving member of the Court, Gummow J, for the intellectual leadership of the Court.  If my suspicisions are correct, it will be fascinating to see how it plays out.

Ice TV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd

Update: link fixed.  Judgment also now available on AustLII here.

The High Court of Australian has handed down this morning its decision in Ice TV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd.  I've been following this case since October 2006 (see my first post here) so it is interesting to note that Ice TV has ultimately been successful.  The judgment is not yet available on AustLII but I have posted a copy of the judgment for you to read here.  This is also what Ice TV has posted to their website:

IceTV wins High Court decision - freezes Nine!

April 22nd, 2009

The High Court of Australia has today ruled in favour of IceTV in what has been an epic three year legal battle with the Nine Network.

Six months after the appeal was heard by the High Court and 3 years since the case originally began the High Court has today in Canberra, allowed IceTV’s appeal from the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court. A comment as to the High Court findings will follow shortly.

In an official statement made immediately following today’s judgment, IceTV’s Chairman and major investor, Mr. Colin O’Brien said the following;

“I would like to thank all our shareholders, our staff, our customers and our business partners. Without their support during the last three years IceTV would not have survived. IceTV now looks forward to a successful future bringing both Free-To-Air TV and content via various partners to viewers in a way that satisfies viewer demand, whilst embracing the future of digital Free-To-Air television in Australia.”

Since it’s incorporation in 2005 IceTV has had one aim: To give TV viewers the freedom to record and manage their TV shows as they choose. To record what they want, skip what they want and watch it at a time that suits them. No longer do viewers have to watch their chosen shows when the Networks tell them or to watch content they would rather skip through. IceTV gives them this choice.

This win today is also a win for our many subscribers who enjoy the benefits of simpler, smarter TV viewing.

IceTV’s General Manager, Mr. Matt Kossatz made the following comment after the High Court’s decision;

“Today’s decision is the news that we (IceTV), our staff and our loyal users have waited 3 long years and worked very hard for. With everything happening with digital television in Australia at the moment, the timing is ripe and almost worth the wait. We are seeing more and more content coming to both free-to-air TV and via the web and as an independent company (not a TV Network), we will always have the ability to put the interest’s of the consumer first in terms of features we offer”.

For more information, please read our following Press Release.

A copy of the High Court’s Judgment is expected to be made publicly available later this week. A copy of the High Court’s Summary of Findings will be made available via IceTV’s website as soon as possible.

Regards,
IceTV

I'll try to post a summary of the judgment later today.

So what is happening with this blog?

I've just realised that it has been almost two months since I posted anything to this little blog.  Unlike my previous blogging hiatus, this blogging break was not planned in any way, it just happened.  My absence from the blogosphere was not because there was nothing worth blogging about or nothing I wanted to say.  In fact there have actually been several issues and stories I have wanted to blog about over the last two months: Microsoft's Politics and Technology Forum in Canberra and Joe Trippi's visit to Brisbane; Senator Conroy's ongoing attempt to censor the internet in Australia; the Queensland State election; the High Court challenge to the Australian Government's stimulus package; the seeming convergence of Twitter and Facebook; Hilary: The Movie; and the role of the news media in the digital age ...

So why no updates?  Primarily because I have been very busy at work since the semester started in February.  The roll out of a core new constitutional law unit, that utilises a wide range of new communication technologies like podcasts and wikis, has consumed more of my time than I had anticipated when I designed the learning and technology methodology and considered the pedagogy.  However in addition to frequently being time poor, I have also been finding other forums to communicate my ideas and interests; mainly Twitter but also the traditional media.  The increasing amount of radio and print media interviews I have been doing has allowed me to express my views and passions to a wider audience than this humble little blog.

So what is happening with this blog?  The honest answer is I don't know.  I'm not going to shut it down just yet but I also don't know how viable it is moving forward.  In the second half of this year I plan to commence a PhD which means that I am only going to get busier and busier, presumably making it harder and harder to blog.  Ages ago I thought about opening it up as a group blog, but I can't really imagine anyone wanting to join this blog as part of a team of bloggers.  I might make it more of a portal to some of my other work and publications.  Or I might just keep it here as a space I can go to vent when nowhere else wants to hear what I have to say.  But I'll make that decision another day.

In the meantime, feel free to follow my mundane life on Twitter @PeterBlackQUT.

Podcast of The Tangled Web: Beyond an Internet Filter

On Tuesday night I had the pleasure of chairing a newmatilda.com public forum on the internet regulation debate in Australia:

newmatilda.com presents a series of public forums about the internet regulation debate in Australia.

The Federal Government's proposal to block internet sites with a mandatory filter has drawn overwhelming opposition from voices across politics and civil society. So what are the real questions for policy-makers?

These forums explore the ethical, social and political questions raised by government regulation of the internet. With the growing intersection between technology, politics and media, how do existing and proposed classification regimes measure up?

Is filtering inevitable? Or are there better ways to regulate the world wide web?

Chair:
Peter Black, QUT Faculty of Law

Speakers:
Senator Scott Ludlam, The Australian Greens
Irene Graham, libertus.net
Nic Suzor, Electronic Frontiers Australia

A podcast of the audio recording of this forum can be downloaded here:

iiNet copyright case update

In November I blogged that iiNet had been sued for copyright infringement by by Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, 20th Century Fox, Disney and the Seven Network (see here).  The case moved forward during the week with iiNet filing their defence on Thursday and a preliminary hearing taking place before Justice Cowdroy on Friday:

THE court showdown between internet service provider iiNet and movie studios has been set for October 5 in the Federal Court.

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), on behalf of seven leading film companies and their affiliates and licensees, sued iiNet last November on copyright infringements claims.

AFACT alleges that despite being warned on 18 occasions over a five month period, iiNet didn't stop its customers from illegally downloading and exchanging movies and TV programs.

It is seeking a ruling that iiNet infringed copyright by virtue of not taking reasonable steps to prevent its customers from allegedly dabbling in the illegal activity.

iiNet has said it would vigorously defend itself against the lawsuit.

Entertainment industry heavyweights party to the court action include Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Disney Enterprises, Seven Network and Twentieth Century Fox, owned by News Corp, which also owns The Australian.

In the Federal Court this morning, lawyers for iiNet and AFACT agreed that the trial would last around two weeks.

Justice Dennis Cowdroy also set the next directions hearing date on July 29, as well as a series of deadlines for affidavits to be filed.

Read more here (from Australian IT).  The Age has more details about iiNet's defence:

iiNet filed its defence yesterday, claiming that the Copyright Act and Safe Harbour provisions introduced with the US free trade agreement stipulated that ISPs were not liable for copyright infringement by customers.

...

In its defence, iiNet admitted that the movie studios held copyright to their libraries of films but was not yet ready to concede that its customers illegally downloaded them.

Regardless, it said that it would not derive commercial benefit from customers downloading films illegally and would in fact incur more costs due to the additional bandwidth used.

In court today, lawyers for the movie studios said they provided iiNet with evidence of its customers' copyright infringement yesterday. The studios hired online investigators DtecNet to intercept BitTorrent traffic and record all instances of iiNet users downloading copyrighted movies illegally.

In the face of this evidence, lawyers for the movie studios said they expected iiNet to admit that its customers had downloaded movies illegally. iiNet's lawyers said they were still reading the document but may be willing to concede that point.

Both sides agreed that the main issue in the hearing would be whether iiNet was liable for the actions of its users and whether it in effect "authorised" their copyright infringement by failing to disconnect them when notified of the infringements by the movie studios.

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) sent several letters to iiNet notifying the ISP of the infringements, however, in its defence iiNet said the notifications were "mere allegations of copyright infringement" and were forwarded to police.

"The allegations of copyright infringement in the AFACT notifications were not accompanied by sufficient information to demonstrate the veracity of the allegations," iiNet claims.

"iiNet was, and is, legally bound to continue to provide relevant iiNet Services to iiNet Subscribers under its contracts with those subscribers."

iiNet pointed out that it provided access to legal downloads of games, movies, music, radio, sports and TV content through its Freezone service. (www.iinet.net.au/freezone)

It said it "did not sanction, approve, or countenance" alleged copyright infringement by any iiNet user.

Read more here.  I was interviewed about the iiNet lawsuit for ABC's Radio National PM program on Friday.  You can listen to the report or read the transcript here.

Finally! A politician worth following on Twitter

Politico's Ben Smith explains why we should all be following US Senator Claire McCaskill on Twitter:

Many politicians are now on Twitter, but few are posting stream-of-consciousness updates from their BlackBerrys, and the telegraphic press releases that compose most official tweets can be a bit wearing.

So Sen. Claire McCaskill's feed, which she began, communications director Adrianne Marsh tells me, as a way to give constituents a running glimpse of the inaugural festivities ("Scalia in a really weird hat," read one entry), is pretty remarkable: obviously authentic, somewhat candid and much in the spirit of the new tech age.

"It gives me a little bit of heartburn, but it is what it is," said Marsh, who said McCaskill uses the program TinyTwitter on her personal Blackberry. "That's really the stream of consciousness way she takes in these events."

Read it here.  Senator McCaskill's use of Twitter is a much more interesting and revealing use of Twitter than that of any Australian politician I can think of.

"25 Things I Didn't Want to Know About You"

Time's Claire Suddath has understandably had enough of the latest ridiculous Facebook meme, "25 Things About Me":

A girl I knew in high school has memorized all of Janet Jackson's dance routines. A college acquaintance is afraid of train whistles. Five separate people harbor lifelong desires to visit New Zealand. How do I know these things? Because they won't stop writing about them on Facebook! (See the 50 best websites of 2008.)

Facebook's "25 Things About Me" meme seems harmless enough; people write 25 facts about themselves and post them on their Facebook pages, just as they do with videos, status updates and photos of last weekend's party. An estimated 5 million of these notes — that's 125 million facts — have appeared on the website within the past week. Assuming it takes someone 10 minutes to come up with their list, this recent bout of viral narcissism has sent roughly 800,000 hours of worktime productivity down the drain. (Read "Does Facebook Replace Face Time or Enhance It?")

But it's just so stupid. Most people aren't funny, they aren't insightful, and they share way too much. Facebook is a loose social network; a "friend" on Facebook might translate to someone you'd barely recognize in real life. I don't care that my college roommate's sister is anemic or that my stepcousin's boyfriend gets nervous around old people (apparently he's afraid they're going to die). (See the best social-networking applications.)

Below are 25 facts I wish people hadn't told me about themselves.

Read those facts here.  I thought of compiling my own list based on what my Facebook friends have disclosed through this meme, but I decided that would be cruel.  Claire Suddath's list will have toto.

Goodbye Twitter?

Facebook has announced that they are opening up their status API:

Facebook has made a number of updates to the Facebok platform one of which is the opening of status updates. In order to get Facebook statuses, you no longer need to use a session ID to access statuses. This is a huge update and one that I think is going to take Facebook to the next level. There are additional updates listed in the Facebook blog post:

Specifically, your applications can now directly access all of a user’s status, links, and notes via new methods and FQL calls. Your application will have access to any status, notes, or links from the active user or their friends that are currently visible to the active user. In addition, we’re opening new APIs for you to post links, create notes, or upload videos for the current user, and we’ve made setting a user’s status easier.

As mentioned, Facebook has made it easier to set a user’s status. Get ready for streaming Facebook status tools galore. Just over one month ago I suggested that opening up that status API would be the first step toward Facebook killing Twitter. Now we will see if this really has as large of an effect as I claimed it would.

Read more here (AllFacebook).  I really doubt that this will be beginning of the end for Twiiter.   There is a very loyal community of users on Twitter has who will not readily shed the tech cred that comes with using Twtter for the relatively mainstream Facebook.

Brisbane Twestival

This coming Thursday 12 February a series of Twestivals are being held over the world to raise money for charity: water and Brisbane is no exception:

Step right up! Come along to the number one charity event this year: Brisbane Twestival!

We're raising money for charity:water, who help the 1 in 6 people worldwide to gain access to clean safe drinking water.

To raise this money, the Brisbane Twitter community is holding an evening of arts and entertainment right in the heart of Brisbane. Your donation entitles you to witness some great performances from acts including DizzyGotheca, The Strange Attractors, Supergeneric and Collapsicon! Dancers Moniq and Lady Vee will be providing shows, and the night will bear witness to a super special performance from AS Theatre, presenting a scene from Dave Burton's award-winning new play Lazarus won't get out of bed.  Additionally there will be art displays, raffles, competitions and more.

Follow the latest announcements on the Brisbane Twestival blog or on Brisbane Twestival's twitter page. To contact someone, send an email to twestival -at- lexiphanic -dot- com, or speak to @lexiphanic or @NicoleJensen on Twitter.

We'd also like to thank our sponsors for their enthusiasm in contributing to and participating in this event:

• ourbrisbane.com
• MetroArts
• BandHost.com.au
  
• SomebodyThinkOfTheChildren.com
• Kelvin Grove Lolly Shop
• Auto Greasemonkey
• Telstra
• Verve Cafe
  

...and this is in addition to the great performers and people donating their time to help make the night a smooth-running success.

If you and/or your business are interested in contributing to this event in any way, please contact Greg by emailing twestival -at- lexiphanic -dot- com. We have a range of sponsorship opportunities in all shapes and sizes and every contribution helps!

The Brisbane Twestival has also been written up in The Courier Mail here and the Brisbane Times here.

If you are based in Brisbane, I'll look forward to seeing you there.

Joe Trippi at QUT: "Online campaigning in the US Presidential election"

As part of Joe Trippi's visit to Australia thanks to Microsoft Australia, he will be speaking at QUT on Thursday 5 March:

QUT Faculty of Law Free Public Lecture Series 2009
Presents
 
Mr Joe Trippi
Trippi & Associates (USA)
 
Online campaigning in the US Presidential election
 
Thursday 5 March 2009
 
The Gibson Room
Level 10, Z Block
QUT Gardens Point Campus
 
5.30 pm Refreshments
6.00 pm Lecture commences
7.00 pm Lecture concludes

The Speaker
Joe Trippi is the man who introduced the internet into US presidential campaigning and is widely-credited with having ‘re-invented campaigning’.

Much of the success of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has been attributed to the innovative use of the internet to rally grassroots support.

As National Campaign Manager for Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in 2004, Joe pioneered the use of online technology to organise what became the largest grassroots movement in presidential politics.

As a campaign manager, Joe has run presidential, senate, gubernatorial and mayoral campaigns in the US. His innovations have brought fundamental change to the electoral system and have become the model for smart campaigning.

Joe Trippi has been profiled in GQ, Wired, Fast Company, The New Republic and The New York Times Magazine. He is a  political analyst for the 24-hour US cable news channel MSNBC and a former Harvard University fellow. He currently heads the Washington, DC political consultancy, Trippi & Associates.

Joe is the author of “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Democracy, the Internet and the Overthrow of Everything,” the story of how his revolutionary use of the Internet and an impassioned, contagious desire to overthrow politics as usual grew into a national grassroots movement and changed the face of politics, and indeed many aspects of American life, forever.

Joe Trippi’s visit is supported by Microsoft Australia.

Registration: Register by 27 February 2009 at qutlawpubliclectures@qut.edu.au

Registered attendees may claim 1 CPD point for the Queensland Bar Association and Queensland Law Society.

The Great Dissenter

On Monday Justice Kirby will retire from the High Court of Australia.  In today's The Australian there are two pieces on Justice Kirby's contribution, one by Michael Pelly and another by Professor Michael Lavarch.  Although only time will tell if the judicial philoposhy evident in Justice Kirby's judgments, many of which were in dissent, will be vindicated, what is not in doubt is his remarkable contribution as a public intellectual.  One feature of this role has been his willingness to be involved in legal education; he has no doubt spoken at almost every Australian law school at one time or another (many on several occasions) and has always given his time, energy and insight generously.  However, he is a hero to so many law students not just because of this generosity but also as a result of his progressive judicial philosophy, his clear and compelling writing style (which students particularly appreciate) and his good humour.  One example of this is in his contributions to the University of Queensland Law Revue over the last decade, as James Tinniswood recounts:

To many, his Honour will be remembered for his liberal views, high rate of dissenting judgments (and being damn proud of it) and advocacy of gay rights.

For me, I'll remember him for doing some ripper cameos in the Revue for us. He was a great sport about doing this one in 2006...

He also did a quick direct to camera spot to open the 2004 show (which I don't have access to unfortunately), where he said something like

"Hello, I'm Michael Kirby and welcome to the Law Revue. Sit up, pay attention and no messing about in the stalls. That's a unanimous decision of the High Court. No dissents.

And while that was cute, I felt it was a comedic opportunity wasted.

So luckily, he happened to be coming back to UQ in early 2006 to give a speech about his ten years on the High Court, and we snagged him for about ten minutes before he had to give the speech. He nailed it in one take, even ad libbed the banging of the table and "think original" (which happened to be the theme of his speech).

He talked to us about his fondness for the recently deceased Harry Gibbs (the former Chief Justice after whom the moot court at T.C. Beirne was named) and we had a photo snapped of us in front of Sir Harry's portrait. I never did see that photo, but it was very cool thing of Justice Kirby to do for us.

Read more here.  As of Monday Justice Kirby will no longer be a judge of the High Court of Australia, but I have a feeling he will continue to be a present and persuasive figure in matters of public importance for a consierable time to come.