explodedlibrary.info

I won't be attending Information Online 2009

I won’t be attending Information Online 2009, even though it’s in Sydney and that’s where I work. I would have liked to, but it looks as if this going to be an extremely lean year, budget-wise. Information Online is quite an expensive conference too, so if work isn’t paying or contributing, then it’s out of my price range.

Looking at the bright side, maybe it’s just as well, because I wouldn’t know how to handle myself when Stephen Conroy opens the conference.

• Would I even give him polite applause?
• Would I turn my back on him?
• If he says something particularly outrageous, such as equating all opponents of his scheme for mandatory ISP filtering in Australia with advocates for child pornography, would I boo or heckle him?

It’s not for me to give advice about this to anyone who is attending Information Online. Unless this becomes an issue in the next election, this will probably be the first and only time that Stephen Conroy is in this situation - where he is in a room with a large number of members of the public and voters who oppose him on the mandatory ISP filtering issue.

Tom Cruise and I have one thing in common

It’s not acting. I’m not one of these librarians who is moonlighting as a movie star. It’s certainly not Scientology - about which I will say nothing further, lest they sue me for defamation and/or copyright infringement.

No, it’s something more tragic.

We have both recently lost a tremendously important electronic device. He has lost his Blackberry which is supposedly full of personal emails [since my initial draft of this post, I’ve found one source which says that the Blackberry was only lost momentarily. Other than this acknowledgment here, I’m going to ignore this possible development]. Should this Blackberry end up in the wrong hands, it has the potential to make the unauthorized biography industry completely impervious to the current financial crisis.

Over a month ago, I lost my iPhone and I can understand a little of what Tom may be going through. For a moment I wondered if this was a bad dream, from which I would soon awake. Then I frantically looked for it, not wanting to think about the implications of it being lost or stolen. So I offer my commiserations to Tom for his loss, and my sympathy to the unfortunate person who was Tom's personal assistant on that day.

The iPhone is an amazing device. I realize this more in its absence. It allowed me to carry much of my online life with me in my pocket. It worked surprisingly well as a mobile phone. But I valued it more for its email and web browsing and RSS reading abilities. Towards the end I was feeling quite at home with its touch keyboard. I was drafting blog posts on it, including ones relating to a new blogging project.

I have learned that there was a very big down side to letting the iPhone embed itself into my life. It was convenient to carry emails with me in my iPhone, but when I lost it, that meant that someone else potentially had all my emails. Not that I have anything terrible to hide, but it still made me feel very naked. My situation was probably safer than Tom’s because of two things. I am not a celebrity and fundamentally nobody would care about examining my life in this level of detail. I also did have some security settings invoked which would make it more difficult to for somebody gain access to my data.

But while I had the iPhone, I found it annoying to have to enter a PIN every time I woke it up from sleep. I wanted to turn it off. When it comes to these devices, does convenience always come at the expense of security?

I have decided against getting a replacement iPhone. I foolishly hadn’t insured my first iPhone. I bought it on a plan and I still need to pay it off. I’m not going to be paying for two simultaneously. Also I have realized that I have a bad track record when it comes to losing things like this. I’ve lost regular mobile phones before as well. No more iPhones until I’ve kept my current mobile phone for at least two years without losing it.

At first I felt so embarrassed and pained by losing my iPhone so I could hardly mention it to anyone, let alone write about it here. That has dulled a bit with time. Not completely, because every time I see someone else’s iPhone, or an iPhone ad, I remember and I’m not happy.

Here’s what I learned from this whole debacle:

• Always use the maximum security settings, even if it’s not convenient. I don’t know if I’ll ever have an iPhone again, but if I do, I will ask myself every day, what will happen, what will be compromised, if this is lost or stolen?
• If there’s a option for insuring the phone, take it. If I can’t afford the insurance, then I can’t afford the phone.
• It is a terrible thing to lose writing - I don’t care if it’s handwritten or electronic writing. In the future, I’d like to store all of my writing on the cloud, with backups stored locally.

This may be the last iPhone-related post I write in some time. And I think I’ve used up my allotment for posts touching on celebrity gossip for many months.

afr.com follow up

[8 October 2007 update: As I find out about new stories about afr.com, I will be adding them here]

There's been a flurry of posts and articles on the future of afr.com. If they are to be believed, it's much hated flash interface will soon be abandoned. I've decided to compile a list of all this commentary which has appeared since I wrote about afr.com back in June. In roughly reverse chronological order-

• Lara Sinclair, Fairfax defends paid site, The Australian, 26 November 2007
• Miriam Steffens, Fairfax stands by Financial Review website fee, Sydney Morning Herald, 8 November 2007
• Peter Griffin, Knives out over web sales, NZ Herald, 5 October 2007
• Andrew Dodd, To pay or not to pay: the Fairfax online dilemma, Crikey, 3 October 2007
• Matthew Ricketson, Finance pages tangled as web revolution overwhelms print evolution, Melbourne Age, 3 October 2007
• Lance Wiggs, Good AFR.com news - but will they finally get it?, 25 September 2007
• Seth Yates, AFR.com site to relaunch, 25 September
• Jane Schulze, Fairfax 'got it wrong' on afr.com, The Australian, 24 September 2007
• Jesse Hogan, AFR to unveil new, less Flash website, Melbourne Age, 22 September 2007
• Sonja Koremans, Kirk admits AFR site was bungled, B & T Weekly (Australia), Sep 21, 2007. p. 3
• Mark, Will AFR.com be next to go free?, Australian Newsagency Blog, 19 September 2007
• Duncan Riley, The End Of The Pay For Content Model Is Nigh, TechCrunch, 18 September 2007
• The embarrassment of AFR.com, Crikey, 17 September 2007
• Mark, Making news free online, Australian Newsagency Blog, 9 August 2007
• Mark Day, Fairfax punts on 'different' afr.com, The Australian, 2 August 2007
• Ben Kremer, More on afr.com - a quick traffic analysis, LawFont.com, 18 June 2007
• Ben Kremer, How not to conduct an ebusiness, LawFont.com, 8 June 2007

There are just three observations I'd like to make about this.
1. As late as August, Fairfax seemed to be brushing aside all criticism, other than the obvious, that afr.com was slow and they were working on that. Now the Managing Director of Fairfax admits that "we got it wrong" and other Fairfax publications are being critical of afr.com. What caused this change? I wonder if the tipping point was the decision of the New York Times to abandon its walled-garden in mid September and the rumours that the same thing may happen at the Wall Street Journal.
2. Previously I was quite baffled by the behavior of Michael Gill, head of Fairfax Business Media. Now I think I know what he's trying to do. The idea of having a usable website for the Australian Financial Review newspaper is oh so boring, especially when he could do something amazing like turn afr.com into Bloomberg-lite. The trouble is that people don't  seem to want that. I'm not sure that Michael Gill's boss, David Kirk, wants that anymore.
3. The users of my library (business school faculty and students) seem to have got used to life without searching for or citing AFR or BRW content. The typical user reaction has been something like, “Well, that’s too bad I can’t use stuff from the Fin any more – so what else is available online?” If that’s what Michael Gill wanted, he can give himself a big pat on the back.

photos of the APEC fence

Police backed on photo ban of APEC fence, Sydney Morning Herald, 3 September 2007

Tourists forced to delete fence photos, The Australian, 2 September 2007

flickr search on the APEC fence

Fortress Sydney, Digital Photo Gallery of Ted Szukalski

John Howard Readies Fortress Sydney, Stuff-Em-Up the hill backwards

© 2007 Bruce Phelan

recommendations from the investigation of the UCLA library taser incident

As mentioned in Library Stuff and elsewhere on the web, the investigation of last year's taser incident at UCLA has been completed. The entire report is viewable at the UCLA Newsroom, the report is 117 pages and 6 MB in size.

I haven't had time to read the report in detail, but I did find the recommendations. Here they are:

RECOMMENDATION 1: UCLAPD should distinguish use of the Taser in drive stun mode from cartridge, or “probe,” mode. The device should primarily be used in cartridge mode, with the drive stun mode restricted to being a backup or when there is no alternative to using the device at close range.

RECOMMENDATION 2: UCLA should prohibit the use of Tasers against passive or mildly resistant persons , thereby restricting its use to violent, actively aggressive or imminently violent subjects, currently engaged in physical or active resistance, where the suspect has been given a warning and a reasonable opportunity to comply, and where milder uses of force could be reasonably judged as likely ineffective.

RECOMMENDATION 3: The department should define the terms “violent,” “active aggression,” “active physical resistance,” and “passive resistance.”

RECOMMENDATION 4: UCLAPD should develop and implement a “force options” or “force continuum” system that provides an explicit range of appropriate responses for each level of subject resistance or threat.

RECOMMENDATION 5: The UCLA Taser policy should discourage repeated use of the Taser. Following each five-second application of the Taser, officers should reevaluate the totality of the circumstances. Each additional Taser firing cycle should be subject to the same criteria for use as the first. The number of Taser applications should be restricted to the minimum number necessary to place the subject in custody.

RECOMMENDATION 6: The UCLA Taser policy should prohibit the brandishing of the Taser by officers unless there is an objective reason to believe that the use of the Taser is imminent.

RECOMMENDATION 7: The criteria for use of a Taser should include a requirement that the officer give the subject a verbal warning of the intended use of the Taser followed, it is safe to do so, by a reasonable opportunity to voluntarily comply.

RECOMMENDATION 8: UCLAPD should prohibit the use of the Taser against persons who are handcuffed or otherwise restrained absent a continuing threat and present capacity by the suspect to carry out violent or actively aggressive actions.

RECOMMENDATION 9: UCLAPD should prohibit the use of the Taser against vulnerable persons absent a continuing credible threat and present capacity by the suspect to carry out violent or actively aggressive actions. [printed pages 68-77]

I am particularly glad about recommendation 2, that tasers be prohibited against people providing only passive resistance. I wish that they had made more of recommendation 6, that brandishing a taser by offcers be curtailed. As the report says when discussing recommendation 6, "The display of a Taser is, in itself, a use of force." I was surprised that the allegations of officers threatening to tase other students who were concerned at the treatment of Tabatabainejad were not addressed in the report, so far as I have seen in my skim.

I also looked for discussion about the role of the library access policies requiring students to have student cards on their person when in the library during extended hours. The closest I could find was on printed pages 43 and 44:

The instant case was not the first interaction between a student and Community Service Officers that inspired complaint and discussion. In 2005, for example, a fourth-year UCLA student sent library personnel an email that complained about “extremely rude and mean spirited (sic)” treatment by a “security guard.” The security employee, who library staff assumed to have been a CSO, “asked to see” the student’s ID, but the student “politely told him that I had forgotten it at my apartment.” According to the student, the CSO “sternly looked at me as if I was a criminal using…intimidation tactics [and] telling me to leave.” The student offered to log into the UCLA computer system to establish status as a student, but the CSO “refused to reason with me,” “got right in my face trying to intimidate me,” and “escorted me out as if I was a common criminal there to vandalize or steal something.” The student, expressing “hope [that] this incident will result in change that will improve UCLA,” complained that the CSO was “disrespectful, callous and seemed to enjoy humiliating students.” According to internal email correspondence among library staff, the student ’s email complaint “sparked some discussion about the access procedures,” though we cannot determine whether the student ’s concerns were directly addressed via policy changes at that time. [footnotes omitted]

another tasered on campus - this time at SDSU

Originally found via the Easy Does it University blog (be careful if you're at work, this blog is NSFW). There's a statement by San Diego State University. I'm just posting this now. I have not had time to analyze this in any detail, so I'm wondering whether this is another example of tasers being used as pain compliance for non-aggressive resistance. At least this time it's not in a library. Meleggan, written by a current SDSU student, has more details.

Edit: There's more coverage in the SDSU student newspaper, the Daily Aztec. This publication says that individual in question became combative with officers, which became a physical confrontation with the officers.

random mobile phone searches in Sydney

I understand the role of SMS messages in fanning the flames of the riot and reprisals in Sydney, but I wonder, isn't this going too far?

Jane, from Coogee, was surprised to find three police on her bus asking to inspect mobile phones. Each took a phone at random and scrolled through messages for five or ten minutes. Everyone obeyed. "The people were perfectly friendly about it," she said. "I thought it was a bit weird and a breach of privacy. But I didn't say anything. Nobody did."
[Australians are an obedient people - but for how long?, Sydney Morning Herald, 19 December 2005]

the ugliness of certain crowds

I have at times thought that flash mobs were more about people desperately trying to find a use for new technology than anything else. Now I wonder how long the innocent random chaos of the flash mob phenomenon will persist, now that there's been a foreshadowing of what a flash mob with a passionate purpose can cause.

Yesterday's race riots in Cronulla, Sydney - which spread to other suburbs such as Maroubra (close to where I work), Brighton le Sands and Rockdale and Tempe  (close to where I live) were fuelled partly by broadcast sms messages, emails and discussions on electronic forums. Of course, the role of this technology is very minor compared with the mainstream media, particularly the Daily Telegraph and talk back radio, the influence of alcohol and the usually buried but ever-simmering racial tensions in Australian society (in saying  this, I am in disagreement with our Prime Minister). I think that Australia has real racial problems, but then I think most places in the world do, it's just the problems aren't as obvious where the population is more homogenous.

A mob of 5000 is very substantial, but bear in mind that the population of Sydney is over 4 million. It looked huge on the TV, and it has shocked me and everybody else whom I've spoken to about it - but nobody has been very surprised that it happened. I wonder if there were many people who just wanted to make a non-violent but assertive stand to "reclaim the beach", as it seemed to be at the beginning, before it got out out of hand and the crowd took on an ugly life of its own. I don't excuse them, I'm sure that most knew that there was an extremely high likelihood that such a mass gathering could degenerate into violence, even if they weren't planning on throwing the first punch.

Given how much people like to talk about the wisdom of crowds, and the power of folksomonies, it's interesting to see such a graphic illustration that sometimes crowds are very destructive things. This isn't to attack the legitimacy of the whole concept, just to point out that it is not an absolute. Sometimes the crowds are wrong and sometimes they should be avoided.

Currently playing in iTunes: Jets by Decoder Ring

off-line, worries

Is it possible to blog off-line? Well I'll find out this weekend when I move and I'm temporarily without internet access. (btw, right now I don't blog from work and I don't blog about work, except in very general terms. This isn't an ideal situation, but it seems like the right approach at this moment in time)

There are a few things I've been mulling over that I will hopefully be able to draft during some off-line moments. I can store them on a CD or USB drive and upload them in one of Sydney's countless internet cafes.

Now that I've got the mundane stuff out of my system, let me get to the other point of this post. I'm quite worried about a cousin and other relatives that I have in London. In such a big city, what would be the odds? But until I hear that she's ok, it's hard not to worry. I can't even begin to say anything about what an evil, despicable crime this is.

Update: Today I learned that my cousin is OK. That's a relief, but I've also learned more about what happened - so I feel horrified.

embarrassed and ashamed by the Australian government’s continuing contempt for its human rights obligations

I’ve been meaning to write about this topic for a while, but the topic has proven quite overwhelming. Where to begin? Mandatory detention of refugees (including children) in detention centres which are effectively legal blackholes, Australia’s homegrown version of Guantanamo Bay. The threat to free speech and legitimate protest embodied in the Gunns 20 lawsuit against the Wilderness Society and other environmental activists. Australia’s ongoing disgraceful treatment of its indigenous population, including abolishing ATSIC and the NSW government’s urban renewal plans for Redfern, urban renewal being code for squeezing out the Aborigines.

Australia’s human rights record has once again been condemned by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (link to pdf of the Committee’s March 2005 report, CERD/C/AUS/CO/14).

To quote a portion of an article in today’s Sydney Morning Herald about this (David Marr, “Geneva v. Canberra,” Sydney Morning Herald, Mar. 28, 2005, at 13):

Canberra has learnt one lesson superbly. Instead of raging and complaining about Geneva's intrusion into Australia's domestic affairs, it's much better to shut up. The effort ministers put into denigrating the committee system the last time round only gave the issue more oxygen. After the latest verdict a little more than a fortnight ago, there was no thunder from Howard, Downer or Ruddock. Not even a press release. Silence effectively killed the story.

The Howard government is masterful in its ability to manipulate Australian public opinion and deflect all forms of criticism. But I really hope that they don’t get off the hook quite so easily on this one. To be fair to them, the Howard government isn't  causing the Gunns 20 lawsuit or the racist Redfern redevelopment plans, but they are still answerable to the international community for all human rights abuses which occur in Australia, whether committed by state governments or corporations.

By the way, I'm partially retracting some of the opinions I stated in a previous post which discussed the merits of written versus unwritten constitutions. No system is perfect, and every system can be manipulated by those in power. That said, if Australia had a written constitution with prohibitions against discrimination and guarantees of due process and freedom of speech, it is quite unlikely that these abuses would be happening in Australia today.