The Open Government we Campaigned For?

This morning, Liberal Democrat supporters and others unfortunate enough to have made it onto Nick Clegg’s mailing list received an e-mail from the Deputy Prime Minister announcing the Your Freedom website.  Which is great, although a good 24 hours late.

But later in the e-mail, he says:

This is the open government we have long campaigned for.

Really?  Your Freedom is all you’ve campaigned for?  Because that’s a long way from my definition of an ‘open government’.  Your Freedom is a tiny, tiny step on the road to what I, and half the rest of the internet, think that term means.

Where’s the guarantee that the government will take any notice of what’s posted on Your Freedom?  I want to see a promise that any serious item that gets a thousand comments gets debated in the House.

Where’s the full publication of each and every bill that passes through Parliament, and the wiki for us to carve it up and debate it?  Where’s the declarations of who’s had lunch with MPs during the drafting process of these bills?  Where’s my searchable database of members’ interests, and the API so we can run stats on it?  Where’s the abolition of all meetings ‘behind closed doors’ and the publication of annotated, searchable transcripts?

Where’s the downloadable CSV files of every expense for every MP?  Where are the declarations of every use of the party Whips?  Why can’t I see the Treasury’s spreadsheets?

Why doesn’t the government run its own website showcasing each and every result of a Freedom of Information request?  Why do FoI requests exist at all?  A truly open government would publish by default and redact information only when necessary.

If it’s too hard and too expensive to set all this stuff up, just set up an FTP server and dump everything in it — Word docs, database dumps, whatever you’ve got.  There are enough journalists and bored web surfers out there that we’ll eventually make sense of it all for you.

We’ll help, Mr Clegg — there’s enough of us out here that want to see a real open government.  But if that’s not what you had in mind, please stop pretending that the token gesture of Your Freedom is all that’s required to dub yourselves ‘open’.

Proxies and the Law

In light of the passing of the Digital Economy Bill, and Ben Bradshaw’s intent to push for government power to force ISPs to block sites that are “likely” to be used for copyright infringement, the government could in a few months’ time demand that ISPs block access to the likes of Wikileaks, The Pirate Bay and Rapidshare, all sites that have perfectly legal uses. And I’m sure it can’t be long before the government and the IWF together have a go at 4chan.

A few questions for any internet lawyer-types out there:

  1. Is it legal for a UK citizen to set up and maintain a private, secure proxy server in another country?
  2. If ISPs in the UK are instructed to block a site, is it legal or illegal for a UK citizen to access that site via an overseas proxy?
  3. If it is illegal, would the fact that the Briton runs and uses an overseas proxy ‘reasonable cause’ for them to be investigated in any way?
  4. Would the server admin be legally obliged to keep logs for the proxy server in case such an investigation took place? (And does this depend on UK law or the law of the country where the server is located?)
  5. Can a court or police warrant require the server admin to disclose passwords, encryption keys or logs?

For reference, I’m merely interested in the answers to these questions — I’m not necessarily considering doing this, particularly not if it does turn out to be illegal.

Dial M for Mandelson

I can’t be the only one thinking along these lines right now, so… have blog, will rant.

I think Peter Mandelson has too much power.

First off, he’s unelected, not having been a Member of Parliament since 2004. So how come he manages to be such a prominent figure in the Government? How is he even still heavily favoured by the Labour Party, despite having resigned (twice) over involvement with various scandals? How come his anti-filesharing agenda, which headlined the Queen’s Speech, seems to be being calmly accepted as the law-to-be despite the fact that is was transparently influenced by lobbying from the entertainment industry? To say nothing of how much of an insane overreaction his anti-piracy plans actually are (but that’s for another post, one I’ve probably already made some months ago).

And now this? If there’s any truth in that, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen such a brazen and dangerous power-grab. We didn’t vote Mandelson in, we can’t vote Mandelson out, and now he’s aiming for the power to make laws and impose them on ISPs and individuals in the name of protecting copyright.

Am I the only one thinking this isn’t quite the Democracy we had in mind?