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?