May 06

The run up to this election has seen politicians promoting themselves more via Twitter feeds or Facebook groups than by kissing babies in the street. Clearly this shows us technophiles that today’s politicians are embracing the internet age – or does it? How much of this is just posturing? Did the empty seats in the House of Commons during the debate over the Digital Economy Act indicate that most MPs didn’t understand the Act’s impact, or that they just didn’t care? We decided to find out just what technology policies the different parties are offering, and interviewed the people who will be writing the tech manifesto for their parties if they win the election. There are some impressive claims being bandied about.

Parliament could have a very different look depending on your vote. (Parliamentary images reproduced with permission of Parliament)

Labour has been very vocal about its technology policies, not least its Digital Economy Act. This gives the government the right to block sites infringing copyright and ban downloaders from accessing the internet. They are also championing rolling out high-speed internet (well, 2Mbps) for everyone by 2012 and “superfast” 100Mbps broadband for 90 per cent of the population by 2017.

The Conservatives also want super-fast broadband for most of the country (which would be achieved by opening up BT’s infrastructure to other companies) and would reduce the corporation tax rate to encourage new technology businesses to set up in the UK.

The Liberal Democrats were vociferous in their opposition to the Digital Economy Act, and have plans to uphold net neutrality and overhaul copyright law. They too want high-speed broadband for all.

So just what are the most important tech policies for each party? Read on to see.

Conservative party

Jeremy Hunt, Shadow Secretary for Culture, Media and Sport told us: “Our key policy to promote the technology industry is to ensure that Britain has a modern, fast broadband infrastructure. We will deregulate the market and force BT to give access to its underground ducts and overhead telegraph poles to rival ISPs. This will allow ISPs to lay their own fibre at a lower cost, and a super-fast broadband-supporting fibre network will be established over much larger parts of the UK. Funding, where needed, would come from the Digital Switchover segment of the licence fee.”

What about the technological economy? “It’s vital that we encourage technology companies to set up in the UK. We’ll cut the headline rate of corporation tax to 25p or lower and the small companies’ rate to 20p, funded by reducing complex allowances.”

What in the Tories’ opinion have Labour got wrong? “An over reliance on massive-scale IT projects that have gone over budget and not been delivered on time. We will create a level playing field for open-source IT in government procurement and open up government IT contracts to [smaller companies] by breaking up large IT projects into smaller components.”

  • Super-fast broadband for all: Will deregulate the market and open up BT’s infrastructure to competitors. Paid for using the Digital Switchover section of the BBC licence fee.
  • Right to data: Statistics like street-by-street crime levels and power consumption of Government buildings to be put online.
  • Government to use open-source IT: Cost of large-scale IT projects would be reduced.
  • Cap government IT projects at £100m: Would let smaller IT companies help out.
  • Corporation tax reduction: Corporation tax rate reduced to 25p to attract tech companies.

Labour Party

Ben Bradshaw, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport told us: “Labour wants Britain to be the world leader in the digital economy. We will create over 250,000 skilled jobs by 2020 and [become] the world leader in public service delivery. “We will ensure universal access to today’s broadband services at 2Mbps by 2012 – this will be delivered through upgrades to the existing networks and be supported with public funding including the underspend from the Digital Switchover Help scheme.”

“The Digital Economy Act is a key part of our active industrial strategy, helping us maintain and build on the digital economy. It ensures a competitive digital communications infrastructure [and] protects intellectual property. The Conservatives offered no practical solutions on [either] of these.”

Labour also has plans for a new technology institute: “The Institute of Web Science will be based in Britain and will work with government and business to realise the social and economic benefits of technological advances. It will assemble the best of the world’s scientists and researchers and be headed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee and the leading web science expert Professor Nigel Shadbolt.”

  • High-speed broadband: 2Mbps for all by 2012, paid for by a fixed telephone line levy of 50p a month. 100Mbps for 90 per cent of the country by 2017.
  • Government to use cloud computing: Would save £3.2billion annually
  • Digital Economy Act: Passed to provide a competitive digital communications infrastructure and protect intellectual property.
  • Home Access scheme: Reduce the number of non-internet users by 60 per cent by 2014.
  • Will increase scope of data.gov.uk: More previously private government data online.

Liberal Democrats

We asked Don Foster, Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, which Lib Dem policies would interest a PC Plus reader. “Our policies on broadband roll-out and extending IT skills, and the work we’ve done on the Digital Economy Bill,” he answered. “The more people who have the skills and access to make use of technology, the more useful it becomes.

“We do not believe that the country’s broadband infrastructure can be left solely to market forces, which is why we advocate an outside-in use of public funds to begin delivering broadband from day one to rural areas. The market will deliver the infrastructure in urban areas.”

How would the Liberal Democrats attract tech companies to the UK? “We support the proposed tax break for the video games industry and we will also tackle the growing burden of red tape, which continues to cost businesses increasing amounts of time.”

What was the current Government’s biggest technology mistake? “Not prioritising the Digital Economy Bill in debate. The Bill was an opportunity to ensure that everyone is able to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the internet. The government’s unwillingness to give the Bill the time necessary for proper parliamentary scrutiny shows how low in their priorities it sat.”

  • Superfast broadband for all: Would use public funds to get broadband for everybody available straight away.
  • Support for tech business: Tax breaks for video-games companies and high-tech industries to encourage growth.
  • Overhaul copyright law: Update laws to reflect the technology of modern-day society.
  • Support for net neutrality: Would strongly oppose blocking of internet sites.

Small parties with big tech policies

What do the smaller parties contending for parliamentary seats offer to people passionate about the web, computers and technology? We spoke to five and found out. We also asked which of the policies that the big three parties were proposing could, in their opinion, damage the internet and technological development.
During our fact-finding mission we found much of interest. The Communist Party want to make tech-literacy part of the educational process as they feel computers are no longer a luxury, but a necessity. The Green party think broadband should be a fixed-rate service available to all. The Pirate Party UK are all about free speech – and not just on the internet. They want to ensure that personal privacy is a priority of government and industry. Plaid Cymru want an ultra-fast national broadband network and the SNP aren’t sure the Digital Economy Act goes far enough. The last word goes to the Monster Raving Loony Party, who, when contacted said: “What on earth are you talking about? Don’t be so serious.”

Ben Stevenson, National Secretary, Communist Party

www.communist-party.org.uk

“There are IT-related issues important to us. We oppose the Digital Economy Act, a sop to international big business. We recognise the need for a far-reaching and proactive approach to ensure all citizens can access all aspects of technology. It’s obvious that the speed of the technological revolution has made basic access and experience in using computers and the internet a necessity. Britain’s Broadband speed currently ranks 17th in the world, 23 times slower than Japan. We need an integrated communications strategy to bridge the gap. Education is essential to ensuring that tech-literacy is considered a vital part of modern life in Britain. IT needs to be given greater prominence in the National Curriculum and to be fully integrated into all its aspects.”

Andy Robinson, Party Leader, Pirate Party

www.pirateparty.org.uk

“We don’t just know what technology is, we know how it works and how it has affected our society. In the modern age, existing copyright and patent laws do not make sense. Our policy is to shorten the duration of copyright to five years, and to allow the sharing of copyrighted material provided that no profit comes of it.

The Digital Economy Act is a terrible piece of legislation. It legitimises corporate spying on individuals, forces ISPs to throttle or even ‘suspend’ connections based only on allegations of infringement and allows copyright holders to demand ISPs censor websites on the flimsiest of evidence. PPUK is unquestionably against these policies.”

Caroline Lucas, Party Leader, Green Party

www.greenparty.org.uk

“The Green Party believes that the development of computer communications has reached the point where BT should have an obligation to provide broadband-capable infrastructure to every household. Funding for marginal ‘uneconomic’ lines may come from a small levy on every access line. The principle of universal access at the same base price to the household should prevail.

Many of us believe that [the Digital Economy Bill] threatens to infringe fundamental human rights through the disconnection of internet accounts and the new ‘website blocking’ laws could result in new ways to suppress free speech and legitimate activity.”

Lowri Jackson, Research and Policy, Plaid Cymru

www.plaidcymru.org

“Connecting Wales to the world digitally will encourage innovation and job creation. We believe that new technology must be harnessed to provide Wales with a strong voice on the global stage and to ensure that there are no communication ‘not spots’. We call for research into the construction of a super-fast national broadband network. We also support compulsory network sharing between mobile phone and broadband operators. Westminster can learn a lot from the National Assembly with its transparent and democratic processes. We’re also concerned about the threat to our civil liberties implied by increased internet monitoring, and will campaign for freedom of the internet.”

Pete Wishart, Culture and Broadcasting, Scottish National Party

www.snp.org

“While the ambition to secure universal broadband access is to be welcomed, more must be done to protect those who are working in our creative economy. Our creative industries contribute significantly to the economy and are a key route to economic recovery, yet protection for artists and creators remains an afterthought. Writing letters to persistent downloaders and threatening slower internet speeds seems a feeble response to the loss of millions of pounds of income to artists and creators. What is needed is a mixture of effective technical measures and creative solutions, but above all the political will to tackle this problem.”


Question time with the Pirate Party

For some political parties technology is the reason they exist, and it seems to be paying off. The Swedish Pirate Party caused a stir last year when it gained two seats in the European Parliament. The UK’s Pirate Party has the same three core platforms: reform copyright and patent law, end ‘excessive’ surveillance of innocent people and ensure ‘real’ freedom of speech. But all these issues have possible downsides. We asked Pirate Party UK’s leader Andy Robinson if its policies would actually work in the real world.

PCP: Surely reforming copyright and patent law will damage British businesses?

Andy Robinson: There are always winners and losers when any law changes. Reforming copyright law will reduce the power of record industry ‘rights-holders’ to dictate what music we get to hear and what we don’t. It will also benefit lesser-known musicians who don’t want to sign away future royalties to get their music heard. Reforming patent laws to fix problems like the ring-fencing of huge areas by overly broad patents will increase competition and reduce red-tape. A better regime would encourage manufacturing and design investment, boosting the economy at no cost to taxpayers.

Did you know it’s illegal to sing Happy birthday in public without paying a fee? The Pirate Party would like to put an end to this.

PCP: Isn’t surveillance central to UK security?

AR: A certain degree of surveillance is necessary, but we urgently need to set sensible limits on it. Vehicles are being tracked: the police’s automatic number plate recognition camera network takes 14 million photos a day. We need rules that say how much is too much, before we sleepwalk into a surveillance state.

PCP: One man’s freedom of speech is another man’s persecution. How do you intend to protect the weaker and less vocal in society from the strongest and loudest?

AR: New media outlets empower many of the people who were previously disempowered to have their say. The best counter to persecution is not censorship, but education. Teaching people to get together and stand up for themselves is far better than short-term measures taken just so politicians can be seen to be doing something. That said, we support current equality legislation banning unfair discrimination and would not change this policy.

PCP: Where do you stand on more prosaic issues like internet speed?

AR: Consumers have been complaining about this for years. We plan a system where payment will be based on the speed the user actually gets, not the advertised headline speed. Of course, we’ll be unable to achieve any of our aims, prosaic or otherwise, without votes or the support of donations through our site (www.ppuk.it/donate).

Apr 29

When I was about 13 years old, a rumour – one of those rumours whose origin is never really known – started to spread around our family. The rumour was that my grandpa was keeping all his money hidden somewhere in the bowels of his house rather than entrusting it to a bank.

I remember my cousins and I laughing sagely at such an anachronistic and quaint idea. Surely it was only people in children’s stories who did such a thing. I mean, come on – why would anyone be suspicious of banks? Why would anybody rather stuff their money into a mattress than entrust it to one of England’s many respected financial institutions? Err…

The tale of my grandpa’s natural distrust of major corporations has always stayed with me, and it struck me as a pertinent opener for this column, given the current war that’s being waged for your online identity. The reason for this is because that war – ultimately – centres on trust.

A few years ago, if someone asked you for your online home, the chances are that the more tech-savvy among us would have replied with a personalised URL. (If you were lucky enough to secure your name, it might have been something like www.danoliver.co.uk.) You had complete control over your own site, and that felt good. But these domains were simply silos of personal information, and a real effort was required from visitors to find it – they had to first remember that they wanted to visit your site, then recall the URL and TLD and then – God forbid – actually type it in!

When the social web got into full swing, there was a new way to connect online that enabled people to include you in their social circle. Rather than having to actively visit your site, people could integrate your stream into their social service of choice. Hallelujah!

Many sites and apps have come and gone, and the likes of Google and Microsoft are constantly trying – and mostly failing – to make headway in the social space. The current war for users is being waged between two relatively new adversaries: Twitter and Facebook. The times when you’d tell people to find you online via a personal site have been replaced for millions of net users by Twitter’s ‘@’ identifier, or a Facebook account. Both Twitter and Facebook want you to use them as the default way for other people to find and interact with you online, but they’re going about it in very different ways.

Twitter’s API is already widely used by developers wanting to build the service into sites and apps, and with the recent announcement of its new @anywhere offering, you will soon be able to integrate Twitter into any website with just a few lines of JavaScript (the likes of YouTube, Bing, Digg and Ebay are already signed up to use @anywhere). Twitter’s founder Evan Williams has repeatedly referred to the company’s mantra of ‘keeping things open’, and recent announcements certainly back this up.

Facebook is another story. The company is trying to create a walled garden, but it’s a transparent wall. By changing its privacy policy to recommend that users make their status updates and other information public – as it did at the end of 2009 – Zuckerberg et al are trying to ensure that the major search engines can pick up as much of what you’re up to as possible. There are many people who simply approved these privacy changes without thinking, and who are still unaware that any ‘privacy transition’ actually took place. This has led to accusations against Facebook of ‘nudging’ its members into more open privacy settings – in many cases without their knowledge (we’ve all approved pop-ups without actually reading their content beforehand, especially when they come from a trusted site). For many of Facebook’s users, who signed up on the proviso that Facebook was about building private networks, the goalposts have been significantly moved in recent months – in some cases onto another pitch altogether!

Now, there’s nothing to stop you following my grandpa’s lead, and eschewing the social behemoths that are Facebook and Twitter – more power to your elbow if that’s the way you choose to go. But, if like millions of others, you choose to promote yourself via one of these two platforms – and take advantage of the huge audience, reach, and ease-of-use they offer – then I have just one question for you: out of the two, who would you trust with your cash-filled mattress?

Apr 27

The New Spotify

Computer Comments Off

The new social/iTunes friendly interface is available now.

All work in the office temporarily stopped in the name of playing with the new Spotify client - until we remembered that we can actually get away with calling that work, and therefore hurrah. It’s an interesting release. The iTunes import is… finnicky. Having the option is handy, and long overdue, but so far we’re mostly hearing complaints about how it actually converts a standard library into Spotify form. Once integrated though, there are some snappy new features, including starring tracks and sorting by online and local music.

It’s the Social functions that stand out more though, and not necessarily in a good way. You can share tracks and playlists via Twitter, but there’s no URL shortening – giving you tweets like this:

http://open.spotify.com/user/probablyrichard/playlist/18iOaRSKX3IrrPz5pCRnc8 Spotify playlist: Bioshock 2 Soundtrack

Whoops. The Facebook integration isn’t much better, in my case titling the import as “”Playlist by probablyrichard – Spotify” instead of anything useful, with no album art, and only the standard description block for details.

What really annoys me though, as with most social sites, is the presumption that we all want to share everything. Click the button to allow Facebook connections and by default, all of your playlist information is made public. You can switch this off for future playlists and manually switch off your recent tracks and top artists, but that’s still vital seconds where your friends and family can learn you listen to nothing but the Banana Splits theme song on a perpetual loop. Hypothetically, of course. Whatever Mark Zuckerberg wants, I like to pick and choose what I broadcast to people I know. Trust me, it’s better for all of us.

I do have a sneaky selfish reason for wanting social features though, despite all this. I guarantee that following me, you’ll learn nothing about music and pick up no tunes worth listening to. My musical knowledge is zero, and actually falling on a yearly basis. On the other hand, having easy access to friends’ stashes is helpful. I don’t have to keep asking “what should I listen to” and adding things to my own secret library is easy.

Even so, I don’t want to see all their stuff, just the recommendations.

The new Spotify is available to download now, and will be auto-updating in the next few days. Alex just asked “How can I go back to the nice clean interface without all this Twitter rubbish?” The answer is: you can’t. The future is apparently here, and to judge from our office, largely atonal.

(Seriously, drum and bass? Buckets being smacked with a rake.)