Yesterday I read a call for submissions to Labour Left’s ‘Red Book II’, by Dr Éoin Clarke – to develop a way forward for the Labour Party. It started me thinking about what would really constitute a progressive digital policy – because for me, any progressive party should be looking at how to deal with the digital world. It is becoming increasingly important – and policies of governments seem to be wholly unable to deal with or even understand the digital world.
It must be said from the outset that I am not a Labour Party member, but that I was for many years. I left in 1999, partly because I was leaving the country and partly because I was already becoming disillusioned as to the direction that Labour was taking – a stance that the invasion of Iraq only confirmed. I have not rejoined the party since, though I have been tempted at times. One of the reasons I have not been able to bring myself to join has been the incoherence and oppressiveness of Labour’s digital policies, which are not those of a progressive, positive and modern party, of one that represents the ordinary people, and in particular the young people, of Britain today.
That seems to me to be very wrong. Labour should be a progressive party. It should be one that both represents and learns from young people. It should be one that looks forward rather than back – and one that is brave enough to be radical. Right now it isn’t: and the last government presided over some appalling, oppressive and regressive digital policies.
I’ve written in the past about why governments always get digital policy wrong – but it’s much easier to snipe from the sidelines than it is to try to build real policy. Here, therefore, is my first attempt at putting together a coherent, progressive policy for digital government. It is of course very much a skeleton – just the barest of bones – and very much a first attempt. There is probably a lot missing, and it needs a lot more thought. It would take a lot of work to put flesh on the bones – but for me, the debate needs to be had.
The starting point for such a policy would be a series of nine commitments.
- A commitment to the right to access to the net – and to supporting human rights online as well as in the real world. This is the easiest part of the policy, and one where Labour, at least theoretically, has not been bad. Gordon Brown spoke of such a right. However, supporting such a right has implications, implications which the Labour Party seems to have neither understood nor follows. The most important such implication is that it should not be possible to arbitrarily prevent people accessing the net – and that the barrier for removal of that right should be very high. Any policy which relies on the idea of blocking access should be vigorously resisted – the Digital Economy Act is the most obvious example. Cutting people’s access on what is essentially suspicion is wholly inconsistent with a commitment to the right to access the internet.
- A commitment against internet surveillance – internet surveillance is very much in the news right now, with the Coalition pushing the Communications Data Bill, accurately labelled the ‘snoopers’ charter’, about which I have written a number of times.Labour should very much oppose this kind of surveillance, but doesn’t. Indeed, rather the opposite – the current bill is in many ways a successor to Labour’s ‘Interception Modernisation Programme’. Surveillance of this kind goes very much against what should be Labour values: it can be and has been used to monitor those organising protests and similar, going directly against the kinds of civil rights that should be central to the programme of any progressive, left wing party: the rights to assembly and association. Labour should not only say, right now, that it opposes the Snoopers Charter, but that it would not seek to bring in other similar regulation. Indeed, it should go further, and suggest that it would work within the European Union to repeal the Data Retention Directive (which was pushed through by Tony Blair) and to reform RIPA – restricting the powers that it grants rather than increasing them.
- A commitment to privacy and data protection – rather than just paying lip service to them. I have written many times before about the problems with the Information Commissioner’s Office. First of all it needs focus: it (or any replacement body) should be primarily in charge of protecting privacy. Secondly, it needs more real teeth – but also more willingness to use them and against more appropriate targets. There has been far too little enforcement on corporate bodies, and too much on public authorities. If companies are to treat individuals’ private information better, they need the incentive to do so – at the moment even if they are detected, the enforcement tends to be feeble: a slap on the wrist at best. The current law punishes each group inappropriately: public authorities with big fines, which ultimately punish the public, corporates barely at all. Financial penalties would provide an incentive for businesses, while more direct personal punishments for those in charge of public authorities would work better as an incentive for them, as well as not punishing the public!
- A commitment to oppose the excessive enforcement of copyright – and instead to encourage the content industry to work for more positive ways forward. This would include the repeal of the Digital Economy Act, one of the worst pieces of legislation in the digital field, and one about which the Labour Party should be thoroughly ashamed. Labour needs to think more radically and positively – and understand that the old ways don’t work, and merely manage to alienate (and even criminalise) a generation of young people. Labour has a real opportunity to do something very important here – and to understand the tide that is sweeping across the world, at least in the minds of the people. In the US, SOPA and PIPA have been roundly beaten. ACTA suffered a humiliating defeat in the European Parliament and is probably effectively dead. In France, the new government is looking to abolish HADOPI – the body that enforces their equivalent of the Digital Economy Act. A truly progressive, radical party would not resist this movement – it would seek to lead it. Let the creative minds of the creative industries be put to finding a creative, constructive and positive way forward. Carrots rather than just big sticks.
- A commitment to free speech on the internet. This has a number of strands. First of all, to develop positive and modern rules governing defamation on the internet. Reform of defamation is a big programme – and I am not convinced that the current reform package does what it really should, focussing too much on reforming what happens in the ‘old media’ (where I suspect there is less wrong than some might suggest) without dealing properly with the ‘new media’ (which has been dealt with fairly crudely in the current reforms). There needs to be clarity about protection for intermediaries, for example.
- A commitment against censorship – this is the second part of the free speech strand. In the current climate, there are regular calls to deal with such things as pornography and ‘trolling’ on the internet – but most of what is actually suggested amounts to little more than censorship. We need to be very careful about this indeed – the risks of censorship are highly significant. Rather than strengthening our powers to censor and control,via web-blocking and so forth, we need to make them more transparent and accountable. A key starting point would be the reform of the Internet Watch Foundation, which plays a key role in dealing with child abuse images and related websites, but falls down badly in terms of transparency and accountability. It needs much more transparency about how it works – a proper appeals procedure, better governance structures and so forth. The Labour Party must not be seduced by the populism of anti-pornography campaigners into believing in web-blocking as a simple, positive tool. There are huge downsides to that kind of approach, downsides that often greatly outweigh the benefits.
- A radical new approach to social media – the third strand of the free speech agenda. We need to rethink the laws and their enforcement that have led to tragic absurdities like the Twitter Joke Trial, and the imprisonment of people for Facebook posts about rioting. The use of social media is now a fundamental part of many people’s lives – pretty much all young people’s lives – and at present it often looks as though politicians and the courts have barely a clue how it works. Labour should be taking the lead on this – and it isn’t. The touch needs to be lighter, more intelligent and more sensitive – and led by people who understand and use social media. There are plenty of them about – why aren’t they listened to?
- A commitment to transparency – including a full commitment to eGovernment, continuing the good aspects of what the current government is doing in relation to Open Data. Transparency, however, should mean much more – starting with full and unequivocal support for Freedom of Information. There has been too much said over recent months to denigrate the idea of freedom of information, and to suggest that it has ‘gone too far’. The opposite is much more likely to be the case: and a new approach needs to be formulated. If it takes too much time, money and effort to comply with FOI requests, that indicates that the information hasn’t been properly organised or classified, not that the requests should be curbed. The positive, progressive approach would be to start to build systems that make it easier to provide the information, not complain about the requests.
- A commitment to talk to the experts – and a willingness to really engage with and listen to them. We have some of the best – from people like Tim Berner-Lee to Professor Ross Anderson at the Cambridge University Computer Lab, Andrew Murray at the LSE, the Oxford Internet Institute and various other university departments, civil society groups and so forth – and yet the government consistently fails to listen to what they say, and prefers instead to listen to industry lobby groups and Whitehall insiders. That is foolish, short-sighted and inappropriate – as well as being supremely ineffective. It is one of the reasons that policies formulated are not just misguided in their aims but also generally fail to achieve those aims. There is real expertise out there – it should be used!
Much more is needed of course – this just sets out a direction. I’ve probably missed out some crucial aspects. Some of this may seem more about reversing and cancelling existing policies rather than formulating new ones – but that is both natural and appropriate, as the internet, much more than most fields, it generally needs a light touch. The internet is not ‘ungovernable’, but most attempts to govern it have been clumsy and counter-productive.
A forward-looking, radical and positive digital policy would mark the Labour Party out as no longer being in the hands of the lobbyists, but instead being willing to fight for the rights of real, ordinary people. It would mark out the Labour Party as being a party that understands young people better – and supports them rather than demonises and criminalises them. Of course I do not expect the Labour Party to take this kind of agenda on. It would take a level of political courage that has not been demonstrated often by any political party, let alone the current Labour Party, to admit that they have got things so wrong in the past. Admission of past faults is something that seems close to political blasphemy these days – for me, that is one of the biggest problems in politics.
As I said at the start, this is very much a first stab at an approach for the future – I would welcome comments, thoughts and even criticism(!). We need debate on this – and not just for the Labour Party. Currently, though my history has been with the Labour Party, I find myself without anyone that I think can represent me. If any party were to take on an agenda for the digital world that would make more sense, I would be ready to listen.
17 thoughts on “A progressive digital policy?”
I am passionate about free speech. but I find that many ‘liberals’ from whatever party allegiance tend to pay lip service to free speech whilst actively limiting it when it suits.
Chris ashford for example, who said he agreed with your post blocks me on twitter and only publishes some of my comments on his blog. He also calls me a ‘troll’ which serves to undermine trust in me as someone with anything worthwhile to say.
But then I always did think ‘hypocrisy’ was on every major party’s manifesto.
Great post Paul. For too long, the political agenda of the digital economy and online rights has been hijacked by narrow industry lobby interests or the kind of tabloid kneejerk reactions you describe.
I’m happy to say, that all of the policy points you outline are in the manifesto I will be running on in the Manchester Central by-election. Committing to ending the digital divide, opposition to the Snoopers’ Charter, copyright reform, opposition to censorship are all in Pirate Party ideas for Manchester Central. If you find the name off-putting readers, well, take a leaf out of Paul’s book and look at the evidence. Use your favourite search engine to look for Manchester Pirate Party, assuming it doesn’t block out the word “pirate” 😉 !
How you use your vote is important, that is what will get movements like the Labour party to change their mind. I actually don’t even need to win an election to start getting these ideas across, we just need to show that they are important to the electorate.
The problem for the Labour party and this issue is that they have more closely than any party hitched themselves to the industry reps calling for more restriction. Harriet Harman in a recent speech was pushing in the exact opposite direction of digital rights, calling for the speeding up of what she described as “Labour’s Digital Economy Act”. For every Tom Watson there is also a candidate like Richard Mollet who worked for the notorious lobby group the BPI.
I would be overjoyed if the Labour Party took these ideas on, after all the Pirate Party does not believe we have patent on any policies. However, I don’t see that happening any time soon. That is why I have made the political choices I have. No doubt you will all make up your own minds. But, these are issues which can no longer be ignored.
Thanks Loz – and I’m glad (and not surprised) that this is in tune with the Pirate Party’s manifesto. If I was in Manchester, I’d be voting for you. Will I have a chance to vote Pirate in Cambridge?
I’m very much non-partisan on digital matters – I’d like all the parties to take these kinds of ideas on. As you say, the Labour Party has a very poor record in recent years, which is one of the reasons I wrote this post. Labour ‘should’ be more progressive, more in tune with ordinary people, and less in the pockets of the various lobby groups. Right now, I’m not sure they are at all!
As you mention in your blog, all governments get digital policy wrong. Not just wrong, but catastrophically wrong.
Sadly, the current government (Conversvative-LibDem, a.k.a. con-dem) is doing nothing to stop Labour’s bad policy decisions, and is infact advancing them through parliment.
The Lib-Dem manifesto did have a section devoted to the Digital Economy Act, but they claimed to be much more commited to freedoms and privacy than Labour. Clearly, this is not the case.
There’s certainly not much sign that the current lot will do anything different…
I think Chris ashford is playing politics. He has just posted an obsequious mention of this blogpost, after I left a link to it on his blog. He hasn’t published my comment leaving the link! I have left a comment under his new post. Let’s see if he publishes that! For me, freedom of speech requires a collective will on the part of everyone to ensure…freedom of speech. For all!
I fully support this. For 9-10 years I worked in a non departmental government body involved in education in the elearning department. We worked closely with a Labour DFEd creating an online policy consultation group. This made a huge difference. Policy teams learned to try out thinking in policy development, avoided bad policy, listened to leaders in the profession. Those on the group over 100, felt valued and involved and took it very seriously.
Extrapolate to Jon Cruddus policy review now. Where are the consultation groups around the country, where are the online facilitators, the policy teams to do ten minute online presentations. Union groups, pensioner groups, young Labour, patient groups, business groups. All online. I know how it works. It could be done
Thanks! Re-engagement with the people – and a degree of disengagement from some of the lobby groups would really help, I think!
A truly progressive policy should acknowledge that digital technologies can AMPLIFY opportunity – which is not the same as increasing opportunity. Technology is much more useful for the included and the empowered than it is for the excluded. Therefore, basic education, and additionally critical media literacy, needs to be at the heart of a progressive policy. Kids need to know how the digital media industry works – how advertising online is, and isn’t regulated, how their attention is a commodity which businesses exploit, how some software traps users into an endless cycle of dependency. A progressive digital education policy should equip internet users of the future with real knowledge of “how it works” not just “how to work it”.
That’s very true: the way I see it, it’s the motivation behind having a progressive digital policy. We need to understand and embrace the opportunities that the digital world provides. In my next draft I’ll build some of what you say in. Thanks!