The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2013 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
The Louvre Museum has 8.5 million visitors per year. This blog was viewed about 670,000 times in 2013. If it were an exhibit at the Louvre Museum, it would take about 29 days for that many people to see it.
Mr Gove was not quite sure about Christmas.
There were some things he loved about Christmas. He liked the services. He liked the singing. More than anything else, though, he loved the Tradition. Mr Gove loved Tradition.
But there were some things he hated about Christmas. All that laziness. All that self-indulgence. And the schools, wasting so much time. Letting the children have too much fun, when they should be working hard. When they should be competing in the Global Race.
Mr Gove was thinking about all these things when he was having his dinner. Tradition, particularly. He enjoyed his dinner very much, though he wondered if he might have eaten too much Stilton afterwards.
When he went to bed, he felt a little strange. When he drifted off to sleep, it was a restless sleep, and he found himself dreaming.
Mr Gove shivered and opened his eyes.
Before him stood a small, grey figure. Mr Gove blinked. It was a child. A boy, wearing old-fashioned school uniform. Short trousers. A slightly shabby blazer. A school cap. Mr Gove noticed that the boy’s knees were dirty.
The strangest thing about the boy, however, was that his face, in fact all of his skin, was also grey. Grey and lifeless, and not in the way that some of Mr Gove’s cabinet colleagues were.
“Who are you?” Mr Gove asked, in a slightly quavering voice.
“Please Sir, Mr Gove Sir,” said the boy, in a grey, lifeless voice, “I am the Ghost of School Child Past.”
Mr Gove did not know what to say. He wasn’t sure he believed in ghosts, but here was one, right before him.
“Please Sir, Mr Gove Sir,” the Ghost went on, “I have something to show you.” He took Mr Gove by the hand. The Ghost’s hand was icy cold, and for a moment Mr Gove wanted to pull away, but the Ghost was insistent.
Mr Gove gulped, blinked, and found himself in a very different place. It was a cavernous room, dark and foreboding. A chill wind whistled through the gaps in the windows. Mr Gove looked around. It was a school room.
Mr Gove almost smiled. It was the kind of school room he liked. Long rows of identical desks. Boys dressed exactly like the Ghost slumped over them, silently scribbling away. At the front of the class stood the teacher, his black gown flapping around his shoulders, his mortar board perfectly straight over his scowling, moustached face. He bent a long, thin cane between his hands, peering over his half-moon glasses, looking from child to child.
“Thank you,” Mr Gove said to the Ghost. The Ghost stared back at him.
“What a nice school,” Mr Gove went on. “You must have learned a lot here.”
“Not really, Mr Gove Sir.” The Ghost replied. “Just how’s not to get beaten more than twice a day. Never learnt nothing else worth learning.”
As the Ghost spoke, the teacher strode purposefully forward, grabbed one of the boys, pulled him out of his chair, and whacked him hard, five times, on the backside. The boy tried hard to hold back the tears, gulped and then sat back down.
“He does that to keep them on their toes,” the Ghost whispered. “For no other reason.”
Good thing too, Mr Gove thought. He looked around, but already the school room, and the Ghost, was fading from Mr Gove’s view. He found himself back in his bed. He turned over, and tried to sleep again.
When he turned over, there was another child staring at him. This time it was a little girl, wearing a nice blue jumper and skirt. There was something a little strange about her – when Mr Gove looked carefully he realised that he could see through her. Oh, thought Mr Gove, another Ghost.
The girl nodded and unaccountably she smiled. “I am the Ghost of Schoolchild Present,” she said in an impudent voice, “and I too have something to show you.”
This time Mr Gove found himself in a well lit, modern-looking classroom. There were brightly-coloured posters on the walls, along with what seemed to be displays of work from some of the children. They were sitting around tables, chattering away. Mr Gove tutted. Where was the discipline?
“How can they learn like this?” Mr Gove spluttered to the Ghost. She looked surprised.
“Look at that table,” she replied, and pointed to one of the tables. Mr Gove looked. One little girl had written out a poem in what even Mr Gove had to admit was excellent handwriting. The boy next to her was reading it aloud, while the others at the table were laughing and smiling.
As Mr Gove stared, the teacher came over. She was a young woman with a nice face, but a few worry lines around her eyes. “Very nice, Hannah and Joe,” she said. “Who wants to go next?”
Hmmph, Mr Gove thought, but even as he thought that, he found the classroom swirling away into the mist, and once more he was in his bed.
Again Mr Gove tried to sleep, but again he found himself tossing and turning. He was not surprised when he found himself again facing a child.
This boy was as grey as the first had been, though his clothes were much more modern. Some strange kind of overalls, or a jumpsuit, or something like that. His eyes were wide and staring, his face almost devoid of expression.
“So who are you?” Mr Gove asked, though he had a feeling he knew what the answer would be. He was not disappointed.
“I am the Ghost of Schoolchild Future,” the boy chanted out in a monotone. “And I have something to show you.”
This classroom was square and clean. Its walls were grey, the windows covered with blinds. The desks were in long rows, with individual computer screens set up on each one. The children were sitting bolt upright on stiff-looking chairs, headphones on their heads, staring silently into the screens.
Suddenly, as Mr Gove watched, they all started speaking at once – but this was no cacophony of chattering, it was perfectly harmonious though entirely emotionless chanting. The timing was immaculate, the coordination perfect.
Mr Gove smiled. This was more like it.
“Thank you,” he said to the Ghost. “That is wonderful. I presume we’re back at the top of the League Tables now.”
“Our position in the league tables,” the Ghost said, “is ninety four.”
“Ninety four?” Mr Gove spluttered. “Ninety four? Ninety four?” He turned to the Ghost. “How can that be? And where is the teacher?”
“There are no more teachers,” the Ghost replied, and there seemed to be a little more life in it. “It was decided that teachers were not needed. These Automated Learning Systems were brought in from Korea. Anyway, no-one wanted to be a teacher any more. Your reforms made it very hard to recruit teachers. Your constant tinkering, your restrictions, your controls and budget cuts made teachers’ lives too difficult.”
Mr Gove blinked. He looked at the Classroom of the Future, and realised that it looked very similar to the Classroom of the Past. And the children looked just as miserable. For one brief moment he wondered if teachers might actually make a difference. If good, inspirational teachers should be cherished and supported, and given freedom and respect, rather than constantly derided. Perhaps you need good, positive, imaginative teachers to find your way to the top of the league tables. Perhaps teachers need that support.
It was a very brief moment. When Mr Gove woke up, he shook himself and reminded himself never to eat Stilton so late at night. It can bring terrible dreams.
Art by @kaiserofcrisps and me, words by me (with apologies to Dickens)
Newsnight last night included a feature on how the recently introduced internet ‘porn-filters’ were actually blocking more than just porn. Specifically, they noted that sex-education websites, sexual health websites and so forth were being blocked by the filters. This comes as no surprise to anyone working in the area – indeed, my own blog post asking questions about porn-filters was itself blocked – but it is still good to see that the mainstream media is now taking it on board, albeit very late in the day.
It wasn’t a bad feature, but it only began to scratch the surface of the issue. It left a lot of questions unanswered and a lot of crucial issues untouched. The first of these was the suggestion, insufficiently challenged, that this over-blocking was just some sort of ‘teething trouble’. Once the systems get properly up and running, the problems will be ironed out, and everything will work perfectly. As anyone who understands the systems would tell you, this is far from being the case: over-blocking is an inherent problem, one that will never go away. The nature of these filters, the fact that they essentially work algorithmically, means that they will always (and automatically) pick out sites that deal with the same subject matter as the ones that you are trying to block. If you want to block sites that deal with sex, you will block sites that deal with sex education, with sexuality and so forth. It will also be almost certain to block sites connected with LGBT issues, leaving a lot of young and vulnerable people without access to key information. Here, as in so many cases, ignorance is not bliss. Far from it. Now you can clean things up bit by bit in some cases, as site owners complain – but this is a slow and painstaking process, and anyway will only work when site owners discover that they have been blocked – something far from certain to occur. Very often, filtering/censorship will happen without anyone even noticing.
The second key absence from the Newsnight feature was the fact that these filters are not planned just to filter out pornography. They are planned to deal with a whole lot of other websites, from ‘extremism’ and ‘esoterica’, gambling, violence and so forth. Quite apart from the immense difficulty in defining things such as extremism and esoterica – let alone whether it is appropriate to block such sites in the first place – it needs to be remembered that the over blocking issue with porn sites will apply equally to these other sites. Blocking ‘extremist’ sites will end up blocking sites that discuss extremism, for example – and sites that might help people to find their way out of extremist groups and so forth. This won’t just fail to stop the growth in extremism – it will hinder attempts to prevent that growth. It won’t just fail to be effective – it will be actively counterproductive.
This is not an accident. Censorship in general does not work – and students of its history should be aware of this. Though freedom of speech should not be viewed as an absolute, it should be viewed as an ideal, and curtailing it without sufficient reason should only be done with great care and with great understanding. The blunt instrument of internet filtering has neither the care nor the understanding. It will do far more harm than good.
I was fortunate enough to speak at the Internet and Human Rights Conference at the Human Rights Law Centre at the University of Nottingham on Wednesday. My talk was on the topic of internet surveillance – as performed both by governments and by commercial entities. This is approximately what I said – I very rarely have fully written texts when I talk or lecture, and this was no exception. As you can see, I had one ‘official’ title, but the talk had a number of alternative titles…
Surveillance and Consent
Or
Big Brother is watching you – and so are his commercial partners
Or
What Edward Snowden can teach us about the commercial Internet
Or
To what do we consent, when we enter the Internet?
In particular, do we consent to surveillance? If we do, by whom? When? And on what terms? There are three parts to this talk:
1) Government surveillance and consent
2) Commercial surveillance and consent
3) Forging a (more) privacy friendly future?
1: Government surveillance and consent.
Big Brother is Watching You. He really is. Some of us have always thought so – even if we’ve sometimes been called conspiracy theorists when we’ve articulated those thoughts. Since the revelations of Edward Snowden this summer, we’ve been taken a bit more seriously – and quite rightly so.
The first and perhaps most important question to ask is why the authorities perform surveillance? Counter-terrorism? That’s the one most commonly mentioned. Detection and enforcement of criminal law? Crime prevention? Prevention of disorder? Dealing with child abuse images and tracking down paedophiles? Monitoring of social trends? There are different degrees to all these areas – and potentially some very slippery slopes. Some of the surveillance is clearly beneficial – but some is highly debatable. When looking in the area of crime and disorder this is particularly true when one considers police tactics in the past, from dealing with the anti-nuclear movements in the sixties, seventies and eighties to the shocking revelation about the infiltration of environmental activists more recently. Even this summer, the government admitted that it monitored people’s social media activities in order to ‘head off’ the badger cull protests. Was that right? Are other forms of ‘social control’ through surveillance acceptable? They should at least raise questions.
When looking at government surveillance, we need to ask what is acceptable? Where do we draw the line? Who draws that line? How much of this do we consent to? There are a number of different ways to look at this.
Societal consent?
Do we, as a societies, consent to this kind of surveillance? It is not at all clear that we do, even in the UK, if the furore that lead to the defeat of the Snoopers Charter is anything to go by, or the reaction to Edward Snowden’s revelations in most of the world (though not so much in the UK) is any guide. Do we, as societies, understand the level of surveillance that our governments are performing? It doesn’t seem likely given the surprise shown as more and more of the reality of the situation is revealed. Can we, as societies, understand all of this? Perhaps not fully, but certainly a lot more than we currently do.
Parliamentary consent?
Do we effectively consent by delegating our decisions to our political representatives? By electing them, are we consenting to their decision-making, both in general and in the particular area of internet surveillance? This is a big political question in any situation – but anyone who has observed MPs, even supposedly expert MPs, knows that the level of knowledge and understanding of either the internet or surveillance is appalling. Labour’s Helen Goodman, the Tories’ Clare Perry, the Lib Dems’ Tom Brake, all of whom have been (and still are) in positions of power and responsibility within their own parties in relation to the internet have a level of understanding that would be disappointing in a secondary school pupil.
The Intelligence and Security Committee, who made their first public appearance in November, demonstrated that they were pretty much entirely incapable of providing the scrutiny necessary to represent us – and to hold Big Brother to account on our behalf. Most of the Home Affairs Committee – and the chair, Keith Vaz, in particular, demonstrated this even more dramatically this Tuesday, when questioning Guardian Editor Alan Rusbridger. Keith Vaz’s McCarthy-esque question to Rusbridger ‘do you love your country’ was sadly indicative of the general tone and level of much of the questioning.
There are some MPs who could understand this, but they are few and far between – Lib Dem Julian Huppert, Labour’s Tom Watson, the Tories’ David Davis are the best and perhaps only real examples, but they are mavericks. None are on the front benches, and none seem to have that much influence on their political bosses. Parliament, therefore, seems to offer little help. Whether it could ever offer that help – whether we could ever have politicians with enough understanding of the issues to act on our behalf in a meaningful way, is another question. I hope so – but I may well be pipe dreaming.
Automatic or assumed consent?
Perhaps none of this matters. Could it this kind of government surveillance something we automatically consent to when we use the Internet? Simply by using the net, do we automatically consent to being observed? Is this the price that we have to pay – and that we can be assumed to be willing to pay – in order to use the internet? Scott McNealy’s infamous quote – you have zero privacy anyway, get over it – may be old enough to represent common knowledge. Can we assume that everyone knows they have no privacy? Would that be reasonable, even if it were true? It isn’t true of the public telephone system – wholesale wiretapping isn’t acceptable or accepted, not even of the metadata.
I don’t think any of these – societal, parliamentary or ‘assumed’ really work, or would be sufficient even if they did – because amongst other things because we simply haven’t known what was going on. Our consent, such as it existed, could not have been informed consent, in either of the two ways that can be understood. We did not have the information. We were deliberately kept in the dark. And experience suggests that when we do know more, we tend to object more – as events like the defeat of the Snoopers’ Charter demonstrate.
Do we know what we are consenting to?
Do we understand what the implications of this surveillance actually are? This isn’t just about privacy, no matter how much people like Malcolm Rifkind tries to frame it that way. It isn’t just about individual either – sometimes through this kind of framing it can seem as though asking for privacy is an act of selfishness, and that we should be ashamed of ourselves, and sacrifice our privacy for the greater good – for security.
This is quite wrong – and in many ways framing it in this way is deliberately deceptive. There is a significant impact on many kinds of human rights, not just on privacy. Freedom of expression is chilled – both by overt surveillance through the panopticon effect and through covert surveillance through the imbalance of power that allows control to be exerted. Freedom of association and assembly are deeply affected – both online through the disruption and chilling of online communities, and offline through the disruption of the organisation of ‘real world’ protest and so forth. There’s more too – profiling can allow for discrimination. Indeed, as we shall see, discrimination of a different form is fundamental to commercial surveillance – so can be easily enabled in other ways. Ultimately, too, it can even impact upon freedom of thought – as profiling develops, it could allow the profiler to know what you want even before you do.
So even if we have given consent before, that consent is not really valid. The internet is not like old-fashioned communications. We do more online than we ever did through other forms of communication The nature of the surveillance itself has changed – and the impact of it. Any old consent that did exist should be revoked. If Big Brother wants to keep watching us, He needs to ask again.
2: Commercial surveillance and consent
This is an issue much closer to the common legal understanding of consent – and one that has been much debated. It’s one of the key subjects of the current discussions over the reform of the data protection regime. Edward Snowden, however, has thrown a bit of a spanner into that debate, and those discussions.
To understand what this means, we need to understand commercial surveillance better. Who does ‘commercial’ surveillance? What do I mean by commercial surveillance? Surveillance where money is the motivation – or, to be more precise, where commercial benefit is the motivation. This means things like behavioural tracking – for various purposes – but it also means profiling, it means analysis, all of which are done extensively by all the big players on the Internet, with little or no real idea of consent.
Does commercial surveillance matter?
Commercial surveillance does not often seem to be something people (other than a few privacy geeks like me) care about that much. It’s just about advertising, isn’t it? Doesn’t do anyone any harm? Opt-out’s OK, those paranoid privacy geeks can avoid it if they want, for the rest of us it’s what pays for the net, right? For people like me, there are big concerns – and in some ways it might matter more for most people than surveillance by the NSA and GCHQ. The idea – the one that’s being sold to us – is that it’s about ‘tailoring’ or ‘personalisation’ of your web experience. We can get more relevant content and and more appropriate advertising…
…but that also means that it can have a real impact on real people, from price and service discrimination to an influence on such things credit ratings, insurance premiums and job prospects. Real things that matter to almost all of us. There’s even the possibility of political manipulation – from personalised political advertising to detailed targeting of key ‘swing’ voters, putting even more political influence into the hands of those with the deepest pockets – for it is the deepest pockets that allow access to the ‘biggest’ data, and the most sophisticated profiling and targeting systems.
What Edward Snowden could teach us…
Some parts of the revelations from Edward Snowden should make us think again. PRISM, in particular, should change people’s attitudes to commercial surveillance. This is what Edward Snowden has to teach us. Look at the purported nature of the PRISM program. ‘Direct access’ to the servers of the big Internet companies – including Google and Facebook. Who does commercial surveillance more than Google and Facebook? What’s more, the interaction between governments and businesses is much closer than it might immediately seem. They share technology – and businesses have even let governments subvert their technology, building backdoors, undermining encryption systems and so forth. They share techniques – and even share data, whether willingly or otherwise.
Shared techniques…
Behavioural profiling is just what governments want to do. Behavioural analysis is just what governments want to do. Behavioural targeting is just what governments want to do Is identifying potential customers any different from identifying potential suspects? Is identifying potential markets any different from identifying potential protest groups (such as those involved in the aforementioned badger cull protest)? Or potential dissidents? Is predicting political trends and political risks any different from predicting market trends? Is ‘nudging’ a market that different from manipulating politics? The Internet companies have built engines to do all the authorities’ work for them (well, OK, most of the authorities’ work for them). They just need to tap into those engines. Tailor them a bit. It’s perfect surveillance, and we’ve helped build it. We’ve ‘consented’ to it.
Who is undermining privacy?
So who is undermining privacy? The spooks with their secret surveillance… ….or the business leaders telling us to share everything and that, as Mark Zuckerberg put it, ‘privacy is no longer a social norm’? This ‘de-normalisation’ of privacy – apologies for the word, which I suspect doesn’t really exist – amounts to an attempt to normalise surveillance. The extent to which this desired and pushed-for ‘de-normalisation’ has contributed to the increasing levels of surveillance is essentially a matter for conjecture, but it’s hard not to see a connection.
Paranoid privacy geeks like me have been warning about for a while – but just because we’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean we’re wrong. In this case, it’s looking increasingly as though we were right all along – and that the situation is even worse than we thought.
Is this what we consented to when we signed up for Facebook? Is this what we consent to each time we do a Google search? Is this what we expect when we watch a YouTube video or play a game of Words with Friends? I don’t think so. With new information there should come new understanding – and a reassessment of the situation. We need to decide.
3: A (more) privacy-friendly future?
A three-way consensus is needed. People, businesses and governments need to come to an agreement about what the parameters are, about what it acceptable. About what we consent to. All three groups have power – but at the moment only the authorities seem to be really wielding theirs.
Imagine what would happen if Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Google’s Sergey Brin, Apple’s Tim Cook and their fellows from Microsoft, eBay, Twitter etc all came together and said to the US government ‘No’! Would they be locked up? Would their companies be viciously punished? It seems unlikely – they are much more powerful than they realise. We often talk about the power of the corporate lobbyists – this power could be wielded in a positive way, not just a negative way…
…but it only will if there’s a profit in it for the companies concerned. And that’s where we come in.
We have a key part to play. We need to keep making noises. We need to keep informing people, keep lobbying. Make sure that the companies know that we care about privacy – and not just in relation to governments. Then the companies might start to make a move that helps us.
There are some signs that this might be the case – from the noises from Zuckerberg and so on about how upset they are about the NSA to the current crop of ‘Outlook.com’ advertisements that proclaim loudly how they don’t scan your emails the way that Google do – though it is difficult to tell whether this is just lip service. They talk a lot about transparency, not so much about a reduction in actual surveillance by government – let alone by themselves. If they can wield this power in our favour it could help a lot – but it will only be wielded in this positive way if we make them. So we must be clear that we do not consent to the current situation. We do not consent to surveillance.
What have we got in common?
Ancient Imperial Civilisation? CHECK
Self-serving elite? CHECK
Desire to keep the masses under control? CHECK
Treats workers like drones? CHECK
Considers Human Rights an impediment to business and progress? CHECK
Don’t like protesters? CHECK
Loves censorship of the Internet? CHECK
Loves surveillance? CHECK
…a match made in heaven….
Paul Bernal's Blog 