Tory Spokesman: Umm.. right. Well, welcome everyone. Please take your complimentary cup of bovril .. we’ll need all the strength we can muster for the long fight ahead of us.

(Crowd settles)

Well, thank you – thank you. As you all know this is the big one – the year we’ll oust this incumbent government out of office and we’ll have another shot at the big time!

Crowd: Huzzar!!

Tory Spokesman: Well – looking back on the political landscape of the past year, we were all obviously totally enthralled by the US elections. A time of enormous triumph.

Well now it’s our turn, and we need to let the people of Britain realise that David is the Obama of Britain .. are you with us?!

Crowd: Huzzar!! x2

Tory Spokesman: Now that really is the spirit, tally-ho, by-gosh, wot-wot-wot!?!!.

Um, so .. First on the agenda is, how to let the public know that we’re the good guys. We need to be clever here. We will use the word ‘change’ in our campaign – as much as is humanly possible!!

(Crowd goes wild)

Tory Spokesman: And, as we – the party of change – are all aware, there are other things that Obama has done, which we too will do. Obama likes healthcare – and so do we. We will be the party who make healthcare free to every single citizen living in the UK!!

(Crowd goes wild x10)

Tory Spokesman: At the moment, we think this is possibly all that’s required to gain office; but rest assured, David has told us that he will do absolutely anything to get into office.

Specifically, he’s decided to combine the spirit of morris-dancing Britain with Obama-mania. Which leads me to proudly announce our latest series of campaign posters; my lords, ladies and gentlemen… introducing David ‘a-la-Morris’ Cameron.

[[insert photograph of Cameron blacked up in a morris dancer's costume]]

Britain’s new Internet law — as bad as everyone’s been saying, and worse. Much, much worse.

Digital economy bill: A punishing future

The “Digital Economy Bill” expands government control over the internet

If you feel strongly that this bill should not be passed, I’d recommend you write to your MP to tell them.  There’s a great service called, www.writetothem.com which enables UK citizens to contact their MP, MEP’s and members of the House of Lords free of charge.

The main body of my letter is listed below – if you do contact your own MP it’s important that you use your own words.  I’ve never been certain that our government takes notice of the views of the common people, I think that this issue warrants at least trying to influence a positive change.

DIGITAL ECONOMY BILL

I would like ask for your support in opposition of the proposed Digital Economy Bill.

This proposed, draconian, legislation designed to alter the online-behaviour of UK citizens is unfocused, disproportionate and places the desires of large corporations above the needs of the UK population.

While supporters of the bill may suggest that the introduction of a fixed-scheme of powers to prosecute copyright evaders would be at odds with the fast-rate of change within the digital economy, the creation of a law which provides a vague set of powers, is at odds with liberty.

The recording industry’s lobby state they require this legislation to protect the industry against the effects of piracy and file-sharing. The unfortunate truth is that movement to a digital economy changed the parameters of their industry irreconcilably. If this unfortunate truth is accepted, the need to change must be firmly placed at the feet of those in charge of these media companies.

My personal view is that legislation should not be used to enforce a shift in culture, especially when corporations are the main driver in campaigning for this change. In my experience, education is the only effective method to create lasting change.

A Digital Economy Bill must look to the future and should protect, not criminalise, the citizens of Britain.

If we – the people of Britain – wish to create and sustain a burgeoning digital economy in Britain, we need to create an environment where free-discussion, innovation and continued civil liberties feature prominently.

I’m left wondering what this bill could have been. The move to a digital economy has the potential to create inequality. The bill could have focused on widening – not curtailing – access access to the internet.

• Access to the internet is currently unequally distributed between different sections of society. In the future digital economy, access to the Internet will be as important as the provision of basic household utilities. We should be looking towards countries like Estonia, France, Finland and Greece, who have legislated to make internet access a human right.
• While the 50p tax on land-line telephone users may help provide access to members of rural communities, physical access to the Internet is only one part of the problem. The issue of ‘net neutrality’ is vitally important. I’d like to know why safeguards haven’t been proposed to prevent Internet Service Providers from artificially limiting the type of traffic they transmit over their networks.
• As society becomes increasingly reliant on technology, the potential to monitor and control the activities of the population increases. Without wanting to appear alarmist, the possibility of living in an Orwellian dystopia is very real. I’d like to feel that our government is doing it’s very best to safeguard the civil liberties of the UK population.
• Access to impartial information, free from commercial influence, is vital to a healthy society. There is no mention of how publicly funded media – created via the BBC or Arts Council Grants for example – can be made available via the public domain.
• The types of company operating in the digital economy are far more varied than this bill suggests. By disregarding the full range of technology-led companies, the opportunity for sustained development and further growth are severely limited.

The new digital economy needs to create the right kind of environment to support entrepreneurial innovation, but it also needs to place safeguards – limiting the activities of companies operating in the digital domain.

I would hope that our Government’s primary duty is to act on behalf of the common majority.

Rather than create a set of proposals to ensure a bright future for the UK digital economy, this bill provides wide-ranging measures designed to crystallise the current status quo.

The civil liberties of the UK population are being eroded at a dangerous rate. Many of my friends, fellow Europeans from neighbouring countries, are shocked and appalled that such measures have been proposed.

The Digital Economy Bill does nothing to instil any kind of confidence that the government is able to face the challenges ahead, and I urge you to oppose this bill.

Thank you for your time.

So much of the hype that I read regarding crowdsourcing seems disingenuous.

The majority of the proponents are either those who take a fee from the initial prize fund (crowdSpring/99designs et al), or those who use crowdsourcing as a tool (CP&B, and other clients).

I’d imagine the most fierce supporters of crowdsourcing (as participants) are the very same people who would traditionally participate in the outsourcing of work. For this group, the $1000 offered by design firm CP&B to create a logo for motorcycle brand Brammo, may have been fair compensation – even if obtaining the fee involves entering into a lottery.

After reading about CP&B’s decision to use crowdSpring, my anger piqued my curiosity and I entered into one of these design ‘competitions’ myself.

After participating, I decided to exchange some emails with the contest organiser, and I discovered that he was a subcontractor who takes on web-jobs and uses the crowdsourcing agency to produce PSD images of each potential website which can then be given to other outsourcers who create an HTML website. He likes the crowdsourcing model because he has a number of different designs to choose from, and ultimately he doesn’t need to carry out the work himself.

Crowdsourcing creates a dynamic of factory owner v. factory workers. There’s no equality between participants.

I honestly don’t think that those participating are going to gain a better understanding of the processes involved in design. The idea that the contest organiser even knows what constitutes a good design isn’t even a given. The only known fact is that the organiser has some money.

The bottom line is that it’s unfair to expect anyone with any skill to work for free. In my mind, this is about good old fashioned wrong and right. One group of people is benefiting at the expense of another group of people – and your comment that participants experience “psychic reward” is laughable and offensive.

I do believe that crowdsourcing has a future – but only when a fair remuneration model has been developed. I think that the Amazon Mechanical Turk provided a more fully formed conceptual model in this respect.

The Future of Crowdsourcing

I believe that crowdsourcing in it’s best format involves creating efficiency by horizontally dividing a task between hundreds and thousands of people. Ideally all the participants involved are employed (i.e. paid), and the amount of work they complete is at least as engaging as it would be if the task was approached conventionally.

The benefits of this idealised view, involve speed / efficiency in completing the task and the luxury of a plurality of viewpoints.

Baring this in mind, in my opinion, there are a limited variety of tasks that are suitable for a crowdsourcing approach. I don’t think design is very suitable for crowdsourcing because it’s very difficult to divide a design task among multiple participants.  I don’t think that design can possibly excel when it’s carried out by committee.

Long term, I’d actually question whether these CS companies will survive. Currently I think they’re doing well because:

• We’re currently in an economic downturn – the number of people willing to participate and give crowdsourcing a go will surely have been buoyed by laid off workers.
• The concept is novel. Many people are willing to give something new a chance… but after a short while they’ll most probably ask themselves whether continued participation is worthwhile.

Even so, I don’t think the game’s totally over for companies like crowdSpring or 99designs.

I think that these companies are providing two types of service.

1. The first can be loosely defined defined as crowdsourcing. I say ‘loosely’, because they don’t divide the task of creating design – they multiply it.
2. The second type of service involves building relationships between designer and client; a task which is very similar to that of a traditional work agency.

I think they should focus on providing the second type of service – this is where they could make the most positive difference.

If we look at the way they operate at the moment, (cynically) I’d state that the current crop of crowdsourcing applications are only really acting as ‘enablers’. They provide a place for client and participant to meet – and the functionality they provide is very basic. Currently it would probably be fair to suggest that crowdsourcing web-applications are still most similar in functionality to a traditional bulletin board system.  Ideas (graphic files) can be submitted, and messages can be submitted publicly and privately. There’s little in the way of innovation.

If speaking optimistically, I’d state that these crowdsourcing applications provide a platform for collaboration. This statement holds a lot of potential, but if these companies can possibly survive, they need to try to offer innovative collaborative technologies. The problems they try to solve are both interesting and challenging – but unless they accept the fact that their current approach is full of holes, they stand no chance of becoming a positive force for change.

And while most people probably think they’re too sophisticated to fall for any of the marketer’s tricks – maybe this isn’t the case?  Why aren’t there limits, when companies with a lot of money and power are otherwise given free reign to mess with the public perception?

But we all just accept it .. and because the change happens so gradually, we don’t really mind.  I dislike the idea of activism because all too often it seems that an activist’s views are often as polarised as the views they’re opposed to, but sooner or later something has to be done to moderate consumerism.

We’re probably going to come out of the recession over the next 12 months, but nothing will have changed.  I’m not expecting a revolution – but it would be nice to know that things could be slightly different this time around.

I wrote to my MP last week, after being prompted by an article NO2ID released.  Despite being formed by Labour (a traditionally left-wing political party) the UK government seems to have taken on an increasingly authoritarian and Orwellian stance over many issues.

My exposure to politics in the UK has been limited to observing what’s going on, and voting during local and general elections.  Like many people of my generation, I generally feel quite detached from the political process and relatively apathetic.  This was the first time that I’d written to my MP, and after going through the process and receiving a response I thought I’d document the experience here.

Getting in contact with Mr Denham (my elected representative) was surprisingly straightforward.  To help me do so, I used a service provided by an excellent site designed to do all the hard work for people living in the UK (called writetothem.com). After submitting my postcode and clicking on the relevant civil servant, I was able to pen and send the letter in one fell swoop online.

CORONERS AND JUSTICE BILL – CL. 152 (PROPOAL TO AMEND THE DATA PROTECTION ACT)

I’m asking for your attention on a matter that I feel is of great importance to the citizens of Great Britain.  It’s come to my attention that the new Coroners and Justice Bill contains a clause (cl. 152) which proposes to amend the Data protection Act.  If this clause were to come into effect, it would allow ministers to make ‘Information Sharing Orders’, that can alter any Act of Parliament and cancel all rules of confidentiality in order to use information obtained for one purpose to be used for another.

It could be argued that we are living in a world where political turbulence has created a reciprocal need to respond swifty, and that new laws are needed to affect this swift response.  However, I feel it’s far more dangerous to tacitly enable the erosion of civil liberties in times of trouble.  Our government needs firm, just and reliable foundations; without these foundations I fear the country is likely to suffer very dearly.

My recent personal experience of information sharing within a government department has been negative.    It appears that the details of British citizens are now very likely to be stored in databases, and shared digitally.  I’m aware that this trend is set to continue; most notably with the introduction of the National ID card.

I recently applied for my first provisional driving licence.  Unfortunately on arrival, my surname was misspelt on the photocard and the paper counterpart driving licence.  While this was perhaps a minor error, I felt a little disheartened that the error occurred dispite allowing the DVLA access to my Digital Passport Records.

If I can’t trust a government department to preserve the integrity of my personal details, how can I trust it to keep my details secure?  I’m very disheartened and would appreciate a written reply which answers this question in particular.

I have been informed that the Coroners and Justice Bill is due its Second Reading in the Commons on 26th January 2009.  I am writing to request that you read Part 8 (clauses 151 – 154) of the Cornoners and Justice Bill, and oppose this surreptitious reversal of the rights provided by the Data Protection Act.  Please ensure that clause 152 is given proper Parliamentary scrutiny.  While the bill as a whole affects a percentage of your constituency – the aforementioned clauses will effect every single member of the Itchen area, and the country as a whole.

I want to live in a country in a where I can trust and support my government.  I’ve been disenchanted with the progress our country has made for too long, and I want to see positive change.  Your support on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

A week or so later I received a response.  My cynicism leads me to think that this kind of letter is likely to have a similarly inert effect – but I’m glad the systems are in place to allow us to voice our concerns.  Still – it’s not much use if we can’t be more certain that our thoughts are put into action.  Until there’s some indication that the voices of the public are seriously considered – perhaps writing to our MPs is best viewed as an archaic form of political theatre.