People In Turkey Quite Angry Over Google Blockade; While Bureaucrats Defend Policy

from the turkish-delight dept

We've written a few times about Turkey's odd thinking on blocking access to large parts of Google, in part over some YouTube videos and partly over a tax dispute. We also noted that Turkey's own President indicated he was upset about the block and would look to get it lifted. The BBC has a much more detailed article on the situation, where it explains that the laws for blocking such websites are so convoluted and unclear, that it's often not even clear who decided to ban what and for what reason. For example, no one's even sure why Google was really banned this time around, as there are conflicted explanations. But the key point is summarized in these paragraphs:

There are two different Turkeys talking here.

There is Istanbul, buzzing with entrepreneurial activity and cultural life, where people aspire to European levels of wealth and freedom.

And there is the capital Ankara, a city of bureaucrats, the centre of military and political power. Ankara is where nearly all the internet restrictions emanate.

The article highlights journalists and businesses who are greatly harmed by the blocks, including one company who had signed up to use Google's infrastructure for their email... and now can't access their own email accounts. The reporter then goes to talk to the head of the "Ataturk Thought Association" (how's that for an Orwellian name?), which is apparently responsible for many of the blocks, as it seeks to block access to any video that it feels insults Turkey's founding father, Ataturk. She doesn't seem to care if anyone or any business is inconvenienced. To her, blocking access to such videos is much more important:

"For us Ataturk is a symbol of democracy and women's emancipation", she says. "This is about respect for him. I am not bothered by the impact of the court decision."

Of course, as part of democracy and women's emancipation, doesn't it help to have widespread access to tools of communication... like YouTube?

Filed Under: bureaucracy, censorship, turkey

Redlight Cameras In Kansas City Are Too Successful

from the gotta-hire-more-people dept

We've had a bunch of stories about problems with redlight cameras, in that they don't seem to make intersections any safer, but they do present an easy way for cities to bring in a lot of cash quickly. However, there's an apparent "downside" to the cash influx, as well. Reader mrtraver alerts us to the news that redlight cameras in Kansas City have been issuing so many tickets that the police department needs more money to handle all the tickets. Kansas City wants to hire four new officers just to deal with the automated tickets, or get more money to pay officers' overtime salaries for dealing with so many tickets. Apparently, in just three months, the cameras at 20 intersections have given out 6,900 tickets, and there's a big backlog as officers need to review each photo to make sure it's legit before sending out the citation.

Filed Under: bureaucracy, kansas city, redlight cameras, success

Schumer Tries To Force Scalpers To Register; Limit How They Buy And Sell Tickets

from the is-this-needed? dept

There's been plenty of complaining about how ticket scalpers for various concerts and sporting events have been scooping up all of the tickets for events and making it more expensive for fans to get those tickets. Of course, in many cases, companies like TicketMaster and the musicians themselves are in on the deal, pretending to offer "scalped" tickets that they're really selling themselves. With so much talk about this issue, you knew it was only a matter of time until some grandstanding politician got involved. In this case, it's New York's Chuck Schumer, who has introduced new legislation to try to limit ticket reselling (thanks to Eric Goldman for sending this over). It will require ticket resellers to "register" with the FTC, and then such official resellers will only be allowed to get tickets two days after the tickets go on sale.

It's difficult to see what good this does, other than create a bigger bureaucratic mess. If you don't think that the ticket resellers will figure out workarounds, you haven't been paying much attention over the past few years. Besides, the very fact that Ticketmaster thinks this is a good law is a pretty damning sign that it's not doing much to solve the problem, but is really designed to help Ticketmaster make more money.

It's still difficult to see why these issues can't be solved effectively without legislation. Bands can offer early tickets through fan clubs or mailing lists, or use other tools to make sure fans get tickets at lower prices. Besides, if the demand really is that high for certain tickets, what's wrong with letting the market determine that?

Filed Under: bureaucracy, chuck shumer, registering, reselling, scalping, tickets
Companies: ticketmaster

Government Employees Banned From Using The Social Networking Tools They're Told To Use

from the bureaucracy-at-work dept

Last year, we wrote about how it seemed like a mistake to us that the government in Montenegro had decided to block access to Facebook on government computers. While many disagreed in the comments, Facebook and other social networking sites are quickly becoming useful tools of communication (for some, it's their primary tool for communication). Blocking access is missing the point, and preventing a useful tool from being utilized, just because some might abuse it.

It turns out that the US government actually is doing the same thing... even as it's supposedly encouraging an era of social networking inspired "transparency" and an embrace of "Government 2.0." The NY Times notes the bureaucratic mess of government officials trying to make use of this enabling technology including this stunning quote:

"We have a Facebook page," said one official of the Department of Homeland Security. "But we don't allow people to look at Facebook in the office. So we have to go home to use it. I find this bizarre."

Meanwhile, Wired is highlighting a similar story. Apparently, the US military has been blocking access to YouTube, but set up a special alternative just for troops, called TroopTube. And, yet... it started blocking that site as well. It may just be a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, but it seems so common in government that it's really rather ridiculous. These tools, while they may be prone to misuse and time-wasting, are also becoming key ways that people communicate. For a supposedly more open and transparent government, allowing access is a necessity. Deal with the abuses separately, rather than making an outright ban.

Filed Under: bureaucracy, governments, social networks

China Looks To Build Human Firewall With Fun, Prizes

from the snitching-pays dept

China's experiment with crowdsourcing internet propaganda -- in which it reportedly pays people 50 cents for each positive post they make about the government or its policies -- must be going well. The government there is now looking to engage citizens' help in purging the internet of porn and other undesirable content by giving people rewards for reporting porn sites. This follows the government's push to get search engines to try and prevent people in China from accessing porn by threatening them with punishment if they don't. While China's "Great Firewall" does manage to block a lot of content, it certainly isn't foolproof. And if people can find ways around it to discuss contaminated milk, one has to imagine that this latest hurdle won't prove too difficult for porn fans to navigate.

Filed Under: bureaucracy, censorship, china, great firewall, propaganda

Napster Judge's Suggestions On How To Fix Copyright: Massive Bureaucracy

from the ugh dept

Judge Miriam Hall Patel, who among other things, is known for her decision that effectively killed off Napster (which I still believe interpreted copyright law incorrectly, and put the liability on the wrong party... but that's another post). Apparently, Patel has also been spending some time thinking about how to repair copyright. She gave a speech this week at Fordham Law, where she laid out the details of her plan that are certainly... different. The idea would basically be to establish a hybrid public-private entity that would effectively determine everything having to do with music and copyright. If this makes you cringe, you're not alone.

On the good side, the suggestion includes the idea to wipe out the massive patchwork set of copyright royalty and licensing rules that are so much of the problem today. Every time some new technology comes along, we end up with yet another new patch on copyright law, making it so that it's nearly impossible these days to do much of anything with music without having to hire a lawyer to figure out which six or twelve different stakeholders you'll have to pay.

But, that's about all that's good here. Everything else looks like it's setting up a huge bureaucracy (the fact that it would be a mix of public and private representatives is rather meaningless) that would effectively decide everything having to do with music. There would be compulsory blanket licensing, and you would have to apply for a special exemption to get out of it.

Then there's the ugly part. She would require any new device manufacturers or application developers to get approval from this new body before creating any new products. Yes, she wants to create a board to approve new innovations and determine what is and what is not allowed. This should scare pretty much everyone. That's not how innovation works, and any such plan would basically move all innovation in the industry outside of the US, allowing everyone else to leapfrog us quite quickly.

It's great that people are trying to come up with out-of-the-box ideas, but this one, perhaps needs a bit more time marinating in the box.

Filed Under: bureaucracy, copyright, miriam patel

Russia Wants Everyone Setting Up A WiFi Network To Register With The Government

from the hello-bureaucracy! dept

When WiFi was first becoming popular a few years back, there were occasional stories about countries that hadn't opened up the spectrum necessary for WiFi and how problematic that was for getting WiFi adopted. However, it looks like some bureaucrats in Russia may be taking the whole concept to a new level. Apparently, Russia's equivalent of the FCC, the Russian Mass Media, Communications and Cultural Protection Service (or Rossvyazokhrankultura) have announced that any device that uses WiFi indoors anywhere needs to be registered with the government. Even worse, the registration is per user with a non-transferable license. So every user of every WiFi device will need a separate registration. As Glenn Fleishman notes in the link above: "Setting up a home Wi-Fi network or a hotspot would require what sounds like vast amounts of paperwork, akin to putting [up] a cell tower." I'm sure that will increase adoption. From the sound of it, though, some are questioning whether the group even has the authority to make such a mandate. In the meantime, if you're in Russia and using WiFi, apparently you may want to get ready to sign some paperwork.

Filed Under: bureaucracy, register, regulations, russia, wifi

The Bureacracy That Goes Into Censoring The Internet In China

from the tuttle-tuttle-buttle-tuttle dept

It's no secret that the process for censoring the internet in China involves a huge bureaucracy of people. Earlier reports had it at 30,000, though we've seen some reports that put it at 40,000 (yes, internet censorship is apparently a growth business in China). So, perhaps it should come as no surprise that there's quite a bit of bureaucracy behind Chinese internet censorship. Apparently a disgruntled censor leaked out the details behind the bureaucracy. Apparently, there are three agencies responsible for different aspects of online censorship: the Internet Propaganda Administrative Bureau, the Bureau of Information and Public Opinion, and the Internet Bureau. There's also the Beijing Internet Information Administrative Bureau to handle all the internet firms located in Beijing. It's all very organized. The Propaganda Agency is in charge of licensing news agencies -- but the licenses aren't to report news or do any, you know, reporting. The licenses are to report propaganda provided by the government. The Public Opinion group basically watches over what public opinion is saying and lets Party leaders know about it, so that a response can quickly be generated. The Internet Bureau, then, is where the real censorship takes place. As for the Beijing Internet organization, it meets with the big internet firms and tells them what news stories will be allowed or not allowed that week. There are a few other organizations involved as well, but the whole thing looks quite organized in trying to snuff out anything it doesn't like online. Of course, that doesn't mean it's particularly effective, but that's an entirely different story.

Filed Under: bureaucracy, censorship, china, great firewall, propaganda

Japan Follows France In Thinking That Gov't Bureaucracy Can Beat Google

from the how's-that-working-in-France? dept

We've written in the past about the French boondoggle of a plan to create a government-subsidized search engine to compete with Google. Marc Andreessen points out that Japan is the latest country to try to compete with Google using government subsidies. Apparently, a consortium of large Japanese companies will divide up the task of developing a Google-killer, with the whole project overseen by government bureaucrats. Somehow, it's unlikely that Google is worried. One thing that did catch our eye, though, is that as we've discussed before, Japan's overly-restrictive copyright laws seem to be holding back innovation. According to the Financial Times, copyright law doesn't permit companies to hold copies of others' websites on their servers. That makes it awfully hard to build a functional search engine. Perhaps instead of spending money building a government-subsidized search engine, the Japanese government should focus on making its copyright policies more hospitable to high-tech innovation.

Filed Under: bureaucracy, foreign competition, gov't subsidies, search engines
Companies: google, miti