<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;bureaucracy&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 05:21:44 PST</pubDate>
<title>Why The Government Doesn't Get Technology</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120113/17243317406/why-government-doesnt-get-technology.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120113/17243317406/why-government-doesnt-get-technology.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's been lots of talk in the past few months about the sheer ignorance of those in goverment on technology issues -- in some cases where elected officials are <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/12082717110/dear-congress-its-no-longer-ok-to-not-know-how-internet-works.shtml">gleefully, willfully ignorant</a>.  Some of them are just out of touch (or old, old-fashioned and have no desire to be in touch).  Others, however, do seem to want to keep up on the latest technology.  But there's a problem there.  <b>The technology the government gives them is so out of date</b>, in many cases they don't understand the technology because they don't know the technology.  Now, to be fair, there actually are <i>some</i> government staffers who are really clued in, and who understand all of this stuff deeply.  In fact, I recently met some federal government IT staffers, who were quite well informed.  But those tend to be the kind of "tech native" folks who would follow technology no matter what, even if their jobs didn't depend on it.  Those are the tech natives, the early adopters, etc.
<br /><br />
But the problem is in the much larger group outside of the "tech native" people.  It's in the group of folks who <i>want</i> to know about and understand technology, but don't follow it closely.  And the big problem here is that the government makes it exceedingly difficult to get new technology in front of these people.  Clay Johnson recently had a great post about how this became clear, quite graphically, among techies in the federal government.  They'd have <a href="http://www.informationdiet.com/blog/read/congress-being-stupid-on-technology-is-a-bigger-problem-than-you-think" target="_blank">two computers on their desks</a> -- an ancient one that the government gave them (with a screensaver showing, because it wasn't actually being used) and a late model Macbook... that they had bought personally to bring into the office to actually do some work.  He found out that just the process of buying an official new computer through the government procurement system required at least an 18-month wait.  That may seem like a typical "cobbler's children have no shoes" issue, but the implication for those making our laws is tremendous:
<blockquote><i>
I think this "two computer problem" is a symptom of a much larger issue. For those of you that are unfamiliar with Moore's law, it's general principal is that technology gets twice as good every <b>18 months</b>. So if it takes government about 18 months to do anything expensive (by expensive I mean: something that costs more than a few thousand dollars) with technology, we've built in that government <b>must</b> be at least one cycle behind the private sector when it comes to Moore's law. Compounding this is the sunk-cost fallacy: In order to stay just one cycle behind the rest of society, government would have to begin the purchasing process again as soon as new computers hit desks. But they won't do that, because "you just got a new computer!"
<br /><br />
Thus, a great gap has built up, not just with the pace of work, but in the access to technology. But the thing that makes this frightening is that Moore's law isn't linear, it's <b>exponential</b>. With every cycle of Moore's law, the <b>difference</b> between two points on the curve <b>doubles</b>. Being one cycle behind the curve 18 months from now is twice as bad as it is today.
</i></blockquote>
This is a big problem.  Understanding where innovation is heading is a difficult enough business when you're deeply immersed in <i>today's</i> technologies.  But it's ridiculously more difficult when you're basing your understanding of where technology will be tomorrow... on a knowledge of technology that is, in all reality, multiple generations out of date.
<br /><br />
You can understand, of course, how things got this way.  There are budgets and spending limitations that the government has to deal with -- and since it's such a massive bureaucracy, things take time and have to be checked, double checked, triple checked, sent out for bid, quadruple checked, etc.  But it really does show a symptom of how things get to be this way with politicians making bad laws that show an ignorance of technology.  They don't use it.  They don't comprehend what it means.  At best, they think it's just a tool, like a hammer, rather than something much more powerful than that.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120113/17243317406/why-government-doesnt-get-technology.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120113/17243317406/why-government-doesnt-get-technology.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120113/17243317406/why-government-doesnt-get-technology.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well,-one-of-many-reasons</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120113/17243317406</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 11:48:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>To Find Needles In Haystacks, US Gov't Has Built Hundreds Of New Haystacks</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100719/11054910276.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100719/11054910276.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Lots of folks are submitting the big <a href="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/" target="_blank">interactive investigative report</a> put out by the Washington Post, detailing the <a href="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/print/" target="_blank">massive bureaucratic mess that has become the US's anti-terrorism operations</a>.  Basically, since September 11, 2001, when the government (reasonably) agreed to devote more resources to the counter-terrorism, it's been an opportunity for both government employees and the private sector to build up giant, well-funded bureaucratic entities that have little to no oversight, and quite frequently seem to overlap with what others are doing:
<blockquote><i>
In all, at least 263 organizations have been created or reorganized as a response to 9/11. Each has required more people, and those people have required more administrative and logistic support: phone operators, secretaries, librarians, architects, carpenters, construction workers, air-conditioning mechanics and, because of where they work, even janitors with top-secret clearances.
<br /><br />
With so many more employees, units and organizations, the lines of responsibility began to blur. To remedy this, at the recommendation of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, the George W. Bush administration and Congress decided to create an agency in 2004 with overarching responsibilities called the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to bring the colossal effort under control.
<br /><br />
While that was the idea, Washington has its own ways.
<br /><br />
The first problem was that the law passed by Congress did not give the director clear legal or budgetary authority over intelligence matters, which meant he wouldn't have power over the individual agencies he was supposed to control.
<br /><br />
The second problem: Even before the first director, Ambassador John D. Negroponte, was on the job, the turf battles began. The Defense Department shifted billions of dollars out of one budget and into another so that the ODNI could not touch it, according to two senior officials who watched the process. The CIA reclassified some of its most sensitive information at a higher level so the National Counterterrorism Center staff, part of the ODNI, would not be allowed to see it, said former intelligence officers involved.
</i></blockquote>
The article then notes that, despite the fact that ODNI is supposed to be coordinating everything "today, many officials who work in the intelligence agencies say they remain unclear about what the ODNI is in charge of."
<br /><br />
So, there are turf battles with little oversight and lots of focus on status symbols, rather than actually getting stuff done:
<blockquote><i>
It's not only the number of buildings that suggests the size and cost of this expansion, it's also what is inside: banks of television monitors. "Escort-required" badges. X-ray machines and lockers to store cellphones and pagers. Keypad door locks that open special rooms encased in metal or permanent dry wall, impenetrable to eavesdropping tools and protected by alarms and a security force capable of responding within 15 minutes. Every one of these buildings has at least one of these rooms, known as a SCIF, for sensitive compartmented information facility. Some are as small as a closet; others are four times the size of a football field.
<br /><br />
SCIF size has become a measure of status in Top Secret America, or at least in the Washington region of it. "In D.C., everyone talks SCIF, SCIF, SCIF," said Bruce Paquin, who moved to Florida from the Washington region several years ago to start a SCIF construction business. "They've got the penis envy thing going. You can't be a big boy unless you're a three-letter agency and you have a big SCIF."
<br /><br />
SCIFs are not the only must-have items people pay attention to. Command centers, internal television networks, video walls, armored SUVs and personal security guards have also become the bling of national security.
<br /><br />
"You can't find a four-star general without a security detail," said one three-star general now posted in Washington after years abroad. "Fear has caused everyone to have stuff. Then comes, 'If he has one, then I have to have one.' It's become a status symbol."
</i></blockquote>
But is this working?  Well, it doesn't sound like it.  Rather than finding the ever important terrorist needles in the haystack, it sounds like they're just creating more and more haystacks:
 <blockquote><i>
In Yemen, the commandos set up a joint operations center packed with hard drives, forensic kits and communications gear. They exchanged thousands of intercepts, agent reports, photographic evidence and real-time video surveillance with dozens of top-secret organizations in the United States.
<br /><br />
That was the system as it was intended. But when the information reached the National Counterterrorism Center in Washington for analysis, it arrived buried within the 5,000 pieces of general terrorist-related data that are reviewed each day. Analysts had to switch from database to database, from hard drive to hard drive, from screen to screen, just to locate what might be interesting to study further.
<br /><br />
As military operations in Yemen intensified and the chatter about a possible terrorist strike increased, the intelligence agencies ramped up their effort. The flood of information into the NCTC became a torrent.
</i></blockquote>
As we noted earlier this year, this is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100108/0305177669.shtml">why the government missed</a> the guy who tried to blow up a plane on Christmas day.  They had all the data.  But there was such a backlog, they couldn't actually piece it all together.
<br /><br />
Oh, and beyond the fact that that this "Secret America" has hired hundreds of thousands of people doing overlapping work that just makes everything more confusing, the focus on status symbols and things like SCIFs might make you wonder who's doing the actual work.  You probably don't want to know:
<blockquote><i>
Among the most important people inside the SCIFs are the low-paid employees carrying their lunches to work to save money. They are the analysts, the 20- and 30-year-olds making $41,000 to $65,000 a year, whose job is at the core of everything Top Secret America tries to do....
<br /><br />
When hired, a typical analyst knows very little about the priority countries - Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan - and is not fluent in their languages. Still, the number of intelligence reports they produce on these key countries is overwhelming, say current and former intelligence officials who try to cull them every day. The ODNI doesn't know exactly how many reports are issued each year, but in the process of trying to find out, the chief of analysis discovered 60 classified analytic Web sites still in operation that were supposed to have been closed down for lack of usefulness. "Like a zombie, it keeps on living" is how one official describes the sites.
</i></blockquote>
So you have four star generals fighting over who has a bigger security detail, while a bunch of recent college grads with little experience produce the "analysis."  Fantastic.
<br /><br />
And given our recent stories about <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100611/1818399791.shtml">cyberwar hype</a>, this story provides a bit more background.  Cyberwar is, of course, the hot thing, so all of these different groups are all shoving each other aside to pitch themselves as cyberwar experts to get more money to garner more status symbols.
<br /><br />
In the meantime, it's not at all clear that this deluge of information is actually making anyone safer.  We've already discussed how adding more haystacks doesn't make it any easier to find the terrorist needle, but it doesn't even appear that all this "top secret" security is all that secure.  In a separate story, <a href="http://techliberation.com/2010/07/19/coupla-cybersecurity-notes/?utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+techliberation+%28Technology+Liberation+Front%29" target="_blank">Jim Harper</a> points out the news of a security researcher who <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/18/fictitious-femme-fatale-fooled-cybersecurity/" target="_blank">created a fictitious, but cute, information security woman</a>, who used social engineering and social networking tricks to build up all sorts of connections within the security world, including top security experts, military personnel and staff at intelligence agencies and defense contractors.
<blockquote><i>
Ms. Sage's connections invited her to speak at a private-sector security conference in Miami, and to review an important technical paper by a NASA  researcher. Several invited her to dinner. And there were many invitations to apply for jobs.
<br /><br />
"If I can ever be of assistance with job opportunities here at Lockheed Martin, don't hesitate to contact me, as I'm at your service," one executive at the company told her.
<br /><br />
One soldier uploaded a picture of himself taken on patrol in Afghanistan  containing embedded data revealing his exact location. A contractor with the NRO  who connected with her had misconfigured his profile so that it revealed the answers to the security questions on his personal e-mail account.
<br /><br />
"This person had a critical role in the intelligence community," Mr. Ryan said. "He was connected to key people in other agencies."
</i></blockquote>
So for all this massive new security infrastructure, totally hidden from public view, it's easy to infiltrate parts of it with some cute photos of a non-existent woman.  Fantastic.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100719/11054910276.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100719/11054910276.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100719/11054910276.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>working-harder,-not-smarter</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100719/11054910276</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 6 Jul 2010 02:36:58 PDT</pubDate>
<title>People In Turkey Quite Angry Over Google Blockade; While Bureaucrats Defend Policy</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100702/02573510056.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100702/02573510056.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've written a few times about Turkey's odd thinking on <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100607/2324339720.shtml">blocking access</a> 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100611/1217199782.shtml">upset about the block</a> and would look to get it lifted.  The BBC has a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/10480877.stm" target="_blank">much more detailed article on the situation</a>, 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:
<blockquote><i>
There are two different Turkeys talking here.
<br /><br />
There is Istanbul, buzzing with entrepreneurial activity and cultural life, where people aspire to European levels of wealth and freedom.
<br /><br />
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.
</i></blockquote>
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:
<blockquote><i>
"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."
</i></blockquote>
Of course, as part of democracy and women's emancipation, doesn't it help to have widespread access to tools of communication... like YouTube?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100702/02573510056.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100702/02573510056.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100702/02573510056.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>turkish-delight</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100702/02573510056</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:16:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Redlight Cameras In Kansas City Are Too Successful</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090706/0218435453.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090706/0218435453.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=mrtraver">mrtraver</a> alerts us to the news that redlight cameras in Kansas City have been issuing so many tickets that <a href="http://www.newstribune.com/articles/2009/07/02/news_state/182state32redlight.txt" target="_new">the police department needs more money to handle all the tickets</a>.  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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090706/0218435453.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090706/0218435453.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090706/0218435453.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>gotta-hire-more-people</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090706/0218435453</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 7 Apr 2009 06:20:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Schumer Tries To Force Scalpers To Register; Limit How They Buy And Sell Tickets</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090406/2144414414.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090406/2144414414.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090312/0729224090.shtml">in on the deal</a>, 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 <a href="http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/record.cfm?id=311230" target="_new">introduced new legislation to try to limit ticket reselling</a> (thanks to <a href="http://blog.ericgoldman.org/" target="_new">Eric Goldman</a> 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.
<br /><br />
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.
<br /><br />
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?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090406/2144414414.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090406/2144414414.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090406/2144414414.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>is-this-needed?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090406/2144414414</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:28:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Government Employees Banned From Using The Social Networking Tools They're Told To Use</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090318/0226244166.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090318/0226244166.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last year, we wrote about how it seemed like a mistake to us that the government in Montenegro had decided to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081218/1857393170.shtml">block</a> 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.
<br /><br />
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 <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/government-20-meets-catch-22/" target="_new">bureaucratic mess of government officials trying to make use of this enabling technology</a> including this stunning quote:
<blockquote><i>
"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."
</i></blockquote>
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 <a href="http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/03/trooptube-block.html" target="_new">blocking that site as well</a>.  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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090318/0226244166.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090318/0226244166.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090318/0226244166.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>bureaucracy-at-work</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090318/0226244166</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:55:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>China Looks To Build Human Firewall With Fun, Prizes</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090211/1525163736.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090211/1525163736.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ China's experiment with <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080714/2117091679.shtml">crowdsourcing</a> 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 <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/10/china_pr0n_crackdown_public_monitoring_program/">rewards for reporting porn sites</a>. This follows the government's push to get search engines to try and prevent people in China from accessing porn by <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090105/1216303287.shtml">threatening</a> 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 <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080919/1629392321.shtml">discuss contaminated milk</a>, one has to imagine that this latest hurdle won't prove too difficult for porn fans to navigate.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090211/1525163736.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090211/1525163736.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090211/1525163736.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>snitching-pays</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090211/1525163736</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:02:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Napster Judge's Suggestions On How To Fix Copyright: Massive Bureaucracy</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081112/2351042818.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081112/2351042818.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ 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 <a href="http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/11/napster-judge-s.html" target="_new">laid out the details of her plan</a> that are certainly... different.  The idea would basically be to establish a hybrid public-private entity that would effectively determine <i>everything</i> having to do with music and copyright.  If this makes you cringe, you're not alone.
<br /><br />
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.
<br /><br />
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 <i>everything</i> 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.
<br /><br />
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.
<br /><br />
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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081112/2351042818.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081112/2351042818.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081112/2351042818.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>ugh</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081112/2351042818</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:49:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Russia Wants Everyone Setting Up A WiFi Network To Register With The Government</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080415/004824847.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080415/004824847.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ 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 <a href="http://wifinetnews.com/archives/008277.html" target="_new">any device that uses WiFi indoors anywhere needs to be registered with the government</a>.  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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080415/004824847.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080415/004824847.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080415/004824847.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>hello-bureaucracy!</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080415/004824847</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:41:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The Bureacracy That Goes Into Censoring The Internet In China</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071011/231826.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071011/231826.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's no secret that the process for censoring the internet in China involves a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060403/0216237.shtml">huge bureaucracy</a> 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 <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=202401567">details behind the bureaucracy</a>.  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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071011/231826.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071011/231826.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071011/231826.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>tuttle-tuttle-buttle-tuttle</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071011/231826</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 7 Sep 2007 10:49:55 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Japan Follows France In Thinking That Gov't Bureaucracy Can Beat Google</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Lee</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070906/232435.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070906/232435.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070102/110038.shtml">written</a> in the past about the French boondoggle of a plan to create a government-subsidized search engine to compete with Google. Marc Andreessen <a href="http://blog.pmarca.com/2007/09/yes-miti-is-bac.html">points out</a> that Japan is the <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b3046d5c-5b1d-11dc-8c32-0000779fd2ac.html">latest country</a> 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070529/005749.shtml">as we've discussed before</a>, Japan's overly-restrictive copyright laws seem to be holding back innovation. According to the <i>Financial Times</i>, 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070119/003655.shtml">more hospitable</a> to high-tech innovation.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070906/232435.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070906/232435.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070906/232435.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how's-that-working-in-France?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070906/232435</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>