Lots of stuff going on this week, so haven't had a minute to blog, so will just share this with you as I catch my breath. As most of you know, I am a great advocate of social media. I think it can be a great force for good. But, as in all things, it has a dark side, and can be used to cause great harm. Jon Ronson, author of amongst other things Men who Stare at Goats and The Psychopath Test sums up the phenomenon that is internet shaming in this great TED talk. I recommend you watch it before tweeting again.
Showing posts with label christinesreallycross. Show all posts
Showing posts with label christinesreallycross. Show all posts
Thursday, 30 July 2015
Thursday, 30 August 2012
Appalling decision by the UKBA
Last night I was happily watching the opening ceremony of the Paralympics, a great celebration of diversity in every form, when some disturbing news began filtering through on my twitterfeed. The UKBA had told London Metropolitan University that it had revoked its Trusted Sponsor Status for overseas students. Well, actually, they'd leaked it to a Sunday Newspaper a few days before. Apparently a press release had been issued, people had seen it, then it disappeared from the UKBA site. But, people had screenshots. Eventually the news was confirmed by a short press release on London Met's page.
This is an appalling decision by the UKBA, appallingly mishandled. It threatens not just London Met, but UK Higher Education as a whole. This decision, taken just weeks before the start of term, means that not only can London Met not admit any overseas students this year, (even those who have already been offerred places and may have accommodation booked, flights arranged etc,) but international students who are already studying there who may have done 2 or 3 years of a course, have 60 days to find another course, or face deportation. This will affect over 2000 students.
If you were a friend or relative of one of those students, or a teacher at a school overseas where one of them came from, would you care that it was just London Met, or would it affect your decision to apply or recommend applying to any University in the UK? Bearing in mind that two other Universities have had their status suspended temporarily.
The money this is going to cost London Met is many tens of millions, it will threaten jobs and courses, and possibly the University's future. And let's not forget the real losers in this. The students who have either got places, or are already studying there. They have perfectly valid visas, but now face financial hardship, uncertainty over where they can study, and possible deportation.
I don't know the details of the problem at London Met, and undoubtedly there are some. But the UKBA itself admitted that it was a "small minority" of students they audited who hadn't got the correct documentation or leave to stay. The UKBA flexing its muscles in this way - presumably to send a message to the rest of us that it can - is unacceptable and an overreaction which will have far reaching effects on all of us unless action is taken to curb them soon.
This is an appalling decision by the UKBA, appallingly mishandled. It threatens not just London Met, but UK Higher Education as a whole. This decision, taken just weeks before the start of term, means that not only can London Met not admit any overseas students this year, (even those who have already been offerred places and may have accommodation booked, flights arranged etc,) but international students who are already studying there who may have done 2 or 3 years of a course, have 60 days to find another course, or face deportation. This will affect over 2000 students.
If you were a friend or relative of one of those students, or a teacher at a school overseas where one of them came from, would you care that it was just London Met, or would it affect your decision to apply or recommend applying to any University in the UK? Bearing in mind that two other Universities have had their status suspended temporarily.
The money this is going to cost London Met is many tens of millions, it will threaten jobs and courses, and possibly the University's future. And let's not forget the real losers in this. The students who have either got places, or are already studying there. They have perfectly valid visas, but now face financial hardship, uncertainty over where they can study, and possible deportation.
I don't know the details of the problem at London Met, and undoubtedly there are some. But the UKBA itself admitted that it was a "small minority" of students they audited who hadn't got the correct documentation or leave to stay. The UKBA flexing its muscles in this way - presumably to send a message to the rest of us that it can - is unacceptable and an overreaction which will have far reaching effects on all of us unless action is taken to curb them soon.
Friday, 15 June 2012
Never Seconds - the blog that got shut down
This April, 9 year old Martha Payne of Western Scotland started a blog about her school lunches called Never Seconds, documenting her school lunches and how bad they were. It quickly became popular and led to the dinners becoming markedly better (apparently fruit and salad "had always been available"). The blog got taken up by many people including Jamie Oliver, and started getting attention from around the world with people sending her pictures of their lunches. Eventually, she set up a donation page to raise money for dinners in Africa - she's raised over £2000. So far, so good.
Until yesterday, when the local council banned her from taking her camera into school and shut down her blog. I wonder if they thought that would be the end of it and she would quietly go away? Well some people just don't understand social media do they? So far the story is trending on twitter, it's been on the BBC this morning on the Today programme, bloggers have taken up the story, and the @argyllandbute twitter account has been inundated with complaints.
Rory Cellan-Jones the BBC technology correspondent has written a wonderfully ironic piece about it and social media here.
When I started writing this, I didn't know whether to put it on my work blog or personal one (it might eventually end up on both), but the reason its here on the work one, is that I think we all have to be very aware of how social media works, and the pitfalls that we can quickly fall into. I wonder how we would have reacted if something we'd done (albeit innocently) had created this sort of firestorm? It is a fact that the important thing about social media is not making mistakes - everyone does it - but how you deal with them. An apology, a retraction, an explanation are all ways forward. The important thing is to accept you've made a mistake and confront it. I wonder what Argylle and Bute Council are going to do now?
EDIT So, Argyle and Bute Council have finally responded and issued a press statement here. No apology, no retraction, no "we're really sorry we got it wrong". No explanation other than they don't like criticism. so, because they don't like criticism, and they obviously don't understand or get social media, they've decided the best way forward is to shut a 9 year old girl up.
Further EDIT: Finally, someone at the council got it, the ban was lifted, and she can carry on. And she made over £85,000 for Martha's meals.
Wednesday, 8 February 2012
Availibilty and Common Sense.
Over the last couple of days I've been in some meetings talking about new developments - always exciting. First was a way of better testing and displaying the status of our services (as opposed to systems). We currently have a status page which is excellent and very well used by our staff and students but it's really a list of issues, rather than a list of what's working and what isn't. An interesting new dashboard has been developed, and we're working on appropriate tests now as to whether a service is actually working from a user perspective, rather than whether the server is up and you can log in. Watch this space - availability management is an important part of our service management strategy.
Currently I'm writing a presentation I'm giving at the JANET conference tomorrow on our move to cloud based services, and the issues around security and privacy and how we've dealt with them. Suspect I'll be putting the finishing touches to it on the train on the way there!
Whilst I'm doing that I'm following the progress of Paul Chamber's appeal at the High Court against his conviction for sending a menacing tweet two years ago. Lots of coverage in the press about it, and I've got the hashtag #twitterjoketrial set up as a search on tweetdeck, and it's beeping so much I've had to turn the sound off my mac. Absolutely ridiculous waste of public money, and huge implications for the use of social media whichever way the verdict goes. Fingers crossed that common sense will prevail, but given the judges' comments when this has been considered previously, I'm not holding my breath. I'm tempted to say that if this goes the wrong way I'll blow Doncaster Airport sky high, but that could get me into a lot of trouble!
Currently I'm writing a presentation I'm giving at the JANET conference tomorrow on our move to cloud based services, and the issues around security and privacy and how we've dealt with them. Suspect I'll be putting the finishing touches to it on the train on the way there!
Whilst I'm doing that I'm following the progress of Paul Chamber's appeal at the High Court against his conviction for sending a menacing tweet two years ago. Lots of coverage in the press about it, and I've got the hashtag #twitterjoketrial set up as a search on tweetdeck, and it's beeping so much I've had to turn the sound off my mac. Absolutely ridiculous waste of public money, and huge implications for the use of social media whichever way the verdict goes. Fingers crossed that common sense will prevail, but given the judges' comments when this has been considered previously, I'm not holding my breath. I'm tempted to say that if this goes the wrong way I'll blow Doncaster Airport sky high, but that could get me into a lot of trouble!
Thursday, 11 November 2010
Christine's really cross again......
I might be on holiday, but am still in touch with what's going on in the world, thanks to free wifi in many cafes and bars, and as of today, some paid for access in the apartment. So, why I am I breaking blogging silence, on what is really a work blog? Well, it's because I'm really cross, that's why. Today Paul Chambers found out whether his appeal against his conviction for sending a "menacing electronic communication", or a tweet, had been successful. It wasn't. Thrown out on all counts. Too many people have written about it and much more eloquently than I can, but in summary:
Paul was fed up because flight to Belfast to see his girlfriend had been cancelled. Tweets to his 40 or so followers that he might blow the airport sky high. Duty manager at said airport (Robin Hood, how ironic can you get,..), found the tweet a few days later when he searched for the airport. Didn't think it was a credible threat, but passed it to his manager. He didn't think it was a threat either, but passed it to the police. They turned up at Paul's workplace and arrested him. After some hours of interviewing, they decided it wasn't a threat, but passed it to the CPS. The rest is history as they say. You can read the story here.
Today's judgement is outrageous, for so many reasons. Graham Linehan of Father Ted and IT Crowd fame, has suggested it's because people just don't get social media, and Twitter in particular. Heresy Corner disagrees. Martin Robbins has written a great piece in the Guardian about it.
Is it ironic that the judgement came on the day we remember those who died for our freedom, and one of our basic freedoms, that of speech, is being gradually eroded? I hope this case makes it to the High Court and the judgement is overturned. But that will cost a lot of money. You can donate to the cause here.
Don't know what else to say. Going back to enjoying my holiday, but will be supporting Paul when I get back.
Edit: if you want to state that you don't find the tweet menacing, you can sign a petition here.
Paul was fed up because flight to Belfast to see his girlfriend had been cancelled. Tweets to his 40 or so followers that he might blow the airport sky high. Duty manager at said airport (Robin Hood, how ironic can you get,..), found the tweet a few days later when he searched for the airport. Didn't think it was a credible threat, but passed it to his manager. He didn't think it was a threat either, but passed it to the police. They turned up at Paul's workplace and arrested him. After some hours of interviewing, they decided it wasn't a threat, but passed it to the CPS. The rest is history as they say. You can read the story here.
Today's judgement is outrageous, for so many reasons. Graham Linehan of Father Ted and IT Crowd fame, has suggested it's because people just don't get social media, and Twitter in particular. Heresy Corner disagrees. Martin Robbins has written a great piece in the Guardian about it.
Is it ironic that the judgement came on the day we remember those who died for our freedom, and one of our basic freedoms, that of speech, is being gradually eroded? I hope this case makes it to the High Court and the judgement is overturned. But that will cost a lot of money. You can donate to the cause here.
Don't know what else to say. Going back to enjoying my holiday, but will be supporting Paul when I get back.
Edit: if you want to state that you don't find the tweet menacing, you can sign a petition here.
Monday, 27 September 2010
Twitter Joke Trial
Some time ago I posted about Paul Chambers who'd posted a comment on Twitter which had ended up with him being arrested, questioned, charged, found guilty and fined. Since then he's been fired from two jobs because of it, but last Friday was his appeal hearing. Again, it received a lot of press, but a good summary of the events of the day are here, in the wonderful JackofKent blog. It really does make fascinating reading, and I am astounded at the decision to prosecute given that at every stage of the process it was determined to be no credible threat. There have already been requests to the CPS under the Freedom of Information Act to release the costs incurred so far. This case has sparked a lot of interest in the media, legal and social media communities. If this decision is not overturned it has enormous consequences. As Jack of Kent said "#TwitterJokeTrial is a fight for the soul of Twitter and the blogosphere. Either the CPS get to prosecute s.127 so casually, or they don't". One could also say it's a fight for common sense. The rise of social media has changed everything and the legal process needs to recognise this and get up to date.
I'm glad #TwitterJokeTrial was a trending topic on Friday and I wish Paul and his lawyers all the best for the appeal.
I'm glad #TwitterJokeTrial was a trending topic on Friday and I wish Paul and his lawyers all the best for the appeal.
Sunday, 16 May 2010
What price a joke?
As many of you know, I'm a user of social media - mainly blogging, Twitter and Facebook - but lots of other things occasionally. I'm getting increasingly concerned at the lack of understanding of these new types of media and communication - especially by "people in high places" - the judiciary, the police, the CPS, and if the Digital Economy Act is anything to go by - the government.
I've written about the Digital Economy Bill, and a recent case where a blogger received an unnecessary visit from the police. I've also been following some disturbing libel cases, Simon Singh's being the most famous, but more recently Dave Osler, which was a case brought against him for a blog post he'd written more than a year earlier, and involved comments posted by others on his original post. Both of these have had good outcomes - eventually, after much time and money has been wasted and the defendants have had to put their lives on hold.
However, a recent case has REALLY made me cross! You may have heard about it - it's had a lot of press - David Mitchell has written a column about it, the News Quiz had a segment on it, and it's been covered in many news items.
Paul Chambers was frustrated- he was due to fly to Ireland, but Robin Hood Airport was closed because of snow. He posted a tweet along the lines of "you've got a week to get your shit together or I blow you sky high". He didn't send it to the airport - he tweeted it to his followers - he never expected anyone else, not least the airport to see it. However, 3 days later, someone from the airport did a search for Robin Hood Airport, and found it. Although they didn't think it was a credible threat, they reported it. And then all hell seemed to break loose. He was arrested and escorted from his place of work. His computers and mobile phone were seized and he was questioned for 7 hours. And then he was charged. Not with sending a bomb threat - even the CPS accepted that there was no evidence for this - but under a little known clause (section 127 ) of the Electronic Communications Act. Apparently Paul had sent a "menacing" message over a telecommunications network. Outrageously - he was then found guilty, fined £1000, had a criminal conviction, and lost his job. Now, his original tweet may not have been the most considered in history - but did it really merit this? And did the CPS really have to dredge up a little known clause in a law written for completely different reasons? I don't pretend to understand all of the legal issues in this - but jackofkent does a brilliant job of explaining them here, and if you're interested - and if you're reading this blog I suggest you should be - you would do well to read his posts on the subject.
This is an extremely important precedent - English law relies on case law - so this decision has a bearing all of us who blog, tweet, or...insert whatever tool might be there in the future. As soon as the verdict was announced Stephen Fry offered to pay the fine and a fund was set up to pay Paul's fine and his legal fees if he decided to appeal, supported by many prominent tweeters, especially famous comedians. I'm pleased to say that he is appealing, and the best legal team in the blogosphere is going to work pro bono on the case. I'm proud to have contributed to his fund, and I urge all of you who tweet or blog to do the same. This is important to protect the free speech of all of us in this new era of social media.
Good luck to Paul, and to all those working on the appeal - I'll follow it with interest.
I've written about the Digital Economy Bill, and a recent case where a blogger received an unnecessary visit from the police. I've also been following some disturbing libel cases, Simon Singh's being the most famous, but more recently Dave Osler, which was a case brought against him for a blog post he'd written more than a year earlier, and involved comments posted by others on his original post. Both of these have had good outcomes - eventually, after much time and money has been wasted and the defendants have had to put their lives on hold.
However, a recent case has REALLY made me cross! You may have heard about it - it's had a lot of press - David Mitchell has written a column about it, the News Quiz had a segment on it, and it's been covered in many news items.
Paul Chambers was frustrated- he was due to fly to Ireland, but Robin Hood Airport was closed because of snow. He posted a tweet along the lines of "you've got a week to get your shit together or I blow you sky high". He didn't send it to the airport - he tweeted it to his followers - he never expected anyone else, not least the airport to see it. However, 3 days later, someone from the airport did a search for Robin Hood Airport, and found it. Although they didn't think it was a credible threat, they reported it. And then all hell seemed to break loose. He was arrested and escorted from his place of work. His computers and mobile phone were seized and he was questioned for 7 hours. And then he was charged. Not with sending a bomb threat - even the CPS accepted that there was no evidence for this - but under a little known clause (section 127 ) of the Electronic Communications Act. Apparently Paul had sent a "menacing" message over a telecommunications network. Outrageously - he was then found guilty, fined £1000, had a criminal conviction, and lost his job. Now, his original tweet may not have been the most considered in history - but did it really merit this? And did the CPS really have to dredge up a little known clause in a law written for completely different reasons? I don't pretend to understand all of the legal issues in this - but jackofkent does a brilliant job of explaining them here, and if you're interested - and if you're reading this blog I suggest you should be - you would do well to read his posts on the subject.
This is an extremely important precedent - English law relies on case law - so this decision has a bearing all of us who blog, tweet, or...insert whatever tool might be there in the future. As soon as the verdict was announced Stephen Fry offered to pay the fine and a fund was set up to pay Paul's fine and his legal fees if he decided to appeal, supported by many prominent tweeters, especially famous comedians. I'm pleased to say that he is appealing, and the best legal team in the blogosphere is going to work pro bono on the case. I'm proud to have contributed to his fund, and I urge all of you who tweet or blog to do the same. This is important to protect the free speech of all of us in this new era of social media.
Good luck to Paul, and to all those working on the appeal - I'll follow it with interest.
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
I'm disturbed...
...or concerned. Or maybe both. A number of things buzzing round the blogosphere/twitterverse/tinterwebs which are making me uncomfortable.
I'm concerned about the Digital Economy Bill, which is currently working its way through the House of Lords and is the legislative response to the Digital Britain Report. It seems to be to be unduly draconian in its response to copyright and file sharing. I truly believe that the current copyright laws are not appropriate for today's digital age - if you don't believe me, listen to Larry Lessig. This bill does not help, in my opinion, and in fact will only serve to reduce the advantage we should be taking of new technologies, putting undue pressure for example on account holders and holding them responsible for the behaviour of other users. Our own Professor of Law has already written that she fears that it could lead to the demise of free w-ifi networks.
I'm disturbed by the involvement of the police in what seems to be a spat between two bloggers. The BBC correspondent Rory Cellan Jones covered it today, but currently there are many blog posts about it - most expressing support for the blogger who received a visit from the police and subsequently took his blog down. Even more interestingly, it is alleged by the blogger that the police got his personal details from the University where he was a student (not confirmed by the University), and that they "relayed a message from the head of ICT department that I shouldn't be using university property in such ways" - also not confirmed. There are a couple of aspects to this case which disturb me. As a blogger, I'm worried that if I post something that someone else doesn't like they could complain to the police and I might get a visit. As an IT Director I need to question what we would have done in these circumstances. How much information would we have asked for before releasing personal details to the police? What does our code of conduct say about use of University facilities, and what are our views on students posting controversial, but legal, blog posts? Peter Tinson has posted a good summary of the issues for University IT Directors here.
Finally - I am bloody angry about this. Irish blogger posts a fairly innocuous post last November about what it was like being a female air traffic controller when she first started nearly ten years ago. Quite a chatty post, nothing particularly controversial, some comments about how things have changed - that's all. Some (insert suitable adjective here - I can think of plenty) "journalist" called Luke Byrne at the Daily Mail found it and published an article under the heading "The Male Chauvinist Pigs of Irish Air Traffic Control" complete with picture of blogger. She knew nothing about it, wasn't contacted for comment, wasn't asked for permission to have pieces of her blog misquoted, or her picture used. Utterly disgraceful, sloppy, lazy journalism. I wish her all the best and hope she gets some sort of retraction or apology from them.
I'm concerned about the Digital Economy Bill, which is currently working its way through the House of Lords and is the legislative response to the Digital Britain Report. It seems to be to be unduly draconian in its response to copyright and file sharing. I truly believe that the current copyright laws are not appropriate for today's digital age - if you don't believe me, listen to Larry Lessig. This bill does not help, in my opinion, and in fact will only serve to reduce the advantage we should be taking of new technologies, putting undue pressure for example on account holders and holding them responsible for the behaviour of other users. Our own Professor of Law has already written that she fears that it could lead to the demise of free w-ifi networks.
I'm disturbed by the involvement of the police in what seems to be a spat between two bloggers. The BBC correspondent Rory Cellan Jones covered it today, but currently there are many blog posts about it - most expressing support for the blogger who received a visit from the police and subsequently took his blog down. Even more interestingly, it is alleged by the blogger that the police got his personal details from the University where he was a student (not confirmed by the University), and that they "relayed a message from the head of ICT department that I shouldn't be using university property in such ways" - also not confirmed. There are a couple of aspects to this case which disturb me. As a blogger, I'm worried that if I post something that someone else doesn't like they could complain to the police and I might get a visit. As an IT Director I need to question what we would have done in these circumstances. How much information would we have asked for before releasing personal details to the police? What does our code of conduct say about use of University facilities, and what are our views on students posting controversial, but legal, blog posts? Peter Tinson has posted a good summary of the issues for University IT Directors here.
Finally - I am bloody angry about this. Irish blogger posts a fairly innocuous post last November about what it was like being a female air traffic controller when she first started nearly ten years ago. Quite a chatty post, nothing particularly controversial, some comments about how things have changed - that's all. Some (insert suitable adjective here - I can think of plenty) "journalist" called Luke Byrne at the Daily Mail found it and published an article under the heading "The Male Chauvinist Pigs of Irish Air Traffic Control" complete with picture of blogger. She knew nothing about it, wasn't contacted for comment, wasn't asked for permission to have pieces of her blog misquoted, or her picture used. Utterly disgraceful, sloppy, lazy journalism. I wish her all the best and hope she gets some sort of retraction or apology from them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)