Re:publica 2011
Eine vorläufige Version des Programms der re:publica 2011 (13. bis 15. April) ist online; http://eicker.at/republica2011 #rp11
Socrata [PDF]: The state of open data from 3 perspectives, the public, government and developers; http://eicker.at/OpenDataStudy
The impact of WikiLeaks? Duty to basically reconsider and agree on informational self-determination; http://eicker.at/WikiLeaks
WikiLeaks: “…is a not-for-profit media organisation. Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our journalists (our electronic drop box). One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth. We are a young organisation that has grown very quickly, relying on a network of dedicated volunteers around the globe. … WikiLeaks has combined high-end security technologies with journalism and ethical principles. Like other media outlets conducting investigative journalism, we accept (but do not solicit) anonymous sources of information. Unlike other outlets, we provide a high security anonymous drop box fortified by cutting-edge cryptographic information technologies. This provides maximum protection to our sources. We are fearless in our efforts to get the unvarnished truth out to the public. When information comes in, our journalists analyse the material, verify it and write a news piece about it describing its significance to society. We then publish both the news story and the original material in order to enable readers to analyse the story in the context of the original source material themselves.”
Wikipedia: “The term informational self-determination was first used in the context of a German constitutional ruling relating to personal information collected during the 1983 census. – In that occasion, the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled that: ‘[…] in the context of modern data processing, the protection of the individual against unlimited collection, storage, use and disclosure of his/her personal data is encompassed by the general personal rights of the [German Constitution]. This basic right warrants in this respect the capacity of the individual to determine in principle the disclosure and use of his/her personal data. Limitations to this informational self-determination are allowed only in case of overriding public interest.‘ – Informational self-determination is often considered similar to the right to privacy but has unique characteristics that distinguish it from the ‘Right to privacy’ in the United States tradition. Informational self-determination reflects Westin’s description of privacy: ‘The right of the individual to decide what information about himself should be communicated to others and under what circumstances‘ (Westin, 1970). In contrast, the ‘Right to privacy’ in the United States legal tradition is commonly considered to originate in Warren andBrandeis’ article, which focuses on the right to ‘solitude’ (i.e., being ‘left alone’) and in the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects persons and their belongings from warrantless search.”
Democracy Now: “Goodman: ‘…not all transparency advocates support what WikiLeaks is doing. Today we’ll host a debate. Steven Aftergood is one of the most prominent critics of WikiLeaks and one of the most prominent transparency advocates. … We’re also joined by Glenn Greenwald. He’s a constitutional law attorney and political and legal blogger for Salon.com who’s supportive of WikiLeaks.’ … Aftergood: ‘I’m all for the exposure of corruption, including classified corruption. And to the extent that WikiLeaks has done that, I support its actions. The problem is, it has done a lot more than that, much of which is problematic. It has invaded personal privacy. It has published libelous material. It has violated intellectual property rights. And above all, it has launched a sweeping attack not simply on corruption, but on secrecy itself. And I think that’s both a strategic and a tactical error. It’s a strategic error because some secrecy is perfectly legitimate and desirable. It’s a tactical error because it has unleashed a furious response from the U.S. government and other governments that I fear is likely to harm the interests of a lot of other people besides WikiLeaks who are concerned with open government.’ … Greenwald: ‘If you look at the overall record of WikiLeaks – and let me just stipulate right upfront that WikiLeaks is a four-year-old organization, four years old. They’re operating completely unchartered territory. Have they made some mistakes and taken some missteps? Absolutely. They’re an imperfect organization. But on the whole, the amount of corruption and injustice in the world that WikiLeaks is exposing… I criticize them, for instance, for exercising insufficient care in redacting the names of various Afghan citizens who cooperated with the United States military. They accepted responsibility for that, and in subsequent releases, including in the Iraq document disclosures, they were very careful about redacting those names.'”
Reporters Without Borders: “Wikileaks has in the past played a useful role by making information available to the US and international public that exposed serious violations of human rights and civil liberties which the Bush administration committed in the name of its war against terror. … But revealing the identity of hundreds of people who collaborated with the coalition in Afghanistan is highly dangerous. It would not be hard for the Taliban and other armed groups to use these documents to draw up a list of people for targeting in deadly revenge attacks. … Nonetheless, indiscriminately publishing 92,000 classified reports reflects a real problem of methodology and, therefore, of credibility. Journalistic work involves the selection of information. The argument with which you defend yourself, namely that Wikileaks is not made up of journalists, is not convincing. Wikileaks is an information outlet and, as such, is subject to the same rules of publishing responsibility as any other media. … Wikileaks must provide a more detailed explanation of its actions and must not repeat the same mistake. This will mean a new departure and new methods.”
Reporters Without Borders: “…condemns the blocking, cyber-attacks and political pressure being directed at cablegate.wikileaks.org, the website dedicated to the US diplomatic cables. The organization is also concerned by some of the extreme comments made by American authorities concerning WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange. … We stress that any restriction on the freedom to disseminate this body of documents will affect the entire press, which has given detailed coverage to the information made available by WikiLeaks, with five leading international newspapers actively cooperating in preparing it for publication. – Reporters Without Borders would also like to stress that it has always defended online freedom and the principle of ‘Net neutrality,’ according to which Internet Service Providers and hosting companies should play no role in choosing the content that is placed online.”
Preston/Guardian: “Be clear, right from the start. Any editor presented with a quarter of a million US State Department documents on a WikiLeaks plate has a duty to sift, check – and publish. Newspapers exist to get news into print, not shilly-shally around as pompous (and, alas, often American) champions of the public’s right not to know too much. And if, thus far, the most unexpected story of the lot is Washington’s inability to keep its diplomatic traffic secret, that’s a public service, too. … At which point – casting aside assorted bits of legislation, editing codes and sheaves of moral guidance – a more basic test applies. Do you, printing the WikiLeaks bumper bundle, feel queasy or certain you’re trying to do the right thing? How would you feel if you didn’t print them? And, equally, would you feel chastened, angry, maybe ashamed, if your telephone hacking exploits were laid out to the full by Private Eye?” (Guardian’s WikiLeaks-coverage)
2010: Bundestag setzt Enquete-Kommission Internet und digitale Gesellschaft ein; http://j.mp/DigitaleGesellschaft
Bundestag: “Die Fraktionen von CDU/CSU, FDP, SPD und Bündnis 90/Die Grünen fordern den Bundestag auf, eine Enquete-Kommission ‘Internet und digitale Gesellschaft’ einzusetzen. In ihrem Antrag (17/950) schreiben die Abgeordneten, das Internet sei die freiheitlichste und effizienteste Informations- und Kommunikationsform der Welt und trage maßgeblich zur Entwicklung einer globalen Gemeinschaft bei. Die digitale Gesellschaft biete neue Entfaltungsmöglichkeiten für jeden Einzelnen ebenso wie neue Chancen für die demokratische Weiterentwicklung unseres Gemeinwesen, für die wirtschaftliche Betätigung und für die Wissensgesellschaft. Jedoch ‘erleben wir eine erneute Veränderung’, heißt es in dem Antrag: ‘Das Internet ist nicht länger nur eine technische Plattform, sondern entwickelt sich zu einem integralen Bestandteil des Lebens vieler Menschen, denn gesellschaftliche Veränderungen finden maßgeblich in und mit dem Internet statt.‘ – Um diese Veränderungen zu untersuchen, soll die Enquete-Kommission mit einem weitreichenden Arbeitsauftrag ausgestattet werden. Gegliedert in die Bereiche Kultur und Medien, Wirtschaft und Umwelt, Bildung und Forschung, Verbraucherschutz, Recht und Innen sowie Gesellschaft und Demokratie soll sie die spezifischen Auswirkungen auf die jeweiligen Themenfelder analysieren. Dazu gehören unter anderem die Stärkung der Medienkompetenz, Fragen des Urheberrechts, die Folgen der Digitalisierung für den Rundfunk und die Printmedien, die Wahrung des Grundrechteschutzes, Veränderungen der Arbeitswelt durch neue Medien und die Weiterentwicklung der eGovernment-Dienstleistungen.”
Governments around the world are opening up their data vaults. The Guardian starts a single gateway; http://j.mp/5P6Mij
Google: Open systems are profitable, but only for those who understand them well and move faster; http://j.mp/6uz0Nf
Google: “At Google we believe that open systems win. They lead to more innovation, value, and freedom of choice for consumers, and a vibrant, profitable, and competitive ecosystem for businesses. … This is counter-intuitive to the traditionally trained MBA who is taught to generate a sustainable competitive advantage by creating a closed system, making it popular, then milking it through the product life cycle. The conventional wisdom goes that companies should lock in customers to lock out competitors. … The definition of open starts with the technologies upon which the Internet was founded: open standards and open source software. … On the web, the new form of commerce is the exchange of personal information for something of value. … Trust is the most important currency online, so to build it we adhere to three principles of open information: value, transparency, and control. … Closed systems are well-defined and profitable, but only for those who control them. Open systems are chaotic and profitable, but only for those who understand them well and move faster than everyone else. Closed systems grow quickly while open systems evolve more slowly, so placing your bets on open requires the optimism, will, and means to think long term. Fortunately, at Google we have all three of these. … Open will win. It will win on the Internet and will then cascade across many walks of life: The future of government is transparency. The future of commerce is information symmetry. The future of culture is freedom. The future of science and medicine is collaboration. The future of entertainment is participation. Each of these futures depends on an open Internet.“
Our Data will build an overview of European initiatives and activities around Open Government Data; http://tr.im/t9Lw
Gerrit Eicker 15:08 on 21. March 2011 Permalink |
Eine vorläufige Version meiner Programmplanung für die re:publica 2011:
13.04.2011
10:00 Willkommen zur re:publica 2011
11:00 Open (Government) Data: What, Why, How?
11:30 Open Statecraft
12:00 Open Government, Transparenz und Beteiligung in Deutschland
14:00 Open Government made in Germany
15:00 Die Geburt des Wikis aus der Wade der Wunderkammer
16:00 Contentindustrie, Internet-Rechtsprechung, Gesetzgebung
17:00 We transform them before they transform us
19:00 JMSTV: Wie weiter mit dem Jugendmedienschutz?
14.04.2011
10:00 Social Media Measurement
11:00 Google Books
12:00 Spiel das Leben
14:00 Leaking Transparency
15:00 Diaspora
16:00 Was macht eigentlich der digitale Mensch
17:00 Egyptian Social Media Stories
19:00 What’s happening? Love.
15.04.2011
10:00 Was ist ein Kontrollverlust?
11:00 Cameras Everywhere
12:00 Policing Content in the Quasi-Public Sphere
14:00 Die Illusion vom öffentlichen Raum
15:00 Die Zukunft des Internets, der Welt und des ganzen Rests
16:00 TV kills the YouTube-Star
17:00 Modeblogs
18:00 Abschluß