Some Thoughts on ACTA, SOPA, PIPA
Let me begin by saying that our politicians don’t understand the Internet. Let me also follow that up by saying that it’s okay that people in general don’t understand technology. It’s complicated. Roundabout. Crazy. Time-consuming. In a world of noise, we certainly don’t need more sometimes, especially if we’re a doctor trying to focus or a lawyer trying to get the best trial possible.
Let me also say, that just because you don’t understand the Internet or understand technology, it does not mean that you get to run around and tell the world how the technology ought to be used and try to prohibit when you don’t understand how the landscape works. And that is exactly how ACTA will work, and how SOPA and PIPA intended to work.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past three months, or aren’t in the Internet space, the world’s governments have been busy trying to legislate the Internet. The United States tried to pass SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect Online Piracy Act), and since those two failed, the world governments are now trying to pass ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement).
But Albert you say, these sound very noble! They fight against piracy and stealing from others! And while they do seem to follow very noble naming conventions, like the USA Patriot Act (which we all remember so fondly), the reality is hardly seen in the name. The legislation gets pretty shady pretty fast.
I’m speaking out.
The Social Media Effect
As a social media person, I’m speaking out against this because its my career, but also because these very pieces of legislation threaten the very livelihood of technology and the way that people communicate, create and share, critical tenets of social media. The fact that simply sharing content, sharing what others have taught you (without having others pay you), and not being able to upload documents to the cloud (as the shutdown of Megaupload showed) brings a very dark cloud to citizens not any country, but people all over the world who use the Internet.
The problems with this act are simple. Its being negotiated in secret to begin with, and more so it stifles creativity and collaboration between a community of people - most notably the global community. As someone who enjoys coaching people on social media, networking and sharing my strategies, ideas and concepts that I have passed on from others as my own, ACTA would essentially stop me. I could be, under this proposed international law, cited for unlawfully sharing ideas without prior assumed written consent. These very blog posts which you see here, would not be able to be shared among other people because it would be seen as copyright infringement upon my end, and people who view could be arrested under ACTA surveillance.
Think about that for a moment.
The legislators of these laws are people who don’t know how to use the Internet, but are clearly in close quarters with the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) and the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), who are the ones most scared of the status quo. These are the same individuals who fought against VHS, who fought against DVDs and who are fighting now because long ago, they sat in their own offices and felt like they should be forcing others to adjust to them, and not the other way around. Steve Jobs helped briefly curb downloading by creating iTunes, but the men in suits are going to have to do a lot better than trying to shut things down.
Furthermore, the acts also seek to shutdown files stored in the cloud. With the aforementioned MegaUpload case occurring, there is no doubt a slippery slope looking to happen. Tumblr no doubt stores tons of images shared across multiple sites, and my blog would effectively go down. Box.net and Dropbox, sites I used to share files, photos and resumes would also in effect, shut down too, giving recruiters tougher access to prospective employees and giving prospective employees a tougher shot atgetting work.
Its overwhelming.
In closing, ACTA SOPA and PIPA are all pieces of legislation that cannot pass. Your career, my career and all of our online lives are at stake. Take a stand. Be heard. Don’t back down.
The future would otherwise, be bleak.
Share your thoughts. Comment below or on Twitter @albertqian.
The State of the Collaboration Union
The State of the Union was last Tuesday. And the more you watched, the more it felt like hope and whatever loose change was left was slipping away. And not for the reasons you think.
I tuned in last Tuesday to the State of the Union. As a voting individual in this great nation, I take interest in the politics and policies enacted by those that I elect to office. The event is usually a festive one in Congress, with the President addressing all elected officials as well as the rest of the country.
Its usually one of the fluffiest things you can watch. The President makes comments about policies and tasks that he’d like to complete for the year, and the rest of the nation watches on.
One of the more disheartening things of course, is the Republican response to each and every one of these declarations. And while the Republicans are not fans of Obama as well, the impression given during speeches like this shows not only a lack of unity as a nation but also a lack of an interest in one of the most important tenets of business and social media - collaboration.
Its often noted that Republican representative Mitch McConnell has said that he will do everything he can, if possible, to prevent Obama from being a successful President, and will block anything and everything possible to make this happen. In the eyes of private and public work, this is the antithesis of collaboration. When one is usually hired in a company, they are brought in to work and help reach organizational goals. In the case of the United States Congress, this seems like the exact opposite - the goal here is to make the President fail.
In general, the consensus of the citizens of the United States is that nothing is getting done, and partially, that’s because of the US government is refusing to collaborate. If anything, the State of the Union showed us that gridlock and a promotion of failure seems to be the way to go. While the nation moves more towards a socialized and collaborative framework with collaborative technology, the government moves the other direction.
What’s your take? Tweet me at @albertqian or comment below.
Government Needs a Branding Answer
Uncle Ben tells Spiderman that “With great power, comes great responsibility”. This is both true on a personal level and a branding level, and becomes an even greater attribute when you point to a government entity.
My local paper, the San Jose Mercury News revealed today to all readers something that we here in the United States have known for awhile: corruption and free money. While that much is obvious, the even more important area to point at here is that government needs a branding answer. Before we jump into the branding answer, let’s take a look at the numbers that the Mercury News pointed out today:
- Sixty-one percent of cities that provided data either offered their part-time elected officials health benefits or paid them cash to decline coverage in 2010, including Mountain View, Morgan Hill, Los Gatos, Gilroy and Campbell. San Jose also offers its elected officials coverage, but their jobs are considered full-time. Cities offering coverage spent an average $8,508 per official on health benefits or cash payments in 2010, exceeding the average $8,037 they were provided in base pay
- Forty-seven percent of responding school districts paid health coverage for part-time elected officials or bonuses to decline coverage, costing taxpayers an average $8,795 each, more than twice the average $3,719 that districts provided each in pay. And 38 percent of special districts that provide water, sewer, fire, transportation and other services gave elected officials medical insurance or waiver bonuses, at a similar cost.
- One class of part-time official costs taxpayers even more for benefits: The data show that some part-time politicians also work full-time for other government agencies, and take health insurance from both.
Public benefits offered are often times more generous than those offered to private employees. In many ways, this is interesting because government does not have to manage itself through economic crises like businesses need to. While having employees opt out of plans would create a sicker group of people and make the insurance harder to pay, to give employees an exorbitant amount of health benefits - even those who are part time, is a bit abusive for tax payers and those in the community who work full time but receive nothing.
The Government Branding Answer
When I talk about government branding, I don’t aim to turn the day-to-day activities of government into a business, but rather an entity that builds a relationship with the community by way of honesty and integrity. Too much of government has become about handing out free passes to people who deserve them at the expense of tax payer dollars. So what can governments do to brand themselves better?
- Sunshine Laws that allow for government to show the public what is going on inside city hall. These will allow for people to see inside the decisions made inside chambers and make sure that corruption is kept down.
- Public Auditing that allows for people to see the balance sheet and income statement on a simpler level. While we can leave the accounting to actual CPAs, regular people need to also understand where their tax dollars are spent.
- A social media strategy that allows for straight up connection with the government and a detailed and solid engagement strategy. That means, when people complain about the state of government that you do NOT ignore what they have to say, but rather embrace and respond accordingly to each messages that enters.
These are of course, just the beginning of what I think would make government adopt a better branding answer. What are your thoughts? What can we do to make government look like a better entity, be accountable for itself and be more presentable while not being a corrupt entity? Share your comments below or Tweet at me.
WikiLeaks
Social media channels are created to serve the purpose of a more social world. Making the web social has done more good than bad and has helped create a closer relationship between business and client.
But how far should that client-business relationship go?
Wikileaks,the government-neutral organization which seeks to expose just that, takes that question under consideration. In a world where visibility is what is desired and in many cases delivered, does Wikileaks achieve what we all want it to in opening up government?
I would answer maybe - because it depends.
Unlike free and open market businesses, government going social is a different case. As many have critiqued before, the release of these documents are a potential and genuine threat to the national security of any country. While being able to access documents such as Congressional records and minutes from city council should be an absolute necessity, documents that contain communication between ambassadors regarding high level data such as foreign policy and military. These documents provided to the public now create a compelling reason for terrorists to attack and unlike a business’ screw up towards the public, will not only cost money and jobs, but potentially lives.
I certainly think that as these documents are read and analyzed, the US will be forced to change its foreign policy to adapt. Forgiveness, unlike in the free market, will be harder to come by — I certainly expect a loss of friendship between our country and others, and honesty is going to be a forced policy. Ambassadors and government officials will no longer be able to say things behind the backs of others, and will be held accountable.
What do you think?
