Sep 152012
 

Some French gossip magazine has published topless photos of Kate Middleton (who is married to someone who may eventually become a notional head of state) taken when she was staying at a private location on holiday. My first reaction: So what?

Who cares if someone famous was topless in private? We’re all naked in private at some time or another … even if it is just getting into the bath or shower. It’s hardly a revelation to learn that the rich and famous can also be found naked (or in this case topless) at some point or another.  This hardly qualifies as news … or frankly even gossip.

But on second thoughts, this is an invasion of privacy – at the same level as some pervert setting up hidden cameras in your bathroom to take photos of you naked … and then gets them published. Sure the royal couple are famous, but unless they’re getting up to something evil or hideous they should be able to expect a reasonable level of privacy when they are in private.

And the fact that Kate can sometimes be found topless isn’t the sort of thing that counts as in the public interest to reveal.

Aug 312012
 

There comes a moment in some violent anti-capitalist protests where genuine if illegal protest becomes mindless thuggery; for example turning from daubing slogans on the windows of the nearest bank, to throwing objects through the windows of the small independent shop next door. And you do have to wonder if those “hacktivists” who are supporting Julian Assange’s wish to be given safe passage to Ecuador have reached beyond that point.

First of all, I should point out that whilst I’m a supporter of WikiLeaks – or at least the idea of a website where whistleblowers can responsibly publish leaked material in raw form – I’m no supporter of Julian Assange in his attempt at escaping justice. A mentioned previously, I believe he should go back to Sweden to face the charges that will be made once he arrives.

But neither do I think that Julian Assange’s supporters should be silenced however mistaken they are about the situation. They have a right to protest, and I’m not even opposed to a bit of responsible “hacktivism” – in my private life I’m quite willing to go along with the ideal that sometimes it is ethical to break the law. But I also believe that the current flood of ‘hacktivism” is going just a little bit too far.

Those who have been reading just the mainstream media (and here) may be under the impression that the hacktivists have been attacking just a few places; more relevant media makes it plain that there is something more widespread. The first story mentions Cambridge University; none of the stories mentions that the hacktivists have claimed to have broken into up to 5 universities. The list of victims of this week’s surge seems to include :-

  • Up to 5 UK Universities.
  • One or possibly two UK police forces.
  • A UK recruitment agency (which just so happens to mention a couple of UK government bodies).
  • A Pakistani agency specialising in assisting students to come to the UK, or other English-speaking countries.
  • Plus a few UK government agencies.

And this list looks a little random to me.

It’s not that difficult to break into a website – even I could do it, but the question to ask is just how many websites did they rattle the doorknobs of before they found these low-hanging fruits? And it’s always worth remembering the old classic cartoon by xkcd.com :-

Of course they didn’t just widdle a picture of Julian Assange over the front page of a web site; they also broke into some databases and stole some personal information! That’s a bit more serious. And in the case of the information grabbed from the police, it’s a lot more serious.

But if you look closely at the data stolen from the UK universities involved, it becomes a little less dramatic. It would appear that the hackers have managed to break into a few databases used by various departmental web applications. Web applications often use databases as a convenient place to “stash” stuff including account details, which is what appears to have been leaked here. These account details are normally separate from any other account details (unless of course the owner of the account uses the same password), and give access only to the web application itself.

It does not appear that any core business function data has been exposed by this – i.e. the personal details of all the students for example. If it were not for Julian Assange’s name being attached to the incident, it is very likely that the media would not be interested in the story itself which would make it far less serious for the institutions concerned.

When you come down to it, Julian Assange’s real supporters should probably be a bit dismayed by this mindless thuggery – it doesn’t reflect well on their protests if it appears the best hacktivists that they can get to support them are rather on the low end of the scale. Of course a conspiracy theorist might take this as evidence that the hacktivists here are actually deliberate making the supporters of Julian Assange look bad.

Aug 242012
 

So the Sun have decided to print naked photos of Prince Harry claiming that it is about ‘freedom of the press’. Well maybe.

Now I’m hardly an ardent royalist – it is a really daft way of picking a head of state, but it does at least have the advantage of keeping politicians out of the role. And of course helps the tourism industry.

Bear in mind that if a photographer makes images of a person for commercial purposes, then they need to obtain a model release form before publishing the photos. There are of course public interest exceptions (plus artistic and personal use exceptions). But is re-publishing Harry’s naked pics, news?

We all know that Harry was caught at a party by a photographer naked, and that those photos have been published on a web site (or two) in the US. So whatever the Sun was doing couldn’t be called breaking news, where there might be a justification to publish the naked pics just to demonstrate that they do in fact exist. Hence there was no call to publish the photos to tell us that Harry was caught partying naked.

So if this item published by the Sun isn’t news, then what is it ? Well it’s just porn designed to increase the circulation of the Sun “news” paper – or in other words these photos were published for commercial reasons. So they really need the permission of Harry to publish them. I somehow doubt they have that.

Perhaps Harry could sue the Sun for publishing these photos without permission!

And is it really proper news anyway? The fact that he was partying naked might seem shocking to some of us, but let’s be honest – he’s of an age where he’s going to be a bit of an arse from time to time. And most of us were just the same at his age. Royals (at least the males – Kate perhaps needs to redress the balance slightly) have a long history of partying hard, and that is hardly surprising.

I don’t see this story as real news; a proper newspaper might well publish a story about Harry partying naked and add some po-faced opinion about how this is no way for a royal to behave, but there is no reason to publish the photos. Which pretty much demonstrates that the Sun no longer has the right to call itself a newspaper – it is merely a pornographic periodical concentrating on unauthorised photos of celebrities.

Aug 172012
 

In their infinite wisdom, the government long ago decided to insist that TV programmes recorded after the “watershed” should require a PIN code before viewing. Now I can see the justification for this – it’s to protect the children. But …

There’s no children here, so why can’t I turn it off ?

Plus (and possibly even more irritating), whilst it was probably the best that could be done during the analogue era (at least for a reasonable price), we can almost certainly do better during the digital era. Rather than simply look at when a TV programme is being broadcast at, why not look at the content?

There are plenty of programmes broadcast after the watershed that whilst may not be aimed at children certainly don’t have the kind of content that would be “dangerous” for children to watch. After all many are later repeated during the day!

Jul 132012
 

This morning I caught a news item on breakfast TV about the results of a survey carried out by the BBC into the opinions of people into the effects of the Olympics on the UK. I was particularly interested in the part where it claimed that most people are yet to get “enthused” by the Olympics. Which is quite a common theme – every so often one media group or another goes out to find that people really aren’t that bothered by the upcoming Olympics.

Perhaps the media is made up of excitable types but they make the mistake of assuming that people who are not excited by the Olympics in advance of the events will not be excited whilst the events are taking place. I don’t know how everyone else reacts, but I tend not to get excited by events that are happening 6 months away, or next week. Even if they are fantastically exciting whilst they are happening.

The time to decide if the Olympics has been a positive thing or not is after the Olympics.