Interesting conclusion by the Guardian regarding patents and risk:
Firms are now being set up, such as Nathan Myrhvold’s Intellectual Ventures, solely to acquire and exploit patents. In this brave new world, owning patents can be far more profitable than winning the lottery and less hazardous than robbing banks.
That certainly raises some information security questions about the consequences of intellectual property regulations today, let alone their original intent.
That’s the name of one of my favorite Bob Marley albums. The bass line is so rich and moving on Stir it Up, Marley’s voice young and passionate. I even love the original record cover design with the simple hinge….
Anyway, it’s a rough segue (I’ll skip the analysis of Concrete Jungle, Stop that Train, Slave Driver, etc.) but I just noticed that the name has also been chosen for a new movie from South Africa about the use and impact of torture. It appears to be a story about a man who is transformed at the hands of a “country ruled by fear”:
“Catch a Fire” is a political thriller based on the true story of Patrick Chamusso, an ordinary man whose life profoundly illustrates why torture is never acceptable. It is the story of one man’s struggle amongst a nation’s, set in a divided South Africa in the nineteen eighties, climaxing in the present day.
A trailer is available here, from Amnesty International. And, surprise, it features the music of Bob Marley.
The reviews look really good:
True to [director] Noyce’s words, Catch a Fire comes to focus on the relationship between Chamusso (played with an appealing mix of defiance and youthful swagger by Derek Luke) and the police colonel, Nic Vos (an excellent Tim Robbins), who interrogates him after his initial arrest. It’s a decidedly complex relationship in which neither man is painted as a saint or a devil and both are shown to be flawed father figures doing what each thinks is right to make the next generation better for his children.
Interesting spin on some positive changes in Somalia:
A few months ago, Mogadishu’s chaotic roads were ruled by red-eyed, open-shirted militia, speeding along in their technicals – the open vehicles with anti-aircraft guns mounted on the back – weaving from one side to the other to avoid the potholes.
Today, one of the world’s most dangerous cities has been tamed: law-abiding men and women motor along without a gun at their side, keeping steadily to the speed limit, and not daring to swerve for craters.
Why can’t we use our brains to solve the political stalemate instead of fighting?
Female studentThis transformation is down to the rule of the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), which took control of Mogadishu in June and much of southern Somalia since then.
Moving from militant anarchy to stable theocracy clearly has its up-side, but history shows that even stable theocracies are far from a panacea for people’s needs, let alone free from violence or above corruption and prejudice. The UIC is being reported as moderate and perhaps even embracing women’s rights to be educated and join the workforce but, as the saying goes, the proof will be in the pudding.
Another case of pot calling the kettle black? I just found this odd quote in the news:
“The material errors and material misrepresentations are so egregious that HBO should pull the documentary,” Diebold Election System president David Byrd wrote. “Failing that, a pre-airing rebuttal and disclaimer are not only appropriate but also in the best interests of HBO and its subscribers.”
The harm of the HBO documentary is not clear. Critical thinking by the public about democracy and electronic voting systems? If Diebold systems were truly safe to use and secure, they would have nothing to worry about, right? On the other hand, the harm from material errors and material misrepresentations by an electronic voting systems manufacturer would lead to botched elections and undermining the cornerstone of democracy. Should voting systems be “pulled” as soon as egregious errors and misrepresentations about security are found?
Perhaps if Diebold would like to take such a strong position on what constitutes an “egregious” error and misrepresentation by HBO, they could at least see the film?
While Diebold spokesman David Bear said company officials had yet to see the film, he said the firm was never contacted by the filmmakers when they were making the documentary.
[…]
HBO contends that Diebold has confused [Hacking Democracy with VoterGate].
“It appears the film Diebold is responding to is not the film HBO is airing,” [HBO spokesman] Cusson said.
And then perhaps Diebold could also explain why they are still selling electronic voting systems without a paper-trail? Talk about willfully exposing the public to egregious errors…
I believe Ed Felton has made Diebold’s totally flawed logic painfully clear already, so while I welcome their new position on protecting the public, I just wish they held themselves to the same standard.