In my latest Guardian column, “The internet is the best place for dissent to start,” I look at Ethan Zuckerman’s recent talk on the Internet and human rights, and the way that cute cats create the positive externality of a place for dissent to begin and flourish, and look at the problems this causes:

Zuckerman’s argument is this: while YouTube, Twitter, Facebook (and other popular social services) aren’t good at protecting dissidents, they are nevertheless the best place for this sort of activity to start, for several reasons.

First, because when YouTube is taken off your nation’s internet, everyone notices, not just dissidents. So if a state shuts down a site dedicated to exposing official brutality, only the people who care about that sort of thing already are likely to notice.

But when YouTube goes dark, all the people who want to look at cute cats discover that their favourite site is gone, and they start to ask their neighbours why, and they come to learn that there exists video evidence of official brutality so heinous and awful that the government has shut out all of YouTube in case the people see it.

The internet is the best place for dissent to start

The Hugo Award nominations are open. Attendees of last year’s World Science Fiction in Reno and next year’s WorldCon in Chicago (as well as those who paid for “supporter” status) can nominate their favorite science fiction and fantasy stories, books, movies and other media for one of the most prestigious awards in the field.

Just in case you were wondering, my eligible publications for the year are:

* “Knights of the Rainbow Table,” novella (Intel, 2011)
* “Martian Chronicles,” novella (Life on Mars, 2011)

* “Shannon’s Law,” novelette, (Welcome to Bordertown, 2011)
* “Clockwork Fagin,” novelette (Steampunk!, 2011)
* “Another Place, Another Time, short story (The Chronicles of Harris Burdick, 2011)
* “Brave Little Toaster,” short story (TRSF, 2011)
* “Authorised Domain,” short story (podcast, 2011)
* Context, related book (Tachyon, 2011)
* The Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow, related book (PM Press, 2011)

2012 Hugo Award and John W. Campbell Award Nominating Ballot

My latest Locus column, “A Vocabulary for Speaking about the Future,” talks about science fiction’s uselessness as a predictive medium, and its great utility as a medium for thinking about, attaining, and preventing futures.

But the really interesting thing is how science fiction does its best tricks: through creating the narrative vocabularies by which futures can be debated, discussed, adopted, or discarded.

There are innumerable examples of this, but my favorite is George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. Before this novel’s rise to prominence, any discussion of intrusive surveillance was singularly bloodless. ‘‘I don’t like how it would feel,’’ you could say, or, ‘‘It would change my behavior, make me self-conscious.’’ These are highly abstract, rather unconvincing arguments, especially when weighed against the technological narrative of surveillance: ‘‘With total information awareness, we will be as gods, our eye upon each sparrow as it falls from the tree. No evil deed will go unobserved and unpunished.’’ After all, it stands to reason that if you can watch everyone, you can see everything, and punish every bad deed.

But a science fiction writer, Orwell, has given us a marvelous and versatile vocabulary word for discussing this: now we can say, ‘‘Your surveillance idea is a bad one because it is Orwellian’’ – we can import all of that novel and its horrors with one compact word. The argument becomes a duel of narratives: the cool, impartial intelligence apparat that catches the bad guys versus the human reality of the corrupting nature of power and the way that our social contract and good behavior are eroded by constant surveillance and a culture of suspicion.

Cory Doctorow: A Vocabulary for Speaking about the Future

(Image: McCall Style & Beauty Cover – Fortune Teller, a Creative Commons Attribution (2.0) image from hollywoodplace’s photostream)

Christian Wöhrl has produced a German translation of my 28C3 talk, The Coming War on General Purpose Computing. Thanks, Christian!

Here’s the video of my keynote last night at the 28C3, the Chaos Computer Congress in Berlin, entitled “The coming war on general computation.”

The last 20 years of Internet policy have been dominated by the copyright war, but the war turns out only to have been a skirmish. The coming century will be dominated by war against the general purpose computer, and the stakes are the freedom, fortune and privacy of the entire human race.

The problem is twofold: first, there is no known general-purpose computer that can execute all the programs we can think of except the naughty ones; second, general-purpose computers have replaced every other device in our world. There are no airplanes, only computers that fly. There are no cars, only computers we sit in. There are no hearing aids, only computers we put in our ears. There are no 3D printers, only computers that drive peripherals. There are no radios, only computers with fast ADCs and DACs and phased-array antennas. Consequently anything you do to “secure” anything with a computer in it ends up undermining the capabilities and security of every other corner of modern human society.

Update: Here’s a transcript, courtesy of Joshua Wise.

Update: Christian Wöhrl has produced a German translation, too.

The coming war on general computation

My latest Guardian column, “The pirates of YouTube,” documents how multinational copyright-holding companies have laid false claim to public domain videos on YouTube — videos posted by the nonprofit FedFlix organization, which liberates public domain government-produced videos and makes them available to the world. These videos were produced at public expense and no one can claim to own them, but multinationals from CBS to Discovery Communications have done just that, getting YouTube to place ads on the video that deliver income to their coffers. What’s more, their false copyright claims could lead to the suspension of FedFlix’s YouTube account under Google’s rules for its copyright policing system. This system, ContentID, sets out penalties for “repeat offenders” who generate too many copyright claims — but offers no corresponding penalties for rightsholders who make too many false claims of ownership.

Malamud’s 146-page report from FedFlix to the Archivist of the United States documents claims that companies such as NBC Universal, al-Jazeera, and Discovery Communications have used ContentID to claim title to FedFlix videos on YouTube. Some music royalty collecting societies have claimed infringements in “silent movies”.

These companies’ claims – there are hundreds of them – have the potential to generate black marks on FedFlix’s YouTube account, and these black marks could lead to automated punishment from YouTube. Accounts that generate claims can be suspended or deleted, or lose the right to mark videos as being available as Creative Commons or public domain files.

YouTube offers very little help for FedFlix. ContentID’s dispute resolution mechanism allows FedFlix to contest these claims under only three circumstances: first, ContentID has generated a false match (that is, the video isn’t what ContentID thinks it is); second, the uploader has the right to the file, as demonstrated by written permission from its proprietor; or third, the use is acceptable under the US doctrine of fair use, or its counterpart in other laws, fair dealing.

The pirates of YouTube