PR from the Beach

So has the first Cyber War begun?

Amazon has now had a blip, Mastercard and others have experience distributed-denial-of-service attacks and Saturday's UK Guardian announces that the hackers claim the first global cyber war has begun.

Back in 2006, when I first stumbled on the film 'V for Vendetta' you would have been hard pressed to find anyone who would go along with the conspiracy theories that fuelled the plot. After all, they would say, nothing like that could possibly happen in this day and age - we're much too smart. And besides, ordinary folk just don't get off the benches and do that sort of thing. Interesting then that the Anonymous group, alleged to be behind the attacks, has adopted the Guy Fawkes mask from the film as their collective avatar as they ostensibly stand up against the demise of the WikiLeaks site and arrest of Assange. But are they the 'ordinary folk' behind the mask that they purport to be? Elsewhere the hackers have been described as ordinary people rising up to 'right the wrongs' they perceive to have occurred. There are definitely some serious wrongs going on in this sorry saga, but I do wonder if these 'ordinary hackers' are sincere in their stand for 'the people's rights' , whether they have stopped to consider the consequences of their actions or whether they are merely keen to exercise a little anarchistic muscle.

It might seem inconsequential for most of us - something happening beyond our control out there in cyberspace - where, let's face it, many mostly go to check Facebook, chat on Twitter or email out some Christmas greetings.  Truth is, even if claims of the first global cyber war have been exaggerated, the implications of the online actions of all those involved - from WikiLeaks, to Governments, hackers to downloaders - are considerable.

I've written about this before (back in 2007) and again more recently following the China hacks and we all need to be concerned, aware of what can and can't be done in such circumstances and also - most importantly - that the web is not the bastion of free speech that many of us would like to believe it to be.  Frustratingly, not many people seem to care and, worryingly, there is very little collective business, individual or organisational will to address the problems this sort of denial of service can cause or to address the social and economic impact it will have on the real ordinary people who will find they can't get their money, or buy food or operate within a system increasingly dependent on online interactions. Somehow I can't see the hackers themselves coughing up the cash refused to the hungry, cold pensioner because 'the computer says no'.

I am sure I am not alone in thinking that the players who withdrew services from the WikiLeaks site did so to maintain their political licence to operate, rather than to ensure everyone toed the line when it came to site terms and conditions. Shame should rest on the political masters who may have engineered such reactions.  I am also convinced that at least some of the hackers currently dealing out 'payback' are doing it because the WikiLeaks affair provides a useful sandbox environment that allows them to see just how far they can get. Now, as always, two wrongs don't make a right.

As with all wars, the innocent are the ones caught in the middle and even a cyber war will see casualties mounting. Sadly, I suspect the first great loss will be the opportunity the web provides for Freedom of Speech. Another bleakly Orwellian view I can glimpse is that Freedom of Thought would be the next human right to bite the dust as first the governments, then the web giants, then the hackers seek to control - from behind their respective and particular masks - what we say and do online and off, as well as what we are allowed to hear and see.

 

Applaud Obama for sure. But the Nobel Peace Prize? Premature I'd say.

Barack Obama appears to have achieved a great deal on the 'home front' in a relatively short time but the announcement that he has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize took me completely by surprise  because I was unaware he had made any significant contribution to 'World Peace'.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the US is still at war in Afghanistan? Troops are still in Iraq are they not? Sabre rattling continues towards Iran and North Korea. There is still chaos in the Middle East? Or did I miss something?

Obama has been concentrating on domestic issues since his inauguration. He has given many hopeful speeches, visited a number of countries and even found time to pop to Europe and give his support for an Olympic bid. Hard-working as he is, and even though his speeches inspire hope in many people around the world, my understanding has always been that a Nobel Prize has always been a mark of great contribution in a particular sphere. For actions - not just words.

As far as I am aware there isn't a Nobel Prize for Hope (although perhaps there should be). In the absence of such an award, I think those who decide these matters have opted to give him the Peace Prize as the next best thing. Trouble is, it puts enormous pressure on one man to achieve 'greatness'. He is actually going to have to do something now, other than just deliver a cool speech.

As Shakespeare once wrote: 'Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them'. My concern for Obama is that in having greatness thrust upon him in this way he will mistakenly present himself cross-gartered to the world and end up as foolish as Malvolio.

Only the silence seems to grow in face of global food shortages

It is nearly a year since I first blogged about the severe food shortages in North Korea. Today, conditions are much worse, to the point where the cloistered North is even contemplating asking for help from South Korea - so things must be bad. But North Korea is not alone in this predicament. More than three million people face starvation in Nepal, thanks to crop failures caused by climate change. The Solomon Islands face food shortages, again brought about by climate change, and the list grows by the day - Kenya, Sudan and 'closer to home' as well, with warning bells sounding in the UK over the need to address food production and agricultural issues.

North Korea's problems are seeded by its political system but many other places around the world face food shortages because of disaster, climate extremes and price hikes caused by unsustainable practices. Again, glancing back to this time last year, we were teetering at the edge of the global financial meltdown, yet warnings went unheeded and it seemed that everyone was wise only after the event. 

Signs, indicators and trends point towards food security being a major issue for millions of people in the coming year, yet the majority of mainstream media outlets are as slow to catch on to food security as they were the financial blow-outs. In western economies, price is the main issue, rather than scarcity. There is plenty of food in the shops but as jobs disappear and incomes are cut access to that food is reduced. So what's to be done? The 'agencies' - Oxfam, World Vision, the UN and many others - are all doing their part to raise not just awareness of the problem but also stimulate action to prevent conditions worsening. Sadly, as soon as one famine fire looks like it might be extinguished, another takes its place.

Mainstream media seems obstinate in its refusal to' effectively report on famines, food security issues and food shortages yet it is an issue that is going to touch each and every one of us at some point - probably sooner than we think. 

So what can we do? Talk to people about it. Blog about it. Look around and see how you can help. It might mean you decided to grow veggies in the back yard for yourself or it might mean finding a channel to make your voice heard, so that those with the power and resources to help those dying from hunger do so.

Today, 1.02 billion people are hungry. That is a huge number. A ridiculous number. Almost beyond comprehension. So boil it down - see each individual for the person they are, a person just like you but who needs our help. It is easy to imagine one child. Well, one child dies every five seconds from hunger-related causes. So in the time it has taken for you to read this, five children will have died. I think that is something worth raising our voices over, don't you?

Afghan men can now starve their wives. How can we let such a law exist?

A great deal of hot air is generated by bloggers and other commentators when it comes to the power of the web to change things. The potential exists for sure - and yet a law like this can be passed today,in 2009, when we are all supposed to be 'civilised' human beings.

It is not a just or reasonable law that allows husbands to starve their wives if they do not have sex. The law of any land should protect, guard and provide justice for all, not create situations where human rights are so obviously and dreadfully undermined. Where are the cries of international condemnation? Cloaked and hidden beneath the politics of Afghanistan no doubt, which is of small comfort to the women this law will imprison, kill and degrade. Surely, as we have the freedom and the tools to protest, we could use that freedom to oppose such oppression and in doing so, turn at least some of the hot air into something tangible and of real value?

This month, Amnesty International has been running a series of Dinners for Dignity, where participants host a dinner in their own homes, raise some modest funds, send off some postcards asking for someone's freedom and toast - in water, soup, tea, coffee or whatever is to hand - the many freedoms we all enjoy yet probably take for granted.  There is still time to take part and in doing so, perhaps you could spare some time to write, campaign or make your voice heard in opposition to this dreadful law.  As the paraphrased Burke quote goes:

"All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to remain silent".

I'll take that to mean all of us as Burke lived at a time when the majority of women were treated as chattels and possessions, rather than humans worthy of dignity. I would further lament that although it was attributed to Burke, philosopher and politician of the 1700s, the sentiment - whether expressed by him or not - unfortunately remains resonant to this day.

Don't worry about owning social media - just defend it

There is a blog post today from Text 100 about 'who owns social media', which came to my notice via @creoceo.  In this case, they suggest this 'duel' is between public relations and advertising. Personally, I think they might just have too much time on their hands. This week we remember those who died in Tiananmen Square. A week in which China was so keen to minimise global and domestic memories of this protest and the subsequent slaughter they snuffed out access to social media channels like Twitter and others. Given this situation, surely to goodness any social media discussion should be revolving around something more productive than 20th century-style turf wars?

For more years than I care to remember I have been trotting round various countries helping public relations practitioners and others understand and come to grips with the disruptive technologies that make up the social media environment. Every time I advise them that as practitioners, we are the navigators in this environment, working alongside those we are helping to build the relationships they need to operate. We need to understand the channels, know how to work them, understand when and why to engage with them - and it is vital to our work that we do this. But I don't own social media - nor would I want to. I am far more interested in it remaining a suite of unfiltered, direct, open access channels that allow me to listen, engage, act and build with those communities I work with and alongside.

What I have become passionately concerned about is the lengths that some are going to in order to block access to the channels, or disrupt them, or switch them on and off according to political whim. This is of great concern and, I believe, should be the burning discussion among practitioners - not 'who owns it, ads or PR' - what a very old fashioned discussion!

Twenty years ago, a student jumped the barriers in Tiananmen Square and tried to stop a line of tanks. He stood, bravely and passionately, for free speech and, momentarily, for freedom itself. The world seemingly chose to ignore China's actions that day - or at least, let them get away with it. It would seem that 20 years on, the actions taken to curb, restrict and crush free speech, this time on the internet rather than the streets, have also been ignored.

For all those social media advocates out there - these actions are ignored at our collective peril. If access can be turned off and on by political whim, who really gives two hoots about who *owns* something that by its very nature is unable to be possessed. Our concern will be that we can no longer access, connect or share with each other. That to me, is of considerable significance. Discuss.

Expenses error? Pah! Clapham Omnibus Man would be in Clink!

Politicians in the UK have been in the spotlight for the last week or two after revelations concerning the abuse of expense accounts. Seems like most of them have been 'at it' and the original protestations centred around the whole affair being 'a problem with the system' and 'the system needs overhauling'. Well I'm sorry, but no system includes claiming expenses on something that is already paid off and I can't believe that anyone with a real sense of public duty would for one moment imagine that this or some of the expenses claimed were legitimate.

Had any ordinary citizens - the Man on the Clapham Omnibus for example - made such claims they would have been banged up for fraud. And how on earth did these expenses get past the Inland Revenue? Ordinary employees face reels of red tape when it comes to 'perks', 'expenses', or 'company benefits' with the laws on company cars a classic example.  How the MPs have got away with it all this time is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps the real perk of being a British MP is that you can blatantly circumvent the laws that govern everyone else?

Stephen Fry made some good points about the media coverage of the scandal when he was interviewed for Newsnight but even though I agreed with his observations on journalists' inclinations when it came to their expenses, MPs are servants of the public and as such should always remember the money they have to spend - or claim - comes from the hard work of others via their taxes. Something is rotten in the State of Britain - and requires some urgent sorting out.

Selling hot air - should we believe everything the physicist says about Google?

I was taken by the digibabble about an alarmist piece published by Times Online, centred on the observations of physicist  Alex Wissner-Gross who suggests that a single Google search generates 7g of CO2, versus around 15g for a tea kettle. He also, as pointed out in a thoughtful piece in the Washington Post by Jason Kincaid, was the co-founder of CO2Stats, which sells software that will help you make your website 'greener'.

Personally, I think all forms of CO2 trading are deeply suspect and everytime I read about a new phase in its history I am again reminded of 'The Emperor's New Clothes'.  Generally, is CO2 trading undertaken for profit? Yes. Does someone somewhere take 'commission' on the trades made? Yes. Does CO2 trading allow a quick fix rather than change behaviours? Yes.

But this company doesn't do CO2 trading and in fact is quite clear about what it does - and doesn't - do.  In its FAQ it states:

"CO2Stats is software that (1) helps to make your site more energy-efficient, and (2) provides your site with automatically-purchased renewable energy (from audited wind and solar farms) each month. CO2Stats software meters the energy used by your servers, visitors' computers and the networks that connect them in order to calculate how much energy is required to make your site green. You can monitor these calculations in real time by clicking on your Green Certified Site™ badge. "

It goes on to explain that they only from audited wind and solar farms and everything is all green and ethically lovely - but it is still a 'for profit' enterprise that will set you back between US$4.95 to US99.95.  Obviously there is a sliding scale of green-ness and it would seem you can be 'a bit green' at $4.95 or 'super green' at just under $100.

This sort of programme seems very similar in nature to the convoluted 'financial products' dreamed up over recent years which have recently come crashing down to earth as stocks have fallen, trust undermined and promises left unfulfilled.

I think what we have here is a very clever use of mainstream media designed to prick the conscience of your average net user, driving them to the good physicist's site in order to prompt them into believing they should be buying this software if they want to stay green and clean. After all, why change your actual behaviour when $4.95 will see you right?

I don't often have much sympathy with Google, but in this case I feel they have been used to grab headlines which in turn are being used to drive traffic - the very thing the esteemed young scientist was supposedly warning against. Or maybe I missed something?

I don't doubt the statistics reproduced in the articles (which I believe were generated from his research) but I do find myself wondering about the transparency and motivation behind the piece.  Attacking Google by combining some credible looking stats, the words 'green' and 'environment' plus a scientist's title and 'new research' and you have a sure-fire way of stirring up mainstream and online media conversation and driving traffic - not to mention the profits of a relatively new start up.

Fed up with your own country? Well here's a virtual one for you inhabit

A New Year invitation to become a citizen of what is claimed to be the world's first virtual country - not a virtual world - is out there for all to accept.  Wirtland (pronounced Virtland I believe) was established in August 2008 and Cristopher Luengo, the country's external relations manager is currently busy with a ning site, connecting on Linkedin and other social networking platforms.  It will be interesting to see what relationships he forges, whether public relations will be at the heart of Wirtland's 'international diplomacy' and what GDP tally results over time.

It is a novel concept and Wirtland's latest information suggests Bulgaria is discussing official recognition of this new country without borders. The thought occurs to me that if everyone starts setting up their own virtual countries will we simply transport the problems of the fabric, real world, into the web states that are brought into being?  Or would it be possible to create something new and more workable than the states we have now?  It looks unlikely - after all one of the first activities of the Wirtland community seems to be running a 'Miss Wirtland' contest. Not necessarily something I feel might change either the virtual or real worlds. I can think of other things I would want to do first - especially as they seem to be quite earnest in their endeavours.  If they put up an entry for the Eurovision Song Contest then I'll know it's a gag.  That said, is online dominion the logical next stage for Web 2.0?  Or would any 'new country' simply descend into the kind of digibabble that we find on Twitter and similar tools?

Anyone who is not happy with their own country can become a Witizen and will get a passport and other documents to prove they belong.  The creators stress it is not a virtual world, in the same sense as Second Life, but a sovereign country that simply has no borders.  So if you fancy emigrating online, now's your chance, before the virtual 'land rush' begins.

"Christmas is for Children", goes the saying - unless of course you are a child soldier in Darfur...

My youngest child is 12 years old. We have - like many other families around the world - been happily getting ready for Christmas over the last couple of days.  Amidst the comfort we are fortunate enough to share, I find it hard to imagine a world where at 12, my youngest would be given a gun and forced to march to war.  And yet here I am, living in such a world.

Today I read - yet again - of the increased numbers of child soldiers, this time in Darfur.  In Darfur, which has hosted such horror and tragedy for the last five years, it is perhaps no surprise that so many thousands of children have been drafted into action. But is it not just in Darfur. Elsewhere in the world, children are forced into military service or used in some way to further conflict. In May this year, in case you missed it, the Coalition to stop the use of Child Soldiers published its global report on the use of children by governments, rebels, militia and others around the world.  It makes grim reading and you feel pretty powerless to act by the end. But despite the grim read, we can all do something to help  and, if you feel so moved, I would urge you to at least trawl the Coalition's site and look at some of the things that can be done to chip away at the circumstances that cause our young and vulnerable to be exploited and damaged in this way.

This small excerpt from the report, gives an indication as to the scope of the problem:

...the Coalition’s research reveals a number of disturbing findings that make it clear that the efforts to date have been insufficient.

The first of these findings is perhaps the most stark. It is this: when armed conflict breaks out, reignites or intensifies, children will almost inevitably become involved as soldiers. The Central African Republic, Chad, Iraq, Somalia and Sudan (Darfur) are all cases in point.

Next, efforts to demobilize children during conflict have met with only limited success. Peace remains the main hope for securing the release of child soldiers from armed forces and groups, a fact that further reinforces the importance of child protection being integral to peace negotiations, as well as the need for explicit provisions relating to child soldiers in ceasefire and peace agreements.

The impact of efforts to end child soldier recruitment and use by armed groups has been similarly limited. Armed groups in at least 24 countries located in every region of the world were known to have recruited under-18s and many have used them in hostilities. Many have proved resistant to pressure and persuasion. Their widely diverse characters, aims and methods, and the varied environments in which they operate militate against generic solutions. Effective strategies must be multifaceted and context-specific. Above all, they must address root causes. Poor governance and its effects, including impoverishment, inequality, discrimination and human rights abuses, are all known to contribute to the risk that children will be recruited by armed groups. While such conditions persist, children will remain vulnerable to involvement in armed forces and groups.

The report is only published every few years.  Perhaps by taking some time out from the turkey we could each play a small part by doing something that might create hope - and peace - for these children.

Cast a wary eye North as Iceland riots over crisis

Currently being reported as food riots in some blogs, the unrest in Iceland sees a physical manifestation of the financial meltdown that left the country all but bankrupt and, at times, facing severe food shortages. 

Here's the ITN report on YouTube and a report from The Scotsman.  Check on some of the blog conversations and you will see they are being dubbed 'food riots'.  Reviewing what has gone on, the riots are less about food and more about the future people see themselves facing - although I worry that the question of food may come into the protests soon. The actions taken by normally placid Icelandic citizens demonstrate the extent to which trust in the system - and those responsible for running the system - has been lost  We have seen food riots elsewhere in the world throughout this year (April was particulary notable for this)  and although any sort of riot is disturbing, a food riot, perhaps more than any other expresses the desperation people feel when they are cornered and without hope when it comes to the essentials of life. I think we will see more actual food riots from previously peaceful people in the months ahead and not simply because there are food shortages - primarily because people will simply not be able to afford the basics. Here in NZ, the average family food bill has risen by at least $35 - $50 per week in the last twelve months.

Without wishing to be a doom-mongerer - rather acting as an observant forecaster - there's definitely a storm brewing. Good crisis communication starts with tackling and resolving the issue long before it becomes a crisis.  Sadly, the issue has been around for the last eighteen months (longer in many parts of the globe) but very little overt action has been taken to address this fundamental concern for every single person. Hatches are not being battened, the political fallout will be extreme and the social cost immense. Oh dear.