Ministers agree “in principle” to spy on all communications in Britain

Nasty, evil, Orwellian news in The Sunday Times:

Ministers are considering spending up to £12 billion on a database to monitor and store the internet browsing habits, e-mail and telephone records of everyone in Britain.

GCHQ, the government’s eavesdropping centre, has already been given up to £1 billion to finance the first stage of the project.

Hundreds of clandestine probes will be installed to monitor customers live on two of the country’s biggest internet and mobile phone providers – thought to be BT and Vodafone.

The Home Office stressed no formal decision had been taken but sources said officials had made clear that ministers had agreed “in principle” to the programme.

This is such a horrifyingly bad idea I don’t know where to begin.

The question, to quote Elliot Carver, is why? Why does the government think this will make the world a better and safer place? Don’t they understand that terrorism isn’t about killing people with bombs, it’s about spreading the fear of people being killed with bombs.

Fegh.

[image from qwghlm on flickr]

R.U.R.: the original of the robots, revived

rur_logo I’ve known about Karel Čapek‘s play R.U.R. for a long time, but I’ve never seen a production. Almost nobody has: the play was first performed in 1921, and ran for just four performances on Broadway on 1942. But now this classic science fiction play, the one which introduced the word and the concept of robots to the world, has been revived in Chicago. (Via About Last Night.)

Wall Street Journal theatre critic Terry Teachout recently reviewed it:

“R.U.R.” is a tale of modernity run amok, the story of Rossum’s Universal Robots, an island factory that manufactures lifelike but soulless artificial humans in vast quantities, then ships them all over Europe to grateful purchasers who use them to do their dirty work. This being science fiction, things inevitably go wrong: Dr. Gall (John Henry Roberts), one of the white-coated scientists in the employ of Rossum’s Universal Robots, makes the fatal mistake of building a few hundred robots that can feel emotions, upon which all hell breaks well and truly loose.

What makes “R.U.R.” so interesting is that its symbolism is wide open, meaning that it can be interpreted in any number of ways — as a satire of capitalism, a parable of the law of unintended consequences, even a critique of secular humanism and its discontents. What makes it so theatrically potent is that Capek (pronounced CHAH-puck) wrote it as a comedy that ends in apocalypse — or, in his words, “A Collective Drama in a Comic Prologue and Three Acts.” What makes this production so effective is that Shade Murray, the director, has contrived to give “R.U.R.” a contemporary, even postmodern tone without doing violence to its letter or spirit. Imagine a cross between “Ball of Fire” and “Night of the Living Dead” and you’ll get the idea: The costumes are quaint, the sets simple but implicitly futuristic, the between-scenes music space-age lounge. Stir in the brisk, witty performances of Mr. Murray’s superior cast and you get a show that is at once horrifying, entertaining and — forgive the cliché — genuinely thought-provoking.

(By the way, according to Wikipedia, a 35-minute adaptation of a portion of the play was broadcast on BBC Television in February, 1938–making it the first piece of television science fiction ever produced. A 90-minute adaptation followed in 1948.)

If you’re in Chicago and want to check it out, it runs Fridays through Sundays through October 25 at Strawdog Theatre Company, 3829 N. Broadway St.

(Image: Strawdog Theatre Company.)

[tags]theatre, science fiction, robots, androids[/tags]

Political science redux: Marketing, the Internet, and all that

Reading yet another article about how !!11!!ZOMG politicians are learning to use the interwebs!!11!!! suggests an observation, which I’ll try to make as politically neutral as possible:

If one particular candidate I’m thinking of wins the Presidency, one of the reasons is going to be how easy his Web site makes it to do volunteer work for him.  I’ve volunteered for several candidates over the years, but I have never seen anything this user-inviting.

Just an observation, but one that I think fits the mission of this site.

(Hint: His name ends in a vowel besides Y, which would be another first)

[Internet poster by Sebastian Prooth]

Would you ever use ePaper?

New corporate spinoff Liquavista are beginning work to develop practical epaper:

The technology is based on a process called electrowetting, which uses electricity to manipulate a thin layer of liquid so that it changes colour. It uses far less power than a traditional liquid crystal display (LCD) and, crucially, the individual cells change fast enough to run video.

Newspaper editors, grappling with declining circulation and the migration of advertising spending to the internet, have been hoping for years that e-paper will move beyond the drawing board into reality. The dream is for a device allowing readers to upload the newspaper in the morning, then update editorial content and ads as the day goes on, perhaps using a mobile phone or wireless connection.

I wonder if epaper-newspapers will be one of those technologies, like videophones or vitamin-pill-meals, that become technically feasible but never really take off commercially?

Think about it: you get a free paper-paper on the bus every morning and free news content on the web at work or on your laptop.

Also if devices like Microsoft’s Surface (corporate video) become ubiquitous then why bother carrying around a sheet of plasticky stuff when every table, wall, and counter has an interactive Internet-linked display?

I think it will be around as a technology, but I don’t think it will “save the newspaper” any more than wireless laptops or mobile phones will.

The issue is how you monetise content creation – rather than how it is displayed and delivered to the consumer.

[story in Guardian Unlimited][image from eriwst on flickr]

Presenting the fact and fiction of tomorrow since 2001