The BBC reports (Google to launch operating system) that Google will release an operating system aimed at netbooks in 2010. I particularly like the HAL9000-like logo (see picture). There's a collection of media comments on this development, mostly commenting on the threat to Windows.

Of course, netbooks kicked off with a focus on Linux as their OS, until MS realised they'd committed a strategic blunder and moved to "suggest" to the PC manufacturers that they ought to use Windows XP, which miraculously had its lifetime extended (though this may have been in part due to the poor reception of Vista and its capacity to gobble up computer resources). So forgive me for being a little sceptical that the Chrome OS will unseat Windows in the netbook market (but I would be delighted to be proven wrong - we certainly need a more competitive OS marketplace).

Apologies for the intermittent service over the last 24 hours.  I appear to be having database issues, which I'm trying to rectify.  I'd expect access to the site to be a bit flaky for the next day or so until I can get this fixed.

I have just upgraded this site's blogging software from MyBlog version 2 to version 3 (from Azrul), everything seems to be working OK, but let me know if there are any issues.  I have noticed cosmetic changes, most notably the raindrop panel on the front page, but there seem to be significant improvements in the system's functionality (this posting is mostly to see how they work!). 

The forums at nodpi.org are an extremely useful source of information on Phorm and allied aspects of internet privacy issues.  In particular, I've recently found that their coverage of the appearance of the Phorm website which aims to smear their opposition has been fun, particularly the whole "privacy pirate" schtick.  More seriously, some of the accsations on that site have proven to be untrue.  Clearly the nodpi website continues to be a thorn in the side of Phorm - I strongly recommend that broadband customers of British Telecom have a look at the discussions there.

Supporters of Phorm sometimes post on a number of discussion forums around the web, including nodpi, leave comments on articles critical of Phorm (it must be an uphill battle, as most of the articles I see on the topic seem to be critical of Phorm), etc, as it their right.  Last night it seems that a concerted assault on the nodpi forums took place, with Phorm supporters posting articles containing pornographic material and personal attacks on members. As usual, these passed me by (as I was in the land of nod), but I think it took a lot of time for the admins to clear it all up.

The Internet seems to be abuzz with a new "natural language" search engine called WolframAlpha, widely touted as a Google-killer.  But what the heck is it, and how does it work?  More to the point, how much will it cost?

There's a video from WolframAlpha which seeks to explain it...though it looks pretty spiffy, I guess they've chosen topics they know will produce visually arresting output.   Cnet News has a useful article (Wolfram Alpha shows data in a way Google can't) featuring opinion from several users.

Wikimedia, who manage Wikipedia among other sites have announced via their blog that they have officially opted out of Phorm's deep packet inspection system.  In their blog article, they indicate that one of their concerns is that by opting out, they might somehow legitimise Phorm's system.  After due consideration, they decided the appropriate action would be to opt out of the system, and they show an extensive list of URLs that have been removed.

More good news on a week of exceptionally good news on the Phorm phront.

Chris Williams of The Register certainly has been working hard, and this in a week that's absolutely stuffed with stories relating to Phorm's violation of internet privacy!  Today, he reports (Tory 'terror' affair shows danger of ubiquitous surveillance) on the circumstances surrounding the arrest a few months ago of Tory immigration spokesman Damian Green:

The "national security" justification offered by Jacqui Smith for the warrantless counter-terror police raid on a fellow member of Parliament's offices was trumped up by officials embarrassed by a series of leaks, we've now learned. The information about immigration failures fed to the Tories was politically damaging to the Labour government, but arguably in the public interest, and certainly no threat to national security.

After all the accusations of conflicts of interests (see for example 80/20 Thinking drops advisory work, after accusations of conflict of interest), Privacy International have apparently made a public statement concerning the implications of deep packet inspection on privacy.  Oddly, you can read the statement at the nodpi website (Privacy International's Official Reponse on Deep Packet Inspection), but I can't see a mention yet at Privacy International's website.  Perhaps the announcement at nodpi.org is connected with the announcement in the statement that the driving force behind nodpi, Alex Hanff, has joined the PI team on this matter:

To this end, we are pleased to announce a new addition to our team. Alexander Hanff, a social scientist and technologist who has led a long campaign against the use of Deep Packet Inspection for behavioural advertising models in the UK, will be taking the lead for Privacy International on these issues. 

We were promised consultation on the Interception Modernisation Programme (IMP) by early in 2009, but as far as I can see this hasn't happened yet.  Of course, in that time, we've seen considerable discussion of communication interception technologies (such as those devised and proposed by Phorm for commercial purposes) and the data retention directive emanating from the EC.

Now, The Register reports that developments in eavesdropping capacity are moving ahead (Spy chiefs size up net snoop gear):

Henry Porter's written in The Guardian on the growing desire of the present UK Government for data control...and the spiralling costs (Paying billions for our database state).  There are two frightening aspects.

Firstly, the evident desire of our Government to find out what we are all up to - innocent or under suspicion, we are all targets for the prying eyes of the State.

All go overnight on the anti-Deep Packet Inspection front.  Phorm are presumably a bit rattled by the developments of the last week (e.g. the EU action, the FOI requests that revealed that Government departments did not give Phorm their blessing, among others) - they have set up a bizarre website (stopphoulplay.com) to defend themselves against the likes of Alex Hanff and the nodpi.org crew.  This precipitated an article in the Daily Telegraph (Phorm chief labels critics 'serial agitators').

I suspect this will prove to be a collossal own-goal on Phorm's part.  There's a lengthy thread developing over at the nodpi.org forums, and you can read Alex Hanff's response (Privacy Pirates and Angry Activists).

So, despite Home Secretary Wacky Jacqui's decision to scrap the Interception Modernisation Programme (or at least the database aspects of it), she's still desperate for the security services to get their mitts on our internet activity.

The Register today (Jacqui's secret plan to 'Master the Internet') revealed details of the grandiosely named Mastering the Internet (MTI) project, which will see GCHQ using DPI techniques to monitor internet traffic:

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has a website of essays related to the internet and privacy, and many feature discussions of Phorm's vile and intrusive technology, tested in the UK as "Webwise".

You can view the essays here.  There are contributions from individuals on both sides of the fence (but mostly it seems anti-dpi).

The Open Rights Group have set up a spiffy site, Statebook,  to illustrate the dangers of the burgeoning Database State in the UK. 

It's an effectve illustration of how the UK's intrusive data collection habits threaten our liberties and freedom, and how the future looks to be mapped out.  The recent report from the Joseph Rowntree Trust revealed that not only is our government remarkably keen to get their dibs on considerable quantities of data on us and our movements, but that it's equally inept in obeying data protection regulations.

Lord Carter is the author of a report for the UK Government, Digital Britain.  The UK Government, its Departments and other agencies have been remarkably ineffective over the fracas about Phorm's deep packet inspection technology, its covert testing by BT in 2006 and 2007, and its more open testing by BT on 2008.

Well, what's this in a Guardian report (Government's broadband-for-all pledge in jeopardy)?

The BBC is reporting that the European Commission have launched an action against Britain over the Phorm phiasco (EC starts legal action on Phorm):

All action on the Phorm phront today.  Hot on the heels of the EC press release revealing they are taking action against the UK over Phorm comes the news that 80/20 Thinking will no longer undertake advisory work for companies (BBC News - Privacy firm drops advisory work).  This follows accusations that one of the firms founders, Simon Davies, also works for the privacy lobby group Privacy International.  The conflict of interest revolves around Davies association with Phorm - many commentators have remarked how lukewarm PI's response to the many issues of privacy that have been raised by Phorm's ISP level deep packet inspection system.

More good news on the Phorm phront.  Alex Hanff over at nodpi.org reports that Amazon exclude all their domains from Phorm's WebWise.  It has long seemed to me that it's the commercial angle that would sink Phorm's devious and parasitic plans.  Hot on the heels of the news that LiveJournal have requested exclusion from the Phorm dpi system, comes the news that Amazon, possibly the biggest internet retailer is to do likewise.

This may the the beginning of an unstoppable momentum, and follows a lengthy (and it would seem effective) campaign led by the likes of Alex Hanff, who has worked tirelessly, with more energy than I have available to work towards the extinction of Phorm's dpi.

Richard Clayton has a nice, very clearly written article on what is wrong with Phorm, over at The Guardian (Whitehall's got Phorm).  This should be required reading by news reporters who fail to grasp the real issue is the interception issue, and not the targeted adverts.

Meanwhile, Simon Davies of 80/20 Thinking and Privacy International, who has failed to make meaningful statements about Phorm (but who works as advisor to Phorm via 80/200, is quoted in an Independent report on the EC action (Internet privacy: Britain in the dock) as saying:

I blogged the other day that there might be an interesting conflict of interest in Lord Carter's office (Why Lord Carter is pro-Phorm?).  Lord Carter of course wrote the Digital Britain report, and is a bit of a mover and shaker in Government circles when it comes to digital issues such as broadband rollout (remember Phorm claim their technology will help fund broadband expansion).  The news revolved around the fact that among other activities, Phorm's Kip Meeks works as an advisor to Lord Carter.

Chris Williams of The Register has been digging (The Register - Phorm director advises UK.gov broadband minister):