the ubiquitous blog

Many years ago I signed up to a document by the name of Charter 88 which called for a new constitutional settlement which would:

1. Enshrine, by means of a Bill of Rights, such civil liberties as the right to peaceful assembly, to freedom of association, to freedom from discrimination, to freedom from detention without trial, to trial by jury, to privacy and to freedom of expression.
2. Subject executive powers and prerogatives, by whomsoever exercised, to the rule of law.
3. Establish freedom of information and open government.
4. Create a fair electoral system of proportional representation.
5. Reform the upper house to establish a democratic, non-hereditary second chamber.
6. Place the executive under the power of a democratically renewed parliament and all agencies of the state under the rule of law.
7. Ensure the independence of a reformed judiciary.
8. Provide legal remedies for all abuses of power by the state and the officials of central and local government.
9. Guarantee an equitable distribution of power between local, regional and national government.
10. Draw up a written constitution, anchored in the idea of universal citizenship, that incorporates these reforms.

All thing which you would expect to see in a mature democracy. However, over the year there has only been slow progress towards some of these aims, but at the same time there has been an increasing centralisation of power. The first past the post system has led to a situation where for most people their vote makes very little difference unless they live in a “key marginal” constancy. The two big parties spend large sums of money to run expensive poster campaigns in these key marginal. To run these campaigns they rely on large donations from a few individuals and the support of a few senior media editors and owners. Our so called leaders are becoming increasingly remote from we the people.

Maybe it was always so, but there was a time when people were far more engaged with the political process and felt they had so influence on it. In the last century the power of the squirearchy was broken by electoral reform, by giving the vote to the people, the universal franchise, thereby giving them power and their using it. However, that time has long gone there has been a constant drop in the number of people voting in elections and a loss of support for political parties, general signs of a failing democracy. What we desperately need is a change to a fairer electoral system, to a system of proportional representation.

Now suddenly the prime minister wants a referendum on changing the electoral system. OK so his preferred system “alternative vote” is far from ideal and this can be seen as a cynical attempt to hang on to power, but it is a sign of progress. It is a small step in the right direction, but not a substitute for a fully-fledged proportional system. So why are the Tories opposing it? What are they afraid of, that we may start moving towards a true democracy, where the people can actually have a real say? Every constancy should be a key marginal, not parachuting in of candidates with patronage into safe seats. So come on what are you so afraid of? Why the fear of giving the people the freedom to decide? We want a meritocracy, not mediocrity. We need Proportional Representation for the health of our democracy.

I saw an advertising poster for Google Chrome the other day, it has set me thinking. I have never seen a poster for a web browser before, why do Google feel the need to take out expensive advertising? Just cast your mind back a few years to when Google first appeared as a search engine was there a large expensive advertising campaign? No, of course not, its reputation as the most powerful search engine was spread by word of mouth and within a year of launch it was dominant around the world, a real killer app! Whereas, now Google is resorting to convention advertising to promote it’s products, could it be that that Google has lost it’s edge? That Chrome is not the killer browser it is hyped to be? Certainly looking round a few tech web sites the User ratings are far lower than the “Expert” ratings. Time will tell.

Just one further thought, when Google was hacked in China which browser were the Google employees using? Oh yes, they were using Internet Explorer for there personal browsing. Now why that browser??

Here is wishing you all a Happy New Year!!!
Glückliches neues Jahr!!
All the best for 2010 and the coming decade.

What if?

Well what if climate change is a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing? Do we really have to be completely dependent on foreign oil, pollution, and unsustainable practices in order to have jobs? Really? Or don’t you want a better world?

Project Honey Pot is a community of tens of thousands of web and email administrators from more than 170 countries around the world who are working together to track online fraud and abuse. The Project has been online since 2004 and each day receives millions of email and comment spam messages which are catalogued and shared with law enforcement and security partners.

On Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 06:20 (GMT) Project Honey Pot received its billionth email spam message. The message, a picture of which is displayed below, was a United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) phishing scam. The spam email was sent by a bot running on a compromised machine in India (122.167.68.1). The spamtrap address to which the message was sent was originally harvested on November 4, 2007 by a particularly nasty harvester (74.53.249.34) that is responsible for 53,022,293 other spam messages that have been received by Project Honey Pot.

Every time Project Honey Pot receives a message it is estimate that another 125,000 are sent to real victims. This one billionth message represents approximately 125 trillion spam messages that have been sent since Project Honey Pot started in 2004.

If you run a website, own a domain, or contribute to an online forum you can join Project Honey Pot and help stop online fraud and abuse today.