Are you Fur Real?

The use of real fur in fashion has, in recent years, sparked huge protest from various extremist groups, People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) in particular. But the presence of fur in the fashion world can be contested in numerous ways.Animal Rights extremists argue that there is no need for designers to use real fur in today’s world when there are such realistic and “ethically correct” imitation furs that can be used.This is the argument hurled at Blackglama’s new fur campaign headed by Liz Hurley. She has been on the receiving end of some harsh criticism from PETA claiming that “her wardrobe is now as dead as her career”.With groups such as PETA on the war path you may ask why designers still insist on using real fur when it is so blatantly going to attract such extreme protest with the splashing of red paint, wine, or any other “ethical” substances over any fur garments worn in public.Maybe these extreme animal rights activists are demonstrating a valid argument and the existence of such realistic fur imitations has made the need for real fur redundant, making the use of real fur in fashion ethically unacceptable.However, when considering the debate surrounding fur, we must go back to our caveman roots and remember that in those early days, real fur was used for survival to keep warm. There were no ethical issues in those simpler times. So if the cavemen of our primitive world thought it natural to use the animal’s fur, why do we have a problem with it now? And if Liz Hurley wishes to regress to those prehistoric times then who are we, or PETA, to judge?But perhaps it’s all merely a publicity stunt nowadays with phrases such as “there is no such thing as bad publicity” being coined in the minds of many of those who are hungry for exposure. With well known celebrities such as Natalie Imbruglia heading PETA’s own anti-fur campaign, we must consider the obvious publicity that these situations induce. So we must ask, is this all a PR stunt for the models and the fashion industry that animal rights activists are playing into? Or are groups such as PETA just as aware of the benefit of such publicity as everyone else?

Kangaroo's Hopping Onto our Screens in the New Year

It would seem that despite the current financial climate the whole IPTV/Video on Demand market is bubbling along nicely.Recent reports suggest that the joint TV on demand venture between ITV, Channel 4 and the Beeb will be hitting our screens early 2009.According to the Guardian"It is understood that Project Kangaroo will go into alpha mode in December with the uploading of programming content and aims to launch trials of the service early next year.The trials, or beta phase, will see a limited number of users allowed to access the service in a strictly closed test of the service's usability and functionality."Should we be asking Santa for an ADSL 2+ net connection or will the project be killed off by the Competition Commission before it even gets going?

Two cheers for the NHS

Of all the categories of sensitive data, it is information about our health and our medical histories that is perhaps the most personal and private.For example, you wouldn’t want a stranger – or worse, a colleague – knowing that you’re being prescribed Anusol Ultra for your chalfonts, would you? Nor would you want your boss to know about the methadone prescription, or your mother to know about your latest suicide attempt. Unless, of course, it was a cry for help.But even if it contains nothing as dramatic as an overdose, we tend to guard our medical history very jealously.So it may come as a shock to learn that not only has the NHS amassed a central database of around one billion confidential records of patient visits to hospital, it is routinely sending some of these records to an academic organisation outside the NHS. These records contain personally identifiable information, such as postcodes and NHS numbers, as well as medical information, including diagnoses and any treatment given.Now, a certain breed of querulous privacy advocate will start whining the moment they hear the words “giant database” in conjunction with “confidential data”. Not so data grub: we understand that there are often the very best reasons for aggregating personal data, as long as stringent measures are in place to ensure absolute confidentiality.In this case, the aim is to use this vast resource of information to improve the NHS’s service and treatment outcomes, which I think we can agree is a Good Thing.The other good news is that both the NHS and the academic organisation that uses this data, the inanely-titled Dr Foster Unit, seem to have taken decent precautions to protect patients. All data is held on encrypted discs and is sent by secure courier, which is a pretty good start. Then, at the Dr Foster Unit, the data is kept in secure offices, on disc-less workstations which have no link to the Internet.While this compares pretty favourably with the cavalier approach towards data security shown by other public sector bodies, among them the Ministry of Justice, the MoD and the Department for Work and Pensions, it’s certainly far from perfect.Our main gripe is that personally identifiable information (PII) is contained within the data that’s being sent out of the NHS. While PII such as postcodes may be vital for making distinctions between different areas of a town or the country, surely the NHS should secure people’s informed consent if they are to use their data in this way?So, two cheers for the NHS and the Dr Foster Unit for at least trying to apply best practice to the use of sensitive data. But, as we asked at the beginning, why should anyone other than one’s doctor be able to look at your confidential medical history, even if it’s just some academic at Imperial College?Now, if they anonymised this PII irreversibly, ensuring that records cannot be traced to an individual, while at the same time remaining useful to the bean counters (all perfectly possible with today’s technology), well – that would be just what the doctor ordered.

Pirates Français de P2P Feel the Noose Tightening

French file-sharers take note. This week the French senate voted 297 to only 15 in favour of introducing the controversial “three-strike” rule, giving ISPs the right to disconnect suspected illegal file-sharers if two warnings are ignored.This position runs contrary to the European Parliament’s view which rejected the “three-strike rule” in a vote back in April.After the vote one MEP said, “The vote shows that MEPs want to strike a balance between the interests of rights holders and those of consumers, and that big measures like cutting off internet access shouldn't be used."In Britain, ISPs favour a self regulatory approach and have formed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) agreement between copyright holders and six of the UK's largest ISPs, accounting for around 9 in 10 consumer connections. However, the MOU doesn’t go as far as suggesting how persistent file-sharers should be dealt with and we are still waiting to find out exactly what happens to these alleged infringers.

Orange Turn Phorm Blue

Orange might not be the first ISP to denounce the behavioural advertising service of Phorm (take a look at the 'Proud to be Phorm free! ISP) but they're certainly the largest.Paul-François Fournier, senior vice-president of Orange’s online advertising division, told the FT that there was “huge potential” for telecommunication companies to use customer data to target advertising but managing customers’ privacy was “critical”.“Privacy is in our DNA, so we need to be honest and clear about what we are doing,” Mr Fournier said. “We have decided not to be in Phorm because of that ... The way it was proposed, the privacy issue was too strong.”However, he didn't go quite so far as to say they'd never use it or a company in the same space such as NebuAd or FrontPorch.Currently Orange appear to be the consumer champions and perhaps this is something that BT should have thought about before unleashing the service on 10,000 unsuspecting customers back in 2006 and 2007. Although it would seem that it's not a case of once bitten twice shy as BT has gone for round two with Phorm.

A Dog is for Life, Not Just for the Battery Lifespan

On one hand, the Nintendogs virtual pets are great for those fad loving kids who are easily bored and will lose interest in a real life pet once the novelty wears off. So in that sense they are effective in fulfilling that initial short-lived desire for a pet.On the other hand, they mislead the owners of these gadgets into believing that owning a pet is less involved and a lot simpler than it really is. Although you have to clean up the pooch’s poops on the console, it fails to include pet care, vet visits, medication costs, and general taming; therefore failing to provide an accurate experience of owning a pet dog. What about the true cost and chores of owning a pet?If having a pet dog was as simple as the Nintendog suggests then we would all have a cute little odourless puppy in our home that rolls over when we tickle its collar and wags its tails permanently with joy. But this joyful experience of owning a pet dog is vastly different from the reality which involves a muddy, smelly pooch running around on a mission of destruction.It therefore projects an unrealistic or rose-tinted view of owning a dog that can lead to people upgrading to real life pets without being fully prepared or informed about what this will entail.In a society where 26 page documents are released informing pet owners on how to entertain and mentally stimulate your pets so ensure their mental stability, it seems ludicrous to simultaneously be “dumbing down” the reality of owning a pet. Surely we are being sent contradictory messages.If the Nintendogs are meant to be an accurate depiction of a live pet dog then surely the same animal welfare rules should apply and owners should make every effort to ensure and monitor a mentally stable pet, but the software just does not accommodate for the mental support for pets. So, for a hassle free, clean and tidy alternative for a real life pet, Nintendogs offers a simple virtual imitation. But do not be fooled into thinking that owning a real life pet will be quite as simple.

Doubting Thomas?

We’re big fans of Richard Thomas here at data grub.Mr Thomas, as any fule kno, is the UK’s Information Commissioner and head of the Information Commissioner’s Office. They’re the independent regulatory office dealing with all sorts of privacy legislation like the Data Protection Act, the Freedom of Information Act and many others too numerable and mind-numbing to mention.Put succinctly, Mr Thomas and his team are there to prevent the creeping threat of a Big Brother state, and also to stop any attempt by private companies to read our emails, share our data or plant transponders in our brains that constantly remind us that Sud-U-Like Washes Even Whiter.It’s a pretty thankless task, but one that he and his team have been doing pretty bloody well, at least in my opinion. They’re not afraid to stand up for citizens’ privacy when it’s genuinely threatened by big business or big government, while at the same time ever-ready to slap down spurious, misinformed petitions from bleating, single issue, self-important “privacy experts”. (I think you’ll know whom I’m referring to, Alex…)So even though the latest utterance to pass the Commissioner’s lips could have come from the Department of The Bleeding Obvious, at least it’s being said by someone whose words carry weight.In a speech yesterday Mr Thomas warned that the proliferation of ever larger centralised databases is increasing the risk of people’s personal data being lost or abused.He also drew attention to bears’ predilection for sylvan defecation and raised questions about the Pope’s dedication to Islam.But sometimes you do need to state the obvious, loudly and often. This is one such time.Because on Tuesday, Jacqui Smith was forced to admit that the Government will soon begin technical work on its giant database of all email, text, phone and web traffic – even though the legislation has yet to be passed by Parliament.Of course, the present Government is completely contemptuous of Parliament and will go ahead with its plans whatever Richard Thomas, or anyone else, says.Which is a shame, because much of Mr Thomas’ speech was given over to a report on how reported data losses have soared in the past year. The number of data breaches - including lost laptops and memory sticks containing sensitive personal records - reported to him has risen to 277 since the loss of 25 million child benefit records was disclosed nearly a year ago.The new figures show that the information commissioner has recently launched investigations into 30 of the most serious cases. The 277 breaches include 80 reported by the private sector, 75 within the NHS and other health bodies, 28 reported by central government, 26 by local authorities and 47 by the rest of the public sector.Mr Thomas pointed out that as new technology is harnessed to collect vast amounts of personal information, the risks of it being abused increase: “It is time for the penny to drop,” he said. “The more databases that are set up and the more information exchanged from one place to another, the greater the risk of something going wrong.”“The more you centralise data collection, the greater the risk of multiple records going missing or wrong decisions about real people being made.”It is not difficult to grasp this concept, Jacqui. It is a simple, elegantly expressed and indisputable fact. But why listen to boring old Richard Thomas?Sir Ken Macdonald, the director of public prosecution (DPP), speaking after Smith’s admission, weighed in to warn that the government was in danger of “breaking the back of freedom” with the relentless pressure of a security state.But I think Richard Thomas’ point is the stronger – if we can’t trust the government with our private data now, how the hell are we supposed to trust it when it holds details of all electronic communications in the UK?By the way, have a look at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/oct/29/data-security-breach-civil-liberty for Thomas’ table on this year’s data breaches.Ta ta for now, data chums!