And that’s because it is disturbing. It’s disturbing ‘cos it’s true.

The nonsensical idea that the concern was a central database has been scotched. The next stage is to get past the details of technical implementation, to argue the principle at stake. There’s any number of ways to look at the problem. Here’s one way: considering how people communicated before the digital revolution, to how we’ve started to communicate after.

Before

The Royal Mail was founded in 1516. For almost five centuries, it has never been seriously considered that to remain a free and safe country, the government should track every single letter, parcel and postcard that we send to each other.

By every measure of quality of life, things have improved over these 496 years, and the ability of free people to write to each other in private has been one principle by which this has happened. There’s no need to overturn that principle now.

After

The advent of the internet has radically altered how people communicate. Not just letters, not just phone calls, but every kind of human interaction and query has been digitised in some form. For the few exceptions left, somebody’s working on it. The analytical tools exist to figure out a lot about you simply from your digital footprints. For instance, in a world where homophobia persists even in otherwise advanced countries, it has been demonstrated that it is possible to reasonably accurately determine your sexuality by your connections on Facebook – even if you set such information as private, and even if you don’t put it on Facebook at all.

Now imagine all the various things you do online – shopping, researching holidays, dating, etc.

In other words, the government isn’t simply updating its technology to be able to track what it tracked before. Now, the government is in practice asking for the ability to track your dating habits, your sexual preferences, your mental health, your financial status, your travel plans, your political affiliations, your sense of humour, your dress sense, your taste in music, who your lawyer knows …

All without any evidence it would make any signficant impact on our ability to tackle crime. Safeguards don’t cut it; we shouldn’t be trying to collect this information at all.

A Stasi wet dream

The Lib Dems are firmly opposed to this, with Dr Jenny Woods having moved the amendment against such powers at the recent regional conference. I was glad to contribute to her amendment, and I look forward to continuing to work to counter this Stasi wet dream. It’s time (as it always is) to fight for a free country.

Well, I don’t know who this advisor is or what advice they were giving. While fighting an election, I didn’t want to say anything (not that many people read my blog; it’s just good discipline). But if it is true as I suspect that this advisor had a role in the car crash weekend the Lib Dems suffered on the  CCDP (internet snooping programme), then I’ve some unsolicited advice on being a good advisor.

I’ve never been a spad, but I have been a technical consultant sales and marketing for a decade or so at a decent level. By all accounts, the call was what used to be my bread and butter. Frankly, the Lib Dems seem like they could do with a bit of professionalism, so with those elections out the way here’s some tips as the CCDP debate continues:

First of all, when (as was clearly the case) you don’t really understand what’s going on, avoid lines like “current reports .. are complete nonsense”. Immediate credibility destroyer. Someone somewhere reduced Lynne Featherstone – a woman I admire tremendously – to just another condescending government mouthpiece. I hope she’s bloody furious about this.

Second, if you think you understand what’s going on just because you’re connected, just because you’re in the loop – you don’t really understand what’s going on. If you were to sit in on some leadership training, for instance, it will usually include some commentary on how difficult it is to get good information the higher up the chain you are. That is in part because many advisors feel it is their job to shield the leader from the facts, rather than ensure that the essential information gets through.

Developing an instinct for which small details have a big impact is very handy indeed. Sometimes a “simple update” simply isn’t that simple.

Third, for god’s sake be prepared. We had a conference at which a policy amendment was passed on this very subject. The leader can’t be expected to pay attention to all the detail of what is passed, but his group of advisors can be and has to be. The voting public expects a party leader to be familiar with the party’s most recent policy decisions. No excuses.

(Actually, one excuse, that needs to be done away with. The conference agendas do not come with sufficient supporting information to really understand a policy and its implications unless you’re already an expert. That’s really not a healthy thing.)

Fourth, know where to go to get information when a crisis occurs. On this point, possibly the most fundamental point, it may be a problem of party structure rather than an individual failure. The Lib Dem’s open approach to forming policy means that key decisions are being driven by people outside of the inner circle, which is admittedly unusual.

That said, being an advisor to a Deputy Prime Minister – or any other minister in the UK’s first coalition government in a long time indeed – isn’t a typical job either. Unusual is what you’ve signed up for. So figure out how to reach out to the people who know what they’re talking about before shooting our elected representatives in the foot, in public. If you can’t, find someone who can. Otherwise the Lib Dems are fated never to be an effective coalition partner.

The amendment the party passed in Newcastle was filtered through quite a few experts – Jenny Woods did a fantastic job of speaking to a wide range of views. In all, there was at least a few decades of combined communications expertise that gave it the once over. All of this happened weeks before the advisers were caught by surprise. To be blunt, I was pretty pissed off to see that effectively dismissed with the line, “The proposals being considered would simply update the current rules”. Were it not quite so tragic, it would be funny that on legislation related to communications and preventing emergencies , the advisers were unable to communicate effectively and thus created an emergency.

A final tip: in a crisis situation, don’t act as if the people concerned are panicking, don’t assume you know better than the subject matter experts, and start by asking genuine questions rather than rhetorical ones that assume the answer. Our leaders have to look slick on camera; their advisors do not in private discussions. So take a dose of humility, give people space to raise their concerns, and just sodding get the job done i.e. ensure your bosses are adequately informed instead of trying to make decisions on their behalf.

This post is admittedly rather speculative. Still, it’s based on a fair whack of experience; these are all mistakes I’ve made before at least a few times each. There were also several blog posts about that conference call, so the symptoms are all there. I’d bet a tenner I’m not too wide of the mark regarding some of the problems we’ve been experiencing in the rarified halls of Gt George St.

The thing is, just as a competitive market doesn’t give you a break, neither do the voters. At least, not to a junior coalition partner during a major economic slump. Everything seems to have been catching the party by surprise since May 2010. We have everything from a stalled recovery to a reputation for dismantling the NHS to two years of bad election results to make it clear we’ve not been doing a great job.

Hopefully the leadership can up their game and start getting ahead of the curve. It will be interesting to see how the Queen’s Speech goes. I doubt we have much goodwill left to be making amateur mistakes.

This year was my first time helping win an election, which turns out to be a remarkably good feeling. So well done Ricky Duveen, Peter Beard and Meri O’Connell. Ricky and Peter are Lib Dem councillors in my Lib Dem local branch of Tilehurst – except that Peter isn’t, because he retired from politics this year and picked the quite magnificently successful and wonderful Meri O’Connell to stand in his stead.

Ricky, Meri and Peter

We couldn’t have had a better campaign organiser than Ricky. He planned, prepared, and got things done .. all the while happily leaving the spotlight to show offs and egotists like me. His core team of Peter, Meri, Jenny and myself could always pitch up confident of a well-run canvassing or surveying session. Along the way, he kept on top of the data and drove a successful direct mail operation, too (I’ve never stuffed so many envelopes in my life). He and Pete also coordinated an effective delivery network, tellers for the polling stations, and requests for further help as the campaign built up.

On which note, we have to thank all those from outside the branch who came along as election day approached. Ricky’s fellow branch chairs Kirsten Bayes (Central) and Annette Hendry (Caversham) encouraged their branch members along; we had a visit from Catherine Bearder MEP and our group leader Daisy Benson got Duncan Hames MP along; visitors from West Berks and London; folding and stuffing parties; admin contributions from time-constrained activists like Dave Warren in Southcote ward. It was truly a team effort. Apologies for not listing all the names of those who helped; it really was quite a strong crowd that came along in the final days of the campaign.

Special mention has to go to Janel Blattler and James Moore, our hard working candidates in Katesgrove and Redlands wards, who were defending Lib Dem seats against tough odds and quite a few of the Shadow Cabinet. They joined too many Lib Dem candidates and councillors in not seeing their work rewarded by the voters; their unbowed presence on the day was appreciated.

Shout outs, too, to Mustafa Chaudhary, a recent recruit and great candidate on short notice in Peppard, and to Margaret McNeil for all her art working skills (not just for Tilehurst but for all of Reading and I believe even a bit beyond!). Finally, Ricky’s Ruth and Meri’s Mark kindly let their other half disappear for hours at a time, although Peter’s wife is now going to have to get used to him being about more :)

The committee room on election day had a fantastic atmosphere of camaraderie. Some tension due to a quarrelsome EARS system aside, we had a calm and well paced day of good morning leaflets, telling and knocking up. It finally culminated in the early hours of Friday morning with a strong win for Meri, turning a 200 Tory majority last year into a 300 Lib Dem majority for 2012.

This marks a fitting end to Peter Beard’s career as a representative of Reading. Peter was first elected to council back in 1974. After a stirling three decades plus of public service, he couldn’t have picked a better successor than Meri O’Connell.

Meri is our school governor, judo instructor, library helper, mother-of-three and possessor of fantastic hair (sorry, very shallow that last bit, but her red hair makes a Celt proud!). Perhaps the biggest challenge of the campaign was getting round a canvass session in a timely fashion – she has to be dragged away from talking to her constituents. She was a fantastic candidate; she’ll be a brilliant councillor.

Meri and I met at our first Reading Liberal Drinks, along with another first time attendee, Jenny Woods. None of us knew each other, and we were the first three there that night. It is a very odd thing to ask strangers in a pub if they happen to be there for the politics. Goes against the usual rules. But we got on and get on rather well.

Jenny proved to be the very embodiment of a targeting strategy. Since fall 2011, Sunday after Sunday, month after month, Jenny traipsed across Reading to help out with canvassing, surveys and leafletting in a different branch. Without a shadow of a doubt, no-one outside of Tilehurst worked harder to deliver the sole win for the Lib Dems in Reading in 2012.

(Perhaps even within the ward. Hard to say; Ricky and Pete would I’m sure be quick to share credit! I, on the other hand, embarrassed myself by being sent away on training slap bang in the middle of the campaign. No prizes for me, sadly.)

Not only that, but along the way she wrote the anti-Snoopers’ Charter amendment that was passed at regional conference. That amendment recently went on to become one of the party’s main defences in the national media after Nick Clegg’s advisers were found asleep at the wheel again. Immediately after helping win the election, she’s on to writing to our MPs to drive the message home ahead of the Queen’s Speech. She’s proving to be a bit of a star.

In my own little way I’ve been knocking on doors for Meri and proof-reading passages for Jenny. Working for these talented and tenacious women has been a privilege; long may it continue.

I should also say that it is a shame that the bigger picture is rather more painful for the Lib Dems. It’s been another tough year at the ballot box. In Reading, at least, it’s good to see so much potential for the future. We had four main candidates this year – Meri, Janel, James and Mustafa. In just those four alone, there’s a pretty good mix of gender, occupation, religion, ethnicity, and place of birth from local to Canadian. There was also a full slate of Lib Dem candidates for the borough.

We tried out a new full colour print service, helped deliver a policy amendment that made the national news, got some great local press coverage (well done Warren Swaine on the Katesgrove community garden), and revived campaigning in wards that may come back into play in future. Fellow Greater Reading Lib Dems in Woodley also had a good set of results.

So there’s a lot that went right for the Reading Borough Council Lib Dems this year. We delivered on our targeting strategy with a strong win; the Tilehurst campaign was planned in 2011, starting earlier and doing more than ever before; the activist base has an air of renewal about it. There’s a lot to feel good about.

Bring on 2014.

So with a bit of tweaking for readability in my afternoon coffee break, here’s the email in all its sleep deprived glory:

First of all, let’s come right out and say that the messaging makes us look stupid, and leaves us open to all sorts of criticism. Whoever is advising Lynne Featherstone has just taken a huge whack out of her credibility; her email reads like the run-of-the-mill political parrot speak of an MP repeating lines fed to them by a dissembling back office advisor.

Second, I’d point out what a disservice they are doing to their loyal supporters. Stephen Tall’s post perfectly illustrates what was making me uncomfortable yesterday. Because the first wave of protest was mostly emotional and instinctive, it is far too easy to respond to it by saying, “I’m not going to get emotional, I’m going to stay rational – so here’s a nicely written rationalisation of the policy being handed to me”. By feeding loyal Lib Dems bad lines, they’re really just making it easy for good activists to dig themselves a hole.

(Edit: OK, I’m grumpy first thing in the morning. A bit harsh on Stephen there. But the whole “being rational” thing often annoys me; anger and rationality are not always mutually exclusive.)

With regards to the substance of the matter at hand, three points spring to mind that I’m not sure are being talked about:

1. Law is about principles, not technical implementation

2. INFORMATION Technology vs. Information TECHNOLOGY

3. Culture and confidence

Law is about principles, not technical implementation

In my experience, both lawmakers and technologists tend to have a blind spot regarding the relationship between policy and implementation. In this area in particular, the Liberal Democrats can’t afford to have that blind spot. We are the junior coalition partner; we have to be twice as smart just to stay level. The specific point here is the line that there will be no central database. This probably sounds like a good sound bite, but it’s actually quite dangerous.

A central database is just one way of implementing a surveillance tool. That leaves several ways to skin the cat. In fact, modern technology no longer favours centralised models. A distributed surveillance system is entirely possible.

It’s not the perfect example, but the Girls Around Me app should give Lynne Featherstone pause. Read this:

“So now I know everything to know about Zoe. I know where she is. I know what she looks like, both clothed and mostly disrobed. I know her full name, her parents’ full names, her brother’s full name. I know what she likes to drink. I know where she went to school. I know what she likes and dislikes. All I need to do now is go down to the Independent, ask her if she remembers me from Stoneham High, ask her how her brother Mike is doing, buy her a frosty margarita, and start waxing eloquently about that beautiful summer I spent in Roma.

“Throughout this demonstration, my group of friends had been split pretty evenly along gender lines in their reactions. Across the board, the men either looked amused or (in the case of my beardo Diaspora friend) philosophically pleased with themselves about their existing opinions about social networking. The women, on the other hand, looked sick and horrified.

It was at this point, though, that the tendrils of the girls’ unease — their deeply empathic sense of someone being unsafe — seemed to creep through the entire group.”

Then consider the author’s conclusion:

“I still don’t believe that there’s anything wrong with what this app is doing, and the guys at i-Free are super nice, and certainly don’t mean for this app to be anything beyond a diversion.”

This illustrates two fundamental issues. First, the technology is not based on a central database. It gathers data from multiple sources, and on a widely available, pocket-sized mobile phone. Imagine what a fully fledged security solution would be capable of.

Secondly, an expert author has used technical knowledge, combined with laws that wouldn’t meet European data privacy standards, to justify the use of a technology specifically marketed at tracking women in a sexual context. I’d hope Lynne Featherstone of all people takes from this that glib explanations and condescending lines about “complete nonsense” are simply not good enough from a Lib Dem MP.

Law is about principles, not about technical implementation. Clearly each affects the other, and neither can be determined in isolation. The “no central database” line is, in my view, incompetent.

INFORMATION Technology vs Information TECHNOLOGY

My personal area of expertise :)  (for those who don’t know me – this is the area where I make a living) We’re making another classic mistake, or arguably a variation on the preceding one. Again, in my experience both policy makers and technologists tend to have a blind spot on this. Policy with respect to information should be primarily driven by the nature of that information, not the technology by which it is stored, processed or transmitted.

The argument is made that the CCDP is simply updating existing law to cover new technologies. Now, sometimes that is what needs to happen. For instance, if once there had been a law covering AM radio, then the invention of FM radio would probably require that law to be updated with minimal fuss. Broadcast radio is broadcast radio, after all. The case might also be made that Skype (or VoIP in general) is simply another form of voice / video communication, and should be covered under the law just as phone taps have long been.

But in the case of the CCDP, the core issue isn’t the new technology. It is that we are talking about very different kinds of information.

Previously, the law covered phone taps, intercepting mail, and “classic” surveillance i.e. following people. As well as the constraints of judicial oversight, this meant that irrespective of the law there were two further fundamental constraints: the physical limitations of how many people can be followed (and for how long, and to what extent), and the information limits of what people use phones and letters for.

The new technologies available are significantly different in both the type and degree of information involved. Take web tracking, for instance. Previously, you might be able to infer some information about an individual from their phone and mail. They might call a particular helpline, or subscribe to a particular publication.

Now, however, we are starting to live a substantial portion of our life in cyberspace. People sign up not just to general social networks, but also to special interest sites. My political inclinations, for instance, are readily deduced from the websites I visit (I flatter myself to think I read a broad range of views, but I know that the analytics exist to reveal my personal biases).

Neither our issues nor our interests should be of interest to the state. It would be naïve to think this kind of information can be made accessible without requiring a warrant and yet would not be abused.

Culture and confidence

This is where we get to the heart of liberal principles. I believe that a nation where the law allows the state to track the most intimate aspects of people’s lives has a different culture from one that has the strength and confidence that liberalism requires (if it is to be made real). Edit to original email: I don’t mean strength in the sense of exercising legal authority, I mean strength in the sense of feeling no need to do so because a free people need not live in fear.

Following on the point about information (and a point Jenny made well at Spring Conference), you don’t need the content of a communication if the simple fact of that communication gives you all you need. And of course with a large data set, patterns will emerge that can tell you everything you might want to know. So in terms of abuse, the CCDP would enable a culture of:

• Guilt by association
• Conformity
• Big Brother

Guilt by association

You don’t need to read the content of emails to smear somebody when you know the websites they visit and the people they talk to.

Conformity

How many well behaved teenagers are going to pick on the dual message that some things you’re not supposed to read, AND that the government is watching? And how many of them will suffer from dealing with their personal issues alone, instead of reaching out?

Big Brother

The fundamental issue at the heart of the uproar – many people, and particularly liberals, simply hate the very idea of a fear-driven police state.

Edit to the original email: Resisting Big Brother is a core value of liberalism. The Lib Dems have to walk a difficult road: supporting the rule of law, without giving in to the authoritarian temptation to think that it is through the rule of law that societal and behavioural problems can be solved. We will continue to hear the message that the proposed snooping powers will fight paedophilia, terrorism and organised crime. Well, they won’t. We’d just become a weaker, less confident nation for believing it.

Here’s a good example, from a CIO.com article on 12 Types of Cell Phones Users That Drive Us Nuts:

Cell Phone Rhoda comes in all shapes and sizes, but more often than not, she’ll be larger than you are.

A “Cell Phone Rhoda” is a woman who has “people to talk to—even if she’s got nothing to say.” Can’t say I’ve ever associated that personality type with a gender, let alone any particular size thereof. It’s the only annoying type where the author thinks to mention physical attributes. So what’s the bet that the reason he hasn’t noticed the smaller Cell Phone Rhodas and Rodneys is because if it’s a petite or attractive woman, then their presence  just doesn’t bother him so much?

The implication is that the larger the woman, the more annoying and less interesting. Men who are loud and boring? Just doesn’t happen, it would seem. Cute little women with bad phone habits? They’re not so bad, because hey, at least we get to look at them! And they don’t take up too much room, either.

I do seem to work in fields where too many experts in the tools of the trade indulge in run-of-the-mill sexism. Once upon a time I sold musical instruments. My shop didn’t have what you’re about to see, but it wasn’t unusual to hear teenage girls express their frustration at being first pointed at this kind of thing:

(note: artists do fine things ranging from genuinely cute through faux naiveté to subversive juxtaposition to just having fun with kitsch. Women really can have a lot of fun with all that; when I was younger it could be quite intimidating to have a woman obviously daring you to compliment her on something blatantly cute or sexy. But even if she does actually want a Daisy Rock guitar, there’s almost no chance whatsoever that same teenage girl entering a guitar shop wants the men inside to assume that. And yes, more often than not it’ll be men. Incidentally – kudos to Paula of Strung Out Guitars, who I once worked alongside, and who likes spiky guitars played LOUD and FAST.)

The author does point out that his list of annoying mobile phone types is mainly male, so it’s not as if he doesn’t like women. It just that it doesn’t occur to him that women also find jobs in the City and develop an attachment to their Blackberries.

So good for you, ladies, for your superior ability to be less annoying (we’ll call it being “demure”, for brevity’s sake). Especially the slim ones who don’t bother us all so much.

x = x

It is what it is.

Let’s hope she wins. If not, I wonder if she’d move to the UK so I can campaign for her over here?

Thanks to Hacker News for the link. A nice moment of zen to start the day.