Evaluate how new media has revitalised democratic participation in the 2008 US presidential elections.

On November 4th, 2008 Barack Obama was named the 44th president of America, winning 52 percent of the nation’s vote and earning hard-fought victories in several republican and swing states. The election results crowned a staggering two-year climb which began for Obama as a relative newcomer to national politics, and culminated in the candidate becoming the first African-American to win the White House – a remarkable milestone in American history. But Obama’s improbable success owes much to his revolutionary campaign, which harnessed the power of the internet to encourage fundraising, enable self-promotion, and attract a new voting demographic.

According to technology journalist Claire Cain Miller in ‘The New York Times’, the democratic campaign has changed politics forever. “The election has echoed that of John F. Kennedy in Obama’s use of a new medium that will forever change politics. For Mr. Kennedy, it was television. For Mr. Obama, it is the Internet… by using interactive Web 2.0 tools, his team changed the way politicians organize supporters, defend against attacks and communicate with constituents.” Ironically, it was Obama’s rival John McCain who first recognised the web’s potential in a presidential election, experimenting with targeted banner ads during his republican primary campaign against George Bush in 1999. Eight years later it was Obama who finally exploited the full potential of the internet, his online impact dwarfing that of his opponents and proving key to his triumph.

The emphasis on internet organising began during the democratic primary campaigns, when Obama acquired the services of Joe Rospars, a seasoned online political promoter, and hired Face book co-founder Chris Hughes to build his own social-networking site, myBarackObama.com – a move that proved dividends for the candidate. By the end of the campaign, Obama had raised a record- breaking $600 million in contributions from more than three million people, many of whom donated via the website. MyBarackObama.com hosted two million profiles, and over half a million blog posts. Research by Igor Beuker and Paul van Veenendaal of viralblog.com revealed that thirty-five thousand volunteer groups were created, and two-hundred thousand offline events planned in support of Obama’s cause.

Political blogger Richard Mcmanus said, “We've written a lot about how Barack Obama's Internet strategy was a significant reason for his success last year - first in the democratic nomination, then the Presidential election. The Obama campaign made masterful use of social media and revolutionalised election campaigning.” The internet developed from being a medium for the politically involved to a platform in which millions of American citizens could participate, be it through volunteering, offering support, or donating funds.

Obama raised money through thousands of small, regular, online donations and then used the funds to exploit other, more conventional forms of media, such as television and phone calls. According to TNS Media Intelligence, Obama spent $293 million on television adverts, saturating the cable markets in targeted states. In comparison, McCain spent just $132 million. In addition, the democrat team arranged phone banking events, urging a million volunteers to make phone calls reminding the nation to go and vote. Author and blogging activist Kurt Cagle suggested that the sheer volume of low-value donations enabled Obama to canvass effectively.

“Ultimately, the Obama campaign won the most important election - the money game. Obama and his campaign manager, David Plouffe, settled on the risky strategy of not accepting government financing, but were able to parlay this into a major financial network of small and intermediate sized donors giving anywhere from $5 to the legal maximum of $2300 - made primarily through the Internet.” There are many advantages of Internet fund raising. It's simple, cheap and far less intimidating than giving a large amount. In fact, the democrat campaign set up a system by which the credit cards of donors were billed automatically in budget-friendly monthly amounts.

In September 2008, the democrat’s biggest single month of fundraising, Obama amassed over fifty percent of his record-breaking haul ($100 million of the monthly total of $150 million) from online donations. In ‘The Washington Post’ political editor Jose Antonio Vargas underlined the impact that online fundraising had on the campaign. “Three million donors made a total of six million donations online adding up to more than $500 million. Of those six million donations, ninety-five percent were in increments of $100 or less. The average online donation was $80, and the average Obama donor gave more than once… undoubtedly, the bulk of the more than $600 million that Obama raised throughout the campaign was through the internet.”

But Obama was also aware of an untapped market of huge promise – the youth population. In addition to reaching out to primary voters with his social-networking tool, Obama’s team contacted young Americans through text messaging and the Obama ’08 iPhone, an application that facilitated owners to rally friends and contacts through the Apple devices. They even ran in-game advertising on Xbox games such as ‘Burnout 3’ across 10 battleground states. The campaign also embraced mainstream social-networking sites such as Twitter, My Space and Face book, where Obama currently has four million ‘friends’.















(Figure 1, Ruffini, P, 2008. Levels of engagement with the Obama campaign.)

This chart by former republican ‘e-campaigner’ Patrick Ruffini shows the relative importance of various online media tools to the democratic election process. The graph shows that five million people interacted via social-networking while thirteen million engaged through email. The democrats mobilised support through ‘data mining’ and email lists. This involved identifying potential voters in every region across the country, using technology which predicts political preferences depending on factors such as car ownership and magazine subscriptions. Volunteers would then canvass the prospective ally, focusing on issues that the individual was most likely to be concerned about.

Obama took advantage of video-sharing giant You Tube for free advertising, and internet stunts such as ‘Obama girl’, a viral advert that helped to increase the candidate’s profile. The move was dubbed “more effective that television adverts” by political scientist Michael Cornfield. In ‘Politics moving online: campaigning and the internet.’ Cornfield argues that “the videos had more impact because viewers chose to watch them, or received them from a friend instead of having their television shows interrupted.” The official material that the democrats created for You Tube was watched for a total of fourteen million hours worldwide. Cornfield suggests that “to buy the same amount of time on broadcast TV would cost $47 million… a staggering difference.”

Internet video clips have broken the mainstream, as a way to convey political messages and to view clips of candidates streamed from news sources and entertainment shows. For example a recent clip of Obama discussing his desire to ‘spread the wealth’ on a radio show was viewed over two million times on You Tube.

The web has also enabled democrat supporters to fight rumours, disproving Obama’s alleged connections with terrorists. This was the case when citizens used the internet to check facts, by watching Obama’s race speech on You Tube after Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s controversial references to ethnic issues kept surfacing. Referring to Wright’s offending sermons about America, Obama says, “Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely.” To date, nearly seven million people have watched the speech online.
Not content with just Face book and Twitter, the Obama campaign linked up with My Space, sharing content with the site and placing a fundraising widget on the web page. In addition, My Space announced the creation of the ‘Impact Channel’, which focused specifically on the presidential race, and resulted in Obama’s page receiving greater interest.

(Figure 3, Fertik, M. 2008. Is Obama the first Internet president?)

A study conducted by Michael Fertik, CEO and blogger of http://www.reputationdefender.com/, reveals the extent of Obama’s control over online tools. The graph shows that in just over ten months, Obama’s My Space page rocketed from under one-hundred thousand members to over seven times that amount, with a huge increase as the election date neared. In comparison republican candidate McCain only managed around one-hundred and sixty thousand members, a figure which remained consistent throughout his campaign. The surge in Obama’s figures accounts for the aggressive campaigning on behalf of his team to attract last-minute support. But whereas Obama reached out to users of the internet in order to communicate and mobilize volunteers, McCain’s campaign used activist blogs which channeled anti-Obama attacks into the mainstream media.

Many pro-republican bloggers cross-posted content on several web sites to raise the profile of key ‘anti-democrat’ stories on Google searches and video links. In ‘Election campaigning on the WWW in the USA’ Rachel Gibson suggests that despite isolation from the rest of the blogosphere, ‘No-bama’ blogs “repeatedly focused on the extent of Obama’s association with alleged domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and the community group ACORN. These posts surface in search engine results about Obama, and give the impression of widespread outrage, which can frame news coverage.”

With evidence of both sides of the political spectrum battling to gain political ascendancy online, it seems as if the internet has changed the outlook of national politics. Since Obama’s success at the polls, sites like Drudge Report have gained significant influence. In October 2008, the website’s recorded monthly traffic was six times that of four years previously. Simply by linking to a story, The Drudge Report force the mainstream media to pay attention, for fear of looking foolish and not covering a story seen online by thirty million people. In addition, mainstream news websites such as CNN.com and Foxnews.com have overtaken their television counterparts for news absorption. On Election Day, CNN reported twenty-seven million visitors to their site in just twenty-four hours.

Political blogs such as http://www.dailykos.com/ have gained credibility, while Dan Rather’s weekly blog on http://www.cbs.com/ has become a legitimate voice of authority in politics. The election has also enabled niche, non-partisan sites to reach a wider audience. The realclearpolitics.com poll average map has been routinely source-referenced by broadcasting networks and news outlets. Not only has this changed the way in which journalists report on raw voting data and outlying poll results, it has also increased the understanding of political variations for the mainstream audience. Before 2004, social media hardly existed, but during the 2008 election campaign the democrat campaign used networking sites aggressively to communicate with America. According to Microsoft blogger Robert Scoble, “the internet as an election tool will continue to thrive and grow, this is just the beginning.”

The use of the web throughout the American presidential race has revealed the good, creative, and sometimes ugly, side of national politics. The anti-Obama propaganda and terrorism rumours circulated on forums and blogs are vastly outweighed by the positive aspects of the web’s influence upon the election. The online innovations of Obama’s campaign team pushed politics into the mainstream, attracting record-breaking numbers of support and donations, and devising new and ground-breaking ways to gain voters. The Obama campaign utilized the web to help raise record-breaking amounts of funds, single-handedly destroying the concept of public financing, and setting a precedent for forthcoming presidential elections. Furthermore, the democrats used the internet to raise awareness and attract support, effectively rallying and organising volunteers, thus significantly changing the future of political strategy.

There is no doubt that the internet played a huge part in Obama’s presidential success, and as a strategy will evolve into perhaps the most powerful weapon a candidate has in their quest to organize, rally, raise funds, and ultimately win the presidency. The editor in chief of the Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington, contends that without new media many of us may not have even heard of Barack Obama. “Were it not for the internet, Barack Obama would not be president. Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not have been the nominee…it enabled one of the biggest turning points in modern history. God bless the internet.”

Assess and critically analyse Pilger’s assessment of journalists/journalism.

John Pilger’s ‘Hidden Agendas ‘the last voice’ provides an insight into an industry tarnished by market demands and corrupted by “power, censorship and propaganda”. Pilger discusses the deterioration of media ethics, and the traditional means of journalism through media monopolisation and deskilling of reporters. Citing references and examples from all facets of the media, be it radio, television or newsprint, Pilger considers whether journalism is still a noble cause, or whether we are in danger of surrendering our press freedom, and thus our pursuit of exposing the truth.

Pilger begins by scrutinizing the broadcast media, describing the stronghold that global media corporations have over most of the World’s media sources. “The biggest and richest are swallowing not just the minnows… but most of the world’s media: news, current affairs, and documentaries, our primary sources of information.” Highlighting Rupert Murdoch as one of the prime examples, Pilger emphasises the domination in broadcasting networks, an imbalance which inevitably leads to propaganda and subjective reporting. “The digital age of television belongs to Murdoch and his friends… they are Mafia godfathers, dividing turf.”

The author looks at a number of ways in which the media monopoly has affected its news output. In China, where media censorship is strict and regimented, Murdoch removed BBC World Service from his Asian satellite in a move to “appease the regime”. In addition, he offered Chinese authorities technology to edit television programmes before they were broadcast, and launched an internet service that censored politics for its online audience. Pilger concludes, ““In 1997, Murdoch launched his ‘Chinabyte’ internet service in English. Politics will be censored; the Chinese users’ view of the West will be the Murdoch view.”

However, it is not only Murdoch and co. who are guilty of such malpractice, manipulation of news is a growing habit afflicting many of the World’s most influential media outlets. Pilger highlights a once proud ITN service “consumed by market bureaucracy” and the BBC “handicapped by profiteering competitors” and subsequently desperate to retain audiences. He explains, ““In order to compete, the BBC is becoming the worldwide commercial operation it was never meant to be… The ‘Nine ‘o’ clock News’ called off a reporter’s assignment to China investigating sweatshops… as the BBC has growing trade with China, selling language courses, books and successful programmes.” The BBC’s actions echo Murdoch’s concurrence of the Chinese regime, and with the very same motive - to generate profits. According to Pilger, the policy of penalising those “who stray too far from the mainstream” results in “dull, homogenous, and predictable output.”

Pilger takes opposition with this method of newsgathering, and argues that it goes against the basic duties of a journalist. “Journalists ought not to stand outside the closed doors of the powerful waiting to be lied to. They are not functionaries, and they should not be charlatans… they ought to be sceptical about the assumed and the acceptable. Their job is not to stand idly by but to speak for true witnesses of the terrible truth”.

The author argues that reporting should be objective and balanced, natural enemies to the authoritarianism that negates press freedom. In ‘Media ethics and self-regulation’, the author Chris Frost supports this assertion claiming, “Journalists should be sceptical about everyone, seeing them as neither good nor bad, but merely human. Clearly, we need to ask more questions.”

But as Pilger points out, with “ninety percent of all World news and current affairs now coming to us from fewer and more powerful agencies… One American, one British and the other French”, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the ethics of impartial news, a factor that is considered “ultimately crucial to a journalist’s work.” Conversely, Martin Bell, a former broadcaster and war reporter suggests that subjectivity in news is not necessarily a bad thing. He says, “Objectivity is detached and disinterested… subjective reporting is journalism that cares.”

While this could be construed as the case in some circumstances, more often than not subjective reporting succeeds only in spreading the journalist’s own values, a practice which leads to corruption, propaganda and the decline of a balanced review. Matthew Kieran reinforces this idea in ‘Media ethics’ using the coverage of the O.J Simpson trial as a prime example of the media promoting its own interests. “There were striking differences in coverage of the trial… mainstream media focussed upon his star status, black media focussed on tactical angles and the woman’s press made much of the allegations of wife-beating… it would seem that an event can afford a plurality of different reports depending on what proves to be most lucrative.”

In the 1960s, philosopher and communications theorist Marshall McLuhan predicted that the individualistic print culture would be replaced by “electronic interdependence”, whereby electronic media would replace visual culture. McLuhan claimed that humankind would move from individualism and fragmentation to a collective identity brought together by advanced communications, known as the ‘global village’.

Pilger disagrees with this notion stating, “Marshall McLuhan was wrong. In the 1960s the Canadian media intellectual predicted that modern information technologies would create a global village, breaking down barriers of language and distance, bringing people a form of wired socialism... instead technology has spun out of control and humans have become servo-mechanisms of the technological order, controlled by the few at the expense of many.” If McLuhan’s ‘global village’ means anything, it is the power of global media corporations and their antipathy to the concept of a medley of competing voices.

Pilger suggests that while “media technology has become a wondrous tool… which one can only envy and admire” it has also contributed to the downfall of newspaper journalism and its honourable traditions. In order to survive in harsher financial climates, newspapers have succumbed to ‘tabloidisation’, publishing increasingly sensational material at the cost of accuracy or quality. In ‘Media ethics’ Matthew Kieran says, “In 1995 newspaper accuracy accounted for 70% of PCC complaints… it’s widely agreed that there has been a move towards a more tabloid agenda in journalism…but what will be the cost to people’s lives and to journalism?” Kieran underlines the diminishing responsibility of the press in telling the truth, and questions the impact of this recklessness on the industry and society.

According to Richard Keeble in ‘Ethics for journalists’, reporters find themselves “constrained by so many factors – proprietors, fear, the law, time, organisational structures and visited interests.” The lack of funding and time has not only subdued the free press, but has also served to encourage the concept of a multi-skilled journalist, an individual who can deliver news across a series of platforms at minimal cost and time to the newspaper. Pilger says, “Today, isolation and depleting staff has bred a new kind of ‘multi-skilled’ journalist, who is not multi skilled at all…there is no time to investigate; lifting a phone and scanning cuttings files require no apprenticeship and little expense. Newspapers have become ‘viewspapers’, vehicles not of curiosity and inquiry but of narcissism.” The author considers that ‘multi-skilled’ journalists are in fact lacking the relevant training, bogged down in tedious tasks and shunning the role of the “investigative reporter… which is, after all, what all journalists should be”.

Pilger continues, highlighting how low-skilled reporters will negatively impact upon the news we engage with. “As ‘multi-skilling’ becomes doctrine, the deskilling of craft becomes the practise, with the untrained encouraged to believe that possession of a camcorder makes them a filmmaker and pointing it at nothing in particular produces an observational documentary.” He ascertains that a media format which promotes minimal costs and maximum profits will in turn produce “spontaneous, meaningless trash”.

This assertion is also held by Eric Alterman in ‘What liberal media?’ who claims, “Most reporters are ignorant about most things, which is rarely seen as a barrier to coverage. Ignorance is not the same thing as bias… journalists’ project out their own personal values.” Alterman warns that a lack of skills will not only lead to “ignorant reporting” but also to “subjective, self-absorbed media”.

The notion of a free, impartial press is blemished even further by the dependence on advertising and public relations material. Richard Keeble questions the effect of advertisers on news-output saying, “Advertisers are best seen as promoting the values of materialism and consumerism and in doing so are stifling the development of the free press.” On the other hand, Colin Sparks maintains in ‘Media in Britain’ that “Newspapers are first and foremost a business… they do not exist to report news, they exist to make money.” This ideology is rejected by Pilger who contends that newspapers should not be profit-driven, and instead should go to “uncomfortable places, follow leads and gather evidence… to hold the powerful to account.”

According the Nick Davies in ‘Flat Earth News’, “meaningful independent journalistic activity is the exception rather than the rule. We aren’t just talking about investigative journalism here, but the everyday practices of news judgement, fact-checking, balance, that are central to day-to-day journalism.” Davies calls modern-day journalism ‘churnalism’, describing the process as “junk journalism as break-neck speed”. Pilger warns that journalists “going through the motions” will have their “imagination pacified, not primed, and the numbing acceptance of injustice will be left unchallenged”.

The quality of investigative news is not helped by PR generated material, a source of mainstream propaganda which fills the majority of “lazy” newspapers. Publicist Max Clifford said “The function of PR is filling the role investigative reporters should fill, but no longer can because cost-cutting has hit journalism heavily”. Pilger provides evidence to support this claim, stating, ““According to the editor of PR Week, the amount of PR generated material in the media is ‘50% in every broadsheet newspaper section apart from sport. In the tabloid press, the figure would undoubtedly be higher” Pilger contends that PR provide “needless fodder” and the newspapers are utterly interdependent. PR usurping the role of independent journalism has ominous consequences on the industry. By ‘manufacturing consent’ on issues such as tax, welfare, race relations and expenditure, the press is providing a platform for political agendas and propaganda think-tanks.

In ‘Journalism: critical issues’ Stuart Allan emphasises the problems that the industry faces. “These are troubled times for journalism. One commentator after the next is declaring the conviction that it is in a state of crisis, even in danger of losing its place at the heart of democratic society… journalists are wondering aloud whether the fabric of a once proud profession is slowly becoming unravelled… by the relentless pull of populism, politics and profits on its rapidly fraying threads.” The author claims that journalism could lose its place in democracy, a conclusion that is shared by Pilger. He says “we are in danger of losing our freedom of press without even realising it”.

So what will the future hold for journalism? The once honourable tradition has succumbed to fraudulence and manipulation. Rather than continuing the struggle towards universal suffrage and democratic government, journalists have become “wolves in sheep’s clothing, simpering loyally as they suppress.” In ‘Ethical issues in the media’ Andrew Belsey argues that fault must lie with everybody involved. “Journalism is an honourable profession, though many of those who care for it have dishonoured it… governments have sought to censor it, owners have used it as a means of satisfying their quest for power and wealth, and consumers have done journalism no service by putting up with trivia and trash.”

Pilger urges journalists to share a moral courage to “clear away the ideological rubble that smothers independence of mind and leads to self-censorship.” He acknowledges the risk, but claims “In countries where the majority of humanity live, the efforts and sacrifice of journalists shame their quiescent colleagues… the Philippines has the freest press in Asia and one of the highest death rates of journalists in the World.”

Pilger argues that a new broadcasting act “requiring commitment to original, factual programmes” and the establishment of a “public body providing start-up funds for news sources independent of monopolisers” would begin to win the second battle for press freedom. For when there is no longer anyone speaking out, Pilger asks “Who will be the last voice?”

Defamation laws are weakening in the UK. Is this a good or bad thing for the press?

Defamation Laws are weakening..

Defamation can be either slander (spoken or transient form) or libel (written or permanent form). A statement is defamatory if it exposes a person to ridicule or contempt, causes him to be shunned or avoided, lowers him in the estimation of right thinking society or disparages him in his business or profession. A comparison between two cases offers a good example of how defamation legislation has weakened. In 1977, Mary Whitehouse succeeded in libel prosecution against the publication ‘Gay News’, claiming the magazine was blasphemous. In similar circumstances this year, religious minister Stephen Green failed in his attempt to prosecute the producers of ‘Jerry Springer the Opera’ for blasphemous libel.

Critical national figures like Prime Minister Gordon Brown and former England manager Steve Mclaren are excellent examples of how the laws have weakened. Scorned by several former backbenchers and ministers in hastily written autobiographies, Brown has bore the brunt of some harsh personal criticism. Former media advisor Lance Prince, John Prescott and Cherie Blair have all been in on the action, Cherie famously accusing Brown of ‘rattling the keys over her husband’s head.’

In published news articles Steve Mclaren has been accused of being ‘sulky’, ‘a liar’, ‘an unhappy man’, and ‘psychologically flawed’. It got so bad that Mclaren stormed out of a post-match press conference during the farcical World Cup qualifying campaign. All possible grounds for libel suits, although none were taken. Perhaps most surprisingly, the right wing site http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/ ran a lead article on their front page called ‘Germaine Greer is a total c*nt’, referring to her pledge to challenge laws in the workplace.

Defamation Laws aren’t weakening..

Defamation has always been difficult to defend because the claimant does not have to prove what is said is true. Additionally, Max Mosley has appealed to the high court to introduce a new law forcing the press to ask permission before running a story. Should the legislation be passed, injunctions and legal wrangles will prevent juicy stories ever being published. One interesting and obvious argument is the Raphael vs. Firscht case. A company boss was awarded 22,000 UKP in damages over fake entries posted on the social networking site, Facebook.

The problem stems from a false profile of Matthew Firscht created in June last year by Grant Raphael. Mr Raphael stupidly alleged he was signed up to gay groups and had lied to avoid paying loans. Facebook disclosed the information the Claimant was seeking the identity and internet address of the person posting the comments which all led to Mr Raphael's computer.

The Claimant was awarded 22,000 UKP in damages. Judge Richard Parkes QC said that Mr Raphael was liable for the internet entries and had lied about the posts.Mr Firscht said of his former friend: "What Mr Raphael did was extremely offensive, embarrassing and may have caused serious damage to the reputation of myself and Applause Store, which I have spent years building into what it is today. The case never needed to go this far.If only Mr Raphael had apologised then there would have been no need to have issue proceedings. Instead, Mr Raphael stuck his head in the sand and will now have to pay the consequences for having lied to both myself and the court."

More evidence comes from a web article found on http://www.birminghampost.net/. The number of defamation cases is increasing as the economic situation worsens, according to a dispute resolution lawyer.

Simon Griffiths, a solicitor in the dispute resolution and litigation department at Black Country law firm George Green, says that the number of clients seeking to protect the reputation of their company and their goods against slander or libel has risen by more than 500 per cent in the past six months.“Businesses facing mounting financial difficulties seem to have made company executives increasingly desperate for sales, which some seek to secure by falsely running down their competitors,” says Mr Griffiths, who is based in George Green’s Cradley Heath offices.

“This practice has always gone on, and is often no more than mere exaggeration about the benefits of one product against another, but as the downturn deepens, we are now seeing more extreme examples, which go well beyond what is acceptable, or legal, and threaten to damage other businesses.”According to Mr Griffiths, some attempts at slander or libel are much more than just unsubstantiated gossip to a customer, which is hard to prove, but some individuals and companies are using the internet and emails to third parties to make damaging statements.

Good for Journalists because..

Obvious. Journalist’s can say more about people without the restriction or the threat of a defamation case. This means that stories and gossip that previously may have been risky now carry no such threat. The life of a journalist is easier too, sub-editors and reporters need not worry about breaching legal guidelines making copy quicker and more efficient, thus saving time and money for a newspaper or publication.

Bad for journalists because..

Weaker defamation laws are arguably bad news for journalism from an ethical perspective. Without the threat of libel, journalists and bloggers are free to publish whatever they wish, a trend that could threaten both the quality and decency of modern journalism. The PCC Code currently states that the press must be accurate and not publish misleading or distorted information. They must offer a fair opportunity to reply and respect an individual’s private or family life. Journalists are also advised to avoid prejudicial discrimination. Without defamatory legislation, these moral codes would be redundant. Another problem would be the loss of trust from readers, as truth would no longer be of utmost importance for newspapers, but instead a greater impetus would be placed on sensationalism and making a cheap buck. In essence, the art of journalism would be severely affected or lost altogether.

Are privacy laws weakening in the UK?

Privacy law is a complex area of legislation in the UK. Here are some case studies that provide evidence in support of privacy laws remaining strong in Britain. For instance, former Blackburn footballer Gary Flitcroft was granted an order by a high court judge protecting his privacy and preventing him from being named in a kiss and tell story published in the Sunday People newspaper.

In another case involving a high-profile name, Radio 1 DJ Sara Cox was photographed naked on her honeymoon on a private island in the Seychelles. The pictures were taken without their knowledge. Cox sued under article 8 (right to privacy) and law of confidence forcing the newspaper (Sunday People again) to pay costs of over £100,000 and destroy the pictures. Previously, the paper had apologised as part of a deal brokered by the PCC. Critics of the PCC say it has been discredited as a watchdog by Cox's decision to go to law even after the PCC had negotiated an apology.

The PCC code advises journalists to respect the privacy of others, and not harass them. A number of acts also protect privacy, article 8 (right to privacy), confidence law and the data protection act. The Data Protection Act is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament. It defines a legal basis for the handling in the UK of information relating to living people. It is the main piece of legislation that governs protection of personal data in the UK. Although the Act does not mention privacy, in practice it provides a way in which individuals can enforce the control of information about themselves.

Britain’s first law protecting personal privacy on a more general basis was announced as part of Queen’s Speech on the 14th of May 1997. It is a part of the new Labour Government policy ‘Bringing Rights Home to Britain,’ and the new privacy legislation will arise through legislation which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. If it is incorporated, it would mean that ‘a right to respect for a private life’ will be part of the British law for the first time. However, much of the development will be left to the discretion of judges, and it is not clear how quickly or how far the judges will move the law in the direction of the protection of privacy.

One concern which might give them pause for thought is that individual privacy cannot be considered in isolation. Privacy must be weighed alongside freedom of speech and expression, which is also an important right under the European Convention.

As a member of the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Kingdom adheres to Article 8 ECHR, which guarantees a "right to respect for privacy and family life", subject to restrictions as prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society towards a legitimate aim.
However, Britain has one of the worst records in the developed world for protecting the privacy of its citizens, according to international research carried out by Privacy International. The proposed national identity register is further proof of the UK’s disregard of privacy. The project which will be introduced in 2011 has been met with heated opposition by human right groups who believe that ID cards will take away their privacy and turn Britain into a nanny state.

In addition, there is no independent tort law doctrine which recognises a right to privacy. This has been confirmed on a number of occasions. In 2003 a young man with cerebral palsy went to visit his brother in Leeds prison. Because the brother had been suspected of taking drugs in jail, they were asked to consent to strip searching. The young man suffered post traumatic stress syndrome. The judge held that this was both battery and an invasion of their "right to privacy". He awarded compensatory damages of £7000 and Mr Wainwright got £4500. This was overturned in the Court of Appeal by Lord Woolf MR, who set aside the damages for "privacy invasion" and kept the damages for battery.

Lord Hoffmann held that there was no tort for invasion of privacy, because it was too uncertain. Moreover, a claim under Article 8, (right to privacy and family life) did not help because the Convention was merely a standard which applied to whatever was currently present in the common law.

Interview with Kevin Gillick - Executive Director of GlobalPlatform

What is GlobalPlatform?

Celebrating its 10th anniversary this year, GlobalPlatform is the worldwide leader in the development of specifications that support smart card infrastructure interoperability. Its proven and widely deployed technical specifications for cards, devices and systems are known as the standard for smart card infrastructure. As an independent, not-for-profit organization, our strategy is defined and prioritized by a member-elected Board of Directors. GlobalPlatform Specifications are available royalty-free and have been adopted globally by many public and private bodies.

What are the goals and priorities of the organization?

The overarching goal of GlobalPlatform is to maintain and drive adoption of its technical specifications which provide an open and interoperable infrastructure for smart cards, devices and systems.

Two key areas of focus for GlobalPlatform at present include:

Contactless Mobile Services - GlobalPlatform aims to mitigate the risk of standards fracturing at this critical time of payment applications being deployed on NFC enabled mobile devices by harmonizing specifications and simplifying the adoption of specification technology.
Government Credentials - The association is currently developing and documenting solutions to assist governments seeking to source open and interoperable components – on a non-discriminatory basis – from technology suppliers and integrators. As part of this, GlobalPlatform is enhancing technology to support more rigorous cryptographic standards and the incorporation of biometrics as well as responding to new citizen requirements on privacy related to contactless applications.

Who are the member companies of this organization and what are their main goals?

All parties with an interest in smart card deployment can become a member of GlobalPlatform and contribute to its important industry activity. Currently, the GlobalPlatform membership comprises organizations from Europe, Asia, Australia and the Americas, from sectors such as payment, mobile telecommunications, transit, healthcare and retail. GlobalPlatform’s membership continues to grow, and so far in 2009 we have welcomed six new members: Applus+ Corporation, CARDigence, Ericsson AB, Galitt, PayPal, Ranycon Technologies, SBA Technologies and Smart Card Laboratory Inc.

How does GlobalPlatform differ from other smart card organizations?

GlobalPlatform is the only organization that is focused on establishing standards for interoperability across the entire smart card infrastructure, and that can support both single and multi-application smart card schemes. The association is also truly independent as its technology is platform neutral.

As a result of GlobalPlatform’s technical ability and cross-market member representation, it is ideally placed to facilitate technical discussions as markets coverage. As part of this process within the mobile services landscape, for example, it has formed strong allegiances with industry bodies including EMVCo, the European Payments Council, GSMA and ETSI – to name a few!

In what sectors have you experienced the most success?

GlobalPlatform conservatively estimates that over 305.7 million GlobalPlatform technology enabled cards have been deployed to date. Of the cards issued:
· 45% (137.6 million cards) has been by governments, primarily for ID and healthcare applications;
· 32.7% (100 million cards) has been by the mobile telecommunications sector;
· 21.9% (66.9 million cards) has been by the financial sector;
· 0.4% (1.2 million cards) has been by the transit sector.

An additional two billion mid range USIM/SIM cards worldwide are currently estimated to use GlobalPlatform card technology to enable over-the-air (OTA) application downloads for 3G and GSM mobile networks. It is expected that these figures will rise significantly throughout 2009.

What are the benefits of deploying GlobalPlatform technology?

By using GlobalPlatform Specifications an issuer can implement a smart card solution that:

- Reduces time to market as the technology framework is freely available allowing issuers to focus on added-value elements of their program
- Encourages participation from several suppliers on a non-discriminatory basis
- Drives down cost through competitive procurement practices
- Ensures scalability and backward compatibility of the technology, thus protecting the investment over time

Despite the current economic circumstances do you still see a significant demand for GlobalPlatform technology in the industry?

Absolutely! The state of the global economy is a hot topic for discussion and our member organizations and the markets they serve have been affected by the recession. As GlobalPlatform enters its 10th year as a specifications development body, we acknowledge our work to be of great value to the industry in good economic times and in bad. Implementing a smart card infrastructure with proven, secure, scalable and interoperable products based on GlobalPlatform Specifications is an 'investment protection' strategy for all market sectors.

How important is NFC to GlobalPlatform? Why do you feel it has yet to really take-off?

NFC enabled devices that support contactless services (such as payment) is a key focus for GlobalPlatform. One of the main barriers to adoption has been establishing a scalable infrastructure that allows multiple users from multiple sectors and with a need to support multiple business models a means to securely provision and use applications deployed to NFC enabled devices on a mass scale.

In late 2008, GlobalPlatform launched its UICC Configuration, a technical document which outlines a common and neutral environment to facilitate the secure delivery OTA of new and creative mobile services to consumers. The document has been of phenomenal interest to the market as it is the first time a neutral ecosystem for this sector has been presented.

What are the main challenges facing GlobalPlatform in 2009?

The biggest challenge GlobalPlatform faces today is maintaining our historic and rapid rate of development at a time when our member organizations are carefully evaluating the use and availability of their time and resources. We have been fortunate, however, to maintain a high level of member engagement because we are working on developments that are prioritized by the members themselves and, as such, we are moving forward with work items important not only to GlobalPlatform, but to the member organizations as well.

What does the future hold for GlobalPlatform?

Looking ahead, the association envisages that its expertise will soon be required by organizations implementing public and private partnerships such as between financial institutions and government agencies, and joint alliances between public agencies that are responsible for identity and healthcare. GlobalPlatform will also aim to update and align its core technology to respond to the evolution of cryptography to meet the security requirements of different market sectors. Additionally, we look forward to completing work on Card Specification v3.0 which will support the industry’s integration of smart cards into IT and telecom infrastructures, and will be compatible with Java Card v3.0.

For further information on GlobalPlatform or to inquire about membership, please visit http://www.globalplatform.org/ or contact secretariat@globalplatform.org.

(Smartcard News Ltd, 2009)

Has biometrics finally come of age?

At the turn of the nineties, the explosion of the internet and e-commerce created tremendous difficulties in identifying people who could not be met face-to-face. Tired methods such as passwords and PINs no longer cut the mustard anymore. Easily forgotten, and effortlessly hacked, the security industry cried out for a viable alternative to these old authentication systems. Then, just over a decade ago, biometric security devices crept onto the scene. Touted as the final word in security technology, biometrics were supposed to change the face of the identification industry. So what went wrong?

A biometric record is a mathematical representation of an individual’s unique characteristic, stored in digital form. The record can be based on a wide range of methods including fingerprint scans, iris scans and facial recognition. Although it carries distinct advantages over driver’s licenses and passports, (it’s near-impossible to steal someone’s fingerprint for one), biometric security is still fairly unreliable. Despite the technology being around for many years, biometrics have been restricted by large running costs and the complexity of the devices which use it. Thus, its take-up has been limited to military and other high-security applications where security takes precedence over cost and convenience.

But the landscape is finally changing. Biometrics devices are rapidly gaining market acceptance by private companies, governments and consumers who recognise the potential of the technology. Now providers need to repay the faith by developing ironclad security products which are cost-effective and easy-to-use. The security industry is seeing a convergence of physical and virtual devices and access is becoming integrated with computer networks and databases. But biometrics aren’t quite good enough just yet. Even as microphones and digital cameras become standard equipment, voice or facial recognition devices are scarce. For this to change the technology needs to find the right balance between rejecting legitimate users and allowing unauthorized ones to log on.

One way biometric security technology can improve is in the way in which it detects stress levels. Currently, that type of recognition is reserved for harsh image and sound variations in the surrounding area. For instance, a user could be denied access if he tried to use a voiceprint security gateway in a noisy room. In similar fashion, a facial recognition program could reject a user who is sporting a new hair cut or has naturally aged. Alternatively, it may accept an unauthorized user who bears a strong resemblance to a legitimate one. In fact, research by Atos Origin, who ran the UK Passport Agency Biometrics Trial, showed that the failure rate for face recognition was one person in ten. In addition, they warned facial recognition could be fooled simply by obtaining a good image of an individual’s face with a high-resolution photograph or a video recording.

Finger print patterns present a different problem. Because they are not unique to any one individual, a print on a passport or identity card could easily be the same as that of someone else. Also, finger prints required careful expertise to ensure a good print is recorded. Worn finger prints (such as manual workers), and dirty fingers will result in the scan failing. This means that fingerprint verification in shops and banks would be very unsuitable. To make matters worse, research in Germany revealed that fingerprint recognition could be cheated by ‘lifting’ prints using adhesive tape and using them hundreds of times. Or even worse, the technology might not recognise any prints at all. Take the story of a cancer sufferer in America, for instance. The gentleman was detained at an airport after side-effects of his treatment drug left immigration officials unable to take a print from his fingers.

Iris recognition requires specialist cameras and good lighting to work properly. In other words, it’s damn expensive. Even under perfect conditions there is still a failure rate of 1 in 100 people and companies admit that iris photography is not yet proven on a scale required to support the whole UK population. Typically, the proposed biometric passport will use the two most unreliable applications (face and finger recognition), while the identity card will have all three. The Home Affairs Select Committee have suggested that all three biometrics should be taken to reduce the risk of error. In contrast experts contend that this merely increases the failure rate. Add to that the impracticality of providing three separate biometric scans every time you travel and you have a non-starter.

But it’s not all bad, biometrics are gradually improving. New devices can sense an electro-magnetic pulse so any villain-style use of chopped off hands and fingers are thankfully a thing of the past. And the future’s looking rosier too. Experts predict that by 2013 the biometric security market will be worth £650 million dollars. They also predicted profound changes in the industry in the coming years now that the technology has completed its proof of concept stage and can start turning a profit. Governments are likely to be the early adopters, with business applications taking a backseat.

Eventually, widespread adoption will bring about consolidation in the industry, as investors push for profits and the companies that win the big private and government contracts will be at a considerable advantage over smaller start-ups. When the dust settles, it’s possible that hundreds of small companies will have merged with others, leaving only a handful remaining. What’s definite is that we will be hearing a lot more about biometric ID management. It’s time for biometrics to live up to their reputation.

(Smartcard News Ltd, 2009)

EU issues smart chip privacy guidelines

This month the European Commission adopted a set of recommendations to ensure that players in the smartcard industry respects the individual’s fundamental right to privacy – an entitlement set out in the European Union charter of fundamental rights. The decision will be welcomed by consumers across Europe who will now be able to have control over their smart chips, a global market set to skyrocket 500% in the next decade. Already there are over 6 billion microelectronic devices that can be integrated into everyday objects such as travel cards, passports and payment cards. The majority of these smart chips use Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology, a process which uses a ‘reader’ to pick up a radio signal and exchange data automatically. The worldwide market value for RFID tags is estimated at around £4 billion, and that figure is predicted to increase to £20 billion by 2018.

The recommendation by the European Commission is by no means a snap decision. As early as 2006, officials launched a public consultation on the development and use of smart chips. Based on these findings the Commission announced that further action was expected by the public in terms of privacy and data protection. The latest announcement on May 12 responded to these expectations. After taking advice from suppliers and users, standardization bodies, consumer organizations and trade unions, the new proposal seeks to create a level-playing field for the European industry while maintaining respect for the individual’s right to privacy.

Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media was positive about the changes saying, “Europeans must never be taken unawares by the new technology. This is why the Commission issued strong recommendations to the industry today. European consumers must be confident that if and when their personal data is involved, their privacy will be impregnable also in a changing technological environment. The Commission therefore wants RFID technology to empower consumers to control their data security, which is the best way to make sure it is an economic success.”

The European industry had better brace itself for some changes. The commission laid out the following principles for protecting privacy and data protection. Retailers should automatically disable tags, free-of-charge, at the point of purchase unless specifically asked otherwise. The same retailers should also promote consumer awareness through a recognizable European sign on products containing a smart chip. Private firms and government departments that employ smart chips, such as the passport and identity agencies, should tell consumers exactly what data they collect, the purpose and how that data will be used. The Commission also advised that card readers be clearly labelled and an information contact point be provided for citizens.

Viviane Reding suggested companies and organizations should “conduct privacy and data protection impact assessments before using smart chips”. The assessments, which would be reviewed by national data protection authorities, would make sure personal data was secure. However, some experts are still concerned with the risks of skimming and identity fraud that RFID technology carries but any claims of security flaws were strongly rebuffed by the Smartcard Association. EU member states now have two years to inform the Commission on the steps they intend to take to meet the objectives of the Recommendation. Within three years, the Commission will report on the success of the implementation, including an analysis of its impact on companies, public authorities, and citizens.

(Smartcard News Ltd, 2009)