Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Broken Cables

Seems like it is still the hot topic after a few weeks. Not a day goes by without some news or some mailing list discussion about the broken cables. The most amusing is probably those blatant sales pitch from one of the very outspoken ISPs in HK :-D

My views are some what included in an interview from USAToday: http://www.usatoday.com/news/
world/2007-01-01-asia-internet_x.htm


The key thing is: "The real test is not the immediate response," said Chung of the Internet Society. "The real test is: What are we going to do next?"

And I think the direction described in the press conference today seems to be pointing towards the right direction:

香港互聯網協會主席,身兼香港資訊科技商會當然委員的莫乃光指出,汲取今次事故的經驗,業界、規管機構和政府必須加強合作,增加對中小型企業在危機處理的支援,尤其對網絡運作方面的知識。


「從今次事故所見,由於大型企業如銀行、金融機構等的應變能力較高,例如及時更改其網絡服務的設定及網絡路徑,它們所受的影響遠較中小型企業所受的為低。中小型企業作為本地經濟活動的重要支柱,我們將會向政府相關的委員會建議,撥出資源提升中小企危機應變和處理能力,例如出版小冊子、講座和加強公眾宣傳等。」莫乃光說。


業界方面,葉旭暉指香港互聯網服務供應商協會將與屬下會員商討,訂立服務水平協議(Service Level Agreement)和分層服務 (Tier services),讓對網絡服務較依賴的企業,可按其需要選擇較優先層次的服務水平。

至於規管機構方面,單仲偕認為事件反映電訊管理局有必要盡快檢討其危機管理程序,尤其針對資訊發放、與營辦商互相通報,以及協調營辦商之間在事故期間的互相合作及支援。「一旦發生資訊基建事故,電訊管理局作為角色中立的規管機構,應更主動向營辦商了解情況、評估事故的嚴重性,並盡力協調和尋求應變方案,以減低事故對公眾的影響。」單仲偕說。

Friday, September 29, 2006

Net Neutrality is an Important Principle

The NTSCMP.COM incident has stirred up heated debate recently. Starting with an accusation or suspicion that Netvigator and HGC may be blocking the site, speculations are abound.

The discussion by Charles at:
http://charlesmok.blogspot.com/2006/09/blog-post_22.html
Provides a clear headed analysis

Sidekick gives a good roundup of much of what is being said: http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2006/09/27/875/

Based on my own simple analysis of the IP address: 69.49.101.19 (a simple google search of the IP: http://www.google.com/search?q=69.49.101.19&start=0&ie=utf-8
&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
), it seems like the same IP has been found to be connected to several phishing scams:
http://phishery.internetdefence.net/data/796
http://phishery.internetdefence.net/data/9283
http://db.aa419.org/fakebanksview.php?key=8797
http://www.trendmicro.com/en/security/phishing/overview/
phish050608a.htm

http://escrow-fraud.com/fraud_data.php?id=1832
http://escrow-fraud.com/fraud_data.php?id=1817

So... it might be that the IP was blocked somewhere else because of this...

All in all, regardless of what really happned, I am glad that our netizens are ready to fight for an important principle which is net neutrality. I.e. that network operators, (e.g. ISPs) should not filter content. Personally, I believe that neutrality is an opinion in and of itself, nevertheless, the point is that prohibitive "protection" is perhaps obsoleting.

Monday, August 21, 2006

Wiki is a Great Platform for Public Consensus

The article below from Fortune magazine is encouraging. Perhaps there is something like that HK can adopt. Maybe in consultation for policies, especially in IT...


http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive
/2006/08/21/8383639/index.htm


Patent review goes Wiki

An idea born on a blog is endorsed by Microsoft and IBM, reports Fortune's Nicholas Varchaver.
FORTUNE Magazine
By Nicholas Varchaver, Fortune senior writer
August 16 2006: 10:16 AM EDT

That's the basic concept behind a pilot program sponsored by IBM (Charts) and other companies, which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office appears poised to green-light. The project would apply an advisory version of the wiki approach to the patent-approval process.

The issue is that patent applications have tripled in the past two decades, leaving examiners only 20 hours on average to comb through a complex application, research past inventions, and decide whether a patent should be granted.

As a result, critics contend, quality has declined and lucrative patents have been granted for ideas that weren't actually new.

One solution is to let astute outsiders weigh in during the patent-review process, as online encyclopedia Wikipedia does, vastly increasing the information available to the patent examiner.

New York Law School professor Beth Noveck floated the idea on her blog last July, inspiring an article in Wired News. That, in turn, attracted the attention of IBM, which got behind the idea.

Says Dave Kappos, vice president for intellectual-property law at IBM: "It's a very powerful concept because it leverages the enormous capabilities of the entire world of technical talent."

Working with IBM and the Patent Office, Noveck developed a system that will not only permit, for example, an inventor to show that an allegedly new idea is already in practice but also lets reviewers rate one another's submissions, much as they do on eBay (Charts) and Amazon (Charts).

Patent examiners will be given only the ten highest-rated pieces of input, and attempts to sabotage a competitor's application by submitting phony material should theoretically be avoided.
Test run

Corporate sponsors including IBM, Microsoft (Charts), and Hewlett-Packard (Charts) will make a total of 250 to 400 software patents available for the pilot.

Says the commissioner for patents, John Doll: "We're just trying to put the finishing touches on the details before we roll it out to the [head of the Patent and Trademark Office] and get the final approval to move ahead."

Noveck thinks the test could launch early in 2007. If successful, the approach could then be implemented throughout the patent office. "It seems fairly obvious," says Noveck, "to try to tie together some of the systems of peer production of information that we've seen in the private sector." And those who've complained about the patent process could take part in fixing it.

From the August 21, 2006 issue

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Lights Out Off, Olympics Flame On

I supported the lights out campaign today and switched off lights at home at 8:00pm... I looked out my window and waited... but nothing happened. Not even a single light went off from my view. Rather disheartening to a certain degree, but not unexpected. It is not easy to remember... if without the reminder from the TVB programme, I would probably have missed it too.

全港熄燈三分鐘響應者少 (明報) 08月 08日 星期二 09:10PM

At the same time, the event for 2-year countdown for Olympics in Hong Kong was held. Which I find rather interesting coincidence... as the Olympic flame was lit not far from that time.

With the Chief Executive refusing to participate in the bottom-up lights out activity and the government fully embracing the Beijing directed olympics countdown event, what signs may be emerging for the countdown to 2008 for HK? The Legco did participate in the lights out today... what might be in store come 2008?

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

一切, 就源於投票資格制度有問題

Came across a rather interesting discussion in the 香港討論區 Forum:

http://www9.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=
1911662&extra=page%3D1


我夠可以入去果o的學會做正式會員囉, 咁又點?
我點解要做果o的會o既會員, 先至可以投票先? 要每年俾會費去維持個會員資格, 間接「享有」投票權?
點解我唔可以用我的「工作經驗」同「學歷」, 去證明我有資格加入資訊科技界裡面投票先?

一切, 就源於投票資格制度有問題.....

Well said xita.

As for the main discussion of "單仲偕議員呀,咁多年你為資訊科技界做過什麼?"... I rather like the question: "咁你想佢做 d 咩, 可唔可以講講...." Good question chivan. Well, perhaps first of all, to do something about the eligibility structure of the IT functional constituency. Looking at the work SCK has done in the past, his records at the legco meetings, I think it is unfair to say that he hasn't contributed to the industry and HK in general. Nevertheless, the fact that there is a complete lack of any meaningful evolution of the eligibility requirements of the ITFC leaves much to be desired.

I will echo xita's sentiment to say that the eligibility should be based on being in the IT industry and not having to pay for membership in some association. There should be a simple process to identify and declare one as an IT professional to satisfy the eligibility requirement. This process should also be free.

Monday, July 24, 2006

GST for e-business

The following was proposed in the recent consultation document on GST from the HK gov:

(a) GST-registered businesses in Hong Kong making supplies of
goods, services or digitised products (e.g., downloaded software,
music or videos) ordered via the Internet and physically supplied to
or performed for local customers would be subject to GST;

(b) GST-registered businesses in Hong Kong making supplies of
goods, services or digitised products ordered via the Internet and
physically supplied to customers outside Hong Kong would be zero
rated under the export rules (see part (g) below);

(c) goods purchased via the Internet and imported into Hong Kong
would be subject to GST, if the value of the goods were in excess
of the exemption threshold for low-value cargo (proposed to be
$4,000)21;

(d) GST would not be payable on imported services or digitised
products that were purchased from a non-Hong Kong supplier, if
that supplier did not carry on a business in Hong Kong; and

(e) all transactions of immovable property in Hong Kong (if taxable)
would be subject to GST irrespective of where, or through what
means, these transactions were performed.

In general, the concept seems viable, and I do support exploring a GST structure which will allow for better allocation of resources by the government. That being said, the key issue is that it seems the government lack confidence from the people to execute well. Especially when the accountability to the general constituency is in question.

(d) above is also problematic. If I read it correctly, it means that imported digital goods and services are GST exempted. If that is the case, there is no reason why HK shops would not export its digital goods and then directly sell it from a foreign site (hence becoming a "foreign supplier"). The fact that these are virtual goods mean that there is essentially negligible transport cost.

Overall, the biggest probelm with the GST proposal is the lack of exploration of other options. With the incredible volume of treasury reserve in HK, there is some obligation to take a look at improving the ROI on capital revenues. The consultation paper completely ignored other ways to broaden the revenue base of the government and only provided a comparison of cutting personal allowances.

Furthermore, the premise for revenue-neutrality from tax is completely unacceptable. The aim should be to reduce overall tax! With the treasury reserve in HK, the outlook for the economy, the government should have the ability to run a deficit budget (that is very different than a budget deficit) and utilize some of its capital leverage. With GST, there should be room to reduce income taxes even further than suggested so that there is a net reduction in taxation from the people.

Again, I support exploring GST, but with the few fundamental issues and lack of analysis, it will probably need serious work before any progress could be seen.

Friday, July 21, 2006

Public consulted on election guidelines

Site: http://www.eac.gov.hk/en/ecse/ecse_proposedguide.htm
Guidelines: http://www.eac.gov.hk/en/ecse/ecse_guide.htm

...The Electoral Affairs Commission (EAC) today (July 15) released the proposed guidelines on Election-related Activities in respect of the Election Committee (EC) Subsector Elections. The guidelines will be available for public consultation until August 14... http://www.eac.gov.hk/doc/ecse/2006/0715_e.doc

Simple Principles of Fairness

The 2 most important fairness principles in my mind are:
- that eligibility requirements should be largely similar
- one should not have to pay membership fees to join an association for whom he/she would not have to join otherwise to carry out his/her profession in the industry

The current system fails both of these principles.

What is worse is that because of the discrepancy in eligibility requirements, a structural inequity is inevitably created, providing unfair bias for candidates affiliated with lower barrier membership groups. Whereas a low-barrier organization can potentially wield undue influence by "accrediting" its members to be eligible voters.

The IT Constituency Needs a Fairer Eligibility Criteria

The calling for this site is rather obvious, and I tried to make it clear in the header banner. The election process in HK is very skewed in my mind. It is confusing and hard to participate. Most of the friends I have talked to in the IT industry have no idea that it is so complicated to become a registered voter in the IT functional constituency (ITFC). Even when people want to participate, the barriers are high. Why should the participation barriers be high? Is it that we do not want more people to participate?

Some other people think that the ITFC is already very "liberal", in that there are many personal votes vs. company votes. I disagree. In fact, I do not mind having corporate votes, in my mind, corporations are legal entities and if they have legal obligations why not have rights? I am not making a definitive argument for or against corporate votes here, but I think it deserves due exploration. What we have today is definitely not one which can reflect the will of the constituency. Or at least the structure is not one that is convincing.

The strangest thing is that for ITFC one has to join some arbitrary club or association to become eligible. Not only that, based on my limited knowledge, it seems that the criteria for being "eligible" is different for each organization you choose. Some requires multi-years of experience, some requires little more than a declaration, some requires tenure or exams... all in all, not every group is equal.

The system is simply not fair. The IT industry is one that is growing in size and in importance in HK as we move into the knowledge economy. A reflective electorial structure is important for the industry to voice its concerns and provide needed support to the administration governance in HK.