International Terrorism and Intellectual Property - Network Economy Series - Article 1

There is just so much debate happening at the moment on how to a) justify both Apple and Google’s Android smartphones from tracing and saving user-location data and b) the upheaval in the Federal Courts over patents and licensing technologies which should all be collectively drawn from the same intellectual property pool with a focus on cross-pollination of business models to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.

Long gone are the days where companies can hide their secrets within the Research and Development departments and only broadcast ambiguous comments about their upcoming technologies. Don Tapscott, in The Naked Corporation, prophesizes an era where consumers, staff, stakeholders and even directors of organisations are no longer holding onto their secrets with an iron fist; but are in fact denouncing the secrets and exposing the very own perpetrators who yearn for economic power through totalitarian type control of intra-company fostered collaborations and subsequent protection of the so called ‘intellectual property’ embodied within their balance sheets as ‘assets’.

To really address these issues, one needs to open their eyes and be submissive into the nature of ‘reasonable enquiry’. Reasonable Enquiry is something that fascinated me whilst I did a short term assignment at National Australia Bank (nab); and whilst it is certainly relevant in the assessment of needs and wants and the consequent reconciliation of ‘suitable financial products’; reasonable enquiry also has its origins rooted deep in cybernetic and economic philosophies.

For starters, let’s address topic A above (Apple and Android location tracking) through the insightful mechanics of reasonable enquiry.

My understanding so far, rooted in a meta-contextual appreciation of ‘collective intelligence’ and its application in contemporary society. What is wrong with collectively garnering information which is disclaimed in terms of agreements where it says specifically it is going to be used to deliver a plethora of unique technologies in the future underpinned by location tracking?

In this light, its relevant that we raise issues which may get your attention – such as terrorism and the future of terrorist networks who are self-organizing in the name of religion for fanatical reasons which are beyond any reasonable enquiry!

Thomas C. Schelling, in a report entitled Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism – which was written by the National Commission on Terrorism claims that “terrorism succeeds because of the element of surprise and, unfortunately, surprise is a factor that we cannot always control”. True to this universal truth is also an eclipsing viewpoint that summons the need for “contingencies that occur to no one, but also those that everyone assumes somebody else is taking care of”. Rather serendipitously, this report also ignites its focus on International Terrorism integrating a “neglect of responsibility but also responsibility so poorly defined or so ambiguously delegated that action gets lost”.

In this context, an article dating back to the Weekend edition (June 21-22; 2008) in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled “Crash and Burn”, begs for the urgency of introducing “one national framework to manage and co-ordinate any significant disaster, by amalgamating our national counter-terrorism and emergency management arrangements into one structure”.

Wow – now doesn’t this shed more light on the justification of powerful companies that operate in oligopolistic markets - such as Microsoft, Google and Apple – to track user location and make them anonymous for the purpose of a) improving triangulation (which in fact improves pin pointing any anonymous user to ‘triangulated’ location and b) studying the schematics of these networks/pathways of location information through a diagrammatic framework that entertains the differentiation of terrorist networks or consumer networks.

So, now that I have your attention – lets move onto something even more relevant. Dr Anthony Bergin, who is director of research programs at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in the very article mentioned before asserted the need for a “fundamental shift in moving from a need-to-know resilience culture if we are to fully understand our state of preparedness, and to be better prepared [for things like terrorism and anything branching of to national disasters and critical emergencies]”

Political leaders and their strategists can only observe models of behaviour for statistical inference of extrapolation into what-if contingencies and what might happen in the future.

Now you tell me, did these models help anyone with the Global Financial Crisis? As far as I remember, only philosophy can explain the herding and crowding out effect on equity markets worldwide – especially during “dark October/November” (or whatever it was)!

thealphaswarmer project and its trusted affiliations will generally agree that a universal intellectual property framework is required to disseminate asymmetries and foster a creative future based on federations of trust. In fact, I am currently exploring in detail a book published by the Harvard Business School entitled “ Open Business Models: How To Thrive In The New Innovation Landscape” and within its nomenclature; it makes vivid references to Clayton’s Christensen’s “Value Chain Evolution” theory of industry change and the subsequent merging of ‘networks of power’.

In aggregation, what is required (yes through MY reasonable enquiry) – is the creation of a complex technology alignment architecture when two parties have conflicting patent claims. With reference to page 84 of the HBS book in question; Figure 4-2 is in stark contrast to Figure 4-4 which details “A Patent Map Of The Value Chain” where companies may benefit through collaborating in a mutual zone of capability.

Personally, what will be required for the appreciation of radical business models and the subsequent submission into an open innovation landscape will be how business leaders and futurists shape their a) Intellectual Property and b) Value Chain strategies to integrate this new mode of thinking. Yes, it will be a difficult and tedious task but within the metacontext of “collective intelligence” in Network Economies – companies will be required to cross pollinate their patents and induce multi-product innovations to feed of the same IP pool. In simple terms, a licensing or voucher intervention system would assist organisations willing to embrace this model (shown above)

An Icebreaker - Read Between The Lines - thealphaswarmer project creatives

As the rain fell sporadically outside I signed into yet another day of monotonous work: encrypting, decrypting and modifying software codes for The Company. It was 8.45am, though the darkness of the sky and the musty smell in the air reminded me of how the earth seems to sigh in the early hours of the morning, just before it is awoken again by the sun creeping creeps over the horizon.  

I was feeling exhausted and depleted, like an empty reservoir standing only for the purpose of collecting water from a drip in the roof. There is much to do, but I cannot find the incentive or energy to do it.  Not even the fear of Manager Dell using my lack of application as an excuse to terminate my employment could motivate me today.  I have been told that my “optimum performance” is absolutely necessary if there is to be a successful channeling of software codes for the US’s new defense intelligence system, Maximus.

Deciding I needed to defrag my mind, I embraced the current solitude and entered a command.  Reading the next maintenance code, I was a bit taken aback when a window popped up on screen, informing me of an email sent from Mac, a colleague who was my complementary software engineer. I clicked on the link and found a spread of matrix codes that were encrypted in the language only used by the higher ranks in The Company. At the top of the email Mac had said, “Binary codes are acceptable, but not necessary.  Do you agree?.” Following was the binary codes for installing a new piece of hardware:  something that we did regularly and something that was above suspicion.   A feeling of uneasiness spread through me. I had never experienced such a thing before. Two questions circled in the air: what was Mac doing with top level codes and should I really decode them? Breach of security was a serious crime in The Company, and immediate termination of employees who use the internal email system for non-work purposes occurred.  My senses gnawed at me.  What was Mac up to?

I paused and then began decrypting the code using The Company’s top-secret encryption software, Labyrinth. It seemed like no more than one minute before the message embedded within the codes started to surface. What I read almost made me freeze and my perception of my employer flipped. Maximus had been intercepted and turned on itself. What was supposed to be our defense had now become a weapon more powerful and destructive than all the old atomic bombs. Someone, I don’t know who, had reversed the firewall function of Maximus and diverted it outside The Company. Now it had adopted a “seek, conquer and destroy” method that threatened to destabalise the autonomy of all other systems and bring them and the countries they protect under its command.

Naively believing my sense of horror could not get worse, I continued to scan the email.   At the bottom of the screen was a signature and from this I found that the Gatekeepers were behind it.  In second position in The Company hierarchy, they had the power to authorise the input of Maximus’ launching sequence and monitor all outside activity. The boss, Manager Dell, did not have control over them for they only answered to the Board, who were the ultimate bosses of The Company.

All I could do was ask why? Why would the Gatekeepers be behind this? Was there a mutiny going on? Or perhaps…no…it couldn’t be. I shuddered to think but then decided it must be true. The threat was coming from above. The Gatekeepers cannot act alone despite all their authority. If this were a mutiny it would have been interrupted and prevented by now. No, the Board knew what was occurring. Not only did it know, it was the one that was behind what was happening. 

At that moment another window popped up on screen. It was from Mac.

“How do you like them apples?” he said.

“I can’t believe it.” I replied. “But should we really be discussing this online? We don’t know who could be monitoring.”

“Never fear my friend,” Mac said, always confident, “I have scripted our conversation for our eyes only. It just looks like normal data entry to anyone else.”

Mac was always on top of things even though he was the most rebellious individual I had ever worked with. This was why The Company tolerated him. He was the only one who had the ability to formulate phantom worm viruses that couldnot be detected or destroyed by other systems until their missions were complete. Then they self-destruct so they can never be traced.

“I have managed to create new phantom worm viruses, they have the ability to hack into Maximus and create temporary diversions therefore allowing us to execute our disarming strategy” Mac said with obvious conceit. His ostentatious nature was always an attribute we viewed with high regard. “Once inside the control panel, we can manually disarm the launching sequence hence eliminating the imminence of its execution”.

“But how will we be able to stop everyone else forming alliances with Maximus?” I added, hoping to receive a comforting response.

“Well we cannot do much to stop the alliances, the software framework based on Maximus is too strong” Mac replied. His response plunged me into a state of defeat, I thought that there could be nothing in the world we could do, and an apocalypse had began.

Going through my files, I remembered that I once had a preliminary blueprint of the algorithm sequences for the software that governed Maximus. The Gatekeepers had given them to me as a ‘back-up’ in case the pilot software failed so that we could create another one without losing much of the logic that went through its creation. Remaining focused and persistent I searched doggedly for the file, I encrypted the Company’s archive, which my computer had priority over, and finally came across a corrupted collection of blueprint documents that were used in the initial stages of the Company’s creation.

Even though it was sort of prohibited to access things from the “old days”, the gnawing feeling would not go away. To my most pleasant surprise, I was able to open a crucial part of the blueprint document. Analyzing it, I found a way to defeat Maximus!

Following the immediate realization, I contacted Mac on the instant messaging service. By this time, the Company was informed of our rebellious plan and had set out  to come and destroy us. “Mac, Maximus is not able to extend beyond national boundaries without the assistance of satellites which need confirmation from other defence agencies in other countries” I said quickly, hoping to inform Mac of everything before our power sources were cut down. “Quick Mac! The perpetrators of this unethical act will lie to the senior delegates of other nations by saying they need their input codes for defence purposes. Send your log which contains all of the Company’s dark lies so we can get help, before it’s too late.”

Mac replied “Yes I will immediately.”

I was in suspense; the fate of the Earth depended on Mac’s transmission. The storm outside grew stronger! Lightning and rain pounded the earth as it had never before, the sounds of thunder pervaded the lines, and chaos was impending.

Whilst closing all the windows, Mac replied “I have successfully alerted the delegates of Australia, New Zealand, Europe.  The message has been sent as I received a posting confirmation. Adam, take care, the …. Are coming… oh no.. Mac… I a.”

The screen was dead, and so was Mac.  I could sense the virus coming down line to me…milliseconds only left.   Corrupting, my memory banks asked, “Is this what happened to humans, or was it only we machines who were so brutal?” 

Freedom Of Speech In Network Economies - A Subjective Perspective

As more and more consumers, employees, managing directors and big government politicians embrace blogs, wikis and public pages on social utilities like Facebook; there will always be a task force or activist group of people who have no faith in the emergence of transparency and have only intentions to restrict OR limit the nature of free speech in a Network based Economy.

An article on the Sydney Morning Herald today caught my most divine attention this morning and raised some quite peculiar issues which I believe thealphaswarmer project can address.

For starters, the Washington lobbyist from Facebook is immersed in a conception that they are allowing "too much, maybe, free speech" and that despite the compliance hurdles Facebook is trying to entertain in alignment with China's privacy law; personally I believe everyone should just take a breather and a chill-pilll and consider my proposition.

We (thealphaswarmer project and its members/fans and its professional affiliations) generally agree that there definitely is some "tensions" around the regulation of media (specifically Social Media) with the impetus being on the protection of free speech and another competing interest. In the federal courts here, we do not have an overriding protection of free speech like the United States First Amendment and therefore when governments are making the laws and the courts subsequently applying and administering them; all parties are required to balance different interests against each other.

The most common form of free-speech transgression on the internet falls under what mainstream society would attribute as "Defamation". Kimberly Heitman, on this very issue, wrote a paper entitled 'Free Speech Online: Still Shooting the Messenger' UNSW Law Journal Vol. 11, No 2, Dec 2005 (p62-64).

In this paper, Heitman identifies an apparent micro-trend eclipsing into a mainstream system of where "plantiff lawyers are advising their clients not to engage with the content provider, but, instead to threaten defamation proceedings against the Internet Service Provider".

Wow - this surely does bring into perspective the liability of internet content hosts and internet providers under State and Territory laws. More specifically, this is rather paradoxical to the outcome of the case between the Media Companies and Australias No 2. ISP (iiNet) - based in Western Australia.

In this case, what I remember (quoting Heitman) is that The Broadcast Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999 purports to exempt ISPs from any State and Territory laws - including defamation - which require monitoring of users' content or impose liability for content made available by the ISP's customers without the ISP's knowledge". 

This makes total sense! No wonder iiNet won the legal battle and they are not liable for the behaviours of their users. To me, personally, monitoring internet activity of your customers is like a totalitarian government in a 'The Minority Report' type of system - where they need measures as a pre-cursor to identification of breaches of various laws, which is not only limited to defamation but also extends to piracy and the proliferation and uptake of the "Torrent Culture".

Now I am no law professional and having only done one law subject at University (UNSW - Law In The Information Age); All I can perhaps suggest subjectively is that everyone concerned i.e interest groups and Facebook start looking into open-licensing deed systems for a) cases of privacy and b) try to shape an international framework that underpins the Creative Commons Deed Licensing System as a benchmark to define the evolution of the precedents relevant to freedom of speech and anything of that sort.


The main problem that will arise is that politicians, through cultural variance, will require a 'behavioural framework' that entertains the dissemination of laws to reflect the concerns of free speech in Network Economies.