Operation: Internet Freedom

This is an archived post, originally written for Future Challenges.

The Stop Online Piracy Act, SOPA.

The Protect Intellectual Property Act, PIPA.

The ISP based Australian Internet filter, the Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011enforced by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

These are a few examples of many governments’ attempts, both within Australia and internationally, to fight what they see as “cyber crime” or ensure “cyber security”.  The question to ask however, is whether these attempts are true steps forward in fighting unlawful and harmful action, or whether they are misguided endeavours to control users, and how effective are they in reality at either of those roles?

We live in an increasingly online society; Information and Communications Technology (ICT) plays an intrinsic role in the daily lives of most Australians, so much so we almost no longer consciously realise it.  Like any tool however, ICT can be utilised for both lawful and unlawful pursuits and as such, “cyber crime” has become an issue of consideration for those concerned with the security of the nation, including the Australian Federal Police (AFP).

“High Tech Crime” is the purview of the AFP and is defined in Commonwealth legislation within Part 10.7 – Computer Offences of the Criminal Code Act 1995 .  This includes crimes that rely on the use of ICT, or which target ICT equipment, data and services. The Australian High Tech Crime Center (AHTCC) was formed in 2008 and looks after these types of attacks; intrusions, denial of service (DoS) attacks, destruction of data and distributing malicious software (AHTCC 2011).

The AFP’s role is relatively understood, they pursue individuals and groups who have broken the relevant legislation. To aid this, in November 2011 the Australian Government made movements towards joining an international treaty fighting internet crime.  This is hoped to reduce the estimated $1 billion in risk to Australian companies from cyber crime every year (The Australian, 2011).

Internet filters however, are a different beast and there are questions about their efficacy and the motivations behind them.

In 2009, the Australian Government began a campaign to introduce an ISP based internet filter to “block overseas sites which contain criminal content” (ABC News, 2009).  This would be done through the creation of a “blacklist”, which would be maintained by an independent body in order to “protect Australians from unsuitable material”.

The actions however, brought resounding criticism from a multitude of corners, including the Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), who rightly posed the question:

“Exactly what will be blocked? Who will decide and why is it being attempted in the first place?”

The EFA’s Vice Chair Mr Jacobs suggested that “the ease with which users can circumvent the filtering raises questions about what it is actually trying to accomplish” (ABC News, 2009).  This is perhaps the main issue with protection in the form of a filter or restriction; freedoms are reduced and controlled by a third party without any input from the public or the constituents.

Not only did the EFA raise concerns, but groups such as “No Clean Feed” erupted, encouraging users to take action against the Bill, and take action they did.

In August 2009, in response to the AFP breaking up an underground hacker’s forum, the AFP’s computer system was hacked and the individuals accessed both police evidence and intelligence about federal police systems such as its IP addresses (SMH, 2009).

The disruptions didn’t stop there; in 2010 hackers coordinated attacks on various government sites, debilitating the Australian Parliament House’s website and making Kevin Rudd’s website the home for “Operation: Titstorm”

This operation was conducted by the group “Anonymous”, the same group who have taken down Sony and attacked various government sites (such as Nigeria and Syria) in a form of “hacktivism” and are extremely vocal against all forms of internet censorship.

The bill hasn’t been passed completely, however it may no longer need to as four Australian ISP’s have now voluntarily blocked over 500 websites, setting an interesting precedent (Chalk, 2011).

So there is a lot happening; internet filters are imposed, hackers are accessing and committing “cyber crime” despite security measures, new types of crime are emerging as well as traditional crimes being aided by technology.  What does this mean for the future?  Where does this leave our global community?  Can we have our computer and internet freedoms and still expect to be safe and protected?

Currently we are in a period of transition. We deal with new forms of crime with traditional methods of crime fighting. We deal with the symptoms and attempt to stem the flow rather than deal with the source.

Information and Communication Technologies are a tool. In the same ways that cars and knives are tools than can be used for lawful and freeing activities as well as dangerous and deadly activities, technologies are a tool that can be used for great good and vice versa.

It should also be remembered that young people today are growing up in a society where ICT and the freedoms they provide are taken as the norm.  As such, removal of these freedoms is most likely going to be seen as a step backwards and will be fought vehemently.

In any society there is the requirement for some rules and legislation in order to prevent crime.  However, for crime fighting to be effective, the focus should be on the crime itself and not on restricting the medium by which the crime is being conducted, particularly when it can bring so much good.  The types of crimes are changing and perhaps that should be the focus of protection efforts.  It may also be worth thinking about looking at why these crimes are occurring and dealing with the causes rather than simply focusing on the symptoms.  Easier said than done definitely, but if we are to live in a truly global society, how can you have true and free global interaction if someone picks and chooses what you are free to access?  How is that freedom? Is it a case perhaps, of accepting the fact that no society can be as truly free as we want it to be?

Hypocrisy of the Hierarchy: "Islam" vs "Islamists"

Below is an excerpt from the blog of an activist currently in Sudan in reference to the NCP, the nation’s ruling party. He raises a poignant point; highlighting the Sudanese government's use of religion to justify their actions while simultaneously flying in the face of everything the religion stands for.

Far from a moral and legal compass, Shari’a has been nothing but a political tool used by the NCP to consolidate their hold on power. While some naively believed the rhetoric and rallied around ‘the Islamic State’, the majority has known that the regime’s founding ideology has long been perverted by power and greed. In the past, the NCP made an effort, however minimal, to cover up their religious merchandizing, if only as a courtesy. However, when CS gas is fired into a house of worship on specific orders, it seems evident that we are no longer dealing with a regime that can be bothered with even insincere courtesies.

This has been a cause of personal frustration for some time now.

Another example can be found in Timbuktu (yeh, it’s a place), Mali, where a group called the "Ansar Dine", control part of the country and destroy the nation's heritage and history in the name of "Sharia Law".

This band of terrorists has recently turned their guns and fanaticism against the historical shrines that had made the city of Timbuktu a beacon of learning through so many centuries. They have used pick-axes, shovels, hammers and guns to destroy earthen tombs and shrines of local saints in the desert city of Timbuktu, claiming that they are doing so to defend the purity of their faith against idol worship. They are behind the destruction of at least eight Timbuktu mausoleums and several tombs, centuries-old shrines in what is known as the ‘City of 333 Saints’.

***

My frustration is twofold.

Firstly, even though the actions are not aligned with Islamic values and principles, these groups will often claim their actions are in the name of the religion and then rub salt into the wound by denouncing anything or anyone they believe isn’t following Islam.

Secondly, by using Islam as a political tool, these groups taint the name of the religion itself.

Take the example of the the Muslim Brotherhood, or Al-Akhwan al-Muslimeen, the current Egyptian President’s party.  The organisation started as a religious social organisation, with stated aims to preach Islam.  With power usually comes political agendas however, and the Brotherhood is now one of the largest political movements in the Arab world.  The organisation (the political wing) operates under the banner of Islam, however throughout its history, its actions haven’t always been aligned with Islamic values.

Yet, because the Brotherhood as an organisation has an Islamic mandate, Muslim members and calls itself the “Muslim” Brotherhood, it’s actions are seen as representative of 'what is right under Islam'.

This is unfortunate as there is a difference between Islam and self proclaimed ‘Islamists’, or those who use religion as a mean to a political end.  This is not to say that all political Islamists are bad as such, things are much more nuanced than that. There is simply a difference between Islam and Islamists, and this should be recognised.

It is not the religion that should be judged by the people but the people whom should be judged by the religion.  After all, we are only human, and humans are fallible.  Such is the nature of our humanity.

***

This isn’t Islam’s problem alone, it has happened with Christians, Jews and numerous other religious groups.  Religion is an extremely effective and persuasive political tool, and unfortunately is often used to justify evil and undeniable atrocities.

However, when you look at it…

“Do you love your Creator? Then love your fellow beings first.” – The Prophet Mohammed (SAW) [Muslims]

“Love thy neighbor as thyself” – Jesus, quoting the Torah (New Testament) [Christians and Jews]

“Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule.” – Buddha [Buddhists]

It would seems to me that mercy and love are what all religions preach and what we should focus on, regardless of denomination.

***

In all of this, it should be noted that Muslims have been not given a mandate on how to rule a nation.

There are detailed descriptions for many things in Islam, down to the very details of how to wash before you pray, but there is no description for the best “model of government”.

Yes, there is the concept of ‘Sharia’, however Sharia is not a book of law as Western civilisation would have it, rather it is the ‘path’ or the Islamic ‘way of life’ (read further here).

What there isn’t is a ruling on whether Muslims should be right wing, left wing, realist, socialist, communist (though that wouldn’t really work anyway), democratic, authoritarian, dictatorial…

Politics is one of the areas that Islam hasn’t mandated.  What does that tell you?

***

So, what are your thoughts? For me personally, I think religion and politics are different realms and should be kept separate. That is how I will keep it at any rate.

'No Advantage': Australia takes a humanitarian step backwards

This article was originally written for the International Political Forum, read the article here.

The Federal Government of Australia has announced changes to its policies that will see Australia take a huge leap backwards in the humanity of its processing of refugees and asylum seekers.

Allow me a moment here for honest disbelief and disappointment in the handling of this unnecessarily controversial issue.

The Immigration Minister Chris Bowen announced that asylum seekers that arrive by boat will no longer be detained in Nauru or Manus (PNG) as the the offshore processing facilities have reached their capacity.  Instead, they will be allocated "temporary bridging visas", meaning they will be allowed to live outside detention centers without the right to work or bring their families to Australia.  The bridging visas will allow for welfare and assistance of up to 89% of unemployment benefits ($270) a week, a sum below the Australian poverty line.  [More after the jump]

The policy is eerily similar to the Howard era's draconian Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs) but manages to make matters worse.

Individuals under TPVs were allowed to work and contribute to the community, thus culturally preparing them for the eventual transition to full Australian citizens once their processing was complete.

The policy, quite frankly, is a recipe for disaster.  Introducing potentially thousands of asylum seekers into a community, living in poverty and with no legal way to earn money or improve their standard of living is not only inhumane, it is short sighted and irresponsible.  Charities will be overwhelmed by the demand on their resources, communities can turn into ghettos and by disenfranchising and isolating truly vulnerable individuals, the policy has the potential to become the birthplace of a new underclass.

Asylum seekers and refugees are often eager to work, diligent and dedicated to beginning a new life.  Stripped of their opportunity to do so, where will they turn? How will they properly adapt to their new culture?  Looking internally, why would the community accept them if they don't see them contributing to the community?

There is no doubt that this is a difficult and complex issue with no easy solution.  However, the solution cannot lay in essentially reinvigorating a decade old policy, in flaunting international law and creating inevitable problems for the future of Australia's social fabric.

Michelle Grattan made the following comment, challenging people to come up with better options.

It is easy to find holes in what the government has done this week. But it's another matter to say what policy adjustment would best meet the three criteria of humanity, effectiveness and community acceptability.

I tend to disagree.  Australians (perhaps reluctantly) elected this government to lead the nation, not pander to every whim, ensuring every solution is "acceptable to the community" before it is implemented.  It is their job as leaders and governors of the nation to provide solutions that are in the best interests of the country and its citizens, not simply in the interests of providing short term solutions that may work up until the election date.

Unfortunately however, this isn't how the system seems to work.

The public discussion on this issue has been clouded with political agendas, biased language, emotional manipulation and pure exploitation of fear of the unknown from both sides of the house.  Unfortunately, it seems our very humanity as a responsible nation has been caught in the crossfire.  There is very little public understanding of what will 'stop the boats' - advertisements such as the below are incredibly ineffective.  Where is a potential asylum seeker going to access a computer and the Internet in order to even view the video?  In two months it has had a total of 8.927 views...I think that speaks for itself.

Caption provided: "We're working regionally to stop people smugglers. There's no advantage taking a boat when it's safer, cheaper and just as quick to use orderly migration options." They have got to be kidding. (via)

It is no wonder that Australia is developing a reputation as 'extremely harsh'.

In a time where the nation is attempting to build its reputation in the region and globally through initiatives such as the Australia in the Asian Century White Paper and the seat on the Security Council, this is an embarrassment.  Neighbours such as Indonesia and Malaysia, who deal with much larger numbers, are hardly likely to be impressed - or understanding.

The unfortunate result is that this issue has become unnecessarily politicised and used as a manipulator of the public sentiment by both parties.  Simplistic statements such as "stop the boats" dehumanise individuals and create a political football that completely distorts the true nature of the discussion. 'The conversation has been poisoned' suggests Professor Burnside, and that poison is what feeds the inexorable decent in this debate.

Almost everything that has happened in refugee policy over the past 11 years has been informed and supported by dishonest rhetoric. Specifically, calling boat people “illegals” and “queue-jumpers” is not only false, it is calculated to prejudice the public against a tiny group of weak, vulnerable people who deserve our help, not our hatred. (via)

In the grand scheme of things, these traumatised men, women and children are less than 10% of our annual migration intake and are just looking for a new, peaceful place to call home.

I doubt that they expected that when they eventually arrived in Australia they would be treated worse than our criminals.

Budget implications should be enough to convince your average Australian that there is a better solution.  Detention onshore costs around $150, 000 per person, per year and offshore costs about $500, 000 per person, per year.  Surely, there are better options.

For a fantastic article that looks at a possible alternative, check out Professor Julian Burnside's thoughts.  There are many other humane solutions out there

Lastly, for those who claim that these initiatives stop the boat, Professor James Hathaway (an expert on international refugee law) states:

The whole people-smuggling problem is a false issue. We created the market for human smuggling. If asylum seekers could lawfully come to Australia and make a refugee claim without the need of sneaking in by boat, they would do it.  But we make it illegal and create the market that smugglers thrive on.

We are extremely lucky to live in Australia and call this land home.  Is it too much to show some humanity and share?

Links, Links, Links - 17th November 2012

Satire at its finest!

The Good Giraffe

A man who dresses up as a giraffe and carries out random acts of kindness towards people across Scotland has said he does it to feel good.

Child Labour in Pakistan, a photo journal

Talking about the different parts of you and your present voice…

I find myself struggling with being both content and restless. I have ridiculed myself for being the researcher, therapist, wife, and friend separately, constantly feeling as though I am lying to someone.

Three career paths…

Choosing a career seems endlessly difficult, but actually, most of work falls into just a few categories, and most of what we love to do falls into just a few as well. Look at your choices. They probably reveal to you which of the three paths you should take.

 The psychology of tetris

Since Tetris was launched on the world in 1986, millions of hours have been lost through playing this simple game. Since then, we’ve seen games consoles grow in power, and with it the appearance of everything from Call of Duty to World of Warcraft. Yet block and puzzle games like Tetris still have a special place in our hearts. Why are they are so compelling?

Really clever app…

India no longer a receiver of UK aid.

Lowy Institute’s ‘Interpreter’ article on why Israel’s Gaza escalation is a calculated risk.

Great article on doing good

The terrifying truth is that I’m making a difference no matter what I do, whether I like it or not. The math is right there: Everything else being equal, my actions amount to 1/7,047,833,249th of human existence, give or take whichever babies are being born right now.

Great for friendships as well as dating..I found it interesting.

It happened to me, I was a lazy welfare mum…and interesting story about surviving on welfare

External Essay: The “IRL” Fetish

Hanging out with friends and family increasingly means also hanging out with their technology. While eating, defecating, or resting in our beds, we are rubbing on our glowing rectangles, seemingly lost within the infostream.

I came across a great essay on the false separation between what we see as offline and online and the fetishisation of the offline…read on for more.

Facebook doesn’t curtail the offline but depends on it. What is most crucial to our time spent logged on is what happened when logged off; it is the fuel that runs the engine of social media. The photos posted, the opinions expressed, the check-ins that fill our streams are often anchored by what happens when disconnected and logged-off. The Web has everything to do with reality; it comprises real people with real bodies, histories, and politics. It is the fetish objects of the offline and the disconnected that are not real.

Those who mourn the loss of the offline are blind to its prominence online. When Turkle was walking Cape Cod, she breathed in the air, felt the breeze, and watched the waves with Facebook in mind. The appreciation of this moment of so-called disconnection was, in part, a product of online connection. The stroll ultimately was understood as and came to be fodder for her op-ed, just as our own time spent not looking at Facebook becomes the status updates and photos we will post later.

The clear distinction between the on and offline, between human and technology, is queered beyond tenability. It’s not real unless it’s on Google; pics or it didn’t happen. We aren’t friends until we are Facebook friends. We have come to understand more and more of our lives through the logic of digital connection. Social media is more than something we log into; it is something we carry within us. We can’t log off.

Solving this digital dualism also solves the contradiction: We may never fully log off, but this in no way implies the loss of the face-to-face, the slow, the analog, the deep introspection, the long walks, or the subtle appreciation of life sans screen. We enjoy all of this more than ever before. Let’s not pretend we are in some special, elite group with access to the pure offline, turning the real into a fetish and regarding everyone else as a little less real and a little less human.

Read the article here: The IRL Fetish: Published at The New Inquiry, NATHAN JURGENSON, 28th June

***

We’re not friends until we are Facebook friends…

Isn’t that the truth these days? We speak about our “online” lives as if they are a different life but in reality, it is nothing more than an carefully curated extension of ourselves. 

Online cannot exist in a vacuum, and Nathan highlights this in his piece.  The internet and “social media” (as if it is a “thing” that can be defined), is only another tool for us to interact with as we see fit.  In the same way that the clothes we choose to wear are an outward reflection of our beliefs or the image we wish to project, the parts of our lives we choose to share speak volumes about how we wish to be seen. 

However…

I can’t stop myself from thinking about how everything I say and write on the internet is there forever, which at times (quite often, in fact), makes me hesitate. That permanence makes me apprehensive. Makes me think twice, three times, four even, before choosing to share something.  Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of our oversharing culture? Doesn’t it fly in the face of presenting the “raw” individual?  Isn’t that why we follow celebrities and athletes on facebook and twitter, to get a glimpse behind the polished curtain of their presentation and see the person underneath?

***

Perhaps I am a little old fashioned and believe that not everyone has the equal right to access all parts of me.  Some parts should still be earned. I still believe in the concept of privacy, however laughable that may be in the 21st century.  There is still a space in society for the private and the public sphere, and you can choose to erase the line between the two or keep them completely delineated… that is still a personal choice that exists.

After all, Facebook, Google, Amazon and every damn Silicon Valley company may be able to track every move online, bank details, movements and purchases… but they still have no idea what we are thinking.  We still have the power to buck our supposed trends and preferences, be erratic, unpredictable and unplug.

That is the beauty of being human. 

Fairy tales for twenty somethings…

A lovely tumblr I came across that frames the dilemmas of our twenties through beloved fairy tale characters of our childhood…

Prince Charming searched near and far for Cinderella. He even checked the event page for the ball but she totally wasn’t even on the guest list!

See more here…

War and Peace: A Case for Individual Responsibility?

This was originally posted on FutureChallenges.org...check it out here! ***

Is conflict a part of human nature?

An interesting question indeed.

The short film below illustrates what happens when you take individuals from opposite sides of the pack mentality and place them in a neutral environment.

There is no denying the human race is obsessed with conflict. Our history as a species is riddled with conflict; often great change is only ever achieved through periods of upheaval, also often characterised by conflict.

It would seem that conflict and war is one of the great catalysts for change. As humans it is so easy for us to disregard an injustice if it doesn’t affect us, however once the conflict reaches our circle of comfort we are then catapulted into action…so then perhaps it can be said that conflict is a part of ‘human nature’, or at least the human story.

Couldn’t it be argued however, that ‘anything humans do’ is a ‘part of human nature’? If so… does that mean everything should still allowed to be seen as acceptable?

Where is the line between blaming our collective actions on human nature and taking personal responsibility for our actions?

Conflict is inextricably linked to the concept of “War and Peace”; the age old battle between “good” and “evil” illustrated through decades of battle between empires, to grudges between siblings or the fight on the streets between criminals and the police.

Good versus Evil is perhaps example of an completely polarising dichotomy that is in fact, extremely subjective. Isn’t one man’s terrorist another’s freedom fighter? Who decides who is good and who is evil?  It is a concept also so all encompassing that it can be stretched to meet almost any agenda. Australia is one example where inter-communal tensions are sometimes framed within the “good versus evil’ concept. This often fails to highlight the true nature of any conflict, instead depicting groups as a single, monolithic entity rather than a number of human beings with humanised emotions.

The example of the relationship between mainstream Australia and asylum seekers perhaps, or the Cronulla riots in 2005 or even the fall out after the protests in Sydney (in response to the Youtube video made on the Prophet Muhammed PBUH) are examples of situations where the ‘pack mentality’ overshadowed individual thought processes and where those labelled as ‘different’ were now seen as the enemy.

This group think process is furthermore fueled by our environment. Shortly after the protests in Sydney last month, comments were made in the media highlighting that “ethnic tensions were set to explode” (source).

A key ethnic affairs adviser to the NSW Coalition government has warned that religious and ethnic tensions in western Sydney have the potential to “explode” the nation’s multicultural fabric in the aftermath of last Saturday’s Islamic riot.

Dai Le, a Vietnamese boat-person and former ABC documentary maker…warned that multiculturalism was threatened unless new arrivals continued to integrate into overarching national values… (source)

In the light of such rhetoric, you cannot blame individuals for perhaps thinking the worst…

So, on further reflection, there are three points that are being made.

Firstly, in situations where opinions are being shaped by a highly influential environment, it becomes very easy to see the world in a good versus evil, war versus peace dichotomy. We all know however, when looking at the facts that life is rarely ever that black and white and often it depends on the individual values and perspectives.

This then leads to the second point on dealing with “tensions” on a broader scale. There is no doubt that incidents such as the Cronulla riots require an investigation of the underlying currents in a community. But the discourse in which such a situation is dealt with must behonest. It doesn’t take a lot to find out what the issues are; often all you must do is ask.

Thirdly, on the question of conflict and human nature, in light of the above…

I believe that it is folly to say that conflict isn’t a part of human nature, given our propensity towards it in history. I don’t believe the ‘human nature’ argument however, can be used as an excuse.

It is our responsibility as humans to live up to our moral standards and take individual responsibilities for our actions, and that means choosing to not engage in conflict.

Conflict used for change is often a race to the bottom; brutality can extend its miserable tentacles and affect generations. Only when a cycle is broken by collective individual actions to act differently can ‘peace’ be found…whatever peace means.

Back in the days when men were men?

Ah, LOTR…Totally Irrelevant Photo =)

I was told by my work that I am only allowed to write about my personal life, not about work per se.  I am not totally sure what that means, but I am hoping they are just referring to “talking about the actual things we are doing” and not “talking about anything remotely to do with work/having a job/how I feel”.  It is a strange feeling, being beholden to a company or organisation which you depend on for money…I know that is really what “working” is all about, but I had never really taken it that seriously before (for all my sense of responsibility, having someone tell me what I can and can’t do has never been a strong point, just ask my parents =P).

Suffice it to say I work for a large oil services company and so my job is based on the oil and gas rigs, truly male dominated territory.

What is interesting about this though, is how different working in a male dominated field is from studying in one.  I had never even given the issue much thought at all, considering since from about grade 10 I had taken traditionally male subjects and studied mechanical engineering (with less than 10 girls in a class of a couple of hundred).  I honestly thought it wouldn’t even be an issue, I would be ‘all over it’.

Perhaps that was my naivety.

What is the difference? When studying, you grew up with your mates, saw them as colleagues, friends, community, family.  Gender seemed not to be an issue, because the guys saw you as just another student or friend.

Out here in the oil and gas fields, those rules don’t apply anymore.

I won’t say that it is an absolute either way – some people will treat women with kids gloves and try to do anything for them, while others will disregard us and think that we shouldn’t be on the rigs or simply incapable of doing the job as well as a man (not even jokingly…they actually think we can’t do a job because of our chromosomes)…but the fact is that our gender matters, and is a defining part of how we are seen and dealt with.

For someone who has spent the last seven or eight years trying to not make that an issue, that is galling indeed.

An interesting experience though nonetheless, and one that I am embracing.

…and hey, as the fellas say as they chew and spit their dip, “Welcome to the Oil Fields!”

Spots of Substance: 22nd July 2012

  How was your week? I learnt a whole bunch of new things about motorsport journalism, fell flat on my rear at the first time ice skating for nearly a decade…and began Ramadaan.  I also spent a lot of time online and here are some particularly interesting things I came across!

(after you check out the links, of course :P)

Striking truths. A new picture with an inspirational saying (like the above) every day…

So what is Ramadaan exactly? Glad you asked: Ramadaan guide for non-Muslims

Why smart people are dumb via The New Yorker

Perhaps our most dangerous bias is that we naturally assume that everyone else is more susceptible to thinking errors, a tendency known as the “bias blind spot.” This “meta-bias” is rooted in our ability to spot systematic mistakes in the decisions of others—we excel at noticing the flaws of friends—and inability to spot those same mistakes in ourselves.

How much money do you need to be happy? What is your number? An interesting post on money, happiness, indulgence and sharing…

But what about individuals who are notorious for their struggles with sharing? Surely the emotional benefits of giving couldn’t possibly apply to very young children, who cling to their possessions as though their lives depended on it. To find out, we teamed up with the developmental psychologist Kiley Hamlin and gave toddlers the baby-equivalent of gold: goldfish crackers. Judging from their beaming faces, they were pretty happy about this windfall. But something made them even happier. They were happiest of allwhen giving some of their treats away to their new friend, a puppet named Monkey. Monkey puppets aside, the lesson is clear: maximizing our happiness is not about maximizing our goldfish. To be clear, having more goldfish (or more gold) doesn’t decrease our happiness — those first few crackers may provide a genuine burst of delight. But rather than focusing on how much we’ve got in our bowl, we should think more carefully about what we do with what we’ve got — which might mean indulging less, and may even mean giving others the opportunity to indulge instead.

Omar Offendum – A Syrian American rapper, using his gift to try bring voice to the uprisings in Syria, muses at The Rolling Stone.

Owen Jones: On Islamophobia in Europe

In France – where recently 42 per cent polled for Le Monde believed that the presence of Muslims was a "threat" to their national identity – a record number voted for the anti-Muslim National Front in April's presidential elections. Denmark's third largest party is the People's Party, which rails against "Islamisation" and demands the end of all non-Western immigration. The anti-Muslim Vlaams Belang flourishes in Flemish Belgium. But those who take a stand against Islamophobia are often demanded to qualify it with a condemnation of extremism. When is this ever asked of other stands against prejudice?

How do you deal with feelings of intellectual inadequacy? “I am not as smart as I thought I was…”

Epilogue: The Future of Print, a beautiful video

 4 Lessons in Creativity from John Cleese! Brilliant, truly brilliant.  It is similar to what he says in the speech below in 1991…

Covers: Come As You Are

Yuna, a Muslim Malaysian singer with a soulful version of Nirvana’s classic.

The Word on the Street

It seems all my recent posts are published at 4am, with very little proofreading and more of an emotional outpouring in response to the situations I find myself in. Maybe I should invest in a diary instead... ***

So, you might find my tone in this post a little different. I have decided to jump feet first into the fray, helping out where I can and doing what I think is right. Taking the moral road, if you will.

You know what I've learnt? It is actually scary as hell.

I don't know if I am supposed to say that. I really don't. Perhaps I should be strong and courageous in the face of adversity and not be admit apprehension...but experiencing things first hand is different indeed to hearing stories.  It makes you truly appreciate what *ahem* actual freedom fighters go through.  It makes you ask the question, is it really worth it?

I think it is. I really do. The sad thing is though, I am not sure everyone else shares that opinion, and that is what truly scares me. For if your everyday Sudanese doesn't care for their country... why will anything change?

***

I like to make a habit of talking to the raksha (tuk-tuk) drivers and the shop keepers and what not to get a feeling for what the average citizen is feeling.

Let me tell you this: the average citizen is weary.

Khalas, they tell me: enough.

'Life is hard, tough, ridiculous... how can we keep living? Where is this country going??' They ask me.

I don't have an answer, because I wonder the same thing.

'Why don't you try to change things?' I ask them.

"Why should we?" 

***

Why should we?

This is the question that makes Sudan different from the case of say, Egypt.

People are not overwhelmingly proud to be Sudanese!  They don't want to do things for their country.

Oh, they will be proud of their tribe, that is for sure. They will tell you yes! I am Shaygi, Ma7as, Ja3fari... and they will defend their tribal name to the death! But defend their country? No...

I was given the example once that if you walked into a restaurant and started loudly bad mouthing Sudan, you wouldn't elicit a response. If you walked in and slandered a tribe though, oh, lord forbid! You would have to be brought out in a stretcher.

To be honest, as someone brought up in Australia I had never considered the tribal aspect of being Sudanese until I returned and Sudanese people would ask me: "So, where are you from?"

"..uh..Sudan?"

"No, who are your people??"

"...uh...My people?..."

*cue awkward conversation endings that included answers like: uh..engineers? ..lovers of rnb?*

Odd, I thought. (They all thought I was odd too, trust me).

Why is it, that people have such strong tribal affiliations but no connection to their national identity?

Perhaps it is because, as my cousin so aptly put it, Sudan has given them nothing.

Sudan, as a nation, doesn't support its citizens.

There is poor education,

A health system that kills more than it cures,

An economy that is strangling its people,

...and even if you make it through all that, there is no opportunity for progress.

Everywhere you turn, people tell me, things are made difficult for you. My own experience backs this up completely: to register at a university or even change a tire takes an entire day, because you have to chase every.single.thing.up.yourself.

I have been told by numerous Sudanese people not to bother trying to change anything. Just get out! 

Why?

Because apparently, Sudan isn't worth the hassle.

It isn't worth getting caught or arrested for, it isn't worth being afraid or losing opportunity for... Sudan, they tell me, is getting worse and there is no uphill from here.

***

I disagree.

***

I don't think it is going to be easy.

I don't think it is one person's fight -- or even just one generation's fight.

I don't think it will happen quickly, or painlessly.

But you know what? I think it has to happen.

I think the people have to believe that Sudan is worth fighting for. Because it is!

It is the land of the Nile, a land of culture, family, food, hospitality and tradition. 

A land with promise!

A land that needs its people to believe in it. 

Oh yes, the idealism of the youth, my older, more jaded family members tell me.

You will learn that this system strangles the hope from you they say.

Well, let it try.

***

I have learnt a lot over the past few days...

Learnt how difficult it is to control something like a "movement"; sometimes you just have to go with the flow,

How to speak as a "we" rather than an "I",

What people will give up for the cause,

What lengths people will go to in protection of the status quo...

To think, I only came to the country to learn Arabic!

#SudanRevolts...

So, the Sudanese people have decided to take to the streets. Today, the "Duststorm Friday" movement started (Kataha AlJum3a in Arabic) and large numbers of protesters took to the streets.  Today, unlike the past week, people became destructive, people are starting to get heated and things are getting a little more dangerous.

Protests have reached the main streets of Khartoum (the capital), Bahri and surrounding areas and suburbs.

What is missing from these protests though, is coherence and direction.

At the moment, the Sudanese people are taking to the streets, why?

Because things are expensive. 

The official figure for inflation is something like 30.4% monthly.  That is the official figure. (Source)

A few days ago, they raised the exchange rate from 2.8 SDG to a little over 4 SDG.

How on earth are people supposed to live their lives (and run businesses!) with that type of uncertainty? The cost of my trip to uni essentially doubled in a day.

So you can understand the frustration of the people.  Hell, I am frustrated and I am not working or supporting a family here.

However, I am not sure people are going about the protests in the more effective way.  Why?

1. There are no demands.  If you look at the pictures of protesters, they are just storming streets, yelling for "change of authority" and burning things.  There are no placards, no lists of criteria, no indication of what people actually want.

2. There is no respect for property.  For actual regime change (if that is what is desired), there has to be a critical mass of people who want things to change.  You are not going to win over the general population if you are burning their buses and clogging up their roads! Destructive behaviour is the worst kind of behaviour as it gives the authorities the excuse to arrest you and criminalise you on a legal basis -- because what is being done is criminal.  What people should be doing is peacefully protesting, demanding their rights and voicing their opinions; that way noone has the legal right to touch them.

3. There doesn't seem to be a strategic outlook towards the future.  When I spent time talking to people (before the protests) about why they didn't want change, their simple answer was because they couldn't see an alternative.  "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't" they said.  That still hasn't changed -- people are asking for a regime change but they haven't given an alternative.

Furthermore, the Sudanese have the example of Egypt to learn from - overthrowing your president is one thing, but that doesn't mean you have changed the system.  For systematic change, things need to be planned, organised, strategically thought through...and none of that is happening.

For these reasons (and more, but I want to keep this succinct), I am not sure what the benefit of the protests is going to be.  Yes, the Sudanese are a revolutionary people -- they have had at least two coups since independence -- however, that does not mean they are ready or that this will be a simple and easy matter.  To be honest, I already am hearing all sorts of stories; students from my cousins' universities gone missing (picked up by the army/security forces and taken to who-knows-where), killings (though unconfirmed) and beating of protesters; the general pandemonium in cases like these.  What is sad though is that all this may happen in vain, if not done properly.

However, how does one go about organising something as amorphous as this? Already the groups exist, and clearly this is the domain of the of political parties in universities and such... so providing them direction or suggestions may be the way to go.  Perusing (read: obsessing over) the Facebook and Twitter feeds gives me some hope, but all the talk of strategy and planning doesn't seem to reach the people making the announcements and decisions.

It all seems very reactionary at the moment, when it should be proactive and strategic.

...and I am not yet certain what I can do to help, but hell, that's not going to stop me at least trying to somehow be constructive.