Who owns online information?

Who owns online information?

Vishnu K. Mahmud, Contributor, Jakarta, vmahmud@yahoo.com

Information has undoubtedly become an important and valuable
commodity today. It does not matter if one is a stockbroker in
New York or a housewife in Jakarta, getting the latest data can
make a difference in your life.

The latest information on prices, the traffic situation,
business conditions and even gossip on the hottest celebrities
are just a few of the things people clamor for.

Unlike just a few years ago, we are now enjoying the luxury of
access on all sorts of information that we need as long as it is
not confidential state documents.

At present, with the advent of the World Wide Web, online
magazines and Internet cafes, regular people can now find out
what is happening on the far side of the world -- usually in real
time.

The problem is the gap in obtaining access to information
online is increasing. While some people can easily obtain the
latest news with a few clicks of the mouse, most Indonesians have
to go out and buy a newspaper or magazine for information that is
at least at the very minimum six hours out of date.

There are also questions on the ownership of information, who
should control it and how much does it cost.

Open source advocates have always demanded that information be
freely available to everyone in order to provide a level playing
field.

Imagine a world where people could collaborate towards solving
problems such as poverty, famine and illnesses using their
individual ideas, experiences and problem-solving abilities
without worrying about copyright protection, patents and other
bureaucratic headaches.

Many information hackers consider all of human knowledge as
being based on previous knowledge and research that should be for
the benefit of all of mankind, and not for some greedy
corporation. A case in point could be seen in the flawed U.S.
Patent system.

Analysts have pointed out that the U.S. Patent Office has
frequently issued questionable patents to entities that should
not be eligible to such exclusive rights. There have been
companies who filed patents for the most commonly used
technological procedures on the internet and then turn around to
demand license fees from others, including the people who may
have assisted in creating the software in the first place.

Such restrictive acts only stifle innovation, allowing people
who spent time and money on filing for the patent (and not in
research and development for the technology) to profit from
someone else's prior work.

This is not to say that copyright and patents are wrong, but
that careful background checks and research should be conducted
to see that the proper parties are rewarded. However, should a
technology (as well as the knowledge and information behind it)
be the result of a lengthy collaboration of previous work from
various parties, it should remain in the public domain for the
benefit of all.

Certain governments have attempted to suppress information in
the name of "national security." Yet, by burying their heads in
the sand they fail to consider and face head on any potential
"alternative" threats.

The U.S. government's steadfast policy on a national missile
defense system against "rogue nations" is a rather comical
example. Based on the latest current events, homemade armaments
are the threat du jour, and can be easily assembled with off-the-
shelf parts. These small weapons built within the country can
easily slip under the glare of a "Star Wars" anti-weapons
platform.

A New Zealand man tried to prove this point by attempting to
build his own missile from commonly available materials for five
thousand dollars. Although he was informed that he was not
breaking any laws, Bruce Simpson (www.aardvark.co.nz) was
reportedly ordered to stop by the New Zealand government,
allegedly under pressure by the U.S, who called the project
"unhelpful."

Security through obscurity is not a very reliable method for
public safety. Software companies have tried this many times in
the past and have gotten burned when crackers easily exploited
the obvious system flaws that brings into question precisely what
did the software house know and when did they know it? And, most
tellingly, why didn't they do anything about it when they did?

These are some of the issues that the World Summit on
Information Society (WSIS) held in Geneva last week tried to
tackle.

Rich nations demanded more focus on security issues while
developing nations called for universal access for all. It is a
well-known fact that developed countries have an established and
well-funded scientific community while struggling nations are
under pressure to provide services for their citizens. With this
baroque cycle, those with knowledge and information will always
lord it over those who do not.

But things are changing. Thanks to technological advances,
prices of "old" hardware (about 3 years old and up) are falling
drastically, creating a huge second hand market of ready to use
computers.

It has been proven that you do not need the latest powerful
and expensive PC to access the Internet as a simple one will do.

With a local network infrastructure in place, Indonesia could
perhaps create its own sub-internet that can be easily and
quickly be accessed from all parts of the country. As such,
students, teachers and the general public can create and share
their own knowledge and content for the benefit of all, finding
solutions to problems and highlighting issues to be tackled.

More importantly, information can be universally shared to
ensure that everyone has a chance to be the next Albert Einstein
or Steve Jobs. With this level playing field, those who work hard
can easily excel. There should be no more excuses.