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have to go out and buy a newspaper or magazine for information that is at least at the very minimum six hours out of date.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.