CLOUD COMPUTING
Cloud computing is all the rage. I have to admit that I don't understand much of the technical side of it. But the basic idea is that companies and individuals "outsource" their computer functions, both data and programmes, to a specialist provider with vast storage capacity (the "cloud"). When you want to use the computer, you simply download the relevant programme and data using the internet. As with other outsourcing functions, you hand over the running to experts (in return for a fee), and avoid the need for costly hardware, server rooms and other things. You don't need much more than a laptop with an internet connection.
Superficially, this is extremely attractive. Yet I must admit that I have deep suspicions that the benefits do not exceed the hidden costs. The biggest of these is the threat to security. Once the data is in the hands of the provider, you lose control of it. Each time you upload and download, the data passes through the - unregulated and unsecured - internet (yes, you can encrypt, but what small business or individual wants to do that all of the time just to get onto Facebook?). Providers are not 100% secure (think of Microsoft and its ubiquitous patches). And there is a small army of cyber criminals who are doing all they can to get their hands on your information. Nowadays they do that mainly by hacking or phishing, but in a cloud world, wouldn't it simply be easier to bribe a provider's data manager?
There are also jurisdictional issues. Is the data of a Danish company, handed over to a U.K. provider but stored on a server in India, covered by Danish, English or Indian law or a mix of them? What happens if data is "lost" (the loss of the tax records of half of the U.K. population spring to mind)? Who pays compensation and how is it calculated (the value of information can be wildly different to different people)? Will there be sufficient privacy safeguards when the provider can in principle oversee everything you do with a particular programme?
Techies will presumably say that they are well on the way to solving these problems, and that I am a stone-age neanderthal that just doesn't "get it". Well, I don't. As one fellow sceptic put it, you wouldn't give your personal tax data in an envelope to someone off the street, whom you had never met before. Yet it seems that when you upload your personal data to a server somewhere in cloudland, you are doing pretty much the same thing.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday, 17 March 2010
Tuesday, 16 March 2010
EXECUTIVE PAY
There is something intellectually dishonest about the way many top executives are compensated. The process goes something like this. The company's Directors, wishing to appear to be impartial or at least objective, hire a firm of independent compensation consultants. The consultants duly carry out a survey, often worldwide, of the pay of executives in the company's industry. That survey provides a benchmark, against which the pay of the company's own executive is measured. Since the company's own executive is deemed by the Board to be of above average quality, he/she gets an above average compensation package.
The dishonesty lies in the assumption that the company's own executive is always above average. It is, by definition, impossible for all executives to be above average. But what Board would say that its own executive is below average? After all, it was they who picked him/her; and to admit otherwise would reflect badly on their judgement. The result is that everybody, or nearly everybody, gets above average pay rises, thereby ratcheting up the benchmark prior to the next round of compensation surveys.
Everybody does well out of this system. The executive in question, the compensation consultants, the Board members (who are often rewarded by a grateful executive). Everybody except, of course, the shareholders who ultimately have to pay for all this. In the large, publicly-quoted, multinationals where this goes on, that means you and me.
Board spokesmen are often heard saying that the market for talent is a global one, and that they have to pay the going rate if they want to attract good people. That is both true and false. The market is indeed global; but the "going rate" is being artificially inflated through the process above. If the CEO of Exxon's salary is currently US$10m a year, are they really saying that there is no talented oil executive in the world who would do the job for (say) US$2m? I have to say that I doubt it.
Walter Blotscher
There is something intellectually dishonest about the way many top executives are compensated. The process goes something like this. The company's Directors, wishing to appear to be impartial or at least objective, hire a firm of independent compensation consultants. The consultants duly carry out a survey, often worldwide, of the pay of executives in the company's industry. That survey provides a benchmark, against which the pay of the company's own executive is measured. Since the company's own executive is deemed by the Board to be of above average quality, he/she gets an above average compensation package.
The dishonesty lies in the assumption that the company's own executive is always above average. It is, by definition, impossible for all executives to be above average. But what Board would say that its own executive is below average? After all, it was they who picked him/her; and to admit otherwise would reflect badly on their judgement. The result is that everybody, or nearly everybody, gets above average pay rises, thereby ratcheting up the benchmark prior to the next round of compensation surveys.
Everybody does well out of this system. The executive in question, the compensation consultants, the Board members (who are often rewarded by a grateful executive). Everybody except, of course, the shareholders who ultimately have to pay for all this. In the large, publicly-quoted, multinationals where this goes on, that means you and me.
Board spokesmen are often heard saying that the market for talent is a global one, and that they have to pay the going rate if they want to attract good people. That is both true and false. The market is indeed global; but the "going rate" is being artificially inflated through the process above. If the CEO of Exxon's salary is currently US$10m a year, are they really saying that there is no talented oil executive in the world who would do the job for (say) US$2m? I have to say that I doubt it.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday, 14 March 2010
YPRES
My wife visited Ypres in Belgium recently and brought me back a book about the conflict in Flanders during the First World War. The Ypres salient was the site of three major battles, in 1914, 1915 and 1917, none of which achieved much apart from the wholescale killing and maiming of vast quantities of human beings. The waterlogged landscape around the mediaeval cloth town was churned up by rain and shellfire into a vast sewer of rotting corpses, poison gas, blood and excrement. There were odd successes, such as the (literal) destruction of the Messines Ridge by mining. But the overwhelming impressions were ones of stupidity and futility.
One should not perhaps judge the generals too harshly; developments in armaments technology meant that nobody in August 1914 could have foreseen what would happen. But what is staggering is that millions of ordinary soldiers - on both sides - put up with what was literally hell on earth. Was it pride in one's country or simply a desire not to let one's comrades down? With the recent deaths of the last survivors of the First World War, we shall probably never really know.
Walter Blotscher
My wife visited Ypres in Belgium recently and brought me back a book about the conflict in Flanders during the First World War. The Ypres salient was the site of three major battles, in 1914, 1915 and 1917, none of which achieved much apart from the wholescale killing and maiming of vast quantities of human beings. The waterlogged landscape around the mediaeval cloth town was churned up by rain and shellfire into a vast sewer of rotting corpses, poison gas, blood and excrement. There were odd successes, such as the (literal) destruction of the Messines Ridge by mining. But the overwhelming impressions were ones of stupidity and futility.
One should not perhaps judge the generals too harshly; developments in armaments technology meant that nobody in August 1914 could have foreseen what would happen. But what is staggering is that millions of ordinary soldiers - on both sides - put up with what was literally hell on earth. Was it pride in one's country or simply a desire not to let one's comrades down? With the recent deaths of the last survivors of the First World War, we shall probably never really know.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday, 13 March 2010
SUICIDE BOMBERS AND THE MEDIA
Yesterday in Lahore, 54 people were killed, and about 100 injured, in two separate suicide bomb attacks. Yet this appalling incident was only about the tenth item on last night's Danish national news, well after stories such as the increasing use of cocaine by young people in nightclubs on Friday evenings, and the level of noise in kindergartens.
When I was growing up, there were no suicide bombers. Very, very occasionally, someone decided to set fire to themselves as a form of protest; a Tibetan monk, perhaps. However, while bizarre, it harmed only the person concerned. There were also bombers from time to time, notably the IRA. But they never wanted to blow themselves up.
One of the major developments of modern times is the coming together of these two themes. There are now suicide bombs virtually every day. And because the bombers are willing to lose their own lives in the act, casualties are high. Lahore was by no means unusual; Iraq and Afghanistan have had similar experiences.
Not only are such incidents common, they are also becoming commonplace. Media organisations place them lower and lower in their list of newsworthy items. My children have grown up to believe that they are a part of everyday life. That is a tragedy.
Walter Blotscher
Yesterday in Lahore, 54 people were killed, and about 100 injured, in two separate suicide bomb attacks. Yet this appalling incident was only about the tenth item on last night's Danish national news, well after stories such as the increasing use of cocaine by young people in nightclubs on Friday evenings, and the level of noise in kindergartens.
When I was growing up, there were no suicide bombers. Very, very occasionally, someone decided to set fire to themselves as a form of protest; a Tibetan monk, perhaps. However, while bizarre, it harmed only the person concerned. There were also bombers from time to time, notably the IRA. But they never wanted to blow themselves up.
One of the major developments of modern times is the coming together of these two themes. There are now suicide bombs virtually every day. And because the bombers are willing to lose their own lives in the act, casualties are high. Lahore was by no means unusual; Iraq and Afghanistan have had similar experiences.
Not only are such incidents common, they are also becoming commonplace. Media organisations place them lower and lower in their list of newsworthy items. My children have grown up to believe that they are a part of everyday life. That is a tragedy.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday, 11 March 2010
GOATS
I want to write about goats. Not the nibbling, munching kind, but non-politicians brought into the U.K. Government in order to form a Government Of All the Talents. Surgeons become Ministers in the Department of Health, admirals become Ministers for Security, businessmen become Ministers for Trade, and so on.
In the U.K. Ministers have to be members of Parliament. So the goats are made Life Peers, ennabling them to sit in the House of Lords, the Upper Chamber. Two widespread criticisms of this system are first, that because they are not subject to questioning by the (more important and elected) House of Commons, the mechanism is undemocratic. And secondly, when the goats resign (as they often do when they discover that government is not what they expected), they get to retain the Life Peerage, with the title, the expenses and the prestige.
Other countries also import outsiders into Government who are not M.P.s; Denmark, for instance (Connie Hedegaard, the Climate Minister who ran the recent Copenhagen summit, was a journalist before she became a Minister, though she had been in politics some time before that). And countries that have a strong separation of powers (eg France, the U.S.) prohibit Ministers from also being members of Parliament or Congress; if Deputies, Congressmen or Senators are picked to be a Minister, then they must resign their seat.
There is no shortage of proposals to the U.K. goat problem. For instance, the former Prime Minister, John Major, has suggested that goats should lose their peerage once they resign as a Minister. However, that strikes me as using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The requirement that Ministers be in Parliament is, under the U.K.'s largely unwritten constitution, a convention rather than a law. If Parliament wants goats to be accountable to Parliament (i.e. to the House of Commons), then the sensible solution is to pass a law allowing anybody to become a Minister, but requiring them to answer to questions in the House of Commons. Nobody would then have to ennoble a goat.
Walter Blotscher
I want to write about goats. Not the nibbling, munching kind, but non-politicians brought into the U.K. Government in order to form a Government Of All the Talents. Surgeons become Ministers in the Department of Health, admirals become Ministers for Security, businessmen become Ministers for Trade, and so on.
In the U.K. Ministers have to be members of Parliament. So the goats are made Life Peers, ennabling them to sit in the House of Lords, the Upper Chamber. Two widespread criticisms of this system are first, that because they are not subject to questioning by the (more important and elected) House of Commons, the mechanism is undemocratic. And secondly, when the goats resign (as they often do when they discover that government is not what they expected), they get to retain the Life Peerage, with the title, the expenses and the prestige.
Other countries also import outsiders into Government who are not M.P.s; Denmark, for instance (Connie Hedegaard, the Climate Minister who ran the recent Copenhagen summit, was a journalist before she became a Minister, though she had been in politics some time before that). And countries that have a strong separation of powers (eg France, the U.S.) prohibit Ministers from also being members of Parliament or Congress; if Deputies, Congressmen or Senators are picked to be a Minister, then they must resign their seat.
There is no shortage of proposals to the U.K. goat problem. For instance, the former Prime Minister, John Major, has suggested that goats should lose their peerage once they resign as a Minister. However, that strikes me as using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The requirement that Ministers be in Parliament is, under the U.K.'s largely unwritten constitution, a convention rather than a law. If Parliament wants goats to be accountable to Parliament (i.e. to the House of Commons), then the sensible solution is to pass a law allowing anybody to become a Minister, but requiring them to answer to questions in the House of Commons. Nobody would then have to ennoble a goat.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
INTERNATIONAL LAW
International law is much in the news these days. The legality (or not) of the Iraq war, the fight against terrorism and Guantanamo Bay, the prosecutions and possible prosecutions of present and former Government leaders for war crimes (Sudan, Rwanda, Bosnia), the International Criminal Court.
Yet there seems to be a certain ambivalence, if not hypocrisy, in its application. Tony Blair's main justification for removing Saddam Hussein was that he did not comply with U.N. security council resolutions over a long period of time. Not so far from Baghdad is another country that has not complied with U.N. security council resolutions over a long period of time; Israel. Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1967, and is, therefore, an occupying power under international law. As such, it has no right to build settlements on that territory, though it has done so virtually ever since.
Israel's recent approval of 1600 new homes for ultra-Orthodox Jews in East Jerusalem was roundly condemned as illegal by both visiting U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. However, in contrast to Iraq's earlier flaunting of international law, this one is highly unlikely to lead to military intervention.
All Europeans should feel a strong sense of humility and shame about what happened to the Jewish people during the 20th century. But this is not about the Jewish people, it is about the state of Israel and how it interacts with the rest of the international community. It is high time that the only outsider with real clout within the country - namely the U.S. - started putting serious pressure on Israel to change its ways.
Walter Blotscher
International law is much in the news these days. The legality (or not) of the Iraq war, the fight against terrorism and Guantanamo Bay, the prosecutions and possible prosecutions of present and former Government leaders for war crimes (Sudan, Rwanda, Bosnia), the International Criminal Court.
Yet there seems to be a certain ambivalence, if not hypocrisy, in its application. Tony Blair's main justification for removing Saddam Hussein was that he did not comply with U.N. security council resolutions over a long period of time. Not so far from Baghdad is another country that has not complied with U.N. security council resolutions over a long period of time; Israel. Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1967, and is, therefore, an occupying power under international law. As such, it has no right to build settlements on that territory, though it has done so virtually ever since.
Israel's recent approval of 1600 new homes for ultra-Orthodox Jews in East Jerusalem was roundly condemned as illegal by both visiting U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. However, in contrast to Iraq's earlier flaunting of international law, this one is highly unlikely to lead to military intervention.
All Europeans should feel a strong sense of humility and shame about what happened to the Jewish people during the 20th century. But this is not about the Jewish people, it is about the state of Israel and how it interacts with the rest of the international community. It is high time that the only outsider with real clout within the country - namely the U.S. - started putting serious pressure on Israel to change its ways.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
VIGILANTE JUSTICE
I think it is right that the U.K. Government has not disclosed the reasons for Jon Venables' return to prison.
In 1993 2-year old James Bulger was kidnapped from a shopping centre by two 10-year old boys, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. They later bludgeoned the toddler to death, and left his body on a railway line. The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales being only 10, they were tried and convicted for murder in an adult court (a decision later condemned by the European Court of Human Rights).
The Home Secretary had said that they should serve a minimum of 15 years in prison. However, the ECHR also said that their "tariff" should be set by a judge, not a politician; and in 2000, the then Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf ruled that their tariff had expired. In 2001 the boys, now 19, were released on licence, with new identities. The courts also placed a lifetime, blanket injunction on the media, preventing them from revealing anything about the boys' whereabouts or identities.
The automatic sentence for murder in England and Wales is life imprisonment. Convicted offenders do not often spend the rest of their life in prison; but if they are released, they only remain free on licence. If the licence is breached, then the person must go back to prison. Often, but not always, the breach of the licence is the committing of a new crime.
Jon Venables has apparently breached the terms of his licence. According to the Justice Secretary Jack Straw, "extremely serious allegations" have been made against him. However, he declined in Parliament to spell out what these are, since he did not wish to prejudice any possible future trial. A police investigation is ongoing.
This is surely right. Although various people - and not just James Bulger's mother - have said that the public has a "right to know", the Justice Secretary was supported by Baroness Butler-Sloss, the now-retired judge that had issued the injunction in 2001. As she pointed out, Jon Venables has not yet been charged with anything, there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in all criminal cases, and there is "at least the possibility that he has committed no offence" (in which case he would be released on licence again). Most importantly, she reminded the general public that the reason behind the blanket injunction, namely the possibility of vigilante violence, or even murder, against the two offenders, still exists; "those who wanted to kill him in 2001 are likely to be out there now," she said.
The killing of a child is a particularly horrible crime. But everyone has the right to atone for their sins. Furthermore, the public interest is not the same as what interests the public. Jack Straw did the right thing, and is to be applauded for so doing.
Walter Blotscher
I think it is right that the U.K. Government has not disclosed the reasons for Jon Venables' return to prison.
In 1993 2-year old James Bulger was kidnapped from a shopping centre by two 10-year old boys, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. They later bludgeoned the toddler to death, and left his body on a railway line. The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales being only 10, they were tried and convicted for murder in an adult court (a decision later condemned by the European Court of Human Rights).
The Home Secretary had said that they should serve a minimum of 15 years in prison. However, the ECHR also said that their "tariff" should be set by a judge, not a politician; and in 2000, the then Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf ruled that their tariff had expired. In 2001 the boys, now 19, were released on licence, with new identities. The courts also placed a lifetime, blanket injunction on the media, preventing them from revealing anything about the boys' whereabouts or identities.
The automatic sentence for murder in England and Wales is life imprisonment. Convicted offenders do not often spend the rest of their life in prison; but if they are released, they only remain free on licence. If the licence is breached, then the person must go back to prison. Often, but not always, the breach of the licence is the committing of a new crime.
Jon Venables has apparently breached the terms of his licence. According to the Justice Secretary Jack Straw, "extremely serious allegations" have been made against him. However, he declined in Parliament to spell out what these are, since he did not wish to prejudice any possible future trial. A police investigation is ongoing.
This is surely right. Although various people - and not just James Bulger's mother - have said that the public has a "right to know", the Justice Secretary was supported by Baroness Butler-Sloss, the now-retired judge that had issued the injunction in 2001. As she pointed out, Jon Venables has not yet been charged with anything, there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in all criminal cases, and there is "at least the possibility that he has committed no offence" (in which case he would be released on licence again). Most importantly, she reminded the general public that the reason behind the blanket injunction, namely the possibility of vigilante violence, or even murder, against the two offenders, still exists; "those who wanted to kill him in 2001 are likely to be out there now," she said.
The killing of a child is a particularly horrible crime. But everyone has the right to atone for their sins. Furthermore, the public interest is not the same as what interests the public. Jack Straw did the right thing, and is to be applauded for so doing.
Walter Blotscher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
