Judging by the feedback I’ve been getting throughout the day you guys enjoyed it as well, but please let me know if there’s anything that we could do better next year!

Of course the event wouldn’t have been possible without our sponsors… Google who were kind enough to cover the cost of the venue (and thanks to the Oxford Club for being so good to us on the day!). Thanks to our other sponsors – 1000 heads, Proactive, Outmap, Moo and TerminateTheRate.org as well.

Also, thanks to our media sponsors: Global voices, Mashable and JackFM.

Most of all, thanks to all of you who came!

There were plenty of interesting conversations had, and we’ve already spawned a couple of interesting projects – do write in and tell me about yours, we’d love to do a followup!

Check out our flick group, and if you have any photos feel free to upload them to the group pool.

Anyway, I’ve rambled on…see you next year!

The weekend kicks off tonight at 7pm BST (6 GMT) with our virtual event – find us on Friendfeed!

Tomorrow, those of you who are coming down the night before are welcome to join us in the Gardener’s Arms from about 7pm for food, beers and a bit of socialising… look out for the group with Barcamp Transparency posters (thanks Ben Werdmuller for designing those!).

Don’t forget to @mapkyca on Twitter if you get lost!

Finally, the main Barcamp Transparency event kicks off at 10am on Sunday in the Oxford University Club on Mansfield road. Detailed instructions for getting there can be found on the Barcamp Transparency website!

See you there!

My presentation slides are below, but I thought I’d write a quick blog post to go into a little more detail.

The Digital Britain report, for those who aren’t already aware, is a report produced by the government. It contains a number of recommendations aimed at improving the UK’s digital infrastructure and boosting the social and economic impact of digital technology.

“The report provides actions and recommendations to promote and protect talent and innovation in our creative industries, to modernise TV and radio frameworks and support local news, and introduces policies to maximise the social and economic benefits from digital technologies.”

What I hoped for was that the government would use this report as an opportunity to do something interesting – for example:

• Opening the wealth of government data – statistics, contract details etc – the government holds to the general public
• Scrapping the archaic idea of Crown Copyright, which is both unfair and harms our economy. I would like to see a situation where anything which is produced by the state should be released as public domain.
• Modification of the tax and accountancy laws to make them more startup friendly.
• Focussing attention and even funds towards direct democracy – building tools to interact with the government.
• Overhauling the data protection laws to enshrine in law the idea that data about you belongs to you.

However, what we got was a top down and prescriptive rather than bottom up and inventive. Some vague tax breaks for big companies, ISPs told to police their users, and a tax on all phone lines.

Some things we could do:

• Educate your MP – they aren’t experts at this stuff, and it is up to people in the industry to tell the policy makers where the problems are. Open source laws FTW
• Innovate – continue doing what you were doing already, building out those tools and having those creative ideas.
• Recreate and obsolete – In the short term, things like Crown copyright are not going away. I wonder how much of their data we can recreate in the public domain? OpenStreetmap is doing a good job at recreating google maps…
• Local councils and individual projects can be a lot more receptive than central government.

In short, you are the government. You’ve got to act like it!

Image from the Digital Britain report

This is a free event, but we need to get an idea of how many people are coming, and a rough list of contacts so that we can furnish you with things like Wifi keys etc.

Anyway, tickets are being served by Eventbrite like our virtual event, go get yours!

This was an enjoyable and lively event made up of a panel of interested parties and members of the public.

On the panel were:

• Robert Buckland (Tory candidate, Swindon South)
• Steve Goddard (Lib Dem candidate, Oxford East)
• Peter Hitchens (Columnist, Mail on Sunday)
• Peter Tatchell (Human Rights Campaigner, Green candidate, Oxford East)
• Glyn Wintle (Open Rights Group)

Many points were raised, including the need to not be complacent.

Something of particular interest which was raised by someone in the audience before I had a chance to do so, and that is the issue of data ownership.

I think that it is data ownership that is at the heart of the issue here. As we move into a much more data-centric society with more and more information about us is held by third parties, we need to start looking at our laws – and in particular to enshrine in law the concept that data about a person belongs to that person.

Right now we have a rather backward system where agents – be they the Government or Amazon – who collect information about your view that information as theirs. They mine it, monetise it and share it, all without your permission.

If the organisation is in the UK, there is a certain amount of protection afforded to you by the data protection act (unless it’s the government that holds your data), but this is rarely enforced and has been systematically weakened by the labour government.

What would happen if individual was the arbiter of who has access to what? Since third parties can be rarely trusted to retain important data, what would happen if we made the individual the physical gatekeeper of such information?

Could we have a device that asked you “Agency X is trying to access item Y, allow? (no, once, always)”, and allow you to revoke such permission at any time?

Such data you released could then be licensed, and perhaps we could at last put DRM to some good use?

Its technically possible, but probably impractical. Still, if we could just do the very first part – reversing the basic idea of who owns what – we would have a way forward.

Data about me is mine, the audit trail I leave as I live my life is also mine. Some time after I die, I dare say it would be useful for society to have access to that data since I no longer need it (perhaps for census data or medical research) but certainly while I am alive it is me that should govern who has access and for what purpose.

While I am alive it will be necessary for some third parties to have access to my data, either because it exists in their systems, or because they need it to provide me with a service. I can choose to grant access to them for a limited time and for set purposes.

There is already a system in place to handle this sort of arrangement, its called copyright. Thanks to all the lobbying done by big business the punishment for copyright infringement these days is punitive to say the least (in most cases it is a civil offence not criminal – so theoretically less punitive than a breach of the DPA – but civil actions seem to be pursued more often).

Wouldn’t it be a delightful irony if these restrictive and punitive laws turned out to be one of the great safeguards of individual sovereignty?

Of course, as I mentioned previously – once the data is out it is out – so it is still better not to give out unnecessary information in the first place.

But if the individual was concious that data belonged to them in the same way as their clothes, car or house they might mind a little more if this data was misused. Equally, if agencies feared the punitive action for such misuse available under copyright law, perhaps such instances of misuse would be fewer.

Just a thought, any lawyers want to comment?

To give us some idea of the numbers coming we have tickets available on Eventbrite, so go grab yourself one!

Our main avenue is the event Friendfeed account here: http://friendfeed.com/barcamptransparency

We have prepared three virtual rooms for you to discuss issues related to:

1. Open government – http://friendfeed.com/ff-bct09opengoverment
2. Cyber-activism – http://friendfeed.com/ff-bct09cyberactivism
3. Social media ethics – http://friendfeed.com/ff-bct09socialmediaethics

Later this week we will be releasing the first batch of tickets for the main event using the same system, more to follow so watch this space!

This is a fabulous venue (the same one as Barcamp Apache Oxford), directions and other details can be found on our website.

I am also delighted to announce that Google has agreed to be the main sponsor for the event and will be covering the cost of the venue for us! Big thanks to all at Google and our other sponsors for making this event possible!

See you there on the 26th July!

I therefore urge you to keep the 26th of July free in your calendar! Tell your friends!

On a somewhat related note, I vote for Global Voices Advocacy, because they are doing some very important work regarding freedom of speech and the fight against censorship – and without those you can’t have transparency or democracy.

This blog post is part of Zemanta’s “Blogging For a Cause” (http://www.zemanta.com/bloggingforacause/) campaign to raise awareness and funds for worthy causes that bloggers care about.

The week began with a rather frustrating critical hardware failure on one of Curverider’s servers which took down our community site, SVN and bug tracker among a few others.

No data was lost, and we were able to get the main sites back online in fairly short order once the new server was hooked up and installed in our datacenter.

On a lighter note I am very pleased to welcome Leonard Lin to the Elgg team.  Leonard was previously senior hacker at Yahoo and creator of  Upcoming.org. Most recently he has also been involved in the Obama campaign.

Exciting times ahead!

And while we’re on the subject of Upcoming.org, I would like to take this opportunity to point you in the direction of the Barcamp Transparency entry on Upcoming. Go sign up now!

Each one asks me to fill in a profile, and each time I end up repeating myself. I am sick of it. This is the kind of thing OpenID was developed to partially solve, however I think this is overkill.

OpenID (as mentioned elsewhere) has problems and its uptake is declining. I rather think this is because it is trying to do far too much.

Gravatar on the other-hand is simple and to the point, requires the end user to do very little and is pretty damn simple to implement from a server point of view.

Could the same approach be used for profile fields? I think yes, and here’s how it might work…

• First of all, we have a site somewhere which lets a user create an account and fill in their profile fields.
• The profile comes pre-populated with common labels (name, description, location, interests etc), but lets users add extra fields if they like.
• The service has a REST like API at the back end which accepts queries like: http://fooprofile.com/api/[field]/[md5 hash of email address]/ to which it returns a blob of text.
• When a user creates a new account on bar.com, that site should attempt to pre-populate any profile fields with data from the service based on an md5 hash of their email address. These can of course be overridden locally.
• Periodically bar.com should update its fields via the API, unless the user has overridden the profile field (or has otherwise selected not to do so).

Crucially with this light method, the user experience of the site remains pretty much unchanged and all the hard work is done magically in the background.

I also think that there is no need to specify what fields constitute a profile. The semantics of this will likely evolve naturally over time and there is no way to predict what extra fields will be needed. You wouldn’t dictate what tags someone would use, so why dictate profile fields?

In phase two of this you could easily imagine using OAuth to decide which fields a site has access to.

You could also imagine multiple providers being possible (providing the api was consistent). So when a user signs in to bar.com they are asked who there provider is – so they could select fooprofile.com or wibbleprofile.co.uk or any other provider. This would keep OpenID’s distributed nature, but without confusing the user too much – a url is always a url in this model.

So all that leaves is the single point authentication aspect as a distinct and separate problem, and one which must be solved in a way that is transparent to the user – perhaps an encrypted and public key authenticated token exchange using a similar technology as the above?

Just pondering….

Update: I have bashed together an example of the sort of thing I was talking about over here: http://skunk.marcus-povey.co.uk/aer/