Steve Hemingway

I have decided to try again to use encrypted emails using Public Key Encryption. Every couple of years I have a go at this and find (i) that this is very clunky and inconvenient to use and (ii) nobody who ever exchanges emails with me is remotely interested in installing the addin etc.

Well, this time I'm going for this greasemonkey script approach. This means that if you don't use gmail on Firefox then you might have some problems. Even if you do use this combination, but you are on Firefox 3 there may still be problems as the script seems to be unreliable on this version. Oh well....

Anyhow, if you are going to exchange encrypted emails with me you'll need my public key. Here it is: pub:137437511683:1. IGNORE THIS, SEE LATER.

This is not utterly secure, but it should be good for exchanging passwords, commercially confidential material etc. Please do email me (plaintext or encrytped) to explore the effectiveness of this approach. As Jackie Smith used to say "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear", which, translated means "we are determined to read every communication you send and receive".

Update: 25 Jun. I have now discovered that Evolution has built in support for PGP encrypted and signed email. Sea Horse (a bundled application in Ubuntu) will generate and store private and public keys. Here is my public key:

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

mQGiBEpCEhkRBACzgE0D4InJs/A9lxxEzEHXlJ/JFbUfL84NXii9Ap0EIyfKd8tQ
Rr+jmDJUpP00rPqxkbD9QBHnuZZiKyTyE2+6AJC5qByJf0GRU7huOogsvQZYvYPh
nznnDssm8A/QW7OzBnJEUKKalceP3hZzcVc7dMzhkz9NogyT7VOrynOsSwCgr9RW
9mzzwHUvzyAh6PihAYKhyPsEAIbYQcxzi/R1FVkWDv2FEfBNITrI9SckVFWUonMf
A3sNgwFiujb/l7GFIfJu4LqkdpkiA2scb8pYXCTzcGFW55dVaCk2jjUCiszw2Buc
oR5CNYrMmVWtWZZbLEvchyT+0vJQuC1e/APDmEGbciCW3T45LDYwpcIH8VAq/2wf
NYxCA/9S5JhHrxtkO2TaYbohDYs/8txSfF529hDeEutfm941zMzxL0LMw4k1QRL9
GdpwtA+QDqTIOgvxaZov9rgXeciC/E0QVW1wW3srxPGbPzEOPLTzAtc/2p6jc1V/
Rtb1IV5HrdAJ1WQpQaqiP7HP3Xz3aufg+7QjA3hx2wMTtOJShrRPU3RlcGhlbiBI
ZW1pbmd3YXkgKG93bmVyIG9mIHd3dy5zdGV2ZWhlbWluZ3dheS5jb20pIDxzdGV2
ZS5oZW1pbmd3YXlAZ21haWwuY29tPohgBBMRAgAgBQJKQhIZAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQV
AggDBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQXx/h1J6hC5FtaQCgmEkAqjUnPBNryBrbfXknXC3q
cNQAn0a+k9Qt9GWWJTqButBOEYx7sZWauQINBEpCEhkQCAD1UC77nSkau2oAfgHb
/ShP4a4g6BXK3LC5kmZEn84HILg4N/DVgvqlAzJuUZElei/H7twcAupAF8tEIFpK
sgdyDs4mCMvyUw8rFQ9z2lmHmpivF5YFViWTMMoCvNFiE1fbvrTrPTFvDVlTagQb
n7u0HOSLWXqtd4ecdYEqV9dfR0UWAYOXpWDX9k7aOHl8o1kImCQHHR0p/pK43/Hh
d8AjjFQdK9pD6A2HhXD6S/OBIcIE4ymeFJpaSabZC0XzOjwmL3Zl9Wq0JXsZMcpX
SqRlv2CI5dcX/fqj5c0MsoxrF8Rwt7G2hw2MVBT5lXE6XMO1xrrYMjJzEPKz0L4W
sVjfAAMHB/42taAmUS1ffin/VDKVAS3p7qqWRtw+6mcoNEQL0jBIUjYamEdT2Qqe
+tPvzZzHGlksDdTF5OTJ11+261rzZfjqTSFYOiSXDeXFbc5gyMAJHb2UEs8tWBcv
JPvws1PgPXu2WdLzJ8F7Z/okZ17BxOscojD8g0namVSb6mmpJgb2Yb8r12wsCiiB
dhnH7IfqyfG+Vfkh0/GkFI02Mp2fRoblkTXXdmIe6DKKIm/FVXsmqFGu0Xx6GpN3
GDa9y1V2suEVr7lx8hXlLFZne/BRUuzGCRjLWRTkiQpTMvyG8BWQPLHl2BrUWP+P
RZ2LnE8aNIrW4HxMcRnsRAHiI4CAd32ciEkEGBECAAkFAkpCEhkCGwwACgkQXx/h
1J6hC5GPCgCdG67MiiAk6iqV9uMGJb7+YXUOrrQAnjdSdRhjodVOg7ZgyT68i8YB
+6Nk
=pmXZ
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

You should be able to cut and paste and import this into your key manager. If you manage to import this you will be able to send me a signed and encrypted message.

Slightly amazingly, 10 Downing St. decided to approve my proposed petition: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Allow comments to be made on all YouTube videos uploaded by 10 Downing Street.". You can see it on the Downing St. website.

Basically I decided to see what all the fuss was about when Gordon put his famous Youtube video up explaining what he was going to do about expenses. It's actually quite hard to find this video because it has such a low Page Rank compared to the countless video clips edited from this and other GB clips to mock him.

I'm sure if Gordon hadn't suffered a terminal shrivelling of his power the slaves in the back rooms of No. 10 would never have dared to allow my proposal to go through. They probably thought that the PM had more important things on his mind.

I genuinely think that allowing comments on YouTube is a good way of opening up a dialog, and allowing the Common Man to speak unto power. The rhetoric of politicians endlessly talks about the need to do this, but the actions show that they rarely care what ordinary voters think, especially young ones who are very unlikely to vote.

I'm sorry, I can rarely build up enough enthusiasm to write more than 140 chars in a post these days.

I thought it was just me, but actually almost everyone who watches these HB YouTube videos hates the woman. Click on the video to get to Youtube and follow the links to related videos. I think it's because she treats viewers and interviewers with such contempt, in the classic Gordon Brown style of being interviewed. She decides what she is going to say, and keeps saying it, whatever questions are asked of her, knowing that the time slot is short and at the end of the day the interviewer cannot force her to answer a question.

I am investing a little in the stockmarket. I have transferred my pension savings into an Options Xpress brokerage account. The service is superb and I strongly urge you to consider opening an account with them rather than any UK-based brokerage. The analysis tools provided by Google Finance and Guru Focus are superb, but focussed principally on stocks listed in the USA. This is really not as restricted as it sounds as large cap stocks from around the world all list in NY. Options Xpress also gives access to practically every derivatives exchange on the planet so you can easily get exposure to UK and more exotic (e.g. Taiwanese) stocks if that's 'your bag,' as they used to say. Of course since we are starting a bull market phase I can convince myself that I'm a genius investor.

In alignment with my renewed interest in stock market investing I have read a few outstanding books, which I've reviewed elsewhere (probably Amazon). I have just finished Larry Cunningham's collection of essays of Warren Buffett, pieced together mainly from Berkshire Hathaway reports. John Kay is on record as saying that Warren Buffett is the best investor on the planet, and possibly that the world has ever seen. And you can read his thoughts on how to make money for less than a tenner!

On a personal note I'm managing Freshfield Properties and doing the inevitable administration surrounding finding and signing up new tenants. This is not that arduous, but definitely soaks up a few hours a day. I am convinced that the return on this is worth the opportunity cost. Well, I guess that's obvious, to an economist.

I continue to enjoy listening to Russ Roberts each week, usually as I walk the dog on a Tuesday or Wednesday morning. I have given up listening to BBC podcasts as they just don't seem to get the business of podcasting. What is utterly ridiculous is the way they try to restrict the distribution of this content. It seems to me that this is a publicly-funded corporation destroying value. People derive value from listening to these podcasts, presumably. The marginal cost of making them available is practically nil (it must cost more to ensure that one or zero 'episodes' of a series is available as a podcast). Google for 'Why Napster is Right' to have the argument expanded.

I am now a convert to Ubuntu, although not a zealot. It works great, although the audio drivers are a bit flakey, and some apps (Mozilla) can get out of control and gobble up 100% of (one) cpu requiring a hard reset very ocassionally. The free apps (like Open Office) seem to work much better on Ubuntu than under windows on the same hardware.

I now use Del.icio.us, Twitter and Facebook much more than I used to. Very often when in the past I'd write a proper blog entry drawing your attention to an item on the web, explaining why I thought it was interesting, now I'll just save the bookmark via Twitter or Del.icio.us, both of which, by the magic of the internet, pop up on my Facebook page. I don't really use FB much to communicate with folks - I still prefer old fashioned methods like email or phone.

I have tightened up my Facebook profile, so you can't see it unless you are a friend, or, as my sons it, a 'Facebook Friend' - i.e. someone you might barely know but exchanged an email with once. Having said how easy it is to become my FB Friend, you might not want to join the club. If you do, just drop me a line: steve.hemingway@gmail.com.

Sadly, I don't suppose now that I'll ever achieve what he did. It is a pity that the British are so ignorant about this towering figure. I am slowly plodding through War and Peace, but that doesn't really give a proper idea of who the man was. French children spend a long time studying his story. I am not sure what they learn from this, but I have a sneaky suspicion that it engenders an enthusiasm for meritocracy of a sort that we are deeply suspicious of.

Amazingly, Stuart Hall of 'Jeux Sans Frontiers' is a great Napoleon expert. He has a large collection of Napoleon memorabilia, including a hundred clocks from the period. He has had Boney as a hero since his school days, which suggests a breadth of interests wider than someone who has only seen him comment on silly games and football.

In an episode of Great Lives on R4 recently, Stuart told Matthew Parris how this physically small man, who wasn't even French, rose from nowhere to be a dominating force in Europe, a veritable proto-Jacque Delors, in fact. It is funny how the British defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, but the Napoleonic idea of a united Europe now seems to be unstoppable no matter how much the British establishment opposes it.

It seems that Napoleon's key contribution was to get control of a revolution that was spinning out of control. He was Stalin to Robespierre's Lenin, except that he left the French a somewhat less corrupt and broken society. Even so, I, like most Brits, firmly believe that the Code Napoleonique condemns continental Europe to perpetual economic underperformance.

Although we all assume that Wellington defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, according to Stuart Hall it was in fact Blucher's actions which were decisive at the battle. Well, it always was the winners who re-write history. We also think of Napoleon as physically small, whereas he was in fact of average height. He had the usual number of fingers on both hands.

"Meritocracy" is a word that is younger than I am, and, interestingly, was intended to be pejorative. It was coined by Michael Young, father of the ubiquitous, but arguably less talented, Toby Young.

I always enjoy listening to, and reading Matthew Parris. He is a mild mannered man who can be devastating in his judgement on others. I very much enjoyed his latest piece in the Spectator where he describes how he, as a fifty-nine year old man risked being arrested in Monument underground station for running the wrong way down the up escalator when the worse for drink.

I have just read "Digital Britain - the Interim Report" by Lord Carter and a bunch of the usual suspects. It makes deeply depressing reading, and illustrates, to me, the futility of having reports like this.

It's hard to know where to begin criticising it. It is written in the most contorted language:for example, "In the final Digital Britain Report, we will establish whether a long-term and sustainable second public service organisation providing competition for quality to the BBC can be defined and designed, drawing in part on Channel 4's assets and a re-cast remit. It would be a body with public service at its heart, but one which is able to develop flexible and innovative partnerships with the wider private and public sector. While it makes sense to begin by looking at public sector bodies- Channel 4 and BBC Worldwide- the Government is currently evaluating a range of options and organisational solutions for achieving such an outcome. "

It is fairly obsessed with the BBC, which it mentions 65 times, almost once per page, even though clearly this is at its heart an analogue organisation. It seems to take the view that the internet has grown in the UK largely without needing any help from the government, now it is large and important it will have to be closely regulated, controlled, restricted and managed by the public sector if it is to survive. One of the most outrageous parts of the report concerns net neutrality, which bizarrely it decides would be a barrier to the growth of the net: "Internet Service Providers can take action to manage the flow of data - the traffic - on their networks to retain levels of service to users or for other reasons. The concept of so-called 'net neutrality', requires those managing a network to refrain from taking action to manage traffic on that network. It also prevents giving to the delivery of any one service preference over the delivery of others. Net neutrality is sometimes cited by various parties in defence of internet freedom, innovation and consumer choice. The debate over possible legislation in pursuit of this goal has been stronger in the US than in the UK. Ofcom has in the past acknowledged the claims in the debate but have also acknowledged that ISPs might in future wish to offer guaranteed service levels to content providers in exchange for increased fees. In turn this could lead to differentiation of offers and promote investment in higher-speed access networks. Net neutrality regulation might prevent this sort of innovation. "

As Eric Raymond has pointed out the real problem is the monopoly position that the telco's have of controlling the local loop, which, of course, as you'd expect from a monopoly situation, very low investment.

I wrote to my MP, and in order to pad this first post in ages, I thought I'd copy the letter here:

FOR THE ATTENTION OF:

Barbara Follett MP

Stevenage

Thursday 5 February 2009 Stephen Hemingway

Caxton Villa

Park Lane

Knebworth

Herts

SG3 6PF

stephen.hemingway@gmail.com

01438 221370

Dear Barbara Follett,

I was appalled at the decision of the authors of the Digital Britain Interim Report to oppose enforcement of net neutrality. It seems to me quite clear that allowing ISP's to charge content providers as well as content consumers will damage the essential "level playing field" environment that the internet currently offers to content providers. I strongly urge you to support legal enforcement of net neutrality and oppose the recommendation of the report.

Net neutrality may not be a big political issue in the UK right now, but it certainly is in the USA. Barack Obama's clear and unequivocal support for net neutrality was, in my view, a major reason why he had overwhelming support from bloggers and the "digerati" who are becoming increasingly influential in forming political opinion, whatever Hazel Blears might think. 

To my mind it's a clear choice: allow BT, Virgin Media and their ilk to set the agenda or support something that will, when it understands the issues, be overwhelmingly supported by the electorate.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Hemingway.

My bank, Cater Allen, doesn't really believe that communication via the internet will catch on, so it much prefers post and fax. In fact for CHAPS transfer the only real option is fax. Therefore I have to waste money signing up to services that allow me to send faxes from my PC. Pop Faxseems to be the best one that I could find.

This post is typical of the excellent stuff that the TPA put out.

All these posts to me are a consequence of one thing: that without an incentive to do something, humans will not do it. We react to physical immediate demands. No MEP is remotely inconvenienced by the ludicrous processing from Brussels to Strasbourg, and so they "can't be arsed", in the modern idiom, even to press a button or mark a cross or whatever to vote against it. You can bet that they are not so lethargic when it comes to getting press coverage.

Strasbourg

Black humour from Scott Adams.