News of the World and the conduct of the press:

Chris O’Mara writes: Re. “Simons: News Ltd gets smart and lifts the code of silence” (yesterday, item 13) . I have read with interest about… News Ltd publishing its Code of Professional Conduct. No doubt all major publishers in this country will do the same, in order to reassure the public we are really above all that in Australia. But are we?

How many News Ltd journos have actually seen this code? For that matter how many journos at other papers have seen similar? Very few I would guess.

The problem with these codes of practice, once the heat has died down on the NoW issue, the codes will be put back in the bottom drawer and most journos will forget all about them.

The problem with the print media is there really is no authority that publishers are accountable to. Do we really think that a voluntary Code of Professional Conduct is enough to ensure that publishers uphold the highest possible standards both legal and professional? I think not.

So where does that leave us? With the Press Council.

The Press Council is a toothless wimp. It’s own website states:

“The Council is funded by the newspaper and magazine industries, and its authority rests on the willingness of publishers and editors to respect the Council’s views, to adhere voluntarily to ethical standards and to admit mistakes publicly.”

What a damning statement.

So basically the council can only be effective if publishers and editors are willing to respect the Council’s views. An appalling approach to imposing any sense of fairness in determining judgements.

The Press Council is also funded by the very publications it’s intended to have administration over.

In today’s environment this has got to be a joke. For the industry to defend this structure, in the wake of NotW, is indefensible.

Television and Radio is regulated via ACMA. Press and magazine publishers need to be overseen by a statutory authority to ensure that proper process, due diligence and accountability is in place so we can continue to have the highest standards possible.

Christmas Island:

Sandi Logan, national communications manager, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, writes: Re. “Tips and rumours” (Monday, item 7). Crikey published:

“The Department of Immigration and Citizenship have told Christmas Island locals at community meetings that the Aqua and Lilac compounds in the North West Point Detention Centre would not be used again. Yet one local reports they are now electrifying the fence around them…”

The rumour about DIAC’s intentions and actions is false. The Lilac and Aqua compounds were closed in March due to damage, and on May 25, our published community update circulated to Christmas Island residents announced the two sites were being readied for possible use after repairs had been completed.

Lilac compound has since been reopened as an alternative place of detention, while repairs to Aqua continue. (These compounds are separate to the North West Point Immigration Detention Centre which is surrounded by electrified fences.)

Far from the department operating in secret or telling locals one thing and doing another, we regularly update the residents in writing (in English, Malay and simple Chinese), in person at open meetings, and on community radio.

Google+:

Kieren Diment writes: Re. “Stilgherrian: there’s no way I’m handing over data to Google+” (yesterday, item 4). While Stilgherrian is essentially correct in that Google+ is essentially the same as Facebook, he has overlooked an important factor. In the early days of telephony you could only communicate on the same network — it would have been like being an Optus Customer and not being able to make calls to Telstra Customers.

So essentially the whole social networking on the internet phenomenon is like this at the moment. Google plus, along with the Diaspora project represent an opportunity for:

  1. Different networks to develop sufficient critical mass that the barriers for communication between networks begin to cause problems for the businesses that run them. If MySpace had been better managed, and had a better technical team, this could possibly have already happened.
  2. That an open implementation (and preferably generic standards like those that underpin email systems) are developed in order to allow those who are motivated to take control of their own destiny to do so, and still participate on the network.

Or put it another way: right now, as far as this social networking phenomenon goes we’re like where it was in 1992 on the web. A bunch of incompatible hardware and software, emerging functionality and the beginnings of being able to take a standards based view of the problem.

Meanwhile, if you’re like Stilgherrian you can boycott this stuff because of privacy concerns, or if you’re like me you can take the attitude of safety in the herd — at the end of the day my personal data is sufficiently similar to other people like me, and there are enough other people similar to me that the presence or absence of my specific data is of no importance in the grand scheme of things.

Zachary King writes: For someone who is so active in the technology space, the attitude is somewhat surprising from Stilgherrian.

The notion of “privacy” as touted is shockingly empire, as Bret Easton Ellis measures things.  The current “social” generation is more than used to having their data online and the concept that you need to prevent this somehow can be categorised either as charmingly naïve/quaint or pushing the boundaries of paranoid. You don’t want your data out there? Too late pal, it already is.  So get with the program or turn off, tune out, unplug and live in a cave.

Every communication, purchase, picture, comment, thread is all public and this trend isn’t going to reverse itself anytime soon. Look at social media — Twitter is FB status made public. 365 is the same with pictures. Two different services (Blippy and Swipely) are about broadcasting what your credit card purchases are to the world. Seriously. Every connected human will have a sea of data around them and it’s about being increasingly aware and sophisticated about how you deal with this.

So Google knows who my friends are? Big deal. Facebook knows which TV shows I like? Who gives a rat’s ass? Social media and technology has changed the way the world communicates at a pace never seen before. Don’t believe me? Email, that great fax (remember them?) killer of the 90s is now in massive decline amongst 12-17yr olds, being judged too formal.

Facebook is now the preferred method. Everything online is available to anyone who is willing to dig for it. Deal with it or unplug. Simple as that.