QUICK FIND:
Investigations: Kabbalah Centre exposed | Teen camgirls | More ...
Media interviews: John Humphrys | Rosie Millard | More ...
Trendsurfing columns: Podcasting | Sponsored weddings | More ...
The Times: Tech columns | Op-eds | Writing on language: Book & columns | Channel 4 TV: Film reports

Wednesday, April 30, 2003

Interview: Tim Bell, PR adviser (Evening Standard)

By David Rowan

IN the Seventies, he helped Maurice Saatchi convince Britain that Labour Wasn't Working. In 1987, his aggressive campaign led Margaret Thatcher to a historic third election victory. But today, Tim Bell faces the ultimate spin-doctor's challenge. He has agreed to try to make Iain Duncan Smith electable.

With the Conservatives eight points behind Labour in the latest opinion poll, and Duncan Smith the choice of just 14 per cent of respondents as prime minister, it takes a certain determined optimism to accept the latest invitation from Conservative Central Office. But then Lord Bell recently persuaded his bank manager to stretch his troubled company's overdraft to £37 million. Guiding the Tory party back to Number 10 must seem a relative breeze.

As chairman of the Party's new presentational "advisory group" - made up of Maurice Saatchi, Peter Gummer, the pollster Stephan Shakespeare, party communications chief Paul Baverstock and a handful of unconfirmed industry honchos - Bell will offer "experience, ideas and expertise" at IDS's invitation.

"I absolutely do not doubt the size of the task that confronts Iain and the Conservative Party," he admits. "But I'm not daunted by it. I can remember how awful the party's mood was in the late Seventies. And now that this Government is screwing up, the opportunity is there." His task is not, he insists, about changing Duncan Smith's image.

"This is not about making IDS into anything other than the next prime minister," he says. "It's about getting the Conservative Party elected as the next government." Much of the challenge is clarifying to voters what the party actually stands for - which is where Bell, brand-spinner extraordinaire, comes into his own.

So what defines the Conservative brand at the moment? In his Curzon Street office, Bell shares the expertise that last year earned him £600,000. "It's a product whose benefits you're not quite sure of, a bit old-fashioned, and not popular enough for you to want to tell your friends that you use it," he reflects.

Like Epsom Salts, perhaps? "No, not really - more like Marmite. You either love it or you hate it. To some extent, it's also like Austins or Morrises - cars that were once hugely popular, but today you're not quite sure how relevant they are to your image." Instead, the party needs to regain confidence in its widespread appeal. "It'll never be a Porsche - it's nearer to a Mercedes, as the Labour Party is nearer to a Lexus. But it has to become an affordable Mercedes."

Rather than reinventing the party's image, Bell believes his team can help it read the public mood better. "At some stage, the electorate will want a change, though it's never very specific about the 'something else' that it wants. It's very hard at the moment to read that mood, but it's uncertain, slightly fearful, unconfident. There's a mood of escapism, which is why Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings are doing so well."

But isn't a more concrete problem the leader's perceived lack of charisma? Bell manages elegantly to sidestep the question twice, diverting the conversation to Labour's economic incompetence. Third time round, he answers.

"There's an old saying that familiarity breeds contempt. It also breeds enchantment. Iain will come through, but it will take time. As he gains a higher profile, his popularity will rise. There isn't any stunt you can pull.

"We've switched from the age of deference to what I call the age of reference," he says. "The internet has empowered people to ask questions, and deference has been obliterated. If you go to your doctor now and have pills prescribed, he'll have a terminal in his surgery so you can read up on the side-effects.

"So communications becomes very complex. It's no longer about being on Radio 4 or Newsnight. It's about being where people get information.

You have to be good at texting, have a strong website - it all combines to form what your image is." IDS has never sent him a text message, although "he does send me emails". "He is a decent bloke, not at all arrogant, and these virtues will shine through. The 'quiet man' speech was very good - it's just a pity they didn't have a communications strategy to go with it."

ON homosexuality, famously one of the party's problem areas, he says: "The gay issue is different - all of us believe we should have a society in which gay people are treated equally, but most wouldn't like our children to be taught at school to be a homosexual. It's an instinctive emotional reaction, but it doesn't translate as antigay." Besides, Bell is unhappy with such public "handwringing", which further undermines party confidence. "If you want to win an election, you need to answer three questions," he says. "What's the party for? What's the leader for? And describe the circumstances when you can become a real alternative to government."

So what is the party for? "It's about greater prosperity for the British people and better public services. Under Iain's leadership, the party has come to understand the extent of people's concerns." His suggested Tory election slogan: "Better off and better public services." He believes that William Hague was unwise to make the euro an election issue, and suggests that today's front bench keep quiet about it while waiting for it to split the Blair and Brown camps.

"There's now everything to play for. I can see circumstances where the public will be looking at a weak economy, high expenditure on public services, yet no perceived delivery. And it will not want to vote Labour back." Still, can Bell's team - various Lords among them - bring the renewed energy the party clearly needs? He is taken by the idea that IDS is "working with dinosaurs".

"My age simply means I have plenty of experience," he beams. "The Conservative Party isn't very often in opposition, and Maurice and I have experience of fighting in opposition. Besides, I run the top PR firm in Britain. And I ran Saatchi and Saatchi, the greatest ad agency the world's ever seen."

His company, Chime Communications, has had a difficult year, and business is "not getting any better". But Bell, 61, has no plans to retire. "I love my business," he says. "I've been through four recessions now, and I'm almost immune to them." Besides, history has also taught him that the political underdog can pull through. "In 1978-1979, when I worked for Margaret Thatcher, she was deeply unpopular, and was thought to have a posh schoolmarm's voice and no connection to ordinary people. Yet look who voted for her. Never forget that her legacy is an evaluation of hindsight, not what people thought at the time."

(Evening Standard, April 30 2003)

Read more!

Tuesday, April 29, 2003

The Times: Tech column - Legal downloads/

By David Rowan

Would you pay for something that is otherwise free? It is a bet that the record industry is making, in the desperate hope that online file-traders, blamed for much of last year's 7 per cent slump in global music sales, will mend their ways and buy into its new subscription services. After all, in the 1980s we learnt to pay for drinking water.

Won't branding do the same for song downloads? The industry certainly hopes so, now that its legal battalions have failed to stem the rise of the free peer-to-peer websites - a position underlined by a US District Court judgment last Friday that neither Grokster nor StreamCast was liable for its users' song swaps.

So, in a can't-close-'em-join-'em spirit, the record labels have decided to take on the KaZaAs and Gnutellas by competing on service. Last week EMI said that it would offer 140,000 tracks for sale as downloads that could be stored on CDs or portable music players, and yesterday Apple, which has been eyeing up Universal Music for a while, announced its own music service in conjunction with the five main labels. If you are prepared to pay, you can now legally download many of the songs that the rest of us are acquiring free.

It is a start, and a welcome acknowledgement by the industry that it finally understands the distribution opportunities offered by the web. But the sites are not yet comprehensive or cheap enough to persuade users to go legit. First, licensing issues mean that though Bowie is available, the Beatles are not. The pay services ought to offer more content than their unregulated rivals, not less.

Secondly, if you subscribe to one site, you may be denied music legally available on another. So customers will wait for a single all-embracing site to emerge - an eBay of music. And, thirdly, you really need to love restrictive terms and conditions to enjoy playing this game. Even if you pay to listen to a single, you may have to pay again to download it to your PC and then once more to burn it on to a CD (and that's if you're allowed to do so). You never face such restrictions with Gnutella.

There are other constraints, too. Most of the legal services do not work with Macs, some demand that you live in America and MusicNet requires you to have an AOL account. So much for the comprehensive service-by-service reviews I had hoped to bring you. (Sorry, but I'm a British non-AOL mainly Mac user.) I've just signed up for various trials using a notebook PC, and will keep you updated - but my initial impression is that the prices are just too high and your freedom too limited, even if the songs sound perfect and you are offered intelligent suggestions for similar music.

With Rhapsody (at www.listen.com), for instance, you have unlimited access to 320,000 tracks for $9.95 a month (about £6.20), but must then pay 99 cents for each one you burn on to a CD. MusicMatch MX (www.musicmatch.com) offers unlimited streaming for $4.95 a month but won't let you download or burn. And so on.

According to the Jupiter Media research house, there are now just 300,000 subscribers for all the various pay music services. By contrast, KaZaA, the most popular unauthorised file-swapping software, has been downloaded 218 million times.

Madonna, for one, does not seem to appreciate how entrenched the file-swapping culture has become. She has lately been flooding the peer-to-peer networks with fake song files that claim to be her latest album tracks, but in fact contain a recording of her saying: "What the f*** do you think you're doing?"

Last weekend, she found that her official website had been hacked and links placed to pirated versions of the full album. "This," the hacker's message stated, "is what the f*** I think I'm doing."

(The Times, April 29 2003)

Read more!

Tuesday, April 22, 2003

Channel 4 News: The fight for Winnie the Pooh's hunny

The billion-dollar battle for Winnie the Pooh's hunny

(Produced by David Rowan, reported by Nicholas Glass)
(Excludes interview clips)


Presenter, Krishnan Guru-Murthy: Who would have thought a bear would become the subject of a potential billion dollar law suit? Winnie the Pooh, one of Disney's biggest stars, is in that position. Slesinger versus Disney is a battle about royalties. The world's most lucrative bear earns the corporation a billion dollars a year, according to Disney. But the Slesingers, who sold some Pooh rights to Disney, argue he actually brings in a lot more - possibly as much as six billion a year.


On a spring morning, the Ashdown Forest in Sussex is still recognisably the Hundred Acre Wood, habitat of Winnie the Pooh and Piglet. The Pooh Bridge is a recent replacement. Although it's in exactly the right spot, and the gentlest of watersports is still played here - poohsticks. Follow those sticks - to the sparkling fountains of Los Angeles - and you're plunged into bitter legal fight.

Two feisty women are suing the mighty Disney company for massive damages. Here's an American story - of alleged corporate and personal greed; of punitively expensive lawyers. And all about a bear, now worth amazing sums of money.

Winnie the Pooh first appeared as a whimsical and very English bear in Punch magazine in 1924. AA Milne dreamt him up. EH Shepherd illustrated him. Since 1966, Pooh has also been a Disney cartoon character - and has become an increasingly valuable global brandname. Out of a clear blue sky - twelve years ago - Pooh and co tumbled into a legal dispute.

Disney is accused of vastly underpaying royalties on things like toys. And of failing to include new sources of revenue - such as video and theme parks - indeed, anywhere Pooh shows his friendly face.

There's something unreal about the wealth in Beverly Hills. Mansion after mansion and palm trees, so uniform they might have come from a props department. The Slesinger family - mother and daughter - currently get twelve million dollars a year in royalties from Pooh. But they claim Disney has cheated them out of hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 20 years.

Once a vaudeville dancer on Broadway, Shirley Slesinger Lasswell is now 80. She became attached to Pooh after marrying into the franchise. Her first husband, Stephen Slesinger bought the American merchandising rights to Pooh for a thousand dollars in 1930. His future bride was impressed.

Who would have thought it then that this bear would go on to make Disney more money than Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy combined? Stephen Slesinger died suddenly in 1953, leaving a young widow, and one-year-old Pati. And Shirley took over the Pooh business.

Shirley marketed Pooh herself, called herself the Pooh Lady. There was a company range, from Stephen Slesinger Inc. But by the early 1960s, Walt Disney sought Shirley out. He had the film rights - he wanted the merchandising rights too. So Shirley gave Walt the rights but in exchange for a share in future revenues worldwide.

Pooh has since become Disney's most bankable character. The deal was renegotiated in 1983 - but Shirley still wasn't happy. She found merchandise she claims Disney hadn't accounted for. She also claims she should have been paid video royalties. In 1991, she sued.

Disney admits that Pooh brings in a whopping one billion dollars a year. But the Slesingers argue that the pot is much, much bigger - four, five, or six billion a year - one fifth, in fact, of everything Disney earns.

The Slesinger place in Beverly Hills looks down on Century City. Its towers have risen on the sky-high legal fees charged by entertainment lawyers. And here Bert Fields is a legend. Elegant, erudite and 73, he's represented them all - from Brando to the Beatles. He's already won a big case against Disney. Hiring Fields and his team is now costing the Slesingers seven hundred thousand dollars a month.

Just across The Avenue of the Stars - from one tower to another - and here we have Disney's new star lawyer. Young, smooth and more recently famous, Daniel Petrocelli won the civil case against OJ Simpson. Other Hollywood lawyers estimate his team is costing Disney over one million dollars a month.

Daniel Petrocelli accuses the Slesingers of stealing Disney documents. The court has penalised Disney for destroying some. A trial date has finally been set for September at the Los Angeles Superior Court, but that may well be delayed. And as the paperwork mounts, the two sides have been airing their case in the media. The star witness isn't getting any younger and wants her day in court.

(Channel 4 News, April 22 2003)

Read more!

Tuesday, April 15, 2003

The Times: Tech column - Broadband speeds/Iraqi domain

By David Rowan

How broad is broadband? For anyone frustrated by the long download times of a "narrowband" 56kbps modem, broadband was supposed to herald a revolution. But though most internet service providers commonly use the term to describe data speeds of at least 500kbps, there is confusion about where exactly broadband begins. The DTI takes a loose view, considering broadband to be "a generic term describing a range of technologies operating at various data transfer speeds".

Oftel is more specific, mentioning data rates "of 128 kbps and above". But last week the Advertising Standards Authority ruled that NTL was wrong to sell its 128kbps internet service as broadband.

Can we come up with an industry-wide agreement? With speeds of 2Mbps 2,000kbps - now available, it's about time we agreed where "fast" begins. Quickly.

++++

When Afghanistan finally won control of its own "dot-af" internet domain last month, the UN Development Programme cheered this "planting of a flag in cyberspace" as a historic symbol of national renewal. Some day soon a reconstructed Iraq will want a dedicated country- level domain that will give its websites and e-mail addresses a distinct nation-building identity. But a dirty battle lies ahead over who gets to control the "dot-iq" domain.

For the past six years, all web addresses ending in .iq, the country's dedicated suffix, have been controlled by the Alani Corporation. The company provides a Baghdad telephone number, but is based in Texas. Yet for all the domain's commercial possibilities - wouldn't you like to advertise your intelligence with a "dot-iq" e-ddress? - the Alani Corporation has not been trading much lately.

Perhaps that is because Bayan Elashi, Alani's technical contact for the "dot iq" domain and owner of InfoCom, the web hosting company behind the Alani Corporation, has been in a Texan jail since December, awaiting trial for allegedly funding terrorism.

When that month the FBI charged Elashi, various relatives and a named senior Hamas figure with helping to finance a terror campaign through InfoCom, the US Attorney-General, John Ashcroft, considered it so significant that he personally gave a news conference in Washington. Elashi had long been an FBI target: on September 5, 2001, 50 federal agents raided InfoCom's offices on suspicion that the company was being used to channel cash to Hamas and, perhaps, al-Qaeda. Elashi says that his company has never had terrorist links, and he and his co defendants deny the current charges.

Whatever the outcome of Elashi's trial, it's hard to see the "dot-iq" domain staying in the Alani Corporation's hands. Already the speculators are lining up to grab it. There might not be much of a communications infrastructure in Iraq, but ownership of a country domain could prove a lucrative franchise - just ask Dot.tv, the company selling the rights to Tuvalu's television-friendly suffix. Only last week an IT consultant in East London formed "the Committee for Information Technology Reconstruction in Iraq" in the hope of grabbing "dot-iq". He claims his "non-profit group" could raise millions by auctioning domain names - while, of course, "making a fundamental positive difference to the people of Iraq". Right.

As for Saddam, he managed to ignore the whole "dot-iq" business: his Government's websites used uruklink.net addresses until they disappeared two weeks ago. The country's internet traffic depended on satellite links provided in part by a company called Satellite Media Services - which is based in Rugby, England. It's a strangely global entity, this worldwide web.

(The Times, April 15 2003)

Read more!

The Times: Interview - Andrew Pinder, E-envoy

Wired at a slightly lower current: The Government will miss its target for putting all services online by 2005, admits the e-envoy, Andrew Pinder. But what matters, he tells David Rowan, is that sites deliver

Andrew Pinder, Tony Blair's "e-envoy" responsible for taking government services online, has caused rather a stir in recent days. First he accused IT suppliers of lying to the Government over contracts and delivering "incompetent workmanship".

Then, the IT press reported, his department feared that "hundreds" of poorly designed public sector websites could face lawsuits under the Disability Discrimination Act. Cynics might have wondered if Pinder's current high profile was linked with huge recent budget cuts to his department, now downgraded to a "small unit".

In his office just behind Victoria station in London, Pinder is on fighting form.

He has a far bigger budget than when appointed in 2001, he points out: almost £15 million and 140 staff, plus an £11 million anti-terrorism fund, up from £10 million and 70 staff. "I'm still the largest single unit in the Cabinet Office," he insists. So what of the rumours that he will leave before his contract ends next April? He smiles. "I think it's up to other people if I last my full contract, but I'm planning my holidays on the basis that I will be here."

Pinder acknowledges that his reforming zeal may have annoyed a few Luddites who wish to spin against him. As he works to fulfil the Prime Minister's pledge that all government services will be available online by 2005, he has clearly had to bang heads together.

So how are things going? "Very mixed, really," he admits. "There are some brilliant offerings available -the JobCentre Plus site, where people can find virtually every job in the country, and the Foreign Office site's travel information. But there are an awful lot of other sites which are very little used.

The public sector needs to understand we're about providing access based on our customers' needs -not those which Government sees as important."

The next big project is a website network based around "life events", which links official sites to "respectable" non-government sites -"a department store with a series of franchises", Pinder says. He talks a lot about "customers" and "brands".

Having worked at Citibank and Prudential after 18 years at the Inland Revenue, he knows the language of the private sector.

Will Government meet the 2005 target? "We'll be more or less there -what matters to me is that we get it right," he says. "If 90 per cent of services are achieved, we shouldn't worry about the last few."

Does that mean the 100 per cent target has slipped to 90? "Come on, give me a break," he interjects. "It's about showing Government's taking it seriously. We could have cheated, come up with broad categories, but we listed every service we'd thought of - up to spraying insecticide on motorway ridges. People should prioritise - and what matters is getting sites really usable, and then altering their offerings to match consumer demand. Let's go for the 80:20 rule."

Presumably he means the business notion that 20 per cent of well-organised time will produce 80 per cent of the results, rather than any further loosening of the target. He does not, in fact, believe that government websites will face actions over disability law (they must, for instance, be accessible to the visually impaired).
"Our websites are far more acccessible than the private sector's. But we have a plethora of sites, some put up in a hurry, and people haven't always thought of accessibility."

Of more concern is the "immoral" behaviour of some private sector IT firms working with government. Why does the Government keep getting its IT projects so wrong -Passport Office, National Insurance? Sometimes Government does mess up, he admits, but the private sector, in his 13 years' experience, also makes a mess of things.

Mistakes have happened, he acknowledges. "The danger comes when we fail to understand exactly what we're trying to do. Quite often we put into place a system and change our mind halfway through. We also need to make sure we're dealing with competent suppliers in a well-managed relationship."

His proudest achievement has been "getting this raised right up the agenda", with "e-transaction" a Whitehall buzzword. "Three years ago that wouldn't have happened." He also notes that a project to put 30,000 PCs in 4,300 libraries was on budget and on time.

One final question. Why does the No 10 website still not provide an e-mail address through which citizens may contact the Prime Minister? It is a symbolic step taken long ago by leaders such as George Bush and, ahem, Saddam Hussein.

Pinder's press spokesman steps in. "It all depends how you define 'an e-mail address'," he explains. Sir Humphrey could not have put it better.


(The Times, April 15 2003)

Read more!

Wednesday, April 09, 2003

Interview: Quentin Thomas, film censor (Evening Standard)

By David Rowan

WHEN Quentin Thomas justifies a brutal nine-minute cinematic rape with all the dispassionate circumlocutions of a John Major anecdote, you start to understand how this career civil servant persuaded Gerry Adams to sign up to the Good Friday Agreement. It was not, perhaps, that Adams was charmed into renouncing violence by the relentless sly diplomacy that, in the Northern Ireland Office, earned Sir Quentin his knighthood. Far more likely that Adams, frustrated at Thomas's congenital inability to give a question a straight answer, chose to sign through sheer frustration.

Eight months into his job as president of the British Board of Film Classification, Thomas retains the bureaucrat's infuriating refusal to speak for himself - always a challenge to the curious interviewer.

His high-profile role as the nation's censor has thrust him into a battleground every bit as sensitive as a Stormont power-sharing negotiation, but Thomas would rather edit himself out of the picture in favour of corporate blandness. With every reductio ad absurdum and refusals to "posit a false dilemma", he even sounds like John Major.

What, for instance, has surprised him since taking up the £28,000, 25-days-a-year job? "A very agreeable but not surprising discovery is that I think the board is in good shape," he offers with not inconsiderable generosity.

What about the fury over Gaspar Noe's Irréversible, whose aforementioned extended rape scene, which he passed uncut, sent Middle England into apoplexy? "It's an example of a fuss which is perhaps a little greater in the anticipation than the reality."

In his new role, Thomas, 58, carries considerable public influence yet he seems strangely reluctant to give away his own views. So much for putting "transparency" on his wish list for the board. When he was appointed last August to succeed Andreas Whittam Smith, commentators remarked how he studiously avoided controversy, even when naming his favourite films - She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949) and Ingmar Bergman's Wild Strawberries (1957) - old enough to be beyond memory.

Married with three adult daughters, he had been restoring the family home in Tuscany when the head-hunter's call came. As a regulator financed by the film industry - the BBFC is a company, its film certificates a bulwark against statutory regulation - the front man suits his paymasters in favouring consensus over controversy.

"We're in a period where the system for censorship is relatively uncontroversial," he insists, each word pre-screened, "and I would attribute that to the way, particularly under my predecessor, there was a move towards openness, transparency and accountability." Yet his fascination with the board's "iterative process of public consultation" (I will spare the details) is not what excites his critics. They accuse him of playing into the hands of exploitative filmmakers. Michael Winner says he is "one of the most dangerous [men] in the country" for seeking to clarify his powers in law.

The board is certainly less censorious than ever before: so far this year it has considered 150 films and cut just three, plus 2,262 videos, of which it demanded changes in only 95. The Evening Standard's film critic Alexander Walker says Thomas is too keen on avoiding trouble: "I see many more movies than Thomas and Robin Duval [the board's director] combined, and I see the way the 'norm' is going. It's becoming more violent and more commercially exploitative. The board should be enforcing greater standards of discipline and denial, but the industry has one criterion: to make money."

THOMAS says he is not bothered by his critics, though he was " enormously flattered" by Michael Winner's attack. "There's a very experienced team of examiners who look at films according to the guidelines we have worked out after public consultation." The consultation, he says, shows that people are mostly concerned about drugs, constraint in sexual portrayals, and, to some extent, bad language, especially in children's films.

"On the other hand, there does seem to be a view that, at 18, more explicit portrayals of sex are acceptable," he adds. With Irreversible, "the key thing about the rape is that it's not actually very explicit, showing lots of flesh. It's painfully clear what a deeply painful experience rape is, so we decided it was right not to cut it."

Does he believe that pornography can cause people harm? "I believe very seriously that we have to attend to the possibility that it does, and we proceed on the basis that it may do." Should he not, as his critics suggest, be helping to keep pornography away from mainstream culture? "Our research shows that increasingly people want more latitude for the adult viewer to decide for themselves on explicit sex." The last film he saw was Frida, which was "quite good", but he refuses to disclose how many films he watches. How good, then, does he feel British films are at the moment. "Ah, that's not for me to say." Pause. Did he recall who won the Oscars? "I can't honestly remember who won what. Oh gosh. I don't think Michael Caine won, did he?" He cannot name any of the Bafta winners.

Another tack. Does he have a particular moral code? "I'm not sure I want to say anything about that." But people do care about his views - so would he consider himself a tolerant person? "As I say, the key thing is that we operate a system that's coherent, transparent, accountable..." There begins another stream of subjunctives and policy statements.

When I point out his repeated lapses into diplomacy-speak, he smiles. "That's the training." He does, though, manage finally to confess that "I don't think I've yet been depraved and corrupted," which prompts him to laugh. He gets up to leave for a board meeting, but not before momentarily allowing a shaft of light to fall on Sir Quentin, the individual.

"So what are you going to do?," he asks quietly. "You going to shaft me?"

(Evening Standard, April 9 2003)

Read more!

Tuesday, April 08, 2003

The Times: Tech column - Spy-shop gadgets/Drudge Report

By David Rowan

In these anxious times, when if the terrorists do not get you the carjackers apparently will, it is always reassuring to visit my man in the local hi-tech security store. Mark Fearon, who runs the CCS Counter Spy Shop in Mayfair, central London, will happily sell you peace of mind, in the form of a £250,000 customised bulletproof Mercedes or a £50 battery-powered motion sensor that, the box claims, "barks like a vicious attack dog but needs no messy cleaning up!". What, then, is the affluent neurotic buying these days?

One of the more popular gadgets is a £200 light gun that will blind an assailant for 20 minutes with a one-second 110,000 lumen beam. Known as the AL-22 Security Blanket, the light gun resembles a large plastic torch and is supplied with six single-use bulbs in an elegant briefcase. If you are attacked at night, you can warn off your assailant with an alarm or set it straight to flash for less than a second. "It's not an offensive weapon, but a way for you to get away as it disorientates them," Fearon notes. And, he says, its use is completely legal.

Also in demand are parcel detectors that sniff for explosives, £3,500 pinhole camera kits that automatically record any movements, stab-proof vests as used by the police, and £65 gas masks certified against biological and chemical attacks. If the Mercedes stretches your finances, you could limit yourself to bulletproof tyres at £2,000 apiece, or a £2,000 bulletproof leather bomber jacket ("it will stop an AK-47"). Kevlar, the fine-mesh fibre that has been protecting troops from Iraqi bullets, is now widely available in consumer products such as a £500 bulletproof baseball cap. "If you get a bullet in the head, you're going to have a severely cracked head, but the chances are you'll live,". Fearon says. For a further £50, you could instead buy an infrared night-vision sensor that tells you when trouble may be lurking in the garden.

But, as hit strolls between racks of bugging equipment and pinhole video-recording devices, isn't he relying on people's fear to boost his company's profits? "Money can buy an awful lot of protection," he replies. "The only limitation is the law." But there are limits, even to what money can buy. One customer asked for a home-security system that released poisonous gas when an inner door was breached. "We said no thanks," Fearon recalls. "If you accidentally let it off, you wouldn't be around to demand your money back."

++++

Remember the Drudge Report, the one-man media empire that caused Bill Clinton so much trouble? As content-based websites continue to disappear - UpMyStreet.com, the localised database once valued at £43 million, went into administration last week - Matt Drudge is doing rather well.

Nowadays with a sidekick to help him, Drudge is attracting around 3.2 million page views a day, typically from people returning five or ten times to see if they have missed a scoop. And with advertisers prepared to pay around a dollar (64p) for every 1,000 pages served, the profits soon add up - to more than £500,000 a year, according to the magazine Business 2.0.

It might not be up there with the £5.3 million made by the New York Times websites last year, but then Drudge does not have to pay the salaries of 237 full-time staff (and the newspaper journalists they rely upon).

While the big conglomerates continue to flounder expensively online, a few smart "nanopublishers" are rewriting the rules of media economics. They use word-of-mouth rather than advertising, aggregate stories rather than report them first-hand, and rely on e-mailed tips rather than those troublesome creatures, salaried journalists. And as more and more weblogs are proving, a loyal niche audience can make a viable small business.

(The Times, April 8 2003)

Read more!

Tuesday, April 01, 2003

The Times: Tech column - War technology/Iraqi cellphones

By David Rowan

"GIZMO DAN", as we tend to call our gadget-obsessed friend, has lately been taking a rather distasteful delight in chronicling the full high-tech wizardry of American battlefield hardware. War, as Dan likes to point out, is the single greatest spur to technological innovation - and but for the billions of dollars that the Pentagon has been prepared to invest over the years, we might never have enjoyed some of the consumer appliances that we now take for granted. The US military financed the pioneering ENIAC programmable computer as a Second World War project, Dan explains, just as in the Cold War it developed the Global Positioning System to locate submarines and troops. "From the internet to the microwave oven, we have military investment to thank," he says. So what gadgets will the current war eventually send into the shops?

The early consensus, from Dan as well as the professional commentators, is that night-vision goggles will be on Christmas-present wish-lists this year or next. You can already buy basic versions at "spy" shops from about £100, but the third-generation military version - the AN/PVS-7, made by Northrop Grumman - will currently set you back a couple of thousand pounds. Even if the Syrians decide that these are one gadget too risky to buy, the rest of us can soon expect to become familiar with that eerie green glow as prices fall and performance improves. Get ready to do the gardening at 3am.

Another battlefield technology we should be seeing more of at home is the UAV - the "unmanned aerial vehicle", commonly called the drone. In Afghanistan, US forces fitted remote-controlled Predator aircraft with video cameras as well as anti-tank missiles - and in Iraq there are now at least eight types in action, with names such as the Global Hawk and the Dragon Eye. But whereas the Predator is 27ft long, the new "micro-air vehicles" can be as little as six inches in length, yet still able to send home high-quality live television pictures. From traffic police to model-aircraft enthusiasts, the domestic market beckons. Within five years, drones will be in common civilian use, according to Paul Saffo, a director of the Institute for the Future think-tank. "Teenage nerd hobbyists will be able to buy or build UAVs that will be a little larger than a paperback book," he says. "Nobody will be able comfortably to sunbathe topless in their backyards any more."

It's also a safe bet that some time soon you will be loading your PDA with a rather more effective translation tool than those currently on the market. The US Navy has been investing heavily in software that combines voice recognition, speech synthesis and translation algorithms to let combatants talk "live" to the enemy. Already troops are using a device known as the "Phraselator" to communicate in basic Arabic and Kurdish. It might today be limited to phrases such as "Drop the gun!"; but who knows what it could eventually do for you in a Spanish singles bar.

++++

IT HAD to happen: the latest split between the US and "old" Europe is over the mobile-phone system awaiting a post-Saddam Iraq. With fellow outcasts North Korea and Afghanistan, Iraq is one of the last three major states, says a UN survey, without a proper cellular network.

Now a Republican US Congressman, Darrell Issa, is gathering support for a Bill that would stop Congress funding a network adopting the dominant GSM technology, which he dismisses as an "outdated French standard", in favour of the rival CDMA system. CDMA has been developed by the US company Qualcomm, based in Issa's California constituency. The problem is that GSM is used not just across Europe but by about 70 per cent of the world's mobiles - and the two systems are incompatible.

(The Times, April 1 2003)

Read more!