Author: admin

by Christine Perey People, processes and technologies we use in business meetings are continuously changing in order to increase efficiency in the workplace, or enhance meeting productivity. How can the addition of more technology help more than it hurts? The goal of this article is to take what is currently known about meetings and to overlay a vision of the future, to see how the addition of new technologies based on advanced signal processing and information analysis can have a positive impact on meetings. The reader will also learn about the AMI Project and explore how moving beyond the analysis of simple verbal communications – adding non-verbal communications – can reveal deeper trends and patterns. Applications using AMI technology could give people the ability: to prepare better for upcoming meetings, to review parts of meetings in progress or past meetings missed, to analyze behaviors and positions taken by individuals or groups, and to attend multiple meetings without missing critical elements in either. At a management level, having technologies, which analyze verbal and non-verbal content and communications, could be integrated with other enterprise managements systems to: be the basis of meeting behavior/methods training programs, even permitting self-analysis by participants, improve team construction based on team members’ past meeting behaviors, reduce risk of disclosures and delays caused by underlying conflicts, and recommend strategies for human resource utilization across multiple projects and teams. The Augmented Multimodal Interaction ProjectThe AMI Project, an EU-funded research project involving dozens of scientists across a fifteen-member consortium, focuses meetings in order to develop intelligent software algorithms and systems. The algorithms and related technologies under development can become core building blocks on which products and services may emerge for use by people in and between meetings. Scientists in the AMI Project bring expertise from many disciplines. They include world-renowned experts in the fields of speech processing, video/vision processing and human-computer interfaces, as well as sociology, psychology and linguistics. The focus of their research is on the human-human communication, which occurs between people during product design meetings. The design of the research should permit expansion of the scope to include many more types of meetings and team processes. Statistical machine learning is used by the AMI Project in the context of improving our understanding of business meetings. Machine learning will produce software building blocks. The process of developing these core technologies begins by extracting information from large numbers of multimedia meeting recordings. All the information of interest is labeled. Based on the labels, models are developed (“trained”) to recognize events, words and other patterns of interest. Then, once the models are able to reliably recognize information from sources on which they were trained, a system deployed in a meeting environment can automatically recognize patterns based on new multimedia meeting data it receives. Applications for AMI technologies in meetingsAMI technologies can add value to participants between and during meetings.Between meetingsIn the future, the knowledge worker will have the need-and using AMI research-based technologies will possess the tools-to access multimedia assets from the corporate knowledge base for work between meetings with fewer of the issues we encounter today. Anyone can imagine situations in which the archives of past meetings (in which the searcher herself participated or meetings conducted by others) in a corporation would be useful to search for particular key attributes or content. The problem is that the key attributes are “lost” among the un-interesting meeting segments. Meetings could be more effective if, prior to entering, each participant were better prepared. More preparation takes time; more time than rewards, if the proper tools are not available. The AMI technology can be integrated into tools that help people prepare for their meetings. Between meetings a user of the multimedia meeting archive can: Review a summary of one or any number of past meetings, Search one or more past meetings to answer specific questions, Browse one or more past meetings to answer specific or general questions, View the entire meeting (or multiple meetings) in faster-than-real time, and Detect patterns exhibited by groups or individuals during past meetings, which may provide insights into the upcoming meeting. Imagine what it would be like if knowledge workers who are unable to attend a meeting to which they would have added value or from which they could benefit had access to recordings and the functionalities above. Wouldn’t the process and reliability of “catching up” be different? Better Summaries are CrucialToday if a person misses a meeting, they must go to others who attended and ask for a summary. Meeting summaries used in business today are verbal, contain the biases of a participant’s point of view and are not searchable. Sometimes summaries can be in the form of notes or minutes but most meeting participants do not have the time to formalize their conclusions in a form that is useful to others in a project team. A summary should capture the essence of the content of a meeting. There are as many summary formats as types of meetings. One can imagine options such as: Bullet summary, Paragraph summary, Summary in audio, and Summary in audio, video and with supporting media introduced during the meeting. Regardless of their presentation media or their depth, those who rely on them need the content of summaries to be linked to the detailed contents (the multimedia record) of the meeting. In much the way one navigates a web site or any interactive application, a summary statement should be a “window” into the meeting at the particular time when an issue is discussed or a decision made. The idea of an intelligent meeting database architecture, which would be able to produce summaries of multiple meetings is also part of the AMI vision. From the summary, the user of meeting archives must also be able to search, browse and have flexible ways of accessing the contents of the meeting or multiple meetings in a database. Searching, Browsing and Skimming ArchivesWhen unstructured media files from a meeting archive are indexed and stored in an appropriate repository, their contents are temporally associated with structured data, consisting of other relevant information in the database (time stamps, text transcripts of speech and all written additions or information projected on the screen, names of people in a meeting, the subject of the meeting, the agenda of the meeting, and any files introduced during the meeting). A user interface for a multimedia meeting repository provides a search function. One can imagine a dialog box in which an inquiry is entered by the user (it might be typed in using a keyboard but in the future, the user might speak or point to designate what aspects are sought). A pop-up menu might have the most frequently asked search threads. Questions, which the AMI Project is using machine learning to answer on its database of meetings include: Who is in the meeting? What are the participants saying? When and how do they communicate? What are they doing? What are their emotional states? What are they looking at (focus of attention)? Based on the details, higher order questions are asked, such as: What topics are discussed and when? What decisions are made and by whom? What roles do the participants play? What positions do they take on issues? What activities are completed? What tasks are assigned or reported done? In some cases, the person using a meeting archive may not know exactly what they are looking for. This requires a different type of interaction with the archive or the repository permits “skimming” in a linear fashion as well as non-linear browsing (through text). Accelerating Meeting PlaybackThe user may also seek tools to experience the meeting in less time than it took to conduct the meeting. As illustrated in Figure 2, the user can accelerate the playback of a telephone conference by only asking to hear or “see” those sections attributable to a particular meeting participant. Or can adjust the speed of the playback of all the meeting media. This is a use of AMI technologies between meetings. Imagine being in a meeting and suddenly needing to step out to attend to an emergency or arriving after a meeting has already begun. Prior to entering or returning to the meeting, the essence of the segment missed could be obtained and permit continuing the meeting without interruption or loss of context. Figure 2 illustrates how the user would control the playback of a meeting in progress. Detecting PatternsSummaries are, in some ways, the detection and compression of patterns into smaller, more accessible chunks. Patterns can come in any shape and size. They may consist of the utilization of a word or expression, a gesture or non-verbal type of communication such as nodding to indicate agreement or nodding when a person is drowsy. These are subtle differences, which the human brain can distinguish and, in time, the algorithms on which AMI is working will also be able to detect and flag or enter in the database for use by meeting applications. In some scenarios for AMI technology use, a meeting participant’s gestures or position relative to others can be the cue, which causes a response in a virtual representation of a remote participant. For example, as illustrated in figure 3, when all the participants are in the meeting are turned towards a white board, the virtual participant is expected to turn similarly. Detecting patterns could also help decisions in rendering agent actions (body language). If during a meeting everyone has their arms folded, would the remote participant also seek to assume this posture as well? These are other examples of how using AMI technology to detect patterns will be potentially valuable during meetings. Support during meetingsIn much the same manner as archives can be resources to people between meetings, or that AMI can help the late meeting participant get “caught up,” the recordings of past meetings should also serve as resources to participants during a meeting. Suppose participants in a meeting wish to answer a question about a previous meeting. Features similar to those accessible between meetings should be available but would also take into account the participants of the live meeting and the sensitivity of the sources or contents of past meetings. Improving Meeting Management and ProgressThere are many scenarios for improving the flow and dynamics of communication during a meeting. Since the AMI project technologies are able to measure the interactions and participation of people in a meeting, analyses could be summarized and presented to a chairperson during a meeting. Imagine a system, which compares a proposed (ideal?) agenda with the progress of an actual meeting and alerts the participants about deviations from their goals. In some more futuristic AMI application scenarios, the directives or opinions of leaders or behaviors of participants in past meetings could be privately or publicly compared with the real time progress. The comparison could be used by the meeting chair to re-orient discussions to key issues, which are known to cause delays in a project, for example. A meeting and the life cycle of a project can be shortened if known obstacles are anticipated and addressed. Imagine a meeting in which an action item is being taken to prepare an analysis of a risk. If, by accessing past meeting repositories, or having an agent which automatically compares new action items with the past, a knowledge worker can be notified that such an analysis already exists, the meeting chairperson can introduce the relevant conclusions and accelerate the project. An AMI-based technology could help the moderator of the meeting follow how long the monologue has been in progress and intervene to involve more participants in a discussion. Metrics such as time spoken, the number of times a participant has successfully “grabbed” the floor, the number of people who are paying attention to a participant (regardless of their having the floor or not) all help to manage the process of a meeting or a project’s outcome more effectively. People who repeatedly grab the floor could receive automatically generated notifications that others are finding their input valuable or irritating and permit the participant to adapt behaviors in real time given the conditions. Meeting AgentsFrequently it is necessary for the success of multiple projects for a person to be assigned responsibilities with overlapping time requirements. Another scenario for AMI technologies includes a system which helps knowledge workers “attend” two or more meetings simultaneously. The individual may participate in one meeting in person or by telephone and request to have an agent monitor one or more meetings. Provided participants in another meeting agree, the monitoring agent can be configured to detect real time events such as changes in the agenda, discussion of a particular item on the agenda which concerns the employee directly, a new person entering the meeting or someone who is known to be important leaving a meeting. This could optimize the use of limited human resources. In the AMI demonstration of this scenario, the Remote Meeting Assistant (RMA) will detect events (e.g., keywords, entry or exit, change in dialog, debates) which it has been configured to monitor and alert the user. These could be real time alerts (via a pop up or toaster like an Instant Message) and they could be compiled for later review. Taking action based on information provided by a RMA would require first gaining the context for the alert, perhaps by way of an accelerated playback of recent remarks or discussion. Bringing Science in contact with Business, Aligning Vision with Real World LimitsIn the business of meetings, it is crucial for those in the trenches, those who are managing the technologies for enterprise meetings to expand their frameworks, vocabularies and working models about business process in order to envision more efficient workforces and accelerated, highly-informed decision making. At the same time, the research community will be working on machine learning and the development of algorithms which process multi-modal signals with ever increasing accuracy, regardless of the use for these systems in enterprise. Where possible the research and business communities can nourish one another and better the world. It is important, regardless of the scope of ones vision or on which side of the science-business divide one stands, to understand the practical limits of technology as well as the ability for business and humans to change. Some of the applications are challenging to implement in real time products and will not be realized for decades due to the processing complexity. Only time will tell how large an impact the AMI Project will have on people, processes and technology of the future. Without very strong incentives, humans resist changing their behaviors. Cost of technology requiring investments greater than the foreseen return may also be an obstacle. Other scenarios explored in this article are difficult to implement for reasons other than known technology limitations. The only thing we can be certain of is that in the future there will continue to be business meetings, and they can be dramatically improved using new technologies. Transfer of AMI technology into mainstream products and services is a crucial aspect of the project. Vendors developing meeting technologies must experience the research underway in the AMI Project to assess opportunities for future features and functionality. For information on the AMI Project approach and to see demonstrations and screen movies of the technology prototypes in action, visit www.amiproject.org About Christine PereyChristine Perey is the principal of PEREY Research & Consulting, based in Montreux, Switzerland. Perey focuses on multimedia communications and offers technology or market-specific services such as opportunity and risk analyses, business development and strategic planning services to video and visual communications technology vendors and service providers. She is responsible for technology transfer and manages the Community of Interest for the AMI Project. She can be reached at cperey@amiproject.org You can find the event ‘the future of Business Meetings’

by Markus Miessen The United States became engaged in two distinct conflicts, Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) in Iraq. As a result of a Presidential determination, the Geneva Conventions did not apply to al Quaeda and Taliban combatants.” (1) – Schlesinger Report The present re-read Analysing the relationship between space and power, many questions arise about how far spatial conditions have influenced and continue to affect conscious violations of Human Rights. A few years into the 21st century, decreasing public confidence in political decision-making and its transfer has made way for an overbearing universal ethics of mediated truisms. Post 9/11 in particular, one can trace an increasing habit of politicians to convert the mis-en-scene and tools of spatial planning in order to create microclimates, which do not obey any legal framework. There is evidence that spatial planning has been used as a mechanism to convert spaces into strategic weapons of physical punishment. Simultaneously, one is witnessing the re-appropriation of issues such as representation, psychological framework and an increasingly monotheistic politics. In 2004, the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben re-interpreted the United States’ “war against all evil” as a symbolic gesture that envisions an alteration of the political landscape. Two months after the September attacks in 2001, the Bush administration – in the midst of what it perceived as a state of emergency – authorised the indefinite imprisonment of non-citizens suspected of terrorist activities. This policy, according to Agamben, should be understood as “The State of Exception” (2), a powerful strategy that enables the transformation of a contemporary democracy into a civil dictatorship. Agamben argues that the state of exception, which was meant to be a provisional measure, has become part of the everyday fabric. When the American president George W. Bush sent a TV-message to Vladimir Putin (3), claiming that even in times of war one has to obey the guiding principles of democracy, Bush appeared concerned about the fact that Putin, after the massacre of Beslan (4), had announced to strengthen and fortify the “verticality of power” (5). Ever since, the American president has ensured to clarify that in “times of war” – which in his present-day sense is an ongoing endeavour – the “old” rules and international rights are no longer applicable and can therefore be “temporarily” suspended. This development essentially prepares the ground for a “war” that neither requires justification nor is the policy undertaken on terrorism rationally related to its prevention. Instead, it strengthens a policy that was already under way before the Twin Towers fell: “the war on terrorism needs to be read always as in quotes, because it is not in any conventional sense a war – no national enemy, no troops, no territorial goals as such.” (6) Rather than fighting the symptoms, the U.S. administration had blocked multi-lateral politics for too long. This policy finally turned into a boomerang effect and – propelled by irrational motives due to being caught by “surprise” – conclusions were drawn rapidly. In such reinterpreted register of geopolitics, “rights” are being exposed to the higher principle of potential war and the response towards international terror. In this sense, military order, which turns supreme, can temporarily defer international law. Accordingly, military judges replace civil courts and, in the name of National Security, the president – as the civil leader of the military – embodying unrestricted powers. It is no news that – today – the underlying principle of justification is whether or not a particular action is taking place in the name of national interest while this very interest is being defined by the power that pursues it. In this context, the term “terror” is being pollinated with “war”. Consequently, “war” allows for all civil rights to be suspended. Taking such developments into consideration, it is not surprising that the countless individuals imprisoned in Camp X-Ray & Delta (Guantanamo Bay, Cuba), the detention centre at Bagram airport (Afghanistan), Abu Ghuraib prison (Iraq) and numerous third-country penitentiaries, have been deferred into territories that are lacking of Human Rights monitoring, influenced by a White House directive that “terrorist” suspects do not deserve the rights given to prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. But in the General Provisions of the Geneva Conventions relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (7), a different code is outlined, which claims that one has to “ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances”(8) and renders a clear definition about prisoners of war. According to the Conventions, prisoners of war “are persons, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of rganized resistance movements operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied.” (9) In order to prevent submission to the Geneva Conventions, the captured individuals and groups could therefore be moved into territories, which disobey the Conventions, or territories that do not fall under its jurisdiction. The U.S. government therefore started to set up spatial constructs, which – in their belief – are not accountable to any higher authority. This method of creating extra-legal territory also includes a technique known as “extraordinary renditions”. (10) In April 2005, Human Rights Watch released a summary of evidence of U.S. abuse of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba and other programmes of secret CIA detention. (11) The U.S. government openly admits that they seek diplomatic assurances from states where torture is a common phenomenon, one in which one state requesting that another make an exception to its general policy of employing torture with respect to just one individual. Such technique has deeply disturbing implications. Pro- actively proposing the creation of such territorial and legal islands of protection illustrates the imperative function of space within the equation and comes close to accepting the ocean of abuse that surrounds it. (12) In case foreign authorities or the United Nations have condemned such practices of torture, the U.S. has proven to spatially transfer prisoners while simultaneously releasing a flood of new legal documents, which allow for particular codes of conduct within the military and the CIA. This technique, however, is neither new nor being practiced by the United States alone. The government of the United Kingdom is reportedly in negotiations with the Algerian and Moroccan governments, countries in which abusive treatment and torture is common, to allow the transfer of terrorism suspects. (13) In the eyes of the architects of such legal documents, a war against Iraq – for example – is legal, because it presents a case in self-defence and, further, an action in the interest of humanity. Crime and its becoming“How can our government speak with authority about the evil of torture in countries like Egypt and Syria and Uzbekistan when it is knowingly making deals with the worst elements of those regimes to send people to the very dungeons where they torture prisoners?” (14) – Tom Malinowski, Washington Advocacy Director for Human Rights Watch When Giorgio Agamben, both prior and post-9/11 (15), discussed the principles of western society, he rendered a threatening image that is gaining its momentum from legal documents all the way back to the Roman Empire. Influenced by Hannah Arendt’s work on totalitarianism and the institutional form of rights (16) Agamben attempts to trace a historic process, one that is not a singular phenomenon, but a progression towards his primary thesis: there is an unforeseen solidarity between democracy and totalitarianism. According to the Roman legal system, the one who threatened the republic was treated as a public enemy: as “Homo Sacer” – the one without rights – one was reduced to nothing but a living being and could be executed. (17) The Patriot Act – enacted in October 2001 – allows the United States government to take any individual into custody, who is suspected to threaten National Security. But George W. Bush’s new military order turns those who are incarcerated in Guantanamo’s Camp X-Ray & Delta into lawless individuals, exteriorised from any juridical support-structure because of their territorial, that is spatial, status. Like so many other political prisoners in the course of history, these individuals have lost their juridical identity by having been put through a selection of political and spatial filters. Although Agamben’s critique is radical in the sense that it is introducing an oversimplified and accelerated concept of comparison, what he is essentially doing is to lay bare the danger of nationalistic structures. The videos and photographic footage that came out of Iraq’s Abu Ghuraib prison illustrate the drastic relevance of Agamben’s theory of the Homo Sacer. The naked bodies piled on top of each other and its sadistic choreography blend into a scene that recalls the fatal imagery of the 20th century. Throughout history, cultures have projected that what they considered as “evil” beyond their own territorial borders. Historic evidence illustrates that as soon as one realises that the reasons for so-called “evil acts” can be located inside one’s own territory, one refers to an existing “cruel” imagery on the outside in order to claim justification. In the case of Abu Ghuraib, we can trace the imagery of the colonial victor, but the space itself becomes exchangeable. And so does its historic reference. One reason for the public reception being so overwhelming could be described simply by tracing an existing imagery. Rather than evoking a shock due to its specific message, the images coming out of Abu Ghuraib overlap with an existing 20th century imagery, a blend of the death camps of Auschwitz, the pictures of deformed bodies in Vietnam, the death squad killings in El Salvador, the killing of the Tutsi in Rwanda, the genocides in Turkey, Sudan and Cambodia and the war crimes of collective punishment in Fallujah. Such excesses would always have two things in common: they were tied to a particular, delineated territory and an imagery of the subordinate subject. In this pornography of violence, the stage would change, but the choreography stays the same. Trying to bridge the gap between associated territories and the mainland, the U.S. is trying by all means to refer back to the outside, avoiding legal focus on their exterritorial enclaves while simultaneously talking about a “clean war”. (18) Spatial enclaves and the return of radical punishment“Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light (…).” (19) – Major General Antonio M. Taguba Within this imagery, there seems to be a strong link to what Michel Foucault described as the “ceremonial of punishment” (20): “some prisoners may be condemned to be hanged, (…) others, for more serious crimes, to be broken alive and to die on the wheel, after having their limbs broken; others to be broken until they die a natural death, others to be strangled and then broken, others to be burnt alive, (…) and others to have their heads broken.” (21) In Discipline & Punish, The Birth of the Prison, Foucault illustrates in how far physical punishment has become the most hidden part of the penal process and “as a result, justice no longer takes public responsibility for the violence that is bound up with its practice.” (22) As opposed to historic reference, in the 20th century – he argues – the spectacle of punishment has shifted to the trial. But if there is no trial, there is no scene. The disappearance of public punishment goes hand in hand with the decline of spectacle. Commenting on space and power, Paul Hirst subsequently defined such politics as “a much contested concept: it has many different meanings and possible spatial locations.” (23) Foucault’s treatment of the relation between a new form of power and a new class of specialist structures regarded this both as the consequence and the condition of the rise of forms of “disciplinary power” from the 18th century onwards: “power is thus conceived of a fundamentally negative, as a punitive relation between the dominant and the subordinate subject.” (24) This form of power based on surveillance, which individuates and transforms, is defined by the penitentiary prison with its cells spatially isolating its inmates, with a central structure of inspection. What Hirst describes as the essential characteristics of Bentham’s Panopticon – “an idea in architecture” (25) – that is to say the principle that the many can be governed by the few, can be traced through the history of penitentiary construction. This is probably best exemplified by Abu Ghuraib’s “Liberty Tower”, a central inspection structure overlooking the territory: a space that enables both a certain correlative perspective and power relations. Although Foucault’s writings on the Panopticon originate from the 1970’s, his work seems more relevant than ever. He dissects the relationship between space and power. In order to illustrate the effect of institutional space and its power-relations, Philip Zimbardo – professor emeritus at Stanford University – carried out an experiment in 1971 to test a simple question: what happens if you put “good” people in an “evil space”? To run the experiment, student volunteers were randomly assigned to plan the role of prisoner or guard in a simulated prison. Although all participants had been examined and were confirmed to be mentally healthy, guards soon became sadistic and prisoners showed severe signs of depression. After six days, the study had to be stopped in order to prevent further abuse. The experiment clarified how the power of social and spatial constructs distorts personal identities and values as students had internalised situated identities in their roles as prisoners and guards. When Zimbardo gave an interview to the Edge Foundation in 2005, he argued that “understanding the abuses at this Iraqi prison starts with an analysis of both the situational and systematic forces operating on those soldiers working the night shift in that little shop of horrors.” (26) According to Zimbardo, his experiment illustrated the competition between institutional powers versus the individual’s will to resist. Control through humiliation provided regular occasions for the guards to exercise control over the prisoners, illustrating that the relationship between pleasure and pain, in a territory that is spatially independent and functioning under its own set of rules, is no longer based on a framework of human reasoning. Spatial autonomy as the blueprint of evil“Camp X-Ray is an island, on an island, on an island. It is a sealed off zone (…), which is itself sealed off from the rest of the island of Cuba. That is one of the reasons the US chose to bring suspects here: it is impossible to get to, unless the US military flies you in.” (27)– BBC report, 2004 The Naval Base Guantanamo Bay on Cuba is essentially a territory in which prisoners can be held indefinitely beyond scrutiny of US courts. Some of the prisoners have been held there since 2001. Since it is not considered U.S. territory, those imprisoned there have none of the rights of someone brought to American soil. Unlike military bases on U.S. territories, Guantanamo is central to the strategy of preventing judicial review of the legal status of prisoners. Located on Cuban territory, it is the “legal equivalent of outer space”; mainland locations were ruled out as prison sites because they fall under the jurisdiction of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. (28) Amnesty International has compared the territory with Soviet concentration camps known as Gulags, where resistance was legal proof of the need for “treatment”. The U.S. government does not accept the inmates’ status as Prisoners of War, because, according to U.S. authorities, they have not been fighting in uniform, representing a delineated, governed territory. (29) The spatial construction of Camp Delta consists of a maze of fences, razor wire and guard towers. Walls are made from chain-link and cells are protected from the elements by corrugated metal sheets. Prisoners spend most of their time in their cells, sitting on the floor or lying on foam sleeping mats. At night the entire territory is lit up so the guards can see their prisoner’s every move. The construction of additional detention units was completed by mid-April 2002, and done by Brown & Root Services (BRS) – a subsidiary company of oil-venture Halliburton – approximately five miles from Camp X-Ray. Each detention units is 8 feet long, 6 feet 8 inches wide and 8 feet tall and constructed with metal mesh on a solid steel frame. Each detainee is provided with a foam sleeping mattress, a blanket, and a 1/2 inch thick prayer mat. (30) It is precisely these conditions that have been meticulously designed in order to alter the behaviour of inmates and cause symptoms such as chronic depression, suicide, interpersonal rejection, psychiatric disorder and trauma. It comprises a physical design with the intention to enforce confession. What is of imperative nature to the conditions in Guantanamo is that spatial components are being used as a tool to both punish and coerce. As soon as the aim is achieved – that is the detainee confessing – the spatial conditions are altered. Detainees who are willing to comply and confess have the opportunity to become a “level one” detainee and live in Camp Four, where prisoners are housed in communal settings. The implications of this type of outsourcing of torture and extra-territorial incarceration at Guantanamo are enormous. There is a reality to space that introduces both physical conditions and a framework that facilitates its existence: part of the suffering of those men is because they are in a specific space that might be too hot, too small, or enforces severe depression, anxiety, hallucinations and loss of motor skills. After heavy criticism regarding the camp’s spatial conditions, in March 2005, the Pentagon announced the shipment of inmates at Guantanamo to prisons in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Yemen, despite fears they could face even worse human rights abuses. These transfers were similar to the much-criticised practice of renditions, under which the CIA had moved prisoners to Syria and Egypt. (31) Since inmates face transfer to countries known to practise torture, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) had told the Pentagon as early as 2002 that detainees would suffer from similar conditions; conditions that are shockingly similar to earlier references, starting with the politics of disappearances in Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s as well as the Chinese prison camps that still exist in a political framework in which one party rules by definition. Returning to Agamben, totalitarianism strikes one as extremely modern, because it preposes the omnipotence of a single person. Under these conditions, the individual bureaucrat only has to follow orders, which often results in the plea that the individual did only follow orders and is therefore not accountable. This implies the giving up of one’s own capacity to act and finally turns any act of cruelty into a banality, pretending that “there is no alternative (TINA).” (32) At Abu Ghuraib, the spatial conditions were disturbing. Imprisoned in 12 by 12 foot cells that were “little more than human holding pits” (33), the detainees were waiting for their call. What Foucault had once, through Bentham’s Panopticon, explained as the subtle form of political control in the microclimate of a prison has turned into a scenario in which there is neither political control on the micro-scale he describes, nor a fully operative legal framework, which seems to be able to deal with this parasitic relationship between politics and space. Although one can trace these territories on a map geographically, they have been hoisted to a juridical meta-level on which humiliation through spatial and physical practice becomes part of the everyday fabric. Although the “camp” should by no means be understood as a possible answer to some of the political questions that are continuously being raised by the “architects of power”, at least the camp offers a spatially defined framework, which can be judged and held responsible as a physical condition. Instead of further renditions that isolate human targets by withdrawing them from any evident physical environment while dehumanising the individual, tomorrow’s politics of de-escalation should reach for an architecture of Human Rights. In an ideal world, such application of spatial standards would prevent future scenarios in which architects’ commit crimes against Humanity. Those crimes regarding the organisation of the built environment through the deliberate misuse of spatial components are in desperate need of further analysis, not by politicians or Human Rights groups, but architects and planners trying to dismantle and understand the physical relationship between space and power. Both Guantanamo and Abu Ghuraib are a showcase in the failure of ethical planning and a manifesto of the powerful, creating a blend of physical and non-physical components that create an overall fabric of control-space. The question therefore needs to be: do we need a Geneva Convention for the built environment, a court of justice to persecute spatial war crimes? Somewhere between the flood of Human Rights documents, the Stanford Prison Experiment, Zacarias De La Rocha’s “is all the world jails and churches?” (34) and Salman Rushdie’s claim that “we need more teachers and fewer priests in our lives” (35), one starts to trace the failure and bitterness of geopolitics. But zooming out of the spatial enclaves, there is hope: breaking the stoic narrative that suggests the return to preenlightened vision, resisting the re-introduction of moral truisms, turning inside-out the model of the world in which religion is part of the public realm, the answer – on a larger scale – can only be the return to secular politics. 1 Schlesinger, J. R., “Final Report of the Independent Panel to review DoD Detention Operations”, Arlington (VA), August 2004,p.792 Agamben, G., The State of Exception, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 20043 Lersch, P., “Demokratie im Ausnahmezustand – Die Verhüllte Freiheitsstatue“, in: Spiegel Online, 27. Oktober 20044 On September 1, 2004 terrorists captured more than 1300 hostages at a School in Beslan, South Russia. This act of terror was directed specifically at children. Hundreds of children spent 53 hours without water and food in an overcrowded hot gymnasium, wired with explosives. They witnessed the beatings and murders of family members, friends and teachers.5 Strong presidency and presidential administration; president’s appointees in the Federal Districts; appointed governors, party formation from above, selective justice; state-controlled TV6 Marcuse, P., “The ‘War on Terrorism’ and Life in Cities after September 11, 2001”, in: Graham, Stephen (ed.), Cities, War and Terrorism – Towards an Urban Geopolitics, Oxford: Blackwell, 2004, p.2637 The Geneva Conventions consist of four documents passed in Switzerland in the aftermath of World War II. They present the international treaties setting rules about the conduct of war. They form the centrepiece of humanitarian law and seek to protect people from the sorts of assaults endured in the fight against Nazism. Almost every country has ratified all four of the conventions, including the United States8 http://www.genevaconventions.org/ “Geneva Conventions relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War”, General Provisions,Article 19 ibid., Article 4 (A.2)10 “Renditions and Diplomatic Assurances – Outsourcing Torture“ [see: http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/torture/renditions.htm]11 “Getting Away with Torture? Command Responsibility for the U.S. Abuse of Detainees”, Vol. 17, No. 1(G), April 2005 [see: http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us0405/]12 Yuval Ginbar, legal advisor to Amnesty International, cited in “The Tacit Acceptance of Torture”, [see: http://hrw.org/reports/2005/eca0405/4.htm#_Toc100558824]13 “Diplomatic Assurances allowing torture – Growing Trend defies international law“, April 15, 2005 [see: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/04/15/eu10479.htm]14 Malinowski, T., in: “U.S. State Department 2004 Human Rights Reports – Testimony to U.S. House of Representatives”, Human Rights Watch document, March 18, 2005 [see: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/18/usint10347.htm]15 In “Homo Sacer” (1995, Italian original version) and “The State of Exception” (2004)16 Arendt, H., The Human Condition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 195817 See Agamben, G., Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, Meridian: Crossing Aesthetics, Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press, 199818 See also: Zweifel, S., and Pfister, M., “Die 120 Tage von Abu Ghraib”, in: Cicero, June 200419 Hersh, S. M., “Torture at Abu Ghraib”, New Yorker, 3 May, 2004, [see also: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact]20 Foucault, M., Discipline & Punish – The Birth of the Prison (first translated by Alan Sheridan in 1977), New York City: Vintage Books (Random House), 1995, p.821 Soulatges, J. A., Traite des crimes, I (1762), cited in: Foucault, M., Discipline & Punish – The Birth of the Prison (first translated by Alan Sheridan in 1977), New York City: Vintage Books (Random House), 1995, p.3222 Foucault, M., Discipline & Punish – The Birth of the Prison (first translated by Alan Sheridan in 1977), New York City: Vintage Books (Random House), 1995, p.9 23 Hirst, P., Space and Power – Politics, War and Architecture, Cambridge: Polity, 2005, p.2624 ibid., p.16725 ibid., p.16926 Zimbardo, P., “You can’t be a sweet cucumber in a vinegar barrel – a talk with Philip Zimbardo”, in: Edge, January 19, 200527 Lister, R., “Grim life at Guantanamo”, in: BBC, Feb 7, 200228 see “Guantanamo Bay – Camp Delta”, in: www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_delta.htm29 “Bush lässt Alternativen zu Guantanamo prüfen”, in: Spiegel Online, June 9, 200530 see “Guantanamo Bay – Camp Delta”, in: www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_delta.htm 31 seeGoldenberg, S., “US faces Cuban prison crisis”, in: The Age, March 13, 200532 Term coined by Pierre Wack, a French oil executive arguing that strategy as it had been practiced (straight-line extrapolations from the past) did little to frame the choices that would define the future. The true role of strategy in his sense of the world was to describe a future worth creating, and then to reap the competitive advantages of preparing for it and making it happen. Strategy, in other words, was about telling stories33 Hersh, Seymour M., “ Torture at Abu Ghraib,” New Yorker, 3 May, 2004, [see also: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact]34 De la Rocha, Z. M., “Vietnow”, in: Evil Empire (recorded by Rage Against The Machine), 1996 (Sony Music)35 Rushdie, S., “In Bad Faith“, in: The Guardian, Monday March 14, 2005 This text is a short extract from an essay to be published in the forthcoming book “5 Codes – Architecture in the Age of Fear and Terror” (Birkhäuser – Basel/ Boston/ Berlin). Markus Miessen is an architect, researcher and writer teaching at the Architectural Association. He is the co-author of “Spaces of Uncertainty” (Mueller & Busmann, 2002) and currently acts as a spatial consultant to the European Kunsthalle Cologne. His forthcoming publication “Did someone Say Participate? An Atlas of Spatial Practice” (MIT Press/ Revolver, co-edited by Shumon Basar) will be published in June.

by S. Chakraborty, P. Batheja, H. Pahlson-Moller Evalueserve is Knowledge Partner of the Summit for the FutureSummary In the wake of large-scale financial failures such as those of Enron and WorldCom, the world of business has woken up to the need for internal controls. Such internal controls are necessary to ensure equitable distribution of rights among various stakeholders and make every corporate participant accountable for their practices. In other words, the concept of corporate governance has started gaining acceptance and popularity. Corporate governance is a system which provides sufficient controls to the way an organization is managed and hence ensures transparency. Sound corporate governance demands focus on long-term financial returns to all shareowners, full and accurate information disclosure, accountability of board of directors and constructive dialogue with the government and legislators. It also demands adherence to all applicable legislation prevalent in the country of operation. Therefore, the model of corporate governance followed by an organization depends on its geographic location and thus, varies between organizations. Though adherence to corporate governance directives is the onus of all stakeholders, it is the probably the highest for top-level managerial staff. While the practice of sound corporate governance undoubtedly enhances the goodwill of an organization and ensures financial stability, a careful balance needs to be maintained to ensure that excessive focus on controls do not straitjacket innovation and hence affect customer satisfaction.Corporate Governance – the controlled way to success ‘I am not saying there won’t be an Accident now, mind you. They’re funny things – Accidents. You never have them till you’re having them.’ – Winnie-the-Pooh Unpleasant occurrences, like their pleasant counterparts, always happen unexpectedly. Over the years, the world of business has witnessed many such unexpected successes and failures. Enron, Worldcom and Parmalat are some of the examples of the latter in the US and Europe. These corporate failures, and many more, have each caused insurmountable losses – loss of wealth, loss of livelihood, and most importantly, irreparable loss of goodwill. Why did these organizations falter? What went wrong? Could the disasters have been prevented? Could the process of atrophy be arrested at the very onset? This brings us to the discussion of a very important concept – Corporate Governance. Corporate governance refers to the set of rules or regulations that govern the functioning of an organization. According to OECD, “Corporate governance is the system by which business corporations are directed and controlled. The corporate governance structure specifies the distribution of rights and responsibilities among different participants in the corporation, such as, the board, managers, shareholders and other stakeholders, and spells out the rules and procedures for making decisions on corporate affairs. By doing this, it also provides the structure through which the company objectives are set and the means of attaining those objectives and monitoring performance”. The history of corporate governance dates back to the Watergate Scandal, which effectively involved a series of political scandals over 1972-74 and the abuse of power by the Nixon administration in attempts to undermine political opposition. During this period, many companies in the US had engaged in secret political contributions and corrupt payments, thus diluting shareholder value in the long-term. Later, in the nineteen eighties, a number of business failures took place, which made it apparent that the organizations severely lacked proper internal controls and independent audits. In other words, companies were not following the requisite corporate governance directives and instances of corporate failures due to management negligence, non-transparency, unequal distribution of power, etc, were rampant. In last few years, this trend has changed. Companies have started adopting systematic approaches to manoeuvre and manage their business operations. In other words, corporate governance has gradually become popular in the corporate world. Due to its apparent importance in shaping the economic health of corporations, and therefore society in general, corporate governance has also succeeded in attracting a good deal of public interest. Corporate governance ensures accountability, transparency, fairness and responsibility of companies on legal, social and economic affairs. In today’s world, characterised by intense competition, these elements are all crucial for success. According to a survey conducted by McKinsey, shareholders in Latin America and Asia are willing to pay around 20-28% premium for shares of well-governed companies. Similarly, in Europe and the US, shareholders are willing to pay 17-23% and 16-19% premium respectively. Hence the importance of corporate governance can hardly be overemphasised. Sound corporate governance demands the following; Focus on long-term financial returns to all shareowners Full and accurate information disclosure Ultimate ownership structure disclosure Accountable and qualified Board of Directors Consistent corporate remuneration policy Adherence to all applicable laws of the jurisdictions Constructive dialogue with the government and legislators In order to ensure compliance to corporate governance, several ratings scales have evolved in the recent past. These scales have set parameters to monitor and judge the ratings of individual organizations on compliance parameters. Companies, which are rated low due to non-adherence, are therefore losing goodwill among stakeholders. Adherence to sound corporate governance is not only the onus of the owners of the company, or those who hold top managerial positions. It is the responsibility of all stakeholders. In general, the most important factor in any organization’s success is its employees, and the responsibility falls heavily on their shoulders. The model of corporate governance followed by an organization depends, to a large extent, on its geographical location. Some of the reasons for this are as follows: Difference in structure of board – The structure of the board differs per country. Boards of organizations in certain countries, such as Germany, Netherlands and France, follow a two-tier structure; whereas those of organizations in the UK and Spain follow a unitary structure. The two tier structure allows the upper-tier to oversee the work of lower-tier, and hence leads to better adherence to corporate governance. Difference in creditor profile – Since creditors are key stakeholders, difference in creditor profiles lead to different corporate governance models being followed in different countries. For instance, in the US and the UK, equity is the dominant form of long-term finance. Banks are thus relatively less important and do not enjoy much control in the operations of organizations. On the other hand, the higher component of debt in organizations in Japan gives banks significant ownership and control in organizational matters. · Difference in power of customers – The legal framework of certain countries, such as the US and the UK, vests significant rights to customers. For instance, the Citizen’s Charter in the UK states that public services have to develop and publish a charter, which clearly lays down the rights of the customers and performance standards expected from the company over a period of time. Good corporate governance practices include the following: Flexibility of special meetings on needs basis, in addition to regular meetings Maintaining clarity in the positions and titles of directors Regular management executive meetings Creation of a system to clarify responsibilities of directors Creation of a corporate advisory committee for better transparency and objectivity Improvement in the auditing system Fair, appropriate, and timely disclosure of information regarding corporate activities (such as management policies, management objectives, and financial position) to all stakeholders Educating employees about business conduct guidelines Amidst all the emphasis on corporate governance, organizations should remember that better governance is not an end in itself, but rather, the means to a different end – that is customer satisfaction. While tight governance can protect organizations from frauds, errors and undue risk, it can also threaten agility and innovation. Organizations should ensure that regulations and controls do not get in the way of nimble delivery of customer expectations. Customer expectations should not be compromised against adherence and the two should be carefully integrated to create a transparent organization delivering customer value at all times. A recent example of good corporate governance is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act passed in the United States in 2002. In the wake of the large-scale financial meltdowns of powerful corporations such as Enron and WorldCom, which shook the very foundation of the financial world, this act was designed to review the out-dated legislative audit requirements. Considered to be one of the most significant amendments in the United States’ securities laws, the act specifies the establishment of public company accounting oversight board, auditor independence, corporate responsibility, and enhanced financial disclosure. Some organizations which have successfully used corporate governance to their benefit include Swiss RE, GE, Shell and IDC. About a decade ago, the board of Swiss Re, a large re-insurer, carried the image of “advance guard of the enemy”. There was little transparency in the system and important issues were hidden from the board. All this underwent a sea change and now the company boasts of sound strategy and proper information flow, resulting in better transparency within the company. The performance of non-executive directors has also come under scrutiny and external coaching is made available to enhance their performance. Corporate governance at IDC is based on two principles: 1. Management must have the executive freedom to drive the enterprise forward without undue restraints2. This freedom should be exercised within a framework of effective accountability What are the emerging trends in corporate governance? Companies have already started being more transparent and accountable, demarcating the role and responsibilities of the board and conducting performance appraisals of the board members. There is also a trend towards more external representation in boards and shorter tenure for such externally appointed board members.

by Evalueserve A special Summit for the Future Report by B Vijayalakshmi, Hedda Pahlson-Moller, EvalueserveApril 10, 2006 Innovation: The DNA for Growth You can’t solve a problem on the same level that it was created. You have to rise above it to the next level – Albert Einstein This quote by Albert Einstein clarifies the common misconception about innovation. Innovation is not only about developing a product or service from scratch but is also about adding value to an existing product or service. Organisations across the world have focussed on innovation in order to achieve the competitive advantage required for creating and sustaining growth. The effect of globalisation on the world economy has also played a significant role in fostering innovation. Organisations soon realised that without innovation they faced the possibility of extinction. Research and development (R&D) and innovation go hand in hand; however, R&D is only one aspect of innovation. While innovation is about introducing a new idea or process to the end customer or developing and improving an existing product or service, R&D is about conducting original investigations to gain new knowledge for improving products or services. Risks and Rewards come in a package Innovations and the risks associated with them are directly proportional. On the other hand, the rewards of taking these risks are high. All resources employed for successful innovation are subject to some form of risk. These resources vary from the capital employed to the use of raw material, time, manpower and technical skills. A successful innovation is subject to various external and internal factors. (Figure 1) These factors include government regulations and support, availability of skilled labour, the firm’s internal management and its sources of capital. India and China attract large investments in R&D due to the availability of highly skilled manpower. The UK has an average innovation performance as its firms are less inclined to change. Therefore, they lag behind other geographies such as the US in adopting new and innovative business practices. Collaborations such as that of Tata Consultancy Services in India with Stanford University for research in data privacy are examples of pooling existing expertise. Government involvement is a key factor as it influences all other factors. A government’s fiscal measures and macroeconomic policies promote access to capital. It has a role in developing science and technology centres, and associations. It also has a role in encouraging R&D in institutes that provide the support system required for innovation and R&D. The government is also responsible for providing funds for quality education and sourcing the required human capital. This can be seen in the United States where the government has increased the number of H1B visas in order to increase the skilled labour pool for its IT sector. Extent of Risk in Different Stages of Innovation There are four stages in a product’s or service’s life cycle. Innovation can take place at any of these stages as can be seen in Figure 2. However, innovation or the introduction of a new product or service in a new market will always involve a considerable amount of risk. These risks will vary, depending on the stage of the life cycle in which the innovation is implemented. Innovations can be classified into four distinct types. Breakthrough innovation, which is the first type, involves the generation of a complete new range of services or products for a new market or user. Breakthrough innovation is always implemented in the introduction stage of a product life cycle. In this type of innovation, a firm will succeed in attracting the right financiers and customers only if it invests adequate time and resources for the same. However, when an innovation is introduced, it can have two consequences: it may face outright rejection or it may be well received and go on to be a resounding success. Yet, there is no way of estimating the time that an innovation will take to ultimately become a success. The second and third stages in the life cycle of a product or service are growth and maturity, respectively. If a firm decides to innovate in the growth and maturity stages, it can do so either by introducing the product or service to a new user or market (geographic innovation) or by introducing a substitute product to an existing market (substitute innovation). Geographic innovation helps to increase the market share for a firm while substitute innovation helps to increase its product line. Both types of innovations are less risky as compared to breakthrough innovation. This is so because by then the firm would have developed a greater understanding about its innovation. It would not only have awareness about the product’s success, but would also be aware of market needs. The decline stage marks the final phase of a product’s or service’s life cycle. In this stage, an organisation usually faces a financial crisis, and its product or service may be on its way out from the market. An incremental innovation, which is the fourth type of innovation, can be most appropriately implemented at this stage. Incremental innovations refine existing ideas, products or services by adding certain features or characteristics. Yet, it involves some amount of risk because an innovation is at all times a risky proposition. Therefore, by implementing innovation in the decline stage, the organisation is taking a calculated risk. The innovation may earn a temporary reprieve for the product, or the money expended on the innovation may not fetch any returns. Incremental innovation can occur in both the maturity and decline stages of a product’s or service’s life cycle. Most organisations opt for incremental innovation in three circumstances – to tackle increasing market competition, to change product features as per a felt need or to boost revenues. AboutEvalueserveEvalueserve is a global knowledge services firm that provides high value-added research services to leading edge clients worldwide. Our clients include global consulting and market research firms, investment banks, Fortune 500 corporations, as well as SMEs in financial services, telecom and technology, pharmaceuticals and biotech, and various other sectors such as automotive, oil and gas, FMCG, Retail, etc. Evalueserve’s client executives are located in the North and South America, Europe, Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. The client executives are supported by its multi-lingual research team of 750 professionals, based in Gurgaon India. Contact: Hedda Pahlson-Moller, hedda.pm@evalueserve.comwww.evalueserve.com Club of AmsterdamThe Club of Amsterdam is an independent, international, future-oriented think tank involved in channelling preferred futures. It involves those who dare to think out of the box and those who don’t just talk about the future but actively participate in shaping outcomes. We organize events, seminars and summits on relevant issues and publish findings & proceedings through various off-line and online media channels. Our goal is to become a global player and catalyst for innovation in industries, science and society. The Club of Amsterdam is a not-for-profit foundation registered in The Netherlands.www.clubofamsterdam.com Download the full report as a *.pdf: click here

by European Commission Information Society and Media Stakeholders of eGovernment in Europe had the opportunity to let their voice be heard on future eGovernment policy through an online consultation run from the 4th October to the 7th December 2005, at the website “Your Voice in Europe”. Executive summary From October to December 2005 an online public consultation was held via Your Voice (http://europa.eu.int/yourvoice/) on future eGovernment policy towards 2010. In total, 403 respondents (citizens, public administrations and businesses covering all the European Union Member States and a number of countries from outside of the EU) answered questions about: inclusive eGovernment citizen involvement, participation and democracy high impact services efficient & effective eGovernment key enablers. About 92% of the respondents agreed with the suggested approach to focus eGovernment policy on a small number of priorities with high impact. The responses to the questionnaire strongly support objective-setting as formulated in the Ministerial Declaration adopted at the Manchester Ministerial Conference on 24 November 2005. Priority focuses for inclusive eGovernment policy towards 2010 were: the increase of the access and the use of public services by active promotion and more accessible solutions; the design of public policies and services by eGovernment in such a way, that no citizen and businesses risks being excluded; and a better access to market, tenders and business opportunities in the public sector to SMEs. The most significant main barriers to progress mentioned were: lack of interoperability; organisational barriers and the lack of ease of use. The preferred priority actions, according to the respondents include: proactive approach to be used by public administrations; training of public administrations, and exchange of good practices on inclusivity strategies and solutions at EU level. Concerning citizen involvement, participation and democracy, there is in general the opinion (64%), that eParticipation and eVoting can help or most likely help closing the democratic deficit. As main barriers are mentioned: lack of trust and security, insufficient access to information and communication technologies and lack of leadership. Main actions should be providing of solutions for eParticipation by a choice of channels (e.g. TV, cell-phone…), exchange of experiences and solutions as well as the creation of awareness. Citizens mobility and social security, citizens mobility in work and public eProcurement are the main high impact services on which eGovernment policy should focus by 2010. The respondents have seen as main barriers again the lack of interoperability, organisational barriers followed by national legislation. They recommended as main actions the exchanging of experience on technical and non-technical aspects, support by the structural funds and CIP and provision of incentives to share in developments of solutions.In electronic public procurement, 50-99% public procurement take-up was mentioned most frequently as target by 2010. Main actions in this area should be harmonised electronic signatures to enable the replacement of paper documents and changes in national legislation. In efficient & effectiveeGovernment, the most important objectives to be achieved by 2010 are stated to be improving the quality of services, based on user satisfaction and reducing the administrative burden for businesses and citizens. As main barriers, lack of interoperability,organisational barriers and insufficient skills of the administration were identified. As main actions, good practice sharing, development of innovative and transformative eGovernment solutions at EU level as well as activities for stimulating the use of open standards and pooling software were recommended. The European eGovernment policy should focus on electronic identification and authentication, good practice and solutions sharing and organisational change as key enablers. 88% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the use of national electronic identification schemes in secure and trustworthy transactions with eGovernment services in other Member States should be enabled. As main barriers in realising electronic identification & authentication for public services across borders were seen the lack of interoperability, national legislation and lack of awareness of benefits. The main actions should be: mutual recognition of electronic identities provided by Member States, a federated, multilevel e-Identity model, and a framework for interoperable electronic documents.Changes in EU legislation do not play a strong role in the proposed actions in each of the areas. […] You can download the full report as a *.pdf: click here

by Microsoft Corporation Contents Digital Identity: The ChallengeWhat is the Identity Metasystem?Identities Function in ContextsThe Laws of IdentityRoles within the Identity MetasystemComponents of the Identity MetasystemBenefits of the Identity MetasystemAn Architecture for the Identity Metasystem: WS-* Web ServicesMicrosoft’s Implementation PlansWhat We Learned from PassportConclusion Digital Identity: The Challenge For users and businesses alike, the Internet continues to be increasingly valuable. More people are using the Web for everyday tasks, from shopping, banking, and paying bills to consuming media and entertainment. E-commerce is growing, with businesses delivering more services and content across the Internet, communicating and collaborating online, and inventing new ways to connect with each other. But as the value of what people do online has increased, the Internet itself has become more complex, criminalized, and dangerous. Online identity theft, fraud, and privacy concerns are on the rise, stemming from increasingly sophisticated practices such as “phishing”. The multiplicity of accounts and passwords users must keep track of and the variety of methods of authenticating to sites result not only in user frustration, known as “password fatigue”, but also insecure practices such as reusing the same account names and passwords at many sites. The root of these problems is that the Internet was designed without a system of digital identity in mind. In efforts to address this deficiency, numerous digital identity systems have been introduced, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. But no one single system meets the needs of every digital identity scenario. And even if it were possible to create one system that did, the reality is that many different identity systems are in use today, with still more being invented. As a result, the current state of digital identity on the Internet is an inconsistent patchwork of ad hoc solutions that burdens people with different user experiences at every Web site, renders the system as a whole fragile, and constrains the fuller realization of the promise of e-commerce. What is the Identity Metasystem? Given that universal adoption of a single digital identity system or technology is unlikely ever to occur, a successful and widely employed identity solution for the Internet requires a different approach—one with the capability to connect existing and future identity systems into an identity metasystem. This metasystem, or system of systems, would leverage the strengths of its constituent identity systems, provide interoperability between them, and enable creation of a consistent and straightforward user interface to them all. The resulting improvements in cyberspace would benefit everyone, making the Internet a safer place with the potential to boost e-commerce, combat phishing, and solve other digital identity challenges. In the offline world, people carry multiple forms of identification in their wallets, such as driver’s licenses or other government-issued identity cards, credit cards, and affinity cards such as frequent flyer cards. People control which card to use and how much information to reveal in any given situation. Similarly, the identity metasystem makes it easier for users to stay safe and in control when accessing resources on the Internet. It lets users select from among a portfolio of their digital identities and use them at Internet services of their choice where they are accepted. The metasystem enables identities provided by one identity system technology to be used within systems based on different technologies, provided an intermediary exists that understands both technologies and is willing and trusted to do the needed translations. It’s important to note that the identity metasystem does not compete with or replace the identity systems it connects. Rather, it plays a role analogous to that of the Internet Protocol (IP) in the realm of networking. In the 1970s and early 1980s, before the invention of IP, distributed applications were forced to have direct knowledge of the network link, be it Ethernet, Token Ring, ArcNet, X.25, or Frame Relay. But IP changed the landscape by offering a technology-independent metasystem that insulated applications from the intricacies of individual network technologies, providing seamless interconnectivity and a platform for including not-yet-invented networks (such as 802.11 wireless) into the network metasystem. In the same way, the goals of the identity metasystem are to connect individual identity systems, allowing seamless interoperation between them, to provide applications with a technology-independent representation of identities, and to provide a better, more consistent user experience with all of them. Far from competing with or replacing the identity systems it connects, the metasystem relies on the individual systems to do its work! Identities Function in Contexts The identities held by a person in the offline world can range from the significant, such as birth certificates, passports, and drivers’ licenses, to the trivial, such as business cards or frequent coffee buyer’s cards. People use their different forms of identification in different contexts where they are accepted. Identities can be in or out of context. Identities used out of context generally do not bring the desired result. For example, trying to use a coffee card to cross a border is clearly out of context. On the other hand, using a bank card at an ATM, a government-issued ID at a border, a coffee card at a coffee stand, and a Passport Network (formerly .NET Passport) account at MSN Hotmail are all clearly in context. In some cases, the distinction is less clear. You could conceivably use a government-issued ID at your ATM instead of a bank-issued card, but if this resulted in the government having knowledge of each financial transaction, some people would be uncomfortable. You could use a Social Security Number as a student ID number, but that has significant privacy implications, even facilitating identity theft. And you can use Passport accounts at some non-Microsoft sites, but few sites chose to enable this; even where it was enabled, few users did so because they felt that Microsoft’s participation in these interactions was out of context. Studying the Passport experience and other digital identity initiatives throughout the industry led us to work with a wide range of industry experts to codify a set of principles that we believe are fundamental to a successful, broadly adopted, and enduring digital identity system on the Internet. We call these principles “The Laws of Identity”. The Laws of Identity The “Laws of Identity” are intended to codify a set of fundamental principles to which any universally adopted, sustainable identity architecture must conform. The Laws were proposed, debated, and refined through a long-running, open, and continuing dialogue on the Internet. Taken together, the Laws define the architecture of the identity metasystem. They are: User Control and Consent: Identity systems must only reveal information identifying a user with the user’s consent. Minimal Disclosure for a Constrained Use: The identity system must disclose the least identifying information possible, as this is the most stable, long-term solution. Justifiable Parties: Identity systems must be designed so the disclosure of identifying information is limited to parties having a necessary and justifiable place in a given identity relationship. Directed Identity: A universal identity system must support both “omni-directional” identifiers for use by public entities and “uni-directional” identifiers for use by private entities, thus facilitating discovery while preventing unnecessary release of correlation handles. Pluralism of Operators and Technologies: A universal identity solution must utilize and enable the interoperation of multiple identity technologies run by multiple identity providers. Human Integration: Identity systems must define the human user to be a component of the distributed system, integrated through unambiguous human-machine communication mechanisms offering protection against identity attacks. Consistent Experience Across Contexts: The unifying identity metasystem must guarantee its users a simple, consistent experience while enabling separation of contexts through multiple operators and technologies. To join in the discussion of the Laws of Identity, visit www.identityblog.com. Roles within the Identity Metasystem Different parties participate in the metasystem in different ways. The three roles within the metasystem are: Identity Providers, which issue digital identities. For example, credit card providers might issue identities enabling payment, businesses might issue identities to their customers, governments might issue identities to citizens, and individuals might use self-issued identities in contexts like signing on to Web sites. Relying Parties, which require identities. For example, a Web site or online service that utilizes identities offered by other parties. Subjects, which are the individuals and other entities about whom claims are made. Examples of subjects include end users, companies, and organizations. In many cases, the participants in the metasystem play more than one role, and often all three. Components of the Identity Metasystem To build an identity metasystem, five key components are needed: A way to represent identities using claims A means for identity providers, relying parties, and subjects to negotiate An encapsulating protocol to obtain claims and requirements A means to bridge technology and organizational boundaries using claims transformation A consistent user experience across multiple contexts, technologies, and operators Claims-Based Identities Digital identities consist of sets of claims made about the subject of the identity, where “claims” are pieces of information about the subject that the issuer asserts are valid. This parallels identities used in the real world. For example, the claims on a driver’s license might include the issuing state, the driver’s license number, name, address, sex, birth date, organ donor status, signature, and photograph, the types of vehicles the subject is eligible to drive, and restrictions on driving rights. The issuing state asserts that these claims are valid. The claims on a credit card might include the issuer’s identity, the subject’s name, the account number, the expiration date, the validation code, and a signature. The card issuer asserts that these claims are valid. The claims on a self-issued identity, where the identity provider and subject are one and the same entity, might include the subject’s name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address, or perhaps just the knowledge of a secret. For self-issued identities, the subject asserts that these claims are valid. Negotiation Negotiation enables participants in the metasystem to make agreements needed for them to connect with one another within the metasystem. Negotiation is used to determine mutually acceptable technologies, claims, and requirements. For instance, if one party understands SAML and X.509 claims, and another understands Kerberos and X.509 claims, the parties would negotiate and decide to use X.509 claims with one another. Another type of negotiation determines whether the claims needed by a relying party can be supplied by a particular identity. Both kinds of negotiation are simple matching exercises; they compare what one party can provide with what the other one needs to determine whether there’s a fit. Encapsulating Protocol The encapsulating protocol provides a technology-neutral way to exchange claims and requirements between subjects, identity providers, and relying parties. The participants determine the content and meaning of what is exchanged, not the metasystem. For example, the encapsulating protocol would allow an application to retrieve SAML-encoded claims without having to understand or implement the SAML protocol. Claims Transformers Claims transformers bridge organizational and technical boundaries by translating claims understood in one system into claims understood and trusted by another system, thereby insulating the mass of clients and servers from the intricacies of claim evaluation. Claims transformers may also transform or refine the semantics of claims. For example, a claim asserting, “Is an employee” might be transformed into the new claim, “OK to purchase book”. The claim “Born on March 22, 1960” could be transformed into the claim “Age is over 21 years”, which intentionally supplies less information. Claims transformers may also be used to change claim formats. For instance, claims made in formats such as X.509, Kerberos, SAML 1.0, SAML 2.0, SXIP, and others could be transformed into claims expressed using different technologies. Claims transformers provide the interoperability needed today, plus the flexibility required to incorporate new technologies. Consistent User Experience Many identity attacks succeed because the user was fooled by something presented on the screen, not because of insecure communication technologies. For example, phishing attacks occur not in the secured channel between Web servers and browsers – a channel that might extend thousands of miles – but in the two or three feet between the browser and the human who uses it. The identity metasystem, therefore, seeks to empower users to make informed and reasonable identity decisions by enabling the development of a consistent, comprehensible, and integrated user interface for making those choices. One key to securing the whole system is presenting an easy-to-learn, predictable user interface that looks and works the same no matter which underlying identity technologies are employed. Another key is making important information obvious – for instance, displaying the identity of the site you’re authenticating to in a way that makes spoofing attempts apparent. The user must be informed which items of personal information relying parties are requesting, and for what purposes. This allows users to make informed choices about whether or not to disclose this information. Finally, the user interface provides a means for the user to actively consent to the disclosure, if they agree to the conditions. Benefits of the Identity Metasystem Microsoft recognizes that the identity metasystem will only gain widespread adoption if participants filling all roles in the metasystem stand to benefit from their participation. Fortunately, this is the case. Key benefits of the identity metasystem include: Greater user control and flexibility. Users decide how much information they disclose, to whom, and under what circumstances, thereby enabling them to better protect their privacy. Strong two-way authentication of identity providers and relying parties helps address phishing and other fraud. Identities and accompanying personal information can be securely stored and managed in a variety of ways, including via the online identity provider service of the user’s choice, or on the user’s PC, or in other devices such as secure USB keychain storage devices, smartcards, PDAs, and mobile phones Safer, more comprehensible user experience. The identity metasystem enables a predictable, uniform user experience across multiple identity systems. It extends to and integrates the human user, thereby helping to secure the machine-human channel. Increases the reach of existing identity systems. The identity metasystem does not compete with or replace the identity systems it connects, but rather preserves and builds upon customers’ investments in their existing identity solutions. It affords the opportunity to use existing identities, such as corporate-issued identities and identities issued by online businesses, in new contexts where they could not have been previously employed. Fosters identity system innovation. The identity metasystem should make it easier for newly developed identity technologies and systems to quickly gain widespread use and adoption. Claims transformers can allow new systems to participate even when most participants don’t understand their native claims formats and protocols. Enables adaptation in the face of attacks. New technologies are needed to stay ahead of criminals who attack existing identity technologies. The metasystem enables new identity technologies to be quickly deployed and utilized within it, as they are needed. Creates new market opportunities. The identity metasystem enables interoperable, independent implementations of all metasystem components, meaning that the market opportunities are only limited by innovators’ imaginations. Some parties will choose to go into the identity provider business. Others will provide certification services for identities. Some will implement server software. Others will implement client software. Device manufacturers and mobile telephone players can host identities on their platforms. New business opportunities are created for identity brokers, where trusted intermediaries transform claims from one system to another. New business opportunities abound. A benefit we will all share as the identity metasystem becomes widely deployed is a safer, more trustworthy Internet. The metasystem will supply the widely adopted identity solution that the Net so desperately needs. Participants in the identity metasystem can include anyone or anything that uses, participates in, or relies upon identities in any way, including, but not limited to existing identity systems, corporate identities, government identities, Liberty federations, operating systems, mobile devices, online services, and smartcards. Again, the possibilities are only limited by innovators’ imaginations. An Architecture for the Identity Metasystem: WS-* Web Services Microsoft has worked for the past several years with industry partners on a composable, end-to-end architecture for Web services. The set of specifications that make up this architecture have been named the WS-* Web Services architecture by the industry. This architecture supports the requirements of the identity metasystem. The encapsulating protocol used for claims transformation is WS-Trust. Negotiations are conducted using WS-MetadataExchange and WS-SecurityPolicy. These protocols enable building a technology-neutral identity metasystem and form the “backplane” of the identity metasystem. Like other Web services protocols, they also allow new kinds of identities and technologies to be incorporated and utilized as they are developed and adopted by the industry. To foster the interoperability necessary for broad adoption, the specifications for WS-* are published and are freely available, have been or will be submitted to open standards bodies, and allows implementations to be developed royalty-free. Deployments of existing identity technologies can be leveraged in the metasystem by implementing support for the three WS-* protocols above. Examples of technologies that could be utilized via the metasystem include LDAP claims schemas, X.509, which is used in Smartcards; Kerberos, which is used in Active Directory and some UNIX environments; and SAML, a standard used in inter-corporate federation scenarios. Identity Metasystem Architectural Diagram This figure depicts sample relationships between a subject, identity providers, and relying parties, showing some of the technologies used by the metasystem and by specific systems utilized through the metasystem. The Security Token Server implements the WS-Trust protocol and provides support for claims transformation. Relying parties provide statements of requirements, expressed in terms of the WS-SecurityPolicy specification, and made available through the WS-MetadataExchange protocol. The Identity Selector implements the consistent user experience. After being invoked by an application, it performs the negotiation between relying party and identity provider(s); displays the identities of “matched” identity providers and relying parties to the subject (e.g., the end user); obtains claims; and releases them to the application under the supervision of the subject. Microsoft’s Implementation Plans Microsoft plans to build software filling all roles within the identity metasystem (while encouraging others to also build software filling these roles, including on non-Windows platforms). Microsoft is implementing the following software components for participation in the metasystem: “InfoCard” identity selector: “InfoCard” is the code name for a WinFX component that provides the consistent user experience required by the identity metasystem. It is specifically hardened against tampering and spoofing to protect the end user’s digital identities and maintain end-user control. A visual “Information Card” in the client user interface represents each digital identity managed by “InfoCard”. The user selects identities represented by “InfoCards” to authenticate to participating services. “InfoCard” simple self-issued identity provider: “InfoCard” also includes a simple identity provider that enables individual PC users to create and utilize self-issued identities, enabling password-free strong authentication to relying parties. A self-issued identity is one where the user vouches for the information they are providing, much like users do today when registering with a Web site. We are implementing the simple self-issued identity provider to help bootstrap the identity metasystem; we believe self-issued identities will continue to be accepted for certain classes of services. Identities hosted in the simple self-issued identity provider will not include or store sensitive personal information, such as Social Security numbers (or other national ID numbers if these are developed) or credit card numbers. Self-issued identities are not intended to provide the full range of features that a managed identity provider can offer – the market is wide open for companies to provide managed identity solutions to consumers. Active Directory identity provider: This is a managed identity provider integrated with Active Directory. It includes a full set of policy controls to manage the use of Active Directory identities in the identity metasystem. Active Directory Federation Services, a new Active Directory feature shipping in Windows Server 2003 R2, is the first step to integrating identities in Active Directory with the identity metasystem. “Indigo”: The code-named “Indigo” Web services run time provides developers a way to rapidly build and deploy distributed applications, including relying party services in the identity metasystem. The identity metasystem preserves and builds upon customers’ investments in their existing identity solutions, including Active Directory and other identity solutions. Microsoft’s implementation will be fully interoperable via WS-* protocols with other identity selector implementations, with other relying party implementations, and with other identity provider implementations. Non-Microsoft applications will have the same ability to use “InfoCard” to manage their identities as Microsoft applications will. Non-Windows operating systems will be able to be full participants of the identity metasystem we are building in cooperation with the industry. Others can build an entire end-to-end implementation of the metasystem without any Microsoft software, payments to Microsoft, or usage of any Microsoft online identity service. What We Learned from Passport Microsoft’s best-known identity effort is almost certainly the Passport Network (formerly .NET Passport). Microsoft has learned a great deal from building one of the largest Internet scale authentication services in the world, and applied these hard-won lessons in developing the Laws of Identity, the identity metasystem, and several of our products. Passport was originally intended to solve two problems: to be an identity provider for the MSN and Microsoft properties, and to be an identity provider for the Internet. It succeeded at the first, with over 250 million active Passport accounts and over 1 billion authentications per day. As for the second original goal, it became clear to us through continued engagement with partners, consumers, and the industry that in many cases it didn’t make sense for Microsoft to play a role in transactions between, for instance, a company and its customers. Apart from its input to our thinking on the Laws of Identity, it is worth mentioning that operating the Passport service has helped Microsoft gain a deep understanding of the operational and technical challenges that large-scale identity providers face. These experiences have helped us ensure that our identity products meet the needs of large-scale deployments. The identity metasystem is different from the original version of Passport in several fundamental ways. The metasystem stores no personal information, leaving it up to individual identity providers to decide how and where to store that information. The identity metasystem is not an online identity provider for the Internet; indeed, it provides a means for all identity providers to coexist with and compete with one another, with all having equal standing within the metasystem. Finally, while Microsoft charged services to use the original version of Passport, no one will be charged to participate in the identity metasystem. The Passport system itself has evolved in response to these experiences as well. It no longer stores personal information other than username/password credentials. Passport is now an authentication system targeted at Microsoft sites and those of close partners – a role that is clearly in context and with which our users and partners are very comfortable. Passport and MSN plan to implement support for the identity metasystem as an online identity provider for MSN and its partners. Passport users will get improved security and ease of use, and MSN Online partners will be able to interoperate with Passport through the identity metasystem. Conclusion Many of the problems on the Internet today, from phishing attacks to inconsistent user experiences, stem from the patchwork nature of digital identity solutions that software makers have built in the absence of a unifying and architected system of digital identity. An identity metasystem, as defined by the Laws of Identity, would supply a unifying fabric of digital identity, utilizing existing and future identity systems, providing interoperability between them, and enabling the creation of a consistent and straightforward user interface to them all. Basing our efforts on the Laws of Identity, Microsoft is working with others in the industry to build the identity metasystem using published WS-* protocols that render Microsoft’s implementations fully interoperable with those produced by others. We believe that many of the dangers, complications, annoyances, and uncertainties of today’s online experiences can be a thing of the past. Widespread deployment of the identity metasystem has the potential to solve many of these problems, benefiting everyone and accelerating the long-term growth of connectivity by making the online world safer, more trustworthy, and easier to use. Microsoft is working with others in the industry to define and deploy the identity metasystem.