Written as editor of the New Statesman’s NS Tech and first published here.

The man behind the man behind UKIP, i.e., the guy who’s been bankrolling Nigel Farage’s party reasonably unnoticed, is “insurance millionaire” Arron Banks.

Just yesterday, the softly spoken party donor (particularly in contrast to Farage) quietly pledged £10 million to fund a new political party if Theresa May won the Tory leadership.

Now that’s all done – following Andrea Leadsom’s decision to leave the race, meaning May will likely be in Number 10 by Wednesday – we must quickly turn our attention back to the man who isn’t afraid to put his money where his mouth is.

Speaking to Andrew Marr on the BBC yesterday morning, Banks, who gave millions to the unofficial Leave.EU campaign said: “If Theresa May wins, UKIP will be back with a vengeance.

“We potentially could be talking about a new party and I think there are very sound reasons for that.

“The Leave.EU campaign has nearly one million online followers. On social media it reached out to 15 million people a week.”

Banks said it would have a new name and would “very much so” be an online effort, with more money and fresh faces.

He claimed Leave.EU’s email database, a goldmine to anyone doing digital campaigning, already has 40,000 Conservative members on it, of a membership only tipping 100,000.

But, as Banks admitted to Marr, “the Conservative Party is a dying membership”, so hardly the target market for a new, jazzy digital party.

There are, of course, 500,000 Labour members out there too.

Not to mention all the normal people who don’t usually join political parties, but presumably will now that they’re doing good memes.

With UKIP, or with a swanky rebranded party, Banks said he reckons they could win 30 to 40 seats next time around, likely in places in the North East that voted heavily for Leave.

“I don’t think it’s just immigration. It’s this whole disconnect between the ‘metropolitan elite’ that sneer at working people and I think there’s a great opportunity to take some real policies back into these Labour heartlands.”

He also touted the potential for more direct democracy initiatives, like the referendum.

If Leadsom had stayed in the race and won, UKIP voters could probably have been convinced to switch their support back to the mainstream party. Although, had that happened, some Conservative MPs had already pledged they would quit.

Now Leadsom is out, you could be hearing more from NuKIP (?) in your newsfeed very soon. Watch this space.

Or leave. Leave now.

Written as editor of the New Statesman’s NS Tech and first published here.

The controversial new EU and US cross-border commercial data transfer deal Privacy Shield has passed a final vote by member states’ representatives in Europe.

Privacy Shield replaces the old Safe Harbor framework, which was struck down by the European Court of Justice after a legal challenge following Ed Snowden’s US government spying revelations.

It is intended to ensure greater privacy for Europeans whose consumer data is being processed in the US by companies like Facebook and Google.

“The EU-US Privacy Shield will ensure a high level of protection for individuals and legal certainty for business,” the European Commission’s VP for the Digital Single Market Andrus Ansip said in a statement.

“It is fundamentally different from the old ‘Safe Harbour’. It imposes clear and strong obligations on companies handling the data and makes sure that these rules are followed and enforced in practice.

“For the first time, the US has given the EU written assurance that the access of public authorities for law enforcement and national security will be subject to clear limitations, safeguards and oversight mechanisms and has ruled out indiscriminate mass surveillance of European citizens’ data.

“And last but not least the Privacy Shield protects fundamental rights and provides for several accessible and affordable redress mechanisms.”

The new deal was rejected in its current form by the EU’s data protection group Article 29 for being “complex” and “unclear”. There were four countries that abstained on this latest vote too, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia and Bulgaria.

But that doesn’t matter now, it is set to be fully approved by the Commission next week, then the US will sign it.

At least this ends months of uncertainty for business, who needs privacy anyway?

Written as editor of the New Statesman’s NS Tech and first published here.

I won a ticket to see Tony Blair give evidence at the Chilcot ‘Iraq’ Inquiry back in January 2010.

When I’d applied for the ballot, it felt like a big moment but, to be honest, I largely felt the same yesterday as I did when I saw him speaking back then.

He’s not suddenly going to change the line. He did what he thought was right. There is no conspiracy. Chilcot’s summary was pretty damning, but not exactly shocking:

• The judgements about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction WMD were presented with a certainty that was not justified
• Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were wholly inadequate
• The Government failed to achieve its stated objectives

But, from a technical perspective at least, there’s something a bit more interesting going on.

I can’t remember exactly where I met Terence, but I’ve known him for a few years and once he helped me out when I thought I’d had my identity cloned in Ukraine.

Turns out, my old mate has been working away for years on Chilcot, not only trying to convince the Inquiry to offer better access to the files, but also trying to work out how to crowdsource efforts to open up the documents.

In 2012, after a tip-off from a journalist, Terence had a go at using the optical character recognition capability on Google Docs to read the documents.

It didn’t do a bad job, but Google Docs has an upload limit and no one in their right mind would sit and do that for all of the evidence.

And Terence’s targeted plea to Chilcot went unheard.

Fortunately, the internet has (sort of) come to the rescue, so you can at least go through the entire PDF in one go, rather than following endless links.

You can also go ahead and use the search engine on the Inquiry site – the first scanned letter that mentions George Bush is suitably sad – but you really have to know what you’re looking for if you’re doing this.

Jeni Tennison, technical director at the Open Data Institute, told NS Tech:

“It’s disappointing to see such an important and long-awaited document published as a series of PDFs.

“The historic document should have been made far more accessible to the public and clearly openly licensed, allowing them not just to read it, but to reuse its content and reference it in their own conversations.

“And the annexes, which contain useful reference maps and data, should have been published as open data to enable others to create visualisations and analyses beyond those provided by the report.

“Improving our public discourse requires us to improve how we provide access to information.”

Terence, meanwhile, has a cheeky six-point wishlist:

1. Publish in an open and accessible format, namely HTML
2. Have a PDF option for those who want to print it
3. Insist that all evidence is original electronic documents – not scans of photocopies of printouts (where possible)
4. Ensure that any scans are optical character recognised and corrected
5. Use a data markup scheme so that it’s easy to disambiguate data, eg. does “Kelly said that” refer to Dr David Kelly or Captain Jo Kelly
6. That’d do!

The referendum result proved we have a profound mistrust of experts, as well as a bunch of politicians who will wilfully present ‘data’ as ‘facts’.

Chilcot is a missed opportunity to use basic technology within the public sector to the benefit of ordinary people.

Written as editor of the New Statesman’s NS Tech and first published here.

LinkedIn’s latest Global Recruiting Trends report identifies just how far we still have to go on getting gender equality in STEM professions.

Not only do women only make up 24 per cent of new hires, as you head up the career ladder, that drops to 19 per cent among managers and 17 per cent of directors.

The STEM sector with the largest number of women is research, while the area with the lowest is engineering.

LinkedIn used data from the millions of people who use its platform, as well as surveying more than 6,500 members, to build out the picture for its latest report.

The research found that women are more likely than their male peers to be actively looking for work or thinking of leaving their current roles within a year.

Bad interactions with a boss or teammate was the top reason for this, followed by a long commute and then a “frustrating day at work”.

The culture, employees’ experiences and their work having a purpose were key reasons for both sets of workers to want to join a company – but these were all more important for women.

LinkedIn’s recruitment arm, which conducted the research, also looks in detail about the processes that companies now say they have in place to make recruitment better.

Hiring from employee recommendations continues to grow, as well as the desire to retain good staff rather than look elsewhere –  but demand is far outstripping the budgets spent on finding the right people.

You can find the full report here.

Written as editor of the New Statesman’s NS Tech and first published here.

The EU commission has unveiled a €1.8 billion public-private investment into cyber security research and innovation – just as the UK has begun untangling itself from its European neighbours.

“Europe needs high quality, affordable and interoperable cyber security products and services,” said Günther Oettinger, Commissioner for the Digital Economy and Society.

“We call on member states and all cyber security bodies to strengthen cooperation and pool their knowledge, information and expertise to increase Europe’s cyber resilience.”

Although the initiative has been in the works since 2013 and €450 million of funding will come directly from the existing Horizon 2020 innovation programme, it’s looking unlikely that the UK will be able to participate directly.

The cyber security industry has committed the remaining amount, via the European Cyber Security Organisation (ECSO).

The investment will seek to create common cyber security standards across key industries, including energy, health, transport and finance, as well as a new certification framework for selling solutions across the EU.

VP for the Digital Single Market Andrus Ansip said that “without trust and security, there can be no Digital Single Market”.

But without our EU membership, there isn’t great hope of full access to this trusted and secure network.

The European Parliament is also expected to sign the related Network and Information Security Directive, which is designed to create a network of Computer Security Incident Response Teams across the EU.

“It’s good to see the EU increasing funding and making cyber security a top priority and sad that, due to Brexit, UK universities and businesses will miss out on this investment,” said Kevin Bocek, chief security strategist at cyber security software firm Venafi.

He urges the EU to looking beyond “‘securing identities online”, which he believes is now outdated.

A DCMS spokesperson told NS Tech: “Government has made the cyber security agenda a top priority, allocating £1.9 billion towards it to help ensure that the UK is well placed to meet the challenges it presents.

“We will continue to work closely with our EU and other international partners on the cyber security agenda.”

Written as editor of the New Statesman’s NS Tech and first published here.

The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is already looking into the first fatality in a Tesla Model S car operating on Autopilot mode.

Tesla was quick to make a public statement on the death but its early words on the incident point to real, ongoing issues with our self-driving future.

“Neither Autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied,” the company says.

It goes on to explain:

“It is important to note that Tesla disables Autopilot by default and requires explicit acknowledgement that the system is new technology and still in a public beta phase before it can be enabled.

“When drivers activate Autopilot, the acknowledgment box explains, among other things, that Autopilot ‘is an assist feature that requires you to keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times’, and that ‘you need to maintain control and responsibility for your vehicle’ while using it.

“Additionally, every time that Autopilot is engaged, the car reminds the driver to ‘Always keep your hands on the wheel. Be prepared to take over at any time’.

“The system also makes frequent checks to ensure that the driver’s hands remain on the wheel and provides visual and audible alerts if hands-on is not detected. It then gradually slows down the car until hands-on is detected again.”

From the above, it’s difficult to distinguish who is at fault here, which is obviously not unheard of in the insurance industry.

Tesla clearly outlines the warnings it gives people before they activate Autopilot, but the system also gives ongoing reminders to keep their hands on the wheel, and even slows down if they aren’t.

Indeed, speaking recently at the Hay-on-Wye Festival, entrepreneur, CEO and author Margaret Heffernan said:

“It’s really important to understand that the prevailing wisdom within Silicon Valley is that the business model for the Internet of Things is insurance.

“As long as I can keep track of your driverless car’s movements from your phone, as long as you have a monopoly on this huge amount of data, you have the ability to manage the insurance market, to decide who gets insurance, who doesn’t.”

If this is, as Heffernan believes, the new Silicon Valley business model du jour, it’s not without real, life-changing risk.

We’ll have to wait to find out more about whether this was a failure of human or software, but this is a real tough area of law that is still yet to be fully thrashed out. If it ever really could be. Surely no company wants this kind of life or death question on their corporate conscience?

Intel took the opportunity today, of all days, to say ‘the future of autonomous driving starts today’ with its announcement that it’ll be working with BMW to bring driverless cars to the streets by 2021.

Partnerships like this raise yet further questions, who’s at fault if more than one company contributed to the making of the car?

The Association of British Insurers notes that 90 per cent of road traffic accidents are caused by human error, but in its early analysis of the potential for driverless cars states:

“As vehicles become increasingly connected with other vehicles – and as the control input transfers from human to computer, it is possible that liability will follow that transfer of risk. There is therefore the potential for the vehicle manufacturer to become liable for an accident, as opposed to the driver, if the driver is unable to override the system.

“The insurance industry is continuing to work with government, vehicle manufacturers, regulators, the legal community and through the industry’s research and repair centre, Thatcham, on this potentially life-changing and life-saving technology.”

This sad death in a Tesla vehicle will no doubt be of interest to insurers all over the world in need of a test case.

Whether you’re smartening up your office, home or transport system, the automation offered by the IoT is certainly powerful, but it also changes the nature of liability.