Korean Freedom of Speech

Dear Foreign and Commonwealth Office,

On the 1st February there was a debate at the Korean Assembly to
discuss the use of Deep Packet Inspection as a means of providing
targeted advertising based on systems designed by Phorm and tested
within that country by Korea Telecom.

Just prior to this debate I understand that the British Ambassador
to Korea was involved in discussions with the Korean Government
concerning the use and application of such technologies.

I have recently been in contact with several Korean people
regarding this subject and get the distinct impression that it is
something that, for some reason, they are not prepared to discuss
openly.

"I am a journalist living in the unpredictable situation, not to
talk about seotbulri has received guidance and training."

That causes me extreme concern. I dare-say it applies to other
situations.

May I ask what the FCO's position would be on such matters, and not
restricted to my introduction, and whether they might be in a
position to make a statement that would encourage and more
importantly support the Korean peoples opportunity to express
themselves without fear of possible persecution?

I realise that might sound emotive but that is the message I have
indirectly received during recent contact on this particular
subject and I have no reason to believe it might be different with
respect to other matters.

Yours faithfully,

Keith Mallen

Dear Foreign and Commonwealth Office,

Hey Like..

Sorry about that one. As if you might be bothered.

My guess is it has something to do with owning all the marbles for
the sake of it and if you can't then you can join some other club
that makes you feel like you do.

If you take a bit of pipe to make your marble hole then you can
make a marble hole with an upper and lower chamber and a connecting
marble sized hole.

Then you can lose your game of marbles and your opponent will go to
collect his marbles and find none.

Then you say 'ZOOOM OH ME GOSH The Earth Mother Must have taken
them away' and come back later to dig the lower chamber up for
'profit'.

Wink Wink

Then again... I suppose you are all grown up now so as there are
more sophisticated ways of taking other peoples marbles off them.

Pfffffffffffft

No, Like Seriously!!!!

Where is your acknowledgement to my original request?

Ay?

Yours faithfully,

Keith Mallen

Dear Foreign and Commonwealth Office,

OK, enough is enough.

I appear to be losing contact left right and centre.

Either it is because I am not cuddly enough, lack social airs and
graces, don't understand foreign policy or people, or it is because
someone, for whatever reason, is tromping on these people.

Perhaps you can reassure me that all of the people present at the
aforementioned 1st February Assembly Meeting and their friends and
associates are still good to go and are still able and allowed to
not only express their opinions but also have someone or at least
everyone pay attention?

I can always resort to plan B and top myself by way of protest.

Yours faithfully,

Keith Mallen

Dear Foreign and Commonwealth Office,

Hmmm..

Apart from the intercepted communications side of things, like do I
419eater them for pictures?

A proper FOI request.

According to my interpretation of reports.

On or about 29th January 2010 the British Ambassador to Korea met
with Officials of that country and discussed matters which may have
been pertinent to the debate held on 1st February 2010.

Kindly spill the beans.

Yours faithfully,

Keith Mallen

Dear Foreign and Commonwealth Office,

I do apologise for my rambling. I shall try to gather my thoughts
and put things in order.

Background.

On or about Thursday 28th January 2010 The British Ambassador to
Korea attended a debate at the National Assembly as indicated in
this article,

http://news.d.paran.com/snews/newsview.p...

I shall refer to that as the First Debate.

I have subsequently discovered Mr Udens FCO Blog where he gives
some more detail about the background to this,

http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/roller/uden/date...

Amongst other things mention is made of Freedom of Expression on
the Internet, Freedom of Speech and the balance between Criminal
Law and Self Regulation.

Subsequently on Monday 1st February 2010 there was another debate
held at the National Assembly dealing, I believe, in general with
the subject of Deep Packet Inspection, Human Rights and Current Law
and the Commercial use of such Deep Packet Inspection systems by KT
using technology provided by Phorm,

http://media.paran.com/snews/newsview.ph...

I shall refer to this as the Second Debate.

When this Second Debate was first announced earlier in the previous
week of the First Debate I did manage to make contact with two
Korean Journalists who had published details from the 'official'
announcement in the hope of finding out more details.

The first contact did not continue beyond ascertaining my identity.
The second was more forthcoming but when pressed for further
details also ceased contact with the following being part of his
reply,

"I am a journalist living in the unpredictable situation, not to
talk about seotbulri has received guidance and training."

Within restrictions as they might apply,

1) Regarding the first debate,

a) Preferably are you able to supply English language transcripts
of the debate attended by Mr Uden and Mr Carr?

b) If not is there an order of the debate available giving details
about what was discussed and by whom?

c) Are there any other published materials available?

2) Were meetings held outside of the first debate on its, similar
or related subject matter between representatives of the British
and Korean Governments or any other interested parties?

a) If so then can you please give details of those meetings, who
was present and what was discussed?

b) If that is too wide ranging then can you please give details of
any meetings which may have been related to the second debate,
those present and what was discussed?

3) Regarding the Second Debate,

a) Preferably are you able to supply English language transcripts
of the debate?

b) If not is there an order of the debate available giving details
about what was discussed and by whom?

c) Are there any other published materials available?

d) What conclusions, if any, were reached, what follow up action is
expected and what sort of time scales will be involved?

4) Regarding my contact with members of the Korean Press and
general concerns arising.

a) Can you reassure me that the FCO would, as might be indicated by
underlying sentiment for Freedom of Expression and Freedom of
Speech in the first debate, wish to express support for open
reporting, analysis and discussion of available and released
information?

b) Can you also reassure me that the FCO would, as might be
indicated by underlying sentiment for Freedom of Expression and
Freedom of Speech in the first debate, wish to express support for
open debate, discussion and recognition of opinion of those
presenting in the second debate?

c) In both of the above cases can you also reassure me that the
FCO, given the global nature of the subject, would wish to
encourage those involved to actively seek and ask for or consider
advice from others with similar concerns wherever that advice might
be offered or found?

Yours faithfully,

Keith Mallen

[Irrelevant and offensive correspondence removed]

Dear Foreign and Commonwealth Office,

I do assure you that I am a real person expressing real feelings.

Viagra, Viagra, Viagra. Or maybe that should be Cailis or some new
word.

"**** THIS IS AN AUTOMATED MESSAGE ****"

Yes, yes, yes.

So why the [obscenity removed] did your auto-message bot not
respond to my original, 'Polite', request?

Handed off to a 'human' to ignore?

Got problems with 'Sloppy Lipped Joe' and his sidekick?

Pfffffffffffffffffffffft

FFS

Yours faithfully,

Keith Mallen

Dear Foreign and Commonwealth Office,

Cuddly Kittens are very Snuggly and I love to snuggle their
tummies.

Yours faithfully,

Keith Mallen

Dear Foreign and Commonwealth Office,

OK, thanks..... not.

Given....

"The specific exemption which applies in relation to your request
is: Section 43 Commercial Interests."

How's about you release the information that does not fall within
Section 43 and explain, assuming it is not all of it, why the other
stuff does fall within Section 43?

Regarding 'Commercial Interests', assuming they are not....
related.

If Phorm has been stuffed in Korea as a result of it suffering
similar opposition to that it has received elsewhere then do you
not think that the company shareholders might not need, or indeed
have a right, to know as much?

I would not wish to give you the wrong impression but having failed
to dump Phorms toxic waste in the UK are we now trying to offload
it elsewhere?

Sigh

Consider this as an Additional FOI request.

Please inform me as to who was involved in the decision to extend
the time to reply to my original FOI request and provide their
communications.

Yours faithfully,

Keith Mallen

Dear Foreign and Commonwealth Office,

I don't exactly get this....

"Sigh

Consider this as an Additional FOI request.

Please inform me as to who was involved in the decision to extend
the time to reply to my original FOI request and provide their
communications."

To which your response is some sort of silence.

That's OK though. I am Drunk but know enough, at this level of
Drunkenness, not to include the naughty words for rapid response
from the auto-bot.

I'll give you 'day -1', not that I might be implying anything but I
assume you will give me 20+ 20+ 20+

Uhm... that will be,

"Please inform me as to who was involved in the decision to extend
the time to reply to my original FOI request and provide their
communications."

It's an FOI request so you are meant to respond with words such
as...

"Thank You for your FOI request. We'll just get on that one right
away but, hey like, just don't expect a meaningful answer coz like,
hey you know, stuff and stuff plus other stuff... wink wink. I mean
my GirlFreud is a close approximation to Sharron Stone and I am
paying rent here so give me a bit of leeway."

Yours faithfully,

Keith Mallen

Dear Foreign and Commonwealth Office,

Uhm-Kay

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/excha...

Phorm 'claim' two 'successful' trials in Korea.

Last I checked there was only one on 1000 people/households in the
Songpa-Gu district of Seoul that, according to my reading of their
reporting, the Koreans are aware of.

CanoBeans, as reported on FT Alphaville Markets Live released a
'brokers' note indicating a 'market trial' on 100-135,000 Koreans
and then called it 'Too small to derive statistically relevant
information'

Huh?

Information, apparently provided in a 'Management Update'..

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/09/...

Phorm also claim 'full takeover' of the Brazilian Advertising
Market with Global, Solar System, Galaxy, Universe and N
dimensional domination of all sentient life to follow.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/01/...

Mr Lewis is probably some sort of 'thick bloke' and does not know
about the other Eighteen Dimensions that Phorm are currently in
negotiations with or the others they will make up once Kent
develops his patent on Ultra-Mega-Loads-of-String theory multiple
multi-multi Universes arrive on the scene all, obviously,
presently, before he invented them, in negotiations with Phorm for
delivery of advertising to sentient beings.

Let's just forget about the 'fact' that 'sentient beings' have told
him to get stuffed for some extremely valid reasons and look for
the 'profit'... which does not seem to exist.... UHM-HUH??

Having digressed, and I am not a fan of Ronnie Corbett, one of my
requests was for.... Let me just remind myself... pretty good stuff
this interwebs

"3) Regarding the Second Debate,

a) Preferably are you able to supply English language transcripts
of the debate?

b) If not is there an order of the debate available giving details
about what was discussed and by whom?

c) Are there any other published materials available?

d) What conclusions, if any, were reached, what follow up action is
expected and what sort of time scales will be involved?"

I call your attention to Item 3c)

"c) Are there any other published materials available?"

Just a mo whilst I watch the podcast again and grab a screenshot..
and may I just mention, before I continue watching, that at least
the Korean Government were ready to debate and broadcast this
whilst my Government, and You, go 'Ming Ming Ming Section 43 blah
blah blah Perfiffle...'

Here we go...

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/8011/...

That's the front bench people and they seem to have 'published
materials.'

I will resist the temptation to suggest that the 'brochure' one of
them is reading is about holidays.

It might actually be something prepared for them by the people
presenting the debate, pffft that might be KT, Phorm and KISA.

I'll delete that bit..

Many people will already have seen the pictures of Brooks Dobbs
getting his monkey spanked and being an unhappy bunny.

Don't forget now folks....

Phorm has already had 'two successful trials' in Korea according to
'I've got a big trouser, but it's really socks, snake Kent.

Ooops, digressed again.

So..

Given the front bench have 'published materials' and you are going
to Section 43, I assume that is what you are saying since you
section 43'd the lot, them.

I am forced to assume that whilst the Korean Government allowed the
debate they will not be paying any attention to the concerns raised
because it is not really very commercially [profit] interesting to
allow that sort of stuff and therefore don't want others to
know....

Plus Sloppy Lipped Joe and his Sidekick had a 'word in their ear'.

Maybe you have another scenario?

Oh.

Still looking for a response to my FOI request about who was
involved with slapping a Section 43 on my original 'officially
accepted' request and their communications.

Yours faithfully, not very much at all really.

Go figure. I'm drunk again and just felt the need for a chat.

:-) :-) :-)

Keith Mallen