Category Archives: Government 2.0

LDAP Alfresco (global properties)
Date Created: December 8, 2015  Date Modified: January 17, 2016

I found this useful so I thought I’d post it

authentication.chain=alfrescoNtlm1:alfrescoNtlm,ldap1:ldap

# This flag enables use of this LDAP subsystem for authentication. It may be
# that this subsytem should only be used for synchronization, in which case
# this flag should be set to false.
ldap.authentication.active=true

#
# This properties file brings together the common options for LDAP authentication rather than editing the bean definitions
#
ldap.authentication.allowGuestLogin=true

# How to map the user id entered by the user to that passed through to LDAP
ldap.authentication.userNameFormat=uid=%s,ou=users,dc=armundia,dc=com

# The LDAP context factory to use
ldap.authentication.java.naming.factory.initial=com.sun.jndi.ldap.LdapCtxFactory

# The URL to connect to the LDAP server
ldap.authentication.java.naming.provider.url=ldap://ldap.....com:389

# The authentication mechanism to use for password validation
ldap.authentication.java.naming.security.authentication=simple

# Escape commas entered by the user at bind time
# Useful when using simple authentication and the CN is part of the DN and contains commas
ldap.authentication.escapeCommasInBind=false

# Escape commas entered by the user when setting the authenticated user
# Useful when using simple authentication and the CN is part of the DN and contains commas, and the escaped \, is
# pulled in as part of an LDAP sync

# If this option is set to true it will break the default home folder provider as space names can not contain \
ldap.authentication.escapeCommasInUid=false

# Comma separated list of user names who should be considered administrators by default
ldap.authentication.defaultAdministratorUserNames=....

# This flag enables use of this LDAP subsystem for user and group
# synchronization. It may be that this subsytem should only be used for
# authentication, in which case this flag should be set to false.
ldap.synchronization.active=true

# The authentication mechanism to use for synchronization
ldap.synchronization.java.naming.security.authentication=simple

# The default principal to use (only used for LDAP sync)
ldap.synchronization.java.naming.security.principal=cn\=ldap,dc\=armundia,dc\=com

# The password for the default principal (only used for LDAP sync)
ldap.synchronization.java.naming.security.credentials=.....

# If positive, this property indicates that RFC 2696 paged results should be
# used to split query results into batches of the specified size. This
# overcomes any size limits imposed by the LDAP server.
ldap.synchronization.queryBatchSize=0

# If positive, this property indicates that range retrieval should be used to fetch
# multi-valued attributes (such as member) in batches of the specified size.
# Overcomes any size limits imposed by Active Directory.
ldap.synchronization.attributeBatchSize=0

# The query to select all objects that represent the groups to import.
ldap.synchronization.groupQuery=(objectclass\=groupOfNames)

# The query to select objects that represent the groups to import that have changed since a certain time.
ldap.synchronization.groupDifferentialQuery=(&(objectclass\=groupOfNames)(!(modifyTimestamp<\={0}))) # The query to select all objects that represent the users to import. ldap.synchronization.personQuery=(objectclass\=inetOrgPerson) # The query to select objects that represent the users to import that have changed since a certain time. ldap.synchronization.personDifferentialQuery=(&(objectclass\=inetOrgPerson)(!(modifyTimestamp<\={0}))) # The group search base restricts the LDAP group query to a sub section of tree on the LDAP server. ldap.synchronization.groupSearchBase=dc\=roles,dc\=alfresco,dc\=armundia,dc\=com # The user search base restricts the LDAP user query to a sub section of tree on the LDAP server. ldap.synchronization.userSearchBase=dc\=users,dc\=armundia,dc\=com # The name of the operational attribute recording the last update time for a group or user. ldap.synchronization.modifyTimestampAttributeName=modifyTimestamp # The timestamp format. Unfortunately, this varies between directory servers. ldap.synchronization.timestampFormat=yyyyMMddHHmmss'Z' # The attribute name on people objects found in LDAP to use as the uid in Alfresco ldap.synchronization.userIdAttributeName=uid # The attribute on person objects in LDAP to map to the first name property in Alfresco ldap.synchronization.userFirstNameAttributeName=givenName # The attribute on person objects in LDAP to map to the last name property in Alfresco ldap.synchronization.userLastNameAttributeName=sn # The attribute on person objects in LDAP to map to the email property in Alfresco ldap.synchronization.userEmailAttributeName=mail # The attribute on person objects in LDAP to map to the organizational id property in Alfresco ldap.synchronization.userOrganizationalIdAttributeName=o # The default home folder provider to use for people created via LDAP import ldap.synchronization.defaultHomeFolderProvider=largeHomeFolderProvider # The attribute on LDAP group objects to map to the authority name property in Alfresco ldap.synchronization.groupIdAttributeName=cn # The attribute on LDAP group objects to map to the authority display name property in Alfresco ldap.synchronization.groupDisplayNameAttributeName=description # The group type in LDAP ldap.synchronization.groupType=groupOfNames # The person type in LDAP ldap.synchronization.personType=inetOrgPerson # The attribute in LDAP on group objects that defines the DN for its members ldap.synchronization.groupMemberAttributeName=member # If true progress estimation is enabled. When enabled, the user query has to be run twice in order to count entries. ldap.synchronization.enableProgressEstimation=true # Requests timeout, in miliseconds, use 0 for none (default) ldap.authentication.java.naming.read.timeout=0

Source:
https://forums.alfresco.com/forum/installation-upgrades-configuration-integration/authentication-ldap-sso/ldap-authentication-7

[MAP] Housing Offices… in progress
Date Created: December 13, 2012  Date Modified: December 13, 2012

This is a current work in progress… please consult the Department of Housing (WA) website for all office locations.

[VIDEO] Assange speech at UN
Date Created: September 26, 2012  Date Modified: September 26, 2012

Just came across this today, I have linked both the Wired article and the RT article if you are intersted in further analysis.

From Wired:

Assange was speaking as part of a panel that was supposed to focus on the legal and ethical issues around diplomatic asylum, but instead veered off for a lengthy discussion about U.S. President Barack Obama’s speech at the U.N. this week, which he called “fine words” that needed to be followed up with “fine deeds.”

“It is time for Obama to do the right thing and join the forces of change, not in fine words, but in fine deeds,” he said.

Watch the speech below:

Lawyers hate HTML
Date Created: August 1, 2012  Date Modified: December 27, 2012

I had my first Law lecture this morning, prior I was in the Murdoch Bookshop stacking up on some tomes I will be needing on this endeavour (and a couple more I just wanted to get). I got home enthused to start reading this new type of littérateur that I will be battling over the next few years, and heeding the advice of my lecturer: That it takes a little bit of a learning curve to get use to legal writing, I decided to start on one of the law books that wasnt part of my required reading material, but was something that I felt more palatable for someone with my background in web–Internet and E-Commerce Law, Business and Policy.

Imediatly I scanned the contents for a topic that I could relate to; Chapter 6 – Domain names and trade marks. Reading the section on WHOIS was where I started. Everyone who works web knows WHOIS, so reading this very legal run-down of something that we as webbys take for granted is… refreshing in a sense. Then I got all academic on the shit and I saw the real problem–well from my pedantic web paradigm anyway. I went to look up one of the references in the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement, Art 17.3.2 and clicking on that link you see why Im pissed off. Numbered paragraphs that should be ordered lists!, no text anchors!, emphasis where it should be italic!. These things matter if this were a published print document; all hell would break loose if this were printed like this. But on the web, do the document custodians care? Are they even aware that HTML markup can be used to present the information in a more accessible manner?.

I am yet to look into W3C giudelines for web content; due however to the differing nature of legal style requirements in jurisdictions arount the world, I doubt an international standard could be reached specifically relating to Acts. Surely tho, the same W3C guidelines for ordered lists on other web content would apply to the layout of a legal document?. Emphasis and Italic however I see it as a breach, an Act must be written in italics by legal style convention (law?), not emphasised when read or interpreted by a text reader. What this neglect in the article of the USAFTA linked is a clear neglect the legal community have for the web community, or at least HTML.

UPDATE: When going over some online sesources provided for the unit, I came accross the below image. Please feel free to comment.

Image to point out the Short Title of an Act

There was no Alt text , title, or description of this image on the LMS.

An image to outline the correct citing of cases

This image was much worse not only did it not contain any attributes in the HTML to assist, it could have been built as a simple interactive app that would be able to meet an accessable standard

[PDF] Privacy and the internet: Australian attitudes towards privacy in the online environment
Date Created: May 2, 2012  Date Modified: May 2, 2012

Australian Policy Online released on Monday a document containing many statistics regarding Australian’s attitudes toward online privacy. Some key findings were:

  • 85% of online Australians believe data breach notification should be mandatory for business
  • Australians nominated identity theft (86%) and loss of financial data (83%) as their areas of greatest privacy concern.
  • The financial sector is most trusted on privacy (42%), followed by government and the eCommerce sectors
  • Social media is the least trusted industry on privacy (1%). In fact, 61% of respondents nominated the social media industry as having the worst privacy practices
  • Overall, women feel more secure than men online, and younger people (18-29 years old) feel more secure than older people (50+ years old)

I have yet to read the full text, so I will reserve any summation and/or analysis until I have.

The full PDF is available to download from the following URL:
http://apo.org.au/node/29266

[MAP] CyberSaftey Outreach Centres
Date Created: April 26, 2012  Date Modified: May 2, 2012

I was surfing thru the datasets on data.gov.au and thought id import the KML from the Department of Broadband Communications and the Digital Economy‘s CyberSaftey Outreach centres.

View KML – CyberSaftey Outreach Centres in a larger map

There are around 800 datasets available, in various formats, so theres something for every interest.

This rant was posted in Google, Government, Government 2.0, Internet, KML, Maps, Web on by .

Joomla! as an intranet?: YES WE CAN!
Date Created: October 24, 2011  Date Modified: November 22, 2011

I was approached a few weeks ago by the Equal Opportunity Commission to build a Joomla powered Intranet–at first I had apprehensions: Joomla is not the greatest of CMS software for this application, and all government departments are running MOSS2010, so It would be simple logic to go with SharePoint for the intranet too?

Adding to the complexity of this project it was also suggested that the Joomla run on a WAMP stack–but with the server being SBS2003 I decided to put it together thru IIS instead of go and install Apache on a system that didnt require it.

The system installed without a hitch–its not the first time I have put together a J! on IIS, but its the first time I did so for an intranet. Hopefully this makes business run a bit smother down there at EOC.

New Media and Democracy: The Troll King
Date Created: September 19, 2011  Date Modified: September 22, 2011

In a follow-up to my post from earlier re: Political Trolls, last night the ABC’s Four Corners aired this piece on the climate change debate called “The Climate Wars”. I think the following quote from Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi really sums up the current political climate over new media:

I’ve always sought to build a movement, not an empire. I want as many, you know, like-minded groups out there advocating for what they think is important – not what Cory Bernardi thinks is important.

If they’ve got a good idea about a blog or you know an activism initiative that they want to pursue, if I’ve got the money and the resources to help them, I will do that.

Now, I don’t necessarily have to agree with everything they do or everything they say. I just want people to get out there and have a go.

The entire article is below (thanks to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

So basically yes, the fascist dogs are manipulating the media to their own agenda, and its up to us to do something about it… then this morning the ABC aired a programme about Phone Phreaking and the early days of hacking–maybe the ABC is trying to manipulate me to go after these shites!. (BTW: the Sydney Morning Herald is a sharepoint driven site so dont even bother going after Andrew “Im a fuckwit” Bolt.

After all, it was those inflammatory remarks from right-wing retards which caused me to disable my Facebook.

New Media and Democracy: Cleanfeed, Titstorm and the state of the Internet
Date Created: September 15, 2011  Date Modified: September 15, 2011

READERS NOTE:This was originally on my Murdoch blog but it for some reason did not import when I migrated the content over..

The way New Media has changed the political landscape is one for much debate, politicians, public servants academics, journalists and the general public each have their own roles and expectations with what they want to achieve and how technology will change the way governments are run.

On one side we have the politicians, who are embracing Web 2.0 technology–in particular social media, to get in touch with their constituents and financial backers. If we look at the 2008 US presidential election we see that Obama raised more campaign contributions than any candidate before him–and this was largley to do with how he used Web 2.0 to reach a much broader audience.

In Australia, Senator Kate Lundy has set up a Governmnet 2.0 taskforce to assess how technology can change the way governments communicate with the public.

Interest groups too are taking on social media as a way of lobbying support for their cause, Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) have not only a Facebook presence, they also have a wiki where members of the public can contribute ideas on issues that the lobby group is focused upon: Internet Censorship, 18+ Games Legislation, etc.

Other groups–for example Anonymous, use various forms of new media to reach their target audience. Altho Anonymous’ actions differ greatly to that of EFA, even if there end goals are largely the same. Early this year members of Anonymous sent a clear message to the Australian Federal government, and began what they call “Operation Titstorm”, which involved Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks on government websites. Below is a short video that many of you may have already seen, its a warning message from Anonymous to the Federal Government.

One of the main targets in this attack is Senator Stephen Conroy, the minister for the Internet and Digital Economy. Below we have an interview of Conroy from the ABC television show Hungry Beast.

Anonymous’ actions, the DDoS attacks on government websites have be criticized by EFA as being counterproductive. The EFA, being a legitimate lobby-group, fear that the actions of Anonymous will alienate the general public from their cause. This could be for many reasons, one being how Anonymous is portrayed in the mainstream media–as a ill-formed group of sexual deviants, as this clip from the ABC show QandA:

The above clip also demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge about new-media by both politicians and members of the old media. If governments are to effectively deal with issues arising from new-media, a far better understanding of how new media (and user created content) work. The discussion in is dominated by the issue of child pornography, which is NOT what Operation Titstorm–AND the proposed internet cleanfeed are about. Having debate hijacked by the issue of child-abuse means the real issue of politicaly imposed censorship is being pushed to the side.

Its not just EFA and Anonymous groups of alleged “hackers” that are weighing into this debate, Journalist sans Frontiers (Anglais: Reporters without Borders) have been critical of the federal governments plans since they were first proposed–now there opposition is gaining momentum, with the ABC reporting that Australia has been placed on an “Enemy of the Internet” watchlist. Having JSF behind the anit-cleanfeed movment gives more validity, as they are a legitimate lobby group that wont resort to militant counter-productive tactics as well as exposing the issue to the world’s journalists and media-content creators. Internet giants Google and Yahoo have also recently voiced their opposition to the proposed filter, and this is in the wake of Google’s decision to pull out from China due to censorship issues.

The Australian model for a great firewall or cleanfeed has been proposed in other jurisdictions, with the EU looking at enacting similar measures–and coming against opposition from abuse survivors.

The more that the issue of cleanfeed gets discussed in an inteligent manner in the mainstream media, the less likely the government are to enact such draconian legislation against the publics will.

New Media and Democracy: Political Trolls
Date Created: June 2, 2010  Date Modified: January 20, 2013

Most dont like to admit it, but we all have our political opinions. Its when a general election comes around that we tend to more vocal of said opinions, and a federal election is slowly approaching. People have expressed their view on politicians in numerous and sometimes hilarious ways, from the political cartoons that satire those in power, to having a one on one discussion with a friend or collegue. The advent of New Media had broadened our outlets of dissent (or compliance?).

This is a typical screen cap from the YLNP facebook page

Social Networking Sites are one such avenue. Using the example of Facebook; we can make a politicaly charged status update, join “groups” of people with similar convictions, engage in legitimate discussion, or even troll. As voters there is little restriction on what we can and can not say, as we are mearly exercising our opinion. Governments however, have restrictions imposed on what they can say to the media.

From Crikey

An example of restrictions on government announcments I would like to cite is “Caretaker Mode”. I wont divulge into detail, but basically means Ministers and their respective departments can NOT introduce or announce any new policy once the election has been called. There are also restrictions on political/campaign advertising, tho these are less stringent.

But where does the line get drawn?. Joe Citizen, of no political persuasion is entitled to voice his concerns regarding current political and social issues, and this is important to democracy so those on the campaign trail can hear the voices of their constituents, or would be voters. However there are citizens who have a political agenda, and who are Members of registered political parties. These party faithful have the same rights to express their opinions as those of the laity. In the old-media paradigm the party faithful are easily spotted: The double breasted suits of clean shaven conservatives are easy to differentiate from the Bearded, Che Guavara shit wearing Socialist Alliance–even without the visual aids, the language used by these groups is un-mistakable. We, the undecided Joe Citizen*, can tell what lies are told by whom.

Admition of Guilt: A member of the YLNP bragging that they are going to troll IRL the ABC television show Q&A

New Media presents us with some new issues. The ability to remain anonymous over the tubez is one such problem, without an identity how do we identify the lies we are told?. Another issue, which is related to the former is that of Trolling. A user has the ability to pretend to be someone else, and enter into an online political discourse of those whos views are dissimilar to that of their own and disrupt the dialog by inserting false, misleading or even defamatory comments with the intent to create political divisions between other users.

The Q&A programme mentioned in the above post(pic)

One only needs to look at the comments on the Facebook posts of Triple J’s radio programme Hack, to see the evidence of YLNP trolling. A traditionally left, youth orientated public broadcaster, would not be expected as an online hangout for Australia’s young conservatives, but the comments testify otherwise.

Not only are the posts misleading but they are often irrelevant and hinder any legitimate political discourse–not to mention the impact they could have on first time voters. If this trolling were limited to one or two disruptive individuals, it would have little to no effect on the discussion. However, it is obvious this is not the case, clearly this trolling is organised politicaly. On researching the profiles of the trollers it reveals that most of the white noise, political red-herrings and neo-con retoric comes from the mouths/keyboards of party faithful.

A member of YLNP boasting about his organisation of the trolling

As more people take up social media, one can only expect the more politically motivated trolling will occur. It follows then that the more trolls there are, the less REAL discussion there is on relevant political and social issues. Adapting or creating legislation to curb this trend may seem like a necessity, tho this action may indeed backfire, as how do we determine those that are political trolling, and who are just politically challenged.

I think its time we looked back at Voltare:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire, (Attributed); originated in “The Friends of Voltaire”, 1906, by S. G. Tallentyre (Evelyn Beatrice Hall)
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 – 1778)

but I think its time we modify it to this day and age:

I may not agree with your words but I will still listen and let you have your say, that does NOT mean I wont ridicule you for being an idiot.

It is important people have a voice–especialy a political one, so legislation is not the appropriate modus operandum. Better action would be to have the logical, moral and intellectual upper-hand, and let these idiots make their cries from the dress-circle because the rest of the audience are here for a show.

And it helps to “block” your profile from known trolls so they can not see your fluid, rational and well thought out argument…

* Im trying to be impartial, tho I can not hide the fact I am on the left of the political spectrum.