Let’s not give Microsoft all the credit…

Save some room for Apple, whose behavior would be as objectionable as Microsoft if Apple had the clout Microsoft does. Apple distributes proprietary software, thus denying its users software freedom. Apple’s proprietary word processor doesn’t support OpenDocument (ODF), a file format for electronic office documents which is fully published and available for any developer to implement in any program they wish. ODF is quite unlike the formats used with Microsoft Office programs which are ill-documented and changing from time to time to throw off compatible alternatives (better known as competition). ODF will help you keep your documents readable long after you stop using whatever office programs you use now. In 5 years, you’ll be glad you can still read the old files. Imagine how necessary this is for governments which retain documents for hundreds of years. We don’t know what the complexities come with that requirement, but it’s a safe bet that relying on software nobody will run is unwise.

There’s a petition to get Apple to make their programs read and write ODF documents in their proprietary office suite. Apple has already added code to work with Microsoft’s alternative office format—Microsoft Office Open XML—a format which is considerably younger than ODF, seen less use than ODF in the real world, and has considerable technical problems (including needlessly reinventing the wheel instead of relying on standards for math and scalable graphics, Microsoft wants programmers to follow their unique path to embedding math and scalable graphics; why be compatible with other programs when one can do what Microsoft wants?). Microsoft is currently pressuring governments foreign and domestic to adopt Microsoft OOXML as a viable means of storing documents electronically.

Continue reading

As we’re counted one by one so goes our privacy

Thanks to Lovely Lizzie for the tip: If you received a passport recently, you’ve probably got one with an RFID tag in it. Radio Frequency Identification tags are a chip and antenna combination that receive a signal from a scanner. When the scanner sends one a signal, the RFID tag uses the energy in the signal to possibly do a light bit of computation and broadcast a signal back.

RFID tags are embedded in a number of goods we already own and that is quite troubling from a privacy standpoint, but chief among them is in the passport and in a human being. By carrying an RFID tagged passport one is basically broadcasting some information about their passport to anyone with an RFID scanner. I don’t need to get into the details of how unwise this as the US bombs the world into democracy.

Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre co-authored “Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Purchase and Watch Your Every Move“, long-time listeners of my show will probably recall the interview. In Spychips Albrecht & McIntyre examine ways in which our privacy is being eroded through RFID, shopper cards, and similar tracking technology. They take on the ethical implications of making us all more easily tracked by anyone who wishes to do so. You’ve probably read about their protests and informative talks in the mainstream media. I keep up with their activities through the CASPIAN mailing list.

In case you’re thinking “why would I care about privacy, I have nothing to hide!” Bruce Schneier reminds you that privacy is not about hiding a wrong, it’s a fundamental requirement for human decency. There are plenty of things we commonly do where we desire privacy; we’re not doing something wrong or shameful, we just don’t wish to broadcast our activities. We also use privacy as a check on those in power by denying those who would oppress us the information they’d use against us. Privacy should be respected and not given away without serious consideration about how the information will be used and who will have access to it.

BBC is selling your freedoms out to Microsoft

You remember when the BBC proposed their Windows-only media player? Now they’re doing it. On Friday, 27 July 2007 Defective By Design reported:

Today the BBC made it official — they have been corrupted by Microsoft. With today’s launch of the iPlayer, the BBC Trust has failed in its most basic of duties and handed over to Microsoft sole control of the on-line distribution of BBC programming. From today, you will need to own a Microsoft operating system to view BBC programming on the web. This is akin to saying you must own a Sony TV set to watch BBC TV. And you must accept the Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) that the iPlayer imposes. You simply cannot be allowed to be in control of your computer according to the BBC.

Defective By Design follows this up with analysis of how this decision violates the BBC charter.

So Britons pay for the BBC’s works and are saddled with digital restrictions management that officially only plays in one proprietary player on a proprietary operating system. Since the iPlayer is proprietary software it can dictate when you can play BBC media and if you tell it (even indirectly) where you are, the iPlayer could be programmed to use that information to restrict where you can play media. You wouldn’t tolerate these restrictions for DVDs, audio CDs, audio cassettes, LPs, or books. Why tolerate it for the BBC?

For now, FairUse4WM will effectively strip the DRM and leave you with a copy you can play in free software players or transcode into some other format. But FairUse4WM doesn’t address the the underlying issue here.

UK citizens: Sign this petition

There’s a petition to tell the government to favor free software for all publicly-funded software projects and it’s hosted on petitions.pm.gov.uk. So here’s hoping that more UK citizens will sign it before 22 July and people with power will realize this is worth implementing.

A talking point some politicians understand right away: Free software means jobs—You can hire people to do work for you, pay them a living wage, and get software you control. If you don’t like the work they do, hire someone else. There’s no need to hand over any slice of your soverignty to a foreign proprietor. There’s no need to deny yourself the freedom to inspect, share, or modify your software. Hire local developers, artists, and writers to work with you and license the work under a free software license.

Thanks to BadVista.fsf.org for the tip.

The deceptive value of freedom to choose.

I happened across a blog post discussing a dilemma between “my capitalist “do-what-you-want-with-your-money” ideals with my free software ideal “omg-you-don’t-know-what-you-are-doing-with-your-money.””. The poster concluded that he “ultimately, [believes] in choice.”. It’s a good thing that this blog entry says there are better free software arguments. I’ve heard better arguments too, so I’ll try to lay out one such argument I’ve found quite compelling.

One of the problems of focusing on “freedom of choice” (as it is often framed) is how easily restricted one’s choices become when one ignores important freedoms such as the freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify computer software at any time for any reason (collectively known as “software freedom”). For example, consider web browsers: Not that long ago there were 3 web browsers people generally paid attention to—Netscape Navigator, Microsoft Internet Explorer, and Opera. Choice was satisfied: there were at least two options. But software freedom was nowhere to be found. Software freedom was not among the choices.

The freedom-of-choice argument frames proprietary and free software as points on a spectrum of equally valid alternatives. Any ethical examination of how the software treats the user is tossed aside in favor of technocratic examination (which program is more powerful or reliable, for instance). The free software movement’s philosophy removes a proprietor’s metaphorical seat at the table by showing how proprietary software is unethical; a choice of dependency or enslavement to another’s control over your computer (and, as we become more dependent on computers, control over your life) is no choice at all. Thus a freedom-of-choice argument reverses the effect of the free software movement’s philosophy. Anyone who argues for freedom-of-choice is arguing to replace that seat at the table and invite proprietors to fill that seat, offering us less software freedom.

Even if free software programs aren’t as powerful or reliable as their proprietary alternatives, free software is better because it respects the user’s freedom. It is wiser to choose free software because free software can be improved to become powerful and reliable but it is rare when a proprietary program can be made free. In other words, we can collectively fix what’s broken when we have the freedom to fix it but when we’re stuck with broken proprietary software we’re at the proprietor’s mercy. We are always better off improving the programs we have which respect our software freedom rather than entering into dependency with a proprietor.

There are technical reasons to exclusively choose free software as well, but none are quite as compelling as the ethical reasons: all programs have bugs but free software lets technical users help you fix those bugs. If you’re not a developer, you can help developers by sending in detailed bug reports and installing improved versions of software. The more free software you run, the more developers can help you diagnose and debug what went wrong. Proprietors sometimes offer to let you send in bug reports, but they might not choose to fix your bugs. If the proprietor is uncooperative you have nobody left to turn to for help; all proprietors are monopolists.

GNU GPLv3 is released today

Today the GNU General Public License version 3, the preeminent free software license, and the GNU LGPL were released today at noon Eastern Daylight Time. Read the press release about the announcement events or go directly to the Free Software Foundation’s website for live streaming coverage of the events.

Here are the official recordings, most likely licensed to share under a simple verbatim copying and distribution license:

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire recording is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Read the press release about today’s GPLv3 launch and the new GPL (HTML, TeX, Text) and Lesser GNU GPL (HTML or Text).

Congratulations to the Free Software Foundation, Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen (or his Wikipedia entry which has many pointers to his talks), the Software Freedom Law Center, and the community who participated in GPLv3 revisions and critique. Our hard work will definitely benefit us all and continue to serve as a constitution of the free software movement.

Software patents getting mainstream news critique

It’s nice to see software patents getting mainstream criticism. You as a computer user, regardless of what you do with the computer, are adversely affected by software patents—patents on algorithms used in computer software. The op-ed rightly points out the solution: end software patents. We don’t need them and they chiefly serve to give control over computer software to the largest patent holders (invariably a few multinational corporations such as IBM).

A relatively minor issue I have with the op-ed is objecting to software patents on the basis of “innovation”. I find the “innovation” argument not entirely convincing because I think it gives way to debating how many should be allowed to innovate rather than framing the issue around ensuring everyone has the freedom to make their computer do as they wish. Once we frame the debate on the basis of “innovation” our software freedom can be marginalized away. I would not like to give ground to any argument that says if 50% more corporations or wealthy individuals had permission to express themselves freely on the computer, that would be “enough innovation” and we could get on with making minor tweaks to the patent system to make this happen. The patent system is fundamentally broken when it comes to computer software because it directly interferes with people making their computers do what they want. The call for increased innovation doesn’t strongly enough emphasize that you deserve freedom to make your computer do as you wish.

Continue reading

It’s hard to retrofit freedom on to a non-freedom movement

Luis Villa writes that one should not “be afraid to embrace freedom”.

don’t be afraid to embrace freedom: open source businesses tend to be allergic to the word ”˜free’. That is a mistake. Say ”˜freedom’ a lot. Love freedom. Embrace freedom. Your community likes freedom. It differentiates you from the proprietary competition, and if you embrace it wholeheartedly (not just this weak ”˜openness’ stuff) it will differentiate you from most of your open source competition too.

There’s certainly nothing wrong with calling attention to software freedom—the freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify one’s software at any time for any reason—but there are reasons why the open source movement proponents don’t do this. Instead they champion a development methodology which claims that inexpensive software development results in fewer bugs. Theirs is not a persuasive claim because it’s so often not true and it speaks to so few; open source software has its share of bugs and most people aren’t software developers. That movement offers non-programmers no reason to care about unpowerful buggy software. The persuasive argument comes from the older free software movement, the movement where software freedom is front and center.

Continue reading

More attention finally paid to coltan wars

Coltan is a metallic ore which is refined into a power that is used in computers. Coltan production doesn’t get much public attention, just the things it helps make possible. John Perkins touched on the subject in his interview on today’s Democracy Now! (losslessly compressed audio, audio, video, transcript). Here’s an excerpt of what Perkins said about the Congo and coltan miner exploitation.

The whole story of Africa and the Congo is such a devastating and sad one. And it’s the hidden story, really. We in the United States don’t even talk about Africa. We don’t think about Africa. You know, Congo has something called coltan, which probably most of your listeners may not have even heard of, but every cell phone and laptop computer has coltan in it. And several million people in the last few years in the Congo have been killed over coltan, because you and I and all of us in the G8 countries demand low — or at least we want to see our computers inexpensive and our cell phones inexpensive. And, of course, the companies that make these sell them on that basis, that “Oh, here, mine’s $200 less than the other company.” But in order to do that, these people in the Congo are being enslaved. The miners, the people mining coltan, they’re being killed. There’s these vast wars going on to provide us with cheap coltan.

And I have to say, you know, if we want to live in a safe world, we need to be — we must be willing, and, in fact, we must demand that we pay higher prices for things like laptop computers and cell phones and that a good share of that money go back to the people who are mining the coltan. And that’s true of oil. It’s true of so many resources that we are not paying the true cost, and there’s millions of people around the world suffering from that. Roughly 50,000 people die every single day from hunger or hunger-related diseases and curable diseases that they don’t get the medicines for, simply because they’re part of a system that demands that they put in long hours, and they get very, very low pay, so we can have things cheaper in this country. And the Congo is an incredibly potent example of that.

It’s unusual for DN! to discuss topics of direct relevance to computer users, but any ethical computer movement will be compelled to more closely examine where we get the inexpensive computers we enjoy today and work to make sure the prices remain higher and the money goes to the workers.

How’s your proprietor treating you?: Apple’s latest downgrade.

There’s more to the Apple-EMI deal than the mainstream press cares to tell.

Background

EMI is a record label. Apple Computer, a nascent audio distributor, wants to compete in EMI’s market via the iPod, iTunes music program, and iTunes Music Service (iTMS). iTMS only works with the iPod. EMI recently agreed to distribute tracks via iTMS without Digital Restrictions Management—technological restrictions that keep users from doing things they want to do with their legally-obtained tracks. Users don’t want digital restrictions, so EMI and Apple are offering DRM-free tracks at a 30% higher price than the same track with DRM. With Apple’s Digital Restrictions Management users had to work around the restrictions. One popular method was to burn their iTMS tracks to an audio CD then copy (or “rip”) those tracks back to the computer in some form that offered no encumbrance (MP3 was a popular choice for this). Our friends at the Electronic Frontier Foundation have been busy:

News

  • The latest version of the iTunes program breaks the ability to convert the music you’ve bought — even “DRM-free” songs sold at a 30 percent premium — into MP3s that will play on your iPod.—when you rip the CD with iTunes (as opposed to some other audio CD ripper program), EFF says that iTunes 7.2 breaks “the “buy-burn-rip-to-MP3″ workaround has been the primary way to start with a 99 cent iTunes download and end up with an unrestricted MP3 that will play” anywhere. Anyone using the proprietary iTunes program to manage their music will probably be bitten by this “upgrade” soon because Apple makes it easy to switch to the latest version of their software. If iTunes were free software—software that respects a user’s freedom to share and modify the program—there would be a community eagerly hacking an improved version of iTunes that didn’t have these restrictions. This community would allow even non-technical users to switch to using a version of the program that allowed copying music to their iPods as they like.
  • Boing Boing tells us that “EFF’s technologists have found a hidden block of data in the new iTunes tracks”—it holds customer data. When you transfer an iTunes Music Service track, legally or illegally, you’re also distributing someone’s name and address. This didn’t happen with other forms of audio media: people who bought wax cylinders, vinyl records, audio tapes, or mass-produced audio CDs could get the audio without worrying about inadvertently passing along copies of someone’s personal information (possibly their own) when they leveraged their right of first sale. This right is the backbone of everyday events like garage sales, used CD stores, and library sales. But Apple probably has you covered: as George Hotelling learned the hard way, it’s needlessly difficult to sell an iTMS track without divulging personal info.

More reading: EFF’s essay on the dangers of Digital Restrictions Management “The Customer is Always Wrong”.