33. Who Does That Server Really Serve?

+ + + + +

Background: How Proprietary Software Takes Away Your Freedom

+ + + + +

Digital technology can give you freedom; it can also take your freedom +away. The first threat to our control over our computing came from +proprietary software: software that the users cannot control +because the + +owner (a company such as + +Apple or Microsoft) controls +it. The owner often takes advantage of this unjust power by inserting +malicious features such as spyware, back doors, and + +Digital +Restrictions Management (DRM) (referred to as “Digital Rights +Management” in their propaganda). +

Our solution to this problem is developing free software and +rejecting proprietary software. Free software means that you, as a +user, have four essential freedoms: (0) to run the program as you +wish, (1) to study and change the source code so it does what you +wish, (2) to redistribute exact copies, and (3) to +redistribute copies of your modified versions. (See “The Free +Software Definition,” on p. @refx{Definition-pg}{.) +

With free software, we, the users, take back control of our +computing. Proprietary software still exists, but we can exclude it +from our lives and many of us have done so. However, we now face a +new threat to our control over our computing: Software as a Service. +For our freedom’s sake, we have to reject that too. +

+ +

How Software as a Service Takes Away Your Freedom

+ +

Software as a Service (SaaS) means that someone sets up a network +server that does certain computing tasks—running spreadsheets, +word processing, translating text into another language, +etc.—then invites users to do their computing on that server. +Users send their data to the server, which does their computing on the +data thus provided, then sends the results back or acts on them +directly. +

These servers wrest control from the users even more inexorably +than proprietary software. With proprietary software, users typically +get an executable file but not the source code. That makes it hard +for programmers to study the code that is running, so it’s hard to +determine what the program really does, and hard to change it. +

With SaaS, the users do not have even the executable file: it is on +the server, where the users can’t see or touch it. Thus it is +impossible for them to ascertain what it really does, and impossible +to change it. +

Furthermore, SaaS automatically leads to harmful consequences +equivalent to the malicious features of certain proprietary software. +For instance, some proprietary programs are “spyware”: the +program sends out data about users’ computing activities. Microsoft + +Windows sends information about users’ activities to Microsoft. + +Windows Media Player and + +RealPlayer report what each user watches or +listens to. +

+ +

Unlike proprietary software, SaaS does not require covert code to +obtain the user’s data. Instead, users must send their data to the +server in order to use it. This has the same effect as spyware: the +server operator gets the data. He gets it with no special effort, by +the nature of SaaS. +

+ +

Some proprietary programs can mistreat users under remote command. +For instance, + +Windows has a back door with which Microsoft can +forcibly change any software on the machine. The + +Amazon + +Kindle e-book +reader (whose name suggests it’s intended to burn people’s books) has +an Orwellian back door that Amazon used in 2009 +to remotely delete Kindle copies of + +Orwell’s books + +1984 and + +Animal Farm which the users had purchased from Amazon.(49) +

SaaS inherently gives the server operator the power to change the +software in use, or the users’ data being operated on. Once again, no +special code is needed to do this. +

Thus, SaaS is equivalent to total spyware and a gaping wide back +door, and gives the server operator unjust power over the user. We +can’t accept that. + +

+ +

Untangling the SaaS Issue from the Proprietary Software Issue

+ +

SaaS and proprietary software lead to similar harmful results, but +the causal mechanisms are different. With proprietary software, the +cause is that you have and use a copy which is difficult or illegal to +change. With SaaS, the cause is that you use a copy you don’t +have. +

These two issues are often confused, and not only by accident. Web +developers use the vague term “web application” to lump +the server software together with programs run on your machine in your +browser. Some web pages install nontrivial or even large + +JavaScript +programs temporarily into your browser without informing +you. When these JavaScript +programs are nonfree, they are as bad as any other nonfree +software. Here, however, we are concerned with the problem of the +server software itself. +

+ +

Many free software supporters assume that the problem of SaaS will +be solved by developing free software for servers. For the server +operator’s sake, the programs on the server had better be free; if +they are proprietary, their owners have power over the server. That’s +unfair to the operator, and doesn’t help you at all. But if the +programs on the server are free, that doesn’t protect you as the +server’s user from the effects of SaaS. They give freedom to the +operator, but not to you. +

Releasing the server software source code does benefit the +community: suitably skilled users can set up similar servers, perhaps +changing the software. But none of these servers would give you +control over computing you do on it, unless it’s your server. +The rest would all be SaaS. SaaS always subjects you to the power of +the server operator, and the only remedy is, Don’t use SaaS! +Don’t use someone else’s server to do your own computing on data +provided by you. + + +

+ +

Distinguishing SaaS from Other Network Services

+ + +

Does condemning SaaS mean rejecting all network servers? Not at +all. Most servers do not raise this issue, because the job you do +with them isn’t your own computing except in a trivial sense. +

The original purpose of web servers wasn’t to do computing for you, +it was to publish information for you to access. Even today this is +what most web sites do, and it doesn’t pose the SaaS problem, because +accessing someone’s published information isn’t a matter of doing your +own computing. Neither is publishing your own materials via a blog +site or a microblogging service such as + +Twitter or + +identi.ca. The same goes for +communication not meant to be private, such as chat groups. Social +networking can extend into SaaS; however, at root it is just a method +of communication and publication, not SaaS. If you use the service +for minor editing of what you’re going to communicate, that is not a +significant issue. +

Services such as search engines collect data from around the web +and let you examine it. Looking through their collection of data +isn’t your own computing in the usual sense—you didn’t provide +that collection—so using such a service to search the web is not +SaaS. (However, using someone else’s search engine to implement a +search facility for your own site is SaaS.) +

+ + +

E-commerce is not SaaS, because the computing isn’t solely yours; +rather, it is done jointly for you and another party. So there’s no +particular reason why you alone should expect to control that +computing. The real issue in e-commerce is whether you trust the +other party with your money and personal information. +

+ +

Using a joint project’s servers isn’t SaaS because the computing +you do in this way isn’t yours personally. For instance, if you edit +pages on + +Wikipedia, you are not doing your own computing; rather, you +are collaborating in Wikipedia’s computing. +

Wikipedia controls its own servers, but groups can face the problem +of SaaS if they do their group activities on someone else’s server. + +Fortunately, development hosting sites such as + + +Savannah and + + +SourceForge don’t pose the SaaS problem, because what groups do there +is mainly publication and public communication, rather than their own +private computing. +

+ + +

Multiplayer games are a group activity carried out on someone +else’s server, which makes them SaaS. But where the data involved is +just the state of play and the score, the worst wrong the operator +might commit is favoritism. You might well ignore that risk, since it +seems unlikely and very little is at stake. On the other hand, when +the game becomes more than just a game, the issue changes. +

+ + +

Which online services are SaaS? Google Docs is a clear example. +Its basic activity is editing, and Google encourages people to use it +for their own editing; this is SaaS. It offers the added feature of +collaborative editing, but adding participants doesn’t alter the fact +that editing on the server is SaaS. (In addition, Google Docs is +unacceptable because it installs a large nonfree + +JavaScript program +into the users’ browsers.) If using a service for communication or +collaboration requires doing substantial parts of your own computing +with it too, that computing is SaaS even if the communication is +not. +

+ +

Some sites offer multiple services, and if one is not SaaS, another +may be SaaS. For instance, the main service of + + +Facebook is social +networking, and that is not SaaS; however, it supports third-party +applications, some of which may be SaaS. + + +Flickr’s main service is +distributing photos, which is not SaaS, but it also has features for +editing photos, which is SaaS. +

+ +

Some sites whose main service is publication and communication +extend it with “contact management”: keeping track of +people you have relationships with. Sending mail to those people for +you is not SaaS, but keeping track of your dealings with them, if +substantial, is SaaS. +

If a service is not SaaS, that does not mean it is OK. There are +other bad things a service can do. For instance, Facebook distributes +video in Flash, which pressures users to run nonfree software, and it +gives users a misleading impression of privacy. Those are important +issues too, but this article’s concern is the issue of SaaS. +

+ + +

The IT industry discourages users from considering these +distinctions. That’s what the buzzword “cloud computing” +is for. This term is so nebulous that it could refer to almost any +use of the Internet. It includes SaaS and it includes nearly +everything else. The term only lends itself to uselessly broad +statements. +

The real meaning of “cloud computing” is to suggest a +devil-may-care approach towards your computing. It says, “Don’t +ask questions, just trust every business without hesitation. Don’t +worry about who controls your computing or who holds your data. Don’t +check for a hook hidden inside our service before you swallow +it.” In other words, “Think like a sucker.” I prefer +to avoid the term. + +

+ +

Dealing with the SaaS Problem

+ + + +

Only a small fraction of all web sites do SaaS; most don’t raise +the issue. But what should we do about the ones that raise it? +

For the simple case, where you are doing your own computing on data in +your own hands, the solution is simple: use your own copy of a free +software application. Do your text editing with your copy of a free +text editor such as + + +GNU Emacs or a free word + +processor. Do your photo +editing with your copy of free software such as + + +GIMP. +

But what about collaborating with other individuals? It may be +hard to do this at present without using a server. If you use one, +don’t trust a server run by a company. A mere contract as a customer +is no protection unless you could detect a breach and could really +sue, and the company probably writes its contracts to permit a broad +range of abuses. Police can subpoena your data from the company with +less basis than required to subpoena them from you, supposing the +company doesn’t volunteer them like the US phone companies that +illegally wiretapped their customers for + +Bush. If you must use a +server, use a server whose operators give you a basis for trust beyond +a mere commercial relationship. +

However, on a longer time scale, we can create alternatives to +using servers. For instance, we can create a + +peer-to-peer program +through which collaborators can share data encrypted. The free +software community should develop distributed peer-to-peer +replacements for important “web applications.” It may be +wise to release them under GNU + + +Affero GPL, since +they are likely candidates for being converted into server-based +programs by someone else. The + +GNU Project is looking +for volunteers to work on such replacements. We also invite other +free software projects to consider this issue in their design. +

In the meantime, if a company invites you to use its server to do +your own computing tasks, don’t yield; don’t use SaaS. Don’t buy or +install “thin clients,” which are simply computers so weak +they make you do the real work on a server, unless you’re +going to use them with your server. Use a real +computer and keep your data there. Do your work with your own copy of +a free program, for your freedom’s sake. + + + +

Footnotes

(49)

Brad +Stone, “Amazon Erases Orwell Books from Kindle,” New York Times, 17 July 2009, sec. B1, http://nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html. +

+ + + + + + + +

[ < ]

[ > ]

[Contents]

[Index]

[ ? ]

+ + This document was generated by Christian Grothoff on February 18, 2016 using texi2html 1.82. + +
+ +

+ + -- cgit v1.2.3