diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-digital-society.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-digital-society.html | 1141 |
1 files changed, 1141 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-digital-society.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-digital-society.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3a73a3b --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-digital-society.html @@ -0,0 +1,1141 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.90 --> +<title>A Free Digital Society - What Makes Digital Inclusion Good or +Bad? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-digital-society.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> + +<h2>A Free Digital Society - What Makes Digital Inclusion Good or Bad?</h2> + +<address class="byline">by Richard Stallman</address> + +<p><em>Transcription of a lecture at Sciences Po Paris, October 19, 2011</em> (<a +href="http://audio-video.gnu.org/video/stallman-sciencespo-freesociety.webm">video</a>)</p> +<hr class="thin" /> + +<div class="summary" style="margin-top: 1em"> +<h3 class="no-display">Table of Contents</h3> +<ul> + <li><a href="#intro">Introduction</a></li> + <li><a href="#surveillance">Surveillance</a></li> + <li><a href="#censorship">Censorship</a></li> + <li><a href="#formats">Restricted data formats</a></li> + <li><a href="#proprietary">Software that isn't free</a></li> + <li><a href="#four-freedoms">The four freedoms of free software</a></li> + <li><a href="#gnu">The GNU Project and the Free Software movement</a></li> + <li><a href="#education">Free software and education</a></li> + <li><a href="#services">Internet services</a></li> + <li><a href="#voting">Computers for voting</a></li> + <li><a href="#sharing">The war on sharing</a></li> + <li><a href="#arts">Supporting the arts</a></li> + <li><a href="#rights">Rights in cyberspace</a></li> +</ul> +<hr class="no-display" /> +</div> + +<h3 id="intro">Introduction</h3> + +<p>Projects with the goal of digital inclusion are making a big +assumption. They are assuming that participating in a digital society +is good, but that's not necessarily true. Being in a digital society +can be good or bad, depending on whether that digital society is just +or unjust. There are many ways in which our freedom is being attacked +by digital technology. Digital technology can make things worse, and it +will, unless we fight to prevent it.</p> + +<p>Therefore, if we have an unjust digital society, we should cancel +these projects for digital inclusion and launch projects for digital +extraction. We have to extract people from digital society if it doesn't +respect their freedom, or we have to make it respect their freedom.</p> + +<h3 id="surveillance">Surveillance</h3> + +<p>What are the threats? First, surveillance. Computers are Stalin's +dream: they are ideal tools for surveillance, because anything we do +with computers, the computers can record. They can record the +information in a perfectly indexed searchable form in a central +database, ideal for any tyrant who wants to crush opposition.</p> + +<p>Surveillance is sometimes done with our own computers. For instance, +if you have a computer that's running Microsoft Windows, that system is +doing surveillance. There are features in Windows that send data to some +server, data about the use of the computer. A surveillance feature was +discovered in the iPhone a few months ago, and people started calling it +the “spy-phone.” Flash player has a surveillance feature +too, and so does the Amazon Swindle.” They call it the Kindle, but +I call it “<a href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html">the +Swindle</a>,” <em>l'escroc</em>, +because it's meant to swindle users out of their freedom. It makes +people identify themselves whenever they buy a book, and that means +Amazon has a giant list of all the books each user has read. Such a list +must not exist anywhere.</p> + +<p>Most portable phones will transmit their location, computed using +GPS, on remote command. The phone company is accumulating a giant list +of places that the user has been. A German MP in the Green Party +[correction: Malte Spitz is on the staff of the Green Party, not an +elected official] asked the phone company to give him the data it had +about where he was. He had to sue, he had to go to court to get this +information. And when he got it, he received forty-four thousand +location points for a period of six months! That's more than two hundred +per day! What that means is someone could form a very good picture of +his activities just by looking at that data.</p> + +<p>We can stop our own computers from doing surveillance on us +if <em>we</em> have control of the software that they run. But the +software these people are running, they don't have control over. It's +nonfree software, and that's why it has malicious features such as +surveillance. However, the surveillance is not always done with our own +computers, it's also done at one remove. For instance ISPs in Europe +are required to keep data about the user's Internet communications for +a long time, in case the State decides to investigate that person later +for whatever imaginable reason.</p> + +<p>With a portable phone… even if you can stop the phone from +transmitting your GPS location, the system can determine the phone's +location approximately, by comparing the time when the signals arrive at +different towers. So the phone system can do surveillance even without +special cooperation from the phone itself.</p> + +<p>Likewise, the bicycles that people rent in Paris. Of course the +system knows where you get the bicycle and it knows where you return the +bicycle, and I've heard reports that it tracks the bicycles as they are +moving around as well. So they are not something we can really trust.</p> + +<p>But there are also systems that have nothing to do with us that exist +only for tracking. For instance, in the UK all car travel is monitored. +Every car's movements are being recorded in real time and can be tracked +by the State in real time. This is done with cameras on the side of +the road.</p> + +<p>Now, the only way we can prevent surveillance that's done at one +remove or by unrelated systems is through political action against +increased government power to track and monitor everyone, which means of +course we have to reject whatever excuse they come up with. For doing +such systems, no excuse is valid—to monitor everyone.</p> + +<p>In a free society, when you go out in public, you are not guaranteed +anonymity. It's possible for someone to recognize you and remember. And +later that person could say that he saw you at a certain place. But +that information is diffuse. It's not conveniently assembled to track +everybody and investigate what they did. To collect that information is +a lot of work, so it's only done in special cases when it's necessary.</p> + +<p>But computerized surveillance makes it possible to centralize and +index all this information so that an unjust regime can find it all, +and find out all about everyone. If a dictator takes power, which +could happen anywhere, people realize this and they recognize that they +should not communicate with other dissidents in a way that the State +could find out about. But if the dictator has several years of stored +records of who talks with whom, it's too late to take any precautions +then, because he already has everything he needs to realize: “OK, +this guy is a dissident, and he spoke with him. Maybe he is a dissident +too. Maybe we should grab him and torture him.”</p> + +<p>So we need to campaign to put an end to digital surveillance +<em>now</em>. You can't wait until there is a dictator and it would +really matter. And besides, it doesn't take an outright dictatorship to +start attacking human rights.</p> + +<p>I wouldn't quite call the government of the UK a dictatorship. It's +not very democratic, and one way it crushes democracy is using +surveillance. A few years ago, people believed to be on their way to a +protest, they were going to protest, they were arrested before they +could get there because their car was tracked through this universal car +tracking system.</p> + +<h3 id="censorship">Censorship</h3> + +<p>The second threat is censorship. Censorship is not new, it existed +long before computers. But 15 years ago, we thought that the Internet +would protect us from censorship, that it would defeat censorship. Then, +China and some other obvious tyrannies went to great lengths to +impose censorship on the Internet, and we said: “Well that's not +surprising, what else would governments like that do?”</p> + +<p>But today we see censorship imposed in countries that are not +normally thought of as dictatorships, such as for instance the UK, +France, Spain, Italy, Denmark…</p> + +<p>They all have systems of blocking access to some websites. Denmark +established a system that blocks access to a long list of web pages, +which was secret. The citizens were not supposed to know how the +government was censoring them, but the list was leaked and posted on +WikiLeaks. At that point, Denmark added the WikiLeaks page to its +censorship list. So, the whole rest of the world can find out how Danes +are being censored, but Danes are not supposed to know.</p> + +<p>A few months ago, Turkey, which claims to respect some human rights, +announced that every Internet user would have to choose between +censorship and more censorship. Four different levels of censorship they +get to choose! But freedom is not one of the options.</p> + +<p>Australia wanted to impose filtering on the Internet, but that was +blocked. However Australia has a different kind of censorship: it has +censorship of links. That is, if a website in Australia has a link +to some censored site outside Australia, the one in Australia can be +punished. Electronic Frontiers Australia, that is an organization that +defends human rights in the digital domain in Australia, posted a link +to a foreign political website. It was ordered to delete the link or +face a penalty of $11,000 a day. So they deleted it, what else could +they do? This is a very harsh system of censorship.</p> + +<p>In Spain, the censorship that was adopted earlier this year allows +officials to arbitrarily shut down an Internet site in Spain, or impose +filtering to block access to a site outside of Spain. And they can do +this without any kind of trial. This was one of the motivations for the +<cite>Indignados</cite>, who have been protesting in the street.</p> + +<p>There were protests in the street in Turkey as well, after that +announcement, but the government refused to change its policy.</p> + +<p>We must recognize that a country that imposes censorship on the +Internet is not a free country. And is not a legitimate government +either.</p> + +<h3 id="formats">Restricted data formats</h3> + +<p>The next threat to our freedom comes from data formats that restrict +users.</p> + +<p>Sometimes it's because the format is secret. There are many +application programs that save the user's data in a secret format, which +is meant to prevent the user from taking that data and using it with +some other program. The goal is to prevent interoperability.</p> + +<p>Now, evidently, if a program implements a secret format, that's +because the program is not free software. So this is another kind of +malicious feature. Surveillance is one kind of malicious feature that +you find in some nonfree programs; using secret formats to restrict the +users is another kind of malicious feature that you also find in some +nonfree programs.</p> + +<p>But if you have a free program that handles a certain format, +<em>ipso facto</em> that format is not secret. This kind of malicious +feature can only exist in a nonfree program. Surveillance features, +well, theoretically they could exist in a free program but you don't +find them happening. Because the users would fix it, you see. The users +wouldn't like this, so they would fix it.</p> + +<p>In any case, we also find secret data formats in use for publication +of works. You find secret data formats in use for audio, such as music, +for video, for books… And these secret formats are known as +Digital Restrictions Management, or DRM, or digital handcuffs <em>(les +menottes numériques)</em>.</p> + +<p>So, the works are published in secret formats so that only +proprietary programs can play them, so that these proprietary programs +can have the malicious feature of restricting the users, stopping them +from doing something that would be natural to do.</p> + +<p>And this is used even by public entities to communicate with the +people. For instance Italian public television makes its programs +available on the net in a format called VC-1, which is a standard +supposedly, but it's a secret standard. Now I can't imagine how any +publicly supported entity could justify using a secret format to +communicate with the public. This should be illegal. In fact I think +all use of Digital Restrictions Management should be illegal. No company +should be allowed to do this.</p> + +<p>There are also formats that are not secret but almost might as well +be secret, for instance Flash. Flash is not actually secret but Adobe +keeps making new versions, which are different, faster than anyone can +keep up and make free software to play those files; so it has almost +the same effect as being secret.</p> + +<p>Then there are the patented formats, such as +MP3<a href="#f1"><sup>1</sup></a> for audio. It's bad to distribute +audio in MP3 format. There is free software to handle MP3 format, to +play it and to generate it, but because it's patented in many +countries, many distributors of free software don't dare include those +programs; so if they distribute the GNU+Linux system, their system +doesn't include a player for MP3. As a result if anyone distributes +some music in MP3, that's putting pressure on people not to use +GNU/Linux. Sure, if you're an expert you can find a free software and +install it, but there are lots of non experts, and they might see that +they installed a version of GNU/Linux which doesn't have that +software, and it won't play MP3 files, and they think it's the +system's fault. They don't realize it's MP3's fault. But this is the +fact.</p> + +<p>Therefore, if you want to support freedom, don't distribute MP3 +files. That's why I say if you're recording my speech and you want to +distribute copies, don't do it in a patented format such as MPEG-2, +or MPEG-4, or MP3. Use a format friendly to free software, such as the +OGG formats or WebM. And by the way, if you are going to distribute +copies of the recording, please put on it the Creative Commons, No +Derivatives license. This is a statement of my personal views. If it +were a lecture for a course, if it were didactic, then it ought to be +free, but statements of opinion are different.</p> + +<h3 id="proprietary">Software that isn't free</h3> + +<p>Now this leads me to the next threat which comes from software that +the users don't have control over. In other words, software that isn't +free, that is not <cite>libre</cite>. In this particular point French +is clearer than English. The English word “free” means +<cite>libre</cite> and <cite>gratuit</cite>, but what I mean when I say +“free software” is <cite>logiciel libre</cite>. I don't mean +<cite>gratuit</cite>. I'm not talking about price. Price is a side +issue, just a detail, because it doesn't matter ethically. You know, if +I have a copy of a program and I sell it to you for one euro or a +hundred euros, who cares? Right? Why should anyone think that's good or +bad? Or suppose I gave it to you <cite>gratuitement</cite>… +Still, who cares? But whether this program respects your freedom, that's +important!</p> + +<p>So free software is software that respects users' freedom. What does +this mean? Ultimately there are just two possibilities with software: +either the users control the program or the program controls the users. +If the users have certain essential freedoms, then <em>they</em> control +the program, and those freedoms are the criterion for free software. But +if the users <em>don't</em> fully have the essential freedoms, then +the program controls the users. But somebody controls that program and, +through it, has <em>power</em> over the users. </p> + +<p>So, a nonfree program is an instrument to give somebody <em>power</em> +over a lot of other people, and this is unjust power that nobody should +ever have. This is why nonfree software <cite>(les logiciels privateurs, +qui privent de la liberté)</cite>, why proprietary software is +an injustice and should not exist; because it leaves the users without +freedom.</p> + +<p>Now, the developer who has control of the program often feels tempted +to introduce malicious features to <em>further</em> exploit or abuse +those users. He feels a temptation because he knows he can get away with +it. Because his program controls the users and the users do not have +control of the program, if he puts in a malicious feature, the users +can't fix it; they can't remove the malicious feature.</p> + +<p>I've already told you about two kinds of malicious features: +surveillance features, such as are found in Windows and the iPhone and +Flash player and the Swindle, sort of. And there are also features to +restrict users, which work with secret data formats, and those are found +in Windows, Macintosh, the iPhone, Flash player, the Amazon Swindle, +the Playstation 3 and lots and lots of other programs.</p> + +<p>The other kind of malicious feature is the backdoor. That means +something in that program is listening for remote commands and obeying +them, and those commands can mistreat the user. We know of backdoors in +Windows, in the iPhone, in the Amazon Swindle. The Amazon Swindle has +a backdoor that can delete books, remotely delete books. We know this +by observation, because Amazon did it: in 2009 Amazon remotely deleted +thousands of copies of a particular book. Those were authorized copies, +people had obtained them directly from Amazon, and thus Amazon knew +exactly where they were, which is how Amazon knew where to send the +commands to delete those books. You know which book Amazon deleted? +<em>1984</em> by George Orwell. [laughter] It's a book everyone should +read, because it discusses a totalitarian state that did things like +delete books it didn't like. Everybody should read it, but not on the +Amazon Swindle. [laughter]</p> + +<p>Anyway, malicious features are present in the most widely used +nonfree programs, but they are rare in free software, because with free +software the users have control. They can read the source code and they +can change it. So, if there were a malicious feature, somebody would +sooner or later spot it and fix it. This means that somebody who is +considering introducing a malicious feature does not find it so +tempting, because he knows he might get away with it for a while but +somebody will spot it, will fix it, and everybody will loose trust in +the perpetrator. It's not so tempting when you know you're going to +fail. And that's why we find that malicious features are rare in free +software, and common in proprietary software.</p> + +<h3 id="four-freedoms">The four freedoms of free software</h3> + +<p>The essential freedoms are four:</p> + +<ul> + <li>Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program as you wish.</li> + <li>Freedom 1 is the freedom to study the source code and change it, + so the program does your computing the way you wish.</li> + <li>Freedom 2 is the freedom to help others. That's the freedom to + make exact copies and redistribute them when you wish.</li> + <li>Freedom 3 is the freedom to contribute to your community. That's + the freedom to make copies of your modified versions, if you + have made any, and then distribute them to others when you wish.</li> +</ul> + +<p>These freedoms, in order to be adequate, must apply to all activities +of life. For instance if it says “this is free for academic +use,” it's not free. Because that's too limited. It doesn't apply +to all areas of life. In particular, if a program is free, that means +it can be modified and distributed commercially, because commerce is +an area of life, an activity in life. And this freedom has to apply to +all activities.</p> + +<p>However, it's not obligatory to do any of these things. The point +is you're free to do them if you wish, when you wish. But you never have +to do them. You don't have to do any of them. You don't have to run the +program. You don't have to study or change the source code. You don't +have to make any copies. You don't have to distribute your modified +versions. The point is you should be free to do those things <em>if +you wish</em>.</p> + +<p>Now, freedom number 1, the freedom to study and change the source +code to make the program do your computing as you wish, includes +something that might not be obvious at first. If the program comes in a +product, and the developer can provide an upgrade that will run, then +you have to be able to make your version run in that product. If the +product will only run the developer's versions, and refuses to run +yours, the executable in that product is not free software. Even if it +was compiled from free source code, it's not free because you don't have +the freedom to make the program do your computing the way you wish. So, +freedom 1 has to be real, not just theoretical. It has to include the +freedom to use <em>your</em> version, not just the freedom to make some +source code that won't run.</p> + +<h3 id="gnu">The GNU Project and the Free Software movement</h3> + +<p>I launched the Free Software movement in 1983, when I announced +the plan to develop a free software operating system whose name is +GNU. Now GNU, the name GNU, is a joke; because part of the hacker's +spirit is to have fun even when you're doing something <em>very</em> +serious. Now I can't think of anything more seriously important than +defending freedom.</p> + +<p>But that didn't mean I couldn't give my system a name that's a joke. +So GNU is a joke because it's a recursive acronym, it stands for +“GNU's Not Unix,” so G.N.U.: GNU's Not Unix. So the G in +GNU stands for GNU.</p> + +<p>In fact this was a tradition at the time. The tradition was: if +there was an existing program and you wrote something similar to it, +inspired by it, you could give credit by giving your program a name +that's a recursive acronym saying it's not the other one. So I gave +credit to Unix for the technical ideas of Unix, but with the name GNU, +because I decided to make GNU a Unix-like system, with the same +commands, the same system calls, so that it would be compatible, so that +people who used Unix could switch over easily.</p> + +<p>But the reason for developing GNU, that was unique. GNU is the +only operating system, as far as I know, ever developed for the +purpose of freedom. Not for technical motivations, not for commercial +motivations. GNU was written for <em>your</em> freedom. Because without +a free operating system, it's impossible to have freedom and use a +computer. And there were none, and I wanted people to have freedom, +so it was up to me to write one.</p> + +<p>Nowadays there are millions of users of the GNU operating system and +most of them don't <em>know</em> they are using the GNU operating +system, because there is a widespread practice which is not nice. People +call the system “Linux.” Many do, but some people don't, and +I hope you'll be one of them. Please, since we started this, since we +wrote the biggest piece of the code, please give us equal mention, please +call the system “GNU+Linux,” or “GNU/Linux.” +It's not much to ask.</p> + +<p>But there is another reason to do this. It turns out that the person +who wrote Linux, which is one component of the system as we use it +today, he doesn't agree with the Free Software movement. And so if you +call the whole system Linux, in effect you're steering people towards +his ideas, and away from our ideas. Because he's not gonna say to them +that they deserve freedom. He's going to say to them that he likes +convenient, reliable, powerful software. He's going to tell people that +those are the important values.</p> + +<p>But if you tell them the system is GNU+Linux—it's the GNU +operating system plus Linux the kernel—then they'll know about us, +and then they might listen to what we say: you deserve freedom. And +since freedom will be lost if we don't defend it—there's always +going to be a Sarkozy to take it away—we need above all to teach +people to demand freedom, to be ready to stand up for their freedom the +next time someone threatens to take it away.</p> + +<p>Nowadays, you can tell who doesn't want to discuss these ideas of +freedom because they don't say <cite>logiciel libre</cite>. They don't +say <cite>libre</cite>, they say “open source.” That term +was coined by the people like Mr Torvalds who would prefer that these +ethical issues don't get raised. And so the way you can help us raise +them is by saying <cite>libre</cite>. You know, it's up to you where you +stand, you're free to say what you think. If you agree with them, you +can say open source. If you agree with us, show it, say +<cite>libre</cite>!</p> + +<h3 id="education">Free software and education</h3> + +<p>The most important point about free software is that schools +<em>must</em> teach exclusively free software. All levels of schools +from kindergarten to university, it's their moral responsibility to +teach only free software in their education, and all other educational +activities as well, including those that say that they're spreading +digital literacy. A lot of those activities teach Windows, which means +they're teaching <em>dependence</em>. To teach people the use of +proprietary software is to teach dependence, and educational activities +must never do that because it's the opposite of their mission. +Educational activities have a social mission to educate good citizens of +a strong, capable, cooperating, independent and free society. And in the +area of computing, that means: teach free software; never teach a +proprietary program because that's inculcating dependence.</p> + +<p>Why do you think some proprietary developers offer gratis copies to +schools? They want the schools to make the children dependent. And then, +when they graduate, they're still dependent and, you know, the company +is not going to offer them gratis copies. And some of them get jobs and +go to work for companies. Not many of them anymore, but some of them. +And those companies are not going to be offered gratis copies. Oh no! +The idea is: if the school directs the students down the path of +permanent dependence, they can drag the rest of society with them into +dependence. That's the plan! It's just like giving the school gratis +needles full of addicting drugs, saying: “Inject this into your +students, the first dose is gratis. Once you're dependent, then you have +to pay.” Well, the school would reject the drugs because it isn't +right to teach the students to use addictive drugs, and it's got to +reject the proprietary software also. </p> + +<p>Some people say: “Let's have the school teach both proprietary +software and free software, so the students become familiar with +both.” That's like saying: “For the lunch let's give the +kids spinach and tobacco, so that they become accustomed to both.” +No! The schools are only supposed to teach good habits, not bad ones! So +there should be no Windows in a school, no Macintosh, nothing +proprietary in the education.</p> + +<p>But also, for the sake of educating the programmers. You see, some +people have a talent for programming. At ten to thirteen years old, +typically, they're fascinated, and if they use a program, they want to +know: “How does it do this?” But when they ask the teacher, +if it's proprietary, the teacher has to say: “I'm sorry, it's a +secret, we can't find out.” Which means education is forbidden. A +proprietary program is the enemy of the spirit of education. It's +knowledge withheld, so it should not be tolerated in a school, even +though there may be plenty of people in the school who don't care about +programming, don't want to learn this. Still, because it's the enemy of +the spirit of education, it shouldn't be there in the school. </p> + +<p>But if the program is free, the teacher can explain what he knows, +and then give out copies of the source code, saying: “Read it and +you'll understand everything.” And those who are really +fascinated, they will read it! And this gives them an opportunity to +start to learn how to be good programmers.</p> + +<p>To learn to be a good programmer, you'll need to recognize that +certain ways of writing code, even if they make sense to you and they +are correct, they're not good because other people will have trouble +understanding them. Good code is clear code that others will have an +easy time working on when they need to make further changes.</p> + +<p>How do you learn to write good clear code? You do it by reading lots +of code, and writing lots of code. Well, only free software offers the +chance to read the code of large programs that we really use. And then +you have to write lots of code, which means you have to write changes +in large programs.</p> + +<p>How do you learn to write good code for the large programs? You have +to start small, which does <em>not</em> mean small program, oh no! The +challenges of the code for large programs don't even begin to appear in +small programs. So the way you start small at writing code for large +programs is by writing small changes in large programs. And only free +software gives you the chance to do that.</p> + +<p>So, if a school wants to offer the possibility of learning to be a +good programmer, it needs to be a free software school.</p> + +<p>But there is an even deeper reason, and that is for the sake of +moral education, education in citizenship. It's not enough for a school +to teach facts and skills, it has to teach the spirit of goodwill, the +habit of helping others. Therefore, every class should have this rule: +“Students, if you bring software to class, you may not keep it for +yourself, you must share copies with the rest of the class, including +the source code in case anyone here wants to learn. Because this class +is a place where we share our knowledge. Therefore, bringing a +proprietary program to class is not permitted.” The school must +follow its own rule to set a good example. Therefore, the school must +bring only free software to class, and share copies, including the +source code, with anyone in the class that wants copies.</p> + +<p>Those of you who have a connection with a school, it's <em>your</em> +duty to campaign and pressure that school to move to free software. And +you have to be firm. It may take years, but you can succeed as long +as you never give up. Keep seeking more allies among the students, the +faculty, the staff, the parents, anyone! And always bring it up as an +ethical issue. If someone else wants to sidetrack the discussion into +this practical advantage and this practical disadvantage, which means +they're ignoring the most important question, then you have to say: +“This is not about how to do the best job of educating, this is +about how to do a good education instead of an evil one. It's how to do +education right instead of wrong, not just how to make it a little more +effective, or less.” So don't get distracted with those secondary +issues, and ignore what really matters!</p> + +<h3 id="services">Internet services</h3> + +<p>So, moving on to the next menace. There are two issues that arise +from the use of Internet services. One of them is that the server +could abuse your data, and another is that it could take control of +your computing.</p> + +<p>The first issue, people already know about. They are aware that, if +you upload data to an Internet service, there is a question of what it +will do with that data. It might do things that mistreat you. What could +it do? It could lose the data, it could change the data, it could refuse +to let you get the data back. And it could also show the data to someone +else you don't want to show it to. Four different possible things.</p> + +<p>Now, here, I'm talking about the data that you <em>knowingly</em> +gave to that site. Of course, many of those services do +<em>surveillance</em> as well.</p> + +<p>For instance, consider Facebook. Users send lots of data to Facebook, +and one of the bad things about Facebook is that it shows a lot of that +data to lots of other people, and even if it offers them a setting to +say “no,” that may not really work. After all, if you say +“some other people can see this piece of information,” +one of them might publish it. Now, that's not Facebook's fault, +there is nothing they could do to prevent that, but it ought to warn +people. Instead of saying “mark this as only to your so-called +friends,” it should say “keep in mind that your so-called +friends are not really your friends, and if they want to make trouble +for you, they could publish this.” Every time, it should say that, +if they want to deal with people ethically.</p> + +<p>As well as all the data users of Facebook voluntarily give to +Facebook, Facebook is collecting data about people's activities on the +net through various methods of surveillance. But that's the first +menace. For now I am talking about the data that people <em>know</em> +they are giving to these sites.</p> + +<p>Now, losing data is something that could always happen by accident. +That possibility is always there, no matter how careful someone is. +Therefore, you need to keep multiple copies of data that matters. If you +do that, then, even if someone decided to delete your data +intentionally, it wouldn't hurt you that much, because you'd have other +copies of it.</p> + +<p>So, as long as you are maintaining multiple copies, you don't have +to worry too much about someone's losing your data. What about whether +you can get it back. Well, some services make it possible to get back +all the data that you sent, and some don't. Google services will let the +user get back the data the user has put into them. Facebook, famously, +does not.</p> + +<p>Of course in the case of Google, this only applies to the data the +user <em>knows</em> Google has. Google does lots of surveillance, too, +and that data is not included. But in any case, if you can get the data +back, then you could track whether they have altered it. And they're not +very likely to start altering people's data if the people can tell. So +maybe we can keep a track on that particular kind of abuse.</p> + +<p>But the abuse of showing the data to someone you don't want it to +be shown to is very common and almost impossible for you to prevent, +especially if it's a US company. You see, the most hypocritically named +law in US history, the so-called USA Patriot Act, says that Big +Brother's police can collect just about all the data that companies +maintain about individuals. Not just companies, but other organizations +too, like public libraries. The police can get this massively, without +even going to court. Now, in a country that was founded on an idea of +freedom, there's nothing more unpatriotic than this. But this is what +they did. So you mustn't ever trust any of your data to a US company. +And they say that foreign subsidiaries of US companies are subject to +this as well. So the company you're directly dealing with may be in +Europe, but if it's owned by a US company, you've got the same problem +to deal with.</p> + +<p>However, this is mainly of concern when the data you're sending to +the service is not for publication. There are some services where you +publish things. Of course, if you publish something, you know everybody +is gonna be able to see it. So, there is no way they can hurt you by +showing it to somebody who wasn't supposed to see it. There is nobody +who wasn't supposed to see it, if you published it. So in that case the +problem doesn't exist.</p> + +<p>So these are four sub-issues of this one threat of abusing our data. +The idea of the Freedom Box project is you have your own server in your +own home, and when you want to do something remotely, you do it with +your own server, and the police have to get a court order in order to +search your server. So you have the same rights this way that you would +have traditionally in the physical world.</p> + +<p>The point here and in so many other issues is: as we start doing +things digitally instead of physically, we shouldn't lose any of our +rights; because the general tendency is that we do lose rights.</p> + +<p>Basically, Stallman's law says that, in an epoch when governments +work for the mega-corporations instead of reporting to their citizens, +every technological change can be taken advantage of to reduce our +freedom. Because reducing our freedom is what these governments want +to do. So the question is: when do they get an opportunity? Well, any +change that happens for some other reason is a possible opportunity, +and they will take advantage of it if that's their general desire.</p> + +<p>But the other issue with Internet services is that they can take +control of your computing, and that's not so commonly known. But it's +becoming more common. There are services that offer to do computing for +you on data supplied by you—things that you should do in your own +computer but they invite you to let somebody else's computer do that +computing work for you. And the result is you lose control over it. It's +just as if you used a nonfree program.</p> + +<p>Two different scenarios, but they lead to the same problem. If you +do your computing with a nonfree program… well, the users don't +control the nonfree program, it controls the users, which would include +you. So you've lost control of the computing that's being done. But +if you do your computing in his server… well, the programs that +are doing it are the ones he chose. You can't touch them or see them, +so you have no control over them. He has control over them, maybe.</p> + +<p>If they are free software and he installs them, then he has control +over them. But even he might not have control. He might be running a +proprietary program in his server, in which case it's somebody else +who has control of the computing being done in his server. He doesn't +control it and you don't.</p> + +<p>But suppose he installs a free program, then he has control over the +computing being done in his computer, but you don't. So, either way, +<em>you don't!</em> So the only way to have control over your computing +is to do it with <em>your copy</em> of a free program.</p> + +<p>This practice is called “Software as a Service.” It means +doing your computing with your data in somebody else's server. And +I don't know of anything that can make this acceptable. It's always +something that takes away your freedom, and the only solution I know of +is to refuse. For instance, there are servers that will do translation +or voice recognition, and you are letting them have control over this +computing activity, which we shouldn't ever do.</p> + +<p>Of course, we are also giving them data about ourselves which they +shouldn't have. Imagine if you had a conversation with somebody through +a voice-recognition translation system that was Software as a Service +and it's really running on a server belonging to some company. Well, +that company also gets to know what was said in the conversation, and +if it's a US company that means Big Brother also gets to know. This is +no good.</p> + +<h3 id="voting">Computers for voting</h3> + +<p>The next threat to our freedom in a digital society is using +computers for voting. You can't trust computers for voting. Whoever +controls the software in those computers has the power to commit +undetectable fraud.</p> + +<p>Elections are special, because there's nobody involved that we dare +trust fully. Everybody has to be checked, crosschecked by others, so +that nobody is in a position to falsify the results by himself. Because +if anybody is in a position to do that, he might do it. So our +traditional systems for voting were designed so that nobody was fully +trusted, everybody was being checked by others. So that nobody could +easily commit fraud. But once you introduce a program, this is +impossible.</p> + +<p>How can you tell if a voting machine will honestly count the +votes? You'd have to study the program that's running in it during the +election, which of course nobody can do, and most people wouldn't even +know how to do. But even the experts who might theoretically be capable +of studying the program, they can't do it while people are voting. +They'd have to do it in advance, and then how do they know that the +program they studied is the one that's running while people vote? Maybe +it's been changed.</p> + +<p>Now, if this program is proprietary, that means some company +controls it. The election authority can't even tell what that program +is doing. Well, this company then could rig the election. And there +are accusations that this was done in the US within the past ten years, +that election results were falsified this way.</p> + +<p>But what if the program is free software? That means the election +authority who owns this voting machine has control over the software in +it, so the election authority could rig the election. You can't trust +them either. You don't dare trust <em>anybody</em> in voting, and the +reason is, there's no way that the voters can verify for themselves that +their votes were correctly counted, nor that false votes were not added.</p> + +<p>In other activities of life, you can usually tell if somebody is +trying to cheat you. Consider for instance buying something from a +store. You order something, maybe you give a credit card number. If the +product doesn't come, you can complain and you can… of course if +you've got a good enough memory you'll notice if that product doesn't +come. You're not just giving total blind trust to the store, because you +can check. But in elections you can't check.</p> + +<p>I saw once a paper where someone described a theoretical system for +voting which used some sophisticated mathematics so that people could +check that their votes had been counted, even though everybody's vote +was secret, and they could also verify that false votes hadn't been +added. It was very exciting, powerful mathematics; but even if that +mathematics is correct, that doesn't mean the system would be acceptable +to use in practice, because the vulnerabilities of a real system might +be outside of that mathematics. For instance, suppose you're voting over +the Internet and suppose you're using a machine that's a zombie. It +might tell you that the vote was sent for A while actually sending a +vote for B. Who knows whether you'd ever find out? So, in practice the +only way to see if these systems work and are honest is through years, +in fact decades, of trying them and checking in other ways what +happened.</p> + +<p>I wouldn't want my country to be the pioneer in this. So, use paper +for voting. Make sure there are ballots that can be recounted.</p> + +<h4>Speaker's note, added subsequently</h4> + +<p>Remote voting by internet has an inherent social danger, that your +boss might tell you, “I want you to vote for candidate C, and do it +from the computer in my office while I watch you.” He does not need +to say out loud that you might be fired if you do not comply. This +danger is not based on a technical flaw, so it can't be fixed by +fixing the technology.</p> + + +<h3 id="sharing">The war on sharing</h3> + +<p>The next threat to our freedom in a digital society comes from the +war on sharing.</p> + +<p>One of the tremendous benefits of digital technology is that it is +easy to copy published works and share these copies with others. Sharing +is good, and with digital technology, sharing is easy. So, millions of +people share. Those who profit by having power over the distribution +of these works don't want us to share. And since they are businesses, +governments which have betrayed their people and work for the Empire of +mega-corporations try to serve those businesses, they are against their +own people, they are for the businesses, for the publishers.</p> + +<p>Well, that's not good. And with the help of these governments, +the companies have been waging <em>war</em> on sharing, and they've +proposed a series of cruel draconian measures. Why do they propose cruel +draconian measures? Because nothing less has a chance of success: when +something is good and easy, people do it, and the only way to stop them +is by being very nasty. So of course, what they propose is nasty, nasty, +and the next one is nastier. So they tried suing teenagers for hundreds +of thousands of dollars. That was pretty nasty. And they tried turning +our technology against us, Digital Restrictions Management that means, +digital handcuffs.</p> + +<p>But among the people there were clever programmers too and they found +ways to break the handcuffs. So for instance, DVDs were designed to have +encrypted movies in a secret encryption format, and the idea was that +all the programs to decrypt the video would be proprietary with digital +handcuffs. They would all be designed to restrict the users. And their +scheme worked OK for a while. But some people in Europe figured out the +encryption and they released a free program that could actually play +the video on a DVD.</p> + +<p>Well, the movie companies didn't leave it there. They went to the US +congress and bought a law making that software illegal. The United +States invented censorship of software in 1998, with the Digital +Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). So the distribution of that free +program was forbidden in the United States. Unfortunately it didn't stop +with the United States. The European Union adopted a directive, in 2003 +I believe, requiring such laws. The directive only says that commercial +distribution has to be banned, but just about every country in the +European Union has adopted a nastier law. In France, the mere possession +of a copy of that program is an offense punished by imprisonment, thanks +to Sarkozy. I believe that was done by the law DADVSI. I guess he hoped +that with an unpronounceable name, people wouldn't be able to criticize +it. [laughter]</p> + +<p>So, elections are coming. Ask the candidates in the parties: will you +repeal the DADVSI? And if not, don't support them. You mustn't give up +lost moral territory forever. You've got to fight to win it back.</p> + +<p>So, we still are fighting against digital handcuffs. The Amazon +Swindle has digital handcuffs to take away the traditional freedoms of +readers to do things such as: give a book to someone else, or lend a +book to someone else. That's a vitally important social act. That is +what builds society among people who read, lending books. Amazon doesn't +want to let people lend books freely. And then there is also selling a +book, perhaps to a used bookstore. You can't do that either.</p> + +<p>It looked for a while as if DRM had disappeared on music, but now +they're bringing it back with streaming services such as Spotify. These +services all require proprietary client software, and the reason is +so they can put digital handcuffs on the users. So, reject them! They +already showed quite openly that you can't trust them, because first +they said: “You can listen as much as you like.” And then +they said: “Oh, no! You can only listen a certain number of hours +a month.” The issue is not whether that particular change was good +or bad, just or unjust; the point is, they have the power to impose any +change in policies. So don't let them have that power. You should have +your <em>own</em> copy of any music you want to listen to.</p> + +<p>And then came the next assault on our freedom: HADOPI, basically +punishment on accusation. It was started in France but it's been +exported to many other countries. The United States now demand such +unjust policies in its free exploitation treaties. A few months ago, +Colombia adopted such a law under orders from its masters in Washington. +Of course, the ones in Washington are not the real masters, they're just +the ones who control the United States on behalf of the Empire. But +they're the ones who also dictate to Colombia on behalf of the Empire.</p> + +<p>In France, since the Constitutional Council objected to explicitly +giving people punishment without trial, they invented a kind of trial +which is not a real trial, it's just a form of a trial, so they can +<em>pretend</em> that people have a trial before they're punished. But +in other countries they don't bother with that, it's explicit punishment +on accusation only. Which means that for the sake of their war on +sharing, they're prepared to abolish the basic principles of justice. It +shows how thoroughly anti-freedom anti-justice they are. These are not +legitimate governments.</p> + +<p>And I'm sure they'll come up with more nasty ideas because they're +paid to defeat the people no matter what it takes. Now, when they do +this, they always say that it's for the sake of the artists, that they +have to “protect” the “creators.” Now those are +both propaganda terms. I am convinced that the reason they love the word +“creators” is because it is a comparison with a deity. They +want us to think of artists as super-human, and thus deserving special +privileges and power over us, which is something I disagree with.</p> + +<p>In fact though, the only artists that benefit very much from this +system are the big stars. The other artists are getting crushed into the +ground by the heels of these same companies. But they treat the stars +very well, because the stars have a lot of clout. If a star threatens to +move to another company, the company says: “Oh, we'll give you +what you want.” But for any other artist they say: “You +don't matter, we can treat you any way we like.”</p> + +<p>So the superstars have been corrupted by the millions of dollars +or euros that they get, to the point where they'll do almost +anything for more money. For instance, J. K. Rowling is a good +example. J. K. Rowling, a few years ago, went to court in Canada and +obtained an order that people who had bought her books must not read +them. She got an order telling people not to read her books!</p> + +<p>Here's what happened. A bookstore put the books on display for sale +too early, before the date they were supposed to go on sale. And people +came into the store and said: “Oh, I want that!” And they +bought it and took away their copies. And then, they discovered the +mistake, so they took the copies off of display. But Rowling wanted to +crush any circulation of any information from those books, so she went +to court, and the court ordered those people not to read the books that +they now owned.</p> + +<p>In response, I call for a total boycott of Harry Potter. But I don't +say you shouldn't read those books or watch the movies, I only say you +shouldn't buy the books or pay for the movies. [laughter] I leave it to +Rowling to tell people not to read the books. As far as I am concerned, +if you borrow the book and read it, that's OK. [laughter] Just don't +give her any money! But this happened with paper books. The court could +make this order but it couldn't get the books back from the people who +had bought them. Imagine if they were ebooks. Imagine if they were +ebooks on the Swindle. Amazon could send commands to erase them.</p> + +<p>So, I don't have much respect for stars who will go to such lengths +for more money. But most artists aren't like that, they never got +enough money to be corrupted. Because the current system of copyright +supports most artists very badly. And so, when these companies demand to +expand the war on sharing, supposedly for the sake of the artists, I'm +against what they want but I would like to support the artists better. I +appreciate their work and I realize if we want them to do more work we +should support them.</p> + +<h3 id="arts">Supporting the arts</h3> + +<p>I have two proposals for how to support artists, methods that are +compatible with sharing, that would allow us to end the war on sharing +and still support artists.</p> + +<p>One method uses tax money. We get a certain amount of public funds to +distribute among artists. But, how much should each artist get? Well, +we have to measure popularity. You see, the current system supposedly +supports artists based on their popularity. So I'm saying: let's keep +that, let's continue in this system to support them based on their +popularity. We can measure the popularity of all the artists with some +kind of polling or sampling, so that we don't have to do surveillance. +We can respect people's anonymity.</p> + +<p>OK, we get a raw popularity figure for each artist, how do we convert +that into an amount of money? Well, the obvious way is: distribute +the money in proportion to popularity. So if A is a thousand times as +popular as B, A will get a thousand times as much money as B. That's not +efficient distribution of the money. It's not putting the money to good +use. You see, it's easy for a star A to be a thousand times as popular +as a fairly successful artist B. And if we use linear proportion, we'll +give A a thousand times as much money as we give B. And that means that, +either we have to make A tremendously rich, or we are not supporting +B enough.</p> + +<p>Well, the money we use to make A tremendously rich is failing to do +an effective job of supporting the arts; so, it's inefficient. Therefore +I say: let's use the cube root. Cube root looks sort of like this. The +point is: if A is a thousand times as popular as B, with the cube root A +will get ten times as much as B, not a thousand times as much, just ten +times as much. So the use of the cube root shifts a lot of the money +from the stars to the artists of moderate popularity. And that means, +with less money we can adequately support a much larger number of +artists.</p> + +<p>There are two reasons why this system would use less money than we +pay now. First of all because it would be supporting artists but not +companies, second because it would shift the money from the stars to the +artists of moderate popularity. Now, it would remain the case that the +more popular you are, the more money you get. And so the star A would +still get more than B, but not astronomically more.</p> + +<p>That's one method, and because it won't be so much money it doesn't +matter so much how we get the money. It could be from a special tax on +Internet connectivity, it could just be some of the general budget that +gets allocated to this purpose. We won't care because it won't be so +much money, much less than we're paying now.</p> + +<p>The other method I've proposed is voluntary payments. Suppose each +player had a button you could use to send one euro. A lot of people +would send it; after all it's not that much money. I think a lot of +you might push that button every day, to give one euro to some artist +who had made a work that you liked. But nothing would demand this, you +wouldn't be required or ordered or pressured to send the money; you +would do it because you felt like it. But there are some people who +wouldn't do it because they're poor and they can't afford to give one +euro. And it's good that they won't give it, we don't have to squeeze +money out of poor people to support the artists. There are enough +non-poor people who'll be happy to do it. Why wouldn't you give one euro +to some artists today, if you appreciated their work? It's too +inconvenient to give it to them. So my proposal is to remove the +inconvenience. If the only reason not to give that euro is you would +have one euro less, you would do it fairly often.</p> + +<p>So these are my two proposals for how to support artists, while +encouraging sharing because sharing is good. Let's put an end to the +war on sharing, laws like DADVSI and HADOPI, it's not just the methods +that they propose that are evil, their purpose is evil. That's why they +propose cruel and draconian measures. They're trying to do something +that's nasty by nature. So let's support artists in other ways.</p> + +<h3 id="rights">Rights in cyberspace</h3> + +<p>The last threat to our freedom in digital society is the fact that we +don't have a firm right to do the things we do, in cyberspace. In the +physical world, if you have certain views and you want to give people +copies of a text that defends those views, you're free to do so. You +could even buy a printer to print them, and you're free to hand them out +on the street, or you're free to rent a store and hand them out there. +If you want to collect money to support your cause, you can just have +a can and people could put money into the can. You don't need to get +somebody else's approval or cooperation to do these things.</p> + +<p>But, in the Internet, you <em>do</em> need that. For instance if want +to distribute a text on the Internet, you need companies to help you +do it. You can't do it by yourself. So if you want to have a website, +you need the support of an ISP or a hosting company, and you need a +domain name registrar. You need them to continue to let you do what +you're doing. So you're doing it effectively on sufferance, not by +right.</p> + +<p>And if you want to receive money, you can't just hold out a can. You +need the cooperation of a payment company. And we saw that this makes +all of our digital activities vulnerable to suppression. We learned this +when the United States government launched a “distributed denial +of service attack” (DDoS) against WikiLeaks. Now I'm making a +bit of joke because the words “distributed denial of service +attack” usually refer to a different kind of attack. But they +fit perfectly with what the United States did. The United States went +to the various kinds of network services that WikiLeaks depended on, +and told them to cut off service to WikiLeaks. And they did!</p> + +<p>For instance, WikiLeaks had rented a virtual Amazon server, and the +US government told Amazon: “Cut off service for WikiLeaks.” +And it did, arbitrarily. And then, Amazon had certain domain names such +as wikileaks.org. The US government tried to get all those domains shut +off. But it didn't succeed, some of them were outside its control and +were not shut off.</p> + +<p>Then, there were the payment companies. The US went to PayPal and +said: “Stop transferring money to WikiLeaks or we'll make life +difficult for you.” And PayPal shut off payments to WikiLeaks. And +then it went to Visa and Mastercard and got them to shut off payments +to WikiLeaks. Others started collecting money on WikiLeaks' behalf and +their accounts were shut off too. But in this case, maybe something can +be done. There's a company in Iceland which began collecting money on +behalf of WikiLeaks, and so Visa and Mastercard shut off its account; +it couldn't receive money from its customers either. And now, that +business is suing Visa and Mastercard apparently, under European Union +law, because Visa and Mastercard together have a near-monopoly. They're +not allowed to arbitrarily deny service to anyone.</p> + +<p>Well, this is an example of how things need to be for all kinds of +services that we use in the Internet. If you rented a store to hand +out statements of what you think, or any other kind of information +that you can lawfully distribute, the landlord couldn't kick you out +just because he didn't like what you were saying. As long as you keep +paying the rent, you have a right to continue in that store for a +certain agreed-on period of time that you signed. So you have some +rights that you can enforce. And they couldn't shut off your telephone +line because the phone company doesn't like what you said, or because +some powerful entity didn't like what you said and threatened the phone +company. No! As long as you pay the bills and obey certain basic rules, +they can't shut off your phone line. This is what it's like to have some +rights!</p> + +<p>Well, if we move our activities from the physical world to the +virtual world, then either we have the same rights in the virtual world, +or we have been harmed. So, the precarity of all our Internet activities +is the last of the menaces I wanted to mention.</p> + +<p>Now I'd like to say that for more information about free software, +look at gnu.org. Also look at fsf.org, which is the website of the Free +Software Foundation. You can go there and find many ways you can help +us, for instance. You can also become a member of the Free Software +Foundation through that site. […] There is also the Free Software +Foundation of Europe fsfe.org. You can join FSF Europe also. […]</p> + +<div class="column-limit"></div> +<h3 id="footnotes" style="font-size: 1.2em">Footnotes</h3> + +<ol> + <li id="f1">As of 2017 the patents on playing MP3 files have + reportedly expired.</li> +</ol> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. +There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> +the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent +to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +of this article.</p> +</div> + +<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to + files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should + be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this + without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. + Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the + document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the + document was modified, or published. + + If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. + Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying + years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable + year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including + being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). + + There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers + Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> + +<p>Copyright © 2011, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 Richard Stallman</p> + +<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" +href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2020/10/06 08:25:53 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> +</body> +</html> |