summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_37.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_37.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_37.html286
1 files changed, 286 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_37.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_37.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7e12f59
--- /dev/null
+++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_37.html
@@ -0,0 +1,286 @@
+<!-- This is the second edition of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman.
+
+Free Software Foundation
+
+51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
+
+Boston, MA 02110-1335
+Copyright C 2002, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire book are permitted
+worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is
+preserved. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations
+of this book from the original English into another language provided
+the translation has been approved by the Free Software Foundation and
+the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all
+copies.
+
+ISBN 978-0-9831592-0-9
+Cover design by Rob Myers.
+
+Cover photograph by Peter Hinely.
+ -->
+
+
+ <a name="The-Problem-Is-Software-Controlled-by-Its-Developer">
+ </a>
+ <h1 class="chapter">
+ 37. The Problem Is Software Controlled by Its Developer
+ </h1>
+ <a name="index-Zittrain_002c-Jonathan">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ I fully agree with Jonathan Zittrain’s conclusion that we should not
+abandon general-purpose computers. Alas, I disagree completely with
+the path that led him to it. He presents serious security problems as
+an intolerable crisis, but I’m not convinced. Then he forecasts that
+users will panic in response and stampede toward restricted computers
+(which he calls “appliances”), but there is no sign of this happening.
+ </p>
+ <a name="index-zombie-machines">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-phishing">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ Zombie machines are a problem, but not a catastrophe. Moreover, far
+from panicking, most users ignore the issue. Today, people are indeed
+concerned about the danger of phishing (mail and web pages that
+solicit personal information for fraud), but using a browsing-only
+device instead of a general computer won’t protect you from that.
+ </p>
+ <a name="index-Apple_002c-iPhone-_0028see-also-cell-phones_0029">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ Meanwhile, Apple has reported that 25 percent of iPhones have been
+unlocked. Surely at least as many users would have preferred an
+unlocked iPhone but were afraid to try a forbidden recipe to obtain
+it. This refutes the idea that users generally prefer that their
+devices be locked.
+ </p>
+ <a name="index-RealPlayer-_0028see-also-DRM_0029-1">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-Adobe-Flash">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-proprietary-software_002c-spying-on-users-1">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ It is true that a general computer lets you run programs designed to
+spy on you, restrict you, or even let the developer attack you. Such
+programs include
+ <a name="index-KaZaA-_0028see-also-both-DRM-and-treacherous-computing_0029-1">
+ </a>
+ KaZaA, RealPlayer, Adobe Flash,
+ <a name="index-Windows-Media-Player-_0028see-also-both-DRM-and-treacherous-computing_0029-2">
+ </a>
+ Windows Media Player,
+Microsoft
+ <a name="index-Windows-4">
+ </a>
+ Windows, and MacOS.
+ <a name="index-Windows_002c-Vista-1">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-Vista_002c-Windows-_0028see-also-both-Windows-and-DRM_0029-1">
+ </a>
+ Windows Vista does all three of those
+things; it also lets Microsoft change the software without asking, or
+command it to permanently cease normal functioning.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ But restricted computers are no help, because they present the
+same problem for the same reason.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ The iPhone is designed for remote attack by Apple. When Apple remotely
+destroys iPhones that users have unlocked to enable other uses, that
+is no better than when Microsoft remotely sabotages
+ <a name="index-Vista_002c-Windows-_0028see-also-both-Windows-and-DRM_0029-2">
+ </a>
+ Vista. The
+ <a name="index-TiVo-_0028see-also-tivoization_0029">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-tivoization-5">
+ </a>
+ TiVo is
+designed to enforce restrictions on access to the recordings you make,
+and reports what you watch.
+ <a name="index-e_002dbooks-4">
+ </a>
+ E-book readers such as the
+ <a name="index-Amazon-2">
+ </a>
+ Amazon
+ <a name="index-Swindle-2">
+ </a>
+ “Swindle” are designed to stop you from sharing and lending your
+books. Features that artificially obstruct use of your data are known
+ <a name="index-DRM_002c-call-it-_0060_0060Digital-Restrictions-Management_0027_0027-5">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-_0060_0060Digital-Rights-Management_002c_0027_0027-avoid-use-of-term-_0028see-also-DRM_0029-1">
+ </a>
+ as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM); our protest campaign against
+DRM is hosted at
+ <a name="index-Defective-by-Design-_0028see-also-DRM_0029-4">
+ </a>
+ <a href="http://defectivebydesign.org">
+ http://defectivebydesign.org
+ </a>
+ . (Our adversaries call DRM
+“Digital Rights Management” based on their idea that restricting you
+is their right. When you choose a term, you choose your side.)
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ The nastiest of the common restricted devices are
+ <a name="index-cell-phones-_0028see-also-both-OpenMoko-and-Apple_0029">
+ </a>
+ cell phones. They
+transmit signals for tracking your whereabouts even when switched
+“off”; the only way to stop this is to take out all the
+batteries. Many can also be turned on remotely, for listening,
+unbeknownst to you. (The
+ <a name="index-FBI-1">
+ </a>
+ FBI is already taking advantage of this
+feature, and the
+ <a name="index-Commerce-Department_002c-US">
+ </a>
+ US Commerce Department lists this danger in its
+Security Guide.) Cellular phone network companies regularly install
+software in users phones, without asking, to impose new usage
+restrictions.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ With a general computer you can escape by rejecting such programs. You
+don’t have to have KaZaA, RealPlayer, Adobe Flash,
+ <a name="index-Windows-Media-Player-_0028see-also-both-DRM-and-treacherous-computing_0029-3">
+ </a>
+ Windows Media
+Player, Microsoft Windows or
+ <a name="index-MacOS-_0028see-also-DRM_0029">
+ </a>
+ MacOS on your computer (I don’t). By
+contrast, a restricted computer gives you no escape from the software
+built into it.
+ <a name="index-KaZaA-_0028see-also-both-DRM-and-treacherous-computing_0029-2">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-Adobe-Flash-1">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-RealPlayer-_0028see-also-DRM_0029-2">
+ </a>
+ </p>
+ <a name="index-development_002c-developer-control">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ The root of this problem, both in general PCs and restricted
+computers, is software controlled by its developer. The developer
+(typically a corporation) controls what the program does, and prevents
+everyone else from changing it. If the developer decides to put in
+malicious features, even a master programmer cannot easily remove
+them.
+ </p>
+ <a name="index-users_002c-benefit-to-4">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-insist-on-free-software">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ The remedy is to give the users more control, not less. We must insist
+on free/libre software, software that the users are free to change and
+redistribute. Free/libre software develops under the control of its
+users: if they don’t like its features, for whatever reason, they can
+change them. If you’re not a programmer, you still get the benefit of
+control by the users. A programmer can make the improvements you would
+like, and publish the changed version. Then you can use it too.
+ </p>
+ <a name="index-malware">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ With free/libre software, no one has the power to make a malicious
+feature stick. Since the source code is available to the users,
+millions of programmers are in a position to spot and remove the
+malicious feature and release an improved version; surely someone
+will do it. Others can then compare the two versions
+to verify independently which version treats users right. As a practical
+fact, free software is generally free of designed-in malware.
+ </p>
+ <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-price-deception">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ Many people do acquire restricted devices, but not for motives of
+security. Why do people choose them?
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ Sometimes it is because the restricted devices are physically
+smaller. I edit text all day (literally) and I find the keyboard and
+screen of a laptop well worth the size and weight. However, people who
+use computers differently may prefer something that fits in a
+pocket. In the past, these devices have typically been restricted, but
+they weren’t chosen for that reason.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ Now they are becoming less restricted. In fact, the
+ <a name="index-OpenMoko-_0028see-also-cell-phones_0029">
+ </a>
+ OpenMoko cell
+phone features a main computer running entirely free/libre software,
+including the GNU/Linux operating system normally used on PCs and
+servers.
+ </p>
+ <a name="index-games_002c-price-deception-and">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ A major cause for the purchase of some restricted computers is
+financial sleight of hand. Game consoles, and the iPhone, are sold for an
+unsustainably low price, and the manufacturers subsequently charge when you use
+them. Thus, game developers must pay the game console manufacturer to
+distribute a game, and they pass this cost on to the
+user. Likewise,
+ <a name="index-AT_0026T">
+ </a>
+ AT&amp;T pays Apple when an iPhone is used as a
+telephone. The low up-front price misleads customers into thinking
+they will save money.
+ <a name="index-Apple_002c-iPhone-_0028see-also-cell-phones_0029-1">
+ </a>
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ If we are concerned about the spread of restricted computers, we
+should tackle the issue of the price deception that sells them.
+If we are concerned about malware, we should insist on free
+software that gives the users control.
+ <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-price-deception-1">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-malware-1">
+ </a>
+ </p>
+ <a name="Postnote">
+ </a>
+ <h3 class="subheading">
+ Postnote
+ </h3>
+ <a name="index-development_002c-patents-2">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ Zittrain’s suggestion to reduce the statute of limitations
+on software patent lawsuits is a tiny step in the right direction, but
+it is much easier to solve the whole problem. Software patents are an
+unnecessary, artificial danger imposed on all software developers and
+users in the US. Every program is a combination of many methods and
+techniques—thousands of them in a large program. If patenting these
+methods is allowed, then hundreds of those used in a given program are
+probably patented. (Avoiding them is not feasible; there may be no
+alternatives, or the alternatives may be patented too.) So the
+developers of the program face hundreds of potential lawsuits from
+parties unknown, and the users can be sued as well.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ The complete, simple solution is to eliminate patents from the field
+of software. Since the patent system is created by statute, eliminating
+patents from software will be easy given sufficient political
+will. (See
+ <a href="http://www.endsoftpatents.org">
+ http://www.endsoftpatents.org
+ </a>
+ .)
+ <a name="index-Zittrain_002c-Jonathan-1">
+ </a>
+ </p>
+ <hr size="2"/>
+