diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_37.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_37.html | 286 |
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&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"/> + |