From 1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Grothoff Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 13:29:45 +0200 Subject: add i18n FSFS --- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_37.html | 286 ------------------------ 1 file changed, 286 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_37.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_37.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_37.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_37.html deleted file mode 100644 index 7e12f59..0000000 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_37.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,286 +0,0 @@ - - - - - -

- 37. The Problem Is Software Controlled by Its Developer -

- - -

- 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. -

- - - - -

- 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. -

- - -

- 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. -

- - - - - - -

- 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 - - - KaZaA, RealPlayer, Adobe Flash, - - - Windows Media Player, -Microsoft - - - Windows, and MacOS. - - - - - 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. -

-

- But restricted computers are no help, because they present the -same problem for the same reason. -

-

- 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 - - - Vista. The - - - - - TiVo is -designed to enforce restrictions on access to the recordings you make, -and reports what you watch. - - - E-book readers such as the - - - Amazon - - - “Swindle” are designed to stop you from sharing and lending your -books. Features that artificially obstruct use of your data are known - - - - - as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM); our protest campaign against -DRM is hosted at - - - - http://defectivebydesign.org - - . (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.) -

-

- The nastiest of the common restricted devices are - - - 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 - - - FBI is already taking advantage of this -feature, and the - - - 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. -

-

- With a general computer you can escape by rejecting such programs. You -don’t have to have KaZaA, RealPlayer, Adobe Flash, - - - Windows Media -Player, Microsoft Windows or - - - MacOS on your computer (I don’t). By -contrast, a restricted computer gives you no escape from the software -built into it. - - - - - - -

- - -

- 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. -

- - - - -

- 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. -

- - -

- 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. -

- - -

- Many people do acquire restricted devices, but not for motives of -security. Why do people choose them? -

-

- 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. -

-

- Now they are becoming less restricted. In fact, the - - - OpenMoko cell -phone features a main computer running entirely free/libre software, -including the GNU/Linux operating system normally used on PCs and -servers. -

- - -

- 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, - - - 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. - - -

-

- 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. - - - - -

- - -

- Postnote -

- - -

- 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. -

-

- 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 - - http://www.endsoftpatents.org - - .) - - -

-
- -- cgit v1.2.3