www/philosophy the-root-of-this-problem.html

[Jeanne Rasata]

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Jeanne Rasata <jrasata> 10/10/12 12:22:43

Modified files:
        philosophy     : the-root-of-this-problem.html 

Log message:
        updated article to reflect RMS 2010 updates

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/the-root-of-this-problem.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.5&r2=1.6

Patches:
Index: the-root-of-this-problem.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/the-root-of-this-problem.html,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -b -r1.5 -r1.6
--- the-root-of-this-problem.html       11 Oct 2010 22:59:58 -0000      1.5
+++ the-root-of-this-problem.html       12 Oct 2010 12:22:37 -0000      1.6
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
 <meta name="DC.title" content="gnu.org" />
 
 
-<title>The Root of This Problem is Software Controlled By Its Developer
+<title>The Problem Is Software Controlled By Its Developer
 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
 <!-- start of banner.html -->
 <!-- start of head-include-2.html -->
@@ -88,73 +88,159 @@
 <div id="content" class="inner">
 <!-- end of banner.html -->
 
-<h2>The Root of This Problem is Software Controlled By its Developer</h2>
+<h2>The Problem Is Software Controlled By Its Developer</h2>
 
 <p>by Richard Stallman</p>
 
 <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 there. 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>
-
-<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>
-
-<p>
-Meanwhile, Apple reported that 25% 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>
-
-<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 
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.</p>
-
-<p>
-But restricted computers are no help, because they have 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 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 DRM, or Digital Restrictions Management (our adversaries 
call DRM “Digital Rights Management,” based on their idea that restricting 
you is their right—choose a term and choose your side); our protest campaign 
against DRM is hosted at DefectiveByDesign.org.</p>
-
-<p>
-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, without telling you. (The FBI has done so already, and 
the U.S. 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, 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.</p>
-
-<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>
-
-<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>
-
-<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; someone will surely do so. Others can independently compare 
the two versions to assure you which version treats you right. As a practical 
fact, free software is generally devoid of designed-in malware.</p>
-
-<p>
-Many people do obtain 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 literally all day, 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 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>
-
-<p>
-A major motive for purchasing some restricted computers is financial sleight 
of hand. Game consoles, and the iPhone, are sold for an unsustainably low 
price, and the manufacturers then 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.</p>
-
-<p>
-If we are concerned about the spread of restricted computers, we should tackle 
the price deception that sells them. If we are concerned with malware, we 
should insist on free software that gives the users control.</p>
-
-<p>
-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.</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 political will. See endsotfpatents.org.</p>
-
-<p>
-Right now, companies that distribute the free/libre anti-virus package ClamAV 
are being sued for patent infringement by Trend Micro. Many of our networks are 
protected from viruses by ClamAV. Don’t tolerate such aggression—boycott 
Trend Micro and any company that uses patents to attack software developers and 
users. </p>
-
-<hr />
-<h5>This essay is published
-in <a href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/";><cit=
-e>Free
-Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
-M. Stallman</cite></a></h5>
+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>
+
+<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>
+
+<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>
+
+<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 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.</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 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 <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 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.</p>
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<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>
+
+<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>
+
+<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>
+
+<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 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>
+
+<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, 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.</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.</p>
+
+<h3>Postnote</h3>
+
+<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>}.)</p>
 
 <!-- If needed, change the copyright block at the bottom. In general,
      all pages on the GNU web server should have the section about
@@ -353,7 +439,7 @@
 
 <p>Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2010/10/11 22:59:58 $
+$Date: 2010/10/12 12:22:37 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>