Re: [GNU/consensus] [RFC][SH] User Data Manifesto

[Frank Karlitschek]

Hi Richard and everybody,

first I would like to says that I'm honored that this topic is discussed here 
on the list. I'm involved in free software for 15 years and the FSF and GNU are 
always the biggest moral authorities in my opinion. 

Here my feedback to you feedback:


>> 
>>    1. Own the data
>>    The data that someone directly or indirectly creates belongs to the
>>    person who created it.
>> 
>> The words "own" and "belong" will give people the wrong idea.
>> Meanwhile, "data" is too general.

I'm not a native speaker so sorry I I choose the wrong words. What words do you 
suggest?


>> What if the data is program?  This seems to say that the program
>> should gave an owner -- and we are against that.

Sure. This documents is targeting every data that is not a program. I think 
freedom in programs are perfectly covered by the FSF principals and the GNU 
licenses.
This is about holiday pictures, microblogging messages, blog posts, personal 
documents, emails and so on.


>> 
>>    2. Know where the data is stored
>>    Everybody should be able to know: where their personal data is
>>    physically stored, how long, on which server, in what country, and what
>>    laws apply.
>> 
>>    3. Choose the storage location
>>    Everybody should always be able to migrate their personal data to a
>>    different provider, server or their own machine at any time without
>>    being locked in to a specific vendor.
>> 
>> I guess so, but in the long term, this is aiming low.  The real goal
>> should be that everyone has a server and keeps her data there.

Yes. It would be the perfect solution if every user would have a personal 
server. But in the midterm this is not realistic so people store their data on 
server that are owned and run by other people. And this is not necessary a 
problem if the principals of this document are respected. Data is encrypted, 
can be migrated, ...


>> 
>>    5. Choose the conditions
>>    If someone chooses to share their own data, then the owner of the data
>>    selects the sharing license and conditions.
>> 
>> "Owner of the data" has the same problems as in the first item.
>> 
>>    6. Invulnerability of data
>>    Everybody should be able to protect their own data against surveillance
>>    and to federate their own data for backups to prevent data loss or for
>>    any other reason.
>> 
>> "Invulnerability" is too strong.  Nobody can achieve that.

Yes. You are right. This is impossible to achieve. The idea is that this is a 
principal where we should aim for but propbalby can't be reached. Do you know 
what I mean?


>> 
>>    7. Use it optimally
>>    Everybody should be able to access and use their own data at all times
>>    with any device they choose and in the most convenient and easiest way
>>    for them.
>> 
>> This is a demand for perfect convenience.  I suspect it is impossible;
>> more importantly, it is a distraction, since it is not an ethical issue.
>> Mere convenience issues should not be elevated to the same status
>> as ethical issues.


Good point. I added this point because perfect protection can be reached if you 
put you data on a DVD and put it into a safe. The problem is that it can't be 
used in an effective way anymore. So i thought that it is important to say that 
the data should stay usable.
But you are right of course that this is not an ethical value comparable with 
the others points.



>> 
>>    8. Server software transparency
>>    Server software should be free and open source software so that the
>>    source code of the software can be inspected to confirm that it works as
>>    specified.
>> 
>> Please don't use the term "open source" here.  This is part of the
>> free software movement.  "Open source" is the slogan of people who
>> disagree with our ethical ideals.

I'm sorry. My mistake. I will change this to free software.


Do you like the general direction of this document?

It would be awesome to promote this together with the FSF or make it a FSF 
project if you are interested.
What do you think?


Frank




On 01.01.2013, at 06:04, hellekin (GNU Consensus) <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 12/31/2012 11:05 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
>> Hold your horses!
>> 
> *** Christian, Richard, I really appreciate working with you both. That
> is a real challenge sometimes to match your vision-logic, and I learn a
> lot along the path. I'm really glad.
> 
> I invited Frank Karlitschek, the author of this manifesto, to join the
> list. I hope he will do it and reflect on your comments. I will review
> them after a good night of sleep.
> 
> Happy GNU year!
> 
> ==
> hk
> 
> P.S.: Frank, Christian Grothoff made other comments, available in the
> GNU/consensus list archive.
> 
>>    1. Own the data
>>    The data that someone directly or indirectly creates belongs to the
>>    person who created it.
>> 
>> The words "own" and "belong" will give people the wrong idea.
>> Meanwhile, "data" is too general.
>> 
>> What if the data is program?  This seems to say that the program
>> should gave an owner -- and we are against that.
>> 
>>    2. Know where the data is stored
>>    Everybody should be able to know: where their personal data is
>>    physically stored, how long, on which server, in what country, and what
>>    laws apply.
>> 
>>    3. Choose the storage location
>>    Everybody should always be able to migrate their personal data to a
>>    different provider, server or their own machine at any time without
>>    being locked in to a specific vendor.
>> 
>> I guess so, but in the long term, this is aiming low.  The real goal
>> should be that everyone has a server and keeps her data there.
>> 
>>    5. Choose the conditions
>>    If someone chooses to share their own data, then the owner of the data
>>    selects the sharing license and conditions.
>> 
>> "Owner of the data" has the same problems as in the first item.
>> 
>>    6. Invulnerability of data
>>    Everybody should be able to protect their own data against surveillance
>>    and to federate their own data for backups to prevent data loss or for
>>    any other reason.
>> 
>> "Invulnerability" is too strong.  Nobody can achieve that.
>> 
>>    7. Use it optimally
>>    Everybody should be able to access and use their own data at all times
>>    with any device they choose and in the most convenient and easiest way
>>    for them.
>> 
>> This is a demand for perfect convenience.  I suspect it is impossible;
>> more importantly, it is a distraction, since it is not an ethical issue.
>> Mere convenience issues should not be elevated to the same status
>> as ethical issues.
>> 
>>    8. Server software transparency
>>    Server software should be free and open source software so that the
>>    source code of the software can be inspected to confirm that it works as
>>    specified.
>> 
>> Please don't use the term "open source" here.  This is part of the
>> free software movement.  "Open source" is the slogan of people who
>> disagree with our ethical ideals.
>> 
> 
>