28c3: The coming war on general computation

> the idea that users shouldn't be developers has lead to a situation in which access to development tools and information are seemingly treated as a privilege instead of a right Unfortunately, a lot of people have been starting the War On General Purpose Computing[1] for a while now. While many people saw Doctorow's first talk[1] on the War On General Purpose computing, his sequel talk[2] about the upcoming Civil -War On General Purpose Computing is one of the most important talks I've ever seen. The talk is about exactly this point: Turing completeness scares various traditional powers (and some new/upcoming powers), and their instinct is to lash out and try to mandate that someone make a computer that can't run the various programs that scare them. Not understanding what "Turing Complete" means, they end up in a cycle that tries to blacklist anything that allows these scary programs to be written and used. Hiding the dev tools is just one step on a path that - by definition - must end up with the hobbling of computing devices until they are no longer Turing complete. This problem needs to be fought right now , in a big way. The non-technical population is just starting to understand the full impact of what it means to have a General Purpose Computer, and we are only seeing the first skirmishes. The 2nd talk I mentioned above by Doctorow[2] - which I very strongly recommend that everybody watch - points out how modern concerns over "dev tools" (or "copyright") are trivial.

Cory Doctorow has a prescient talk: "The coming war on general computation" from 2011 (12 years ago) in which he argues that all general computing platforms (OS, phone OS, browser) would face challenges by governments and corporations. This looks like another way to control content distribution and put more control in Google's hands. They've made a great strategic choice in building Chrome browser and effectively superseded Microsoft and Apple on desktops as a platform. The talk can be found here: [this video] When people have means to consume or produce content without control any governmental bureaucrat will try to control this activity. History supports this argument. No printing press > no cheap books > illiterate population > easy to control what spreads as information and what do not. Printing press arrived > cheap books > growing literacy > control over the presses. Lenin's first targets were the post/telegraph (communication), bridges and railways (movement of people) and all big printing houses (Lenin's Full Collected works - vol. 32, page 282) Radio arrived > Fixed Frequencies Radio sets sold & Governmental Radio jamming stations TV > Licence to broadcast Internet > Big Firewall of China & etc... And don't even think about moving money freely as experienced by requirement to show why are you paying someone and those nice people from bank compliance departments. The cost of enforcement in digital economy is way cheaper than before. The tools are there or can be built chea

You asked a straight question - how to reduce piracy. I answered - treat customers with respect (no DRM), and many of the current pirates will become paying users. If they want to "eliminate piracy" - they can forget about it, it will never happen. They can however increase their profits by acting decently. Today they are mostly focusing on chasing pirates wasting resources on that completely in vain. They should focus on catering to legitimate users instead. And it will pay off. As proven by those who act decently and principally don't use DRM. > Because if I'm selling files for $5 with no copy protection and Joe Pirate is giving them away for $0 (but he doesn't want me to disrespect him by filing legal action against him or hurting his feeling by labeling him a pirate), tell me why people are going to give me $5 for the same thing that they could get for free? I thought this is simple. People already can get it for free by pirating it. I.e. you have such choices: 1. Sell for $5 with DRM that reduces usability by limiting platforms where this can be used and etc. etc. By using DRM the distributor also offends paying customers by default by treating them as potential criminals. Joe pirate breaks DRM, and gives this out for $0 with no DRM, which can be used anywhere. 2. Sell for $5 with no DRM. It gives wide platforms availability and shows respect to the customer. Joe pirate gives out the same thing for $0. Note, Joe pirate will give it away in either case. So what is better

What next? This [1], of course. Of all the electronic device you own that are capable of being exploited for automated surveillance, your PC or Mac is probably the only thing that is not actually being used for automated surveillance (not counting your web browsing habits, and provided you don't have any spyware on your computer). How dare you use a computing device that (hopefully) does not have any backdoors built into it, is not locked into any vendor's monthly payment plan, is not locked into any vendor's proprietary OS, and even supports "terrorist" techniques such as full-disk encryption? Fortunately for Big Brother, key hardware components of general-purpose computers are only produced by a handful of corporations such as Intel and AMD. Don't be surprised if they agree to build all sorts of defects-by-design into their processors, graphics cards, HDDs/SSDs, etc. There are already plenty of excuses: I have popcorn ready for the day when graphics cards finally implement security systems to prevent them from being used for bitcoin mining or password brute-forcing. The FSF should change their name to FCF, Free Computing Foundation. We need them badly, more than ever before. [1] Cory Doctorow, "The Coming War on General Computation", [this video]

> And if I decided to show one of them to a someone who gave me money in return, that still doesn't give anybody who didn't pay me or anyone else for that matter, any right to access that file, no matter how little "intrinsic value" it represents. Sure, this is unconditionally right if we go by the book and agree with the law. No argument here. Though, by going by the said law... The full albums, songs, movies, movie clips, whatever unauthorized there is in YouTube for example for billions of people to see every day creates a huge problem. For example here in Finland, any person listening to an unauthorized upload of an album on YouTube breaks the law. Practically a huge majority of the youth are criminals as they do this on a daily basis, and take it for granted. Obviously it is utterly senseless to go after these people for what they are doing. > If someone invented a teleport that allowed people to beam to whereever and back, that would cause a rise in theft of tangible goods all over the world. But this would not mean that because the old systems of doors and locks were now inefficient, people should not be allowed to claim ownership of property anymore. But this, of course, is a flawed analogy. A better one would be with an ability to clone material for free. Say, if we were able to build a car, and then clone it for free for everyone. Why wouldn't we? For many goods we could just come up with better and better ones again and again, and people would immediately clone the

This is an interesting article. It made me think of the socio-political consequences of the move towards neural networks. Many of us, children of the personal computer revolution, were attracted to computers for its empowering and democratizing effects. Just with a computer you could build anything! You are as powerful as any of "them"! The proprietary software model was developed to monetize end consumers by enchaining them, but the free software model and the fertile communities of the early Internet showed that the model of personal computation could not simply be displaced by legalese. But if we take the author's position on the impact of deep networks, the model of computation is changing again. If teaching deep networks is the new way to write useful programs, our brains and personal computers are not enough... they are obsolete. We now need clusters and, most importantly, massive access to data! This gives extraordinary leverage to the hoarders of data and servers of the Internet, the googles and the facebooks. I'd like to think that maybe we are just at the beginning, the early "mainframe neural networks" era. That we just have to wait until there is enough technology and new markets discovered to build the "personal neural network". That consensual, open and distributed ways of sharing data will emerge and that new massively parallel computers will become affordable by the masses. That the models of neural networks will become well divulged and simplified and kids wi