Civil War General-Purpose Computing | Cory Doctorow | Talks at Google

> are you okay with me being able to spend two weeks on the dark-web researching how to make and detonate a bomb using totally innocent chemical purchases, and then your spouse, parents, relatives, or you, being an innocent victim of my exploding the results, or would you want me to be stopped at some point after I started doing that? Yes, of course. Just as I am okay with people being able to spend ten minutes to take a knife from the kitchen and kill me. People are able to do all kinds of bad stuff, doesn't mean they actually do. The only alternative to a world where people are able to do bad stuff is totalitarianism, which is itself bad stuff (if only because I don't get to say what is considered good and what is considered bad), so not actually a solution either. Also, what you seem to think is just a logical impossibility. Either your communication can be read by third parties or it can not. You cannot build crypto that only leaks nuclear bomb plans, but keeps your medical information uncrackable. And you might be interested in some of Cory Doctorow's talks (or blog articles or maybe even books) on the general topic of "the war against general-purpose computing", like maybe one of these: [this video] [link]

> How does the arbitrariness of those technological restrictions differ from the arbitrariness of the legal restrictions which I'm sure the author would insist upon, should you decide to republish their work? One of those is decided by a democratic process, the other is dictated by one party. > but that is a problem of execution, not one of concept. Actually, it is a problem of the concept. It is asking for computers to be robbed of their defining characteristic, and to be put under dictatorial control. See also Cory Doctorow's talks on the topic, like maybe this one: [this video] (he gave this and similar talks in many places, you can find quite a few of them on youtube, I have no clue whether this particular one is good)

> Really? We're there now? It's become Apple's "responsibility" to police every last corner of iOS? I find it disgusting, but really Apple is the only one to blame for that when they started aggressively policing and removing apps, and then marketing to customers based on that. I've heard people on HN state ad nauseam that they love that Apple does this, and that it's one of the reasons they live in the Apple ecosystem. They want to be protected from running apps that might do something objectionable (according to Apple's standard), and are absolutely willing to trade their freedom for some security. I obviously don't agree with this at all (I refer you to Cory Doctorow's War on General Purpose Computing: [this video] ) but it is a position I can understand.

People have warned that this will happen eventually, but I don't think that many believed it. We're witnessing the first real steps towards making pre-crime recognition a reality in the country. Good bye "innocent until proven guilty". Cory Doctorow has said in his "war against general computation" talk [1] that it's becoming cheaper and easier for authorities to just monitor everyone and store information about everyone, and then use algorithms to catch them, than focusing on who they they need to catch and following just that one. Now it's up to the people to stop this from becoming legal or from being done even illegally, not just in US, but in all countries, as I'm sure many others will try doing it, too. The ironic part is that the developed "democratic" countries may be the first to do it, because they are more advanced technologically. [1] [this video]

From the article: "(Some people would argue that even property as such is a governmentally-sanctioned private monopoly, in order to downplay the fact that the copyright monopoly stands in opposition to property rights, but that would not be what we mean by "property" and "monopoly" as concepts. If I own an umbrella, I control that umbrella. If I have a monopoly on umbrellas, I get to control everybody else's umbrella too, and get to call on the government to have that enforced.)" I believe the above was meant to addresses your specific form of criticism. I've said it before, and I'll say it again... "imaginary property" != "real property" importanceof("real property") > importanceof("imaginary property") I believe my right to exist stems from my "inalienable property right" to my own body. I can move it left and right and up and down. If someone were to try to take that away from me, I'd be pretty upset and I'd do more than write my representative. Whereas, the basic idea of copyright is to encourage sharing of ideas - it doesn't actually have a basis as an inalienable or "moral right." In order to encourage sharing ideas, societies have been allowing the encroachment of imaginary property rights (a euphemism for the independent traditions of copyright, patents, and trademaks) on tangible and even inalienable property rights (making it uncomfortable to say the least). The Internet, however, has shaken even that basic premise: the Internet is full of creativity (not just copyr

[comments don't always parse as intended, so let me first say that I mean this in the very best way possible, and intend to find ways to support Lessing and everybody else fighting corruption] This may be the most powerful talk I've ever seen. Mr. Lessig has alway given a very interesting (and entertaining) talk. There have been some good talks recently, such as some of the 30c3 talks and Doctorow's caution for the future[1] a year earlier. There are, believe, there's two reasons this talk is so effective. First, Mr. Lessig gave such a clear and simple goal. This prevents the problem from being immediately interpreted as one of those "big problems" that never get solved. It doesn't even matter if campaign finance really is the "root" of the problem. It's still worthwhile, and even a small success has got to a lest help some when fighting for other causes in the future. When dealing with other difficult situations such as addiction or depression, a common suggestion is to make small goals first, that are actually attainable, because trying to solve everything at once often ends up conditioning for apathy over the "impossible task". Those voting numbers shown at the end, however, suggests some victories are easily within reach. That said... I believe the key reason this talk was so powerful is that Mr. Lessig called on one of the original ways of rallying people to the cause. It works because it's a reminder that people matter, and some things cannot wait until later... ...beca

> When someone sell property, the seller should not have a right to exercise powers that are exclusively to the new owner. Sorry to say, but it is already the case of many computing devices: [this video] If you buy an iPhone, what exactly do you own? I hope this stuff gets cleared up, of course. Would be nice to run some free software on any computing device you own. > DRM is the technical method to remain in control over property after sale, where contract would be the legal method when renting out property. I agree at least the "owner" should be allowed to boot alternative SW, but it means DRM for digital assets will not be functional (you could dual boot..), as well as some silicon, I imagine. > In open DRM, how and whose digital rights are being managed by said technology? If I lock down my laptops boot loader, is the laptop the digital right that I am "managing" with said security No. I mean SW or digital assets (or digital titles to physical assets). Open DRM would be one in which anyone that has some SW/digital asset they wish to use DRM to control the usage of is capable of doing so. Whether or not the gatekeepers will allow it remains to be seen. The effect of p2p DRM on society would be hard to predict.

This offensive, paternalistic attitude towards users needs to stop. You do not get to decide these things for end users. > It's unfair to expect most users to be able to protect themselves. Correct. Problems in this area are the fault of the vendor, not the user , for producing shoddy software, not caring enough about security, and/or not going far enough to educate the user about important thins they do need to understand. None of this requires stealing user data (or "telemetry"), nor does it require taking agency away from the user. Your "solution" is to take away the General Purpose Computer from the user. I realize that General Purpose Computers are frightening when in the hands of people who might make a mistake* or run some software you don't like, but that is what we call "freedom"[1]. Instead of supporting freedom, you seem determined to force centralized control on people. Do you not see how this is a major shift in power? > Therefore, as a matter of public safety, we're going to have to put safety and security rules on publicly networked computers. This is a cheap excuse to not address actual security. The negligent security practices of most businesses over the last few decades are becoming a serious problem, and as usual the guilty are trying to deflect the blame onto the people least responsible: the users. [1] [this video]

13 years ago, Cory Doctorow warned us: [this video] So basically market forces and profit optimization is at work here as always. However, if we can still unlock the boot loader and install Lineage OS or something like that and have a way to pay for developers to release their apps on stores like f-droid we can use the hardware. The biggest problem with having freedom to use our devices is that the model is broken for the developers who support them. You "can donate", but from the numbers I've seen it's like 1 in 1000 donate. No pay == developers can't invest their time to improve the software. So if there is "really" a substantial number of enthusiasts that are ready to pay for the freedom they crave, then companies like Librem will have enough customers to create decent and usable products for this audience. Want digital freedom - prepare to support the people who provide it. Yes, that might mean that we'll need to have 2 devices, 1 for "banking/government services" that is "certified" and one for our own usage. Shitty but we'll be forced to do that sooner on later. The efficiencies for the government to enforce the policies is so strong that they can't helps themselves. And corporations like to have more data to squeeze every cent from the customer. So if there is a working business model for "freedom" we might have a partial freedom. If there isn't we'd be just a digital farm animals to be optimized for max profits and max compliance.