Posted by
chrisd
on from the taking-your-toys-apart-to-see-how-they-work dept.
shaikeiro writes "A fine
article in the Economist about Ed Felten and what he is up to now. Also a good summary of what "freedom to tinker" means. From the article: "Thus, the freedom to tinker ends up being about the freedom of culture."" Are you a member of the EFF yet?
Thought this seemed familiar, I read it nearly three months ago in the print edition.
Still, he makes some very good points. Have a look at the news story below to read about the 5-year jailterm Champion Of The People Fritz 'they named an evil chip after me' Hollings and others are trying to get you if you dare to tinker. How do people who work against the interests of the people who elected them so continue to get elected?
ALERT: EFF Holds 2nd Annual Music Share-In
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
ALERT: EFF Holds 2nd Annual Music Share-In. Party for the Future of Music!
Saturday, September 14th from noon - 5pm, at Golden Gate Park's Music Concourse Bandshell Join the EFF, five Bay Area bands, stiltwalkers, unicyclists, jugglers and other performers for an afternoon of live music and outdoor fun at EFF's second annual Share In.
Surprisingly enough, the EFF.org website has been blacklisted from my Company's firewall. This is a public administration which has *no* interest in preventing Free speech.
They use some (Open Source) Squid-based server to proxy us, so, my question (this is indeed a question, NOT a troll) is What's on eff.org that would bother a Swiss administration's proxy ?
pr0n ?
violence ?
extreme-right opinions ?
The above suggestions correspond to the server's black-listing criteria...
-- Trolling using another account since 2005.
<free culture>
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Over the past three years, Lessig has given more than 100 talks like the one captured here:randomfoo
Freedom to Tinker talk @ Usenix
by
eludom
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Felton gave a version of this talk at the recent USENIX Security Symposium.
A few quotes/outline:
"The freedom to tinker is the freedom to understand, discuss, repair, and modify technological devices that you own."
Major points we (techies) need to communicate more clearly
1. Tinkering is socially important 2. Tinkering is economically efficient 3. Tinkering doesn't conflict with "Intellectual Property."
And of course "the DMCA should be repealed."
More complete summary to appear in the upcoming security issue of;login:
I was impressed with Felton's use of the word "tinker" when in the/. community, such activity would clearly be known as "hacking." It has the same meaning, but not the same negative connotation to the mainstream. This way he still manages to get the point across without distorting the original intent. If you go through the article and replace the word "tinker" with the word "hack," it doesn't alter the meaning of the article at all. And clearly The Economist is on the "tinkerers" side in going along with the change in terminology.
-- "No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
publishing and secrets
by
solferino
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Oh, you want to publish something to some but keep it secret to others who haven't paid? You want to tell someone a secret but you want to guarantee, beforehand, that he cannot possibly tell another?
i like how you link publishing / not publishing to asking someone to keep a 'secret'.
in my personal life i have recently realised that it is wrong to tell someone something and ask them to keep it a secret, or to ask them to keep the information hidden from certain other ppl - it is entirely their perogative once they have received that information as to what to do with it. if you want to keep some information unknown then the only way to do that is to tell nobody - if you tell even one person then you should accept that potentially the whole world can know, and that there are no grounds for you to be upset if this happens as you are the person who originally released the information
this situation is exactly the same with publishing - once you release something to the world by publishing it, then potentially the whole world now has accesss to it and it is morally wrong for you to try to limit the access.
perhaps it is ok for you to request acknowledgement for the work, but it is not ok to try to create artificial barriers (society based laws) to force 'payment' for your work. ppl who license their software under the gpl accept this. i see no difference for 'creative' artists
the only right you have to control access to your 'creative' work is the right to not release or publish it in the first place - either everyone has access to it or no-one does. any concerns for 'payment' are entirely subservient to the moral right of free information transmission
Slashdot Mirror
Thought this seemed familiar, I read it nearly three months ago in the print edition.
t op
Still, he makes some very good points. Have a look at the news story below to read about the 5-year jailterm Champion Of The People Fritz 'they named an evil chip after me' Hollings and others are trying to get you if you dare to tinker. How do people who work against the interests of the people who elected them so continue to get elected?
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-956811.html?tag=fd_
ALERT: EFF Holds 2nd Annual Music Share-In. Party for the Future of Music!
Saturday, September 14th from noon - 5pm, at Golden Gate Park's Music Concourse Bandshell Join the EFF, five Bay Area bands, stiltwalkers, unicyclists, jugglers and other performers for an afternoon of live music and outdoor fun at EFF's second annual Share In.
This is a public administration which has *no* interest in preventing Free speech.
They use some (Open Source) Squid-based server to proxy us, so, my question (this is indeed a question, NOT a troll) is What's on eff.org that would bother a Swiss administration's proxy ?
The above suggestions correspond to the server's black-listing criteria...
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Over the past three years, Lessig has given more than 100 talks like the one captured here:randomfoo
Felton gave a version of this talk at the recent
;login:
USENIX Security Symposium.
A few quotes/outline:
"The freedom to tinker is the freedom to understand, discuss, repair, and modify technological devices that you own."
Major points we (techies) need to communicate
more clearly
1. Tinkering is socially important
2. Tinkering is economically efficient
3. Tinkering doesn't conflict with "Intellectual Property."
And of course "the DMCA should be repealed."
More complete summary to appear in the upcoming
security issue of
I was impressed with Felton's use of the word "tinker" when in the /. community, such activity would clearly be known as "hacking." It has the same meaning, but not the same negative connotation to the mainstream. This way he still manages to get the point across without distorting the original intent. If you go through the article and replace the word "tinker" with the word "hack," it doesn't alter the meaning of the article at all. And clearly The Economist is on the "tinkerers" side in going along with the change in terminology.
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
i like how you link publishing / not publishing to asking someone to keep a 'secret'.
in my personal life i have recently realised that it is wrong to tell someone something and ask them to keep it a secret, or to ask them to keep the information hidden from certain other ppl - it is entirely their perogative once they have received that information as to what to do with it. if you want to keep some information unknown then the only way to do that is to tell nobody - if you tell even one person then you should accept that potentially the whole world can know, and that there are no grounds for you to be upset if this happens as you are the person who originally released the information
this situation is exactly the same with publishing - once you release something to the world by publishing it, then potentially the whole world now has accesss to it and it is morally wrong for you to try to limit the access.
perhaps it is ok for you to request acknowledgement for the work, but it is not ok to try to create artificial barriers (society based laws) to force 'payment' for your work. ppl who license their software under the gpl accept this. i see no difference for 'creative' artists
the only right you have to control access to your 'creative' work is the right to not release or publish it in the first place - either everyone has access to it or no-one does. any concerns for 'payment' are entirely subservient to the moral right of free information transmission