+1 on Snowden for exposing the NSA. The leaks have had very important implications for democracies around the world and have ignited debate on mass surveillance.
I don't want to stop you from running free software, the FSF wants to stop me from non-free software.
That's simply not true. The FSF:
* says that it's unwise for users to run non-free software. They also say that a user should be able to use their computer for any purpose (within legal limits, of course).
* says that developers of software should use a free license and should provide a copy of the source code whenever they distribute a binary.
GNOME is indeed a part of the GNU project, which means they have two web browsers (GNOME Web, which is written from scratch and WebKit-based and GNU IceCat, which is based on Mozilla Firefox).
To my knowledge, the developers of IceCat have nothing to do with GNOME Web, and I guess they probably have different priorities for their respective web browsers. Also, I understand that Firefox was chosen as the base for IceCat because of its powerful add-on capabilities, which is important for the developers because they use add-ons for most of the added functionality of IceCat.
Except that RIGHT NOW, TODAY, Firefox supports a plug-in architecture which allows Adobe Flash and Microsoft Silverlight to run and play DRM-encumbered content.
And RIGHT NOW, TODAY, many computers support an x86 architecture which allows Windows to run and play DRM-encumbered content. Except that neither x86, nor NPAPI for that matter, were ever specifically designed to do that.
On the other hand, non-DRM uses for EME are entirely non-existent. Sure, you could have a free EME plugin, but what would be the point if the user has access to the key? Don't fool yourself - unlike NPAPI, EME is specifically designed to work with and proliferate the use of DRM.
Libraries have lent out non-free (in the FSF sense) books forever, without needing a technical mechanism to prevent copying.
A technical incapability does not make print technology "non-free".
On the other hand, digital restrictions management threatens to prevent far more than just copying, e.g. sharing of an e-book between friends and the right to own a book.
Just because it has DRM support doesnt mean you have to use it. Avoid DRM content and this won't affect you.
It's a bit like Facebook saying "if you don't agree to our Terms and Conditions, don't use our service". And their T&Cs are complete bullshit. Believe it or not, some of us actually believe in the freedom to communicate online without corporate surveillance and censorship. In the same way, saying that people who care about their right to fair use (legal in US), personal use of files e.g. transferring between personal devices (also legal), sociable sharing of files with friends (possibly not legal) should simply not have access to public material that can only be encrypted using proprietary DRM software is unfair.
The masses though WANT DRM content
That's a lie used by media companies to excuse DRM, and it's simply not true. The masses want access to their movies, music, e-books and cat memes and they will typically click "Yes" to anything that comes up on their screen to get access to their movies/music/etc. Most users, unfortunately, do not know what DRM is. That does not make them "WANT DRM".
If Firefox didn't support DRM, they would switch browsers to one that did (closed source such as IE
What's the point of a free browser if it encourages the user to give away their freedom? The user may as well use IE, there is no difference.
How can you claim mozilla stood for free software when it started as a closed source proprietary browser?
Your comment is irrelevant, because Firefox is now free software, except perhaps for the trademark license which the FSF considers potentially problematic. Whether the software was once distributed as proprietary software isn't really important at all.
On the other hand, Firefox binaries were once subject to an End User License Agreement, which made the binaries non-free according to the FSF. But they removed the EULA in 2008.
Oh, and before anyone asks about the mobile phone paranoia, I should also add that some companies are already monetising your use of mobile phones and your movements. Expect this to become far more commonplace in the next few years.
I keep the battery out of my mobile phone when I'm not using it, which is 99% of the time. Apparently I am lucky to have a phone which makes it easy to do this. Various court releases, leaks, research papers and other publications suggest that mobile phones can easily be updated remotely by carriers (and maybe adversaries) to act as listening devices on command, which is why I do this.
I also use multiple web browsers for different purposes (e.g. one for normal web browsing when I don't reveal my identity, another for a few logins, etc.), use Tor, avoid using "cloud computing", use only free (-as in freedom) software, use encryption where possible, keep up to date with security updates, encrypt traffic in my local network (I don't trust my D-Link router very much), etc.
Microsoft also gives free Windows licenses to students through various programs. But there is always a catch. In this case, Microsoft wants its users to adopt its own formats and use its network services, essentially pushing users into an endless cycle of relying on Microsoft software and services, allowing Microsoft to push for unreasonable terms, include more privacy-invasive features to gain more information about their users, increased OS reliance on Microsoft's network/cloud computing, and, of course, to make more money. Making money on its own, of course, is not usually a bad thing, but when a company like Microsoft controls a significant portion of the market it is certainly bad. I hear non-profits and governments are also often more likely to adopt free (-as in freedom) software such as LibreOffice and occasionally GNU/Linux, which could explain why they are a target of this campaign.
Remember people: this isn't being done to benefit you, it's done to benefit Microsoft.
Facebook has been doing this for ages. It started years ago with the hovercards (hovering over a person's face brings up details and alerts Facebook each time) and grew from there. A few months ago I observed using the Firefox Web Developer tools that Facebook was monitoring when a user hovered over a Like button (not necessarily clicked), advertisements, possibly tracking what part of the page the user was on, and more. Quick analysis from a curious user didn't reveal the full details of exactly what they were tracking.
Basically Facebook would rather give the news itself rather than letting someone else spill the beans. It's a cheap PR stunt, no more.
It takes five minutes and none of the info you give them is verified.
Oh, so that makes it okay, does it? Almost all Microsoft services contain a termination clause which allows them to cancel a service for a user, or delete their account at any time.
That's right, the software on your computer is now being tied into Microsoft's services, so that the rights you once had disappear.
Writing a program in Visual Studio requires mandatory registration, or the program will refuse to start up. This also gives Microsoft to arbitrarily deny specific programmers the ability to publish a program.
Oh, and this, from the VS 2010 Privacy Policy, suggests that Microsoft can remotely target your computer after it does error reporting:
In rare cases, such as problems that are especially difficult to solve, Microsoft may request additional data, including sections of memory (which may include memory shared by any or all applications running at the time the problem occurred), some registry settings, and one or more files from your computer. Your current documents may also be included. When additional data is requested, you can review the data and choose whether or not to send it.
It's somewhat disappointing that Slashdot is used to advertise software like this. Fuck that, I'll stick with free (as in freedom) compilers like GCC, MinGW, LLVM etc. and free IDEs.
Let's not forget what DRM actually is. DRM-encrypted files are encrypted so that, at least in theory, only one program can read it. That program can arbitrarily impose restrictions on the user. How does that protect the user at all? From themselves and from their friends?
Encryption is a good way of protecting your privacy. Encrypting for Microsoft is a good way of losing control of your data.
If Slashdot wants to promote and help EFF, they should stop censoring users from reading news on their own website.
At the moment, many attempts to access Slashdot via Tor give a blocked IP address message. So many Tor users can't read Slashdot at all.
I might be a little bit sympathetic if Slashdot temporarily banned IPs from posting when abuse is detected, but it's a real shame that IPs blocked by Slashdot can't read the news at all.
"One of the design documents that they volunteered specifically called out compelling a [certificate authority] in the jurisdiction of the UAE or Saudi Arabia to produce SSL certificates that they could use for interception," Marlinspike wrote in a blog post.
Clearly there is something wrong with the public key infrastructure on the web.
We're at Firefox 20 and Debian has only version 10.
From the Debian perspective there was only Firefox 10 ESR and Firefox 17 ESR. Since the freeze was made before 17 was released, version 10 was included.
Linux 3.2 will be supported until 2015. That's longer than the support lifetime for any other kernel version at the moment, unless the maintainer for 3.4 decides to support it past 2014.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Maintenance
Windows RT is worse than Windows 8 because it doesn't give its users the freedom to boot another OS, or control the computer at its very lowest level. Sure, maybe most users don't care, but they should. If tech-savvy users boycott the Surface RT, maybe users will as well.
I can't yet see any reason for not allowing users to control their own device at its lowest level. Maybe an "unlock" option like a few Android phones do would prevent users from making unwise decisions.
I feel like I had to say something, because many of the comments here are aimed at the technical qualities of the Windows RT/iPad/other proprietary OS. This is missing the point! If people aren't adopting Windows RT at the moment, let's tell them why they should avoid it forever.
Also, I believe the FSF's petition to stop Restricted Boot is still open. Please take a moment to sign it if you have the time - it's getting close to 50,000 signatures.
that has nothing to do with DRM... learn a programming language
DRM is a system designed to prevent users from controlling their computer. DRM has everything to do with control.
there's nothing stopping people from using or downloading DRM-protected content... if you do it legally
Actually, there is. You must (a) run their software to do it (technical restriction), and (b) agree to a contract (legal restriction). "Use" is essentially defined by whoever wrote the software. The content is crippled so only one or a few programs can run it. And you can download a DRM'd file, but that would be useless on its own. The system that plays it could easily refuse to play it.
if you have a problem with that, it's pretty obvious that your preference is to download content illegally
No I don't. And you should also remember that fair use and fair dealing are legitimate uses of content which DRM inherently prevents.
I wouldn't create a program and not release the binary without the source code
that would be your choice, not the user's
Sure, but I think users should choose to only use free (-as in freedom) software.
the programmer/artist/musician/tv studio should have the choice whether to release their intellectual property freely or not...
I think I should be able to control my computer. I don't think a media company should be able to command my computer.
By "intellectual property" I would assume you are talking about a potentially copyrighted work, since "IP" is an umbrella for lots of other laws. Keep in mind that public domain works can be crippled with DRM as well, not just "IP".
Slashdot Mirror
+1 on Snowden for exposing the NSA. The leaks have had very important implications for democracies around the world and have ignited debate on mass surveillance.
+1 on offline Wikipedia. Check out Kiwix, an offline reader for Wikipedia (it's FLOSS, not proprietary or commercial).
That's simply not true. The FSF:
GNOME is indeed a part of the GNU project, which means they have two web browsers (GNOME Web, which is written from scratch and WebKit-based and GNU IceCat, which is based on Mozilla Firefox).
To my knowledge, the developers of IceCat have nothing to do with GNOME Web, and I guess they probably have different priorities for their respective web browsers. Also, I understand that Firefox was chosen as the base for IceCat because of its powerful add-on capabilities, which is important for the developers because they use add-ons for most of the added functionality of IceCat.
Google is an author of EME, which is probably an indicator that they do intend to use it.
And RIGHT NOW, TODAY, many computers support an x86 architecture which allows Windows to run and play DRM-encumbered content. Except that neither x86, nor NPAPI for that matter, were ever specifically designed to do that.
On the other hand, non-DRM uses for EME are entirely non-existent. Sure, you could have a free EME plugin, but what would be the point if the user has access to the key? Don't fool yourself - unlike NPAPI, EME is specifically designed to work with and proliferate the use of DRM.
There, fixed it for you.
A technical incapability does not make print technology "non-free".
On the other hand, digital restrictions management threatens to prevent far more than just copying, e.g. sharing of an e-book between friends and the right to own a book.
It's a bit like Facebook saying "if you don't agree to our Terms and Conditions, don't use our service". And their T&Cs are complete bullshit. Believe it or not, some of us actually believe in the freedom to communicate online without corporate surveillance and censorship. In the same way, saying that people who care about their right to fair use (legal in US), personal use of files e.g. transferring between personal devices (also legal), sociable sharing of files with friends (possibly not legal) should simply not have access to public material that can only be encrypted using proprietary DRM software is unfair.
That's a lie used by media companies to excuse DRM, and it's simply not true. The masses want access to their movies, music, e-books and cat memes and they will typically click "Yes" to anything that comes up on their screen to get access to their movies/music/etc. Most users, unfortunately, do not know what DRM is. That does not make them "WANT DRM".
What's the point of a free browser if it encourages the user to give away their freedom? The user may as well use IE, there is no difference.
Your comment is irrelevant, because Firefox is now free software, except perhaps for the trademark license which the FSF considers potentially problematic. Whether the software was once distributed as proprietary software isn't really important at all.
On the other hand, Firefox binaries were once subject to an End User License Agreement, which made the binaries non-free according to the FSF. But they removed the EULA in 2008.
Oh, and before anyone asks about the mobile phone paranoia, I should also add that some companies are already monetising your use of mobile phones and your movements. Expect this to become far more commonplace in the next few years.
I keep the battery out of my mobile phone when I'm not using it, which is 99% of the time. Apparently I am lucky to have a phone which makes it easy to do this. Various court releases, leaks, research papers and other publications suggest that mobile phones can easily be updated remotely by carriers (and maybe adversaries) to act as listening devices on command, which is why I do this.
I also use multiple web browsers for different purposes (e.g. one for normal web browsing when I don't reveal my identity, another for a few logins, etc.), use Tor, avoid using "cloud computing", use only free (-as in freedom) software, use encryption where possible, keep up to date with security updates, encrypt traffic in my local network (I don't trust my D-Link router very much), etc.
Microsoft also gives free Windows licenses to students through various programs. But there is always a catch. In this case, Microsoft wants its users to adopt its own formats and use its network services, essentially pushing users into an endless cycle of relying on Microsoft software and services, allowing Microsoft to push for unreasonable terms, include more privacy-invasive features to gain more information about their users, increased OS reliance on Microsoft's network/cloud computing, and, of course, to make more money. Making money on its own, of course, is not usually a bad thing, but when a company like Microsoft controls a significant portion of the market it is certainly bad. I hear non-profits and governments are also often more likely to adopt free (-as in freedom) software such as LibreOffice and occasionally GNU/Linux, which could explain why they are a target of this campaign.
Remember people: this isn't being done to benefit you, it's done to benefit Microsoft.
Facebook has been doing this for ages. It started years ago with the hovercards (hovering over a person's face brings up details and alerts Facebook each time) and grew from there. A few months ago I observed using the Firefox Web Developer tools that Facebook was monitoring when a user hovered over a Like button (not necessarily clicked), advertisements, possibly tracking what part of the page the user was on, and more. Quick analysis from a curious user didn't reveal the full details of exactly what they were tracking.
Basically Facebook would rather give the news itself rather than letting someone else spill the beans. It's a cheap PR stunt, no more.
Oh, so that makes it okay, does it? Almost all Microsoft services contain a termination clause which allows them to cancel a service for a user, or delete their account at any time.
That's right, the software on your computer is now being tied into Microsoft's services, so that the rights you once had disappear.
Writing a program in Visual Studio requires mandatory registration, or the program will refuse to start up. This also gives Microsoft to arbitrarily deny specific programmers the ability to publish a program.
Oh, and this, from the VS 2010 Privacy Policy, suggests that Microsoft can remotely target your computer after it does error reporting:
It's somewhat disappointing that Slashdot is used to advertise software like this. Fuck that, I'll stick with free (as in freedom) compilers like GCC, MinGW, LLVM etc. and free IDEs.
Let's not forget what DRM actually is. DRM-encrypted files are encrypted so that, at least in theory, only one program can read it. That program can arbitrarily impose restrictions on the user. How does that protect the user at all? From themselves and from their friends?
Encryption is a good way of protecting your privacy. Encrypting for Microsoft is a good way of losing control of your data.
If Slashdot wants to promote and help EFF, they should stop censoring users from reading news on their own website.
At the moment, many attempts to access Slashdot via Tor give a blocked IP address message. So many Tor users can't read Slashdot at all.
I might be a little bit sympathetic if Slashdot temporarily banned IPs from posting when abuse is detected, but it's a real shame that IPs blocked by Slashdot can't read the news at all.
From Ars Technica:
Clearly there is something wrong with the public key infrastructure on the web.
From the Debian perspective there was only Firefox 10 ESR and Firefox 17 ESR. Since the freeze was made before 17 was released, version 10 was included.
Linux 3.2 will be supported until 2015. That's longer than the support lifetime for any other kernel version at the moment, unless the maintainer for 3.4 decides to support it past 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Maintenance
Windows RT is worse than Windows 8 because it doesn't give its users the freedom to boot another OS, or control the computer at its very lowest level. Sure, maybe most users don't care, but they should. If tech-savvy users boycott the Surface RT, maybe users will as well.
I can't yet see any reason for not allowing users to control their own device at its lowest level. Maybe an "unlock" option like a few Android phones do would prevent users from making unwise decisions.
I feel like I had to say something, because many of the comments here are aimed at the technical qualities of the Windows RT/iPad/other proprietary OS. This is missing the point! If people aren't adopting Windows RT at the moment, let's tell them why they should avoid it forever.
Also, I believe the FSF's petition to stop Restricted Boot is still open. Please take a moment to sign it if you have the time - it's getting close to 50,000 signatures.
-- some crazy free software user.
The proposed standard is designed as infrastructure to give power to despicable companies.
Some people want access to content and will do just about anything to get it. That doesn't mean they want DRM itself.
DRM is a system designed to prevent users from controlling their computer. DRM has everything to do with control.
Actually, there is. You must (a) run their software to do it (technical restriction), and (b) agree to a contract (legal restriction). "Use" is essentially defined by whoever wrote the software. The content is crippled so only one or a few programs can run it. And you can download a DRM'd file, but that would be useless on its own. The system that plays it could easily refuse to play it.
No I don't. And you should also remember that fair use and fair dealing are legitimate uses of content which DRM inherently prevents.
Sure, but I think users should choose to only use free (-as in freedom) software.
I think I should be able to control my computer. I don't think a media company should be able to command my computer.
By "intellectual property" I would assume you are talking about a potentially copyrighted work, since "IP" is an umbrella for lots of other laws. Keep in mind that public domain works can be crippled with DRM as well, not just "IP".