Category: Technology

White European Males, GamerGate and DongleGate

First things first, a disclaimer:

  1. I don’t condone, nor I accept any form of harassment, physical, verbal or electronic.
  2. I don’t mix technical qualities with life situations. Your choices, opinions, abilities and disabilities may affect the quality of your work, but this is not about those, but about the result: your work.
  3. I don’t promote abusive behaviour as a form of getting your point across, even if no abusive intention was meant.
  4. I do promote inclusion in STEM to balance towards the real proportion in society.
  5. Both GamerGate and DongleGate were disasters on their own, for very different reasons. I want neither to happen.
  6. I have Asperger’s Syndrome and see things more black and white than most people. I cannot accept qualitative features being used for quantitative purposes. None of this is meant as an offence, or to explain or validate harassment, abuse or any other unethical behaviour. It’s just an analysis.

What was

When Charles Babbage begun creating his analytical machine, he was worried about the hardware and the implications of it for mathematics and the world. But we all know that hardware is only as good as its software, and so Ada Lovelace’s work was of equal importance on that critical milestone. Both of them were mathematicians of an elite that weren’t thoroughly recognised until much later. Both were extremely methodical, eccentric and disconnected from reality. All well known characteristics that Hans Asperger recognised circa 1920 as what we now know as autism.

In the 40’s to 60’s, only really brilliant mathematicians could understand computing, mostly because they were just developing it, but thousands of men and women took part in building and using them. At that time, the proportion of people “using computers” was closer to the social distribution than it is today. However, the number of people working “with computers” was independent of their understanding of the underlying technology. Naturally, the distribution then follows the source group’s own. But after the first real case for general computing (WWII), the world was left with a tool that could do so much more, and people realised that they needed to take it to the next level.

Still too many people were clueless as to how computers worked, and a huge effort was made to get people “into computing”. But the importance and prevalence of computing those days were inexistent, so the appeal to the general public, men and women, were close to zero. The kind of people that felt attracted by it then, and during the 70’s and 80’s were the same groups as Babbage, Lovelace, Turin: people in the autistic spectrum. This is not to say that non-autistic people did’t do it, or worse, that they couldn’t do it. On the contrary, the proof that this is not an autistic-only field is today’s proliferation of computer scientists around the world, regardless of their mental status, gender, race or culture.

During the 70’s, computers had specific purposes, and only universities and very big companies had them. The 80’s saw the first boom in “personal” computing, but it was still dominated by self-built kits, and those like me that remember that time fondly, know how much of a weirdo we were in the eyes of the general population. While more people were taking on computing careers, those experimenting at home still had a clear autistic predisposition.

It was only in the 90’s, when Bill Gates became a millionaire, that people started giving “some” credit to the field, and personal computing toppled and then completely replaced mainframes. During the 80’s, operating systems were developed for the common tasks like word editing, spreadsheets and simple databases, but it wasn’t until the 90’s that most people had one in their homes and small shops. It became ubiquitous only then.

But even in the 90’s, all the attempts to simplify programming (Logo? Basic?) couldn’t really help you do much with computers. They were (and still are) basically toys. So, people that learnt Basic have realised early on that they couldn’t write anything meaningful and would either have to delve deep into C, or give up completely. That was still promoting those of the more autistic disposition to stay and the rest to find something more interesting to do.

The niche

But as with every spectrum, thresholds are biased.

If you understand a bit about autism, you know that all we want is to be left alone to our own devices. Don’t come to my house telling me what to do and how. This is most upsetting for autistic people and you will be faced with some unintentional harsh responses due to the genetic reasons that autistic people cannot control or fix.

Autistic people were *always* banned from social life for thousands of years (maybe more?), and since ever they tried to group into segregated societies, often characterised with bigotry and rudeness, not uncommonly harassment. The Royal Society was such a place, and not unlike the current computer science scenario, was dominated by “White European Males“.

It seems obvious to me that the “White European” part is easily explained because of the degree of development that Europe had at the time (1600’s), compared to everywhere else in the world. The parallel with modern computer scientists is clear: North America and Western Europe have a much higher rate of Caucasians well educated and positioned in society, for obvious reasons that don’t fit this text to discuss, than the other groups.

When a field is new and needs pressure to get to, most of the people that will get in will be of a similar disposition. In the same way that most voluntary army cadets will have a similar mentality. I would never be an army volunteer, but I was a computer enthusiast since I was 5 years old.

Recent studies have shown that the proportion of males and females in high-functioning autistic people (the ones that like to solve complex problems for fun) is 4:1. But boys and girls behave very differently, with boys having a lot more physically and verbally violent games, and girls being more sensitive. With a start ratio of 4:1, it’s not hard how that biased self-selection can get to 10:1 or more.

What has become

But after the initial self-balancing, true bigots and abusers (trolls), saw the chance to belong to a society that was professing, for completely different reasons, that different people be kept out. I hope it’s clear enough that high-functioning autistic people have a valid and important reason to keep people out of their lives and groups. Otherwise, they cannot function properly.

Moreover, autistic people have the tendency of responding badly to social pressure, and that includes behaviour that is often misinterpreted as harassment, bullying and violent. It is not uncommon to see very drastic ends to really sad stories.

Autistic people also have a higher than usual rate of trusting people, and therefore much more easily abused by trolls, who will become part of a community and extend their modus operandi, but not necessarily their intention.

People on less advantageous backgrounds (wealth, disabilities, minorities, life choices) had even less chances of getting in a club that was trying to keep people out. But with trolls inside, they’ll make sure this becomes impossible, and that’s how situations like GamerGate happen.

It is important to separate the original cause of aggregation and demand for separation, sometimes aggressively, as a classic high-functioning autistic process, from the subsequent harassment and directed intentional aggression that trolls had after they took over well meaning but fearful and trusting mostly autistic people.

That fact, however, does not condone any aggression, including from autistic people. But what people have to understand is that, if the aggression comes from an autistic person, even high-functioning, they very likely cannot control it and need help. Being offended is ok, but reserving the right to then discharge your own contained aggression, even if you are a minority, is not the way to solve this.

We all have problems, but turning off your care-meter because you are a minority and have just being offended is not ok. And that includes autistic people, too.

Why is this important?

Because computer science has moved on from the nerd-zone for at least 20 years, but much more so in the last 10.

Nowadays there are a huge number of architectures, languages, tools, spare parts and they’re all accessible to a huge chunk of the world to play with. It is not a mostly autistic activity any more, and there are languages (like Python, Java, Haskell, Go, Swift, even JavaScript and Scratch) and hardware (like RaspberryPi, Arduino, Mindstorms) which allow you to do amazing things very easily.

The barrier into technology is so low now that anyone can enter, and once they’re in, they don’t need to be autistic to enjoy. Furthermore, neurotypical people can be as good (or better) than autistic people even in the hardest of problems. After all, being high-functioning autistic doesn’t mean you’re smarter, just means you want to do something that keep you away from people, and talking to machines is the best thing I can think of.

So nowadays we have all kinds of people, and with that, we’re back to the real distribution that societies have. All minorities are now represented by what they are in society. But trolls are haters, and they know some very cunning ways to keep unwanted people around, mostly using subversive tactics like physical, verbal and social abuse, doxing, DDoSing, etc.

We need to remove the trolls from our societies together. This is not a minorities vs majorities fight, this is a fight for the right to be safe. The new minorities have as much right to be safe as the original minority who created the space. And both minorities have the right to be represented, but so does the majorities. The only thing we want to get rid of are the trolls.

What we should move towards

So, autistic people want a space of their own, trolls take over, destroy the Internet. Minorities try to participate, trolls shoot them down, behave like assholes. What else is news? As it all started in the 40’s, we need a compatible distribution with the rest of society. The very definition of minority is that there is less of. So it makes no sense to expect an equal distribution of minority and majority on each specific scale.

For instance, on average worldwide, we have half men, half women. So I would expect the same distribution in STEM subjects. We may be far from it in computer science and physics, but not in biology or chemistry. It’s still not 50/50, so we can’t take each topic to be exactly 50/50, but we can expect the whole STEM subjects to be around that ballpark.

Of the world population, at a glance I see 18% is Han Chinese, while about two thirds of that is “European”, and a third of each Arabic, Hindu and African, living all over the world. The real distribution doesn’t matter much, but I’d expect a similar distribution for STEM in the same way.

Now, getting there will involve two distinct activities:

  1. Deep grass root movements to increase the development and literacy of impoverished communities, education of better off communities regarding equality and inclusion.
  2. Improve STEM inclusion and attractiveness for all members of society, as well as remove the exclusion characteristics (trolls) of the already existing community.

People that are keen on seen global equality (1) have to fight that battle outside of STEM subjects. The fights you should have inside are those that discriminate minorities that can already be represented in STEM subjects (2).

For example, all the feminists advocate for inclusion in open source communities already have the will and ability to participate on equal grounds as men. The fact that someone is gay or transgender makes absolutely no difference in a STEM community and should bear no value in inclusion or acceptance. The fact that they are not included is a horrible mistake and has to be fixed inside STEM communities.

We should move towards STEM communities that have a relevant distribution as far as STEM can have on its own. We’re not looking for equal numbers of all minorities, we’re looking for equal distribution of minorities, and those are two very different things.

What we cannot have

What seems to be happening, and it’s something that will not fix anything, is that we’re moving to the other side.

We have to discourage any kind of troll, regardless if they agree with you. It may be satisfying to see someone on your side trolling someone you’re against, but that’s as bad as their side’s troll behaviour. Encouraging hate, even in the form of biased consensus and imposed cultural traits is just as bad as any other form of harassment.

More importantly, it’s that form of harassment that gets to the core of autistic people, including high-functioning ones. It’s the very reason why we hide from people and talk to machines. Cases like DongleGate are as extremist as GamerGate, and as offensive to me.

The fact that one misinterpreting person with one picture and one tweet can get someone fired is disconcerting beyond words. As disconcerting as people ganging up on girls just because they want representativeness on their games, or some of those girls ganging up back and doing horrible things with the “excuse” of retaliation. All those behaviours are equally beyond words.

What we cannot have is to flip sides and have the suffering minorities so far gaining the upper hand and gaining the right to harass the majority or worse still, the forgotten minority that started it all and had no intentional part in any of the bullying.

We need to protect the minorities from abuse, and that includes the odd folks that don’t look mentally retarded or deficient in any way but behave oddly and sometimes aggressively. Those people are too often interpreted as bullies when all they want is to be left alone, and all they need is help adapting to an alien society.

Oh, you want support?

I don’t know how many open source communities have the same problem, but in the LLVM list we do receive more than a few emails a year with people really upset that no one has fixed their bugs quick enough, or that no one replied to their emails. I find this behaviour quite interesting from a sociological point of view, but if you behave in that way, let me help you straight out: it’s rude. Really.

Business Model

The open source business model relies on sharing of ideas, accumulation of technology and niche development. Small and incremental pieces are incorporated into stabilizing products that provide value to a groups of people.

For example, MacOS and Linux provide different values to the same user base (desktop users). The more commercial software, like MacOS, provide a stable, recognizable interface, with powerful integration to other products of the same line, while the open counterparts provide a more experimental interface, but greater control and spread of knowledge.

Apple’s business model is quite different than most Linux distributions, but both heavily use/derive open source infrastructure (kernel, compilers, libraries). So, if you purchase MacOS, you’re getting not only the eye candy, but also some components that are open source, like LLVM. What companies get from investing in LLVM is up for a different kind of post, but rest assured, the license is really clear: “THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED”.

Presumptuous Crowd

Most Linux/BSD users, when they have a problem with their programs, they first search the web for the error message. In the uncommon case where they don’t find an answer, they then post on forums or mailing lists, often politely, dumping their logs and error messages, and gladly waiting for an answer, that may take a day, a week, sometimes, it may be forgotten. They, then, try a different forum, or “ping” their messages, work a bit harder, find more causes, etc.

After all, no one is as interested in your problems as much as yourself. Let me make that one clear:

No one is as interested in your problems as much as yourself.

Most people that deal with open source understand that. Most people that buy software don’t. But there is an intermediate crowd, that has recently grown tremendously: the freemium folks.

Most people now enjoy an impressive amount of free products, in midst of all the software that they did purchase, and for most of them, they do receive the same quality of support that they do for their paid products. That seems controversial, even paradoxical, but the answer is quite simple: they’re not free.

If you haven’t figured out yet, let’s get that one clear, too: you pay for it with your personal information. Accurate location logs, purchase history, personal identification, credit status, number of friends (and all their personal information too), who you like and who you don’t, etc. All that information is dutifully stored and used for their profit. A profit that is orders of magnitude higher than it would be if they did none of that and you paid $10 for it. Even $100. Hell, even if you paid $1000 per year, it would have been cheaper, or better said, they would have less money from you.

So, it only makes sense that they treat you like a full-paid member of their exclusive club, and treat you like a king so that you don’t jump ship and go share your cat picture on the other social website. Some people quickly understand what’s at stake, but most of them would keep using the service as a matter of convenience. They know the price of their privacy, and they exchange it for convenience.

Market Penetration

As predicted by many in the 90s, and repeated by most in the last decade, open source (free/libre/etc) has taken the roots of computing and is now the base for all technology. From stock markets, to the ISS. From high-performance computing centres to schools. From operating systems to games. Open source is everywhere, and more people that never thought would have any contact with open source, are now getting exposed to it first hand. The pervasion of open source technologies is so complete, that I risk to say that there isn’t any profitable company today that doesn’t use or ship open source with its products. There isn’t a gadget that you own that didn’t use it during design or production, or rely on it for its operation.

And, as with any other technology, occasionally, open source fails. And as they fail, helpful messages pop up where users were expecting a nice “support contract” fixing it straight away. You may contact whoever you paid, and they may help you, or they may give the standard response that it’s not their problem. After all, your privacy is worth a lot of money, but not that much.

Support Contract

Because open source is everywhere, more and more people that were not used how it works are now falling pray to the support contract fallacy.

You may get expedite help from Android “free” apps makers, or social media websites, and they may provide their services for free and still be very friendly and helpful, but you cannot compare that freedom with libre/open source freedom. In free software / open source, we do not store your personal data, not we want to. We do not track your whereabouts, nor we contact your friend on your behalf. We don’t have that freedom, mostly because that’s not our business model, but also because most of us believe that’s wrong.

Because you’re not directly, nor indirectly, paying us, you cannot, ever expect that anyone will help you, less still, in any reasonable time. The overwhelming majority of people working in open source projects are directly or indirectly paid by companies, and that’s their day jobs. Folks that fix the problems that their companies think will best improve their products. Only a small minority of lucky bastards can work on free software without getting any compensation or direction from a company, but even those people have their own agenda. And that’s very rarely aligned with yours.

Expecting support, complaining about the lack of help or interest in your problems, is like carrying a large bag through the underground and be mad a people for not helping you. Granted, many people will help you, but as a selfless act, not as a support contract. Only those that are going in the same direction, or those that have a free hand, or that have some shared history (like, they have been in the same situation before), will likely help you, and different people align differently with your problem. If it’s a large suitcase, or a baby pram, or some clumsy and fragile painting. Different people will help in different times.

In libre/open source, the situation is exactly the same. We’re all working along our own projects and priorities, and unless your problem is directly related to my paid job, I will rarely even look at it. It’s not out of spite, but if I stop doing the work I’m paid and start helping all those in need, I’ll lose my job and I won’t be able to help anyone any more. Not to mention feed my family.

The social contract

When you send an email that no one pays attention, try to phrase it differently. Or better yet, do some more investigations, provide more information, show that you care about what you’re asking. There’s nothing worse in a forum, than people asking others to solve their homework. The general rule of free help is that you must show equal or more interest and sweat on what you’re asking, than the people that are helping you. It’s exactly the opposite than on a support contracts. Moreover, your behaviour will tell people whether to help you or not. The more aggressive and demanding you become, the less people will help you. The more humble and hard working you are, the opposite will happen.

To understand that social contract, think of it as an exchange. If you bring a lot of information with your request, I will learn a thing of two about that. I enjoy learning, so, even if it’s not my area, I may feel compelled to help you just because you might teach me something. If there is any payment in community help, this is it. The knowledge you pass on to people helping you, and the joy they feel of learning a new thing and helping a nice chap.

In the end, most people that are new to such environments, end up learning it really fast, and become enthusiastic contributors. This is, for me, the beauty of the lack of payments. Each one values the newly acquired knowledge in different ways, so it’d be impossible to treat them as standard currency. But, since I don’t tell you how much I value your contribution, and vice versa, we cannot know who has the profit. More importantly, in this case, profit is not the difference between my gains and your gains, but the difference between my expectation of gains and my actual gains, which is completely independent of your exchange ratios.

This is precisely what Buckminster Fuller meant as Synergetics. The total system behaviour is not always predictable from the behaviour of all its parts, and in some systems, the value aggregated can be more than the sum of its individual gains. This is why the open source business model is so infectious and addictive. Once you’re in, there’s no way out. But you have to put some effort.

Collection of data is not the only problem

What the NSA has taught us is that mass surveillance is not as hard as people used to think. Other governments, and most commercial companies, do that, too. With the advent of smartphones we’ve learned to ignore most of that for the sake of convenience, and most of the time, it’s ok.

It’s true that the bulk surveillance from governments can spark enough false positives to make people worried, or that Google and Facebook are using your personal details to make a bucket load of money, and some others are selling those details, sometimes not even realising.

When you think of all the power that the government can do with your data, or all the money that big corporations are making with your personal information, it’s nor surprising to think: “where’s my share in this?”. Some people even tried to evaluate how much would you get for selling different types of personal information to corporations. But, is that the real question that we should be asking?

Should we be concerned with what data do we leak and try to minimise it, or should we really be thinking what can they really do with that information? Of course, any answer will be a mix of both (since not all investigating parties are well intentioned or law abiding), but there is the limit of government and corporation’s powers that can go a long way of making the data useful but not harmful.

Privacy

I said this before and I still maintain my position that no one has ever had privacy. Parents eavesdrop on their kids behaviour since the dawn of humanity as a way to grow them into responsible adults. The concept of “being responsible” has changed over the millennia, but parents have not.

Law making and enforcing bodies have eavesdropping as their primordial way of acquiring information. Since people normally only do bad stuff when no one is looking, expecting the police to only use highly visual enquiring methods (such as asking personally or patrolling an area) become impossibly expensive very quickly. It is true that random checkpoints, fake speed cameras and signs do help awareness, but that’s also not optimal from a monetary point of view.

Privacy also goes against any common sense in the outside world. If you take a bus, every one in that bus knows you’re there, even if they don’t know who you are. If there is a picture of you on the bus saying “wanted, dead or alive”, they will see you and report you. There’s little you can do, besides hiding and never showing your face again. Famous people (actors, etc) have the same problem and the solution is pretty much hide.

Data

The data you “leak” is also the data that defines you. Where you have been, what you like, where you work and live, what food you eat and what you do on Saturdays. Collecting that data and providing a service on that is actually extremely beneficial to you. The problem is who has access to that information.

Tesco knows what I need to buy better than I do. They send me vouchers with discount on fresh mozzarella cheese, fresh basil and fresh tomato on the vine. They know I love Caprese salad, and I actually like Tesco knowing that, because I get a slightly cheaper Caprese salad once in a while.

Google Maps knows where I live and work, so that when I’m going home I can just say: “Ok Google, go home”, and it does the rest. If I don’t share that kind of information with Google, it would never be able to do what I want it to. Examples like that are everywhere, and each company must have access to a wide range of data from you (location, shopping habits, browsing habits) for them to be able to do so. It’s the unavoidable fact of information theory that you need enough entropy to find patterns.

Legality

The real problem here is what companies end up doing with your data, and how well they protect it from malicious outsiders. Even if the company is benign, once they get hacked, your bundle of personal data which is enough to infer pretty accurate patters about your personal life, are out there. Who know what the attackers will do you that?

Another problem is blanket approvals to bypass any legal system and arrest, judge and execute individuals solely based on bulk surveillance patterns that are known to generate an immense amount of false positives, not only because the algorithms are inexact, but because the people filtering and creating the rules don’t posses enough knowledge to know what they’re looking for in the first place.

Finally, what happens if the benign company that provides you an invaluable service is suddenly acquired by an unscrupulous company? Can the reach of the service widen based on the parent company’s privacy policy? Or is the data protected like source code that is licensed as open source with, for example, the GNU license?

Solutions

So, a pragmatic view on surveillance should attack the problem of the legality of actions on data, not just the legality of acquiring data in the first place. The legal system can already cope with that, for instance when evidence is found via illegal means (unapproved wire or microphone), it cannot be used against the accused. The “Patriot Act” changed all that in the US, and in other countries, and that’s the first thing that has to be changed back to a sane standard. Governments should never have the ability to bypass the judicial and executive system based on *any* collected data, especially if it was done in bulk, with irrelevant patterns to match.

Another topic that needs addressing is licences on data, especially collected data for the purposes of personal services. There are licenses that cover open data, such as Creative Commons, but these cannot be applied to private data that a company has access with the sole purpose of providing a service. Each company has a different privacy policy and the EFF has great tools to monitor them all, but all of that is solely dependent on the company’s ethics.

A change of the board, or the managing directors, or even an acquisition, is enough to pervert the privacy policy and render the previous data they had on you (that you cannot ever delete any more) to their benefit. What we need is a data license that is not open (since it’s private data), but that is protected in the same way against future changes.

There may be cases for more or less stringent licenses (like GNU vs. BSD) for different uses, but once they’re standard licenses, we don’t need to read every single privacy policy of every company every time they change some minor wording, we’d know what kind of freedoms and guarantees we’re getting, and companies won’t have the right to subversively change it.

Finally, there should be a guarantee in the license that the company is required to store such data in a protected way, following a set of standard cryptographic techniques and solutions, and there should be a clause on how they would destroy the data on the minimal attempt of intrusion. To compensate the total loss of service for all users, they must store such data in different locations, using different techniques and keys, and distribute it across multiple locations.

It may seem daunting for small companies to provide small services, but so did cheap scalable storage and service providing until Amazon created the AWS and all others followed suit. If there is a demand, someone will create the solution. That has been the human response to everything since we came down trees to conquer the planet and we won’t stop here.

Conclusion

It’s not the data, it’s what governments and corporations can do with the data, and how to protect it from malicious parties.

Tale of The Water

In a village, far from any big city, there lived a family which had access to clean water from a nearby river. With the rain from many spring and autumn months being abundant, the family never had any trouble to wash clothes, cook and drink, or even have a good long bath. But the village, as any good village in the world, grew along that river, and each family had access to clean and fresh water.

As times pass, the legend of good water spread across the land, and more and more people joined the thriving community of the water village. But with growth, there’s lack of space, and not everyone had direct access to the river, but had to cross the original settlers’ gardens to get to water. Some fights and some profits later, the community, that now extended across several rows of houses on both sides of the river, as far as the eye could see, had a meeting to decide what would be done about the “water problem”.

The eldest, and self-elected leader of the community, had many friends among the first settlers. He wasn’t himself living by the river, since he got there not long ago, but with a few favours (especially helping increasing the profits of the original settlers to share their water with the newcomers), he got himself in a pretty good spot, and had enough contacts on both sides of the river to reign almost unimpeded.

To no surprise, he was the first to speak: “Friends of the Water Village, we gather today to decide what to do with the water.” Half-way through the sentence, every body had stopped talking, so he proceeded: “We all know that the water in this village is of the best quality in all the land”, and a chorus in the background said “yeah!”. “We all know that the first settlers have the rights in accessing and distributing the water, which you all know I am not part of, nor I profit from their enterprise, I only help to see that their profits and rights are guaranteed.” There was silence, for most knew that it was a lie, but they either didn’t want to oppose (at least not publicly), or didn’t care.

“But recent events called for a special gathering. So many of you hear that there are people accessing the river via the bridge, which blocks the crossing and put the bridge, which is not of the best quality, in danger!”. “Not to mention that this is a disrespect with the original settlers, that fought so hard to build our thriving community, and gave us the bless of such good water, and have helped us in reaching the water in such beautiful and useful buckets of their own creation.” “We owe them the right to share with us their water, the right to charge for the tireless efforts to provide our homes with the best water, carefully selected and cared for.” There was a faint ovation from the bench where the original settlers were, with many of them only shrugging, or not even that.

“Some of you reported the efforts of our friend that decided to pass a pipe through his land to make it easier to other villagers to have access to water, and that was already dealt with. We destroyed his pipe, and let that be a warning of anyone trying to pervert the art of the original settlers, as we owe them our delicious water!”. “Now, as with any democracy, I open the floor for comments, on how are we going to solve this problems.”

With this, some of the original settlers mentioned how the town should restrict the access to the bridge, and to charge a fee to cross, so that people that uses the bridge have the intention to cross the bridge, not to collect water. Others mentioned that it still wouldn’t stop collectors, but, as some said, they could restrict the validity of the tickets to a short period of time, in which a new charge would be collected.

About the pipe “problem”, many suggested that it should be made illegal to have pipes in any house, not just on the original settles, because connecting pipes between houses was not technically difficult, and it would be hard to solve the problem in case many houses ended up connecting to each other, as it was already happening in the north area.

When all the citizens were heard, and all the votes were taken, most of the ideas were unanimously approved. When the final hammer stroke down, finishing the meeting, one citizen, who was not one of the original settlers rose up: “This is outrageous! It doesn’t make sense, the water comes from the rain, and there is no innate right of the original settlers to charge anything for it!”. As he was saying this, one of the man standing behind the bench left in silence.

To that, not much was done from the central bench, where the eldest was sitting in the middle. He slowly rose is head, adjusted his glasses and smiled. “Friend, we’d be happy to hear your pledge, but as you all know, you don’t have the right to address the council. Only original settlers, and those appointed by them, can speak at the council. If you want to voice your concerns, I suggest you talk to your representative.” To which the man responded: “But my representative is an original settler, and I can’t vote for anyone that is not one, so they don’t represent me, they never had!”. “I’m sorry friend, but this is how democracy works, we can’t change the world just because of you.”.

The villager’s face was red, his eyes twitched slightly. The despair in his mind was clear, but he didn’t have much time to fall into it, for the silent men returned to the settlers’ bench and whispered something to the eldest’s ear only. The eldest turned his head again to the nonconformist villager. “Dear sir, we hear stories that you have been consistently using the bridge in the past days, is that true?”. “Well, yes, my sister lives on the other side, and I go visit her every day.”. “The reports also say that you take a bucket with you, and that you fill it with water, do you agree?”. “Well, yes, of course, I take the water for my sick sister, she needs it to aid her recovery.”. “And you haven’t paid a single settler for more than a month, how much water do you have stored at your house, dear sir?”.

It didn’t take long for the strong men behind the bench take the poor villager into a closed room, and he was never heard of ever again. Even though the water is a resource from nature, and despite the fact that water is essential to every living creature, the innate right of ownership of basic needs is common place in many parts of the world.

Creativity is a gift we received from evolution, as a way to save ourselves from more powerful foes. Creativity has a large proportion of imitation, since other living beings have different ideas, equally effective, against our common foes, and those that copy and share ideas, survive for longer. And yet, out society believes, for some serious distortion of natural reality, that the right to own something is more important than the right to survive.

If you read this story again, but replacing “water” with “music”, and making the appropriate changes, you’ll see that it makes as much sense as the original tale. And yet, a huge empire is built on the presumption that creativity can be owned by anyone. Who was the first to play certain tune? How many completely separate cultures have the same beat on their millenarian songs? There are infinite ways of combining words, but only a few actually make sense, and a lot less than that ends up beautiful.

Songs, poems, tales, videos, films, theatre are all forms of expressing the same feelings in different ways, but some people have the luxury of owning the rights of a particular way of expression, mainly because the law is written to favour them, than because they have actually created something truly new. No one has.

We all copy ideas. That’s called survival. That’s genetic. That’s what define us.

Why are we so ashamed of our own past? Why do we accept that the rich gets richer on our own account? Why do we agree that paying millions of dollars to an already filthy rich actors, directors and producers makes sense, for them to give us the benefit of watching the “Hangover III”, when it’s an absolute copy of itself for the second time, when the original was a pout-pourri of many other films and stories? Why do we accept a law that makes us criminals by sharing creativity, a basic instinct of the human race?

What has come of the human race to accept this as “normal”?

Open Source and Profit

I have written extensively about free, open source software as a way of life, and now reading back my own articles of the past 7 years, I realize that I was wrong on some of the ideas, or in the state of the open source culture within business and around companies.

I’ll make a bold statement to start, trying to get you interested in reading past the introduction, and I hope to give you enough arguments to prove I’m right. Feel free to disagree on the comments section.

The future of business and profit, in years to come, can only come if surrounded by free thoughts.

By free thoughts I mean free/open source software, open hardware, open standards, free knowledge (both free as in beer and as in speech), etc.

Past Ideas

I began my quest to understand the open source business model back in 2006, when I wrote that open source was not just software, but also speech. Having open source (free) software is not enough when the reasons why the software is free are not clear. The reason why this is so is that the synergy, that is greater than the sum of the individual parts, can only be achieved if people have the rights (and incentives) to reach out on every possible level, not just the source, or the hardware. I make that clear later on, in 2009, when I expose the problems of writing closed source software: there is no ecosystem in which to rely, so progress is limited and the end result is always less efficient, since the costs to make it as efficient are too great and would drive the prices of the software too high up to be profitable.

In 2008 I saw both sides of the story, pro and against Richard Stallman, on the views of the legitimacy of propriety control, being it via copyright licenses or proprietary software. I may have come a long way, but I was never against his idea of the perfect society, Richard Stallman’s utopia, or as some friends put it: The Star Trek Universe. The main difference between me and Stallman is that he believes we should fight to the last man to protect ourselves from the evil corporations towards software abuse, while I still believe that it’s impossible for them to sustain this empire for too long. His utopia will come, whether they like it or not.

Finally, in 2011 I wrote about how copying (and even stealing) is the only business model that makes sense (Microsoft, Apple, Oracle etc are all thieves, in that sense) and the number of patent disputes and copyright infringement should serve to prove me right. Last year I think I had finally hit the epiphany, when I discussed all these ideas with a friend and came to the conclusion that I don’t want to live in a world where it’s not possible to copy, share, derive or distribute freely. Without the freedom to share, our hands will be tied to defend against oppression, and it might just be a coincidence, but in the last decade we’ve seen the biggest growth of both disproportionate propriety protection and disproportional governmental oppression that the free world has ever seen.

Can it be different?

Stallman’s argument is that we should fiercely protect ourselves against oppression, and I agree, but after being around business and free software for nearly 20 years, I so far failed to see a business model in which starting everything from scratch, in a secret lab, and releasing the product ready for consumption makes any sense. My view is that society does partake in an evolutionary process that is ubiquitous and compulsory, in which it strives to reduce the cost of the whole process, towards stability (even if local), as much as any other biological, chemical or physical system we know.

So, to prove my argument that an open society is not just desirable, but the only final solution, all I need to do is to show that this is the least energy state of the social system. Open source software, open hardware and all systems where sharing is at the core should be, then, the least costly business models, so to force virtually all companies in the world to follow suit, and create the Stallman’s utopia as a result of the natural stability, not a forced state.

This is crucial, because every forced state is non-natural by definition, and every non-natural state has to be maintained by using resources that could be used otherwise, to enhance the quality of the lives of the individuals of the system (being them human or not, let’s not block our point of view this early). To achieve balance on a social system we have to let things go awry for a while, so that the arguments against such a state are perfectly clear to everyone involved, and there remains no argument that the current state is non-optimal. If there isn’t discomfort, there isn’t the need for change. Without death, there is no life.

Profit

Of all the bad ideas us humans had on how to build a social system, capitalism is probably one of the worst, but it’s also one of the most stable, and that’s because it’s the closest to the jungle rule, survival of the fittest and all that. Regulations and governments never came to actually protect the people, but as to protect capitalism from itself, and continue increasing the profit of the profitable. Socialism and anarchy rely too much on forced states, in which individuals have to be devoid of selfishness, a state that doesn’t exist on the current form of human beings. So, while they’re the product of amazing analysis of the social structure, they still need heavy genetic changes in the constituents of the system to work properly, on a stable, least-energy state.

Having less angry people on the streets is more profitable for the government (less costs with security, more international trust in the local currency, more investments, etc), so panis et circenses will always be more profitable than any real change. However, with more educated societies, result from the increase in profits of the middle class, more real changes will have to be made by governments, even if wrapped in complete populist crap. One step at a time, the population will get more educated, and you’ll end up with more substance and less wrapping.

So, in the end, it’s all about profit. If not using open source/hardware means things will cost more, the tendency will be to use it. And the more everyone uses it, the less valuable will be the products that are not using it, because the ecosystem in which applications and devices are immersed in, becomes the biggest selling point of any product. Would you buy a Blackberry Application, or an Android Application? Today, the answer is close to 80% on the latter, and that’s only because they don’t use the former at all.

It’s not just more expensive to build Blackberry applications, because the system is less open, the tools less advanced, but also the profit margins are smaller, and the return on investment will never justify. This is why Nokia died with their own App store, Symbian was not free, and there was a better, free and open ecosystem already in place. The battle had already been lost, even before it started.

But none of that was really due to moral standards, or Stallman’s bickering. It was only about profit. Microsoft dominated the desktop for a few years, long enough to make a stand and still be dominant after 15 years of irrelevance, but that was only because there was nothing better when they started, not by a long distance. However, when they tried to flood the server market, Linux was not only already relevant, but it was better, cheaper and freer. The LAMP stack was already good enough, and the ecosystem was so open, that it was impossible for anyone with a closed development cycle to even begin to compete on the same level.

Linux became so powerful that, when Apple re-defined the concept of smartphones with the iPhone (beating Nokia’s earlier attempts by light-years of quality), the Android system was created, evolved and dominated in less than a decade. The power to share made possible for Google, a non-device, non-mobile company, to completely outperform a hardware manufacturer in a matter of years. If Google had invented a new OS, not based on anything existent, or if they had closed the source, like Apple did with FreeBSD, they wouldn’t be able to compete, and Apple would still be dominant.

Do we need profit?

So, the question is: is this really necessary? Do we really depend on Google (specifically) to free us from the hands of tyrant companies? Not really. If it wasn’t Google, it’d be someone else. Apple, for a long time, was the odd guy in the room, and they have created an immense value for society: they gave us something to look for, they have educated the world on what we should strive for mobile devices. But once that’s done, the shareable ecosystem learns, evolves and dominate. That’s not because Google is less evil than Apple, but because Android is more profitable than iOS.

Profit here is not just the return on investment that you plan on having on a specific number of years, but adding to that, the potential that the evolving ecosystem will allow people to do when you’ve long lost the control over it. Shareable systems, including open hardware and software, allow people far down in the planing, manufacturing and distributing process to still have profit, regardless of what were your original intentions. One such case is Maddog’s Project Cauã.

By using inexpensive RaspberryPis, by fostering local development and production and by enabling the local community to use all that as a way of living, Maddog’s project is using the power of the open source initiative by completely unrelated people, to empower the people of a country that much needs empowering. That new class of people, from this and other projects, is what is educating the population of the world, and what is allowing the people to fight for their rights, and is the reason why so many civil uprisings are happening in Brazil, Turkey, Egypt.

Instability

All that creates instability, social unrest, whistle-blowing gone wrong (Assange, Snowden), and this is a good thing. We need more of it.

It’s only when people feel uncomfortable with how the governments treat them that they’ll get up their chairs and demand for a change. It’s only when people are educated that they realise that oppression is happening (since there is a force driving us away from the least-energy state, towards enriching the rich), and it’s only when these states are reached that real changes happen.

The more educated society is, the quicker people will rise to arms against oppression, and the closer we’ll be to Stallman’s utopia. So, whether governments and the billionaire minority likes or not, society will go towards stability, and that stability will migrate to local minima. People will rest, and oppression will grow in an oscillatory manner until unrest happens again, and will throw us into yet another minimum state.

Since we don’t want to stay in a local minima, we want to find the best solution not just a solution, having it close to perfect in the first attempt is not optimal, but whether we get it close in the first time or not, the oscillatory nature of social unrest will not change, and nature will always find a way to get us closer to the global minimum.

Conclusion

Is it possible to stay in this unstable state for too long? I don’t think so. But it’s not going to be a quick transition, nor is it going to be easy, nor we’ll get it on the first attempt.

But more importantly, reaching stability is not a matter of forcing us to move towards a better society, it’s a matter of how dynamic systems behave when there are clear energetic state functions. In physical and chemical systems, this is just energy, in biological systems this is the propagation ability, and in social systems, this is profit. As sad as it sounds…

Amazon loves to annoy

It’s amazing how Amazon will do all in their power to annoy you. They will sell you DRM-free MP3 songs, and even allow you to download on any device (via their web interface) the full version, for your own personal use, in the car, at home or when mobile. But, not without a cost, no.

For some reason, they want to have total control of the process, so if they’ll allow you to download your music, it has to be their way. In the past, you had to download the song immediately after buying, with a Windows-only binary (why?) and you had only one shot. If the link failed, you just lost a couple of pounds. To be honest, that happened to me, and customer service were glad to re-activate my “license” so I could download it again. Kudos for that.

Question 1: Why did they need an external software to download the songs when they had a full-featured on-line e-commerce solution?

It’s not hard to sell on-line music, other people have been doing it for years and not in that way, for sure. Why was it so hard for Amazon, the biggest e-commerce website on Earth, to do the same? I was not asking for them to revolutionise the music industry (I leave that for Spotify), just do what others were doing at the time. Apparently, they just couldn’t.

Recently, it got a lot better, and that’s why I started buying MP3 songs from Amazon. They now had a full-featured MP3 player on the web! They also have the Android version of it that is a little confusing but unobtrusive. The web version is great, once you buy an album you go directly to it and you can already start listening to songs and all.

Well, I’m a control freak, and I want to have all songs I own on my own server (and its backup), so I went to download my recently purchased songs. Well, it’s not that simple: you can download all your songs, on Windows and Mac… not Linux.

Question 2: Why on Earth can’t they make it work on Linux?

We’re not talking about Microsoft or Apple. This is Amazon, a web company that is supposed to know how JavaScript works, right? Why create executables, ActiveX, SilverLight or whatever those platforms demand from their developers when they can do the same just using JavaScript? The era when JavaScript was too slow and Flash rocked is over, like, 10 years ago. There simply is no excuse.

Undeterred, I knew the Android app would let me download, and as an added bonus, all songs downloaded by AmazonMP3 would be automatically added to the Android music playlists, so that both programs could play the same songs. That was great, of course, until I wanted to copy them to my laptop.

When running (the fantastic) ES File Explorer, I listed the folders consuming most of the SDCARD, found the amazonmp3 folder and saw that all my songs were in there. Since Android changed the file-system, and I can’t seem to mount it correctly via MTP (noob), I decided to use the ES File Explorer (again) to select all files and copy to my server via its own interface, that is great for that sort of thing, and well, found out that it’s not that simple. Again.

Question 3: Why can I read and delete the songs, but not copy them?

What magic Linux permission let me listen to a song (read) and delete the file (write) but not copy to another location? I can’t think of a way to natively do that on Linux, it must be a magic from Android, to allow for DRM crap.

At this time I was already getting nervous, so I just fired adb shell and navigated to the directory, and when I listed the files, adb just logged out. I tried again, and it just exited. No error message, no log, no warning, just shut down and get me back to my own prompt.

This was getting silly, but I had the directory, so I just ran adb pull /sdcard/amazonmp3/ and found that only the temp directory came out. What the hell is this sorcery?!

Question 4: What kind of magic stops me from copying files, or even listing files from a shell?

Well, I knew it was something to do with the Amazon MP3 application itself, if couldn’t be something embedded on Android, or the activists would crack on until they ceded, or at least provided means for disabling DRM crap from the core. To prove my theory, I removed the AmazonMP3 application and, as expected, I could copy all my files via adb to my server, where I could then, back them up.

So, if you use Linux and want to download all your songs from Amazon MP3 website, you’ll have to:

  1. Buy songs/albuns on Amazon’s website
  2. Download them via AmazonMP3 Android app (click on album, click on download)
  3. Un-install the AmazonMP3 app
  4. Get the files via: adb pull /sdcard/amazonmp3/
  5. Re-install the AmazonMP3 app (if you want, or to download more songs)

As usual, Amazon was a pain in the back with what should be really, really simple for them to do. And, as usual, a casual user finds its way to getting what they want, what they paid for, what they deserve.

If you know someone at Amazon, please let them know:

We’re not idiots. We know you know JavaScript, we know you use Linux, and we know you can create an amazing experience for all of us. Don’t treat us like idiots. If your creativity is lacking, just copy the design and implementation from someone else, we don’t care. We want solutions, not problems.

Hypocrite Internet Freedom

Last year, the Internet has shown its power over governments, when we all opposed to the SOPA and PIPA legislations in protests across the world, including this very blog. Later on, against ACTA and so on, and we all felt very powerful indeed. Now, a new thread looms over the Internet, the ITU is trying to take over the Internet.

To quote Ars Technica:

Some of the world’s most authoritarian regimes introduced a new proposal at the World Conference on International Telecommunications on Friday that could dramatically extend the jurisdiction of the International Telecommunication Union over the Internet.

Or New Scientist:

This week, 2000 people have gathered for the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates to discuss, in part, whether they should be in charge.

And stressing that:

WHO runs the internet? For the past 30 years, pretty much no one.

When in reality, the Internet of today is actually in the precise state the US is trying to avoid, only that now they’re in control, and the ITU is trying to change it to an international organization, where more countries have a say.

Today, the DNS and the main IP blocks are controlled by the ICANN, however, Ars Technica helps us reminding that ICANN and IANA are:

the quasi-private organizations that currently oversee the allocation of domain names and IP addresses.

But the ICANN was once a US government operated body, still with strong ties with Washington, localized solely on the US soil, operating on US law jurisdiction. They also failed on many accounts to democratize their operations, resulting in little or no impact for international input. Furthermore, all top level domains that are not bound to a country (like .com, .org, .net) are also within American jurisdiction, even if they’re hosted and registered in another country.

But controlling the DNS is only half the story. The control that the US has on the Internet is much more powerful. First, they hold (for historical and economical reasons), most of the backbone of the Internet (root DNS servers, core routers, etc). That means the traffic between Europe and Japan will probably pass through them. In theory, this shouldn’t matter and it’s actually an optimization of the self-structuring routing tables, but in fact, the US government has openly reported that they do indeed monitor all traffic that goes within their borders and they do reserve the right to cut it, if they think this presents a risk of national security.

Given the amount of publicity the TSA had since 2001 for their recognition of what poses a security threat, including Twitter comments from British citizens, I wouldn’t trust them, or their automated detection system to care for my security. Also, given the intrusion that they have on some governments like the case of Dotcom in January, where national security operations in New Zealand were shared inappropriately with the American government, I never felt safe when crossing American soil, physically or through the Internet.

Besides, Hollywood has shown in Scandinavia and in UK that they hold a strong leash on European governments when related to (US) copyright laws, forcing governments, once liberals, to abide to American rules, arresting their own citizens, when content is being distributed over the Internet. It’s also interesting to remember than SOPA, PIPA and ACTA, mainly driven by Hollywood, were all created within closed doors.

So, would ITU control be better?

No. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although, in theory, it’s more democratic (more countries with decision power), this decision power has been sought for one main purpose: to enforce more strict laws. I generally agree that the ITU would not be a good controlling body, but believing that nobody controls the Internet is, at least, naive, and normally a pretentious lie.

A legal control of many countries over something as free as the Internet would impose the same dangers as having it free of legal control, since it leaves us with indirect control from the strongest player, which so far, has been the US. The other countries are only so strongly minded about the ITU because the US won’t let them have their voices, and the ITU is a way to create an UN for the Internet.

In that sense, the ITU would be a lot like the UN. Worthless. A puppet in the hands or the strong players. Each country would have more control over their borders, and that would impact almost nothing in the US, but the general rules would stop being valid, and the US (and other countries) would have to do a lot more work than they do today. One example is the stupid rule in the UK where the sites, including international ones, have to warn users that they are using cookies.

Don’t be fooled, the US government is not really worried about your safety and security, nor your freedom. They’re trying to avoid a lot of work, and a big loss in market in the Middle East and South Asia. With countries (that they like to say are authoritarian regimes) imposing stricter rules on traffic, including fees, taxes and other things that they have on material goods, the commerce with those governments will be a lot more expensive.

Ever since the second world war, the US economy is based mainly on military activities. First, helping Europe got them out of the big depression, then they forced rebellions throughout Latin America to keep the coins clinking and currently, it’s the Middle East. With the climate change endangering their last non-war resources (oil), they were betting on the Internet to spread the American Way Of Life to the less fortunate, with the off chance of selling a few iPads on the process, but now, that profit margin is getting dangerously thin.

Not to mention the military threat, since a lot of the intelligence is now being gathered through the Internet, and recent attacks on Iranian nuclear power plants via the Stuxnet worm, would all become a lot harder. The fact that China is now bigger and more powerful than they are, in every possible aspect (I dare say even military, but we can’t know for sure), is also not helping.

What is then, the solution? Is it possible to really have nobody running the Internet? And, if at all possible, is it desirable?

Mad Max Internet

I don’t think so.

It’s true that IPv6 should remove completely the need for IP allocation, but DNS is a serious problem. Letting DNS registration to an organic self-organized process would lead to widespread malicious content being distributed and building security measures around it would be much harder than they already are. The same is true with SSL certificates. You’d expect that, on a land with no rules, trusted bodies would charge a fortune and extort clients for a safe SSL certificate, if they actually produce a good one, that is, but this is exactly what happens today, on ICANN rule.

Routing would also be affected, since current algorithms rely on total trust between parties. There was a time when China had all US traffic (including governmental and military) through its routers, solely done via standard BGP rules. On a world where every country has its own core router, digitally attacking another country would be as easy as changing one line on a router.

We all love to think that the Internet is a free world already, but more often than ever, people are being arrested for their electronic behaviour. Unfortunately, because there isn’t a set of rules, or a governing body, the rules that get people arrested are the rules of the strongest player, which in our current case, is Hollywood. So, how is it possible to reconcile security, anonymity and stability without recurring to governing bodies?

The simple answer is, it’s not. The Internet is a land with no physical barriers, where contacting people over 1000s of miles is the same as the one besides you, but we don’t live in a world without borders. It’s not possible to reconcile the laws of all countries, with all the different cultures, into one single book. As long as the world keeps its multiculturalism, we have to cope with different rules for different countries, and I’m not in favour of losing our identity just to make the Internet a place comfortable to the US government.

Regulating multi-body

It is my opinion that we do, indeed, need a regulating body. ICANN, ITU, it doesn’t matter, as long as the decisions are good for most.

I don’t expect that any such governing body would come up with a set of rules that are good for everybody, nor that they’ll find the best rules in the first N iterations (for large N), but if the process is fair, we should reach consensus (when N tends to infinity). The problem with both ICANN and ITU is that neither are fair, and there are other interests at play that are weighted much more than the interests of the people.

Since no regulating body, governmental or not, will ever account for the interests of the people (today or ever), people tend to hope that no-rule is the best rule, but I hope I have shown that this is not true. I believe that instead, a governing multi-body is the real solution. It’s hypocrite to believe that Russia will let the US create regulations within its borders, so we can’t assume that will ever happen from start, if we want it to work in the long run. So this multi-body, composed by independent organizations in Europe, Asia, Oceania, Africa and Americas would have strong powers on their regions, but would have to agree on very general terms.

The general terms would be something like:

  1. There should be no cost associated with the traffic to/from/across any country to any other country
  2. There should be no filtering of any content across countries, but filtering should be possible to/from a specific country or region based on religious or legal grounds
  3. It should be possible for countries to deny certain types of traffic (as opposed to filtering above), so that routing around would be preferred
  4. Misuse of Internet protocols (such as BGP and DNS spoofing) on root routers/DNS servers should be considered an international crime with the country responsible for the server in charge of the punishments or sanctions against that country could be enforced by the UN
  5. Legal rights and responsibilities on the Internet should be similar (but not identical) as they are on the physical world, but each country has the right and duty to enforce their own rules

Rule 1 is fundamental and would cut short most of the recent ITU’s proposals. It’s utter nonsense to cross-charge the Internet as it is to do it with telecoms around the world, and that is probably the biggest problem of the new proposal.

Rules 2 and 3 would leave control over regional Internet with little impact on the rest. It’d also foment creation of new routes around problematic countries, which is always beneficial to the Internet reliability as a whole. It’s hypocrite to assume that the US government has the right to impose Internet rules on countries like Iran or China, and it’s up to the people of China and Iran to fight their leaders on their own terms.

It’s extremely hypocrite, and very common, in the US to believe that their system (the American Way of Life) is the best for every citizen of the world, or that the people of other countries have no way of choosing their own history. It’s also extremely hypocrite to blame authoritarian governments on Internet regulations and at the same time provide weapons and support local authoritarian groups. Let’s not forget the role of the US on Afghanistan and Iraq prior to the Gulf War, as opposition to Russia and Iran (respectively), and their pivot role on all major authoritarian revolution in Latin America.

Most countries, including Russia and the ones in Middle East would probably be fine with rules 2 and 3, with little impact on the rest of the world. Which leaves us with rule 4, to account for the trust-worthiness of the whole system. Today, there is a gang of a few pals who control the main routers and giving more control over less trust-worthy pals over DNS and BGP routes would indeed be a problem.

However, in fact, this rule is in vigour today, since China routed US traffic for only 18 minutes. It was more a show of power than a real attack, but had China been doing this for too long, the US would think otherwise and with very strong reasons. The loose control is good, but the loose responsibility is not. Countries should have the freedom to structure their Internet backbones but also do it responsibly, or be punished otherwise.

Finally, there’s rule 5. How to account when a citizen of one country behaves in another country’s website as it’s legal for his culture, but not the other? Strong religious and ethical issues will arise from that, but nothing that there isn’t already on the Internet. Most of the time, this problem is identical to what already happens on the real world, with people from one country that commit crimes on another country. The hard bit is to know what are the differences between physical and logical worlds and how to reconcile the differences in interpretation of the multiple groups that will take part on such governing multi-body.

Conclusion

ITU’s proposal is not good, but ICANN’s is neither. The third alternative, to lack complete control is only going to make it worse, so we need a solution that is both viable and general enough, so that most countries agree to it. It also needs to relinquish control of internal features to their own governments in a way to not affect the rest of the Internet.

I argue that one single body, being it ITU or ICANN, is not a good model, since it’s not general enough nor they account for specific regions’ concerns (ICANN won’t listen to the Middle East and ITU won’t regard the US). So, the only solution I can see possible is one that unites them all into a governing multi-body, with very little in global agreement, but with general rules powerful enough to guarantee that the Internet will be free forever.

The American constitution is a beautiful piece of writing, but in reality, over the years, their government have destroyed most of its beauty. So, long term self-check must also be a core part of this multi-body, with regular review and democratic decisions (sorry authoritarian regimes, it’s the only way).

In a nutshell, while it is possible to write the Internet Constitution and make it work in the long term, humanity is very likely not ready to do that yet, and we’ll probably see the destruction of the Internet in the next 10 years.

Sigh…

 

Open Source and Innovation

A few weeks ago, a friend (Rob) asked me a pertinent question: “How can someone innovate and protect her innovation with open source?”. Initially, I scorned off with a simple “well, you know…”, but this turned out to be a really hard question to answer.

The main idea is that, in the end, every software (and possibly hardware) will end up as open source. Not because it’s beautiful and fluffy, but because it seems to be the natural course of things nowadays. We seem to be moving from profiting on products, to giving them away and profiting on services. If that’s true, are we going to stop innovating at all, and just focus on services? What about the real scientists that move the world forward, are they also going to be flipping burgers?

Open Source as a business model

The reason to use open source is clear, the TCO fallacy is gone and we’re all used to it (especially the lawyers!), that’s all good, but the question is really what (or even when) to open source your own stuff. Some companies do it because they want to sell the value added, or plugins and services. Others do because it’s not their core business or they want to form a community, which would otherwise use the competitors’ open source solution. Whatever the reason is, more and more we seem to be open sourcing software and hardware at an increasing speed, some times it comes off as open source on its first day in the wild.

Open source is a very good cost sharing model. Companies can develop a third-party product, not related to their core areas (where they actually make money), and still claim no responsibility or ownership (which would be costly). For example, the GNU/Linux and FreeBSD operating systems tremendously reduce the cost of any application developer, from embedded systems to big distributed platforms. Most platforms today (Apple’s, Androids, set-top boxes, sat-navs, HPC clusters, web-servers, routers, etc) have them at their core. If each of these products had to develop their own operating system (or even parts of it), it wouldn’t be commercially viable.

Another example is the MeshPotato (in Puerto Rico) box, which uses open software and hardware initially developed by Village Telco (in South Africa). They can cover wide areas providing internet and VoIP telephony over the rugged terrain of Puerto Rico for under $30 a month. If they had to develop their hardware and software (including the OS), it’d cost no less than a few hundred pounds. Examples like that are abundant these days and it’s hard to ignore the benefits of Open Source. Even Microsoft, once the biggest closed-source zealot, who propagated the misinformation that open source was hurting the American Way of Life is now one of the biggest open source contributors on the planet.

So, what is the question then?

If open source saves money everywhere, and promotes incremental innovation that wouldn’t be otherwise possible, how can the original question not have been answered? The key was in the scope.

Rob was referring, in fact, to real chunky innovations. Those that take years to develop, many people working hard with one goal in mind, spending their last penny to possibly profit in the end. The true sense of entrepreneurship. Things that might profit from other open source technologies, but are so hard to make that even so it takes years to produce. Things like new chips, new medicines, real artificial intelligence software and hardware, etc. The open source savings on those projects are marginal. Furthermore, if you spend 10 years developing a software (or hardware) and open source it straight away, how are you ever going to get your investment money back? Unless you charge $500 a month in services to thousands of customers on day one, you won’t see the money back in decades.

The big misunderstanding, I think, it’s that this model no longer applies, so the initial question was invalid to begin with. I explain.

Science and Tecnology

300 years ago, if you were curious about something you could make a name for yourself very easily. You could barely call what they did science. They even called themselves natural philosophers, because what they did was mostly discovering nature and inquiring about its behaviour. Robert Hooke was a natural philosopher and a polymath, he kept dogs with their internals in the open just to see if it’d survive. He’d keep looking at things through a microscope and he named most of the small things we can see today.

Newton, Liebniz, Gauss, Euler and few others have created the whole foundation of modern mathematics. They are known for fundamentally changing how we perceive the universe. It’d be preposterous to assume that there isn’t a person today as bright as they were, but yet, we don’t see people changing our perception of the universe that often. The last spree was more than a hundred years ago, with Maxwell, Planck and Einstein, but still, they were corrections (albeit fundamental) to the model.

Today, a scientist contents in scratching the surface of a minor field in astrophysics, and he’ll probably get a Nobel for that. But how many of you can name more than 5 Nobel laureates? Did they really change your perception of the universe? Did they invent things such as real artificial intelligence or did they discover a better way of doing politics? Sadly, no. Not because they weren’t as smart as Newton or Leibniz, but because the easy things were already discovered, now we’re in for the hard and incremental science and, like it or not, there’s no way around it.

Today, if you wrapped tin foil around a toilet paper tube and played music with it, people would, at best, think you’re cute. Thomas Edison did that and was called a Wizard. Nokia was trying to build a smartphone, but they were trying to make it perfect. Steve Jobs made is almost useless, people loved it, and he’s now considered a genius. If you try to produce a bad phone today, people will laugh at you, not think you’re cute, so things are getting harder for the careless innovators, and that’s the crucial point. Careless and accidental innovation is not possible on any field that has been exploited long enough.

Innovation and Business

Innovation is like business, you only profit if there is a market that hasn’t been taken. If you try to invent a new PC, you will fail. But if you produce a computer that has a niche that has never been exploited (even if it’s a known market, like in the Nokia’s smartphone case), you’re in for the money. If you want to build the next AI software, and it marginally works, you can make a lot of money, whether you open source your software or not. Since people will copy (copyright and patent laws are not the same in every country), your profit will diminish with time, proportional to the novelty and the difficulty in copying.

Rob’s point went further, “This isn’t just a matter of what people can or can’t do, is what people should or should not do”. Meaning, shouldn’t we aim for a world where people don’t copy other people’s ideas as a principle, instead of accepting the fact that people copy? My answer is a strong and sounding: NO! For the love of all that’s good, NO!

The first reason is simply because that’s not the world we live in and it will not be as long as humanity remains human. There is no point in creating laws that do not apply to the human race, though it seems that people get away with that very easy these days.

The second point is that it breaks our society. An example: try to get into a bank and ask for investment on a project that will take 10 years to complete (at the cost of $10M) and the return will come during the 70 years that follows it (at a profit of $100’sM a year). The manager will laugh at you and call security. This is, however, the time it takes (today) for copyright in Hollywood to expire (the infamous Mickey Mouse effect), and the kind of money they deal with.

Imagine that a car manufacturer develops a much safer way of building cars, say magical air bags. This company will be able to charge a premium, not just because of the development costs, but also for its unique position in the market. With time, it’ll save more lives that any other car and governments will want that to be standard. But no other company can apply that to their cars, or at least not without paying a huge premium to the original developer. In the end, cars will be much more expensive in general, and we end up paying the price.

Imagine if there were patents for the telephone, or the TV or cars (I mean, the concept of a car) or “talking to another person over the phone”, or “reminding to call your parents once in a while”. It may look silly, but this is better than most patent descriptions! Most of the cost to the consumer would be patents to people that no longer innovate! Did you know that Microsoft makes more money with Android phones than Google? Their contributions to the platform? Nothing. This was an agreement over dubious and silly patents that most companies accepted as opposed to being sued for billions of dollars.

Conclusion

In my opinion, we can’t just live in the 16th century with 21st century technology. You can’t expect to be famous or profit by building an in-house piece of junk or by spotting a new planet. Open source has nothing to do with it. The problem is not what you do with your code, but how you approach the market.

I don’t want to profit at the expense of others, I don’t want to protect my stupid idea that anyone else could have had (or probably already had, but thought it was silly), just because I was smart enough to market it. Difficult technology is difficult (duh), and it’s not up to a team of experts to create it and market it to make money. Science and technology will advance from now on on a steady, baby-steps way, and the tendency is for this pace to get even slower and smaller.

Another important conclusion for me is that, I’d rather live in a world where I cannot profit horrendously from a silly idea just because I’ve patented it than have monopolies like pharma/banking/tobacco/oil/media controlling our governments, or more than directly, our lives. I think that the fact that we copy and destroy property is the most liberating fact of humanity. It’s the Robin Hood of modern societies, making sure that, one way or another, the filthy rich won’t continue getting richer. Explosive growth, monopolies, cartels, free trade and protection of property are core values that I’d rather see dead as a parrot.

In a nutshell, open source does not hinder innovation, protection of property does.

Hypocrisy in Hollywood

Paralegal‘s Peter Kim sent me this nice info-graphic about a short history of the media industry in Hollywood, and I thought I would share with you.

I’m not a Lawyer, but his site seems to have some good bite-sized information about copyrights and other law terms that we should all know if we are to avoid The Big Brother in our society. Most of it obviously only apply to the US, but as we all know, US law has been extended to the world far too much. British hackers being extradited to US, European citizens getting harassed by US media companies and Asian companies being shut down by the mighty power of Hollywood.

There are other info-graphics on the site that are worth looking at. Thanks for the tip, Peter.

Eventually everyone wants to be AOL

After a good week battling against SOPA, it’s time to go back to real life, to battling our own close enemies.

As was reported over, and over, and over again (at least in this blog), Google is dragging itself towards a giant dominant player it’s becoming, much like Yahoo! and AOL in previous times.

Lifehacker has a very good post about the same subject (from where the title of this post was deliberately taken), around Google+ and the new Search+ (or whatever they’re calling that), and how the giant is loosing its steam and trying so solidify its market, where it’ll comfortably lay until the end of its days.

True, Google has a somewhat strong research department, and is working towards new TCP/IP standards, but much of it was done by Yahoo! in the past, towards FreeBSD, PHP and MySQL. Yahoo! actually hired top notch BSD kernel hackers (like Paul Saab), MySQL gurus (like Jimi Cole and Zawodny) and the PHP creator, Rasmus Lerdorf. And they put a lot back to the community. But none of that is true revolution, only short reforms to keep themselves in power for a bit longer.

The issue is simple, Google doesn’t need to innovate as much as they did in the past, as did Yahoo! and AOL. Even Microsoft and Apple need to innovate more than Google, because they have to sell things. Software, hardware and services, not only cost money, and time, but they age too rapidly and it’s not hard to throw loads of money at a project that is borne dead (like Vista). But Google get its money for free (so to speak), their users are not paying a penny for their services. How hard it is to compete with that model?

Like Google, Yahoo! had the same comfort in their days. They had more users than anyone else, and that was the same as money. They did get money from ads, like Google, only not as efficient. And that put them in a comfort zone that it’s hard not to get used to, which was their ultimate doom. This is why, after 25 and so years failing, Microsoft is still a strong player. This is why Apple, after being in the shadow for than 20 years, got to be the biggest Tech company in the world. The must innovate at every turn.

Yahoo! displaced AOL and bought pretty much everyone else because they’ve outsmarted the competition, by doing the same thing, but cheaper and easier. Google repeated the same stunt, on Yahoo! and is beginning to age. How long would that last? When the next big thing appears, making money even easier, Google will be a giant. An arrogant, slow and blind giant. And natural selection will take care of them as quick as it took of AOL and Yahoo!