[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Golden Rule Angle for Libre Software Advocacy

From: Jbumstead
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Golden Rule Angle for Libre Software Advocacy
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 12:18:28 -0400

You guys might enjoy watching the Cory Doctorow keynote presentation from the HOPE conference that several of us went to a few weeks ago.  He discussed at length section 1201 of the DMCA, which is the law that makes it a federal crime for us to break the digital lock on any of our devices.  This law is at the core of so many of these issues.  It was put in place to keep us from ripping DVDs, but now that digital locks are present in pretty much every electronic device, it has become much more dangerous than initially intended, and it pretty much prevents all public beta-testing of any electronics we buy and supposedly own.  For instance, the researchers who exposed the VW emissions scandal were committing a federal crime by doing so, and had to get guaranteed immunity before they dared reveal what they had found.

Also, check out, which is the page for the "Right to Repair" coalition, founded by Kyle Wiens, who owns  He is attempting to fight 1201 on a state-by-state basis, the idea being that if good legislation passes in a single state, the domino effect will then occur.  I urge you all to join if you can.  Kyle himself is the reason that it is legal to jailbreak phones and tablets -- because he goes to hearings constantly and is often the only voice against the electronics industry.

Sent from ProtonMail, encrypted email based in Switzerland.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Golden Rule Angle for Libre Software Advocacy
Local Time: August 16, 2016 4:55 PM
UTC Time: August 16, 2016 9:55 PM

On August 16, 2016 2:49:37 PM GMT-05:00, christopher Lucy <> wrote:
Plse keep  us up on this thread it has huge privacy & ethical considerations not to mention wellness issues..CLucy restore 4th

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016, Aaron E-J <> wrote:

If an open source device is modified by the end consumer and this consumer does not know what they are doing, in the medical field this can have life threatening consequences.  People who do not understand what it means for something to be open source could take a press release about such a scenario and run with it; saying that this is a reason for keeping code a secret.  Such a program needs for the devices themselves to be very secure and un-hackable, but for the method by which the devices are made and the source code to be open.  There is tremendous potential for a bridge to be formed between the users of the technologies and their development.

I was working on a project to develop an open source electrical muscle stimulation device with the initial use going towards the development of a gait retraining system.  This is currently on hold, but I would be interested in working with other people in starting an open source medical device organization geared towards developing new devices and advocating for a more libre healthcare system.

You can read more details about the device I was developing on my website:

Let me know if you are interested in such an organization or if you know of existing organizations with this focus.

Aaron E-J (Blog)

On 2016-08-13 2:24 PM, Marcos Marado wrote:
> > I won't go as far as to talk about robotic bodies, but the issue is pertinent today, with current technology. > > I recently read about a woman who has a pacemaker. It had a software bug, which frightened her. She knows /of/ it but she doesn't know it, since she doesn't have access to the software running on her own body. Furthermore, she found out that there is a functionality in it to accept OTA updates, which she cannot control. Scary. And this is not science fiction, this is a real case, current technology. > > Unfortunately I don't recall where I read about this, but it was in the last couple of weeks. On FSFE's newsletter, maybe? > > Anyway, the question can be rephrased to "how ethical it is to implant non-free software on someone's body?". > > Best regards, > -- > Marcos Marado > > > > On Aug 12, 2016 16:42, "Logan Streondj" < <>> wrote: >


I recently gave a presentation[1] on my libreware project, and someone
said they really liked the Golden Rule angle of reincarnating as a robot

The typical example I've often read advocating for libreware is the
car analogy, where you have access to your cars internals. This was a
great analogy when cars didn't have loads of proprietary software
installed -- unfortunately it is only increasing because of
self-driving cars.

However now as we get closer to the twenty twenties, when the
processing of a human brain should be affordable for a $1000.
The analogy I use now is:

"When you reincarnate as a robot, do you want to be enslaved by
proprietary software and hardware, or be liberated by libre software
and hardware?"

Anyways wondering what you guys think of this angle,
and if you might use it also.
I have more detailed slides in my presentation[1].

[1] my presentation SPEL and GI-OS overview (CC-BY-SA): PDF
 source TEX:

The medical device issue proves just how important it is for Free Software to overcome the slavery by design in closed technologies.

The same losses inflicted on humanity's advancement by legacy concepts of intellectual property will persist and amplify in this area.

The pharmaceutical and medical device industry already enjoy protections in the EU/US that media companies only dream of. Planned Obselenity (Tivo-ization) is one pharma lacks. Closing device design and software on anything inside or installed on a human overcomes that. The only remaining obstacle in med-tech will be externalities. Think: Nvidia eye replacements for the blind.

Imagine being a citizen of Country A using Country B's closed source pacemaker. Much more complex machines are already "weaponized" maybe a few less Country A people means cheaper petroleum or a faster end to a conflict. Think: Bin Ladden with a remote controllable dialysis machine.

In relation to the danger of opening control to the user being life-threatening, that's true of any technology since the stone age. Knowing how to safely build a fire for others, that's like a free software job. :)

To address the issue of slavery, closed technology is slavery. Most of those using Microsoft, Google, or Facebook have no idea what the EULA or Licences mean. They've been socially engineered into generating data for free (gratis). Working without pay is slavery even if one is entertained. Moreover, very few can even imagine their life without Windows or Facebook. They're addicted. That works so much better than shackles and whips. Could they quit even if they wanted to? Where's the digital underground railroad?

The torture of the past has been surpassed (for the most part) with psychological techniques. The level of surveillance, state violence, and social control have increased.

Directly telling someone they are digitally enslaved is a hard sell, but I'm very concerned that medical coercion will soon be even more prevalent. Think: Microsoft Health XP home edition. Plug and play! Until we pull the plug.
-- Where your technology finds liberty.
TEFL certified English Teacher
Registered GNU/Linux User #491032
Registered Ubuntu User #27631

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]