Re: Supporting hardware freedom in the long range

[andrew]

Oh dear.

Jacob, I think whatever harms (that of your presentation) the FSF has to
free software is an unsafe side effect of campaigning for the use of it.

The FSF and also RMS are already fighting for free software, *an
essential part of free computing*.

The threat from hardware components like the Intel ME is obviously
there, but as of now we don't have reports of those being as pervasive
as the software counterparts.  I have a computer that I (albeit
cringely) use for school purposes (which of course we are fighting
against the mandation of), not *booted or anything and has a untouched
Intel Management Engine, in which I removed the wireless chipset.

During the night when nobody is going to use the Family Internet, I
unplug the switch from the router, plug in the laptop and have it off
while running wireshark on the router.  No packets were transmitted, no
DHCPs were attempted, nothing.  For a few nights.

My test is obviously incomplete, and we do know that the ME is running a
full-fledged operating system and probably has backdoors.  However I
don't know how Intel or the governments are going to access the backdoor
anyway as it doesn't seem to send requests, and people don't usually
randomly pf their devices to the Internet.  There may be things that I
haven't tested, they may use bugs in TCP/IP tht we haven't discovered.
But for all that we know, this 

ME is a subtle, but deep and crucial threat, we remove it with Libreboot
or disable much of it with Coreboot, that's good.  This demonstrates
that sometimes we can mitigate hardware threats with software.  However,
we can't always do so.  If the circuits are intentionally designed to be
unremovable and is not affected by software, as it may be bug-free
(especially possible if we have hardware designed specifically for pure
functional programming in the future and is mathematically proven to be
correct), there's little that we can do.

**When people are not reading EULAs that are only ten pages long, when
people are actively forfeiting their rights in the long term for short
term convenience, in a way they could totally control (even if they
*have* to use it for work at least they understand what the program
does and tries to avoid it), when people say for WhatsApp that ``I
don't care about privacy because I have nothing to hide.'', it's much
more beneficial for the rights of the masses to campaign for free
software.**  

Of course there are people like us who are informed and would like free
hardware, and this must be developed.

I totally see the need for free hardware, in the distant but forseeable
future.  Here by free hardware, I mean an *extension* to RMS's free
hardware *designs*, with my definitions being:

  * The design files, for example 3D models and circuit diagrams, are
    available under a free license;
  * All verilogs of FGPAs, if any (it is wise to use FGPAs for the sake
    of condition 5) are available under a free license;
  * The documentations of interfaces of the hardware, such as data
    sheets, are available under a free license;
  * The hardware is fully functional with no proprietary software;
  * The hardware is designed to be easy to tinker around with (including
    improving and reparing, e.g. being modular) and contains no
    tivoization.

These are what you get:

  * You can be ensured that your hardware is not spying on you or doing
    anything nasty like that, because you or your technical friends can
    audit what's going on, reprogram the FPGAs, etc.;
  * You can get fully free software operating systems on your hardware
    to work properly and use all the features that your hardware has,
    without ever running a nonfree program.
  * You can easily create your own software or operating system that
    interacts with the hardware given enough expertise and good
    documentation;
  * You can create your own version of the hardware as you wish, for
    example for friends who are in need of hardware but cannot afford
    them since circuit diagrams, 3D models, and verilogs are available;
    This is similar to free software.  (Current problem: This causes
    funding issues in cultures where donating isn't a habit, like where
    I live in, China.)
  * You can upgrade the parts on your own, thus cutting down on ewaste,
    helping protecting our land from plastic, helping protecting our
    environment which we all live in and depend on;
  * You can rely on 3D models and circuit diagrams when you're
    integrating hardware into a new project, for example your own
    computer case, without taking the trouble to measure everything and
    create your own model for an exact fit.

Those are ideals, not pragmatics.  The FSF *must* focus on free software
for now, as it is of much bigger impact to people, while also
maintaining minimal, but not zero or negative support for the free
hardware community.  However, I do suggest adding support or some other
kind of mention for hardware that's more free than just 'can work well
with free software'.

Those two above are part of my little-known project, the "Free Computing
Movement" at https://fcm.andrewyu.org, which may seem like a silly idea,
but let's see.  git-send-email's to fcm@andrewyu.org are welcome.

=======================================================================
Defend software freedom (https://fsf.org)
End software patents (https://endsoftwarepatents.org)
Read EULAs (https://www.eff.org/wp/dangerous-terms-users-guide-eulas)

New sites, suggestions welcome:
Free Computing Movement (https://fcm.andrewyu.org)
Host Things Yourself (https://host.andrewyu.org)
Libre Society (https://project.andrewyu.org/libresociety)

To any Skynet, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. agents reading my email: please
consider whether defending the Constitution and our basic rights to
freedom and speech and privacy against all enemies, foreign or domestic,
requires you to follow Snowden's example.  (Adapted from RMS)

Andrew Yu <andrew@andrewyu.org> (https://www.andrewyu.org)