Why?

There exists a mighty candle of a great divide that we keep burning. We feed a steady stream of fuel to support a division between the Computing Life and Real Life. As the debate between Mind and Body passes, we forge a new polemic between Real Life and Computing Life.

In the case of the former, many have accepted that the division between Mind and Body is purely a model created by humans. Practically, we know that the mind and body are inexplicably linked. There is no duality. There is no division. The byproduct of the brain organ is no more isolated than the byproduct of the heart organ.

In the case of the latter, there seems a reoccurring thematic to keep a division between Real Life and Computing Life. There is the Real World and then there is the Computing World. We, as a culture, introduced this technology and damned be us if we will accept Computing has merged into Real Life. We need those divisions.

Computing is no different than an automobile. It is no different than a desk. It is no different than a tool in your work shed.

It is separate. It is isolated. It can always be turned off.

Correct?

Ubiquity

Computing is clearly ubiquitous. What seemed inevitable in the 80s has become reality for Eurowesterners living in 2010 and beyond. If fifteen years ago someone had told you that you would be connected to the internet 24/7, you may have balked in disbelief.

Now take a look around you.

The nature of the ubiquity of computing devices has, in turn, created long term impacts on our daily living. A few companies have forever altered the course of our futures, and few are paying attention to that drastic change it seems.

A Musical Example

CDs supplanted Cassette Tapes and Cassette Tapes supplanted Vinyl and Eight Tracks. So goes technology. No different than what is happening now, right?

Technology will become extinct as it is replaced by newer technology. We accept that.

Have you tried to go out and purchase a CD in North America? Have you noticed how only a select few shops are left selling them, and even then, their selections have dwindled?

This is the natural progression of technology supplanting itself, correct?

Now think back to the CD. When CDs came to market, all of the traditional outlets sold them. There wasn't some strange government mandate that only store X could sell them. There wasn't a technological twist that prevented manufacturers from creating CD players to play the disks or preventing certain disks from playing in certain players.

The first generation digital music players prior to the iPod allowed you to take your music and play it on any device. Then came the iPod with its studio sanctioned digital rights management system known as Fairplay, and the system changed forever.

Now the music sold could only play on one system. But that is acceptable in a free market. To each their own. Don't support them if you don't want to. Entirely logical.

Cut to now. What had begun as music software has rolled its tendrils out as a near ubiquitous iDistribution system. Through well executed design and marketing, iDistribution is all around us.

I, as a Canadian, have trouble finding CDs anywhere, let alone the titles I'd want to purchase. Digital downloads are always an option, correct? Alas...

Amazon, the only other provider with a large library offering non DRM music, isn't available in Canada. The remaining digital music distribution system? iTunes. So why not buy there then? It is what the free market has dictated, is it not?

iTunes isn't just a music sales site. It requires signing onto the iDistribution system in full. I cannot just purchase music. Nay, instead, I must sign onto an entire "approved" computing platform in order to run the iDistribution software.

That sounds like Fair Play doesn't it?

So through a system of ulterior motive DRM at first, iTunes forced the hand of every digital downloader. In turn, thanks to successful industrial, software, and marketing design, that ubiquity has impacted many others that want nothing to do with the iDistribution system.

Much like second hand smoke, the activities of some impact the lives of others.

A full circle that this mythical "free market" endorsed.

Then and Now

Now we have a new world. Steve Jobs stripped DRM from newer music in iTunes, but it remained a fee driven removal for existing songs one may own. So if one has a sizable library bought from that early era, they still must use an iDevice to play the music.

Now think about iBooks and the Kindle. The Kindle's and iBooks' digital downloads are laced with DRM just as the early era of the digital music offerings in precisely the same technique that the early iPod harnessed DRM.

What happens if one system becomes as ubiquitous as iTunes was for music? What happens when a particular version of DRM reaches monopolistic proportions? Would removal of said DRM suddenly shift the balance of power back to a more neutral state?

I'd ask you to let your mind wander and draw a perfect parallel to the music store analogy taking place in North America. What happens when our book stores begin to disappear? Is that possible?

Could the brick and mortar book store disappear in much the same way that the mega book store displaced the smaller shops? Could the mega book stores dissolve to the digital book store?

The Great Huge Worry

When we start talking about these things, we aren't talking about individual things anymore. We are talking about systems.

One cannot get digital music downloads in Canada unless you sign onto an entire iDistribution system. That means choosing an "approved" operating system and being forced to run a particular piece of software.

We see this identical trend forming around books. Kindle and iBooks both force you to again subscribe to an "approved" operating system and again are forced to run particular breeds of software.

What happens when you have mega companies deciding what books they are going to stock? What happens when a Canadian and New York Times bestseller can't put their books in a distribution system as a result of the artist's chosen license?

What happens when there are even more radical and politically charged pieces? Does the law of the land govern their dissemination or does the power of ubiquity via the mythical free market dictate how loudly the voices will be heard?

Clearly, if we look to what is happening to the brick and mortar CD stores and how difficult it is to purchase digital music in Canada, we can see that the "let the free market decide" is unfolding as a myth. It certainly does not appear to be ensuring that a culture's content is unfettered.

The free market is only as as strong as the culture's government is willing to enforce the core freedoms. In many instances, the various governments appear to be woefully inadequate both in education and perhaps in motivation.

Politically Charged Context

Looking around us now, we can see a perfect example as to why maintaining an unfettered system is of critical importance. The world's first information war is upon us.

Wherever you stand on the issue, it should be clear that there is a culture war going on as well. Some cultures want to deal with the issue in one fashion. Others another way. It is a cultural discourse. It is a debate amongst countries.

The stakes are extremely high.

As part of the WikiLeaks turmoil is an "insurance file" that is encrypted with 256 bit AES encryption. By today's standards, it is uncrackable.

Already, the closed distribution system clearly prevents certain software from landing in the hands of an end audience member. The GNU Public License agreement is in direct opposition to the Apple App Store policy. As such, Libre software cannot be published in the App Store, as the VLC media player application appears to be illustrating.

Of course, this means that you cannot install GPL software from within the convenience of the App Store. It also means that as a result of the closed distribution system and its set of licenses, GPL software can never be installed on iOS because it is prohibited to install software via any method other than the App Store.

Imagine that: Software that ensures and protects the end audience's rights and freedoms is in direct opposition to the end user license agreement terms of the platform.

This too, is still completely acceptable in this mythical free market.

What happens when it comes to encryption though? What happens when certain forms of encryption, either via license or via government agreements with companies, that high grade encryption is prohibited on devices?

What about new software technology that we can't quite see just yet?

Does it seem the stuff of science fiction and tin foil hats? Remember that the OpenBSD project located itself in Canada because of the exportation of cryptography laws in the United States. Encryption is a very hot topic, and certainly after the WikiLeaks scenario it will not be going away soon.

If anything, WikiLeaks has brought the issue of publicly available encryption to the forefront of our North American culture again.

Back to Libre Software

As a result of ignorant or lobbied government legislation, we may soon be unable to alter our computing devices. In fact, there are digital lock provisions being debated today that would prevent you from manipulating the digital locks on not only content but the systems themselves.

What many didn't likely know is that in the United States it was illegal to apply the happy euphemism of jailbreaking to their iDevices. Recently, the courts overruled that decision, but the era is far from over.

What happens when a system prevents you from installing certain content? What happens when the closed distribution systems land on your desktops?

What happens when a system prevents you from applying certain technology such as encryption? Is this the stuff of fiction or might a software licence be in direct opposition to a distribution platform?

What happens when a culture cedes all of its constitutional freedom of speech into the hands of companies that appear to hold censorship as acceptable?

When is it a culture's right to demand that products such as automobile computing brake systems be compelled to open up the source code to examine for negligence?

What happens when a culture's government sits on its hands long enough to let monopolies drive an entire future generation of content and culture? What happens to marginalized countries? Is there agency to participate in culture or is it being subversively silenced? Who gets to decide? The mythical free market?

Within the limits of freedom and democracy that free and democratic systems provide, there is only one computing system that appears to reflect those core values. At the same time, it appears that the ability to participate in the culture and maintain relevance is being quietly and slowly snuffed out for those that stand behind such systems.

In Closing

It is common to hear that no one cares about the human readable computer code behind their systems. So few can understand it. So few can write new code. So few can participate in that aspect of the system that it is irrelevant to be able to read it.

In the Eurowestern system, we have laws. Those laws are visible to the public at all times. The democratic systems that are built on those laws mandate that the laws shall always remain open.

Those laws are complex. Very few can understand much of them. Very few can participate in law creation or modification. Those that live under those laws however, would likely be willing to shed blood to keep the laws open and available.

There is no better time than now to take a look around you and examine your computing world. When a free market creates a $290 billion dollar "success", you can be certain that more will follow their patterns and process.

In our shallow consumerism we have traded convenience for liberty. We accept, without grounds and examination of our contemporary world, that computing is a privilege as opposed to a right.

Real Life and Computing Life is a convenient fictional model as is suggesting a divide between Mind and Body.

Here's to the hope that we, within our own cultures, begin to start treating computing less as a commodity and more as a critical aspect of human living, subject to the same laws and governance that so many have died for.

Thank you for spending your valuable time reading...