I have a feeling that the FLOSS movement in spirit was constructed in the previous centralised computing paradigm with timesharing systems, and in some sense is left there. I wonder what its corresponding movement of our time would be, now that the pendulum has swung back from the desktop computing paradigm and into dumb terminals over a document format?
@albin As I see it: decentralization.
@alcinnz I think so, but not just that. If they used copyright law and GPL, I think we need to do similar forays into other fields, but I'm still quite fuzzy on the details of what that means.
@alcinnz Without having read anything about it, it sounds reasonable to me!
@albin I'll look up some articals for you, but the idea is that if you can do your core job without uploading a piece of data to some central servers you are forbidden from doing so. And you can't say "but we can offer more conveniences by collecting this data".
@albin It's mentioned in this talk, I think https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm
But definitely these links:
https://ar.al/2018/11/29/gdmr-this-one-simple-regulation-could-end-surveillance-capitalism-in-the-eu/
I agree with RMS about this.
@Hamishcampbell @alcinnz Could you please expand a bit on that for me? I think I agree to some extent but I'm not sure if I see a (necessary) conflict between that and eg Stallman et al.
@albin @alcinnz Not being human (geek disfuctional fantasey) is the idea of not collecting data as a good path.
Libertarians have a limited view https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism :)
@Hamishcampbell I...partially agree. I mean, of course the society in which the data collection happens matters, as that affects who collects data on whom and what they can use it for, and I would certainly be sceptical of purely libertarian perspectives, but I still think some variant of Stallman's policies might make sense, if nothing else then as harm reduction for our particular society at this point in time. Would you agree to that?
@albin yep, fair point, but good to point this as disfuctional mediation and clearly not as a desirable outcome. Its inhuman.
@Hamishcampbell Do you mean that *all* sorts of data collections are a necessary part of the human condition? I am not sure I follow your argument here, but it sounds interesting.
Also, when you talk about "not being human", how do you relate this to eg the concept of the modern human as cyborg. which I have heard some people use in these discussions as well?
@Hamishcampbell @albin All I'm saying is that I don't think data should be aggregated if it's not beneficial to the individuals to which it relates, or to society.
I don't view that as libertarian, and I don't view myself as libertarian.
I'm not sure exactly a libertarian fantasy, but its certainly one that is definately pro individualisation
if you look and follow the logic to its extreme- dont store or share any data, you end up with something that could be called hyper individualization, something that maybe wouldnt be life?
Dont most interactions, between, not just humans, but any two given organisms, require some kind of exchange of 'data'
Life is a lot about connections and sharing
@dazinism @Hamishcampbell @albin Sure if you take it to the extreme, but that's not what I'm talking about. Because today we're at an opposite extreme.
@alcinnz @dazinism @Hamishcampbell I would be open to this move as pure strategy as well; as a potential means to stymie corporate growth and create a breathing space. In that case, the question becomes how to avoid that strategy backfiring or being circumvented?
@albin @dazinism @Hamishcampbell See how far you can (in Europe) take the GDPR in courts and push the politicians to adjust it as necessary.
@albin @alcinnz @dazinism @Hamishcampbell
This is definitely not a cure-all, or even a proposal, but is anything happening about licenses for data similar to licenses for software? I know, creative commons, but I am thinking about your personal data that accompanies your online activities of all kinds.
Like, there are good uses for open data in science etc. And then bad uses...
@bhaugen @albin @dazinism @Hamishcampbell Strikes me that the trick would be in making sure the license accompanies the data whenever you share it...
Sounds harder then it is for software, but I'd love to see it figured out!
@Hamishcampbell @alcinnz @albin @dazinism
P.S. I am not arguing a position, just thinking about those two issues at the same time...
@bhaugen @alcinnz @albin @dazinism
That's a good subject as a healthy society is based on trust. Over the last 30 years we have been pushing society in unhealthy direction's. And privacy and openness (trust) are at the core of this. The #encryptionists are part of the problem not a part of the solution the last 10 years in alt-tec.
@bhaugen @alcinnz @albin @dazinism
If anyone is looking for good #openweb projects to help out as sysadmin and user admins we are running 5 instances at #OMN thinking about booting up a few more activertypub instances.
We have foundation funding to cover the server costs till the community's are self funding/managing.
@Hamishcampbell @bhaugen @albin @dazinism Doesn't encryption allow us to decide who we trust and who we don't, rather than blindly trusting everyone?
I really think there's room for both encryption and trust based security. We need both for anything to work.
@bob @Hamishcampbell @albin @bhaugen @dazinism Here's to that!
@bhaugen I'm not specifically aware of data licenses, though CC tends in that direction.
Data and code are both covered by copyright, so copyright-based language ... is at least a start.
I'd argue that there's additional components to personal data, especially in bulk, which _aren't_ adequately addressed by copyright. But then, you could say the same of software, and GPL, et al, have worked fairly well.
I think somewhere in Holochain a conversation about licenses to data on the chains is going on.
Or at least conversations about who can access what in an agent-centric network. E.g. how an agent can specify who can see what under what conditions.
@bhaugen @dredmorbius @albin @dazinism @Hamishcampbell
Oh, maybe you can clarify something for me:
I've repeatedly heard that copyright doesn't cover the facts you communicate, just how you choose to express them. So how do data licenses fit in with that?
@bhaugen Compilations of information may be covered by copyright. Enough so that present practices become legally ambiguous, and hence risky.
But yes, this is a limitation of copyright, and an argument for new legal doctrines.
For example,
https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/licensing-needs-for-truly-p2p-software/2018/09/19
and https://opendatacommons.org/
(the last is more about open than private, re the recent imaginary venn diagram...)
Which says:
"Taking into account the state of the art, the cost of implementation and the nature, scope, context and purposes of processing as well as the risks of varying likelihood and severity for rights and freedoms of natural persons posed by the processing, the controller shall, both at the time of the determination of the means for processing and at the time of the processing itself, implement appropriate technical and organisational measures.
(cont'd) such as pseudonymisation, which are designed to implement data-protection principles, such as data minimisation, in an effective manner and to integrate the necessary safeguards into the processing in order to meet the requirements of this Regulation and protect the rights of data subjects."
@jack Yes, exciting indeed. Though I'd prefer to have a few plans B etc lying around in case it doesn't pan out.
@albin From Stallman's artical:
"There are so many ways to use data to hurt people that the only safe database is the one that was never collected. Thus, instead of the EU’s approach of mainly regulating how personal data may be used (in its General Data Protection Regulation or GDPR), I propose a law to stop systems from collecting personal data."