{ texts for nothing }

Richard M. Stallman was in town earlier this month, lecturing the masses about freedom and information. For those who don’t know, Stallman founded the free software movement back in the mid-1980s.* He wrote the original GNU General Public License and formulated fundamental principles like copyleft and the four freedoms. He is directly responsible for the rich ecology of free and open source software that we enjoy today. (He also invented Emacs, but nobody’s perfect.)

Stallman’s major achievements are behind him. These days he spends most of his time fighting losing battles against people who use different terminology or have a slightly different definition of freedom than he does. When I attended his talk on the ethics of free software, I did so because I respect what he did a quarter-century ago and because I wanted to hear him talk about the stuff he’s famous for, not because I expected to hear anything new. And I got pretty much what I was expecting: Stallman talked about the four freedoms for a while, then turned to those terminological disputes — why you should say “GNU/Linux” instead of just “Linux,” why free software is superior to open source software, why Linus Torvalds is wrong, and so on.

But even so, I came away from the lecture with a renewed appreciation for his position. As it turns out, he’s not just resentful that other people have stolen his limelight.

When we talk about open source software, we are basically taking for granted the position Eric S. Raymond outlined in The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Open source software, he says, is better because of how it’s produced. That’s why the Open Source Definition focuses on practical benefits like peer review. In fact, the term “open source” was explicitly invented to make the concept of non-proprietary software palatable to profit-driven corporations by convincing them that open source software is more reliable and bug-free. By contrast, free software (as Stallman defines it) is fundamentally a question of ethics. In his words, proprietary software is a “social problem,” an attack on the “social solidarity” of your community. When companies like Microsoft impose restrictive licenses and lobby governments for stricter “intellectual property” laws, they are directly and deliberately undermining your ability to share stuff with your neighbors — which in turn undermines the entire community.

None of this is news, really. Stallman and others have been talking about these issues for years. But it was refreshing to hear someone make the case — not least because of how it resonates with what I see in my professional life as a systems librarian.

In the library world, open source software is winning the battle against proprietary software. We’re a long way from victory, but there’s a general awareness among library workers — especially among the more technical types — that open source software has some significant advantages. Heck, right now I’m getting paid to help a bunch of libraries in BC make the switch from their proprietary (and expensive) computer systems to a free and open source alternative.

But when library folks talk about non-proprietary software, they almost always mean open source software rather than free software. It’s always about how open source software is more reliable and more feature-rich — and, usually, cheaper. There are, of course, good reasons for taking this approach: libraries are underfunded, so cheaper alternatives are always welcome, and the market for library software is small, so there’s relatively little competition and thus little incentive for serious innovation by the vendors (which is why we’re so often dissatisfied with their proprietary products). And like most bureaucracies, libraries have been infected by an MBA-style crackpot realism that values “outcomes” over principles. We’ve learned to focus on narrow “results” to help justify our existence to the people who control the purse-strings, rather than focusing on our real work of fostering healthy communities by providing free access to knowledge.** In that sort of environment, it’s only natural that we’ve learned to talk about the practical benefits of open source software.

Those practical benefits are perfectly valid reasons for avoiding proprietary software. But under the circumstances, it’s easy to forget that using free software is ultimately an ethical decision. I appreciate the practical benefits of the open source model, but I’m a free software advocate because I believe in the four freedoms. And I’m a librarian because libraries embody those same freedoms.

Public libraries are not neutral institutions. By their very nature, they stand for free access to information — a radically democratic proposition in an age of media concentration and draconian “intellectual property” laws. That’s why librarians are so committed to free speech: we think it’s wrong when people try to suppress ideas just because they don’t agree with them. We think people should be free to share ideas and information, build on them to come up with new ideas and information, and share the results in turn.

And that’s why libraries should use — and advocate the use of — free software. Proprietary software contradicts the fundamental values that libraries stand for. Our principles shouldn’t be confined to our bookshelves: if we’re genuinely committed to them, they matter just as much when it comes to the software we use on our computers.

An Ontario superior court has ruled that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy to subscriber information. If cops have your IP address, the judge says, they don’t need a warrant to get your name and physical address from your ISP.

Not surprisingly, the judge’s ruling is based on a faulty understanding of how the Internet works:

Judge Leitch accepted the arguments of Crown attorney Elizabeth Maguire that the information is similar to what is in a phone book.

“One’s name and address or the name and address of your spouse are not biographical information one expects would be kept private from the state,” Judge Leitch said.

But an IP address is not biographical information. It doesn’t identify me, it identifies my computer on a network. It’s also visible to every website I visit — and the sites I visit, like the books I check out of the library, should be kept private from the state (in the absence of a warrant). Why? Because they reveal a lot of personal information about me, including some information that I would consider no one’s business but mine. If an IP address were biographical information, that would mean you were giving your name and physical address to every website you visit … and I think most people would find that disturbing. Which means there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, quite literally: most people think, quite reasonably, that their online activities should be private.

I wonder how this decision will affect the Conservatives’ forthcoming lawful access bill.

Michael Geist reports that lawful access is back on the legislative agenda in Ottawa. And — surprise, surprise — both the Liberals and the Conservatives are backing it:

First, the Globe and Mail reports today that new Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan has indicated that lawful access legislation is being prepared that will force ISPs to allow law enforcement to monitor Internet-based conversations.  The power to compel will apparently be subject to court order.  Second, Liberal MP Marlene Jennings has reintroduced her lawful access private member’s bill, called the Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act.  The Jennings bill is a virtual copy of a failed Liberal lawful access bill that died in 2005.

In that Globe and Mail article, Peter Van Loan justifies the proposal as follows:

“If somebody’s engaging in illegal activities on the Internet, whether it be exploitation of children, distributing illegal child pornography, conducting some kind of fraud, simple things like getting username and address should be fairly standard, simple practice. We need to provide police with tools to be able to get that information so that they can carry out these investigations.”

Mr. Van Loan said there have been situations where the police want to act quickly to stop a crime, but can’t because of the current laws.

“In some of these cases, time is of the essence,” he said. “If you find a situation where a child is being exploited live online at that time — and that situation has arisen before — police services have had good co-operation with a lot of Internet service providers, but there are some that aren’t so co-operative.”

Sure. Remember all those cases where the cops were watching some evil pedophile abuse a helpless child live on the Internet, but those dastardly ISPs were refusing to help them out because they don’t care about poor innocent children, or something?

Oh, wait. The one time that happened, the ISP gave the cops what they needed and they arrested the guy two hours later.

The Conservatives say that their bill would require cops and spies to get a court order of some kind. But there are different kinds of court orders, and it’s not yet clear what sort of evidentiary standards will be required. One of the many objections to the original lawful access proposals, way back in 2002, was that the cops and spies wanted a very low standard of evidence, which would substantially reduce our freedom from search and seizure (section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

What? You don’t remember the lawful access proposals of 2002? Okay, then. Here’s a brief history of lawful access in Canada:

• In the mid-1990s, cops and spies began lobbying Jean Chretien’s Liberal government for increased powers of surveillance. They said they just couldn’t keep up with all this new-fangled technology and needed “lawful access” legislation to make up for it. Critics objected that the police proposals would entail a drastic expansion of the state’s power to spy on its citizens.
• In 2002, the Liberals held a round of public consultations on lawful access. They encountered strong objections from the telcos, who hated the costs it would impose on them, and from civil society groups. The effort was postponed.
• In 2005, there was a second round of consultations. This time, the Liberals tried a divide-and-conquer strategy: they met separately with the telcos to deal with their concerns and held a laughably short two-week consultation with the general public. After all, if you can get big business on your side, who cares what civil society thinks?
• Following those consultations, the Liberals introduced the Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act, which contained less-controversial provisions like requiring telcos to make it technologically possible for cops and spies to intercept communications on their networks, and forcing them to give basic subscriber information to cops and spies without a warrant (as opposed to, say, requiring them to keep copies of actual communications for a period of time). Fortunately, the bill died when Paul Martin’s government fell.
• In 2007, Liberal MP Marlene Jennings reintroduced the Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act as a private member’s bill. As usual with such bills, it went nowhere.
• Later that year, the Conservatives launched a new consultation on lawful access — deliberately excluding the public from the process altogether. During the resulting controversy, Stockwell Day attempted to mollify public opposition by saying, “We have not and we will not be proposing legislation to grant police the power to get information from internet companies without a warrant.” Meanwhile, the National Post complains that words get in the way of saving children.
• Now, in 2009, we’ve got a Conservative government giving the same old song and dance routine about pedophiles and ticking time bombs and technologically inept cops — and Marlene Jennings reintroducing her reintroduction of a failed Liberal bill from the Paul Martin era.

In short, successive Canadian governments have been trying to pass lawful access legislation for seven years. They’ve failed, partly because electoral politics got in the way, but also because civil society groups have strongly and consistently objected to unnecessary expansions of state surveillance powers. Fundamentally, though, the Liberals and Conservatives are in agreement on this issue — which means it’s only a matter of time before the cops and spies get their way, and we lose a little more of our freedom.

Well, his nominee for Attorney General does, anyway:

President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee for attorney general has endorsed an extension of the law that allows federal agents to demand Americans’ library and bookstore records as part of terrorism probes, dismaying a national group of independent booksellers.

Eric Holder said at his confirmation hearing Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he supports renewing a section of the USA Patriot Act that allows FBI agents investigating international terrorism or espionage to seek records from businesses, libraries and bookstores. If not renewed by Congress, the provision will expire at the end of 2009.

The searches must be authorized by a court that meets secretly and has approved the government’s requests in nearly all cases, according to congressional reports. The target of the search does not have to be suspected of terrorism or any other crime. A permanent gag order that accompanies each search prohibits the business or library from telling anyone about it.

Happy Coronation Inauguration Day.

Gordon Campbell’s Liberals have done something I agree with: they’ve made BC statutes and regulations freely available online. The interface leaves something to be desired — for example, a search for “non-profit” or “433″ won’t bring up the Society Act (chapter 433 of the Revised Statutes of BC), which sets out the rules for non-profit societies — but at least the content is there.

Of course, BC residents have been able to get online access to provincial laws through their public libraries for a long time now. But folks don’t always know that, and even if they do, libraries’ online resources are hard to find and hard to use. (Vancouver residents: start here.) It’s good that the province is making this stuff more easily accessible.