Re: Standards Making 101

On 10/7/13 2:36 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote:
> Kingsley, FWIW I share the view of the EFF on this matter.
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/lowering-your-standards
> "By approving this idea, the W3C has ceded control of the "user agent" 
> (the term for a Web browser in W3C parlance) to a third-party, the 
> content distributor.

It hasn't done any such thing. I say that because there are many kinds 
of HTTP user agents (or clients). Today's Web browsers are just a 
sampling of a user agent then went mainstream via Mosaic and Netscape. 
The ubiquity of these user agents doesn't make them the only kind of 
user agent capable of providing UI/UX interactions with HTTP accessible 
resources (data).

> That breaks a—perhaps until now unspoken—assurance about who has the 
> final say in your Web experience, and indeed who has ultimate control 
> over your computing device."

This has zero effect on the ability to interact with Web Resources. I 
doubt any Web Browser vendor would be silly enough to conflate DRM with 
the fundamental functionality of their particular kind of HTTP user agent.

>
> RE: "The fact that is could be used in certain ways by OEMs isn't a 
> knock on the core concept."

You are referring to it pejoratively, and for reasons that ultimately 
conflate DRM technology with the philosophical and political views of 
organizations such as FSF etc.. We should never conflate things because 
whenever we do the result is boils down to the "freedom paradox" i.e., 
who's freedom is justifiably the purest etc..

>
> And FWIW, I share the view of the FSF that the core concept is 
> "defective by design".

That's my point! You echoing a view that has zilch to do with 
architecture and everything to do with philosophical and political views.

>
> Keeping this reply in context of web payments, surely it's going to be 
> essential that both autonomous vendors and autonomous purchasers have 
> ultimate control over what software runs and does not run on their own 
> devices.

Yes, of course.

> If this is not the case, then the final say on the web payments 
> standard and any reference implementation will rest with the dominant 
> device OEMs.

Of course it won't.

> The web payments community will merely swap obvious control by PayPal 
> and Credit Card companies, for undeclared and hidden control by device 
> OEMs and their business partners. In that scenario, I'd stay with the 
> regulated financial institutions. Want an example? Many on this list 
> who have purchased a laptop in the past year or so have a WindowsOS 
> embedded as firmware -- it used to be we just had to pay the 
> "Microsoft Tax" and then install our OS-of-choice. Not now. If MS 
> chooses to differ in some way that gets in the way of clean operation 
> of the web-payments standard, we'll have to differ with them -- the 
> mother of all IE6 headaches. If an unauthorized "fix" is circulated, 
> and to implement the fix you need to circumvent something on that 
> laptop, that will be deemed criminal act, and the creator of the "fix" 
> will be deemed to be facilitating criminal acts.  It's quite nuts. 
> Here's another example:
> http://gigaom.com/2013/09/26/seriously-samsung-sorry-european-roamers-but-the-new-galaxy-note-3-is-region-locked/ 
> <http://gigaom.com/2013/09/26/seriously-samsung-sorry-european-roamers-but-the-new-galaxy-note-3-is-region-locked/>

The architecture of the World Wide Web ensures we never end up down such 
a rat-hole. The fears you raise are purely hypothetical.

>
> A few years ago during public consultations about pending Copyright 
> legislation in Canada (where I am) I outlined the general hardware 
> control problem presented by DRM. Here is my submission:
> http://www.digital-copyright.ca/documents/Copyright_Potvin_4jul08.html
>
> In a free market society, it's basic that we each own our devices.

In a free society people choose their freedoms i.e., the "freedom 
paradox" doesn't deprive anyone of their freedom.


Links:

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84wJlDC8--o -- BBC Documentary about 
Freedom .
>
> Joseph Potvin
>
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen 
> <kidehen@openlinksw.com <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 10/7/13 11:09 AM, Joseph Potvin wrote:
>
>
>         DRM involves encrypting content, and only giving out
>         decryption keys to
>         vendors who contractually agree to disallow the users/owners
>         of computers
>         from having any control.
>
>
>     I think that's a very narrow interpretation of what DRM (Digital
>     Rights Management) is all about. There's nothing about DRM that
>     implies it will become conflated with the notion of a User Agent.
>     It's simply functionality usable by a user agent. The fact that is
>     could be used in certain ways by OEMs isn't a knock on the core
>     concept.
>
>     If we took this approach to other standards where would the World
>     Wide Web be today?
>
>     Let's keep DRM and and its potential uses distinct :-)
>
>     -- 
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Kingsley Idehen
>     Founder & CEO
>     OpenLink Software
>     Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>     Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>     <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
>     Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>     Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>     LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Joseph Potvin
> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
> http://www.projectmanagementhotel.com/projects/opman-portfolio
> jpotvin@opman.ca <mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca>
> Mobile: 819-593-5983 <tel:819-593-5983>
> LinkedIn (Google short URL): http://goo.gl/Ssp56


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen