W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Standards Making 101

From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 18:21:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKcXiSoUA_1--UtQ+e5RO6E+Nw5srZso=M2O3k-XK1L2LLsrSA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
Kingsley, At risk of taking a web-payments thread off-topic, let me reply
very briefly:

RE: "echoing a view that has zilch to do with architecture and everything
to do with philosophical and political views"

1. The very idea of this community working on a P2P web payments
architecture is intrinsically political, and is probably driven by variety
of philosophies that find common cause in such a result.
2. Your comfort with the thin edge of the DRM wedge permitted into HTML5 on
the grounds that you would not expect it to be hammered in much further
later on is not apolitical. It's a political position resting on a
philosophical belief.
3. Technical standards bodies deal with the negotiation amongst
philosophical and political views all the time.

RE: "The fears you raise are purely hypothetical. "

For me to respond with tangible examples would run of off-topic for this
list, but let me just say that if I'm being accused of following things to
their logical conclusions, I plead guilty. If I'm being accused of raising
issues unrelated to the tangible operation of a consistent, fair and open
WWW, I plead not guilty.

Joseph Potvin


On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote:

>  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/
>
>
> 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>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
>> 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
> Mobile: 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
>
>
>
>

<http://goo.gl/Ssp56>
Received on Monday, 7 October 2013 22:22:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:24 UTC