Re: Standards Making 101

On 8 October 2013 04:00, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:

> RE: "The principle of standards is that whatever technology introduced is
> uniform"
>
> In the spirit of "Standards Making 101", there's more to it than that:
> "Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of
> Standards"
> http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt_e.htm#annexIII
> (This is Annex 3 to the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade)
>
> RE: "to allow anyone to publish"
>
> "to allow" & "anyone to publish" >> Those are both politically-charged
> concepts, surely.
>
> In this web payments community group our effort is "to enable anyone to
> pay anyone else online". But we don't yet know if that will be "allowed" in
> all jurisdictions. Some of us are working on the components to permit
> choice of vehicle currency, although we reallty don't know if that will be
> allowed, as some jurisdictions have laws requiring use of the national
> currency, or the counterparty's currency, but not a third party currency.
> Others on this list work on various autonomous crypto-units of account, and
> we're in the midst of finding out what will be allowed and what will not be
> allowed -- bitcoin being the focus of attention presently.
>
> RE: "It's just technology."
>
> After Johann Gutenberg invented the printing press in 1440, it became
> easier for people to disseminate heretical and seditious works, challenging
> both church and state. In order to control what was being said, Henry VIII
> of England invoked a royal prerogative in 1538 to establish printing
> patents as a form of censorship. By a royal charter in 1557, the
> Stationers’ Company was created by the British Crown to oversee a guild
> system in which the right to print a book was limited to members of the
> guild, who were the printers and sellers of books, not the authors.
> Patent-free printing presses were not "allowed". Building a patent-free
> printing press was thus made to be both illegal and, was surely then, a
> political act of civil disobedience, rather like Mahatma Gandhi's drying of
> some seawater to make salt. And rather like writing a method for stripping
> DRM from a device you just bought and paid for and think you own.
> http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/01/how-to-strip-drm-from-kindle-e-books-and-others/
>
>
> RE; " If you dont want to see DRM in all browsers, then persuade at least
> one browser manufacturer not to add it. "
>
> The problem is one of market confusion when an otherwise open standard
> provides for unique vendor-specific functionality, while still labelling
> that as "standard-compliant".
>

The WHATWG (ie the browser manufacturers) is driving, not the W3C.  The
HTML5 spec is simply a document of what the current consensus is.  We've
had server side paid access control for ages, and also flash and
sliverlight.  The only difference I see here is that some browser
manufacturers may close parts of their code to prevent people circumventing
the client size controls, which, imho, would be a shame.  However, the
current code bases can be forked and it's quite easy to implement DRM free
browsers for those that want them ...


>
> Joseph
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8 October 2013 00:21, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Technology is sometimes a political statement, but it need not always
>> be.  It's just technology.  For example, the premise of the web of
>> documents, was to allow anyone to publish (valuable) content over distance,
>> with a low barrier to entry.  What you use that technology for *may* be a
>> political statement.  But then again, it may just be technology.  The fax
>> machine is sometimes credited as an instrument in the fall of communism,
>> but the fax machine, itself, is apolitical.
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> This is really nothing new, we've seen this in the past with flash and
>> other technologies -- which may or may not have been a "good" thing.  If
>> the browser manufacturers want to add a tech, they with do so.  The
>> principle of standards is that whatever technology introduced is uniform,
>> ie so that the tags are consistent across browsers.
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> The W3C has always promoted a mix of commercial and personal use.  If you
>> dont want to see DRM in all browsers, then persuade at least one browser
>> manufacturer not to add it.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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>
>>>
>>