Ok, I’m not sure hacking is the right term…but anything subversive falls into “hacking,” right?

Consider this piece of news about Microsoft and Firefox, an oppressive relationship:
In a surprise move this year, Microsoft has decided to quietly install what amounts to a massive security vulnerability in Firefox without informing the user. Find out what Microsoft has to say about it, and how you can undo the damage…It looks like the biggest security vulnerability in Mozilla Firefox this year is Microsoft.
Source: TechRepublic Blog

I’ve said this before so many times, it’s not funny.

This animated video short is easy to understand. Check it out…here’s a bit from the Against Trusted Computing Platform Alliance (TCPA):

…every computer will have a TPM (Trusted Platform Module), also known as Fritz-Chip, built-in. At later development stages, these functions will be directly included into CPUs, graphiccards, harddisks, soundcards, bios and so on. This secures that the TCPA can prevent any unwanted software and hardware. The long term result will be that it will be impossible to use hardware and software that’s not approved by the TCPA. Therefore open-source and freeware would be condemned to die, because without such a certification the software will simply not work. In the long term only the big companies would survive and could control the market as they would like.

You can even get a nifty image for your site…

I just finished re-reading an interview with Richard Stallman shared by Peter Lopez on the mls-digitaldivide email list. Wow…although the whole interview is worth reading, I’m particularly struck by the following paragraphs. Richard Stallman describes….

The technical idea underlying treacherous computing is that the computer includes a digital encryption and signature device, and the keys are kept secret from you. Proprietary programs will use this device to control which other programs you can run, which documents or data you can access, and what programs you can pass them to. These programs will continually download new authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work. If you don’t allow your computer to obtain the new rules periodically from the Internet, some capabilities will automatically cease to function.

Programs that use treacherous computing will continually download new authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work. If Microsoft, or the US government, does not like what you said in a document you wrote, they could post new instructions telling all computers to refuse to let anyone read that document. Each computer would obey when it downloads the new instructions. Your writing would be subject to 1984-style retroactive erasure. You might be unable to read it yourself.

Treacherous computing puts the existence of free operating systems and free applications at risk, because you may not be able to run them at all. Some versions of treacherous computing would require the operating system to be specifically authorized by a particular company. Free operating systems could not be installed. Some versions of treacherous computing would require every program to be specifically authorized by the operating system developer. You could not run free applications on such a system. If you did figure out how, and told someone, that could be a crime.

What bothers me about this is that these “paranoid delusions”–because, on some level, I do feel that they appear paranoid to everyone else that is completely unaware of them–are already true. Your computer is vulnerable running Firefox because Microsoft assumes that it knows better than you and installs programs WITHOUT telling you. Who does the computer belong to? You. Do you really want to run software that says you don’t own it and it can do whatever it wants on your computer?

How much more control are we moving towards? Consider that when we asked Dell Computer if they would give us a computer system without an operating system for school district use, they insisted that they could not ship one without one. Why? It was part of their agreement with Microsoft.

I never considered the idea of U.S.-based fascism. After all, that’s something that happens in other countries. But, Stallman mentions it in his interview. He defines fascism as “…a system of government that sucks up to business and has no respect for human rights. So the Bush regime is an example, but there are lots of others. In fact, it seems we are moving towards more fascism globally.” When you put it in those terms, then you have to really ask yourself, do I want to continue supporting this type of system? And, if I do, what does that mean in terms of the opportunities I have in life? After all, if the world is growing increasingly fascist, per Stallman’s definition, then, what happens? We use fascist technology at work, but free software at home?

Should businesses–such as school districts–be allowed to use treacherous computing approaches in the work place? Is the type of control we’re moving to with systems like Active Directory, and others? How can we fight it as classroom teachers? How instructional leaders? As ed-tech directors/specialists/facilitators?

Folks, I’m worried about the future of ed-tech. I’m worried because we’re facing cuts in spending even as people talk about information literacy, new literacies, they turn right around and promote treacherous computing.

---

---

Subscribe to Around the Corner-MGuhlin.org

---

Be sure to visit the ShareMore! Wiki.

---

Everything posted on Miguel Guhlin’s blogs/wikis are his personal opinion and do not necessarily represent the views of his employer(s) or its clients. Read Full Disclosure