Will Clinton Free The World From Software Dictatorship?

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has clearly said that the US administration “stands for a single Internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas.”

Does this desire for freedom stop at the Internet door or does it go beyond that? Internet is one of the messengers of  spreading knowledge and ideas.' There is a lot of technological dictatorship around which is equally responsible for 'censorship' and control.

Mrs. Clinton mentioned the increase in censorship in China and other countries. "In the last year, we’ve seen a spike in threats to the free flow of information. China, Tunisia, and Uzbekistan have stepped up their censorship of the Internet. In Vietnam, access to popular social networking sites has suddenly disappeared. And last Friday in Egypt, 30 bloggers and activists were detained...So while it is clear that the spread of these technologies is transforming our world, it is still unclear how that transformation will affect the human rights and the human welfare of the world’s population."

She also pointed out that, “Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. They’ve expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world. And beyond this partition, viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day."

This is a welcome move. But will the same approach be taken in terms of other mass-use technologies as well?

DRM has emerged as an evil – a good example of misuse of technology. DRM doesn't ensure a check on illegal copying as much as it ensures that encrypted content can be accessed only through the products of a particular company. The motive is to lock people into their products.

Humans thrive on sharing of knowledge. But these companies are working against the very phenomenon which makes us human -- sharing of knowledge. If you borrow a book or a piece of furniture from your friend it is ok, but if you borrow a software CD or a digitized book, these companies would call you derogatory names like 'pirate'?

Will the administration take necessary steps to eliminate an evil like DRM?

Mrs Clinton said in her address, "The private sector has a shared responsibility to help safeguard free expression. And when their business dealings threaten to undermine this freedom, they need to consider what’s right, not simply what’s a quick profit."

Is this applicable for DRM as well?

There are many evil business practices which strip users from freedom of choice. There should be freedom to not only access the information, but also to use the technology of choice.

One of the biggest challenges to break vendor lock-in is patented proprietary software. Software patent has been disputed for ages, but the US grants software patents. Freedom advocates should intensify their fights to liberate software from patents. If the Obama administration supports freedom of individuals, it should also consider elimination of software patents and create policies for Free Standard-based, fully interoperable technologies for mass usage.

Recently many Software Freedom activists have started to question bundled operating systems. If one goes to buy a PC, you will have to pay for the pre-installed Microsoft Window. Today there are many alternatives to Microsoft Windows -- GNU/Linux based Ubuntu is one of the most popular Operating Systems. It is not only free in terms of cost, but also free in terms of control that the user has over his or her computing. GNU/Linux operating systems are very much more secure than Microsoft technologies.

If you want buy a branded PC from HP or any other major player and you want to run GNU/Linux on it then what are your choices? Irrespective of what software you want to run on your machine, you will have to pay the cost of pre-installed Windows, even if you are going to remove it and replace it with GNU/Linux. Will Mrs. Clinton take measures to save citizens from paying forced Microsoft Taxes?

The ideal situation would be that one should be able to buy hardware with or without Windows pre-installed. There should also be policies to ensure that Microsoft doesn't kill Linux offers by 'subsidizing' Windows PCs.

Thank you Mrs. Clinton for giving hope to citizens of the free world. Let's see how much goes into practice.