1

Topic: Digital Sustainability

I just read the news about new law of Switzerland about sustainable software in public administration, which initially will focus on a plan between 2024-2027. The goal to pursuit is Digital Sustainability, and the implementation is focus on Open Source Software and Open Government Data.

https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/ … witzerland

Independently of the implementation which could be matter of discussion, one could think that this somehow represents a technical emancipation at the country level (sorry for the extrapolation). I remember other movements in the past (like Munich or Extremadura) where the motivation was economical or educational. If I understand correctly, the movement now is motivated (like Swiss Government moving to Mastodon) for preventing loosing technical freedom. Or the other way around, try to guarantee future technical freedom (emancipation?). Maybe I am stressing too much the language, but I have to say that I see everyday organizations trapped by their technical suppliers, loosing the capacity of taking own decisions.

2

Re: Digital Sustainability

I would like to recognize some kind of "progress" here, so first: Thanks for sharing. But from my point of view: This is just marketing. Reasoning? Simple said, let's just look on Mozillas latest desastrous movement:

Firefox CTO here.

There’s been a lot of discussion over the weekend about the origin trial for a private attribution prototype in Firefox 128. It’s clear in retrospect that we should have communicated more on this one, and so I wanted to take a minute to explain our thinking and clarify a few things. I figured I’d post this here on Reddit so it’s easy for folks to ask followup questions. I’ll do my best to address them, though I’ve got a busy week so it might take me a bit.

The Internet has become a massive web of surveillance, and doing something about it is a primary reason many of us are at Mozilla. Our historical approach to this problem has been to ship browser-based anti-tracking features designed to thwart the most common surveillance techniques. We have a pretty good track record with this approach, but it has two inherent limitations.

First, in the absence of alternatives, there are enormous economic incentives for advertisers to try to bypass these countermeasures, leading to a perpetual arms race that we may not win. Second, this approach only helps the people that choose to use Firefox, and we want to improve privacy for everyone.

This second point gets to a deeper problem with the way that privacy discourse has unfolded, which is the focus on choice and consent. Most users just accept the defaults they’re given, and framing the issue as one of individual responsibility is a great way to mollify savvy users while ensuring that most peoples’ privacy remains compromised. Cookie banners are a good example of where this thinking ends up.

Whatever opinion you may have of advertising as an economic model, it’s a powerful industry that’s not going to pack up and go away. A mechanism for advertisers to accomplish their goals in a way that did not entail gathering a bunch of personal data would be a profound improvement to the Internet we have today, and so we’ve invested a significant amount of technical effort into trying to figure it out.

The devil is in the details, and not everything that claims to be privacy-preserving actually is. We’ve published extensive analyses of how certain other proposals in this vein come up short. But rather than just taking shots, we’re also trying to design a system that actually meets the bar. We’ve been collaborating with Meta on this, because any successful mechanism will need to be actually useful to advertisers, and designing something that Mozilla and Meta are simultaneously happy with is a good indicator we’ve hit the mark.

This work has been underway for several years at the W3C’s PATCG, and is showing real promise. To inform that work, we’ve deployed an experimental prototype of this concept in Firefox 128 that is feature-wise quite bare-bones but uncompromising on the privacy front. The implementation uses a Multi-Party Computation (MPC) system called DAP/Prio (operated in partnership with ISRG) whose privacy properties have been vetted by some of the best cryptographers in the field. Feedback on the design is always welcome, but please show your work.

The prototype is temporary, restricted to a handful of test sites, and only works in Firefox. We expect it to be extremely low-volume, and its purpose is to inform the technical work in PATCG and make it more likely to succeed. It’s about measurement (aggregate counts of impressions and conversions) rather than targeting. It’s based on several years of ongoing research and standards work, and is unrelated to Anonym.

The privacy properties of this prototype are much stronger than even some garden variety features of the web platform, and unlike those of most other proposals in this space, meet our high bar for default behavior. There is a toggle to turn it off because some people object to advertising irrespective of the privacy properties, and we support people configuring their browser however they choose. That said, we consider modal consent dialogs to be a user-hostile distraction from better defaults, and do not believe such an experience would have been an improvement here.

Digital advertising is not going away, but the surveillance parts could actually go away if we get it right. A truly private attribution mechanism would make it viable for businesses to stop tracking people, and enable browsers and regulators to clamp down much more aggressively on those that continue to do so.

What should I say more? Mozilla state to work together with Meta (okay, developers on the level of w3c). But we all should know, WHO in fact Meta is as company. They make money from monetizing data they get from people using their so-called "social, free provided" services. And they sell this to advertising sector. Mozilla thinks it is "good" to work with people selling data and exactly to advertisers. Not enough: Meta is endangering democracies worldwide with doing nothing against hatred and harassment. So all of this comes together: Mozilla is until today stating to provide a free, open webbrowser. But in fact the word "free" does not mean here "free as in freedom", just "free as free offered". The users are the objects being included into this now as their data collected is not staying where it should: Local and in their hands. And Mozilla Firefox is until today known as "open-source".

Open-Source Software is the wrong way.
That is my personal conclusion here. Yes, it is a bit better instead using complete non-free and closed-source software. But is not or making anything better: Do we really think next steps are then coming? I doubt it.

Human being in favor with clear principles and so also for freedom in soft- and hardware!

Certainly anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices: For a life of every being full with peace and kindness, including diversity and freedom. Capitalism is destroying our minds, the planet itself and the universe in the end!

3

Re: Digital Sustainability

"Do we really think next steps are then coming?" I do not know. Apparently, it is very difficult to understand how far are freedom, emancipation and sustainability from just open-source.

I fully agree on the marketing behind open-source. Anyhow, I still remark that an administration make a movement with the intention of preventing loosing freedom. But sure, they will easily fail in case they just go for the label open-source.

And yes, the story of Firefox is the final tragedy of a hopeless story. To be honest I didnt expect such a movement even from Mozilla.

4

Re: Digital Sustainability

I would lie when I say that I know what is coming next or how big the damage could / would be. Nevertheless: The handle of Mozilla and others is a good example of failed reviews. In fact there is no ethical marketing, never was and never will be. Thinking it would help to make "marketing" and "advertising" more "friendly in regards of protecting privacy" is likewise stating that "no one needs to be worried and therefore there is no need to hide any data".

Open-source software is a failed tryout to combine more opened software with the concepts of a radicale capitalism. Anything can be made look alike "open-source" while in fact is the opposite of free software and the four freedoms at minimum. We can view on some parts, but we do not have in fact further rights to modify, to recreate, to learn and share. We are only allowed to look, not touch. And we better never speak about "possessing" the software so we can make it ours working. That's the major issue, rejected by so many as "open-source" is enough. In fact: It never was, never will be. So that's clear for me: It is a failed promise. Otherwise Mozilla would not have such restricting policies about their projects, otherwise Rust and others would make it more easy to share modified versions. So all of them are telling lies, in favor of an industry not wanting to share anything else as people should be allowed to use software for any amount of time, but not in their decision. Others make the decision how long a software should be used.

Human being in favor with clear principles and so also for freedom in soft- and hardware!

Certainly anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices: For a life of every being full with peace and kindness, including diversity and freedom. Capitalism is destroying our minds, the planet itself and the universe in the end!