At the risk of repeating myself: On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:45 PM, haynes davis <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.deccanherald.com/content/26913/free-software-suited-ui-card.html > > There are compelling arguments to support the use of a free software, but > advocates of free software doubt if the government would decide on one, > given the money involved and the weight the companies owning proprietary > software carry. But use of proprietary system, they feel, would be > tantamount to compromising national security. > I contend that focusing on the means, rather than the intent, compromises advocates of freedom in society, be it of software or within the larger context of human freedoms. Arguably, freedom of software has no meaning either, unless it is viewed in the larger context of human freedom, but that is not my point. In this particular case, there is a need to understand and agree with the concept of a national unique identifier scheme, before one proceeds to determine which kind of software will be used to carry out its implementation. After all, if the concept is rubbished, the question of free software is moot. There seems to be a common decision not to pursue matters relating to personal privacy within FOSSCOMMt, so I won't digress by quoting examples directly. However, I invite anyone interested in expressing an opinion on the desired FOSSCOMM approach to NUID to please give this document ( http://www.rogerclarke.com/DV/HumanID.html) a straightforward reading. It looks for historical and emerging reasons to support the establishment of single-point identification systems in modern society*. Naturally, the movement finds Microsoft’s proposal to undertake the project > ‘disturbing.’ While on one hand — a write up in the FSMK newsletter claims — > Microsoft’s involvement would sabotage a state’s, and by default its > citizen’s, right to control the software on which the most crucial data > would sit, it also paints an alarming picture of the IT giant’s associations > with the US government and slips in the suggestion that it would let the > Americans sabotage the whole network as a part of a cyber attack if things > come down to that. > Not simply the proposed (despite the decision to spend goodish sums of money, the allocation of an office and the - very slow - creation of a secretariat to deal with the project, and all these are not surmises gained from newspaper reports, but the result of RTI applications made in the past few weeks) NUID project, but any expenditure of public money on the creation of a public service instrument must be accompanied by full disclosure of the systems used in its implementation. Up to and until this expense includes the use of ICTs, I think FOSSCOMM should have a clear objective (within the CMP, therefore) to demand the use of free software. In practical terms, this may take the form of readymade documents to file with concerned organs of government, and a public statement, preserved on the website, for instance, expressing this position. However, for the reasons stated above (and implicitly, in the quoted link), I certainly object to treating the matter as fait accompli, so that FOSSCOMM, by virtue of recommending the use of free software as an alternative to proprietary systems, is seen as defending and being a party to the imposition of NUID on our country's people. -- Vickram http://communicall.wordpress.com *It doesn't find any, but read it for yourself rather than take my word for it.
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
