Discussion · BT Free Social

Discussion

And all of this starts with the data itself. It is the data you want to access which has the real value. Data you should own from the beginning.

If the data is in an open standard format, there is a possibility to break free.

If you cannot control the data, there are no baseline for digital sovereignty. If you cannot have access to software being able to make use of the data in a meaningful way for you, there are no baseline for digital sovereignty. If the software cannot be written, because the data format is unknown or too closely tied to the service provider generating the data, there are no baseline to achieve digital sovereignty.

With open standards, there can be built open source software using those open standards. Thus, you can decode and extract meaningful information from the data.

There are also no requirements anywhere that there must be more implementations for open source project from more countries. They key point is that source code must be open and available for all. That takes away the chances of someone talking full control of the software and restricting the freedom otherwise possible. Without a source code available, the path to extracting meaningful information ends up incredibly hard.

Open sourced software is one piece of the digital sovereignty puzzle, data in an open standard is another piece in the same puzzle.

Having access to the data files containing your information is yet another piece in the same puzzle. You cannot achieve digital sovereignty without all of these three pieces;then someone will still have control of your information.

Likewise, if you use a service with a proprietary API - you are bound to that service as long as that service uses the same API. If more service providers provide the same standardised API, you can more easily switch between services. Again, open standards is a key component for digital sovereignty - otherwise you will not be able to process your data as you want.

@jwildeboer

Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:

@jwildeboer@social.wildeboer.net replied · 3 days ago

(almost all replies go off on whataboutisms and pet peeves that are unrelated, so I will not waste my time on discussing them, my point is simple and clear, in my opinion, so it can stand on its own)

Giacomo Tesio

@giacomo@snac.tesio.it replied · 3 days ago

@jwildeboer@social.wildeboer.net

Unfortunately #OpenSource is #US controlled anyway.

We can hope to sneak some patch in, as with #xzutils, but there's no way to make #Chromium or #Android development "sovereign".
Try hard fork them.

Same for "open standards": what if a standard ( #QUIC?) only serves the need of US #BigTech #hyperscalers and surveillance (0-RTT?)

Then sure, while getting rid of US Tech it would be wise to get rid of proprietary software too.

But #DigitalSovereignty is about breaking free of an evil empire.

🔗 David Sommerseth

@dazo@infosec.exchange replied · 3 days ago

@giacomo

If you're concerned about the US controlling open source - you can fork it. But a fork won't be successful if it doesn't have users and contributors.

Remember OpenOffice.org? What do you think people talk more about - that one or the fork LibreOffice?

Android has forks as well. The main problem with Android isn't the problems forking the OS itself. It's the Google Play layers, which is not open source and fully controlled by Google - which way too many apps depends on, making it much harder to break free from Google's Android implementation.

You are equally not forced to use or implement protocols you don't deem needed in your own code. Use the alternatives, HTTP is well established and can do most of what QUIC can do. And the HTTP standard can also be extended and improved.

Protocols not being based on open standards - they are a pain to support outside of its origin software stack. Reverse engineering is the only viable path if there are no other open alternatives available.

So open source and open standards can help you break free of evil empires; the capability of digital sovereignty is built into open source and open standards.

@jwildeboer

Giacomo Tesio

@giacomo@snac.tesio.it replied · 3 days ago

@dazo@infosec.exchange

If you're concerned about the US controlling open source - you can fork it.

This is a naive take: above a certain complexity, hard forks of a software is not licensing issue. So while you can legally fork #Chromium, nobody can really hope of doing so in any meaningful way.

#WHATWG standards are dictated by the most used browsers, that are all US controlled anyway. And that's why it's such a monoculture, with #Firefox there only to provide a little #antitrust warranty to #Google: the standard themselves are designed to work as entry barriers to the browser market.

So again, open standards do not provide #DigitalSovereignty by themselves.

Open source and open standards only work in this regards whene there are several independent implementation from each country, so that there is no way to lock-in users, companies and countries' administrarions.

Without existing, multiple alternative, independent and fully interoperable implementations, open standards just reinforce centralization as Google proved when even #Microsoft abandoned their browser engine.

Then sure, #FreeSoftware helps with Digital #Sovereignty, since (and as long) people's #freedom is its primary concern.

But it's important to not conflate individual freedom and autonomy with digital sovereignty!

If all of your country payments are handled by US corporations, you might well use #GNU/ #Hurd on your open hardware, but you are not free and your country has no sovereignty.

If all of your health data are stored by US corporations, they might well only use free software on open hardware located in your neighbourhood, but they are alware at a ssh of distance from #NSA, so you are not free and your country has no sovereignty.

What about your judges or your lawmakers exchanging unencrypted emails over #gmail or #outlook365?
Again, they can use opensource only, but you are not free, your country has no sovereignty and your vote is worth nothing.

So sure, after getting rid of US Tech we might even move to a #FOSS only stack EU-wide.

But first and foremost we need to break free from US control and surveillance.

Some opensource projects may help to ackieve this urgent goal.
Biggest ones won't and we shouldn't naively argue that going full opensource is per se useful or required to gain #DigitalSovereignty.

@jwildeboer@social.wildeboer.net

🔗 David Sommerseth

@dazo@infosec.exchange replied · 3 days ago

@giacomo

And all of this starts with the data itself. It is the data you want to access which has the real value. Data you should own from the beginning.

If the data is in an open standard format, there is a possibility to break free.

With open standards, there can be built open source software using those open standards. Thus, you can decode and extract meaningful information from the data.

Open sourced software is one piece of the digital sovereignty puzzle, data in an open standard is another piece in the same puzzle.

@jwildeboer

Giacomo Tesio

@giacomo@snac.tesio.it replied · 3 days ago

@dazo@infosec.exchange

And all of this starts with the data itself.

Code is data. Data is code.

#GDPR lack of enforcement against US #BigTech shows that while you are right at a theoretical level, in practice we need to be extremely careful to not be fooled by lobbyists that work to replace law with "paper compliance".

It would be easy for a US company to argue they produce open source, with open formats and open API defined by "open standards" that they control.

Then, to keep everything unchanged, they might just take competitor out of the market with overwhelming complexity, unfair competition based on free tiers and by buying the few survivors (if any).

Forced interoperability might be a step further, but it's not enough anyway: both #Meta and #BlueSky interoperate with the #fediverse over #ActivityPub, but in fact they jusr harmed the fediverse without any user moving over here preserving their contacts.

In brief, to get Digital Sovereignty we need to get rid of US tech.

There is no alternative, only procrastination.

They key point is that source code must be open and available for all. That takes away the chances of someone talking full control of the software and restricting the freedom otherwise possible.

I'd love if it was that simple!
Unfortunately, it's not.

Again, #Chromium is open source and its code is available for all.
Yet it's tightly controlled by #Google that shape it (and the #WHATWG "open standards") into one of the worse and most powerful surveillance and manipulation tools out there.

I agree that some #opensource projects might be useful to gain #DigitalSovereignty (think of #NextCloud for example), but only if when their development is not controlled by any corporation tied with external governments.

This cut out all biggest open source projects, mostly leaded by US corporations or their employees.

data in an open standard is another piece in the same puzzle.

Again, it's not so simple: for example both #OpenDocument and #OOXML ( #OfficeOpenXML) are open standards, but in fact when you save in ooxml (docx, xlsx..) by #Microsoft tools, they include undocumented proprietary extensions that #LibreOffice cannot handle properly.

So again while proprietary formats always harm individual freedom and #DigitalSovereignty of nations, openness is not, by itself, enough to get them.

And yet, a proprietary format developed by a fully European company would harm individual freedom just like any proprietary format but, given the company would be only and fully subject to European law (no #FISA702, no #CLOUD Act, no #Trump...), it would still enhance the digital sovereignty of the Union over an open standard totally controlled by US corporations.

So things are more complex and you can't get any real freedom or sovereignty from buzzwords like "open", "free" or #foss.

So again, to get #digital sovereignty, first of all we need to be laser focused on getting rid of #US control over #UE computing, citizens and lawmakers.

Some Free Software and Open Standards may help achieving such goal, but just being open is not enough. And we can't wait for all european software to be free to achieve Digital Sovereignty.

@jwildeboer@social.wildeboer.net

Vivien (Requin Mou)

@gugurumbe@mastouille.fr replied · 3 days ago

@jwildeboer yes, it is the difference between dependence on foreign tech and dependence on international cooperation. The latter avoids wars.

BT Free Social

BT Free is a non-profit organization founded by @ozoned@btfree.social . It's goal is for digital privacy rights, advocacy and consulting. This goal will be attained by hosting open platforms to allow others to seamlessly join the Fediverse on moderated instances or by helping others join the Fediverse.

BT Free Social: About · Code of conduct · Privacy ·

Bonfire social · 1.0.1 no JS en

Automatic federation enabled