It is crucial to emphasize how the free software movement is associated with a deep sense of political education and training. Not only should we have at our disposal enough information about the operation of programs, operating systems, applications or artifacts: knowledge means we can make it available to others, a service based on solidarity and not an accumulator spirit hoarder or controller.
The free software movement emerged in the early eighties with the aim of allowing and ensuring an open and supportive use of operating systems, programs and applications technology available at that time. Thirty years later, this remains the main motivation of an essential movement in contemporary political struggles. The fight for freedom of information, freedom of learning and the right to privacy
Freedom of information is interpreted by free software activists and the possibility not only to use but to learn, share and transform technology. Only then you can have a genuinely free use of it; a use that is not restricted by license, for hidden codes or by the sentence ‘piracy’. While free software is not necessarily gratuity (a common confusion in the English-speaking countries, but it is important to note it is possible to live this kind of software development but without the ambition of a ‘technological mogul’), it does mean that the software is available and that can be improved and shareable between users and developers. Freedom of information is linked to the freedom to learn, freedom of which we are deprived, lacking access to the codes of programs: learning from the perspective of the movement means, of course, win a technical skill, but this is inseparable from the vocation to share and transform technology within reach for a common benefit.
Take care that these freedoms are made allows us to have a fair use of the technological tools. This means that it transparently, knowing what the tools do and how they do it. Hence the direct relationship of the movement with the defense of the right to privacy. Not knowing what the software is capable of, we are exposed to, without our consent, a record of our activities and believes that this register is manipulated for various purposes. A program, an application or operating system may have enough power to inspect and keep our work routines and our searches, it is effective in generating accurate profiles on our interest from our contacts, our ‘favorite’ pages our downloads, our most commonly used applications, etc. In a very broad sense, and proprietary software works-according to Richard Stallman’s characterization makes this [1].
Some, however, believe that this is not at all important for the uses made of technology are not worthy of suspicion [2]. Still, the owners of proprietary software itself treat their users as suspects; therefore, we have limits to access what programs really do and, also, that for which its developers are interested in keeping our personal information (in some sense, we are always potential targets of criminality). A trade this user data that is not part of any conspiracy theory adds up and we can corroborate the easiest way. Blockers without the use of propaganda, we can see that the notices related deals that have made searches in Google, to name just one example, are everywhere on our screens. Is this put technology at the service of people? Suppose that in some possible world, as the scientists themselves often say that information about our behavior while using technological tools (which include the controversial behavior of obtaining data about what we want on the internet, with whom we communicate on networks or that have programs installed in our computers, tablets or phones) can be useful to make us better ‘sociological’ idea ‘psychological’ or ‘anthropological’ of human behavior. Or that even puts us closer to what we “want” to ofrecérnoslo. The assumption falls off quickly by its own superficiality, because a question that follows is whether we are just guinea pigs for scientific reasons (apparently purged of any interest other than the ‘hard truth’) or whether these and other causes are rather , involved in the massive collection of information in order to characterize, control and manipulate it in accordance with the privileges of a particular group.
It would be quite naive to call this ‘paranoia’ after the spy scandal NSA and in Colombia, the uncovering of the joint work between the police and Hacking Team [3]. It is evident that many political and economic interests at stake and that large software companies have no qualms about maintaining their revenues by serving the highest bidder [4]. This confirms that political disputes involved here are not safe and put at stake the lives of people in very specific situations (human rights defenders, journalists, community leaders, social workers organizations, etc.); on this used to make a reckless mockery Slavoj Zizek. On occasion [5] Zizek thought in relation to the NSA that the information gathering was vacuous because in the end the finished processing a fool. Perhaps he is forgetting that this is an idiot with the power to prosecute, imprison or kill (something that, well, you get paid). However, this is not to advocate for the right to privacy per se. Rather, it is about understanding that this right is crucial for political disputes to unfold without restraint from one who has control over our information. The privacy allows, ultimately, there is confrontation without dissolving the adversary in the nakedness of what he thinks or does. Hence the political courage of those who work in cryptography and have allowed the emergence of tools like Tor Browser [6] (linked to the free software movement in its spirit and in its operation).
To close I think it is crucial to stress the way the free software movement is associated with a deep sense of political education and training. Not only should we have at our disposal enough information about the operation of programs, operating systems, applications or artifacts: knowledge means we can make it available to others, a service based on solidarity and not an accumulator spirit hoarder or controller. This means, allow others to use, learn and improve a tool; It means it is possible for anyone, not just for a qualified elite. It is, in short, a battle against technocracy that is opposite of a free use of technology. In an important sense, the philosophy of free software relates to alternative forms of education and can link to this comment Robert Haworth in the book Pedagogy anarchists, collective actions, theories and critical reflections on education: “Struggles in different fronts counteract the dominating scope of global capitalism. Students, workers, activists and other community members have organized around different capacities. They have formed creative and renewing interventions that challenge dismantling of public spaces while at the time, ‘invent alternatives to state and corporate forms of social organization’ “[7]. This aptly describes how you access the free software: in addition to being disseminated on the Internet, learn how to use a cooperative work involves countless examples exist. They gather stakeholders through forums or creating pages for the sole purpose of helping others to use and understand its operation. So, that which surrounds the free software movement coincides with the prospect of David Graeber in the book Direct Action: An Ethnography on which Haworth said: “[in this book] illustrates how Graeber and collective subjects recognize the oppressive nature of the hierarchical and authoritarian structures and thus help to generate alternative places to engage in pedagogical practices that represent horizontal spaces and [working] mutual. Additionally, these spaces highlight the intricate and sometimes delicate affinity between different activists and organizations “[Ibid]. Undoubtedly, this is a front must battle in our time, a front that should unite without fear, without delay and without forgetting the response Snowden to skepticism about the spy: one who is not afraid of surveillance may not have much to say.
No comments:
Post a Comment