Debating the Cryptographic Autonomy License

Posted Aug 26, 2019 17:06 UTC (Mon) by jzb (editor, #7867)
In reply to: Debating the Cryptographic Autonomy License by giggls
Parent article: Debating the Cryptographic Autonomy License

You're quoting the FSF/GNU Free Software Definition, which informs but is not the OSD.

Also, I don't see much daylight between the using the AGPL to close the "ASP loophole" and using a license to address a problem that wasn't really apparent when the "four freedoms" were published. It seems to be meant to ensure that your data is yours, and my data is mine. I don't have any problem with "limiting" someone else's freedom in their ability to hide my data from me.

I'm not sure this license goes far enough or how it'd be interpreted by courts, but I don't have a philosophical issue with it. It is unclear to me, for example, what happens if something under this license is used to process data about me that I did not give it. Is that my data? If they're gathering data about me but not providing me services, do I have any claim to the data?

to post comments

Debating the Cryptographic Autonomy License

Posted Aug 26, 2019 17:19 UTC (Mon) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]

The AGPL just says that you must provide source to additional people; it doesn't restrict running or modifying the program. It's extending what "user" means.

Similarly, the GPLv3's handling of DRM doesn't say "you may not implement DRM"; it just states for the purposes of the DMCA and similar laws that that DRM doesn't count as a "technological protection measure", meaning that breaking such systems doesn't break the law. It's a grant of additional permission to people using the program.

This license, on the other hand, places restrictions on what you can do with the program, and with how you can process data using the program.

Debating the Cryptographic Autonomy License

Posted Aug 27, 2019 7:12 UTC (Tue) by gfernandes (subscriber, #119910) [Link]

It's actually quite simple - capturing data about you, **without your awareness or consent** essentially breaks the warrant process, and therefore breaks the constitutional protections citizens **normally** expect, from government advising power.

If you don't have a problem with that, you clearly don't see this problem. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist though.

Note that the Third Party Doctrine basically means law enforcement agencies can gather a lot more information about you than they could before Google, Facebook et al existed.

This is not a GPL concern, in general, but it is something every citizen of a democratically elected government should be concerned about.