1 files changed, 381 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/ideology/fscons-2010.mdwn b/ideology/fscons-2010.mdwn
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5c036f0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ideology/fscons-2010.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,381 @@
+# Syndicated E-mail Service Against Software as a Service
+
+Denna sida innehåller dels allmänna anteckningar om Friposts bidrag
+till FSCONS 2010 genom Gustav Eek och Stefan Kangas, och dels
+innehåller en slutgiltig artikeltext. Rekommendationen är att direkt
+läsa artikeltexten.
+
+This page contains general notes that has to do with the preparation
+to Fripost's contribution to FSCONS 2010 through Gustav Eek and Stefan
+Kangas. It also contains a final article text. The recommendation is
+to directly read the article text.
+
+[[!toc levels=2]]
+
+# Anteckningar om föreningens bidrag till konferensen FSCONS 2010 
+
+ * *Authors* &ndash; Gustav Eek and Stefan Kangas
+
+ * *Contact email* &ndash; skangas@skangas.se
+
+ * *Preferred timeslot* &ndash; 30 min
+
+ * *Proposal title* &ndash; Olika förslag...
+
+   * "[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/syndicate Syndicated] E-mail
+     Service Against Software as a Service"
+   * "Serve our self the server service"
+   * "Servicing our own software as a service"
+   * "Defeating SaaS by socializing email services"
+   * "Collaborative email servers against SaaS"
+
+## Proposal summary
+
+It is becoming increasingly common for persons and organizations to
+hire external services for e-mail handling, and even for the use of
+spreadsheets and word processing. This phenomenon, known as *Software
+as a Service* (SaaS), implies restrictions in the users freedom that
+is not only tangential.
+
+In our ambition to counteract this tendency, we would like to present
+a project of constructing an independent and autonomous e-mail hosting
+service, run by a syndicate, *The Free E-mail Association*, for the
+associations members. The syndicate is driven by a simple framework
+that guarantees that it is
+
+ * of independent means,
+ * democratically structured, 
+ * built on trust between its members, and
+ * ready to be far-reaching with regards to avoiding traffic logging and to protect the members privacy.
+
+The service that we are hoping to create is a full featured e-mail
+solution with high reliability and accessibility.
+
+This project exemplifies that the creation of a freedom preserving
+network service is possible, and it is also an example of what that
+can look like.
+
+The obvious question to raise is whether this service actually is not
+just another SaaS? Obviously, all individual members can not at all
+times reach absolute freedom and computational control. However, these
+limitations must be weighed against that investments in a more
+reliable technical infrastructure are possible only through
+collaboration. Also, we believe that the association's democratic
+structure and numerical and geographical boundaries are enough to
+mitigate the limitations; the limited user participation is still
+sufficient for the service to bee regarded as free.
+
+We hope that this project can raise curiosity enough to tantalise
+users away from private suppliers of e-mail and other services, to
+either join our association or even better start more similar
+projects.
+
+## Other information
+
+It is preferred from our point of view that the talk is scheduled in
+an early stage of the conference. This since the hope is to raise
+questions for further discussion during the conference.
+
+# Antagen till konferensen
+
+Den 24 juli blev föredraget "Syndicated E-mail Service Against
+Software as a Service" antagen till temat "Infrastructure" på FSCONS
+2010. Jeremiah Foster är koordinator för temat som har beskrivningen
+
+> Wikipedia defines infrastructure as "the basic physical and
+> organizational structures needed for the operation of a society."
+> The theme focuses on the infrastructure needs for tomorrows future
+> society, as well as the basic need for privacy and secure
+> communication, together with monitoring, both as a threat and as a
+> tool to manage our ever increasing networks.
+
+Det är ett antal saker som vi från Jonas Öberg blivit ombedda att
+utföra och återkomma till Jonas och Jeremiah angående.
+
+ 1. Granska den föreslagna sammanfattningen av föredraget och revidera
+ det med det övergripande temat i åtanke och om något tillkommit i
+ föredraget.
+ 2. Om vi har några begränsningar vad gäller schemaläggningen. 
+ 3. Frågan om när vi kommer till Göteborg och om vi ska vara med på de
+ sociala tillställningarna.
+
+Frågan är också om konferensen vill ha någon längre artikel för
+föredraget. I så fall vore det bra att sätta igång med det nu,
+snart. En idé skulle vara att översätta principförklaringen om den kan
+skrivas på ett tillräckligt vetenskapligt sätt.
+
+# Second article for the conference
+
+This is the second proposal, which is longer and more adjusted to the
+infrastructure theme description. The proposal follows declaration of
+principals.
+
+## Introduction
+
+User freedom is the most important property of tomorrows
+infrastructure. This property is necessary to safeguard the relative
+freedom of speech provided by the Internet against increasingly
+aggressive attacks by preying commercial and opportune state
+interests.
+
+In this abstract of a talk on FSCONS 2010 we first try to define
+freedom in computer work. Then the problem of increased centralization
+of the Internet is discussed and a number of ongoing threats to this
+freedom are identified. We then present the *Free Email Association*,
+what built up infrastructure we have, and our principles. Finally we
+try to sketch what we think the future paths might look like.
+
+## Background
+
+The centralisation of influence and rectification of decision-making
+is not unique for the Internet. This is written in a wider context of
+general social criticism of economic and cultural globalisation and
+the current forms of the globalisation of information flows. Many
+decisions are made in multi-lateral arenas where the democratic
+control is limited.^1 A decreasing number of transnational operators,
+not only controls the means of production and the production of goods,
+but also have great influence in markets demands.
+
+The Internet is, or will soon be, the most important communication
+medium in the majority of the industrialized world. The story of its
+development from its conception as a highly distributed network
+through the establishment of the free and open web, towards the
+increasingly privatized web we see today is indeed saddening for those
+who takes user freedom seriously. A few strong parties control major
+segments of important infrastructure that millions of users depend on
+every day. Those who control the technology and its infrastructure
+also have power over its users.
+
+## Computing, computer labour, and power over the infrastructure
+
+The *Free Software Foundation* suggest definition of *free software*
+consisting of four requirements: the "freedom to run, copy,
+distribute, study, change and improve the software". (Free Software
+Foundation "The Free Software Definition") As a complement to those we
+define the more general *freedom with regard to own computer labour*
+^2 as requiring that
+
+ 1. the work is performed exclusively with free software,
+ 2. the work is performed with computer hardware that entirely is at
+ one's possession and control,
+ 3. the information worked with is information that one possess, and
+ 4. the result from the computer work also is at one's possession and
+ control.
+
+We here use "information" to denote data and documents that are the
+object to computer work. In this context *computer labour* is all use
+of computers, and *own computer labour* is computer work performed for
+one's own part. ^3
+
+## Internet and its servers
+
+The *Internet* seen as an infrastructure scheme was constructed as a
+distributed *peer-to-peer* non-hierarchical network of independent and
+self-determined parts. ^4 Despite this immanent property, the Internet
+today, seen from a regular user's point of view, is structured in a
+hierarchical manner around a decreasing number of server clouds, which
+are continuously growing in size and power. Historically the meaning
+of *servers* was to gather and publish information provided from its
+clients. However, in many applications today, publishing is not
+performed as a separate process, and the clients are no longer always
+independent. For example social networking sites, like Facebook, often
+require their users to perform their work directly on the company's
+servers. (Moglen 2010)
+
+## Software as a service
+
+A concept introduced in the spirit of centralisation is *Software as a
+Service* (SaaS). Shortly SaaS is that users are invited to perform
+their computer work on or through a network server on Internet or a
+local network. The main purpose of SaaS is to separate *possession*
+and *ownership* of software from its *usage*. This software is said to
+be *licenced on demand*. (Turner 2003)
+
+In this text *Software as a Service* is used in a more narrow sense in
+accordance with Stallman (Stallman 2010), to mean one's own computer
+work on hardware that the user do not control. Popular Internet
+services that are examples of SaaS are Google Docs and Facebook, but
+the concept is widely used. Computer work performed with this software
+is non-free in a double sense; using SaaS also leads to *vendor
+lock-in*. However, the complex of lock-in problems reach far outside
+SaaS.
+
+## The infrastructure of email
+
+The email infrastructure is not an exception from the tendency towards
+centralisation and rectification of Internet's services and usage. We
+now see even large institutions being lured in by the economic
+benefits offered by these large scale solutions.
+
+Email communication through the Internet involves several computers
+and servers, among those a *mail user agent*, a computer program
+controlled by the sending person; several *mail transfer agents*,
+Internet servers responsible for getting the mail though using the
+SMTP protocol; *domain name system servers*, servers keeping track of
+the addresses to all those servers; and finally another *mail user
+agent*, used by the receiving person to read the emails. It is also
+common to make use of extra inbox handling services like *IMAP access*
+or *webmail*, which usually involve separate servers.
+
+What about email and freedom? We here need to distinguish what part of
+emailing that is one's own computer labour. Editing email definitely
+is, along with all sort of contact management. The transfer process,
+however, is not. Whether the email arrives is of course of great
+concern to the sender, but there is generally no human activity
+(directly) involved and thus no actual work performed. In principle
+the same holds also for the process of receiving email. However, most
+popular email services are not content with that. Stallman writes,
+<blockquote>Some sites whose main service is publication and
+communication extend it with *contact management*: keeping track of
+people you have relationships with. Sending mail to those people for
+you is not SaaS, but keeping track of your dealings with them, if
+substantial, is SaaS. (Stallman 2010)</blockquote> And using SaaS is
+not free computer labour. Furthermore, whether hiring a company for
+handling one's email imply usage of SaaS or non-free computer labour
+might not be the only matter of importance.
+
+## Privacy and survelliance
+
+With large clientele comes a lot of power. Google is currently not the
+largest email service provider; both Windows Live Hotmail and Yahoo
+Mail has more customers. (Brownlow 2010) We nonetheless believe it is
+important to single Google out as a company, because of how
+effectively they utilize privacy invading schemes that are integrated
+between their services. Together with Google's e-mail service one also
+get services that probably was not asked for: advertisement, semantic
+analyses of email contents, and spying. (Moglen 2010) The data
+resulting from Google's analysis and espionage is later used
+indirectly in marketing campaigns with Googles customers or sold
+directly to third party. Google is profiting on their email users with
+the means of the users private information provided by themselves.
+
+Google link that data to individuals' surf activities using Google's
+search engine, Google accounts and cookies. Additionally, many
+websites utilize Google's JavaScript APIs, web site statistics or
+reCAPTCHA service, which indirectly exposes individuals to Google's
+supervision.
+
+## Organisation for a change
+
+Technology has never been neutral. Behind technology changes and
+innovations today lies commercial interests and social factors. On the
+one hand, the ownership structure of technology companies and their
+endeavour for profit ensures that usage of their services for work and
+communication will never be free. On the other hand, only a fraction
+of the everyday Internet users have knowledge and resources enough to
+create free alternatives on his or hers own hand. The question is also
+what we can reasonably expect from an average user in terms of
+engagement in their privacy and freedom.
+
+Our idea is to form an association and together take back a small but
+important part of our Internet life, namely the email communication
+infrastructure. We gather around several servers that receives and
+stores the members' email. The purpose of the association is to render
+it possible for individuals to bring their computer usage under their
+own control. And to show that user freedom is possible, even if only
+through active, prolonged and collective struggle.
+
+In more detail, we start with five or six servers spread out in Sweden
+and Europe connected through the Internet: at the very least two mail
+exchange and one IMAP server, separate backup and log servers, and
+hopefully a webmail server. In the beginning we will not have an SMTP
+send mail service, and we will hire the DNS service from third
+party. Though we will have tight economic boundaries, our focus on
+reliability and stability forces us to try hard to maintain a
+sufficiently high level of redundancy.
+
+The email service provided through the Free Email Association is free
+as in free speech, not as in free beer. This because of the democratic
+structure and of non-profit and commonly owned organisations like the
+Free Email Association. The free email association promises to
+
+ 1. work hard to receive email for the sake of its members in a reliable manner
+ 2. protect its member's integrity, that is to never
+    * read or analyse its members emails, either manually or
+      automatically, (possibly with exception for voluntary spam
+      filter services and alike)
+    * gather statistics about or analyse member's traffic through the association's servers, and
+    * under no circumstances hand out information about members, their
+      emailing and other activities, or any other information to third
+      party, and
+ 3. provide for transparency regarding administration, economy and the
+ decision-making process.
+
+Transparency and continuous information about the work of the board is
+of cause extra important, and the democratic regime requires constant
+attention. A declaration of principles serve as a founding document
+for the association, but still a high level of trust is laid on the
+elected officers.
+
+## On the long term
+
+We recommend and encourage everyone to perform their computer labour
+with free software at machines that are in their own possession. But
+many solutions on Internet servers, like Google Docs and Facebook, are
+quite usable and practical and adopted to a modern way to meet and
+work computer-aided. The Free Software Community has a great challenge
+in the creation of free and distributed alternatives, where free means
+that their usage imply only free computing.
+
+Despite this, we must not deceive ourselves into thinking that the
+final and greatest challenge is about building physical infrastructure
+or programming advanced distributed social networking solutions. The
+real challenge is to get people engaged in the issue of the Internet's
+power structures and in their own freedom and privacy.
+
+No one in their right mind would put their blind trust in a government
+that was dabbling in surveillance on a scale anywhere near what Google
+is doing. But when it comes to Google, their marketing strategy has
+been so successful that many people need no additional guarantees that
+Google will behave &ndash; people are willing to take Google's word
+for it.
+
+The reasons behind the described changeover of the Internet are
+structural. The structural tendency, as described, is that already
+powerful operators get even more power when computer labour is
+generally becoming less free. Structural problems need structural
+change, but projects like the Free Email Association serve as an
+alternative to structural change for those who are eager to establish
+free alternatives. In the long-term, however, we realize that a larger
+social change on a structural level is necessary. The best we can hope
+for is to give a small contribution to bringing about that change.
+
+## Footnotes
+
+^1 Good, recent examples are the European Unions IPRED directive or
+the ACTA agreement.
+
+^2 Stallman uses *your own computing* to denote what we call *one's
+own computer labour*. [2] We use the latter because of its broader
+associations.
+
+^3 Stallman points out that work performed as employee in some company
+or in a cooperation project as Wikipedia is not one's own computer
+work, but a part of that company's or project's work. In that case it
+is not one's own freedom that is threatened, but the company's or
+project's. (stallman 2010):
+
+^4 Technically the parts of a network are *nodes*, which in the case
+of Internet are servers, switches, and personal computers, and
+*edges*, which are interconnecting wires.
+
+## References
+
+ * [1] Turner, M. et.al. (2003). "Turning Software into a Service",
+   Computer vol. 36, IEEE Computer Society 2003.
+ * [2] Stallman, R. M (2010). "Who does that server realy serve?",
+   Boston review, only web version
+   http://bostonreview.net/BR35.2/stallman.php. Revised version på
+   http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html. Fetched
+   2010-08-30.
+ * [3] Moglen E. (2010). "Freedom in the Cloud", talk given to the New
+   York chapter of ISOC February 2nd 2010. Video available at
+   http://new.law.columbia.edu/isoc/eben_moglen_freedom_in_the_cloud.ogv,
+   and transcription at
+   http://www.softwarefreedom.org/events/2010/isoc-ny/FreedomInTheCloud-transcript.html. Checked
+   2010-09-10.
+ * [4] Free Software Foundation. "The Free Software Definition",
+   http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html. Fetched 2010-08-30.
+ * [5] Brownlow M. (2010). "Email and webmail statistics",
+   http://www.email-marketing-reports.com/metrics/email-statistics.htm. Updated
+   May 2010. First published April 2008. Fetched 2010-09-21.