Use this embed code to add this image to your Web site or blog to link to the petition:
<a href="https://my.fsf.org/give-students-userfreedom?pk_campaign=frspring2020&pk_source=bagde"><img src="https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/appeal2020/spring/petition_rect.png" alt="Fight for students' #UserFreedom. Sign the petition today!"></a>
As we've recently written, learning remotely does not have to
(and shouldn't have to) mean forsaking basic freedoms. New
developments in the remote education landscape have only contributed
to the worrying trend of treating the school as a testing ground for
ubiquitous surveillance and other dystopian practices. This is
especially dangerous for digitally native children, who may be unaware
that there are alternatives, let alone that the perceived
"alternative" is in actuality the only ethical option.
As discussion among free software activists on our
libreplanet-discuss mailing list has shown in recent weeks,
digital education can thrive when we make freedom a priority. No
student should have to trade their freedom for an education. The Free
Software Foundation (FSF) has already worked together with an MIT
professor to free his classes, and have been sharing our knowledge
with the Boston public school system. Today, we're taking the next
step in that commitment.
Beginning today, we are working to change the remote education
landscape with a new petition targeting the serious harm proprietary
software poses to students, and at the same time, emphasizing the idea
that there is an ethical solution. Whether it's Microsoft Teams
being used to connect students to each other, Google Classroom being
used to write every document, or Zoom being used for the
classroom session itself, we want to get the message across that the
only acceptable answer when it comes to how much proprietary software
should be permitted in schools is none. Making students depend on
nonfree software to learn is not only harmful to them in the
short-term, but it is a failed opportunity to impart the values of
free access, studying, sharing, and collaboration.
At the FSF, we are working hard to make free software a kitchen table
issue: one that's spoken about and taken seriously by people from all
walks of life, and is not just a cause taken up by a small but
impassioned community. We understand that speaking up for yourself
about these issues can be difficult, which is why we're offering to
put our voice behind yours as the leading organization in the
movement. When signing the petition, you have the option to let
us know if you're a student, parent, teacher, or administrator of a
school that requires the use of proprietary software. We'll get in
touch with their administration on your behalf, and let them know that
a global community of activists and everyday people alike have signed
a statement in support of free software in education.
This initiative and petition were motivated by the loss of student
rights caused by the pandemic, but we don't plan to call it quits when
the novel coronavirus is finally under control. We envision this
statement having a permanent place on https://fsf.org, and we are
committed to getting in touch with as many schools as we can as part
of our efforts to encourage free software adoption.
Your standing together with us on this issue means the world to us.
The success of any petition is only as strong as its messaging and the
people who rally behind it, which is why we deeply appreciate you
taking the time to sign. Signing this statement of principles is one
way we're offering you to help put "freedom in action" during our
summer appeal, and to be a voice for #UserFreedom around the
world.
For thirty-five years, the FSF has been campaigning for complete
software freedom. In all that time, and though it would have been
convenient and popular to do so, we've never compromised our
principles. Being the "last lighthouse" of user freedom means
keeping a vigilant eye on the state of how computer software is being
used to help or harm those who depend on it. Please take a moment to
sign the petition to stand up for the rights of students
everywhere, whether those rights are your own, your child's, or simply
those of someone you know. Together, we can sever the connection
education has to proprietary software, and nurture freedom instead.
This spring, as the time for planning our biannual appeal came
around, we discussed the difficult time all of us are
experiencing: charities like us, the free software community, and
every individual. And it led us to consider why people from all
walks of life cherish user freedom.
The socially distant, digital way in which we are carrying on our
work and private lives is affecting our software
freedom. Globally, decisions to transition to an online and
remote life were made with less consideration than we normally
put into them, giving proprietary corporations access to parts of
our lives we normally protect. Lately, we have been pointing to
grim examples of bulk surveillance and privacy
violations in the realms of education and communication
to help everyone understand why this fight is so important.
But we shouldn't forget that free software is an inherently positive
story. It celebrates the creativity and skill that come from
collaboration, and the freedom that you have if you understand a
program or can freely choose to rely on information about it from
someone you trust. Having the right to read, modify, contribute
to, and share software we use has changed our lives, and countless
others. There are so many people who continue to motivate us to fight
for free software with their work, so we decided to ask them to share
their stories on why they love free software, and what user freedom
means to them or their business.
We spoke with Pouhiou, co-director of the French nonprofit
organization Framasoft, who told us:
"What I love about the free software movement: we care about the
people and their emancipation, so we make digital tools to
empower both. I mean, I've never written a single line of code,
but I've been contributing to free software culture for many
years just by writing words and talking with (beautiful)
people!"
He further explained:
"By itself, free software is not enough. But mixed with respect
for privacy, user-oriented design, and popular education, it is
a cornerstone. To me, and to Framasoft, free software is the
first and essential step on the road where we can built digital
tools that can change the world, one byte at the time."
We also heard from Jim Garrett, long-time free software supporter and
LibrePlanet 2020 volunteer:
"I've found that it doesn't occur to most people that there
exists an ethical dimension to software at all. To them, it's
not a question of one mode being more ethical than another, it's
thinking about ethics at all. Frankly, I didn't see this clearly
myself until attending the LibrePlanet conference some
years ago."
One of the most endearing and positive submissions was created by
Sacha Chua, whom you may know from her weekly Emacs News,
and her notes on her personal blog at sachachua.com. We
share her visual contribution with you in this post as a reminder
of why we fight for software freedom.
Whether your support for and approach to free software is
philosophical and ethically motivated, or purely technical, we
love hearing and amplifying these stories. If you have your own
story to contribute, please share it in the libreplanet-discuss
email list. We will be publishing items from our collection
of new testimonies on our pages from now until the end of
the summer fundraiser on August 7th.
It's your support that makes this work so impactful. Together, we can
continue to protect crucial rights for freedom that are being
sacrificed in favor of transitioning business or social life to be
remote. Like one of our recent donors said: "Not enough people
know about or understand free software. I just want to spread the
word." And so do we. We are working towards our new member goal
of 200 new FSF associate members before August 7, and we could
really use your help. You can use one of the beautifully designed
free software images to help raise awareness, and publicly
bring attention to the need for free software using the hashtag
#UserFreedom.
Here at the Free Software Foundation (FSF), we fight for the freedom
of all software users. We believe that everyone has the right to
understand and study the systems that they use, and that not
being able to exercise this right is a violation of our freedom. This
applies to our personal software usage, but becomes even more
important in processes of democracy. It is particularly relevant for
the upcoming November 2020 elections in the United States.
A free country has the responsibility to make sure all of its
citizens can be heard, and that voting processes are transparent
and fair. So what happens if people are still self-isolating in
November, in order to try and prevent a second wave of the novel
coronavirus? As more of our life processes have gone online
due to the pandemic, we have seen debates rise over a call
for mail-in voting. This discussion seems to be clearing a path
for a renewed interest in online voting software as a remote
alternative to in-person voting. This is cause for grave concern.
I am arguing in this post that it is essential that software used in
any part of the voting process be published free software. It is
unacceptable for such an important democratic system to be placed in
the hands of any for-profit, proprietary software corporation that
controls the source code, data management, reporting, updates, and
testing. No good can come from requiring a court order to be permitted
to study the source code of voting software in order to confirm the
process is fair and democratic. But additionally, I might surprise the
reader by laying out arguments to say that despite supporting the wish
to increase access and ease for all eligible voters, the only truly
free, ethical, and democratic voting system is actually a system that
steers clear from using software.
Technology can assist in the non-fundamental parts of the voting
process, like speeding up simple on-site calculations or verification
processes, in which case transparency is absolutely vital, and the
systems used must therefore be free software. Source code should be
provided freely for anyone to test the application, submit
modifications that can be adopted to improve the software, and make
recommendations, long before it has any opportunity to muddle with
results. But digital systems have no place in the key parts of the
voting system, including voter registration, casting a vote, and
tallying results. The experts agree on this, and I will explain why in
more detail below. Even when the source code is available, although we
can compel transparency and reproducibility, we still risk
unacceptable vulnerabilities.
The examples below demonstrate some of the pitfalls of using
proprietary software in the voting process, and why the peddlers
of proprietary software cannot be trusted with crucial democratic
processes.
Tallying and the Iowa caucus fiasco
In February 2020, during the kickoff of the primary elections to
determine the US presidential candidates, the Iowa caucus
introduced a newly developed app designed to help tally votes and
make the results faster and more accurate. It did the opposite.
The Iowa caucus failed due to shoddy design and lack of testing
of the app built by Shadow Inc., a for-profit technology company
that provides "smarter" technological infrastructure for Democratic
party campaigns. The flaws didn't surface until the primaries, because
of its proprietary nature. While the caucus results trickled in over
the days following the primary, debates arose about the accuracy of
its outcome, and voters started questioning the role that
technology should play in our elections. This fallout successfully
prompted other states to act with caution, and mostly scrap the plans
to use the same app.
Online voting applications
Even before the virus broke out, jurisdictions like Delaware, Georgia,
and Philadelphia had already committed to replacing existing systems
with digital voting machines, despite their unacceptable risks of
interference.
Voatz, Inc. the for-profit company behind the private mobile voting
app by the same name, developed a pilot program in 2019, claiming
they delivered "secure" digital voting. The trial for the proprietary
app focused on people with disabilities and people residing
overseas. Colorado, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia signed
up, but studies found that the app posed security risks like
leaving votes visible and exposing them to tamperers. Researchers from
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) reviewed the app
and found an alarming number of vulnerabilities and privacy
issues.
Now, in recent primaries, some states have implemented online
voting using a system called OmniBallot, claiming that it offers safe
remote voting during the virus. Democracy Live, the organization
behind the system used in Delaware, West Virginia, and New Jersey
states that the system is not really online voting, because a printed
ballot is still generated when the voter's ballot is downloaded by the
voting committee. But that doesn't account for the fact that the votes
are still cast electronically and transmitted online, which
means they are still vulnerable to tampering. In fact, OmniBallot
was also reviewed by MIT, and again, the conclusion was that the
system is unsafe. It proved vulnerable to manipulation, and
additionally has no privacy policy to deal with the voter's sensitive
information.
Vulnerabilities explained
As much as different states want to spend millions of taxpayer
dollars to implement online voting systems to some degree or
another, there simply is no safe way to do so. The Observer
explains that an online system has to take into account too
many factors, from verifying identification to creating a secret
ballot, to voting and getting that vote to the committee, and
then verifying it again on the other end. To make it all secure
is nearly impossible.
Security experts have long been expressing concern as well. After the
2016 US presidential elections, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
conducted elaborate research into the future of voting, and published
a report called "Securing the Vote: Protecting American
Democracy." The preface of this 157-page document states: "We
were constantly reminded in news stories, by congressional hearings,
and through reports from the intelligence community, of the
extraordinary threat from foreign actors using cyber weapons and
social media to manipulate the electorate, and to target our elections
and cast doubt on the integrity of the elections process."
The report mentions that in 2016, the United States presidential
election was targeted by a foreign government, and voter information
was captured. While the exact consequences of this invasion are still
largely unclear, the fear of surveillance by outside parties and the
meddling with results is obviously justified. The NAS concludes that
the current system is vulnerable to internal and external threats, and
recommends verifiable paper ballots, audits, and clear
distinctions between different elements of the process.
Paper ballots and analog processes for democracy
Having full transparency and control is the only way in which we can
verify the legitimacy of elections. Transparency is currently best
accomplished by individual paper balloting. We will get the closest to
fair results by working with an analog system.
If we need to do remote voting, contrary to some claims, mail-in
voting is a reliable fallback. A study by Stanford University
concludes that: "(1) vote-by-mail does not appear to affect either
party’s share of turnout; (2) vote-by-mail does not appear to increase
either party’s vote share; and (3) vote-by-mail modestly increases
overall average turnout rates, in line with previous estimates. All
three conclusions support the conventional wisdom of election
administration experts, and contradict many popular claims in the
media."
From voter registration to tallying, all steps in the voting
process could hypothetically be done digitally. But voting is a
highly personal, sensitive, and complicated system, one that
involves some of the most powerful stakeholders imaginable, and
where freedom is at stake. Free software shows us the system and
allows us to improve it. It does not, however, guarantee the
entire process to be unbreakable. Let's steer clear from digital
systems for now, for freedom.
Here's what you can do to stand up for your voting rights
Contact your representative
If you are in the US, please contact your local representative to
let them know you oppose electronic voting, and in particular
proprietary electronic voting. You can copy or personalize our
sample text:
"Dear [Representive],
I am [Name], and I live in your district.
I am very concerned about the security and integrity of our
voting systems, and do not think any computer-based system is
safe, especially not any proprietary system. I agree with the
Free Software Foundation article about the dangers of digital
proprietary voting at u.fsf.org/voting, and request the use
of only paper ballots in upcoming elections. Please oppose any
move to digital voting systems, and advocate for our right to
vote analog safely. Thank you."
[Name], [City/State]
Tell your friends about the threat of digital voting on social media!
Use the tags #NoDigitalVoting and #UserFreedom on your favorite
microblogging sites.
On Friday May 8th, the USPTO announced the COVID-19 Prioritized
Examination Pilot Program. Doctored up to look like a helpful
response to a global pandemic, it's actually the exact opposite. Under
the program, the USPTO will waive some fees associated with
accelerated application review for patents on works that require US
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. They'll also work to try
and get these applications granted within six months. These changes
will make it easier and faster for people to gain patents on any
technology related to the pandemic, including patents on
software. It's not in our scope to determine the impact of other kinds
of patents, but we know specifically that they are terrible for
software, and at a time where software is critical to saving lives,
expediting software patent applications will only cause harm.
To be clear, this program does not speed up FDA approval, or help to
get lifesaving technology to the people who need it most. It doesn't
create supply chains or help fund the development of medical
technologies and software. All it does is make it easier for someone
to "own" that technology, to make it quicker and cheaper to restrict
others from implementing and sharing tools that people need to
survive. It rushes the patent application process so that someone
could be able to sue others trying to save seriously ill patients
around the world before the global pandemic is over.
While the crisis was unfurling, the GNOME Foundation was still
expending resources fighting off a patent suit started in 2019. On May
20, 2020, the GNOME Foundation succeeding in securing a release and
covenant not to sue from the patent aggressor for all software
released under a free license. This was a major win for software
freedom that took months and months to realize. But the threat
remains, and the only reason someone would need to get their patent
granted sooner is because they want to start their lawsuits sooner, to
disrupt the flow of medical technology in order to siphon off profits
from those seeking to alleviate the worst pandemic in a century.
Taken together with a recently released report from the USPTO
patting themselves on the back for ignoring the US Supreme Court in
order to increase the number of software patents, it's clear that the
USPTO views its mandate as requiring them to crank out as many patents
as they possibly can. In Alice v. CLS Bank, the US Supreme Court
limited the patent eligibility of software implemented on a general
purpose computer. As the USPTO report stated, this increased the
number of patent applications receiving initial rejections. So last
year the USPTO released "guidance" that weakened those limitations,
and now the number of software patents speeding through its pipeline
has increased once again.
Even in normal times, increasing software patent restriction is
harmful to everyone. Software patents threaten all developers, putting
them in the line of fire for ruinous lawsuits simply for creating and
sharing their own code. Until the day when we can completely end all
software patents, we should be reducing the harm done, not coming
up with programs and guidance to accelerate the damage. But in the
midst of a global crisis where hundreds of thousands have already
died, where supply chains for medical technology are stretched beyond
limits, creating a cheaper and easier fast track for causing further
patent disruption is downright criminal.
While the USPTO is pretending to help with the response to COVID-19,
it is actually throwing a supercharged wrench into the gears of
medical supply distribution, so we the people have to come up with our
own response that actually helps. Software patents cut people off from
one another, but if we're going to respond adequately and humanely to
this crisis, we need to all work together. That is why we are asking
you to join our COVID-19 Response Team on the Free Software
Directory. The Free Software Directory is a volunteer-run catalog
of over 16,000 free software packages. It helps users to find software
that they can modify and share with their friends. The ethics of free
software are more important than ever, and we need to help people gain
access to software that respects their rights. On the COVID-19
Response Team, we're directing our efforts towards ensuring that
everyone has access to medical software, 3D printing designs of
medical technology, and other tools that will be useful in the fight
against this global pandemic. You can jump in and start working
right away, or join us every Friday from 12 pm to 3pm EDT in the #fsf
irc channel on Freenode.
Software patents are another kind of disease, and the USPTO has
decided to become a super-spreader of that infection, which will in
turn worsen the physical infections. Join together with us to fight
back. We hope to see you every Friday, but here are some other ways
that you can help:
