Remove old HTML files.

3 files changed, 0 insertions, 716 deletions

diff --git a/essays/commercial-free-software.html b/essays/commercial-free-software.html
deleted file mode 100755
index 4b9c489..0000000
--- a/essays/commercial-free-software.html
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,351 +0,0 @@
-<!--#set var="title" value="Commercial Free Software: Not an Oxymoron" -->
-<!--#include virtual="/includes/header.html" -->
-<h2>Commercial Free Software: Not an Oxymoron</h2>
-<p>
-	TODO: Clean up some wording, consider removing reference to Sencha Inc.,
-	maybe mention Qt "open governance", mention transferable skills under
-	"Development", discuss application stores under "Distribution", and note
-	that most money in proprietary software comes from support rather than from
-	licenses.
-</p>
-<p>
-	Many people believe that money can't be made in free (as in freedom)
-	software. They believe that "free" means "noncommercial", and they might
-	compare "open-source" software and "commercial" software as if the terms
-	were opposite and mutually exclusive. This is in fact a logical fallacy;
-	specifically it is a
-	<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_a_disjunct">false
-	exclusionary disjunct</a>. Software can be both free and commercial. If a
-	software copyright license allowed only noncommercial dealing, it would be
-	considered neither free nor open source.
-</p>
-<p>
-	Free software is in fact used commercially, and successful business models
-	around free software exist (and have existed longer than those around
-	proprietary software have). I've generalized the ways in which people make
-	money with free software into three broad categories: development, support,
-	and distribution.
-</p>
-<h3>
-	Development
-</h3>
-<p>
-	Modern economic models around free software closely resemble early economic 
-	models around software. Keep in mind that software freedom is as old as 
-	software itself. The "proprietarization", as I call it, of software began 
-	around the 1970s, apparently pioneered by International Business Machines 
-	(IBM). [1] It was furthered by companies like "Micro-Soft" and people like 
-	Bill Gates, who in 1976 published an "Open Letter to Hobbyists" that 
-	criticized people for sharing software without paying for it. [2] Before 
-	that time, software was usually distributed with source code (some 
-	universities even had policies of rejecting software that wasn't). Software 
-	was often distributed either at no cost or at the cost of making and 
-	shipping copies (at the time, on tapes). [3] Programmers were paid for the 
-	time they spent writing software, not for copies of the software itself (or 
-	really, licenses to use the software). [4] We see the same thing happening 
-	today. Programmers are being paid to work on software, and the software is 
-	distributed freely (that is, without unfair restrictions) and often even at 
-	no charge.
-</p>
-<p>
-	I cite four major examples of this phenomenon of paid development of free 
-	software. The first is Linux, a powerful and reliable high-performance 
-	kernel found in everything from televisions and ATMs to large servers and 
-	supercomputers (in fact, in over 90% of the world's 500 fastest 
-	supercomputers [5]). As of 2010, over 70% of work done on Linux is done by 
-	paid programmers. [6] At least 659 companies have supported the development 
-	of Linux. [7] Compare that to the Windows NT kernel of Microsoft Windows, 
-	the development of which is supported by only one company (the only one 
-	legally allowed to do so). Additionally, AMD's recent hiring of two more 
-	graphics driver developers shows that if you can improve a company's 
-	freely-licensed software, they might hire you to do so officially. [8]
-</p>
-<p>
-	The next example is Qt, a flexible cross-platform application framework 
-	popular in desktop, server, and embedded applications. [9] Qt is free 
-	software, licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) 
-	version 2.1. [10] Most of Qt's developers are employed by Qt Development 
-	Frameworks, a subsidiary of Nokia Corporation since 2008. [11]
-</p>
-<p>
-	My third example is GNAT, a compiler for the Ada programming language that 
-	is now a part of the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC). It was originally 
-	developed by the New York University under a $3-million contract awarded by 
-	the United States Air Force in 1992. Under the requirements of the 
-	contract, copyright on the software was assigned to the Free Software 
-	Foundation and the software was released under the GNU General Public 
-	License (GPL). [12]
-</p>
-<p>
-	Finally, I cite the GNU Project, a project announced in 1983 with the 
-	now-successful goal of creating a complete free operating system. The Free 
-	Software Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization founded by Dr. Richard 
-	Stallman in 1985 to support the development of free software, hired 
-	programmers to work on parts of the GNU system. GNU Bash (a popular and 
-	user-friendly command shell now used in systems like GNU/Linux and Apple 
-	Mac OS X), GLIBC (a C library), and GNU tar (an archiving program) were all 
-	initially developed by paid programmers. [13] Yet all are free software, 
-	and all are distributed often at no charge.
-</p>
-<p>
-	But you may think this doesn't make any sense. Why do companies pay for the 
-	development of software for which few people pay? They must be losing lots 
-	of money. Actually, they have a financial interest in having high-quality 
-	software available, even if few or no people actually pay for it (but 
-	remember that free software is a matter of freedom, not price). Many 
-	companies sell support for free software; we'll see more about this later. 
-	Many companies sell hardware with which free software is run (servers, 
-	wireless network adapters, digital cameras, mobile phones, televisions, 
-	cars, <em>commercial airplanes</em>, etc.). Many companies see free software as a 
-	way to save time and money and not have to reinvent the wheel. If you want 
-	something that serves a similar but not identical function as a proprietary 
-	program does, you have to write a new program from scratch; a free program, 
-	on the other hand, can simply be adapted to a new purpose. I suspect this 
-	is part of AMD's motivation in supporting Coreboot, a free bootloader that 
-	is faster and more flexible than proprietary BIOSes, in their server and 
-	embedded products. [14][15][16]
-</p>
-<p>
-	Finally, most software is custom software, software that is written for a 
-	single person or company and not meant to be released. This software is 
-	technically commercial and often free in a trivial sense. If there's one 
-	user, and that user has the rights to the software, then the software is 
-	free for all its users. [13][17]
-</p>
-<h3>
-	Support
-</h3>
-<p>
-	With proprietary software, only the copyright holder is allowed to 
-	understand it, and only they are allowed to support it. Support of 
-	proprietary software is a <em>monopoly</em>. (And as it turns out, this allows 
-	something like extortion. A phone call to Microsoft about Windows XP costs 
-	$59; an e-mail costs $49. And soon they'll discontinue support for Windows 
-	XP completely. [18] You have to pay to report a bug, then pay for an 
-	"upgrade" to see if they've fixed it. [13]) With free software, everyone is 
-	allowed to understand it and support it. Support of free software is a 
-	<em>free market</em>. [13] There is competition in free software support. 
-	Companies and individuals must please their clients, because their clients 
-	are free to go elsewhere for support.
-</p>
-<p>
-	Individuals make money from making changes to free programs. They can 
-	support their own programs (in fact, Richard Stallman made a lot of money 
-	doing this, more than he ever did before [13]) or anyone else's free 
-	programs. Again, like the earliest programmers, these individuals are paid 
-	for doing work, not for the results of their work. The results of their 
-	work are usually free software that does what their clients want it to do.
-</p>
-<p>
-	Individuals and companies sell consulting services and support contracts 
-	for free software. The first company to officially do so was Cygnus 
-	Solutions, founded in 1989. Cygnus maintained many parts of the GNU 
-	development toolchain and offered commercial support for GNU software. 
-	Between 1999 and 2000, Cygnus merged with Red Hat, Inc. [19][20] Red Hat 
-	sells support for GNU/Linux, and its revenue is expected to reach $1 
-	billion this year, an impressive record. [21][22] Canonical Ltd., founded 
-	in 2004, maintains and supports a number of free software projects, 
-	including the Ubuntu GNU/Linux operating system. [23] Nokia Corporation 
-	used to provide official support for the Qt framework, but earlier this 
-	year it sold this support business to Digia Plc. [24] Digia is one of 27 
-	"Qt Partners", companies that work with Nokia to provide commercial support 
-	for Qt. [25] AdaCore is a company run by the original developers of GNAT, 
-	the aforementioned Ada compiler commissioned by the U.S. Air Force. AdaCore 
-	has been officially supporting GNAT since 1994. [12][26] 
-	Sencha Inc. also offers support for its own free software. 
-	[27] The Debian project has a list of 824 consultants in 63 countries who 
-	support the use of Debian GNU operating systems. [28] The Free Software 
-	Foundation lists 86 individuals and companies offering support services in 
-	free software. [29] Clearly, there is a successful business model here -- 
-	one based in a free market.
-</p>
-<h3>
-	Distribution
-</h3>
-<p>
-	Additionally, some people sell free software. That is, they charge a fee 
-	for distribution, even of other people's work. How is this morally 
-	acceptable? A person can profit from someone else's hard work? Well, it may 
-	go against the traditional free software economic model of paying for time 
-	spent on work instead of for copies of the results of that work. But it's 
-	not inherently unethical or even illegal. In fact, software licenses must 
-	allow this practice in order to be considered free licenses. [30] In some 
-	cases, there is a cost in making and distributing copies of software (e.g. 
-	the cost of burning and shipping CDs). Or people may just want to earn some 
-	money for performing a moral act (sharing freedom) and maybe even 
-	contribute some of the profit back to the developers. [31] In the 1980s, 
-	Richard Stallman himself charged a fee for copies of GNU Emacs (a text 
-	editor he wrote) that he shipped on tape. In doing so, he made about $1300 
-	per month, a respectable income from something that's "free"! [13]
-</p>
-<h3>
-	Conclusion
-</h3>
-<p>
-	In short, programmers have always had ways to earn money with free 
-	software, even before proprietary software existed. Most programmers who 
-	write free software are in fact paid for their work, in a variety of ways. 
-	The difference in free and proprietary software economic models is that 
-	copyright holders (not necessarily even the developers) of proprietary 
-	software profit from restricting users, while free software developers make 
-	money in more ethical ways. Free software programmers are usually paid for 
-	the time spent writing software, not for copies of the software (or more 
-	accurately, the right to use the software).
-</p>
-<h3>
-	References:
-</h3>
-<ol>
-	<li>
-		"Proprietary Software". <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>. July 10, 2011. 
-		<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software">&lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"Open Letter to Hobbyists". <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>. July 6, 2011. 
-		<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists">&lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		Williams, Sam. "For Want of a Printer". <span class="cite-title">Free as in Freedom</span>. 2002: 
-		O'Reilly.
-		<a href="http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch01.html">&lt;http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch01.html&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		<span class="cite-title">The Codebreakers</span>. 2006: Asia Pacific Development Information 
-		Programme. Aired on BBC World.
-		<a href="http://www.apdip.net/news/fossdoc">&lt;http://www.apdip.net/news/fossdoc&gt;</a>, 
-		<a href="http://www.archive.org/details/The-Codebreakers">&lt;http://www.archive.org/details/The-Codebreakers&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"Operating system Family share for 11/2010". <span class="cite-title">Top500 Supercomputing 
-		Sites</span>. Top500.Org.
-		<a href="http://www.top500.org/stats/list/36/osfam">&lt;http://www.top500.org/stats/list/36/osfam&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		Kroah-Hartman, Greg; Corbet, Jonathan; and McPherson, Amanda. "Who is 
-		Sponsoring the Work". <span class="cite-title">Linux Kernel Development: How Fast it is Going, Who 
-		is Doing It, What They are Doing, and Who is Sponsoring It</span>. 2010: The 
-		Linux Foundation. 
-		<a href="http://www.linuxfoundation.org/docs/lf_linux_kernel_development_2010.pdf">&lt;http://www.linuxfoundation.org/docs/lf_linux_kernel_development_2010.pdf&gt;</a>.
-		12-13.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		Kroah-Hartman, Greg; Corbet, Jonathan; and McPherson, Amanda. "Who is 
-		Doing the Work". <span class="cite-title">Linux Kernel Development: How Fast it is Going, Who is 
-		Doing It, What They are Doing, and Who is Sponsoring It</span>. 2010: The Linux 
-		Foundation. 
-		<a href="http://www.linuxfoundation.org/docs/lf_linux_kernel_development_2010.pdf">&lt;http://www.linuxfoundation.org/docs/lf_linux_kernel_development_2010.pdf&gt;</a>.
-		10.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		Larabel, Michael. "AMD's New Open-Source Employees". <span class="cite-title">Phoronix</span>. July 5, 
-		2011.
-		<a href="http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&amp;px=OTYzOA">&lt;http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&amp;px=OTYzOA&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"Qt (framework)". <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>. July 13, 2011. 
-		<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_%28framework%29">&lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_%28framework%29&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"Qt Licensing". Nokia Corporation. 
-		<a href="http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing">&lt;http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"Qt Development Frameworks". <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>. July 8, 2011. 
-		<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_Development_Frameworks">&lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_Development_Frameworks&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"GNAT". <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>. May 9, 2011.
-		<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNAT">&lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNAT&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		Stallman, Richard. "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation". <span class="cite-title">GNU 
-		Project</span>. Free Software Foundation, Inc. July 13, 2011. 
-		<a href="http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html">&lt;http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"Coreboot and Open Source Development". <span class="cite-title">Business Blog</span>. Advanced Micro 
-		Devices, Inc. February 28, 2011. 
-		<a href="http://blogs.amd.com/work/2011/02/28/amd-coreboot/">&lt;http://blogs.amd.com/work/2011/02/28/amd-coreboot/&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"AMD to use Coreboot in Llano, other upcoming parts". Fudzilla. May 10, 
-		2011. 
-		<a href="http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22677-amd-to-use-coreboot-in-llano-other-upcoming-parts">&lt;http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22677-amd-to-use-coreboot-in-llano-other-upcoming-parts&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"Benefits". <span class="cite-title">coreboot</span>. January 15, 2008. 
-		<a href="http://www.coreboot.org/Benefits">&lt;http://www.coreboot.org/Benefits&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"Categories of Free and Nonfree Software". <span class="cite-title">GNU Project</span>. Free Software 
-		Foundation, Inc. July 13, 2011. 
-		<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#PrivateSoftware">&lt;http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#PrivateSoftware&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"Support Options". <span class="cite-title">Microsoft Support</span>. Microsoft Corporation. (No 
-		portable URI. Go to 
-		<a href="https://support.microsoft.com/oas/default.aspx?gprid=1173&amp;st=1&amp;wfxredirect=1&amp;sd=gn">&lt;https://support.microsoft.com/oas/default.aspx?gprid=1173&amp;st=1&amp;wfxredirect=1&amp;sd=gn&gt;</a>,
-		click "Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition", select "Other", and 
-		click "Continue".)
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"Cygnus Solutions". <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>. June 8, 2011. 
-		<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_Solutions">&lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_Solutions&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"Marketing Cygnus Support -- Free Software history". September 27, 
-		2006.
-		<a href="http://www.toad.com/gnu/cygnus/">&lt;http://www.toad.com/gnu/cygnus/&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		Woods, Dan. "Red Hat At $1 Billion". <span class="cite-title">CIO Central</span>. Forbes.com LLC. 
-		November 30, 2010. 
-		<a href="http://blogs.forbes.com/ciocentral/2010/11/30/red-hat-at-1-billion/">&lt;http://blogs.forbes.com/ciocentral/2010/11/30/red-hat-at-1-billion/&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		Dignan, Larry. "Red Hat: Nearing $1 billion in revenue; Not bad for 
-		free software". <span class="cite-title">ZDNet</span>. CBS Interactive. March 23, 2011. 
-		<a href="http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/red-hat-nearing-1-billion-in-revenue-not-bad-for-free-software/46445">&lt;http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/red-hat-nearing-1-billion-in-revenue-not-bad-for-free-software/46445&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"Canonical Ltd.". <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>. June 12, 2011. 
-		<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_Ltd.">&lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_Ltd.&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		Nystrom, Sebastian. "Nokia and Digia working together to grow the Qt 
-		community". <span class="cite-title">The Qt Blog</span>. Nokia Corporation. March 7, 2011. 
-		<a href="http://blog.qt.nokia.com/2011/03/07/nokia-and-digia-working-together/">&lt;http://blog.qt.nokia.com/2011/03/07/nokia-and-digia-working-together/&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"Partner Locator". Nokia Corporation. 
-		<a href="http://qt.nokia.com/partners/partner-locator">&lt;http://qt.nokia.com/partners/partner-locator&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"AdaCore". <span class="cite-title">Wikipedia</span>. May 20, 2011. 
-		<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdaCore">&lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdaCore&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"Company". <span class="cite-title">Sencha</span>. Sencha Inc.
-		<a href="http://www.sencha.com/company/">&lt;http://www.sencha.com/company/&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"Consultants". Debian Project. July 11, 2011. 
-		<a href="http://www.debian.org/consultants/">&lt;http://www.debian.org/consultants/&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		Sullivan, John. "Service Directory". Free Software Foundation, Inc. 
-		April 14, 2011.
-		<a href="http://www.fsf.org/resources/service/">&lt;http://www.fsf.org/resources/service/&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"The Free Software Definition".  <span class="cite-title">GNU Project</span>. Free Software 
-		Foundation, Inc. July 13, 2011. 
-		<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html">&lt;http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"Selling Free Software".  <span class="cite-title">GNU Project</span>. Free Software Foundation, Inc. 
-		July 13, 2011.
-		<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html">&lt;http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-</ol>
-<!--#include virtual="/includes/footer.html" -->
diff --git a/essays/index.html b/essays/index.html
deleted file mode 100755
index 6bc7f9d..0000000
--- a/essays/index.html
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,15 +0,0 @@
-<!--#set var="title" value="Essays" -->
-<!--#include virtual="/includes/header.html" -->
-<h2>Essays</h2>
-<p>
-	Here you will find essays containing facts and opinions about computing
-	freedom and ethics, U.S. and international copyright law, and GNU/Linux.
-</p>
-<h3>Computing Freedom and Ethics</h3>
-<ul>
-	<li><a href="commercial-free-software.html">Commercial Free Software: Not an Oxymoron</a></li>
-	<li><a href="social-networking.html">On Facebook, Google+, and Ethical Social Networking</a></li>
-	<li>Software as a Service: Lost in the Cloud</li>
-</ul>
-<h3>Copyright Law</h3>
-<!--#include virtual="/includes/footer.html" -->
diff --git a/essays/social-networking.html b/essays/social-networking.html
deleted file mode 100755
index 22fec5b..0000000
--- a/essays/social-networking.html
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,350 +0,0 @@
-<!--#set var="title" value="On Facebook, Google+, and Ethical Social Networking" -->
-<!--#include virtual="/includes/header.html" -->
-<h2>On Facebook, Google+, and Ethical Social Networking</h2>
-<p>
-	TO COME: An introduction and a section on Google+.
-</p>
-<h3>The Ethics of Facebook</h3>
-<p>
-	Facebook shares their users' personal information with third parties.
-	They use mere Web site design changes as an excuse to revert users'
-	privacy settings to unsafe defaults.  Their social platform has huge
-	security holes that allow personal information to be leaked.  One such
-	hole made some users' private chats accessible to all of their contacts.
-	Facebook also exposes users to malware and identity theft. [1] They
-	make it easy for application developers to collect personal information.
-	[2] The Wall Street Journal found that these application developers
-	collect this personal information, link it with other information, and
-	sell it to others. [3]
-</p>
-<p>
-	In general, Facebook has always operated on an opt-out basis.  In some
-	cases, you can actually disable third-party access to your information.
-	But you must always be on the lookout for new "features" or changes to
-	privacy settings.  Facebook always changes the way it collects
-	information, and it catches many people unaware.  But it's impossible to
-	opt out of things you don't even know about.  Recently, Facebook added a
-	feature they call "tag suggestions".  If you have photos on your
-	profile, Facebook can pick out people's faces and suggest names for
-	them.  This may sound useful, but it's the tip of an almost nightmarish
-	ethics iceberg in information systems.  Facebook uses facial recognition
-	software to make this work; they scan already-tagged photos and record
-	distinguishing facial features and then find photos with similar faces
-	and give them names.  They maintain a database of people's facial
-	features.  They never notified anyone about this database.  They never
-	asked users if they could record this information.  Instead, of course,
-	they made it an opt-out feature; you have to explicitly disable this
-	hidden feature to keep your facial information out of the database.
-	This new feature has even sparked an investigation by the European
-	Union. [4][5] But just imagine what Facebook could do with this
-	information (and consider their track record with personal information).
-	I suspect they may soon start selling facial data to other companies,
-	law enforcement agencies, and oppressive governments (I've heard that
-	the U.K. once used video camera footage to locate and arrest protesters,
-	so imagine what they could do with facial data).
-</p>
-<p>
-	Basically, Facebook is a business.  And you are not their customer.  You
-	are their product.  They are, in fact, selling their products to
-	advertisers.  That is, they use a person's face (without getting
-	permission and without paying anything) to advertise things to that
-	person's friends.  Claim to like something, and you've given a product
-	endorsement at a price advertising agencies would love. [6]
-</p>
-<p>
-	And they also seem to like selling out their users to governments and
-	limiting what their users can read and say.  After their recent
-	collaboration with Chinese partners, the Facebook platform was allowed
-	into China under political censorship.  At the time, Facebook lobbyist
-	Adam Conner remarked, "we're allowing too much, maybe, free speech".
-	[7][8] The Associated Press reported last month that Facebook sold out
-	hundreds of peaceful pro-Palestinian activists who had been organizing
-	events through the social platform.  Facebook allowed governments to
-	track its users' activities.  As a result, more than 300 peaceful
-	activists were added to airline terrorism watch lists and denied the
-	right to leave their countries.  International air travel was disrupted
-	as planes from Geneva and Italy were diverted for security inspections.
-	310 people were detained after landing in Israel on their way to stand
-	with Palestinians in a peaceful mission of solidarity and fact-finding.
-	[9][10] Imagine what might have happened if Facebook (and widespread
-	publicly-accessible computer networks for that matter) existed during
-	the civil rights movement.  Would there be racial equality in the United
-	States today?  Or would peaceful protesters organizing events have been
-	sold out and arrested before they could even meet?
-</p>
-<p>
-	But it seems you don't even have to use Facebook to get tracked by
-	Facebook.  Everyone who sees a "Like" button somewhere on the Web (as
-	I'm sure you have) can be tracked.  Facebook has the ability to map out
-	the browsing behavior of a massive number (a number that grows by tens
-	of millions each month) of Web users, even those who don't use Facebook.
-	[11] Again, imagine what they could do with such vast amounts of
-	information.
-</p>
-<p>
-	Things like these gaping holes in privacy, devious information
-	collection practices, abuse of users, censorship, and tracking inspired
-	Matt Lee, campaigns manager, and John Sullivan, executive director, of
-	the Free Software Foundation to write about Facebook's poor track record
-	with privacy and create rather amusing "Dislike" and "not f'd" buttons. [12]
-</p>
-<h3>Ethical Social Networking</h3>
-<p>
-	TODO: Move characteristic four into a note somewhere, as it is rare for a
-	service provider to attempt to claim copyright on user-submitted works.
-	Also, refer to the Franklin Street Statement.
-</p>
-<p>
-	But social networking is not inherently evil.  You can connect with old
-	friends and discover new ones without sacrificing privacy, security,
-	autonomy, and freedom.  You just have to be careful about the platforms
-	you use.  I've identified four basic characteristics that a social
-	networking platform must have for it to be an ethical one that doesn't
-	abuse its users.  The first two characteristics are universal; all
-	viable platforms, whether running on your own computer or hosted by a
-	service provider, must have these.  The last two apply only if you
-	choose to use a platform that is run by someone else as a service.
-</p>
-<ol>
-	<li>
-		Software freedom.  You must be free to use the software that powers
-		the social networking platform on your own computer without
-		restrictions.  You must be free to inspect the software and modify
-		it.  You must be free to share the software with others, with or
-		without modifications.  With these freedoms, you have full control
-		over your social networking and you can decide who has access to
-		which personal information.  Without these freedoms, only the
-		developer can decide what the software does, and you may not even
-		be allowed to know what it does to you.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		Federation.  You must be able to run the software on your own
-		computer and still be able to communicate with other people using
-		other copies of the software.  If the software has protocols for
-		communication between users across multiple installations, then the
-		software is federated.  For example, e-mail is federated; you can
-		run your own mail server and still send mail to other people who
-		use other servers.  This is because all standards-compliant mail
-		servers speak the same protocol.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		Privacy.  If you choose to use a social networking service run by
-		someone else, the service must offer a clear and agreeable privacy
-		policy to which the service provider must strictly adhere.  The
-		service provider must not be allowed to give your personal
-		information to third parties without your consent (unless required
-		by law) or use your information in ways that threaten your privacy
-		and autonomy.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		No claims of copyright.  The service provider must agree that your
-		personal information is yours, not theirs.  There must not be any
-		claims of copyright on the information you provide.  The provider
-		may, however, require you to license such information to them
-		and/or to others for it to be published on the service; in this
-		case, you should make sure you agree with the license terms before
-		using the service.
-	</li>
-</ol>
-<p>
-	Let's look at some social networking platforms and see how they adhere
-	to these criteria.  We'll start with Facebook.  Facebook fails criterion
-	one; you cannot run, inspect, modify, or share the software that powers
-	Facebook.  This means it also fails criterion two; it is inherently not
-	federated because you cannot run it on your own computer.  Since
-	Facebook is not federated and you're stuck with the hosted service,
-	criteria three and four apply.  Facebook has a terrible track record
-	with privacy and therefore fails criterion three.  According to their
-	terms of service, you retain copyright on your information and give
-	Facebook "a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free,
-	worldwide license to use" your information. [13] This is standard
-	licensing language that allows Facebook to publish information you
-	submit, and with these terms Facebook seems to pass criterion four.
-	(I've heard that Facebook claims or used to claim copyright on your
-	information, but seeing these terms of service I'll give Facebook the
-	benefit of the doubt here.)  Facebook fails three out of the four
-	criteria, and we can conclude that Facebook is an unethical social
-	networking platform.
-</p>
-<p>	
-	Next we'll evaluate Twitter.  Again, it fails criterion one since you
-	cannot run, inspect, modify, or share the software.  And again it fails
-	criterion two since you cannot run the software on your own computer.
-	Twitter has a clear privacy policy that describes what information is
-	made public, what information you may optionally provide, what
-	information is collected in logs, and what information is to be kept
-	private except under certain circumstances. [14] I don't know of any
-	occasion on which Twitter has failed to adhere to this policy, so if you
-	agree with this policy then Twitter passes criterion three.  Twitter's
-	terms of service explicitly leave you with the rights to your
-	information, but you must agree to grant Twitter "a worldwide,
-	non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to
-	use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display
-	and distribute [your information] in any and all media or distribution
-	methods (now known or later developed)". [15] Again this is standard
-	licensing language that allows Twitter to publish the information you
-	post, and I conclude that with these terms Twitter passes the fourth
-	criterion.  In summary, Twitter passes two out of the four criteria;
-	it's not completely ethical since it leaves you without important
-	freedoms and at the mercy of a single centralized provider, but it seems
-	it's not as bad as Facebook is in terms of privacy.
-</p>
-<p>	
-	Next up is Identi.ca.  Identi.ca is an instance of StatusNet, a free
-	software microblogging platform that is similar in function to Twitter.
-	StatusNet is licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License,
-	which requires that all users, including those who use the software over
-	a network, have all of the necessary freedoms with the software.  With
-	this license, StatusNet, and therefore Identi.ca, pass criterion one
-	beautifully.  StatusNet implements the OStatus protocol, which allows
-	users of other installations of StatusNet (or even other software such
-	as GNU Social) to communicate seamlessly.  With this, StatusNet and GNU
-	Social (and instances of the software such as Identi.ca) are federated
-	and pass criterion two.  If you choose to use Identi.ca instead of
-	running StatusNet or GNU Social on your own computer, then criteria
-	three and four apply.  Identi.ca has a very clear privacy policy that
-	describes what information is made public, what information remains
-	private, and how information may be used by Identi.ca, by users, and by
-	other instances of StatusNet and GNU Social. [16] With this, Identi.ca
-	passes criterion three.  Identi.ca's terms of service make no claims to
-	copyright on your information.  The terms require that you grant
-	Identi.ca "a world-wide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to
-	reproduce, modify, adapt and publish the Content solely for the purpose
-	of displaying, distributing and promoting your notice stream".  They
-	also require that you "grant all readers the right to use, re-use,
-	modify and/or re-distribute the Content under the terms of the Creative
-	Commons Attribution 3.0 [Public License]". [17] This license allows
-	readers to share your notices, to modify your notices, and to
-	incorporate your notices in larger works, as long as they give you
-	credit for your words and do not misrepresent you.  These are agreeable
-	terms that leave you in control of your information and allow the world
-	to share and build upon your work, so we can conclude that Identi.ca
-	passes criterion four.  Identi.ca, which runs the free social networking
-	platform StatusNet, passes all four criteria.  It is an ethical platform
-	and service that protects your privacy, autonomy, and freedom.  Because
-	of this, I myself use Identi.ca. [18] Since the software is free, before
-	registering I checked the source code to make sure that my password
-	would be stored securely.  And since the software is federated, I
-	reserve the right, especially if Identi.ca in the future ever fails
-	criteria three and four or ceases to exist, to move to my own
-	self-hosted instance of the software without losing contact with other
-	users.
-</p>
-<p>	
-	These three cases are just examples of popular platforms.  There are of
-	course many others.  Google recently opened up their new platform,
-	Google+, which so far is neither free nor federated.  The Diaspora
-	project began in response to outrage over privacy on Facebook; Diaspora
-	itself is free and federated, and there are hosted Diaspora services
-	with decent privacy policies.  Finally, I don't claim that these
-	criteria are perfect; they are merely the result of observations I've
-	made.  A similar set of criteria for "freedom in the 'cloud'" has
-	recently been offered by Georg Greve, founder of the Free Software
-	Foundation Europe. [19]
-</p>
-<h3>References:</h3>
-<ol>
-	<li>
-		"Five Hidden Dangers of Facebook".  <span class="cite-title">CBS News</span>.  CBS Interactive
-		Inc.  May 11, 2010.
-		<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/0/08/earlyshow/saturday/main6469373.shtml">&lt;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/0/08/earlyshow/saturday/main6469373.shtml&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		Barnett, Emma.  "Your data is Facebook's most valuable asset".
-		<span class="cite-title">The Telegraph</span>.  Telegraph Media Group Limited.  January 17,
-		2011.
-		<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8264210/Your-data-is-Facebooks-most-valuable-asset.html">&lt;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8264210/Your-data-is-Facebooks-most-valuable-asset.html&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		Steel, Emily and Fowler, Geoffery A.  "Facebook in Online Privacy
-		Breach; Applications Transmitting Identifying Information".  <span class="cite-title">The
-		Wall Street Journal</span>.  Dow Jones &amp; Company, Inc.  October 18,
-		2010.
-		<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304772804575558484075236968.html">&lt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304772804575558484075236968.html&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		Gannes, Liz.  "Facebook facial recognition prompts EU privacy
-		probe".  <span class="cite-title">CNET News</span>.  CBS Interactive Inc.  June 8, 2011.
-		<a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20070148-93/facebook-facial-recognition-prompts-eu-privacy-probe/">&lt;http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20070148-93/facebook-facial-recognition-prompts-eu-privacy-probe/&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		Snyder, Bill.  "Facebook Facial Recognition: Why It's a Threat to
-		Privacy".  <span class="cite-title">PCWorld</span>.  PCWorld Communications, Inc.  June 21,
-		2011.
-		<a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/230790/facebook_facial_recognition_why_its_a_threat_to_privacy.html">&lt;http://www.pcworld.com/article/230790/facebook_facial_recognition_why_its_a_threat_to_privacy.html&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		Tynan, Dan.  "Facebook ads use your face for free".  <span class="cite-title">ITworld</span>.
-		ITworld.  January 25, 2011.
-		<a href="http://www.itworld.com/internet/134677/facebook-ads-use-your-face-free">&lt;http://www.itworld.com/internet/134677/facebook-ads-use-your-face-free&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		Williamson, Elizabeth; Schatz, Amy; and Fowler, Geoffery A.
-		"Facebook Seeking Friends in Beltway".  <span class="cite-title">The Wall Street Journal</span>.
-		Dow Jones &amp; Company, Inc.  April 20, 2011.
-		<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703789104576273242590724876.html">&lt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703789104576273242590724876.html&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		Crovitz, L. Gordon.  "Facebook's Dubious New Friends".  <span class="cite-title">The Wall
-		Street Journal</span>.  Dow Jones &amp; Company, Inc.  May 2, 2011.
-		<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703567404576293233665299792.html">&lt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703567404576293233665299792.html&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		Higgins, Alexander.  "Facebook Now Helping Governments Spy On And
-		Arrest Peaceful Activists".  <span class="cite-title">The Intel Hub</span>.  The Intel Hub.  July
-		9, 2011.
-		<a href="http://theintelhub.com/2011/07/09/facebook-now-helping-governments-spy-on-and-arrest-peaceful-activists/">&lt;http://theintelhub.com/2011/07/09/facebook-now-helping-governments-spy-on-and-arrest-peaceful-activists/&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		Last, Jeremy.  "Israel uses Facebook to blacklist, detain or deport
-		Tel Aviv-bound travellers".  <span class="cite-title">thestar.com</span>.  Toronto Star.  July 8,
-		2011.
-		<a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1022008--israel-uses-facebook-to-blacklist-detain-or-deport-tel-aviv-bound-travellers">&lt;http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1022008--israel-uses-facebook-to-blacklist-detain-or-deport-tel-aviv-bound-travellers&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		Roosendaal, Arnold.  "Facebook Tracks and Traces Everyone: Like
-		This!".  <span class="cite-title">Social Science Research Network</span>.  Social Science
-		Electronic Publishing, Inc.  November 30, 2010.
-		<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1717563">&lt;http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1717563&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		Lee, Matt and Sullivan, John.  "Mark Zuckerberg is TIME Magazine's
-		Person of the Year? Where's the "dislike" button?".  <span class="cite-title">Free Software
-		Foundation</span>.  Free Software Foundation, Inc.  February 3, 2011.
-		<a href="http://www.fsf.org/facebook">&lt;http://www.fsf.org/facebook&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"Statement of Rights and Responsibilities".  <span class="cite-title">Facebook</span>.  Facebook,
-		Inc.  April 26, 2011.
-		<a href="http://www.facebook.com/terms.php">&lt;http://www.facebook.com/terms.php&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"Twitter Privacy Policy".  <span class="cite-title">Twitter</span>.  Twitter Inc.  June 23,
-		2011.
-		<a href="http://twitter.com/privacy">&lt;http://twitter.com/privacy&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"Twitter Terms of Service".  <span class="cite-title">Twitter</span>.  Twitter Inc.  June 1,
-		2011.
-		<a href="http://twitter.com/tos">&lt;http://twitter.com/tos&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"Privacy".  <span class="cite-title">Identi.ca</span>.  StatusNet Inc.
-		<a href="http://identi.ca/doc/privacy">&lt;http://identi.ca/doc/privacy&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		"Tos".  <span class="cite-title">Identi.ca</span>.  StatusNet Inc.
-		<a href="http://identi.ca/doc/tos">&lt;http://identi.ca/doc/tos&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		McDermott, P. J.  "P. J. McDermott (pehjota)".  <span class="cite-title">Identi.ca</span>.
-		StatusNet Inc.
-		<a href="http://identi.ca/pehjota">&lt;http://identi.ca/pehjota&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-	<li>
-		Greve, Georg C. F.  "Freedom in the 'Cloud'?".  <span class="cite-title">freedom bits</span>.
-		Free Software Foundation Europe e.V.  July 30, 2011.
-		<a href="http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/?p=452">&lt;http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/?p=452&gt;</a>.
-	</li>
-</ol>
-<!--#include virtual="/includes/footer.html" -->