The Death of Cyberpunk within Media

Not too long ago, say 10 to 20 years ago, Cyberpunk as commercial entertainment was one of the heavy-hitter themes that dominated most entertainment media. Movies, music, videogames, books, television series, etc. all had Cyberpunk themes within them. Videogames in particular were rife with Cyberpunkian ideas and motifs. By the late 2000s, most of this Cyberpunkian goodness seemed to vanish off the face of the earth, with some notable exceptions like the Deus Ex series. It seems Cyberpunk has been relegated to a mostly underground status since that time, which you could argue is for the best. To even know about Cyberpunk’s existence, today, would mean that you were likely a hardcore enthusiast. So, what caused this death of Cyberpunk? Was it simply just an 80’s, 90’s, and early 2000’s fad that had seen its time and went quietly underground? Is the concept just too tired to be marketable and profitable? Perhaps all of these explain its diminished presence within media.

Perhaps there is an easy answer to this. On an image board I frequent, one of the posters had suggested his own reason as to why Cyberpunk fell off the face of the planet. He said something to the effect that Cyberpunk died because it became real life. This little observation kind of blew my mind. How true it is that the Cyberpunk of the 80’s, 90’s, and early 2000’s mirrors current day technological and sociopolitical trends. Let’s see, corporate hegemony, ubiquitous technological presence, and an overbearing surveillance state. Yep, I’m calling it. Cyberpunk is here. Looks like I was wrong when I said Cyberpunk wasn’t quite yet here. On second evaluation, it’s pretty much here. At the very least, modern cities are Cyberpunk-lite. But is this what pushed Cyberpunk underground? Perhaps. Back in the 80’s, cyberspace and technology was still highly cloaked in mystery, yet were constantly improving. The possibilities seemed limitless. There was just so much for writers and game developers to work with. The result being a golden age of Cyberpunk culture. Of course, these things feed on each other, so Cyberpunk in media led to more Cyberpunk in media. Now, back in 2010, it became obvious that the U.S. had steadily transformed into a fledgling Cyberpunkian dystopia. Around the late 2000’s, as noted above, Cyberpunk in media became a rarity. It went underground. Does Cyberpunk’s disappearance into an underground culture have anything to do with the U.S. becoming a Cyberpunk dystopia? Possibly.

Today, people are immersed in Cyberpunkian themes. Today, these themes aren’t solely relegated to books, movies, television, games, and other popular media. Americans, and other first-worlders, live these themes everyday. Maybe this is why we are sick and bored of them. Additionally, these themes were unique and exciting in the 80’s, a time when computing was just really getting its legs. Now, when computing has advanced one hundred fold since the 80’s, the mystery and excitement is gone, paradoxically enough. Everything has gone sterile, which leads me to another observation.

The Cyberpunk concept is old. As much as I hate to say it, Cyberpunk is old news. I mean, the first vestiges of Cyberpunk, as a popular concept, can be seen in in the mid 1980’s, likely spurred by William Gibson’s Neuromancer. So, that would make Cyberpunk around 30 years old. In all honesty, I’m surprised it’s still around. Thirty years is a long time for a trend, so its only natural that the trend go underground to recuperate and, even, evolve. Yes, evolve. Cyberpunk may rise again one day, but it won’t quite be like the Cyberpunk of yore. Though, it will likely have the same essential elements of the Cyberpunk of ol’. Perhaps Cyberpunk is really just due for an upgrade or two. After all, the genre is living on 80s tech when it should transition to 2015 tech. Something fresh, new, and exciting for all the neophiles out there. Adapt or die, as the expression goes. It looks like if Cyberpunk wants to make it back to the mainstream, one of two things need to happen, either people will need to love the old Cyberpunk model or Cyberpunk will need to adapt itself into something people will love.

What can be done to Revive Cyberpunk?

If you are reading this blog, there is a good chance that you love Cyberpunk or are at least sympathetic to Cyberpunkian themes. And you are likely as dismayed as I am to see this incredible genre sink to such a low level popularity. This raises a question, what can be done to revive Cyberpunk?

Content Creation

Cyberpunk began as a genre of literature, as a form of entertainment, and from there will it rise again. But it can’t rise again if people aren’t creating Cyberpunk-themed creative works. There is hope for the genre, in this regard. With the anticipated release of Cyberpunk 2077, interest in the genre has been sparked. Outsiders are, once again, investigating this strange and mysterious genre. The trick is to get Cyberpunk media into the mainstream, however, this is often very difficult to do these days. If the community is to grow, we need to attract people who aren’t already in the community, we also need to hold the interest of the existing members. This is where underground content creation comes into play.

Most new content will necessarily be underground content, like this blog. This content has little chance of making it into the mainstream. However, some random passerby may be exposed to the genre by way of this underground content. This is good. However, I think underground content plays a much stronger role. Underground content keeps the interest of the existing community. It creates and strengthens bonds between people. It refreshes attitudes and renews interest. Keeping existing members is as important as getting new members. Communities only die when people leave.

So, be creative. Contribute art, music, literature, essays, etc. But what if I’m not talented in the least? Then post. Post your heart out on online forums and image boards.

Support the Community

There are tons of Cyberpunk communities out there and all of them could use your support. And I don’t necessarily mean support them with your cash, though, if you are feeling especially generous, I wouldn’t mind accepting any spare cash you have laying around. You can support most communities by simply participating in their world. Sign up for their newsletter, email your supportive words, participate on online discussion forums and image boards. All of this helps in giving these communities a larger presence on the Internet, which will attract other people and help the larger Cyberpunk community grow. But where are these communities? Here’s a few:

• - /cyber/
• - /cyb/
• - cyberpunkforums
• - /g/

I visit /g/ and /cyber/ from time to time. I contribute what I can and I keep the spirit alive as best I can with my little blog. As always, doing the little things in the present will make a big difference in the future. So show the community some love from time to time.

Live the Cyberpunk Life

You don’t need to hack into megacorps or wear leather-studded vests (wrong genre?) to live the Cyberpunk life. Cyberpunk is on the inside, not the outside. Though, you can express your Cyberpunkian self through the clothes you wear, you don’t have to. So long as your heart and attitude is Cyberpunk, you are living the Cyberpunk life. I’m keeping this kind of vague because people will have different ideas as to what it means to live a Cyberpunk life and what it means to be Cyberpunk. That is an entire post unto itself, so I won’t talk about that at this time (or ever).

Is being Underground a Bad Thing?

Currently, Cyberpunk has an underground status, but is that a bad thing? Cyberpunk, in a lot of ways, seems to be the one cultural movement enthusiasts would like to keep underground. It just seems so fitting to the genre. After all, the genre does place most of its focus on lone-wolf delinquents living on the fringe of society. And where do these delinquents live? Underground, of course! Not literally, but figuratively. They live on the unseen edges of society, much like where the Cyberpunk genre, and its fans, live in real life. At this time, the genre is more in tune with its roots then ever before. Besides all this, isn’t that where the best and most interesting parts of society reside? At the edges of society? That’s where the best rave-parties happen, too. So, it would seem that being underground isn’t all that bad.

If being underground isn’t such a bad thing, and it could be argued that it is, in fact, a good thing, why go through the trouble of bringing it above ground?

Conclusion

For better or worse, Cyberpunk has gone underground. That much we know. Whether this is good or bad for the genre is another topic altogether. Genres change and adapt to their environment, and people who were fans of the genre back in the 80s are starting to shape the genre with their own contributions and stories, hence the postcyberpunk genre that has been gaining speed over the past few years. Cyberpunk as a genre is old and is due for an upgrade. Perhaps, once it has received its upgrade, the entertainment industry will, once again, take an interest in the genre. Until then, I think we should enjoy Cyberpunk’s underground status. How fitting it is that a genre that often involves ideas such as obscurity, alienation, and desperation should be relegated to an unknown, cult status.

It’s poetic.

The Ideal Cyberpunk Food

In a world filled with corruption, greed, violence and constant surveillance, how would it be possible for the Average Joe to get the nutrition he needs to survive? The food of the future, it would seem, needs to be convenient, cheap, and fast. In the future, people will have little time to prepare home-cooked meals. At least it seems the trend is going that way. Today, everything has to be fast and, if possible, faster than fast. Food necessarily follows the same trend, hence the billion-dollar fast-food industry in the U.S.

In traditional Cyberpunk fiction, the food was reflective of the culture. If the fiction took place in Japan, or some other eastern country, the food likely consisted of sushi, noodles, stir-fried dishes, soups, and other local cuisine. If the fiction took place in America, it would be hamburgers, hotdogs, and Philly Cheesesteaks (YUM!). Keep in mind that while these types of food were found in cyberpunk fiction, that doesn’t necessarily make them cyberpunk food. Seems like a bit of a contradiction, doesn’t it? I could take the easy route and say that cyberpunk food consists of whatever the local cuisine is (in a cyberpunkian world), however, that wouldn’t be much fun would it? We need to use some imagination here and come up with the perfect cyberpunk food. The future depends on it.

We’ve already established that the food of the future needs to be fast, convenient, nutritious, and inexpensive. If we use America as our standard, it would seem that cyberpunk food is covered. In America, food is not only life; it’s also convenient, fast, and inexpensive. The only issue is that most of it isn’t nutritious in the least. Sure, you won’t die from eating it, not immediately at least. But it just isn’t quite right for the future when the average low-life will need nutrition to stay one step ahead of the oppressive corporations. There has been a trend in the U.S. toward healthier, convenient, and nutritious foods. But they are also considerably more expensive than their unhealthy counterparts, and the low-lives of the future are on a tight budget.

What ever are the denizens of the future to do? This just isn’t working out. I know hackers are known for their unhealthy eating habits and lifestyles, but if they are to have any kind of longevity, they must be supplied with adequate nutrition. Hacking a megacorp for five years isn’t nearly as fun as hacking it for twenty years. It looks like it’s up to us, the low-life citizens of the future, to design our own economical meals. But what of those low-lives who don’t have the skills for that? They aren’t called low-lives for nothing, you know.

There might be hope for those low-lives who find themselves in dire need of nutrition, but lacking the proper cooking skills. Like I mentioned above, there has been a trend toward healthier living in the U.S. Healthy, fast, and convenient food options are still a relatively new thing, so they haven’t been streamlined quite yet. But the day is coming when the Average Joe will be able to order a healthy meal that is as inexpensive as its unhealthy counterpart.

But what about today? Where can your average delinquent find adequate nutrition at a reasonable price before food-in-a-tube becomes a viable option? The first possibility that comes to my mind are nutrition bars. Nutrition bars, largely depending on the type and size, are convenient, compact, affordable, and super loaded with calories and other things the human body needs. Nutrition bars are commonly thought to be reserved for only athletes, workaholics, and the criminally insane. However, nutrition bars are perfect for the technological vigilantes of the present and future. Only have one hour to hack into a megacorp and save your crew? Grab a protein bar.

But isn’t buying nutrition bars from corporations support megacorps and is, therefore, counterproductive? I just can’t win here, can I? Undoubtedly, it seems that we really are in a bind.  Looks like the ideal cyberpunk food is out of reach, for the moment. Unless, of course, some independent, underground, genius, mastermind chef decides to start mass producing protein bars. I can dream, can’t I?

Though, it would be poetic if the very food a megacorp produced ultimately led to its undoing. Maybe, when seen in this light, nutrition bars are the way to go. I’ll leave that decision up to the consumer. After all, isn’t that where decisions should be made? By the people, not by some megacorp or politician.

 

Image by Arashiyama (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Black Friday, Consumerism, and The Legacy of Old Tech

It’s nearly that time of year again. The day of rabid consumerism approaches. People are already lining up to be the first to snatch some of hottest items at some of lowest prices, at the cost of a few tramplings every year. Out with the old and in with the new. With that in mind, it seems that Black Friday isn’t that special. It’s just like every other day of the year. Just amped up a few thousand times. Most people are always on the lookout for the newest and hottest products, but what happens to their existing possessions? More importantly, what happens to all that old tech?

New technology, especially new technological gadgets, is the most rapidly changing field in the world. As a result, it seems there’s a new product on the shelves every week. And, as a result, perfectly good, yet relatively old, tech gets quickly replaced in favor of the new flavor of the week. So, what happens to this old tech? Sadly enough, most of it gets trashed. Other times, it gets placed in storage. But, sometimes, it gets used or repurposed.

One of the most alluring things about the cyberpunk genre is its low-life aspect, namely, low-life using old tech. In most cyberpunk fiction, there exists to main classes of citizens: the wealthy elite and the low-life vagrants. Each class possesses its own tech. The wealthy have access to the shiniest, newest tech while the lower classes only have access to the scraps of old tech. Cyberpunk fiction is a bit romantic in this sense.

So don’t be in such a rush to discard your old tech. There will always be something newer and, purportedly, better on the horizon, but old tech is here to stay. Everything old was once new and most old tech still performs the way it did the day it first arrived on the scene. Give your old tech a chance, and let everyone else risk being trampled on Black Friday. 

The Waning Desire to be Anonymous

This post will seem to conflict with a previous post of mine, but there isn’t really any conflict. Over the past few years, specifically the 2002-2012 range, a trend began. More people began to use there real names and real information on websites and not just on their bank’s website, but on social media and forums too. This was likely sparked by social media sites like Friendster, MySpace, and Facebook. This trend even carried over to Youtube, spurred on by the merger between Google and Youtube. In some instances, real names were not just encouraged, they were required! Posting a false name or Internet handle could lead to account termination. But that wasn’t the troubling part. What bothered me was that most people didn’t seem to mind giving away their personal information like their names and such. In fact, most people were all to happy to give away their identities. But why? What happened? Isn’t the Internet for anonymity? Why were people so comfortable with giving away their information?

As already hinted at in the introduction paragraph, modern social media is partly to blame for people using their real information on the net. The modern social media website began with Friendster, a site few people know about today. As of today, the site is down.* Friendster wasn’t the first social network to come into existence, and it wasn’t the first social network to gain serious momentum. Friendster, however, did set the stage for the massive social media networks that later came onto the scene. MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and even Tumblr all use the same foundation that Friendster made popular. And it was with Friendster that the mass use of real names began, even though earlier sites like Friends United and Classmates.com encouraged real names for obvious reasons.

But why have people become so comfortable with this requirement? My guess is that most people have simply become accustomed to it or they didn’t really use the Internet before the real name requirement. If you think about it, the average person doesn’t use a computer for much more than social media. Since modern social media, like Facebook, requires the use of a real name, the average person probably didn’t think much of it, or the average person simply assumed that it had always been this way. Consider that Internet use exploded with the advent of MySpace and Facebook, and most people hopped on the Internet when these sites became massively popular. The vast majority of Internet users never experienced the era when Internet handles were the norm.

But are there other reasons why people have chosen to disclose their real names on the Internet. You bet!

The Internet has proven itself to be many things, but one of the most recognizable things about the Internet is that it is a money-machine and a fame-machine. Both money and fame are hard to achieve if you are posting under a randomized pseudonym. Leet-h@x0r isn’t as recognizable as Julia Johnson, and it isn’t as easy to tie that username to a bank account. And most fame-seekers don’t see any reason to use an Internet handle. To them, an Internet handle is just a hassle and it could cause confusion among their fans. The famous, or would-be famous, brand their real names because they don’t see any reason to brand a pseudonym.

What about civility? It’s no secret that people are more civil when the words they say online can, one day, be used to bludgeon them over the head. Many websites have taken note of this and, as a result, require people to use their social media accounts in order to post comments on the site. I’m afraid posting anonymously is seriously going out of fashion. The famous, and would-be famous, in particular have everything to lose if they say the wrong thing. Celebrities (barring particularly “controversial” celebrities) have been blacklisted from entire industries because they spoke a little bit too freely. The Average Joe, too, is at great risk of losing his job and becoming a public pariah for speaking his honest opinion. But is this necessarily a bad thing? Should people be forced to use their real names, risking real-world consequence, in order to post online? Requiring real names to post may incline people to act more civilly online, however, it also restricts people into saying only that which is politically correct. Dissent is punished. And, as a result, online discussion becomes safe, popular opinion goes unchallenged, and public discourse becomes far less rich and diverse. In other words, a sterile garden is a dead garden. The Internet isn’t a safe place and it shouldn’t be a safe place. It should be a challenging place. I’m fine with portions of the Internet being designated “safe” zones. If Facebook wants to regulate what its users are allowed to say, that’s on Facebook. However, the entire Internet shouldn’t be a safe zone. There should be zones for people who want to be challenged and say challenging things. And these zones will rightly allow for anonymous content creation.

Anonymous people may say some nasty things, but some of the most thought-provoking and provocative things I have ever read online have been posted under pseudonym. I don’t want this to change. Which is why I allow for anonymous comments on this blog, I’ll approve any comment you good folks think up. So long as the comment is more than just “You’re an asshole” or spam.

That was a fine tangent, wouldn’t you say? I live for little bursts of inspiration like that. But, now that the moment is over, let’s get back on topic.

Fortunately, in recent times, the desire to be anonymous has been freshly renewed. Anonymity is now becoming prized, once again, for the reasons listed in this post and this post. People want the freedom to say what’s on their mind, as controversial as it may be. While anonymous posting has waned a bit (or a lot), I bet it will still be around for a long, long time. Even if it were outlawed, it would still find a way. That’s the funny thing about outlawed things, if there’s a market for it, it will find a way.

*By the time you read this post, the link will likely be dead. The linked webpage was simply an explanation by Friendster’s developers naming their reasons for shutting down the site. Basically, the site wasn’t as popular as they had hoped and this was due to the challenges brought about by the changing gaming industry.

Hacking: It’s Easier than Ever!

Hacking is easier than ever. Now, that fact can be either reassuring or disturbing depending on what side of the fence you sit on. If you are a hacker, or would-be hacker, then you are likely breathing a sigh of relief right now. If you are a regular person with a bank account, then you are probably quaking in your boots. But before you start feeling relieved or terrified, we should probably examine the truth of that statement. Is hacking easier than ever or am I simply attempting to garner clicks with a clickbait title? Let’s look at some facts. I’ll be viewing this issue from two periods of time, the year 2000 will represent the past while the year 2015 will represent the present. So, is hacking easier than ever, I’m just as curious as you are. Let’s find out!

First, let’s look at the way hacking has become easier over the years. In recent years, there was has been an explosion in the availability of hacking tools and that one tool critical to any hacker’s arsenal, the computer. Computers, once only a luxury, are now the cornerstone of most households. In the early 2000s, the computer was something that most families aspired to own, while most families didn’t own one. And the families who did own a computer owned an average computer, for the time, at that. Back in 2000, it was common to find a computer that had only 128 MB of hard-drive space and only 64 MB of RAM. Quite a difference compared to today where the average desktop computer will have around 1 terabyte of hard-drive space and 8 GB of RAM. Of course, these boosts in processing power make hacking all the easier, but what of the other hacking tools on the market?

Truly, it’s impossible to say just how many “pentesting” tools there are on the market. If I were to guess, I would say there are around 500 officially recognized hacking tools available to the average person, paid or free. Kali, a free GNU/Linux distribution, offers over 300 tools built-in upon install. So it would seem the would-be hacker has plenty to choose from. But what good is a tool if the owner doesn’t know how to use it? Not to worry, though, in the year 2015, hacking tutorials abound without seeming limit. All a person needs to do is Google “How do I use [insert pentesting tool]” and they’ll be taken to at least 100 tutorials, some far better than others. It would seem that, these days, just about anyone with a little patience, time, and effort could become a hacker. Free knowledge is out there for the taking, all a person has to do is reach out a grab it. These days, there are no excuses for ignorance.

And what about the fact that we are surrounded by technology? With all the laptops, desktops, tablets, readers, and phones (don’t get me started on the phones) in common use among the populace, our environment has become the hacker’s playground. Next time you leave your house, take note of how many devices with WIFI capabilities you see. I bet you will be surprised. With all this technology chatting it up on busy radio frequencies, hacking opportunities abound. The Internet of all things is a wonder to behold.

This is all well and good, but let me introduce a counterpoint. How has hacking become more difficult over the years? But, you may say:

How could hacking have become more difficult; didn’t you just flawlessly list and explain the reasons it has become easier than ever?

Yes, it is true, hacking tools, tutorials, and opportunities are more common and accessible than ever, but defenses against hacking are also exceedingly more sophisticated than they were back in 2000. In 2000, tech-security just wasn’t as much of a priority as it is today. Not because the business-folk didn’t care about security, it was just assumed that most people didn’t have either the knowledge or tools required to hack into their systems, which was true. However, those folks who did have the knowledge and tools found it surprisingly easy to break into systems. Compared to today, routers were easy to confuse and overwhelm, databases were full of exploits, programs were often buggy and poorly reviewed, websites didn’t thoroughly parse data, data was often sent over unencrypted channels, buffers overflowed, and the rivers and seas ran with milk and honey. I guess, in this way, hacking was easier back in the day. But it was only easier for a small group of technophiles. The vast majority of would-be hackers were just out of luck.

So, I’ve listed some good arguments as to why hacking is both easier and harder than it was in the past. But has hacking in 2015 become easier overall? Is hacking truly easier than ever? My final argument will prove that, once and for all, hacking is far easier than it was in the past. Are you ready for this?

Hacking is easier than ever for the reason that most people are still as knowledgeable about computers as they were in 2000. In fact, I would venture to guess that most people’s knowledge of computer’s doesn’t extend outside of Facebook, email, and other social media. While security has been seriously amped up since 2000, the average person is still living in the past. In the hacking underground, it is often said that people are the biggest vulnerability to any system. Even with all the training employees receive, they are only marginally more prepared against cyber-attacks than they were 15 years ago. And this isn’t even mentioning the average person on their home computer. Otherwise intelligent people can be completely fooled when the topic of computing is brought up. Especially if the person is older. I’m a young guy with some tech background, and older folk along with most of my younger peers are convinced I’m a technological genius, when I know that that assumption couldn’t be further from the truth.

It seems that security professionals are fighting a losing battle, when the biggest wildcard in that battle is the average person. A security professional who designs and implements security measures must strike a balance between security, accessibility, and ease of use. When the average person isn’t at all technologically inclined, this spells disaster for most security implementations. It’s a completely uphill battle for the security professional. Though, it probably doesn’t hurt his job security.

All in all, abundant and accessible tools and information, coupled with most people’s ignorance about computing, have made hacking easier than ever. Thanks to all of the aforementioned, it truly is a hacker’s paradise. So rejoice or cower. The future is here and it is terrifying. But it doesn’t have to be. The average person can, by following a few simple rules, greatly minimize the chances that his information will be stolen and exploited. All the average person needs to do is proceed with caution. Don’t be reckless on the Internet. Use strong passwords. Don’t give out any more information than is necessary. And don’t download anything shady. By following these simple rules, the average person can greatly reduce the chances of something bad happening.

With that said, I wish you happy browsing or happy hacking. Or, if you swing both ways, happy…doing both.

Data Mining: A Billion Dollar Industry that is Costly to the Average Joe

One of the characteristics of cyberpunk fiction is the massive datasphere owned and controlled by mega corporations. Unfortunately, this is one of the characteristics our world shares with cyberpunk fiction. If you need an example of this, just look at Google, a massively popular search engine that not only logs and stores all user searches, but links those searches to a user profile. Google likely knows the average person better than that person knows himself. And Google is but one company out of thousands of mega-corporations that all want a piece of the pie, which is a large chunk of the average person, his data, and his life.

Have you ever considered how much your information is worth? What’s your birthdate, interests, gender, browsing information, marital status, home ownership status worth? According to this site, all of my data is only worth around $0.30. Doesn’t seem like a lot, does it? That’s because it isn’t. Kind of insulting, really. However, when this information is sold, it is sold in bundles of 1,000. That is, the information from 1000 consumers is bundled up and bought by a business. In my case, the bundle would be worth around $300. That’s quite a bit more, isn’t it? However, what happens when a company like Facebook takes information from millions of its users, bundles it up, and sells it off? Those bundles of information are worth millions, if not billions of dollars. And all it took to get that information is a simple request by Facebook, which most people are happy to oblige. But, hey, when your birthday draws near, Facebook sends a notification to all of your friends just in case they cared to know.

Now, a Facebook user might say:

Who cares if Facebook is making all that money off my info? It’s not hurting me.

But is that true? Are there no consequences to having your data sold off to the highest bidder? Perhaps there really isn’t any consequence outside of a more targeted advertisement stream. But, I’m not so hopeful. Information is the most valuable commodity on the planet. A birthdate, an interest, a dream, a life goal, a hobby, a marriage status all command a price higher than $0.30. Remember that datasphere I mentioned earlier? Most of the people on this little blue marble of ours are a number within that datasphere. All of their information is retrievable for any purpose, by the powers that be. Your whole identity is stored in some database, somewhere. And it probably was sold at a $0.30 bargain.

Again, why worry? I’m not a fan of hysteria. I think all fear should be backed by a reasonable amount of evidence and logic. Is this something worth worrying about? I think it is. Every piece of data on me, from my grade school years to my years of higher education and beyond, is stored in some warehouse database and can be retrieved with a few keystrokes. I don’t think I need to say much more. I don’t think I can say much more. I’m a number within a database, along with the other billions of numbers. And I have absolutely no control over that. I just have to accept it. But what could possibly be done with this information?

The first thought that comes to mind is targeted advertising. Companies would use that information to sell me a car or a house or maybe a few friends. A second use for that information would be to predict my actions in the future, should some higher-up politico care about my future actions. A third use would be to use the data to convict me of some crime. Maybe I violated some obscure law while browsing the web and, now that I got on someone’s bad side, they want to use that law to punish me. A fourth use would be to aid in any investigations of my person. Maybe someone would like a little more information about me, for whatever reason. All they would have to do is tap into the datasphere to retrieve it. Come to think of it, so much could be done with that little bit of information. If I’ve lost you, I’m just trying to rationalize my paranoia. Pay no mind. But pay no mind at your own risk. There is plenty to worry about, but we aren’t completely helpless either.

There are people out there who recognize this problem and who are taking steps to obviate it. DataArbitrage is the first program that comes to mind, and there are others. Additionally, there are steps you can take to, partially, free yourself from the datasphere. At this time, I’ve written two posts on the subject. Give them a look.

Don’t be just another number in some database, somewhere. Protect your identity and help others protect their own identities.

The Free Software Movement: An Explanation

I’ve been a supporter of the Free Software Movement, and the Free Software Foundation, for a couple years now. And, come to think of it, I haven’t really been the best supporter. Sure, I’ve bought merchandise from their store, donated a bit more, and, once, even offered coding support for a free email client that some guy was developing. This is all just a drop in the bucket, however, but as I’ve found out, every little bit helps. Perhaps the best way for someone to help the FSM is to just get the word out. Few people know about operating systems outside of Windows and OS X and fewer still know about the FSM, open-source movement, and the respective operating systems/software those movements support. Only a few people read my blog but, since every little bit helps, I think I’ll take some time to explain the Free Software Movement.

First, a little history. The Free Software Movement was founded by Richard Stallman in order to pursue freedom within the context of software. There is a lot of confusion caused by the word “free”. As Stallman says, when you hear the word “free”, think of freedom, not free beer. Whenever Stallman means “free” as in free stuff, he will say gratis. Additionally, as Stallman knows too well, gratis software is often unfree software. Just how does freedom apply to software? The FSM lists a few criterion a piece of software must meet before it can be called free.

From gnu.org, software is free when the user has these four freedoms:

1. The freedom to run the program as the user wishes, for any purpose.

2. The freedom to study how the program works and modify it so it runs the way the user wishes. A precondition is that the code must be viewable and accessible.

3. The freedom to distribute copies of the software.

4. The freedom to distribute copies of software the user has modified.

As mentioned above, gratis software isn’t (necessarily) considered free software since it doesn’t (necessarily) meet all of these criteria. WinRAR, while being monetarily free software, isn’t free software because its source code isn’t viewable, modifiable, or distributable by the Average Joe. Conversely, there is paid-for software that could be considered free, by the FSMs standards.

The Free Software Movement is for free software, but what is it against? In a nutshell, the FSM is against proprietary software. But why? What does Stallman have against proprietary software and what is proprietary software?

From linfo.org, proprietary software is software that is owned by an individual person, company, or organization; there are almost always restrictions on its use and its source code is almost always kept secret.

Well, already we can see that proprietary software, by definition isn’t considered free software since its use is restricted and its source code is kept secret. So, what exactly does Stallman have against proprietary software, aside from that fact that it violates the freedoms provided by free software?

Stallman believes, and rightly so in most cases, that proprietary software contains malware that is harmful to the user’s privacy. Since users usually aren’t able to examine the source code of proprietary software, software programmers are free to put any kind of tracking and information stealing malware they please into the source code. Stallman believes, and rightly so, again, that since software users are at the mercy of the software’s developer, the software’s developer is likely to incorporate activity tracking malware, spyware, and other bad things, into the software.

Why doesn’t the government make laws to prevent programmers from doing this? Well, the government tends to be the biggest culprit of installing tracking software into programs. Governments will often encourage, and even require, companies to insert tracking software into their product’s source code for a number of reasons. Purportedly, the government’s reason for doing so is to catch criminals and enemies of the state. This is likely true, so what do we have to worry about? All the citizen has to do is behave himself and the government will give him a pass, so again, what do we have to worry about? There are a few things to consider.

Have you ever thought of yourself as an enemy of the state? I know I’ve never seen myself as such, along with most other people. But, the truth is, you might just be a criminal (assuming you live in the U.S). Not a single lawyer in all of the U.S. knows all of the federal laws that are currently in effect in our little region of the world. And this doesn’t include all of the state laws and common laws. There has never been a better time to be a lawyer and a worse time to be an Average Joe computer user. The Average Joe likely breaks five obscure laws a day just by browsing the web. But why isn’t he prosecuted? Well, that’s likely because no law-enforcement institution has the time, resources, or desire to persecute 99% of the U.S. population. However, what happens when an Average Joe computer user pisses off the wrong person? What if this wrong person has ties within law-enforcement agencies or some other government institution? Then, those obscure laws might just be used against the Average Joe. Stepping on the toes of the wrong person could mean prison time for some unfortunate individual.

There is always the possibility of the government misusing the gathered information. I’d love to believe the government would never do such a thing, however, I just can’t make myself believe that. I’m a student of history and I know of the atrocities government’s can commit. And I don’t believe my government is the one exception to the cycle of violence often perpetrated by out-of-control governments. I believe governments must be constrained by the people and the people can partly constrain the government by limiting the information a government has access to.

Even if our governments have proven themselves to be benevolent, they are still vulnerable to mistakes. What if the information gathered by a government falls into the wrong hands. Since the government would likely be centralizing much of the information it collects, it wouldn’t be hard for a rogue group of hackers to hit the information repository and steal all of that critical information. And what about the information collection process? I bet it wouldn’t be too hard to eavesdrop on that process in order to grab a juicy bit of info. Why are we putting so much trust in the competency and benevolence of this beast known as government?

And this isn’t even mentioning the annoying tendency companies have to sell our information to highest bidder. I’m looking at you Facebook and Twitter. I know I don’t want businesses exploiting my information in order to fill their pockets. And I doubt other people feel much different. The funniest thing about this is that companies will tell the user that they may sell their information. It’s all in the fine print, but who has time to read the fine print? Businesses like Facebook know that very few people will read the fine print, so include it all in there. What a kick in the teeth, right?

Still, isn’t this all just unfounded paranoia on the part of Stallman? I wish it was.

As Snowden has so boldly (or stupidly) proven, government spying is not only a real thing, it is more common than initially believed.

Free software may be the way out of the government/corporate spying ring. But, why care whether the government spies on its citizens; also isn’t spying for our benefit? I’m not one to trust the government. In addition to the reasons above, I can trust the government no more than I can trust the average hacker. Both are unknown to me and have power over me, the government more so than the hacker. Additionally, I can’t hold the government responsible for any reprehensible actions it may pull with its massive surveillance abilities. So, in this case, a healthy and reasonable distrust is the option I have chosen.

I won’t force anyone to make the complete jump to using free software. I won’t force anyone to throw their Windows out the window or trash their Mac. I use Windows because it has many useful programs that just aren’t available with free software. In fact, this is a common reason why people stick with proprietary software. Stallman may not consider it a good reason, but I consider it a good enough reason. The truth is, however, that a person doesn’t need to make the complete jump to free software in order to enjoy the benefits of free software. I’ve incorporated free software into my daily computing. In fact, I only keep Windows around to handle the tasks that can’t be easily handled by free software; I encourage others to do the same. Thank goodness for virtual machines and dual-booting. Indeed, I won’t force anyone to completely jump ship and use only free software. The only thing I want is for people to consider using and supporting free software.

With this post, I want to educate and spread the word about free software. I think information is the most valuable commodity on the planet. I’m doing my share by spreading it. Will you do a little bit to support the Free Software Movement? Remember, every little bit counts.

Preliminares 2013 [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons