The Globe and Mail has an editorial about the many disadvantages of the upcoming Sidewalk Toronto surveillance project. If one sets aside the repeated conflation of copyright, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets under a single, misleading moniker, the editorial covers how much control over public resources and public spaces is being relinquished to private companies without transparency or accountability, especially in regards to surveillance data collected.
With politicians rushing to show Canada's innovation chops, "smart cities" have emerged as their new frontier. Most consequential of these is a high-profile agreement between Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs, a subsidiary of Google's parent company Alphabet. A year ago, Canadians were treated to an announcement involving the leaders of all three levels of government gushing and fawning about an enlightened urban partnership with a foreign company whose business model is built exclusively on the principle of mass surveillance.
The most insightful comments during the public announcement came when Eric Schmidt, Google's former executive chair, said they had realized their long-running dream for "someone to give us a city and put us in charge." He also thanked Canadian taxpayers for paying, creating and transferring the core artificial-intelligence technology he credits for Alphabet's success, making it the world's third most valuable corporation. The Google parent's past and future growth are based on the intellectual property (IP) they own and the data they control.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by requerdanos on Sunday October 07 2018, @06:58PM (2 children)
Okay, going in: I acknowledge that Stallman is right much more often than not.
"Proprietary software has the potential to have hidden within it malicious features, therefore, proprietary software will have hidden within it malicious features," Stallman said. "No, whether it's released free or not is a business decision and has nothing to do with freedom and nothing to do with whether it has malicious features," said experts patronizingly. Result: Windows 10, Apple Walled Garden, Software that does what the makers want, not what the user wants, Universal Privacy Invasion. Determination: Stallman was right.
"Microsoft and the government will limit your right to read," Stallman said. "No, it doesn't work that way," said experts patronizingly. Result: DMCA. Amazon deletes Orwell's 1984 from Kindles under their control. Determination: Stallman was right.
This is the way it usually goes. Disagree with Stallman on any substantial freedom issue and chances are, in time, you'll hear the world's smallest free software violin [freworld.info] playing "my heart bleeds for you." I am a dues-paying, card-carrying Free Software Foundation member [fsf.org], helping the FSF to defend the freedoms and rights of all computer users, nurture the GNU Project, certify freedom-respecting electronics, and battle the practice of DRM. I get this.
And Stallman is certainly against saying "Intellectual Property" [gnu.org].
Stallman makes some good points:
I am not convinced that it's a bad term to be thrown out, however. The usage here in this article is a good example of why not.
While saying "intellectual property" implies that thoughts and ideas are little more than property, which is bad, it also points out quite rightly that the "property" in question is merely something thought about, and not a physical thing. In TFA, the Globe and Mail point out that
They don't own and control copper mines, orange groves, or anything substantial that's physical at all--just information. Ideas and data. In this context, "intellectual property" is a great way to point that out, to emphasize that no physical property is involved. They squeeze money out of information, out of data, and now if you're in Toronto, they've come for yours.
Copyright, patents, trademarks, and other areas of ideas-turned-resources by law are vastly different concepts, with vastly different rules, laws, and guidelines, but the single they have in common is that nothing physical is included--they are all legal constructs of the intellect.
I think that can be a valuable thing to point out in many cases and contexts, and I think that Stallman's blanket frown on saying "Intellectual Property" tends to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Maybe I'm right; I think so, of course. But who knows: Maybe one day soon that tiny free software violin will be serenading my downfall. We'll see.
(Score: 2) by martyb on Sunday October 07 2018, @07:08PM
Yes, "IP" is the abbreviation used to refer to the term "Intellectual Property", however ambiguous, misguided, incorrect, or whatever a concept it may be. "Intellectual Property" is quoted exactly as it appeared in the source story, so the "[sic]" has been removed.
Also, noticed that some links got lost in translation and they have been restored.
Thanks for keeping us on our toes!
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @08:11AM
It's imaginary property ツ