This wiki has been automatically closed because there have been no edits or log actions made within the last 60 days. If you are a user (who is not the bureaucrat) that wishes for this wiki to be reopened, please request that at Requests for reopening wikis. If this wiki is not reopened within 6 months it may be deleted. Note: If you are a bureaucrat on this wiki, you can go to Special:ManageWiki and uncheck the "Closed" box to reopen it.

Flowers From Al 02

From The Cory Doctorow Wiki


The reason my hope for the future and my hope for the internet are bound up is that it's hard to imagine how we can meaningfully change the world if we don't have the possibility of a free and open internet to use to organize that change.




January 13, 2014



MP3 ( MB)


Cory starts off this episode by sounding totally heartbroken about Mozilla's decision to add DRM to Firefox. That's the important thing about this episode. He later wrote an article on that topic, which he read in the episode Firefox’s adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart.

You can find an audio file with only this part of the episode here, or listen to it in the embed above.

Otherwise: «Here’s the second, concluding part of my reading of my 2003 short story “Flowers From Al,” written with Charlie Stross for New Voices in Science Fiction, a Mike Resnick anthology (Here’s part one). It’s a pervy, weird story of transhuman romance. »


Related articles

We are Huxleying ourselves into the full Orwell. – Cory Doctorows thoughts on Mozilla adding DRM to Firefox a few days before this podcast.

Please help with

Feel free to help out with any of this:

  • Add a short summary above
  • Add sub-headings to make it easier to read
  • Add timestamps at the start of each paragraph to make it easier to use
  • Check for typos and errors
  • Add explanatory links to things that not everyone might understand
  • Add more tags

Thank you!


The year has not been a good one for internet liberty. And you might have seen something I posted on Tumblr, We are huxleying ourselves into the full orwell, which was a kind of nascent thought about the way DRM, Digital Rights Management, is worming itself into webstandards, thanks to the World Wide Web Consortium, the W3C opting to put it into Scope, and that leading other institutions, notably the Mozilla Foundation deciding that DRM is something they need to support too, and so DRM is now coming to Firefox, I think. I think that's a safe bet based on my discussions with them. I don't know that they've said that exactly, but when you read between the lines I think it's kind of inevitable.

And when DRM arrives, open source ends. Free Software can't coexist with Digital Rights Management, because Digital Rights Management, it has to be illegal to modify it, or tell people how to modify it. Otherwise they'll just take away the restrictive elements of it. Digital Rights Management is there to stop you from doing something you'd otherwise want to do. If the tool is modifiable by you, then you will modify it to let you do the thing you want it to do and that the tool is stopping you from doing. That seem pretty self evident to anyone who's ever thought about it.

I don't know that anyone really claims that user modifiability and auditability and transparency can ever peacefully coexist with a tool that treats the computers owner as someone who's not trusted. And that's a really big deal because of where we are at the moment. The Snowden revelations jump started a global conversation about the requirement that our tools be transparent, auditable, free and open, so that we can be sure that they're not being exploited to attack us, to surveil us, to compromise us in lots of ways.

Once the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) [says it's ok] to try and control the users computer to do things that the user doesn't want it to do, and to prevent it from doing things the user does want it to do, then it no longer will be possible, I believe, for us to have auditability in software and transparency in software. And I think that it's unreasonable to expect that once this is standardized that people will opt not to use it.

For one thing I think that once it's standardized and widely available we can expect things like YouTube to start adopting Digital Rights Management. And once YouTube adopts DRM, it's really implausible that there's any widely used browser that doesn't support DRM, and that is to say no widely used browser that isn't opaque to users and illegal to audit and report vulnerabilities in. And therefor no browser in wide use that wouldn't allow for widespread surveillance, either by the NSA or other government agencies, or by criminals who gained access to its vulnerabilities. So I think that's a really, really dangerous state of affairs.

The W3C is now hearing petitions from other groups that want DRM, and I think they're going to be hard pressed to reject them. So the e-book people have turned up and said why can't we have DRM for e-books on the web, if you can do it for video? Functionally it's hard to understand what the distinction would be between DRM on an e-book and DRM on a web page.

After all an e-book is just a text file with some formating, which is what a web page is too. And again, I think it would be naïve to expect there to… if there was facility available by default to stop people from copying text from their browser windows, from using text from their browser window in ways that they choose to, from saving it, it would be unreasonable to expect that a lot of publishers wouldn't adopt it. I could easily see the New York Times and the other newspapers with paywalls adopting it. I can't imagine why they wouldn't adopt it if it where available in the browser. And at that point, again, no one is going to make a browser which you can't use with the New York Times.

And I don't think that the New York Times or Netflix or Hollywood want to abet the NSA, I don't think they want to make it easy for people who run remote access trojans, the software that lets them spy on you trough your webcam, I don't think they want to abet those people in their surveillance of their victims. I just think that they're indifferent to it, indifferent to the possibility that that's what's going to arise from it.

So I'm going to be writing this up more formally soon, and if I sound down that's why.

I'm really kind of running out of hope for the internet, and for the future. The reason my hope for the future and my hope for the internet are bound up is that it's hard to imagine how we can meaningfully change the world if we don't have the possibility of a free and open internet to use to organize that change. The rich and the powerful already enjoy the facility to organize themselves. That's how they got to be rich and powerful.

But for anyone else, for anyone hoping to upend the order of things, to have a more egalitarian, democratic society, I can't conceive of how that would work if there wasn't a free and open infrastructure on which to organize it. And that free and open infrastructure is incompatible with the idea that owners of computers are treated as untrusted by those computers. And the law prohibits telling people when their computers are doing things that they don't want them to do, or telling people about vulnerabilities in their computers that might allow some third party to exploit their computer against their owners interests.

That's pretty wonkish, I know. And not entirely coherent, I know. That's why I haven't written it up yet. But I'm going to. And I hope maybe we can start joining up the dots here. That the institutions we rely on to keep the internet safe and free, like the World Wide Web Consortium, like the Mozilla Foundation, will understand that no matter what the cost to their wider relevance to the wider internet that this is not worth it…

It, it can't be worth it. That there's nothing that is worth participating in the creation of a mandate that makes it illegal to tell people when their computers are not trustworthy. There just isn't.



Translated by an anonymous user on the old wiki:

El año no ha sido el mejor para la libertad de internet. Y tal vez hayas visto lo que he posteado en Tumblr, nos estamos huxleyizando en algo totalmente orwelliano , que fue un pensamiento amenazador* de como el DRM (Gestión de Derechos Digitales por sus siglas en inglés), se está enrollando en los estándares web, gracias al World Wide Web Consortium, el W3C optando por tenerlo en perspectiva, y eso orillando a otras instituciones, notablemente la Fundación Mozilla decidiendo que el DRM es algo que también necesitan soportar, supongo. Creo que es una apuesta segura, basándome en mi charla con ellos. No creo que lo hayan dicho explícitamente , pero si lees entre lineas creo que es más o menos inevitable.

Y cuando el DRM llega, el código abierto muere. El software libre no puede coexistir con la gestión digital de derechos, porque para la gestión de derechos digitales debe se ilegal modificarlo, o decir a la gente como modificarlo. De lo contrario bien pudieran solo quitar los elementos restrictivos. La gestión de derechos digitales está ahí para prohibirte hacer algo que de otro modo quisieras hacer. Si la herramienta es modificable por ti, entonces tú la modificarías para que te permitiera hacer aquello que necesitaras que hiciera y que la herramienta te estuviera impidiendo hacer. Parece algo bastante evidente para cualquiera que se haya detenido a pensarlo.

No conozco a nadie que diga que la transparencia y capacidad del usuario de modificar y auditar pueden coexistir en paz con una herramienta que trata al dueño de la computadora como alguien en quien no se puede confiar. Las revelaciones de Snowden de un salto iniciaron discusiones globales sobre la necesidad de que nuestras herramientas sean transparentes, auditables, libres y abiertas, para que podamos estar seguros de que no están siendo vulneradas para atacarnos, espiarnos o comprometernos en cualquier otra manera.

Una vez que el W3C de el visto bueno para intentar y controlar las computadoras de los usuarios para que hagan cosas que el usuario no quiere que hagan, y para impedirles hacer cosas que el usuario quiere que hagan, entonces ya no será posible, creo, para nosotros tener auditabilidad y transparencia en el software. Y creo que es irrazonable esperar que una vez esto se haya estandarizado la gente opte por no usarlo.

Por un lado creo que una vez se haya estandarizado y esté ampliamente disponible, podemos espera que sitios como YouTube empezaran a adoptar el DRM. Y una vez YouTube adopte el DRM, es realmente poco probable que cualquier navegador importante no soporte DRM, es decir, ningún navegador ampliamente utilizado que no sea opaco a los usuarios, ilegal de auditar y de reportar vulnerabilidades. Y por lo tanto, ningún navegador importante que no permita vigilancia generalizada, ya sea por la NSA o alguna agencia de otro gobierno, o por criminales que obtuvieran acceso a esas vulnerabilidades. Así que creo que este es un muy, muy peligroso estado de las cosas.

El W3C está ahora escuchando peticiones de otros grupos que quieren el DRM, y creo que serán fuertemente presionados a rechazarlos. Y entonces la gente de los e-books se han volteado y dicho, "¿por qué nosotros no podemos tener DRM para los libros electrónicos en la web si tu puedes tenerlo para el vídeo?". Funcionalmente, es difícil entender cuál sería la diferencia entre el DRM en un e-book y el DRM en una página web.

Después de todo, un e-book es simplemente texto con algún tipo de formato, que es también lo que una página web es. Y repito, creo que sería ingenuo esperar que... si hubiera alguna cosa disponible de forma predeterminada para impedir a la gente de copiar texto de las ventanas de sus navegadores, de usar el texto de sus navegadores en las maneras que eligieran, de guardarlo, sería irrazonable esperar que muchos editores no lo adoptaran. Puedo ver fácilmente al New York Times y los otros periódicos con "muros de pago" implementándolo. No puedo imaginar por que no habrían de implementarlo si estuviera disponible en el navegador. Y en ese momento, una vez más, nadie va a hacer un navegador que no puedas usar con el New York Times.

Y no creo que el New York Times o Netflix o Hollywood quieran instigar a la NSA, no creo que quieran ponerle fácil a la gente que usa troyanos de acceso remoto, el software que les permita espiarte con tu cámara web, no creo que quieran instigar a esa gente en la vigilancia de sus víctimas. Solo creo que son indiferentes, indiferentes a la posibilidad de que eso es lo que va surgir de él.

Así que, pronto voy a estar escribiendo esto más formalmente y si sueno decaído, esa es la razón.

La verdad me estoy quedando sin esperanza para internet y el futuro. La razón por la que mi esperanza para el futuro y mi esperanza para internet están ligadas es porque es difícil imaginar como podemos significativamente cambiar el mundo si no tenemos la posibilidad de un internet libre y abierto para usar y organizar el cambio. El rico y el poderoso ya gozan de la facilidad de organizarse. Así es como se hicieron ricos y poderosos.

Pero para cualquier otro, para cualquiera esperando poner de cabeza el orden de las cosas, para tener una sociedad democrática más igualitaria. No puedo imaginar como podría pasar si no hubiera una infraestructura libre y abierta en la que organizarlo. Y esa infraestructura libre y abierta es incompatible con la idea de que los dueños de las computadoras sean tratados como desconfiables por esas mismas computadoras. Y que la ley prohíba decirle a la gente cuando sus computadoras estén haciendo cosas que ellos no quieren que hagan o decir a la gente acerca de vulnerabilidades en sus computadoras que pudieran permitir a algún tercero explotar esas computadoras contra los intereses de sus dueños.

Es bastante rebuscado, lo sé. Y no totalmente coherente, lo sé. Es por eso que no lo he escrito aún. Pero lo voy a hacer. Y espero que tal vez, podamos empezar a unir los puntos. Que las instituciones en las que confiamos para mantener el internet seguro y libre como el World Wide Web Consortium, com la Fundación Mozilla, entiendan que sin importar el costo, esto no vale la pena...

No, no puede valer la pena. No hay nada por lo que valga la pena participar en la creación de un mandato que vuelva ilegal decir a la gente cuando sus computadoras no son confiables. Simplemente no lo hay.

[Nota: Usé "amenazador" porque no conozco la palabra original "nacant". Y "amenazador" fue la mejor pista que encontré en Wordreference. Una variante en francés, que desde mi ignorancia no me pareció alocada sabiendo el origen canadiense del locutor.]