Stories with Tag internet freedom

• Who Does That Server Serve? (2010)

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-06 18:06:48

  Verbose tl;dr

  This 2010 essay argues that running a nonfree program on your server, even for personal use, compromises your freedom and contributes to a broader system of user subjugation. While seemingly a private act, hosting proprietary software empowers the software's developer to control your computing, potentially through surveillance, restrictions on usage, or even remote bricking. This reinforces the developer's power over all users, making it harder for free software alternatives to gain traction. By choosing free software, you reclaim control over your server and contribute to a freer digital world for everyone.

  Richard Stallman's 2010 essay, "Who Does That Server Really Serve?" meticulously dissects the ethical implications of utilizing non-free software on servers, extending the free software philosophy beyond the realm of personal desktop computing. Stallman argues that the seemingly innocuous act of running proprietary software on a server, even one ostensibly dedicated to serving free software clients, carries significant ethical baggage and ultimately undermines the user's freedom.

  He begins by establishing the fundamental principle of free software: users should have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change, and improve the software they use. This freedom, he asserts, is a matter of fundamental human rights, akin to freedom of speech or assembly, and should not be compromised, regardless of the context of software usage.

  Stallman then illustrates how using non-free server software compromises these freedoms. He explains that even if the server delivers free software to clients, the administrator of the server lacks the four essential freedoms. They are bound by the proprietary license's restrictions, preventing them from studying, modifying, or redistributing the server software itself. This dependence on the proprietary software vendor creates a power imbalance, effectively placing the server administrator under the vendor's control.

  The essay further elucidates this power dynamic by examining several practical scenarios. For instance, Stallman describes how a proprietary email server can be used to implement digital restrictions management (DRM), surreptitiously limiting users' ability to access and share their own emails. He also discusses how proprietary social networking platforms, while appearing to connect individuals, actually restrict users' freedom by controlling the flow of information and preventing users from examining and modifying the underlying software.

  Stallman emphasizes that the use of free software on servers is not merely a technical matter but a moral imperative. He argues that by running proprietary server software, system administrators inadvertently become accomplices in denying freedom to themselves and, potentially, to their users. This complicity, he suggests, perpetuates a system where proprietary software vendors hold undue power and control over individuals and communities.

  The essay concludes with a call to action, urging readers to insist on the use of free software on all servers. Stallman emphasizes that this is essential not only for preserving individual freedoms but also for fostering a more democratic and participatory digital society. By choosing free software, individuals and organizations can reclaim control over their digital infrastructure and contribute to a world where technology empowers rather than enslaves. He further suggests that advocating for free software on servers is a crucial step towards achieving a truly free digital ecosystem. This encompasses promoting free software alternatives, demanding transparency from service providers, and educating others about the ethical implications of proprietary software.

  • Free Software
  • Open Source
  • GNU
  • Server
  • software freedom
  • Proprietary Software
  • SaaS
  • Cloud Computing
  • user freedom
  • software as a service
  • Ethics
  • Digital Freedom
  • internet freedom
  • web server
  • Control
  • autonomy
  • privacy

  Summary of Comments ( 17 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42964883

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN users largely agree with the article's premise that "personal" devices like "smart" TVs, phones, and even "networked" appliances primarily serve their manufacturers, not the user. Commenters point out the data collection practices of these devices, noting how they send usage data, location information, and even recordings back to corporations. Some users discuss the difficulty of mitigating this data leakage, mentioning custom firmware, self-hosting, and network segregation. Others lament the lack of consumer awareness and the acceptance of these practices as the norm. A few comments highlight the irony of "smart" devices often being less functional and convenient due to their dependence on external servers and frequent updates. The idea of truly owning one's devices versus merely licensing them is also debated. Overall, the thread reflects a shared concern about the erosion of privacy and user control in the age of connected devices.

  The Hacker News post titled "Who Does That Server Serve? (2010)" has a moderate number of comments discussing the linked GNU article about the ethical implications of running your own server. Several commenters engage with the core ideas presented by the article.

  A recurring theme is the practicality and feasibility of self-hosting in the modern internet landscape. Some users acknowledge the idealistic appeal of controlling one's own data and digital presence but point out the increased complexity and maintenance burden involved. They highlight the advantages of established service providers in terms of reliability, security, and accessibility. One commenter specifically mentions the difficulties in achieving robust spam filtering and DDoS protection on a personal server. The trade-off between convenience and control is a central point of discussion.

  Several comments explore the nuanced meaning of "serving" in the context of the article. Some argue that even a self-hosted server implicitly "serves" the interests of hardware manufacturers, internet service providers, and software developers, thus never truly achieving complete autonomy. This leads to a discussion about the interconnected nature of the internet and the inherent dependencies involved.

  The legal and ethical responsibilities of running a server are also addressed. Commenters mention the potential liability for hosting illegal content, even unintentionally, and the need to comply with various regulations. This raises questions about the realistic expectations of individual users to manage these complex issues.

  Some commenters offer practical advice and resources for those interested in exploring self-hosting. They mention specific software packages, hardware configurations, and community forums dedicated to supporting self-hosting enthusiasts.

  While several commenters express agreement with the article's premise about the importance of digital autonomy, there's a noticeable thread of pragmatism throughout the discussion. The challenges and complexities of self-hosting are acknowledged, and the conversation evolves into a more balanced consideration of the pros and cons involved. The comments don't necessarily refute the article's central argument but rather provide a realistic context for evaluating the feasibility and implications of self-hosting in the present day.

• Bypass DeepSeek censorship by speaking in hex

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-31 19:41:49

  Verbose tl;dr

  The Substack post details how DeepSeek, a video search engine with content filtering, can be circumvented by encoding potentially censored keywords as hexadecimal strings. Because DeepSeek decodes hex before applying its filters, a search for "0x736578" (hex for "sex") will return results that a direct search for "sex" might block. The post argues this reveals a flaw in DeepSeek's censorship implementation, demonstrating that filtering based purely on keyword matching is easily bypassed with simple encoding techniques. This highlights the limitations of automated content moderation and the potential for unintended consequences when relying on simplistic filtering methods.

  The Substack post titled "Bypass DeepSeek censorship by speaking in hex" elaborates on a potential method to circumvent content moderation systems, specifically referencing a hypothetical system named "DeepSeek." The author posits that these advanced censorship mechanisms, which likely employ sophisticated natural language processing and machine learning algorithms, can be tricked by encoding messages in hexadecimal format. The core argument revolves around the idea that while these systems are adept at understanding and flagging problematic phrases or keywords in plain text, they might not be equipped to interpret the same information when presented as a string of hexadecimal characters. Essentially, the hexadecimal representation acts as a camouflage, obscuring the true meaning of the message from the censorship algorithm.

  The author suggests that a user could encode their desired message into hexadecimal, transmit this encoded message, and then rely on the recipient to decode it back into readable text on their end. This process effectively bypasses the content moderation system because the system only "sees" the hexadecimal string, which, in and of itself, is not inherently problematic. The true meaning of the message remains hidden until it is decoded by the intended recipient.

  The post further illustrates this concept with a specific example, encoding the phrase "DeepSeek is watching you" into its hexadecimal equivalent. This example serves to demonstrate the practical application of the proposed method. While the author acknowledges the potential limitations and the possibility that sufficiently advanced systems might eventually adapt to this tactic, they present it as a currently viable workaround for bypassing content moderation. The implication is that this method adds a layer of obfuscation that could be sufficient to evade detection, at least temporarily.

  • Censorship
  • circumvention
  • deepseek
  • hexadecimal
  • Encoding
  • decoding
  • online censorship
  • Free Speech
  • internet freedom
  • privacy
  • Security
  • text encoding
  • digital rights
  • information access
  • Data Encoding

  Summary of Comments ( 320 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42891042

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discuss potential censorship evasion techniques, prompted by an article detailing how DeepSeek, a coder-focused search engine, appears to suppress results related to specific topics. Several commenters explore the idea of encoding sensitive queries in hexadecimal format as a workaround. However, skepticism arises regarding the long-term effectiveness of such a tactic, predicting that DeepSeek would likely adapt and detect such encoding methods. The discussion also touches upon the broader implications of censorship in code search engines, with some arguing that DeepSeek's approach might hinder access to valuable information while others emphasize the platform's right to curate its content. The efficacy and ethics of censorship are debated, with no clear consensus emerging. A few comments delve into alternative evasion strategies and the general limitations of censorship in a determined community.

  The Hacker News post titled "Bypass DeepSeek censorship by speaking in hex" with the ID 42891042 has several comments discussing the practicality and implications of bypassing censorship using hexadecimal representation of text.

  Several commenters point out that this method is not a robust solution for bypassing censorship. They argue that any sophisticated censorship system would easily detect and block such obvious encoding. One commenter specifically mentions that converting to hex is a trivial transformation and easily reversible, making it a poor choice for evading censorship. This sentiment is echoed by others who suggest that such a simple encoding would be quickly identified and added to the censorship criteria.

  Another line of discussion revolves around the concept of security through obscurity. Commenters debate whether this method could be considered a form of security through obscurity, and generally agree that it is. They highlight the weakness of such an approach, emphasizing that relying on the censor's ignorance of a simple encoding is not a reliable strategy.

  The discussion also touches upon the broader implications of censorship and the cat-and-mouse game between censors and those trying to circumvent them. One commenter suggests that this highlights the futility of trying to censor information in the digital age, as new methods of bypassing restrictions will continually emerge.

  Some commenters explore alternative, more robust methods of bypassing censorship, such as using strong encryption or steganography. They point out that these techniques are significantly more difficult to detect and block than simple hex encoding.

  A few comments delve into the technical aspects of encoding and decoding hexadecimal strings, including mentioning specific programming languages and libraries that can be used for this purpose.

  Finally, some comments express a degree of amusement at the simplicity of the proposed method, with one commenter ironically suggesting speaking in binary as an even more "secure" alternative. This underscores the general consensus that while encoding text in hex might be a clever workaround in a very limited context, it is not a practical or reliable solution for bypassing sophisticated censorship mechanisms.