Feedback from Nov 2021 Meeting

Hi all, feedback from the online monthly meeting today 3 Nov 2021:

1. Telegram SAOSS group – as agreed at last month’s meeting it was closed and deleted today.
2. Kubernetes as a MIOS standard for cloud – Karl will still get to see Richard Brown at SITA to discuss.
3. Establishing a FOSS special interest group for GITOC – it is not for us to say how GITOC TTT will be involved or the nature of the new entity, but we need to establish correct Chairperson at TTT to discuss with Nhlanhla. Roles and hierarchy are important for gov to determine, and it is envisaged it may be a special interest group. Danie will establish contact person with TTT.
4. Events – we need to think about Software Freedom Day and similar for next year. We will use the SAOSS website event calendar for now to pin events down.
5. Right to Repair – Danie feels it is more in TTT domain being hardware related and he will convey our ideas around repairability scoring etc to TTT.
6. We also discussed some other issues that are not for action right now but we’ll keep them on as discussion points:
6.1 Enterprise Architecture – Mohamed raises importance of it determining direction and FOSS awareness legislation, MIOS, etc but often external parties are just contracted to complete it for Depts and Entities. Keu is on this group and can be involved in this.
6.2 IT in schools – the fact that Delphi is still being taught, whilst Python is so popular and even presented by Microsoft says Karl. It is possibly something that can be taken up within the FOSS special interest group.

Next meeting 7th Dec 2021 at 15:00. Website and Jitsi link is in Signal Group’s header.

Feedback from Oct 2021 Meeting

Today’s meeting as per website event:
1. Sensitising GITOC TTT to open source SC or working group – Danie contacted TTT and they discussed it last Friday at their meeting and await developments.
2. Kubernetes as cloud standard – Karl will go see Richard at SITA.
3. Aslam to speak to Nhlanhla re SC – pending feedback.
4. Decided unanimously to move the chat group to Signal as a closed group. Reasons are Signal is E2EE, is open source, and we have a need to discuss some sensitive topics. This means that anyone joining the new group will need to be peer reviewed by an existing member that knows that. Myself, Calwin, and Mohamed are already on the new group. I will reach out to some of the existing members here on the Telegram group and invite them, but if we miss anyone, please contact myself or Karl. This should allow some who left this group, to rejoin. It means we won’t any longer be running a public open Telegram group, but this group will only close down after next month’s Jitsi meeting. Our website remains public as a resource for documents, news, and the discussion forum.

DIGITAL SOVEREIGNTY OR DIGITAL COLONIALISM?

By Renata Ávila Pinto

Beyond tensions of privacy and security, we are witnessing today a real confrontation between control and freedom, not only of the individual, but of entire populations and regions, enhanced by technologies and massive collection and analysis of data – from predicting and influencing
behaviours, to the automation of public services and the ability to fully control and disrupt those services, even remotely. From gaining access to a global communications platform to losing the ability to protect the rights of those who are interconnected through those platforms. Are we witnessing a new form of digital colonialism?

This article focuses on regional, national, and community solutions to restore control and ownership on key information and communications infrastructures – the only possible first step to fix the current massive violation of privacy rights. It will later suggest some local measures to experiment with and advance alternatives at different levels of intervention and action, including proactive policy, capacity building, and new designs inspired in a set of values and principles different from those of the dominant actors in the market.

Digital Colonialism: South Africa’s Education Transformation in the Shadow of Silicon Valley

This dissertation investigates the societal implications of technology choices for the emerging e-education transformation of the South African basic education sector. In October 2015, then President Jacob Zuma launched Operation Phakisa Education (OPE), an initiative designed behind closed doors
to fast-track digital education into all South African public schools. This study identifies and analyzes policy choices and perspectives regarding the technology considered and deployed for the national e-education rollout. It documents the OPE proposal, and examines how e-education policy choices relate to humanitarian objectives. See

A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
of
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY
RHODES UNIVERSITY
by
Michael Kwet
March 2019

Microsoft/UNESCO Agreement: neo-colonialism in the computer era

From https://www.april.org/en/articles/divers/tribune-microsoft-unesco-liberation.html.en – Article published in Liberation 01/05/2004

Signatories :

Mr. Sergio Amadeu da Silveira – President of the National Institut National of Information Technology – Civil House of the Republic Presidence – Brazil

Felipe Pérez Martí – former Minister of Planification and Developpement – Venezuela

Federico Heinz – Fundación Vía Libre – Argentina

Professeur Mohamed Ben Ahmed – president of the «Association Tunisienne des Logiciels Libres», former Secretary of State, former ambassador

Marcelo D’Elia Branco – Projecto Software Livre – Brazil

Benoît Sibaud – president of APRIL (Association pour la Promotion et la Recherche en Informatique Libre, Association for Promotion and Research in Libre Computing)

Frédéric Couchet – Free Software Foundation France

Microsoft/UNESCO Agreement: neo-colonialism in the computer era

On November 17th 2004, Bill Gates visited UNESCO headquarters in Paris to sign a partnership agreement with the organization.

This agreement defines eight objectives [1] on which UNESCO and Microsoft agree to collaborate by exchanging experience, know-how and development projects.

As creditable as these objectives might be, we are astonished to see UNESCO choose to implement them with the assistance of Microsoft.

This is even more surprising considering that the organization has shown significant support towards Free Software in the past, by putting online a Free Software portal [2a], by adding the GNU project on the World Treasures list [2b] or by helping Freeduc live-CD from OFSET project [2c].

The 2003 CNUCED report concluded that ‘free software could dynamize the TIC sector in developing countries’ [3] and the UNESCO itself asserted, through Mr Abdul Waheed Khan from the communication and information department: ‘The UNESCO has always been encouraging the extension and diffusion of knowledge, and acknowledges that in the software field, free software helps spreading this knowledge in a unique way unattainable by proprietary software’. [4]

Today, with the conclusion of this partnership agreement, we feel that this honourable institution moves away from a real opportunity to reduce the digital divide in developing countries.

What will be the long-term effects for both parties? Microsoft is clearly looking at increased business opportunutues while southern countries are facing ‘negative consequences’.

As far as the Redmond firm is concerned, the distribution of copies of programs that have long since covered their costs.

In return, the firm gains the opportunity to increase its commercial presence in Southern countries, aided by the prestigious reputation of a large international not for profit organization.

The consequences of this for developing countries are many:

1- ‘Science without conscience’ the consumerisation of education

By promoting proprietary software, the agreement incites developing countries to consider software as something which is bought, not built, as an industrial product rather than a cultural know-how that should be taught and shared. The agreement tacitly supports the idea that it is acceptable to give-up essential freedoms merely in exchange for access to some computer programs. Education and culture cannot be reduced to only know-how and knowledge: they also transmit our values. When software is used for education and culture, these values should not be pushed aside.

2- The sacrifice of linguistic pluralism and cultural diversity

Although developing countries aspire to reduce the digital divide separating them from industrialized countries, they do not intend to sacrifice their linguistic and cultural specificities. Software companies such as Microsoft, will not develop specific versions of their software for other languages or uses if they do not foresee profitable commercial opportunities.

This is not the case with free software, where the effort of a small team composed of volunteers and/or contractors can produce localized versions of software. For example, the Mozilla Internet browser can now be used with an interface translated into Luganda, the national language of Uganda. This translation was done in less than a year by a team of 8 people, including 4 translators, and without funding. In fact there was no formal organization for the project, only motivated users [5].

3- Hand-holding rather than training

As underlined very recently by the Ivory Coast Association for GNU/Linux and Free Software [6], ‘to learn, one must understand’.

Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how computer science students in developing countries could master techniques which are mostly kept hidden from them.

Even more baffling is how a company whose very business model depends largely on prohibiting the study and use of its technical processes can legitimately claim a vacation to educate.

Far from this stunted mentality, the philosophy of free software is based on mutualisation of knowledge. It is in perfect harmony with the traditional culture of sharing found in many developing countries, especially African ones.

The old saying goes: ‘Give a man a fish and it’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for life’

In the computer era, giving a proprietary software to a man turns him into a captive consumer of technology; providing him with the possibility to adopt free software techniques turns him into a producer.

4- Supervised economic development

By choosing proprietary software, a nation merely leases technology. The monetary cost being renewed license fees and paying upgrades.

In the case of free software, software development will take place locally and the fees previously leaving the country will remain in the GDP.

In the information society, enterpreneurial opportunities depend primarily on unhindered access to the software on which this society is based. A company that would depend on a quasi-monopolistic supplier forbidding any adaptation of its software loses any hope of levelling the playing field enough to compete in the worldwide market.

Developing an industry based on free software places all companies on the same level as the largest international corporations.

In the information society, only a country mastering its software tools may hope to control its own development. If it does not, it becomes a colonialized victim with regard first to economical and cultural issues, and then to political ones. To illustrate this reality, one need only observe the intense anti free software lobbying efforts undertaken by the USA at the WSIS. [7]

5- The threat to political independence and secure communications

Political leaders expect their communication systems to be not only effective but also secure. They will not accept that communications on their deliberations and upcoming decisions be vulnerable to third party spying or influence, from either a foreign government or private interests.

Microsoft products can in no way provide this guarantee by the very fact that their source code is deemed confidential and kept hidden.

As early as the year 2000, a report from the Delegation of Strategic Affairs, an affiliate of the French Ministery of Armed Forces pointed to the collusion between the NSA and Microsoft. They report denounced, although prudently keeping to the conditional form, the existence of NSA agents among Microsoft development teams [8a]. Four years later, the parliamentary report on economic intelligence ordered by the French Raffarin government to MP Bernard Carayon underlined the same level of danger associated to proprietary software regarding independence of information[8b].

Free software source code is freely available and can be scrutinized by everyone. Thus it cannot be suspected of government or private interest collusion. Only free software can provide Southern countries with the guarantee that catching up in the technological domain will not force them to give up a share of their sovereignty.

We fear that through this partnership, with the involuntary assistance of UNESCO, Microsoft seeks to put developing countries not into a sustainable development scheme but into a durable subjection one. We fear that Microsoft ‘gift’ is actually the ‘kiss of death’ for developing nation’s research and software industries. Bill Gates’ offer to UNESCO is a money-making business opportunity for Microsoft, while free software is a real alternative offering cultural, scientific and technological advances for Southern countries.

We take note of Mr Koichiro Matsuura’s (UNESCO general director) declaration which indicates that ‘the Microsoft and UNESCO relationship is not an exclusive one’. [9] We strongly hope to see a confirmation of this declaration through a commitment from the organization giving priority to free software, such a commitment is necessary restore a currently compromised balance.


[1]
1- education and learning;
2- community access and development;
3- cultural and linguistic diversity and preservation;
4- digital inclusion and capacity;
5- exchange and promotion of best practices on the use of ICT for socio-economic development;
6- fostering web-based communities of practice, including content development, knowledge sharing and empowerment through participation;
7- facilitating exchange of information and of software applications;
8- sharing expertise and strategies.

[2a]
UNESCO Free Software portal : http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=12034&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

[2b]
Free Software as a World Treasure
http://www.fwtunesco.org/article/articleview/22

[2c]
UNESCO supports the development of FREEDUC http://ofset.org/en/articles/22

[3]
http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Webflyer.asp?docID=4255&intItemID=2068&lang=1
– CNUCED 2003 full report : http://www.unctad.org/Templates/webflyer.asp?docid=4228&intItemID=1528&lang=1

[4]
http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/mankind/lsm2002/index.fr.html

[5]
Mozilla translated into Luganda : http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/interviews/5567/1/ – see also http://www.translate.org.za/, pioneer association on this subject

[6]
Ivory Coast Association for GNU/Linux and Free Software, « Logiciels libres en Côte d’Ivoire : plaidoyer pour leur démocratisation », Fraternité Matin, 27/10/2004 http://fr.allafrica.com/stories/200410270494.html

[7]
World Summit on the Information Society: WTO and WIPO as special guests http://fsffrance.org/news/article2003-07-18.fr.html

[8a]
Le Monde du renseignement, 17/02/2000, via http://www.intelligenceonline.fr [8b] « Intelligence économique, compétitivité et cohésion sociale », 2003 http://www.ladocfrancaise.gouv.fr/brp/notices/034000484.shtml

[9]
UNESCO and Microsoft sign cooperation agreement to help bridge the digital divide http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=23643&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

FOSS ASIA is an organization developing Open Source software applications and Open Hardware together with a global community from its base in Asia

“It is our goal to provide access to open technologies, science applications and knowledge that improve people’s lives. We want to enable people to adapt and change technology according to their own ideas and needs and validate science and knowledge through an Open Access approach. FOSSASIA was established 2009 by Hong Phuc Dang and Mario Behling. We organize and participate in conferences, meetups and code camps. The annual FOSSASIA Summit in Singapore is one of the top tech events in Asia. Other summits take place in Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand and India. FOSSASIA also runs a number of coding programs such as Codeheat.”

Developing Free and Open Source Software and Hardware and cooperating with the most forward thinking Open Tech innovators and companies of the planet. Incubating Open Tech Projects and Accelerating FOSS/Open Source Companies to Develop a Sustainable FOSS Ecosystem.

See https://fossasia.org/

The European Commission adopts its new Open Source Software Strategy 2020-2023

The strategy recognises the importance of collaboration across the Commission, with Member States, companies and the public at large for building new, innovative digital solutions that work across borders and towards technological sovereignty.

“The new open source software strategy is a practical instrument for the digital transformation of the Commission. It is also an important enabler for innovation that will equip us with the knowledge to create a better and even more inclusive digital environment within and beyond our organisation.’’ said Mario Campolargo, acting Director-General of DG Informatics.

See https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/european-commission-adopts-new-open-source-software-strategy-2020-2023-2020-oct-20_en

#technology #opensource #EU

7 open hardware projects working to solve COVID-19

The open source hardware movement has long championed the importance of the right to repair, fully own the technology you buy, and be able to remix and reproduce gadgets, just like you can with music. And so, during this challenging time, open hardware is providing some answers to some of the problems created by the coronavirus pandemic.

These are the projects covered in more detail in the linked article:
* Opentrons says its products can help dramatically scale-up COVID-19 testing with systems that can “automate up to 2,400 tests per day within days of an order being placed.”
* Chai’s Open qPCR device uses polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to rapidly test swabs from surfaces (e.g., door handles and elevator buttons) to see if the novel coronavirus is present.
* OpenPCR – the device aims to democratize access to molecular diagnostics.
* PocketPCR thermocycler is used to activate biological reactions by raising and lowering the temperature of a liquid in small test tubes.
* Open Lung Low Resource Ventilator is a quick-deployment ventilator that utilizes a bag valve mask (BVM), also known as an Ambu-bag, as a core component.
* Pandemic Ventilator is a DIY ventilator prototype.
* Folding at Home is a distributed computing project for simulating protein dynamics, including the process of protein folding and the movements of proteins implicated in a variety of diseases.

A further 8 other projects are also listed at opensource.com/article/20/3/open-hardware-covid19