Redistribution of power...

Now we are in an turning point of history, one on which power can be redistributed in a way that it's most beneficial for the people. Not only that, we can actually take some of the power for ourselves so we can actually put to work where we need it the most.

In many ways, modern technology is allowing democracy to expand to people to have more power on their hands. There is still some way to go before we have full democracy, yet each day people has more power on their hands in order to be more self sufficient. The power of government is getting more decentralized, with much of that power going to the people.

If we want to have a more fair, and equal, society we need to be more active on this redistribution of power. Unless we act, so we can take some power on our hands, we'll lose a great chance to have a meaningful voice on the government or to be able the government itself. The government shouldn't be come from the people, it should be the people itself. In many ways, the government shouldn't just represent the people, it should be the people acting so all works according our own interests so it takes us where we want to be.

The tools to be able to do so are not just coming our way, they are getting better each passing day. Now we need to take them, and wield them in a way that allow not only to take power on our hands. We need to learn how to use them effectively, while we being able to keep the power we gain.

Our government systems need to change, since they have demonstrated that they are not the ones that we need or want to have. They not entirely represent our will, or are efficient at meeting our needs. We need to gain the the power to change our government systems, and make sure that the new systems that arise truly are the ones we need and really represent the will of the people.

We can be part of history, and not only by being in the mist of the changes around us. We can be the ones who build the world we want, in essence be the architects of our future. Are you going to be part of it, or just sit on the sidelines?

The will of the people...

The Internet, and the communication technologies that have come to run on it, have allowed to people be more empowered and have a better chance to do things without having to use traditional roads. We are able to do things for ourselves, and our communities, far more often than ever before.

People are better able to form ways self government, by applying pressure to their government officials to really address their concerns or by making them change how they did things in order for government to actually work for the people.

We are still a long way from making all the changes that need to be made to the different government systems to make them fit better the needs of their people. Yet, we are starting to make a impact on how they work and how they relate to us. Government are less able to ignore their people, or to dent the people's will for change. They have to start conceding what the people want, to a certain extent and not always as the people wanted them to.

That's why we need to keep pressuring to use the Internet in ways that pressure them to change, and start to really represent their people's will. To back down would only make things worse, since they would use the opportunity to better ensure we can't go after them and to crack on dissidence. The pressure on them to make the changes we want them to make needs not only be constant, it needs to increase as much as needed to bring the change around.

Who knows, we might come to find a better way to govern ourselves and regain the control of our lives. But we need to keep the fight on, and do all we can do to bring a better future to pass.

Standardization shouldn't be everywhere...

The extent of how much standardization should reach can be quite foolish, since it seems that many want to standardize everything. By doing so, the point of standardization is lost and made void.

While there are several things that benefit from being standardized, there are others that actually are not quite as receptive from being standardized. Standards are more of a common set of rules, that certain thing or actions should follow in order to be useful. Others have no such need, since they are going to be used in a way that it doesn't really matter if they don't play nice with others.

Standardization is useful, but it has to be applied where is needed in order for it not to become just a headache. In most cases, the standards can be applied on a limited basis in a way where it add value because it makes sense to do so.

It's foolish to want to standardize everything just for the sake of doing so. Just because in some areas standardization has done wonders, it doesn't mean that we should standardize everything. It's a matter of being honest, and be able to understand that not everything needs to be homogeneous to be good. In some cases, just the standard should limit itself to the process of doing something not the product itself.

Let's not forget that standards are not something sacred, that are to be applied everywhere just for the sake of doing so. By doing so, we take value out of them. There are aspects of life that are worth more as they are.

General use standards need to be open...

When a standard is made, specially one that is meant for general use, that may include any component that may require the payment of royalties it has failed from the onset. Any standard made to use by the general public needs to be made entirely free and open, so that it can be used by all on equal terms.

The moment royalties are possible, the standard is discriminating against those who can't pay since it would make that standard unusable for them. If that standard is supposed to be used by as many people or organizations as possible, it should be intrinsically open so that it can be adopted as widely as possible without having to worry possible liability of having found to be infringing of a patent or intellectual property.

The standard used to make everyone using it as a base, should come without any strings attached. The moment there is even a possibility that someone owns even a part of the standard, it defeats the main reason of having that standard.

In many ways, with society relaying on technology ever more for everyday tasks, we need the standards made open. Every piece of technology we use on our daily lives, needs to be open so that we can have access to as many options as possible. Open standards are about avoiding falling into the hands of whoever owns the standard, or most of it, taking us the chance to be able to choose what's best for us.

Not only that, if people aren't allowed to work with, or on, the standard freely we are going to be stuck without improvements to that standard for quite some time. Innovations on products would be few, and far between, since there is no incentive to make products that are distinct that those of the competition. There is no reason to improve the standard, since the main beneficiary would be who controls it, and makes most of the money from it.

It's on the best interest of the majority, that standards intended to be use as a base to be open and transparent on every respect.

Knowledge is not to be monopolized...

Knowledge shouldn't be allowed to be monopolized, and need to remain open to everyone. Access to knowledge needs to be considered a basic human right, since knowledge is vital to improve not only the quality of life of the individual. It's also a way to improve the quality of life of the communities, since it allows to improve almost every aspect of life, by giving better tools and understanding of how things work.

Knowledge belongs to humanity at large, and we all should not only be allowed unrestricted access to any part of it that we need. We also need to be guaranteed the ability to modify it in order to make better use of it, and to share with others freely those improvements.

People, and communities, are empowered by knowledge. They become more readily able to better cope with any problem that comes their way, and to learn from their mistakes. Knowledge gives people the freedom to take on life on their own, and thus depend less on outside help to solve problems. Not that they won't need help from other persons in their communities, but they will be better able to do something to solve their problems.

Now, more than in any other time in history, access has been democratized by the Internet in ways that where hard to imagine a few decades ago. Yet, to keep this access like this we need to keep the Internet open to all. Access needs to be open, and control over by governments or similar entities, should be kept to a minimum.

Knowledge belongs to those who seek it, and they should always be allowed to find it.

Just plain wrong...

There's no valid reason why any government to spy on its citizens, specially one that prides itself of the freedoms it gives them while trying to make other governments give those same freedoms to their citizens.

It strikes me as ironic, that the US government has been doing just that. A government that prides itself about how many freedoms its citizens have, has in effect being breaching those freedoms by spying without a valid reason to do so. Even the reasoning behind it, that it's fighting terrorism, is not enough for people to accept losing its privacy over it.

No government has any business spying on any person without proving that it was a probable cause to believe that the person is involved in some sort of illegal activity. Such process should be transparent, and open to scrutiny by the people. The moment it's done behind the public's back, there is something intrinsically wrong with it and should be repealed. The citizens have the right to know how the government obtains the warrants to spy on them, and under which circumstances those warrants can be enabled to the be used.

Not only that, the citizen that has been targeted for a warrant to be spied upon should be notified on due time about it. And if it was given, what information was obtained and by who. Most importantly, that information should be destroyed if no case was able to be made against the individual. If there was enough to prosecute, that information needs to be safely stored so that only the interested parties can have access to it.

We need to make a stand so that no government spies on their citizens, since we need to be reassured that our privacy is respected wherever we happen to be. Governments having to prove that an individual's privacy needs to be intruded, has to be made each time and only for the information relevant for the case. If it can't, the permission is simply to be denied.

Compatibility and open standards...

It's both, ironic and outrageous, that many companies try to lock users on their proprietary standards in the name of compatibility. If their standard is proprietary, any one who buys into it will be locked to use that company products.

That's why we need to make sure that open standards are used by all companies. This way, we can rest assured that as users we'll not be locked the products and services of a particular company. It's about our freedom to choose whatever product we want to, without having to worry about if it will be compatible with other things we have or with the devices of our friends.

Open standards are vital to keep our freedoms, and rights, as users. Since open standards allow for anyone to use them, without having to develop solutions all by themselves all over again. Not only that, by the very nature of how open standards are developed, it's a lot easier for improvements to the standard to be shared and reach a wider sector of users.

The standard should be one and the same for all, what has more room for differentiation is how the standard is implemented. Where users needs really are not the same is in how the standard is implemented, while the standard is not changed in itself.

One company's products should be compatible with the products of other companies, not just with it's products. If it doesn't, they are not really respecting our rights as users, since they will be locking us to their products, unable to jump to other products without a significant penalty. Proprietary standards are not beneficial for users, but for the company who develops them.

That's why we need to support open standards, since they are the ones that better protect our interests as users. They help ensure our freedoms, and our right to choose what we want to buy to use in our daily lives.

Making sense of information...

What's needed for people to be better equipped to use the volumes of information on the Internet, are the tools that helps them to discern good from bad information. In essence, there is a need to have a better education so people do that data processing on their on.

If we want the Internet really reach it's full potential, one which benefits all of us, we need to give those tools to individuals. Information in itself isn't all that useful, there is a need to be able to know how to make sense out of it in order to make it so. The ability to make sense of the information that can be accessed on the Internet is something that should be a given, since it's needed to be able widen the horizons of people and improve their quality of life.

All starts with the education received from early age, we need to teach children to be critical of all information they come upon. Accepting information without first digesting it, it's detrimental not only for the individual. It also detrimental for the community, since it allows bad information not only to spread. It also grows, making it even more worse as it spreads.

Education is vital, it can be seen as the most important tool to make the Internet more than just a meeting place. Without such a tool, all the information on the Internet won't make any sense at all. That would be a sad fate for a tool that could make such a big positive impact on the human race as a whole.