The role of the code of conduct...

Looking around Reddit, I stumbled upon this Open Content & Software Magazine post asking if there is a need for a code of conduct for developers at the FLOSS community, and if anyone would follow it.

In short, the answer is yes in both cases. There is a need for a code of conduct and people who would follow them, but I'm not sure if only one code of conduct would suffice or would be followed by the community at large.

As such, we should be honing specific codes of conduct depending on the specific community where it will be applied. Most importantly, each community should make it's code of conduct and enforce it. A code of conduct that doesn't comes from the community, is doomed to fail from the onset.

It's vital that each community comes up with its own code of conduct, even if the whole community isn't engaged on coming out with it. At least the people who are seen as the leaders should be, as representatives of each of the groups that make up the community. If the community doesn't look at the code of conduct as valid, it will never work.

At the end, codes of conduct are essential to keep communities together. They give a guideline of what is expected of the members, and help to bring the community together around a set of values.

Codes of conduct help to know what to expect, and as such make the community they are in to be a lot more stable.

There always will be people who break codes of conduct, yet that doesn't make them useless. You need to find the community with the code of conduct that best fits what you believe. If not, your find yourself feeling uncomfortable or simply not fitting in.

There is a need for a code of conduct, and there are going to be people who follow it. But, there will be more than one.

Surveillance is just a tool...

As this post at wired.com, saying that you don't have nothing to hide is not the right way to make a case for or against surveillance. Surveillance in itself is not something good or bad, it's a tool that can be helpful in many ways from keeping us safe to learning new things.

The post makes a good point about how anything we do can be illegal somewhere. Not only that, laws evolve as society does. As such, things become legal or illegal with time as society views changes overtime or to accommodate technological changes. To add complexity to something that is already hard to follow, the law books reflect the way the views of the society that codify them.

As such, we all have done something that it's illegal somewhere at some point in time. Not because we are bad, or criminals, but because the laws are different at different places. Even within a same country, laws may differ between different states and counties. So, if we let law enforcement agencies know everything we do, can get us into problems we don't imagine or need if those agencies decide to act even if out actions are legal where we made them.

Yet, the case against surveillances is not just a legal one. Some of the things we want to keep private have nothing to do with law. Rather, they have to do with things that we want to keep private, or simply we don't want to share because we would feel embarrassed if other people knew of what we do.

Privacy should be a right of everyone, and one that we could take for granted. Each individual needs to be able what he, or she, wants to share and with whom, and what will remain private. No person, government, company, or agency should be able to have unrestricted access to what we do or say freely. Yes, there are public and private places, and the level of privacy we can expect of each is not the same. But even at the public space, we should be able to assume that we won't be subjected to surveillance the whole time we spend on it. And on the private sphere, surveillance should only be conducted if there is a reasonable expectation that something illegal is being done.

At the end, we all have something to hide for whatever reason.

Encryption is not the enemy...

I find it amusing, ironic and a bit sad that Blackberry blasts Apple for its use of encryption to protect their user's privacy. In more than one way, I didn't see coming something like this from Blackberry, who's encryption software is one of the best and the reason many of its costumers use it to begin with.

But most importantly, while it's true that criminals and terrorists make use of encryption, using as that an argument against encryption is a fallacy. Encryption isn't the most important tool than enables criminal or terrorist actions, or makes it impossible to conduct or collect data to prevent or punish those actions. Most importantly, that encryption can be used to do bad doesn't take away that most uses are legit and it protects the privacy of good people.

Saying that it was because of encryption, that law enforcement and intelligence agencies are not able to prevent crime and terrorism is shortsighted and at the verge of being a lie.

To be honest, intelligence gathering is not confined to what it gathers on our electronic communications or devices like smart phones or computers. To say that whole investigations depend on being able to access these things is insulting and speaks poorly on how those investigations are conducted. Crimes, and terrorism, are also planed on the real world. Most importantly, some of those crimes happen in the real world. As such, they leave evidence in other forms.

As such, there is a need for law enforcement, intelligence agencies and politicians to stop blasting encryption as the enemy of good people and the friend of those who do evil. It's a tool that can be used for good or ill, and there is making it better for the the people who want to protect their privacy. On the other hand, those who used for bad need to be punished for their actions not for their use of encryption.

At the end, bad people will do their needs with or without encryption.

Embrace open source...

I find it ironic that most of the biggest software and hardware companies are using open source to build their own systems, they keep telling their costumers that they should put their trust on proprietary systems.

It seems that foolish that those companies that use open source to build their system, don't embrace open source on the costumer side. In a way, they are losing on the most important side of open source software and hardware. After all, who would be more interested in making their software and hardware even better than the costumers who use it.

Costumers invest more than money on the systems they use, they also invest time and build expertise on those systems they use. With this in mind, it makes sense to let the costumers that use your system to actually be able to freely contribute to make the system as a whole better.

After all, they are more likely to find things to improve or bugs to fix since they come to scenarios that are hard to replicate in other way than the day to day use on the field. So, just listening to your costumers needs is not enough since you might not have the time or interest to make the changes some of them ask for. This is why letting your costumers modify, and more importantly, contribute back the changes they need vital to the long term success of any company.

By allowing your costumers to freely study, modify, and exchange those modifications among themselves can win more loyalty than any other thing a company can do on itself. In a way, all companies should strive make the hackers of their product an important part of their community. They can help them to build a better product, and bring more people aboard by showing them what your software or hardware can do.

Open source is not the enemy, but a powerful ally to build a better product and a strong community around it.