Of Corporations, Privacy, and Open Source Software

The following editorial was written by Linux Today reader
Paul Ferris.

A recent
article in the NY Times
suggests misleadingly that Microsoft
has never totally understood the potential devastating effects of
some of it’s actions. The problem: A registration wizard broadcasts
to Microsoft key data that could potentially threaten individual
privacy. Microsoft, if you haven’t read the article, has decided
that it’s wise to stop this behavior. They announced yesterday that
they will modify this feature.

Privacy groups, awakened by the Pentium III processor serial
number, were incensed at the idea. You have to wonder how incensed
they are going to be when they realize that Microsoft has really
known about this problem since July 26, 1995. More likely, sooner
than that. The date is clear, since that was the day that Ralph
Nader wrote President Clinton about this very subject
, and also
the bundling of MSN with Windows 95.

Hit the link above, and you can read it for yourself. After you
do, you may have a lot of questions, such as “How come they are
willing to change this now, after almost 4 years?”, or “Why didn’t
they do something about this back then?”.

The answers are only speculation, but here are a couple of
theories. First, the Redmondites are probably experiencing some of
the heaviest pressure to conform to social morals than ever

It’s amazing that opinion pieces are written about why they are
losing the DOJ trial that is currently in recess. Everyone has
theories there, too, but the most basic one is overlooked: This is
really the first time that their practices have ever gotten close
scrutiny. Everything else has been for the most part preliminary
investigations or out of court settlements.

When you do bad
things, and you
can cover them up
with virtually no
retribution, you
have no incentive
to change your behavior.

When you do bad things, and you can cover them up with virtually
no retribution, you have no incentive to change your behavior.
Think, for example, of the 1995 consent decree. Now, for the first
time in it’s corporate existence, Microsoft has realized that there
is a bottom to the barrel. Those laws exist for a reason, and if
you make the public angry enough, you will get there. They see that
they are not immortal and omnipotent. They see for the first time
that playing fair is a positive trait, if it lets you continue in
your current line of work.

But that’s not all. Microsoft looked over the fence, and saw
that the Pentium serial number fiasco was a bad thing for Intel.
They want none of that kind of stigma attached to them. They can’t
afford the public relations hit that Intel took over it. Especially
not right now.

Intel got a pretty good thrashing over the incident, and a lot
of people have mistakenly taken the stance that this is a new idea
for them too. Intel is not the first company to implement serial
numbers on processors. It’s actually quite common on business class

But they have the largest share of chips on home computers – and
they were the first to attempt to implement the idea in that
market. They learned that some common business tactics don’t apply
to the home marketplace. People are ever more concerned about
privacy. And this is as it should be.

There are no laws to stop these digital invasions of privacy.
But it’s hard not to see that both had extremely bad moral
implications. People may not understand that proprietary software
has locked them into a monopolistic market, a never ending cycle.
But they can look immediately at these examples and see that some
of the benefits give too much power to large corporations. They
will look at these examples and ask who their friends are. They
will question harm to the consumer, and possibly even question if
the Windows monopoly has not been obtained at the cost of their

So why now? What has changed? How come virtually overnight the
public has awakened to this skepticism of corporate entities and
privacy? The answers to those questions are probably even harder to
theorize. Possibly people are growing up, and viewing the Internet
as something more than a place to hit the latest stock market
numbers. People are restlessly asking for more privacy in an ever
growing digital landscape, and they don’t trust large corporations
to provide that aspect. It’s digital decentralization. It’s a
common thread possibly with the Linux movement.

And what of Microsoft, and their recent switch? Quoting from the

Bennett said the option to collect the information
had been added to the software so that Microsoft support

employees would be able to help users diagnose problems with
their computers more accurately. He said the

Redmond, Wash., software giant had never intended to
use the data for marketing purposes.

Do you really believe that?

Let’s not go there. Instead, lets thank Ralph Nader and James
Love, for having the foresight and strength to attempt to stop this
in a timely fashion.

Like it or not, the OSS community is in an interesting spot
right now. We are the last great hope for freedom in this digital
age. Home computers should do what we ask, and only what we ask.
Hidden aspects of computing provide large corporations with tools
that are dangerous to personal privacy, and therefore, to freedom
as well. The problems of proprietary software again rear their ugly
head when this incident is examined.

Even if we can’t know why Microsoft backed down on this issue,
we can view this in another light: This is another selling point
for Linux and FreeBSD.