The Secure Surfing Organization supports Open Source (OSS) and free software. In our Introduction to the License Library, we explain the difference between “free” software and OSS, noting that our strongest recommendation is software licensed under GPL, the GNU Public License. GPL is not only open in the sense that anyone can obtain and examine the source code, it is also unreservedly free.
Another area where there is sometimes confusion is with phrases like “open standards,” “community standards” and “industry standards.”
Standards, as a general rule, are good for users because they bring a level of predictability in terms of quality and function. If there were no accepted standards for electric outlets, every building could have completely different plug-ins and no appliance could be predictably powered in any given location. Indeed, there is a different European standard for electrical outlets from that in North America. If you’ve traveled you’ll be aware of the need for converters.
What has happened is that the word “open” connected to companion words like “software” and “standards” has achieved a kind of brand status among the general public. “Open Standards” leaves a mental impression similar in kind to “Nike” or “Disney.”
In the world of technology, standards have become something of a wild west operation. Anyone can proclaim a standard and whether or not it gets adopted depends largely on whose support it stands. This definitely extends to Open Standards as much as proprietary ones.
For example, there is a group called Open Geospatial Consortium, a non-profit organization dedicated to creating open standards for location aware services.
Non-profit. That sounds safe. Open standards. Excellent.
It may well turn out to be excellent, but the fact that it is a non-profit is as irrelevant as the open characterization.
As of July 23, 2009, there was not a single person on the [:ttip="Roberta Balstad - Senior Fellow, Columbia University; Jeff Burnett - Vice President, Open Geospatial Consortium; Dr. John Curlander - General Manager, Microsoft Boulder; Philippe Delclaux - Chief Technical Officer for Spot-Infoterra Group; Ben Eazzetta - President of International Operations for Rolta India Limited; Steve Hagan - Vice President of Development for Server Technologies at Oracle; Jeffrey Harris - Vice President, Lockheed Martin Corporation; Joanne Isham - Senior Vice President for Washington Operations for L-1 Identity Solutions; Dr. Mike Jackson - Research Chair, Geospatial Sciences, University of Nottingham; Michael Jones- Chief Technologist, Google Earth, Maps, and Local Search; Dr. R. Siva Kumar - CEO NSDI & Head NRDMS Division; Dr. Vanessa Lawrence - Director General, Ordnance Survey Great Britain; Dr. Robert Moses - President & CEO, PCI Geomatics; John F. Olesak - Vice President - Geospatial Intelligence Operating Unit, Northrop Grumman; Granville Paules - Principal for Aerospace Services at Kelly, Anderson and Associates, Inc.; Jack Pellicci - Senior Vice President, Intergraph Security, Federal, Security and Intelligence Group; Jeff Peters - Director, Federal Programs, ESRI, Inc; Kevin Pomfret - Partner, Cantor Arkema PC; Mark Reichardt - President and CEO, Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc; François Robida - Deputy Head of Information Systems and Technologies Division at BRGM; David Schell - Chairman of the Board, Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc; Dr. Christopher Tucker - Independent; Rob van de Velde - Director of Geonovum, the Dutch National SDI Executive Committee " id="ogctip"]OGC Board of Directors[:/ttip] representing an established privacy organization, nor any organization with a primary mandate to protect user or consumer rights.
Instead the board has a couple of academics, a dominance of big corporate interests and several representatives of the intelligence community who have as their priority discovering new ways to spy on people. This is not in itself “bad.” But it certainly should inform us that the main concern of this group is not to build standards that protect the privacy or rights of users.
There remains the benefit that if the standards are indeed open, then those who are vitally interested in protecting human freedom with the benefits of technology will be able to guard against the most blatant attempts to engender the slavery made possible by technology.
While this particular subject, the spread of “location aware services” is a truly dangerous example, it can serve as a lesson that while many good things come in open packages, not all open packages are good.
