Open debate

July 24, 2011, updated at 02: 05 GMT by Bill Thompson, technology writer Android operating system is regarded as open, but Google can restrict access to its market app store this trial was broadcast by the BBC, please click on the service of the world as part of a debate on the opening. The complete program is available here.

We live in the era of electronics, which shaped many aspects of everyday life, for good or bad - by the capabilities of the machines based on the flow and the detection of small electrical currents and the opening and closing of Silicon switches.

These days most of the switches and circuits is in teams, but we must not forget that you radio, was the first mass market electronics technology, means that many of you are going to use to listen to now.

The things you can do these technologies are truly amazing and its implementation has transformed the lives of all of us - not only those like me who have easy access to the most brilliant toys, but even those who live in poverty and never hold a mobile phone or a computer or share information over the Internet.

But no technology exists in the vacuum and the growing use of powerful digital computers connected by a más-rápido time and most widespread networks requires asking hard questions about the ways in which will be used to shape society.

The idea of "openness" is located in the heart of this debate.

Definition of open

I think that if we want an open society on principles of equality of opportunity, social justice and freedom of expression, we must build on technologies that are "open", and that is the only way to encourage a cultural diversity that allows to listen to all voices.

But even if he agrees with me, decide what we mean by 'open' is far from simple:

It means a lathe the end-to-end principle, where any connected computer can exchange data with any other team and is not aware of the significance of bits exchanged own internet network?

As Audacity open source software allows users to contribute to improve the code

It means computers that will run any program written for them, rather than having to be approved and adopted by companies of the gateway?

Do mean free software that can be used, changed and redistributed by anyone without payment or permission?

These things count as "open" to me, but you can have a very different view.

It could not create even that is a good thing: opening brings its own risks, as we have seen throughout this series of programs.

Changing reality

Digital information is very difficult to control in an open world, because it comes in a form that allows you to be manipulated by its recipient.

When is the to listen to the radio or TV program on tape record everything what can be done easily with the result to listen to or watch again. You can select what bits you see, but transforming the stored form is complex and often impossible.

If you are listening to the podcast of this program, however, is a digital file on the computer that could load in an Edition as the freely available Audacity program, and then can slow me down… cut my words [to cut words my] or even add [voice of another person] - without problems.

The closed App store from Apple allows a degree of quality control with the processes for debugging application software company

Those whose businesses rely on the limitation of the ability to copy and change songs or images or video '-contained industries '-it is difficult to deal with the openness I described, but so do those who want to manage the free flow of information for reasons that are not simply business, such as doctors who keep my records doctors or corporate store my e-mails personal.

In some respects today's Internet is a large, unregulated, experiment worldwide in the opening, and it is already having significant consequences.

It is one which started due to the unintended consequences greatly the adoption of a set of technologies that were built around an assumption of opening without any real concern about the wider impact.

We simply do not tear down the walls for the free flow of information and not expect consequences, so while I still think that the real benefits of the network will only be if we are as open as possible, I know that the opening has a price.

And of course we could decide to do things differently.

Lawrence Lessig argues that the architecture of cyberspace defined its rules of procedure

A decade ago Lawrence Lessig pointed out, "Code and other laws of cyberspace" is the code of law.

This means that we can change the rules of the internet as easily as we change the code.

Just because we currently have a mostly open network not is no reason to believe that there is a route pre-set to continuous improvement that we implemented advanced digital technologies around the world.

Different options it is possible at every stage, and the result is far from certain.

It might be a network governed, managed and limited type were built up in China and Libya.

Access to different or dissenting voices could be limited and administered.

We could choose the apparent safety of a closed network and a closed society.

View the original article here