Hi everybody,
Matthias Kirschner was so kind to invite me to this list and share my comments on Stallman: "Cloud computing is a trap".
In his posting (http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/mk/i_love_it_here/stallman_cloud_computing_is_a_t...) Matthias Kirschner asked, why so many people give away the control over their data, since USB storage is so cheap. He refered to Stallman's critisism of the use of web-based programs like Gmail as a loss of control over data and a trap of proprietary systems (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.sta...)
To be fully clear, I deeply respect Stallman, and advocate for the openness of scholarly publications, learning materials and software myself. http://www.ecompetence.info/uploads/media/ch1.pdf
Due to my respect for Stallmann, I am very concerned about his warnings. There are certain benefits in web-based applications (~cloud computing, ~Web 2.0?), which Stallman does not seem to consider. Maybe there are conflicting freedoms, which have to be balanced.
1) there are applications (e.g. email-accounts, webspace, collaboration tools), which by definition can not rely on the individual, local desktop. I agree, there may be the question of how to balance between desktop and web-application, but I do not think that we can do without web-applications. (e.g. storage on USB, as Matthias suggested, is no substitute for storage on a webspace, since the latter can be remotely accessed and used for collaboration.) In other words: desktop computing vs. web-based computing is not an either-or alternative.
2) the main reason for the shift from desktop-computing to web-applications is the increasing need for communication and remote collaboration, allowing for new social arrangements.
3) who provides and controls web-applications? There are at least three different types of providers, that offer applications to individual users: the individual nerd, who is able to maintain a webserver for his own use, a traditional institution (e.g. university or employer), who provides the application to its members, or specialised web-hosts, who provides the application to any customer.
4) Not being able to maintain my own web-applications (lack of technical competence), I only have the choice between the traditional institution I am member of (my employer) or different web-hosts. Whom do I have to be more afraid of? My employer, who e.g. might want to check my private emails without my knowledge, or my web-host, who e.g. might start to charge me in some years?
5) I admit, I am worried myself about the intransparency and the lack of control over hosted web-services. But on the other hand, I also feel strongly tempted about the opportunities, conveniences (and freedoms) they offer to me, or to communities of people. They allow me to do things I could not do otherwise.
6) Basically, I think Stallman argues from the perspective of a computer specialist, who is able to control and maintain any web-application himself. This is not the situation, I am in as an individual and a teacher. As an individual, I need web-services, which are independent from my employer. As a teacher, I want to to teach my students, how survive in the internet, how to claim their own space, how to organise collaborations, how to publish in the internet, without depending on an institution they are member of.
7) Basically, I think Stallman argues from the perspective of a computer specialist, who is able to control and maintain any web-application himself. I wonder if it would be possible for the FSFE to define criteria for identifying web-applications (and providers) that are no trap, that allow even average users to keep control. How could trustworthy web-applications and web-services look like? What is good practice for a web host? Is there room for public, non-proprietary systems of web-services and how should they look like?
8) I did not talk about money yet, but I think it's also possible to make a case for hosted web-services as a way to outsource some IT-tasks. Especially for smaller institutions (e.g. small companies or schools), hosted web-services might be cheeper and more reliable to outsource at least some functions, instead of maintaining every IT functionality themselves.
many thanks tom http://thomas-pfeffer.wikispaces.com
søn, 05 10 2008 kl. 13:38 +0200, skrev Thomas Pfeffer:
- Basically, I think Stallman argues from the perspective of a computer specialist,
who is able to control and maintain any web-application himself. I wonder if it would be possible for the FSFE to define criteria for identifying web-applications (and providers) that are no trap, that allow even average users to keep control.
I'm just a private citizen and can't speak for anybody but myself, but here's a few ideas:
How could trustworthy web-applications and web-services look like?
Technically, community web applications and web services (not Web-2.0 behemoths like Google or Flickr) - might be built on something akin to TOR or bittorent - everybody participating might donate some bandwidth and (say) a gigabyte of space, and the data might be encrypted and accessed through decentralized, anonymous peer-to-peer processes.
What is good practice for a web host?
* You own your data and they may never be accessed for other purposes than designated by you (violated by Google, who skim your emails to serve ads - violated by Facebook and others, in that they presume "ownership" over everything you write and all pictures you post).
* You must be able to encrypt your data and decrypt it on the client side, i.e. without ever supplying the private key to the service provider. (Violated by all Web 2.0 applications)
* You must be able to delete your data, and when you've deleted them, you must be confident that your data are physically gone and can never be recovered (violated by Google in Gmail - violated by Facebook, which doesn't even allow you to delete your profile).
* The communication between you and the application must always support strong encryption (supported by most if not all Web 2.0 applications)
Is there room for public, non-proprietary systems of web-services and how should they look like?
Tor is an example of one, I believe, even if it's only an anonymizer. Wikipedia might be considered an example, as might Savannah.
Like I said, it might be possible to create a non-commercial P2P infrastructure with a number of alternative, community organized Web services - a "community cloud", if you wish.
br Carsten
Here's an article about how to include freedom in web applications, including input from Stallman: http://www.clipperz.com/users/marco/blog/2008/05/30/freedom_and_privacy_clou...
I think Wikipedia is a good example of a good, freedom respecting web application, but it's a rare exception.
A web app could be ok for email if: 1. Email was stored encrypted in a way that only you could read it 2. You could download all your data (including meta-data such as settings, aliases, groups) and move to another computer without too much difficulty 3. You had control over your email address. You can do this by buying your own domain or using an alias provided by an organisation you trust (like the fsfe.org alias I use)
Hello,
I think this is very apropos:
http://autonomo.us/2008/09/rms-on-cloud-computing-stupidity/
I urge you all to read up about autonomo.us and the Franklin Street Statement.
http://autonomo.us/2008/07/franklin-street-statement/
Best,
"Thomas Pfeffer" thomas.pfeffer@univie.ac.at wrote:
Matthias Kirschner was so kind to invite me to this list and share my comments on Stallman: "Cloud computing is a trap".
Welcome. I include my answers to some questions in-line below. Could you correct your flow/line-length, please? I got very long lines here, which is a pain to reformat before replying.
- who provides and controls web-applications? There are at least three
different types of providers, that offer applications to individual users: the individual nerd, who is able to maintain a webserver for his own use, a traditional institution (e.g. university or employer), who provides the application to its members, or specialised web-hosts, who provides the application to any customer.
Another type of provider is a web-application user cooperative: groups of users gathering together to employ people who can maintain a webserver and application(s) for them. There are currently very few of these and all the ones I know about serve limited communities. It's not difficult to start one and local Cooperative Development Agents will probably advise. Follow links of http://www.ica.coop/
- Not being able to maintain my own web-applications (lack of technical
competence), I only have the choice between the traditional institution I am member of (my employer) or different web-hosts. Whom do I have to be more afraid of? My employer, who e.g. might want to check my private emails without my knowledge, or my web-host, who e.g. might start to charge me in some years?
As I understand it, by EU law, employers have to allow reasonable private use of personal (rather than role-based) email addresses, just like they have to allow telephone calls. They can lock it down, but it must not be "without my knowledge".
One of the big problems with Big Webmail is that they are often in a foreign country, governed by sometimes very weak privacy laws, and sometimes with even weaker privacy terms that people are required to accept before they get an email address: Googlemail's terms are particularly vague, with words like "including ..." rather than "consisting of ..." so users can't be sure exactly what will be done with their email. Yahoo has passed emails to users' governments. I think the Green Party of England and Wales have called for people to stop using Goo/Y!/MS - when it comes to electronic freedom, the Greens seem to lead the way (bizarrely IMO).
- I admit, I am worried myself about the intransparency and the lack
of control over hosted web-services. But on the other hand, I also feel strongly tempted about the opportunities, conveniences (and freedoms) they offer to me, or to communities of people. They allow me to do things I could not do otherwise.
Yes, network effects. However, in entering their walled garden, you encourage others to enter for the same reasons, and many of them will be less aware/able to leave again.
- Basically, I think Stallman argues from the perspective of a computer
specialist, who is able to control and maintain any web-application himself. [...]
No! Maintain maybe, but control is within all our power! It's a question of what price one puts on it. In the UK, one can join the Phone Co-op (disclosure: I am a member and work for agent AG_471 through http://www.ttllp.co.uk/phone ) and you'll pay a small premium, get webmail (squirrelmail), but have a share of control. Other web co-ops exist. Membership is independent of who you work for.
[...] I wonder if it would be possible for the FSFE to define criteria for identifying web-applications (and providers) that are no trap, that allow even average users to keep control. How could trustworthy web-applications and web-services look like? What is good practice for a web host? Is there room for public, non-proprietary systems of web-services and how should they look like?
It might be possible, but cooperation is in how they behave, not what licences they use.
However, FSF have fallen into a trap of licence-gazing and have published the terrible AfferoGPLv3. AGPLv3 is hazardous to charities and cooperatives - even if the lawyerbombs resolve in the best possible ways, it pushes up costs of these marginal providers because of the sins of Big-Webmail-like providers. This is especially ironic given the increasing use of proprietary webapps by FSF projects. I fear FSFE would not dare to criticise FSF's Affero-advocacy, so could not be relied upon to identify non-trap providers reliably.
Look for web cooperatives that are validated by ICA or its members and then check if they share the code and control as they should.
Hope that helps,
MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop writes:
This is especially ironic given the increasing use of proprietary webapps by FSF projects.
I don't know which proprietary webapps you're refering to.
Do you mean "proprietary" as in FSF violating it's own interpretation of free software or violating your definition (you might call AGPL non-free) of it?
Or do you mean that not FSF but the off gnu.org homepages of some GNU packages are using proprietary webapps (like maybe sourceforge?) ?
Ciaran O'Riordan ciaran@fsfe.org wrote:
MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop writes:
This is especially ironic given the increasing use of proprietary webapps by FSF projects.
I don't know which proprietary webapps you're refering to.
Do you mean "proprietary" as in FSF violating it's own interpretation of free software or violating your definition (you might call AGPL non-free) of it?
Or do you mean that not FSF but the off gnu.org homepages of some GNU packages are using proprietary webapps (like maybe sourceforge?) ?
I was thinking mainly of the off gnu.org homepages of some GNU software. I think that maybe sourceforge is justifiable, particularly where its use predates the existance of Savannah and other free/open hosting sites, so I wasn't thinking of that, but there are other parts of the GNU project using things like Atlassian Confluence - it's not like we're short of free software WikiEngines.
So it wasn't what I was referring to above, but I do feel that AGPL is probably non-free, but it depends how the vague bits are resolved. However, I fear that all AGPL-using sites would be blanket-OK'd by FSF, which is why I think they wouldn't be a good rating agent for webapps. Also, some of the strongest AGPL advocates are heavy users of proprietary web-apps, which is particularly irritating, like a drunk lecturing on how we should all be sober at all times.
Hope that explains,
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 01:06:00PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Ciaran O'Riordan ciaran@fsfe.org wrote:
MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop writes:
This is especially ironic given the increasing use of proprietary webapps by FSF projects.
I was thinking mainly of the off gnu.org homepages of some GNU software.
Please clarify this statement. The GNU website is available via CVS.
but there are other parts of the GNU project using things like Atlassian Confluence - it's not like we're short of free software WikiEngines.
These are used by the individual software developers working for GNU and are not hosted or part of the official GNU website.
Also, some of the strongest AGPL advocates are heavy users of proprietary web-apps, which is particularly irritating, like a drunk lecturing on how we should all be sober at all times.
Who?
MJ Ray wrote:
However, FSF have fallen into a trap of licence-gazing and have published the terrible AfferoGPLv3. AGPLv3 is hazardous to charities and cooperatives - even if the lawyerbombs resolve in the best possible ways, it pushes up costs of these marginal providers because of the sins of Big-Webmail-like providers.
Hazardous? I'd love to know how.
This is especially ironic given the increasing use of proprietary webapps by FSF projects. I fear FSFE would not dare to criticise FSF's Affero-advocacy, so could not be relied upon to identify non-trap providers reliably.
Which of the following FSF projects?
* GNU Project * Defective by Design * Bad Vista * End Software Patents * OpenDocument Campaign * ACTA * High priority projects * Free Software Directory
I'm aware, as you are, of one single piece of GNU software (Mailman) using a non-free bug tracker/wiki on their own site, plus I'm sure bazaar uses Launchpad.
Matt Lee mattl@fsf.org wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
However, FSF have fallen into a trap of licence-gazing and have published the terrible AfferoGPLv3. AGPLv3 is hazardous to charities and cooperatives
Hazardous? I'd love to know how.
Even if the lawyerbombs resolve in the best possible ways, it pushes up costs of these marginal providers because of the sins of Big-Webmail-like providers.
This is especially ironic given the increasing use of proprietary webapps by FSF projects. I fear FSFE would not dare to criticise FSF's Affero-advocacy, so could not be relied upon to identify non-trap providers reliably.
Which of the following FSF projects?
- GNU Project
Yes, as discussed previously.
- Defective by Design
Is digg free software? I forget. I think this is one of the better FSF projects.
- Bad Vista
Uses facebook. I don't like the general thrust of that project either.
- End Software Patents
Depends on one's opinion of AGPLv3. Data is verbatim-copying-only. Wikidot doesn't offer users an export option, as far as I've seen, so is it free and open in practical terms?
- OpenDocument Campaign
- ACTA
- High priority projects
Not seen those and no time to check now, sorry.
- Free Software Directory
I don't remember what FSD is running and it's not on the site. It doesn't seem to be open source, let alone free in a practical way. The data is under the FDL, which isn't a free software licence. I know many on this list think that doesn't matter, though, so please don't remind me of it ;-) It does make it rather impractical to use the data on other sites if a copy of the whole licence has to be in each derivative work...
Noah Slater nslater@bytesexual.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 01:06:00PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I was thinking mainly of the off gnu.org homepages of some GNU software.
Please clarify this statement. The GNU website is available via CVS.
I think it's pretty obvious what the term "off gnu.org" (which Ciaran introduced) means and I can't think how to clarify it further.
but there are other parts of the GNU project using things like Atlassian Confluence - it's not like we're short of free software WikiEngines.
These are used by the individual software developers working for GNU and are not hosted or part of the official GNU website.
Nice dodge! So we could have links from GNU.org to the local user group sites used by the individual software developers working to promote and support GNU software... (but we don't and may not, unless they use blessed names or have a strong internal advocate...)
Also, some of the strongest AGPL advocates are heavy users of proprietary web-apps, which is particularly irritating, like a drunk lecturing on how we should all be sober at all times.
Who?
I'm not posting names here (else I'll have to inform them and this will become another AGPL advocacy backslapping instead of a discussion of webapp user control), but advocates of AGPL to debian-legal recently included several users @gmail.com and when I criticise Affero on my blog, I can be pretty sure of responses from blogspot.com... maybe such users could do more to promote free software webapps by not using the non-free competitors?
Regards,
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 04:35:37PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Hazardous? I'd love to know how.
Even if the lawyerbombs resolve in the best possible ways, it pushes up costs of these marginal providers because of the sins of Big-Webmail-like providers.
If you could avoid rhetoric and non-value neutral phrasing it would go a long way to promoting intelligent discussion. By imposing your value system through your language you attempt to influence the reader without citation or argument.
Is digg free software?
[...]
Uses facebook. I don't like the general thrust of that project either.
So, by talking about, linking to or externally active with a third party website you consider this to be a violation of *your* principals?
Can we not say "free network software is great, let's do more of that" instead of trying to imply that it is even possible to use the Web as it stands without using some "non-free" network service.
Tell me, which search engine do you use and is it free software?
Noah Slater nslater@bytesexual.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 01:06:00PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I was thinking mainly of the off gnu.org homepages of some GNU software.
Please clarify this statement. The GNU website is available via CVS.
I think it's pretty obvious what the term "off gnu.org" (which Ciaran introduced) means and I can't think how to clarify it further.
My apologies, this was a misreading on my part.
but there are other parts of the GNU project using things like Atlassian Confluence - it's not like we're short of free software WikiEngines.
These are used by the individual software developers working for GNU and are not hosted or part of the official GNU website.
Nice dodge! So we could have links from GNU.org to the local user group sites used by the individual software developers working to promote and support GNU software... (but we don't and may not, unless they use blessed names or have a strong internal advocate...)
Not really.
The GNU Project is a volunteer effort, are you asking that it enforces the conduct and activities of all it's maintainers external to the official infrastructure?
I find this particularly hard to swallow from a fellow Debian contributor who presumably toes the party line that Debian's contrib and non-free sections are not part of the official project despite being hosted on it's infrastructure, a much more dubious position if you ask me.
Also, some of the strongest AGPL advocates are heavy users of proprietary web-apps, which is particularly irritating, like a drunk lecturing on how we should all be sober at all times.
Who?
I'm not posting names here (else I'll have to inform them and this will become another AGPL advocacy backslapping instead of a discussion of webapp user control), but advocates of AGPL to debian-legal recently included several users @gmail.com and when I criticise Affero on my blog, I can be pretty sure of responses from blogspot.com... maybe such users could do more to promote free software webapps by not using the non-free competitors?
Non-free competitors to MaBloss[1], your free software blogging system? Perhaps users of Blogger don't have the technical means to install and run a Scheme based blogging engine?
Perhaps those users of Gmail don't have the means to run a private mailhost like you do? Or maybe they just don't have the time. I hardly see this are a major issue and it certainly makes me feel uncomfortable that you are imposing your value system on others in this way.
If someone who was hosting a project site with JIRA and Confluence and was arguing with you for using Gmail, I could see the hypocrisy, but I doubt that this is the case.
[1] http://mjr.towers.org.uk/mabloss.html
Noah Slater nslater@bytesexual.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 04:35:37PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
Is digg free software?
[...]
Uses facebook. I don't like the general thrust of that project either.
So, by talking about, linking to or externally active with a third party website you consider this to be a violation of *your* principals?
I don't understand this question. I was asked what proprietary webapps those FSF projects were using and tried to offer a summary.
Can we not say "free network software is great, let's do more of that" instead of trying to imply that it is even possible to use the Web as it stands without using some "non-free" network service.
Tell me, which search engine do you use and is it free software?
ODP aka dmoz.org and not entirely, but it was the best I found. I also sell some of my searches to a proprietary engine in exchange for meal vouchers, cinema tickets and so on, but I don't promote it. I don't value my search data much - my bookmarks are my first stop.
Noah Slater nslater@bytesexual.org wrote:
These are used by the individual software developers working for GNU and are not hosted or part of the official GNU website.
Nice dodge! So we could have links from GNU.org to the local user group sites used by the individual software developers working to promote and support GNU software... (but we don't and may not, unless they use blessed names or have a strong internal advocate...)
Not really.
The GNU Project is a volunteer effort, are you asking that it enforces the conduct and activities of all it's maintainers external to the official infrastructure?
Where those are linked from www.gnu.org as official parts of the development effort, that would be similar to how it seeks to enforce the naming, conduct and activities of all user groups linked.
Personally, I'd prefer it to standardise on liberalisation, linking freely and not advocating Affero. What I'm really pointing out here is that FSF's stance on third-party resources is unpredictable.
[...] advocates of AGPL to debian-legal recently included several users @gmail.com and when I criticise Affero on my blog, I can be pretty sure of responses from blogspot.com... maybe such users could do more to promote free software webapps by not using the non-free competitors?
Non-free competitors to MaBloss[1], your [...]
Ow, that page is dated and the software is obsolete - parts survive in the bizarrely-named schycyrssmerge2, which is a fairly efficient aggregation engine based on the set theory, but it's pretty niche. Thanks for the reminder to take it offline!
Non-free competitors to Wordpress (which I help some people host and develop) would be a better example.
Perhaps those users of Gmail don't have the means to run a private mailhost like you do?
Gotcha! phonecoop.coop and its Squirrelmail, Courier-IMAP and so on are run by a user cooperative. Although I do run similar services for work, I'm only a user of this one. Anyone can pay and join, just like I do - but how much is free software worth to you? (Other user cooperatives offer better value for most users, by the way.)
[...] I hardly see this are a major issue and it certainly makes me feel uncomfortable that you are imposing your value system on others in this way.
If we're not allowed to advocate our values, that would also stop Affero-advocacy, which would be fine by me.
What I'm saying is that people who don't currently support free software webapps should do so *before* seeking to use Affero clauses to impose their shaped-by-Big-Webapp-Companies values on me and other cooperators! I think many Affero advocates will continue using proprietary webapps, but good cooperative free software users will be saddled with the added costs of source advertising and downloading. Why should we pay for their errors?
Hope that explains,
Just because _you_ don't have the soruce code to something, does not mean that something is non-free software. While there are issues of privacy, it does not mean that for examople FSD is running on non-free software.
"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org wrote:
Just because _you_ don't have the soruce code to something, does not mean that something is non-free software. While there are issues of privacy, it does not mean that for examople FSD is running on non-free software.
Pragmatically, what is the difference? It may be under a free software licence, but "Access to the source code is a precondition" for "The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs" and "The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits". http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html
I don't care much if something is theoretically free software under copyright law if it's not practically free software.
Back tomorrow,
MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop writes:
Another type of provider is a web-application user cooperative: groups of users gathering together to employ people who can maintain a webserver and application(s) for them. There are currently very few of these and all the ones I know about serve limited communities.
I suspect there are lots of informal arrrangements along similar lines -- I know of at least four groups of friends-of-friends who club together to pay to host a machine that's run by one of the group. I run a virtual machine that's home to about twenty people this way.
We have had a similar discussion on fsfe-de and I dont want to repeat all the points, but I think we really need to differentiate between to issues here:
1) Where do I store my data, do I trust the people in charge? 2) What freedom does the Software involved offer me?
The only point where these issues mingle, is when the software is not controlled by the same people controlling the data (e.g. the software is proprietary and provided by a third party), resulting in another party of people you would have to trust.
Both of these issues can be adressed individually or together, but they are two issues, e.g. you can de-/encrypt data on the client-side and store it an proprietary web-app solving issue 1, but leaving issue 2 open. Or you can save unencrypted data in a AGPLed CMS on GNewsense-Server and still have the people running the server sell your data.
Now, what we have to think about, is whether both issues are equally important to soceity in general and how or if the Free Software Movement should address them.
My personal opinion is that both issues are very important to soceity, but that issue 1 should be tackled by civil-rights organisitions, while the Free Software Movement should focus on issue 2. That doesnt mean we should not develop Free Software solutions to issue 1, I merely want to point out that FSF(E) as organizations should focus on issue 2, because thats what they are good at - and there already are other organization strongly involved in issue 1.
Concerning the points you made:
- there are applications (e.g. email-accounts, webspace, collaboration
tools), which by definition can not rely on the individual, local desktop.
I think you definitions are a little to strict here. The emergence of p2p and the spreading of fast internet access have IMHO changed the possibilities we have. The traditional client-server-model is not necessary for future communication. Even traditional emailing works decentralized: about 50% of the Windows Computers send mail, beit without their owners knowing ;)
- the main reason for the shift from desktop-computing to web-applications
is the increasing need for communication and remote collaboration, allowing for new social arrangements.
- I admit, I am worried myself about the intransparency and the lack of
control over hosted web-services. But on the other hand, I also feel strongly tempted about the opportunities, conveniences (and freedoms) they offer to me, or to communities of people. They allow me to do things I could not do otherwise.
Please eloborate, why it is technically necessary to store your personal and private data on someone else's computer to be able to your regular communication.
- Basically, I think Stallman argues from the perspective of a computer
specialist, who is able to control and maintain any web-application himself.
That is the same argument brought up against FreeSoftware by people who can't code.
This is not the situation, I am in as an individual and a teacher. As an individual, I need web-services, which are independent from my employer. As a teacher, I want to to teach my students, how survive in the internet, how to claim their own space, how to organise collaborations, how to publish in the internet, without depending on an institution they are member of.
If you are a few people together, that want to offer online-services like webspace or collaboration, it should be even easier to get your own server / housing...
- [...] How could trustworthy
web-applications and web-services look like? What is good practice for a web host? Is there room for public, non-proprietary systems of web-services and how should they look like?
Ciaran already posted the link: http://www.clipperz.com/users/marco/blog/2008/05/30/freedom_and_privacy_clou...
Jeeze, this mail got longer than I thought ;)
Greetings Hannes