►
Description
For more Continuous Delivery Foundation content, check out our blog: https://cd.foundation/blog/
Keynote: Cory Doctorow, Science Fiction Author, Activist, and Journalist
A
Thank
you
very
much.
It's
a
pleasure
to
be
here
and
I
love
hearing
high-tech
dad
jokes.
That's
that's
a
great
way
to
start
my
day
and
I'm
very
grateful
to
the
organizing
committee
for
accommodating
me.
I
did
have
a
plane
ticket
and
a
hotel
reservation
to
be
there
with
you
today,
but
I'm
becoming
a
u.s
citizen
today.
So
when
uscis
calls,
you
can't
really
reschedule
it
without
risking
a
multi-year
delay,
so
that
was
very
nice
of
them
to
accommodate
me
here.
A
I
also
want
to
mention
just
apropos
the
last
speaker
if
you
are
interested
in
birds
in
austin,
my
pal,
the
science
fiction
writer
and
environmental
lawyer
in
austin,
christopher
brown
has
a
stupendous
newsletter
called
field
notes.
That
is
mostly
about
austin
birds,
and
I
strongly
recommend
it
to
you
if,
if
you
want
to
go
and
just
have
a
quick
search
there
and
find
it
out
so
really
what
I
want
to
talk
about
today
is
not
birds
or
u.s
citizenship
or
even
austin
it.
A
It
really
is
about
this
quote
from
my
pal
tom
eastman
who's,
a
software
developer,
free
software
developer
in
new
zealand,
who
had
this
viral
tweet
in
2018.
It
goes
I'm
old
enough
to
remember
when
the
internet
was
in
a
group
of
five
websites,
each
consisting
of
screenshots
of
text
from
the
other
four,
and
this
may
seem
a
little
familiar
to
you.
There's
lots
of
theorizing
in
economic
and
tech
circles
about
how
we
ended
up
with
this
winner.
Take
all
technology
how
the
big
weird
web
became.
A
Five
giant
websites
filled
with
screenshots
of
text
from
the
other
four,
when
you
hear
economists
talk
about
it,
they
tend
to
delve
into
something
called
network
effects.
Network
effects
are
what
you
get
when
you
have
a
service
that
improves
or
becomes
more
valuable
every
time
someone
uses
it.
So
you
know
you
joined
facebook
because
there
were
people
there
who
made
it
valuable
to
you.
Once
you
joined
facebook,
you
made
facebook
valuable
to
other
people
and
it's
100
true.
That
is
a
really
important
way
that
technology
scales
up.
A
It
is
how
big
tech
got
big,
but
it's
not
how
big
tech
stayed
big.
After
all,
there
were
network
effects
for
like
alta,
vista
and
dec
and
cray
and
sgi,
and
lots
of
other
companies
that
are
sort
of
on
the
scrap
heap
of
history
as
jeeves
had
network
effects.
So
the
question
is
not
how
do
they
get
big?
But
why
have
they
stayed
big?
Why
has
the
circle
of
interruption
and
disruption
been
displaced?
A
And
I
think
that's
down
to
another
idea
of
economics,
one
that
we
don't
hear
nearly
enough
about
and
that's
switching
costs.
Switching
costs
are
everything
you
have
to
give
up
when
you
leave
a
service.
So
maybe
network
effects
are
what
brought
you
into
facebook,
but
the
switching
costs
of
leaving
facebook
are
leaving
behind
all
the
friends
you
have
there,
the
community,
you
have
there,
the
customers,
you
have
there,
the
family,
you
have
there,
the
family
photos
you've
uploaded.
A
Those
are
all
your
switching
costs
and,
as
you
know,
because
you're
software
developers,
those
switching
costs,
are
completely
artificial.
They
were
engineered
into
the
system.
They're,
not
organic.
They
didn't
arise
because
somehow
facebook
figured
out
how
to
make
a
service
that
you
can't
leave
but
continue
to
use
right
where
you
you
leave,
but
you
can't
take
your
photos
with
you
or
you
leave,
but
you
can't
exchange
messages
with
the
people
you
left
behind
that
interoperability.
A
That
lowers
switching
costs,
that's
only
being
blocked,
not
because
facebook
invented
an
interop
proof
service,
but
because
facebook
figured
out
how
to
abuse
the
law
to
sue
people
who
add
interoperability
to
facebook.
So
that
includes
projects
like
ad
observer,
where
facebook
users
automatically
gather
all
the
ads
that
they
see
and
submit
them
to
a
repo
so
that
researchers
can
go
in
and
see
whether
facebook
is
upholding
its
its
promise
to
block
paid
disinformation
or
services
like
friendly
browser
or
power
ventures
that
are
overlaid
of
facebook.
They'll.
A
Let
you
merge
your
facebook
messages
with
messages
from
other
services
or
block
ads
or
do
other
things
like
compose
your
own
moderation
policies
that
make
facebook
better
for
you.
Facebook
set
out
to
obliterate
the
ability
for
third
parties
to
make
the
switching
costs
lower,
not
through
technology
but
through
law.
Interop
is
a
way
to
take
the
users
that
big
tech
has
held
hostage
and
release
them
by
blowing
a
hole
in
the
walled
garden,
and
we
have
laws
now
that
are
trying
to
unwind
the
legal
barriers
around
interop.
A
So
in
the
us
there's
something
called
the
access
act
in
the
european
union.
There's
something
called
the
digital
markets
act.
Both
of
them
stand
a
pretty
good
chance
of
passing.
Certainly
the
dma
the
european
law
is,
is
all
but
certain
to
pass,
and
and
both
of
them
impose
a
kind
of
interoperability
mandate
on
these
big
tech
companies,
and
they
they
try
to
define
them
pretty
narrowly.
It's
you
know,
companies
with
billions
of
dollars
in
revenue,
hundreds
of
millions
of
users
and
millions
of
business
users,
and
so
on.
A
So
it's
not
going
to
affect
you
know
your
own
hobby
site.
Even
if
you
become
very
very
successful,
it's
only
going
to
affect
this
small
handful
of
companies
that
have
really
captured
the
tech
world
and
what
they
both
do.
These
laws
and
other
laws
proposed
in
the
uk
and
canada
and
india
and
australia
and
elsewhere
what
they
all
do.
A
So
if
someone
stays
on
facebook
or
within
ios
or
within
any
of
the
other
wild
gardens
they're
there,
because
that's
the
best
service
for
them,
not
because
they
have
to
give
up
too
much
if
they
leave,
but
there's
a
problem
with
these
laws
as
much
as
I
think
the
they're
a
good
idea.
These
interrupt
mandates,
which
is
that
administering
them
is
going
to
be
really
hard.
Because
one
thing
we
know
about
these
big
tech
companies
is
they
would
cheat
if
they're
given
a
chance.
A
So
they
cheat
when
they
can,
and
the
problem
is
that,
if
the
way
that
these
mandates
are
cheated
on
is
by
big
companies
saying
all
right,
we
are
going
to
expose
this
api,
but
whenever
we
think
a
bad
actor
is
trying
to
exfiltrate
millions
of
of
our
users
records
without
their
consent,
our
intrusion,
detection
system
or
other
automated
security
systems
are
going
to
shut
down
the
api,
either
selectively
or
across
the
board.
To
protect
our
users.
That's
something!
We
definitely
want
these
big
tech
companies
to
do
it's.
A
It's
actually,
a
really
important
piece
of
anything
that
increases
data
flows
is
empowering
firms
to
act
on
behalf
of
their
users
and
their
users,
integrity,
but
figuring
out
when
facebook
shuts
shuts
down
its
api,
because
it
thought
that
something
really
bad
was
going
on
and
when
it
shut
down
its
api,
just
because
it
wanted
to
mess
with
these
inter
operators.
It's
really
hard.
A
You're
going
to
see
all
the
founders
quitting
you're
going
to
see
all
the
users
saying.
I
can't
leave
facebook,
because
when
I
go
somewhere
else,
it
just
shuts
down
every
couple
of
days
and
there's
nothing.
The
services
that
I
go
to
can
do
something
about
can
do
about
it,
and
so
we
need
something
beyond
just
a
mandate
that
forces
tech
companies
to
expose
apis
if
we're
going
to
get
interoperability,
lower,
switching
costs
and
free
the
hostages
of
the
wild
garden,
and
I
think
that
you
folks
can
understand
what
that
is.
It's.
A
What
we
at
the
electronic
frontier
foundation
call
adversarial
interoperability.
Actually,
we
used
to
call
it
that
and
then
like.
No
one
could
remember
it
or
pronounce
it
so
now
we
call
it
competitive
compatibility
or
comcom,
it's
easier
to
say,
adversarial
interoperability
abbreviates
to
ai,
that
one's
already
taken
so
com-com
com-com
is
reverse
engineering.
It's
bots!
It's
scraping.
A
It's
doing
all
the
things
that
you
need
to
do
to
add
interoperability
to
an
existing
service
without
having
to
get
permission
from
the
people
who
made
it,
and
so
those
catch-all
terms
have
been
a
really
big
piece
of
the
history
of
the
industry.
We
just
had
a
great
speaker
from
ibm.
The
reason
we
got
ibm
pc
clones
is
because
of
adversarial
interoperability.
A
My
friend
tom
jennings,
the
guy
who
created
fidonet,
was
working
for
a
company
called
phoenix.
He
reverse
engineered
the
bios
roms
that
came
with
the
ibm,
pc
and
phoenix
made
compatible
roms
that,
like
dell,
compaq
and
gateway
and
all
those
other
pc
companies
put
into
their
machines
so
that
they
could
run
interoperable
os's
and
interoperable
hardware
with
micros
with
ibm.
It
was
what
let
windows
users
take
their
microsoft
office
documents
with
them
to
the
mac
and
read
them
with
pages
and
numbers
and
keynote
it's
what
let
facebook
index
enclose
the
web?
A
It's
what
let
google
index
the
web
all
of
this
stuff,
where
you
have
a
new
technology
that
plugs
into
an
existing
technology
without
permission
and
com
com.
You
know,
if
you're
a
non-technical.
When
I
give
this
talk
to
non-technical
people,
they
tend
to
say:
okay,
well,
com
comcom
sounds
like
a
good
idea
in
theory,
but
in
practice
these
big
companies-
facebook,
google
apple,
they
they're,
hiring
like
all
the
great
engineers.
A
How
is
some
hobbyist,
or
some
startup,
or
some
non-profit
or
some
co-op
gonna
manage
to
get
beyond
those
engineers
and
do
scraping
and
reverse
engineering
and
bots.
But
you
folks
understand
why
this
is
a
winning
proposition,
because
you
understand
foundations
of
computer
science,
that
computers
are
universal,
that
the
only
computer
we
know
how
to
make.
Is
the
touring
complete
von
neumann
machine,
the
computer
that
can
run
all
the
programs
we
know
how
to
write.
This
is
why
the
big
tech
firms
use
law
and
not
engineers
when
they
want
to
block
an
interoperator.
A
You
know
when
someone
creates
ad
observer.
Facebook
doesn't
respond
to
that
by
going
to
the
building
full
of
engineers
and
saying
block
ad
observer,
they
go
to
the
building
full
of
lawyers
next
door
and
they
say
sue
ad
observer
because
they
know
that
the
engineer
is
getting
involved
in
guerrilla
warfare
with
with
other
engineers
who
are
reversing
them
and
trying
to
bypass
their
heuristics,
that
that's
a
losing
battle
and
that
it's
going
to
produce
a
lot
of
unquantifiable
risk
and
if
there's
one
thing
big
publicly
traded
companies,
don't
like
it's
unquantifiable
risk.
A
No
thanks
I'll
take
cash
on
the
barrel
head,
so
here's
a
real
world
example
of
how
this
can
go
right.
How
it
is
that
we
can
take
mandates
which
are
strong
but
brittle
and
comcom,
which
is
flexible
but
kind
of
indeterminate,
where
you
have
to
keep
reprogramming
your
bots
to
get
around
the
ids.
How
we
can
combine
them
together,
like
two-part
epoxy,
to
make
something
that
is
both
strong
and
flexible?
It's
an
example
from
massachusetts,
the
bay
state
in
2012
massachusetts.
A
Voters
went
to
the
polls
and
voted
in
a
ballot
initiative
for
automotive
right
to
repair,
and
it
said
that
car
companies
had
to
expose
the
diagnostic
codes
that
moved
around
the
wired
network
inside
the
car
was
called
the
can
bus
so
that
independent
mechanics
could
fix
the
those
cars
could
diagnose
and
fix
those
cars.
So
the
law
passes
giant
majority.
Eighty
percent
everyone
in
the
base
state
is
like
yeah.
I
should
be
able
to
choose
who
fixes
my
car
and
immediately
the
automakers
move.
A
All
of
that
diagnostic
information
from
the
can
bus
to
a
wireless
bus
right
system
on
a
chip
is
like
26
cents.
They
can
just
fill
the
car
with
a
bunch
of
little
wi-fi
cards
that
can
transmit
all
that
data
around
a
wireless
network.
The
wireless
network
has
been
carved
out
of
the
ballot
initiative.
Therefore,
nothing
happens
for
eight
years
for
eight
years.
A
They
learn
not
to
give
money
to
those
mechanics,
the
mechanics
exit
the
field
and
either
go
to
work
for
the
big
automakers
or
they
just
change
jobs
all
together,
and
so
eight
years
later,
bay
staters
go
back
to
the
polls
in
2020.
Once
again,
80
percent
margin,
they
vote
in
favor
an
automotive
right
to
repair,
build
it's
just
like
the
last
one,
except
it
says
you
know.
For
avoidance
of
doubt.
A
The
thing
that's
important
here
is
not
whether
the
diagnostic
messages
on
the
wireless
or
the
wired
network
is
that
you
have
to
give
people
access
to
the
diagnostic
data.
Well,
they're,
still
in
court
over
this
ballot
initiative,
it's
been
two
years
since
then.
It's
now
been
a
full
decade,
since
we
had
the
first
right
to
repair
ballot
and
we're
still
nowhere.
A
A
Direct
ordering
for
third
party
spares
all
the
stuff
that
the
car
makers
really
hate,
that
they're,
really
afraid
of
that
would
erode
their
highest
margin.
Businesses.
If
that
was
the
case
well,
you
would
think
that
rational
car
execs
would
have
not
subverted
the
mandate
but
say
they
were
irrational.
I
mean
no
one
ever
lost
money
by
betting
on
the
venality
and
self-destructive
greed
of
corporate
executives.
A
There's
the
digital
millennium,
copyright
act
that
blocks
reverse
engineering,
there's
a
computer
fraud
and
abuse
act
that
punishes
violating
terms
of
service,
there's
contractual
terms
and
ideas
like
tortious
interference
with
contract
that
companies
use
to
attack
third
parties,
their
software
patents
all
of
this
stuff
and
getting
rid
of
all
these
laws
or
fixing
all
of
these
laws.
That's
a
big
lift,
it's
a
multi-year
project,
but
we
don't
have
to
get
rid
of
all
these
laws
to
make
the
world
safe
for
comcom
like
there
are
other
things
we
can
do
for.
A
For
one
thing,
we
can
pass
the
access
act
in
the
dma.
We
can
wait
for
these
companies
to
cheat
on
them
because
they're
gonna
cheat
on
them
and
then,
as
part
of
the
settlement
and
their
punish
punishment.
We
can
say:
hey,
guess
what
you're
now
subject
to
oversight
by
a
special
master
and
if
you
are
ever
want
to
bring
a
lawsuit
against
a
third
party
for
reverse
engineering.
A
You
have
to
satisfy
that
special
master,
that
it's
not
a
pretext
to
block
interoperability,
and
if
your
adult
supervision
says
that
you're
just
cheating
again,
you
don't
get
to
bring
the
lawsuit.
We
can
make
that
a
condition
of
the
settlements
that
we
make
in
the
antitrust
cases
that
have
been
brought
in
the
states
and
federally
against
these
firms,
as
well
as
in
europe
and
then
finally,
there's
another
good
one,
which
is
we
could
make
it
a
an
element
of
government
procurement.
A
You
know
this
has
been
a
part
of
good,
prudent
government
procurement
since
well
forever.
You
know
what,
when
abraham
lincoln
was
outfitting
the
union
army
with
rifles,
he
told
all
the
rifle
makers
who
were
supplying
the
army.
You
have
to
use
standard
tooling,
you
have
to
use
standard
ammo
for
like
completely
obvious
reasons
right.
Sorry,
we
can't
fight
the
battle
today.
Our
single
supplier
decided
not
to
make
bullets
this
month
right.
A
So
that
is
not
a
policy
we've
had
since,
and
it's
pretty
bad
in
in
military
spending,
but
it's
bad
all
across
the
board.
I
mean
there
should
never
be
a
car
in
a
government
motor
pool
unless
the
manufacturer
promises
not
to
block
inter-operators
and
make
third-party
spares
or
affect
third-party
repairs.
Same
goes
for,
like
google
classroom
being
bought
by
your
kids,
school
district
and
all
the
rest
of
the
technology
in
the
stack
should
be
procured
in
this
way
and
once
uncle
sam
and
all
the
state
municipal
governments
are
insisting
on
interrupt.
A
Maintaining
two
different
kinds
of
supply
chains
is
going
to
be
really
hard,
and
so
there's
going
to
be
leakage
into
the
rest
of
the
world.
So,
irrespective
of
how
we
restore
comcom,
we
should
do
it.
It's
the
mechanism
that
stabilizes
interrupt
mandates
and
makes
them
administratable
and
interrupt
just
to
remind
you
is
how
we
make
switching
costs.
Low.
Making
switching
costs
low
is
how
we
restore
the
wild
and
amazing
internet
and
banish
this
bizarre
world
of
five
giant
websites
filled
with
screenshots
of
the
other
four
to
where
it
belongs.
The
scrap
heap
of
history.