 Hello, I am Lucas Lasota and welcome to my presentation Why Device Neutrality is Important for Free Software. I work as a legal project manager at the Free Software Foundation Europe. Today, I will introduce you to an important topic concerning our freedom to choose and use devices and how the concept of device neutrality can help us safeguarding control over them. But first, let me thank the FOSTEM organizers for the hard work in making this event happen. I am also very grateful for the policy and legal deaf room managers for the opportunity to talk about this fundamental topic for our digital freedom. This talk is a follow-up from last year when I had the opportunity to contestualize router freedom in the light of net neutrality debate and the implementation in the European Union. In case you have any questions regarding this presentation, we will have enough time for Q&A, but you are also welcome to drop me a line. My email is displayed now on the bottom of the slide. Okay, so this talk aims to introduce the concept of device neutrality as a policy term and explain the practical consequences for the Free Software community. In order to do so, first, we needed to understand how big techs exercise their power over end users and how they distort competition on device markets by blocking installation of third-party software, locking users down and increasing switching costs which hamper individual freedom and fair competition. Then, we will discuss how the rationale behind the policy terms as net neutrality can provide us with insights to start dealing with such monopolies. For that, the term gatekeeper will be instrumental. We will learn that such monopolies could be broken by allowing end users to bypass the gatekeepers to access third-party software, content and services on their devices. Device neutrality would translate in this context as safeguarding software freedom in devices, protecting end users from blocking and allowing end users to recover control over the data. In the end of this presentation, we will inform what has been done for device neutrality and the next steps as many challenges await us in the future. So let's get started. What do you see in this picture? Well, digital devices are a present reality in all aspects of life. Used them for work, communication, entertainment and internet access. Such devices are powerful machines allowing us to have access to incredible amount of features and perform an infinite number of tasks. Our tablets, phones, laptops and other connected devices are general-purpose computers. It means we can potentially run any software we want to make full use of the hardware. However, our experience as end users has been pushed away from this freedom. While you use more and more devices, the number of such equipment on which we cannot run programs we want is exponentially increasing. The consequences is loss of user control over technology. Due to complex digital environments, manufacturer and regulatory lock-in and market monopolization, users' freedom has been gradually reduced. What is happening in the market for smartphones, for example, is paradigmatic. While the number of people using smartphones has achieved incredible high levels, the number of operating systems provided remains stuck. We took this chart only as an example, but it shows how concentrated the market is. In Europe and indeed across the world, there are in fact just two dominant mobile operating systems, Android and iOS. Both of them are proprietary. Android, born free software, but after the Google acquisition in 2005, the company has developed more and more apps on the proprietary schemes that have trapped users into a restrictive environment. The Google Play Store, the mobile application store and Google Play services are proprietary. While Android runs on hardware from different device manufacturers, whether under license for Google or not, the case with Apple is even worse with the hardware being bundled with the operating system. It is interesting to note, however, that the hardware market remains competitive with several manufacturers around the world. But as we know, the hardware alone is dysfunctional without an operating system. The main issue is that in contrast to the hardware scenario, there are significant network effects at the operating system, because companies are more inclined to produce software for an operating system with a large user base and consumers are more likely to adopt such an operating system. This colossal market concentration leads to serious distortions and abuse on how these companies treat end users. For instance, the term wallet garden is an euphemism to denote the complete submission of end users to a digital environment controlled by a company. While Apple and Google dominate almost completely the operating system and Apple markets, users are trapped into these companies' terms of services. These very few firms have strong commercial incentives to restrict users to their app stores, which they misrepresent as being, for example, for technical security privacy on other reasons. The negative consequences for software freedom, individual autonomy and digital sovereignty are obvious. Why we call companies such Google and Apple gatekeepers? These firms controlling devices may perform a gatekeeper function in the same way that a provider of internet access connection controls a gateway to the internet. This is referred by scholars to a termination monopoly. Such companies seek to intermediate between different groups of users in a way which means users have no alternative route to other services, software and devices. In very general terms, gatekeepers achieve this power by restricting software freedom by limiting users to install operating systems, browsers, app stores, drivers and etc. Locking devices down by controlling pre-installed apps, hindering interoperability and applying proprietary standards, increasing switching costs by restricting users on ecosystems, tying devices to online accounts and services, and humbling data portability. At this point, you can already perceive how bad the situation is. The great oligopoly we are now facing is not a technological issue, but a political one. Software freedom, individual autonomy, consumer welfare and digital sovereignty are all backslashed by commercial interests of a few giant companies. The challenge now is to find ways to disintermediate the power of gatekeepers to reestablish competition on markets and end user control over devices. Corey Doctorov, in his excellent book How to Destroy Surveillance Capitalism, recognized that the size of giant tech companies give them power to cause such distortion on the market and users' rights. For him, the impact of dominance far exceeds the impact of manipulation and should be central to any analysis and any remedies we seek. User freedoms, including the ones relating to free software, depend on a political and economical environment in which they can exercise their free choice when using their device without being stuck on closed environments under control of gatekeepers. And here, the concept of open internet and net neutrality can provide us with some basic elements for dealing with that. When we analyze the terms in which the public debates around net neutrality in the 2000s in the US and in 2010s in Europe have developed, we identify some similarities in relation to fair competition on digital markets we are facing with gatekeepers today. Net neutrality originated from observation that there was little competition between internet services providers, which gave those ISPs market power and made them powerful gateways for consumers access. By then, the conclusion achieved was that, since the value of the network is located on its extremities, ISPs should not influence access to the content, service and communication. The transmission of data packages should be neutral. Since normally users use only one physical network for internet connections, neutrality obligations should be applied to all ISPs, not only to the dominant ones. As we will see further, device neutrality borrows some of these concepts and seeks to apply them to gatekeepers. Similar to what net neutrality imposed on ISPs, device neutrality aims to prevent discrimination of the services or apps by platforms or hardware companies exercising gatekeeper control. Therefore, what is desired for end-users is that they should be able to bypass device gatekeepers to access 30-part software and services. Device neutrality is understood as a policy term which the main goal are resolving determination monopoly on devices and safeguarding users with alternatives to reach software and content within their devices. Software freedom is dependent on how freely users can run software in their devices. Therefore, it is insufficient that gatekeepers do not interfere with users choices and activities. Users must be free to use operating system and applications of their choice and hence remove the application they do not want. Since its genesis, FSFE has been working to put control over technology in the hands of end-users. Along the years, we have gained experience with several dedicated activities focused on how users can keep their control over devices. For instance, the demands of our newest campaign, Upcycling Android, although concentrated in sustainability, intersects with several components of device neutrality as the freedom to install and run software in general purposes computers and full interoperability based on open standards. Other success of activities like router freedom and radio lockdown refer to the hardware layer of net neutrality principles. Such activities relate with what could be considered the first step for device neutrality from the perspective of telecommunications law. Nevertheless, we wanted to consolidate the necessary principles to empower users to regain control of their devices. We believe such principles are fundamental for our fair, competitive and considerable digital market. For us, device neutrality relates to safeguarding software freedom in devices, protecting users from vendor lock-in and regaining control over data in devices. Free software and open standards are key to achieve these goals. So let's talk more on each one of these principles. As we discussed before, blocking end-users' freedom to install, run and uninstall software on their devices is a central source of gatekeepers' control. Although gatekeepers may argue that installing 30-part software could be potentially a harm or two due to security, data integrity and privacy concerns, in fact, commercial interests are the main drive to lock users in. Instead, regaining control over devices requires safeguarding software freedom, therefore, defend that users should have the ability to install and uninstall any software, including operating system and app stores. Besides, gatekeepers should provide to third-party software the same access privilege as the pre-installed ones. This may sound common knowledge for the free software community, but it's far from being current commercial practice by gatekeepers. Keeping users in very restrictive environments is another key source of gatekeeper control. Users can only access and use different services if their devices can interact and communicate with other devices and services. Companies such as Apple exercise direct control of their customers by locking them into a very limited number of proprietary alternatives that operate within the same interoperable ecosystem. This results in less freedom for users and increasing off-switching costs. We, therefore, defend that gatekeepers should provide interoperability based on open standards, open drivers and open hardware. Besides, providers of operating systems should make available specification for APIs and functionalities invoked by third-party apps. Equally important, devices should not be bundled with app stores and online accounts. Gatekeepers should permit third-party app stores and code repositories in their devices. Last but not least, we believe that breaking monopolies over devices necessarily requires importing users to control their own data on equipment. Our smartphones, smartwatches, and computers are very personal equipment which accumulate a large amount of personal and non-personal data that we care about. Such data constitutes a switching cost that taking together can be decisive for users to exercise their freedom to change devices, especially if this includes switching between operating systems. We think the importance of the correlation between data and software tends to grow, we, therefore, advocate for data portability, and users should easily transfer personal data from apps, operating systems and devices. And most importantly, gatekeepers should be bound to open standards and common interfaces for data transfer. Facilitating data portability contributes to more user control over data and facilitates competition among device solutions. At this point, you may be thinking that all these principles sound quite utopistic or farfetched. But this is not true. We are very happy to report that device neutrality got attention from policymakers in Europe and was included in the Digital Markets Act, the European Union's largest initiative to regulate gatekeepers in digital markets. We will have an interesting talk about the DMA on this dev room, so I will not give you many details, but enough to say that device neutrality principles were included in the text voted by the European Parliament, except interoperability based on open standards. We are optimistic that the principles will survive the trilogues phase and remain in the final text. From the regulatory perspective, however, device neutrality is a very complex issue. Differently from net neutrality, which focuses on the network layer and ISPs, device neutrality encompasses the regulation of several elements of devices as operating systems, browsers, app stores, as well as interoperability and data portability. We therefore need a framework for free software and device neutrality that would allow us to monitor the DMA implementation and to make it rules effective. Net neutrality obligations, although simple to implement, are taking years to be properly applied in the European countries. For instance, our router freedom activity is all about devices from this perspective and has been running for several years now. Nevertheless, we remain confident that we can make a difference and change our digital future for the better. Our activities focused on device will continue to run and will develop further the implementation of device neutrality in Europe. So, if you stayed with me until now, thank you very much for the attention and please join us and support our work with a donation. Your help enabled us and our work for empowering you to control your devices. Thank you very much. Most people would choose an Android phone over iPhone because they believe it to be free software, not proprietary. Can you talk a little bit more about why you view Android as effectively a proprietary system? Yes, and hello everybody and thanks for being here and thanks also for the question, the support. Yeah, Android was born open source, was born free software and has been developed by a large community and Google joined the project in the beginning of 2000 and became its main contributor. And in 2000, passing the years, Google started to develop new functionalities and these new functionalities, these new functions, these elements of the Android ecosystem was being distributed under proprietary license. But unfortunately, this functionality, these elements, they were not introduced back to the region of free software environment ecosystem. And therefore, what people are receiving today in their phones and are proprietary elements. So, therefore, I could make this comparison between with iOS. Yeah, I couldn't agree with you more and the thing I would add to that is, even though the kernel of Android is Linux, we see so many GPL violations on Android, it's so common that most users who get Android devices don't get the source code to the Linux software that's on there. That's been proprietary as to and so I really appreciate you flagging this issue and bringing it up. We're getting a lot of questions and you and I were also talking before about the question of what the legislative answer to this is. What laws around the world and in Europe can really hold gatekeepers accountable and change the ecosystem in some real way. I'm very happy to watch Torio's presentation today and he gave an amazing introduction to the digital market stock and the whole concept of it. And well, I think policymakers, they are concerned about the size of this tech giants. And as I put in my presentation as one of code from chorus doctor of say that size is a big issue. So, what they are doing to the market, they are monopolizing it and they are doing whatever they want. And that's the main issue. So, the Digital Marks Act tries to get already some obligations. As Torio also mentioned and answering already one of the questions here saying what gatekeepers are ready if you're late in some law. The thing is all this issue has been tackled from the perspective of competition law and competition authorities around the world have been imposing huge fines. We saw that fines that are surpassing billion of euros and dollars. But even so, all these procedures, these competition procedures, they take a lot of time and usually they start after already some, well, some unfair commercial practice has been already developed and being practiced on the market. And therefore we need to put something before our practice could be implemented on the market. And the Digital Marks Act is all about that. We have been involved in the legislative process and following up what are the principles that have been included in the do's and don'ts. And so these principles that we are advocating like software freedom in devices, interoperability, so no vendor lock-in and data portability have been included. Of course, not 100%. There are some problems if interoperability, interoperability was not defined by open standards. But I think we are making a great progress there. But also, as I said in my presentation, this issue is very complex and the implementation of GMA will be a matter for further discussion in the coming years. That's my big question. I have written right here in my notes when I watched your talk, it says, will the Digital Markets Act actually work and bring device neutrality? As written, do you believe it will work and will have the utopia of device neutrality when the DMA is in effect? Well, I want to believe so because this is a new competition too. And I think this is a very bold initiative to start tackling this problem, not as the traditional way as we have been seen since the 90s, considering these internet issues only a matter of competition law. But indeed, we need a new competition too. And this tool, I think it's a novel thingy. And I really look forward to the implementation. We'll have to work together with the Commission. We'll have to work together with organizations that will try to push this forward in national courts, within national competition authorities. But I remain optimistic. There will be a lot of work ahead, but I remain optimistic today. So Mick 32 is asking a question that I think that almost everyone who's not a free software activist is going to ask. The companies that put these devices together, they argue that they can't give the user more access and more control to change their operating system because of security reasons. What is your plan? How are we going to respond to that when the law starts saying that? I think this is a wonderful question. And this week, we have been seeing some news on the media that the Biden administration shared some concerns on DMA saying that they're targeting U.S. companies. And U.S. companies, they're saying that it will, yes, represent a risk for security, but we do not share this concern. I think these arguments of security, privacy, data integrity should be taken with a grain of salt because, in fact, the main driver of behind these arguments are commercial interests. And as we saw in the last presentation, there was in the beginning of 2000 manuals saying how to lock in your customers. So I think using such arguments on security and integrity is one of these arguments to lock users in. Yeah, I think that most Fossum attendees are going to agree with you and we all have a lot of work to do in our respective countries to convince our leaders to agree with you. And that leads us to the last question. The DMA is the EU specific law. Will the EU have enough clout and ability to affect the worldwide ecosystem? Can the EU really make big changes around the world by being the leaders in this area? Yeah, this is a very hard question to answer. Well, I think I'll take two examples. The first one wasn't the debate on net neutrality in the US. It started in the beginning of 2010. We had a regulation on net neutrality in the EU. And now this subject, we reached a consensus in the EU on net neutrality. The other thing is about data protection. We also passed this novel legislation in the EU about data protection. So I think the DMA can set the bar for other countries to look for and say, okay, now we have the bar. Perhaps we can surpass the bar and make some structure rules. And I hope so. For an example, I still think that the threshold for gatekeepers is too high. I would like to have a lower threshold for gatekeepers. But definitely, it's a good start for our conversation, a good start for lobbying on other countries to say, yeah, now we have a standard and perhaps we can do it better. Thank you so much for being here. I'd like to ask everybody to come join the room to ask you more questions. And they can actually join this chat if they click over to the room that'll be in the main channel briefly. Thank you so much for your talk.