cross-posted from !newrules@slrpnk.net : https://slrpnk.net/post/30020824

FTP servers always just worked. No bullshit, garbage, or hoops to go through. Governments are now distributing documents that should be public access to everyone, but just like the private sector web-distributed docs bring in an infinite number of enshitification possibilities which make document access limited and exclusive.

For example, see the 1st item on this post. HTML PDFs are sometimes not even real PDFs anymore.

Some people have lost access to legal statutes because some foolish backroom jackass working for the gov decided to proxy gov websites via Cloudflare.

The EU has an “open data” law and an “accessibility” law. It’s a good start but these laws are vague and easy to disregard and weasel-word out of enforcement. It’s likely impossible to define a law that captures all possible varieties of enshitification, dark patterns, and exclusivity of access.

I do not think there are many ways to fuckup anonymous FTP. An IP firewall is perhaps the only variety of shenanigan we might expect.

So new rule:

All government distributed docs must have an FTP distribution. Outsourced distribution still carries with it the FTP requirement. If the gov wants to also do an HTTP distro, fine. They can do whatever Cloudflare enshitified shenanigans they want and exploit the fact that countless pushovers will dance and solve CAPTCHAs. But there still must be an FTP pathway to all docs.

Future review:

Three years after enactment of this policy we will review and possibly consider allowing Gemini to be used in lieu of FTP.

  • Nichkara@slrpnk.net
    2·
    2 months ago

    By paying requirements I mean, that at least the German government sometimes still provides documents in Microsoft formats using macros, templates and design features, that are not supported by open source, or free alternatives.

    In my opinion, every document provided by a city, a state, a country, should be available in the least expensive way and it is really no big hustle to turn MS stuff into open formats.

    Regarding the HTML problem, I think everything can suck hard, if someone wants it to or doesn’t care. But honestly I myself don’t know how to address that in a useful way except for annoying people until they do things right.

    • activistPnk@slrpnk.netOP
      2·
      2 months ago

      By paying requirements I mean, that at least the German government sometimes still provides documents in Microsoft formats using macros, templates and design features, that are not supported by open source, or free alternatives.

      That’s already illegal. Directive 2019/1024 Art.5¶1 states:

      Without prejudice to Chapter V, public sector bodies and public undertakings shall make their documents available in any pre-existing format or language and, where possible and appropriate, by electronic means, in formats that are open, machine-readable, accessible, findable and re-usable, together with their metadata. Both the format and the metadata shall, where possible, comply with formal open standards.

      So when you encounter a gov agency who distributes public docs exclusively in MS Word, in principle it’s just a matter of filing a complaint that they are required to act on. But I suppose there could be a snag because MS published an open spec for the Word format. It was likely just a symbolic gesture because I heard MS Word implementations do not comply with MS’s own spec. But then that works to your advantage because it could be argued that a non-conformant doc fails to be “re-usable” and fails to comply with the open standard.

      In my opinion, every document provided by a city, a state, a country, should be available in the least expensive way and it is really no big hustle to turn MS stuff into open formats.

      I agree but there need not be a law about cost because using an open standard generally and typically implies that some FOSS will exist for it, and most FOSS is incidentally gratis.

      Regarding the HTML problem, I think everything can suck hard, if someone wants it to or doesn’t care.

      Not with FTP. FTP greatly limits the ways and degree by which the deployment can suck. Someone who doesn’t care in the very worst would choose a non-intuitive file structure. Someone who wants to be malicious doesn’t have many ways to do so. And their act in FTP would stand out and be difficult to explain.

      With HTML there are infinite ways to make it suck. Most web devs abuse their freedom in countless ways to make it suck. It’s actually very difficult to find well designed websites. FTP is the inverse of that. It would be difficult to find a poorly designed FTP host.