Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'

networkworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 86 posts

Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'

#21

Post by count »

peterwwillis wrote: post #14
raganwald wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, the word you're thinking of is "demonstrating," not "proving." But let's get to the big stuff. What is this "convenience-privacy continuum?" I just did a web search, I can't find anything. Citation, please. Third, I dispute your suggestion that there is nothing to see here. Strongly. Forcefully. If someone has never read anything about or by Mr. Stallman, there is plenty to see here. There may be nothing to se…

However, I will suggest that his various missives, rants, and other statements contribute positively to the general fabric of discussion around software freedom and personal privacy. ESR stated in Revolution OS that RMS's 'wholesale attack' on (was it software patents or intellectual property? i don't remember now) was one of the reasons it was hard to convince businesses this wasn't just a hippie pipe dream. The Ope…

The OpenMoko does not run all free code, and neither does any other shipping cellular device. The code in the baseband processor is very specifically NOT open on anything. In most cases, neither is the GPS. This is because, iirc, that the FCC requires it to be that way, for spectrum licensing and usage reasons.

Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'

#22

Post by pnathan »

ekidd wrote: post #16

There are many valid criticisms of Richard Stallman: He sometimes fails to show ordinary courtesy, even to his supporters; he can be spectacularly bad at common techniques of persuasion; and he has creeped out some women by making passes at them (or so they tell me). There are some morally neutral things which may be said about Stallman: His views are far out of the mainstream; he is uncompromising even in small matt…

I had the opinion once that he was a crackpot who had attracted a following. Today, he seems - while still appearing a little eccentric - at least to have an ability to discern computing issues far out on the horizon. I don't think his reasonings can be discarded without a careful analysis.

Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'

#23

Post by snippyhollow »

peterwwillis wrote: post #14
raganwald wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, the word you're thinking of is "demonstrating," not "proving." But let's get to the big stuff. What is this "convenience-privacy continuum?" I just did a web search, I can't find anything. Citation, please. Third, I dispute your suggestion that there is nothing to see here. Strongly. Forcefully. If someone has never read anything about or by Mr. Stallman, there is plenty to see here. There may be nothing to se…

However, I will suggest that his various missives, rants, and other statements contribute positively to the general fabric of discussion around software freedom and personal privacy. ESR stated in Revolution OS that RMS's 'wholesale attack' on (was it software patents or intellectual property? i don't remember now) was one of the reasons it was hard to convince businesses this wasn't just a hippie pipe dream. The Ope…

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that a fully free cell phone OS is preventing you from being tracked. Even if free software was bug/backdoors free (I'm not sure about it). How do you connect to the network? Through a SIM-card, with an ID, linked to your cell-phone contract. And whatever goes on the broadband/network of your cell phone contract provider is free to read for him. You don't initiate your phone calls with an exchange of GPG keys with your contact, nor do you register your contract with a fake name. The only solution for that is the combination of a prepaid SIM in cash with encrypted VOIP on 3G+.

Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'

#24

Post by Jun8 »

raganwald wrote: post #8
whackberry wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with the merit of what you just said, you too ended up sounding smug and arrogant. Open your comment in a text editor and count how many times you said " I ".

Everyone has their own style and code of conduct. I feel it's disingenuous for me to state personal opinions in a neutral tone, implying that they are facts. I also find such writing bloodless. Others may have a knack for doing it well, but when I write without putting myself into the words, it reads like I'm pretending to be an academic writing a paper with all the neutrality and "fair and balanced" viewpoints. Cont…

I totally agree with your comments about personal style, it's what makes the comments unique. However, I agree with whackberry that, in this particular case, you did sound somewhat "smug and arrogant".

It wasn't the use of "I"s. It was:

* Your borderline ad hominem-like nitpicking about "proving" vs "demonstrating". Unless there are gross language problems, I'd rather have people disagree with the ideas rather than language use.

* Your incredulous stance that you didn't understand what whackberry refers to when s/he writes "convenience-privacy continuum?" and asking for citation. I would have used the word "spectrum" but still I think it's perfectly clear what s/he means, and it's a well-known topic.

* Your last sentence, which sort of sounds dismissive of what the person you are disagreeing with thinks.

Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'

#25

Post by jhamburger »

I don't quite see the point of what he is doing. I mean certainly there is power to it if the public at large follows his lead, but he's resigned to the fact that that won't happen. It's hard to imagine a scenario where he will have more freedom on an individual level than the rest of us because of these decisions.

Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'

#26

Post by raganwald »

Jun8 wrote: post #24
raganwald wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone has their own style and code of conduct. I feel it's disingenuous for me to state personal opinions in a neutral tone, implying that they are facts. I also find such writing bloodless. Others may have a knack for doing it well, but when I write without putting myself into the words, it reads like I'm pretending to be an academic writing a paper with all the neutrality and "fair and balanced" viewpoints. Cont…

I totally agree with your comments about personal style, it's what makes the comments unique. However, I agree with whackberry that, in this particular case, you did sound somewhat "smug and arrogant". It wasn't the use of "I"s. It was: * Your borderline ad hominem-like nitpicking about "proving" vs "demonstrating". Unless there are gross language problems, I'd rather have people disagree with the ideas rather than l…

I think it's perfectly clear what s/he means, and it's a well-known topic

I didn't think it was perfectly clear, especially in the context of saying that Mr. Stallman doesn't understand or accept it. I can conjecture what I think people mean when they say this and what argument they are making and why they think Mr. Stallman doesn't agree with them, but how do I argue with my conception of someone else's conception of what Mr. Stallman believes without attacking a strawman?

I thought it was far better to challenge the phrase and ask what it means. If someone replies and says "There's trade-off between convenience and privacy," we can have a chat about false dichotomies or whether the convenience is for telcos or for users, and so on. Or maybe they explain something else, and I might discover something unexpected.

Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'

#27

Post by [deleted] »

Jun8 wrote: post #24
raganwald wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone has their own style and code of conduct. I feel it's disingenuous for me to state personal opinions in a neutral tone, implying that they are facts. I also find such writing bloodless. Others may have a knack for doing it well, but when I write without putting myself into the words, it reads like I'm pretending to be an academic writing a paper with all the neutrality and "fair and balanced" viewpoints. Cont…

I totally agree with your comments about personal style, it's what makes the comments unique. However, I agree with whackberry that, in this particular case, you did sound somewhat "smug and arrogant". It wasn't the use of "I"s. It was: * Your borderline ad hominem-like nitpicking about "proving" vs "demonstrating". Unless there are gross language problems, I'd rather have people disagree with the ideas rather than l…

[deleted]

Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'

#29

Post by indrax »

peterwwillis wrote: post #14
raganwald wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, the word you're thinking of is "demonstrating," not "proving." But let's get to the big stuff. What is this "convenience-privacy continuum?" I just did a web search, I can't find anything. Citation, please. Third, I dispute your suggestion that there is nothing to see here. Strongly. Forcefully. If someone has never read anything about or by Mr. Stallman, there is plenty to see here. There may be nothing to se…

However, I will suggest that his various missives, rants, and other statements contribute positively to the general fabric of discussion around software freedom and personal privacy. ESR stated in Revolution OS that RMS's 'wholesale attack' on (was it software patents or intellectual property? i don't remember now) was one of the reasons it was hard to convince businesses this wasn't just a hippie pipe dream. The Ope…

It's not "tin foil hat" it old news that's just being ignored.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-6140191.html

Tin foil hats wouldn't be quite as silly if mind control rays were real and already used in the field.

Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'

#30

Post by erikpukinskis »

raganwald wrote: post #7
wladimir wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are turned off by RMS's extreme stance and the "Stalin's dream" hyperbole, but the problems he is talking about certainly do exist. They're something to think about. I wonder if there is really a need to choose either convenience or privacy in the long run. Privacy-conscious technologies could be made easy to use. We're just not there yet, but it seems that lately security is being taken more seriously. When p…

Lightening up the tone, I wish we could figure out a way to use Stallman as a bad cop: "Mr. FCC chairman, I appreciate the arguments the Telcos have made to you on the Golf Course. But if you don't display a little flexibility on the subject of Net Neutrality, we're going to have Richard back in here eating his toenails during the hearings. And once he starts talking, it's impossible to get him to stop. Nobody wants…

we're going to have Richard back in here eating his toenails

I find this incredibly disrespectful. I considered flagging it because I think it's on the order of insulting someone's spouse, but I don't think that's exactly what "flag" is for.

Post reply on HN