Wouldn't you also need "free hardware" to avoid the risk of your device being used against you? If you're not willing to trust the software on your phone, why would you trust that there isn't a tracking device built directly into the chips on the phone?
Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'
31–40 of 86 posts
Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'
#32There 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…
There is the joke that even a broken watch is correct twice a day. I do think his communication style, his use of hyperbole, and his unwillingness to bring the listener 'along' work against him in most situations. However, he does have a self consistent line of reasoning as far as I've been able to discern for all of his positions.
But lets step back from the messenger for a moment and look at the message. Richard's rant on cellphones is predicated, in part, that they can be used as surveillance devices. The engineering of a cell phone network is such that it presents, perhaps as an 'attractive nuisance'[1], the ability to extract surveillance data. This has nothing to do with whether or not the software in the phone is "free", rather it has everything to do with how that software is used.
So a question that does not come up often, and I have yet to see in print, is this, "If all software was 'free' and 'open' how would that change anything?" So if the source code to the handsets is "free" and the source code to the base stations is "free" and the PSTN software is "free", what changes? SIP based phones have the same surveillance capabilities as GSM phones and one can put together a nominally 'free' stack for such a phone network. I'm afraid I don't have any good answers here.
[1] http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/attractive-nuisance/ although in our case the 'children' here are Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) who don't have the resources to send someone out to follow you around.
Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'
#33Earlier 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…
p.s. Thinking about it, although I explained why I use the word "I," I certainly didn't dispute that I sounded smug and arrogant. So perhaps (a) I ought to use the word "I" when stating my opinions, but (b) I'm going to sound smug and arrogant when doing so. Which presents a few possibilities: 1. Stop using the word "I" but continue to state my opinions. 2. Stop stating my opinions. 3. Carry on, but live with the con…
[deleted]
Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'
#34Wouldn't you also need "free hardware" to avoid the risk of your device being used against you? If you're not willing to trust the software on your phone, why would you trust that there isn't a tracking device built directly into the chips on the phone?
Given the way GSM works you'd also need 'Free cell towers', 'Free GSNs' and a 'Free network'. Not that I even know how that would be possible. You'd also still need 'Free airwaves' because you can triangulate from your own broadcast signal in some cases.
Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'
#35Wouldn't you also need "free hardware" to avoid the risk of your device being used against you? If you're not willing to trust the software on your phone, why would you trust that there isn't a tracking device built directly into the chips on the phone?
The article does mention that Stallman uses a "rather slow" Lemote Yeeloong laptop because it's the only laptop with a free BIOS.
Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'
#36Yet again proving that RMS has no concept of the convenience-privacy continuum. Nothing to see here.
You seem to think that convenience and privacy are somehow mutually exclusive. For a non programmer right now, which often has the choice between convenient proprietary spying software, and hard-to-use free software, I can understand. So does RMS, by the way: "Few people are willing to make the sacrifices he will for the goal of software freedom, Stallman acknowledges".
But in the long run, those issues are orthogonal. Encryption doesn't make user interface suck. Neither does the licence.
Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 o…
It's dishonest to act like you have no idea what someone is talking about when, in fact, you "can conjecture what you think people mean". It's dishonest to pretend that you're entertaining the possibility that they have a citation when you know they don't. It seemed like you were trying to mock them by asking for a citation.
You could have just as easily written:
I think the trade-off between convenience and privacy is a false dichotomy.
And waited for a response or a correction. Or if you wanted to check first:
When you say privacy/convenience continuum, do you mean the trade-off between convenience and privacy?
Or if you didn't want to hazard a guess:
What do you mean when you say privacy/convenience continuum?
Any of which would have been far more gracious than what you actually said.
Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'
#38Yet again proving that RMS has no concept of the convenience-privacy continuum. Nothing to see here.
>Implying convenience is an objectively measurable quality that is the same for everyone.
This is obviously wrong. Convenience is completely tied to someone's particular uses. I don't see the point of using a phone for anything but phonecalls, I don't need the internet with me all the time, and I dislike small screens and small keyboards. Therefore, I have no use for smartphones.
I'm not going to do the same demonstration for privacy, but let's just say that there is no such continuum.
Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'
#39There 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…
> But I've noticed, over the years, that Stallman's most paranoid fears tend to come partially true.
I've noticed the same about Nostradamus' predictions. Oh, and Jules Verne's fiction. ;) Irony aside, counting how many vaguely described predictions came partially true, is hardly a good way to judge whether someone's opinion is right.
To judge whether a principle should be called moral or ethical, I try to ask myself whether it can be thought of a universal. Otherwise, it's just a matter of personal preferences.
Accordingly, Stallman's principles are just personal preferences although he tries to sell them as universal.
Surely, he's entitled to try but that doesn't make his principles right.
Re: Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'
#40Yet again proving that RMS has no concept of the convenience-privacy continuum. Nothing to see here.
RMS is aware of the continuum and chooses to take an extreme position.
Many websites have a white background. Are the designers aware that there are other colors besides the default?