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

41–50 of 86 posts

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

#41

Post by jff »

LXicon wrote: post #35
Figs wrote: post #31

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?

The article does mention that Stallman uses a "rather slow" Lemote Yeeloong laptop because it's the only laptop with a free BIOS.

Which is untrue. I just purchased a Genesi Smartbook, which uses u-Boot and wasn't designed in a fascist country with a penchant for electronic espionage.

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

#42

Post by angdis »

pnathan wrote: post #22
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.

He makes perfectly valid and compelling points but then shoots himself in both feet by using the word "Stalin".

Language like that just alienates people. The dude needs a filter.

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

#43

Post by raganwald »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #30
raganwald wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you consider it incredibly disrespectful, go ahead and flag it with my blessing. This is a community. Everyone has the right to express their feelings, and your feeling seems to be that this is an inappropriate comment.

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

#45

Post by SoftwareMaven »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #36
daeken wrote: post #2

Yet 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 orthogo…

They are not completely orthogonal. For example, it will always be harder to send completely secure messages because you are now doing more things: managing keys, exchanging keys, etc. I agree that security/usability is not a one dimensional continuum, but they aren't independent variables, either.

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

#46

Post by samatman »

drinian wrote: post #28

It's worth noting that the Chinese government is in fact debuting a system to track the movements of every cell phone in Beijing right now: http://beta.sg.news.yahoo.com/beijing-trial-mobile-tracking-... This isn't a prediction, it's reality today.

The Chinese government also runs the Great Firewall using primarily open source technologies.

Free software on phones? If anyone can sideload whatever they want onto any platform they want, it's the Chinese. How does this help you, when the cellphone towers are tracking your phone's every movement, and when attempts to evade that tracking are sufficient to get you arrested or worse?

The nature of the license for the software running on a radio has nothing to do with the ability to triangulate that radio, sadly.

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

#47

Post by raganwald »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #37
raganwald wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The fact that I can conjecture doesn't mean that I should. This is one of those "Heads you win, tails I lose" situations. You think it's dishonest to ask "What do you mean? Can you give an example of what this phrase means?" Someone else thinks it's insulting, rude, or just plain fallacious to say "You mean X and this is why I disagree" if I get X wrong. The correct response is not "Reg, you're being dishonest in asking what I mean," it's "Reg, I mean _____, for example _____."

I didn't pretend to entertain the possibility of a citation, he (or you) could easily reply "It's the same thing as this thing or that thing, just different words." I still entertain this possibility.

If you want to say I was ungracious in replying to an incredibly terse statement, I do not disagree. But dishonesty doesn't enter into asking someone what they mean by a phrase that I haven't seen before--and which doesn't have Google hits--and asking for a citation.

Terse? Yes. Ungracious? Sure, why not. Dishonest? I don't think so.

EDIT: But still, thanks for the feedback. I like where you're coming from about graciousness.

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

#48

Post by streptomycin »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #32
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…

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…

He says his problem with cell phones is that they can be used for surveillance. Later in the article he talks about how free software in the phone could protect you from eavesdropping (not surveillance). He is correct. If everything was encrypted, eavesdropping would be impossible. But they could still track your position.

So, unless I'm misreading things, he never says that the issue with surveillance is about "whether or not the software in the phone is 'free'".

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

#49

Post by LXicon »

jff wrote: post #41
LXicon wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article does mention that Stallman uses a "rather slow" Lemote Yeeloong laptop because it's the only laptop with a free BIOS.

Which is untrue. I just purchased a Genesi Smartbook, which uses u-Boot and wasn't designed in a fascist country with a penchant for electronic espionage.

is u-Boot a System BIOS? it appears to be a Bootloader: http://sourceforge.net/projects/u-boot/

Bootloaders are executed after the BIOS.

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

#50

Post by m_myers »

angdis wrote: post #42
pnathan wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He makes perfectly valid and compelling points but then shoots himself in both feet by using the word "Stalin". Language like that just alienates people. The dude needs a filter.

Would you prefer "Mao", then? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2328174
Post reply on HN