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

Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

digitizor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 110 posts

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#91

Post by nitrogen »

cube13 wrote: post #83
0x12 wrote: post #17

This thread has some people attacking RMS as a person without taking on the (guardian) article on its merits. Please read the article http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-fre... , the man raises some interesting points and is not just about your inability to inspect the source. The points that were specifically made (for those that want to rail against the article but that refuse to read it for so…

This statement confuses me: >On most Android phones, this firmware has so much control that it could turn the product into a listening device. On some, it controls the microphone. On some, it can take full control of the main computer, through shared memory, and can thus override or replace whatever free software you have installed. With some models it is possible to exercise remote control of this firmware, and thus…

1. Phone network firmware is supposed to control the hardware. That's it's purpose. It's supposed to be able to turn the microphone on and off. On CDMA networks like Verizon, it should stop the user from attempting to access data when they're making a call. It should be able to be updated when the carrier makes changes to the underlying protocol(s). I don't see how this is "malicious" use, especially if it's a technological restriction on the carrier.

The network firmware having the ability to control the radio is acceptable. Having it also able to modify the main CPU's RAM and interact with audio hardware is not. Control of the audio hardware should be entirely the domain of the main CPU. The main CPU (or an auxiliary low-power audio chip under the exclusive control of the main CPU) should then send audio data to the radio chip/SoC component via something like I2S. That way the network firmware can only transmit audio when the user-controlled software on the main CPU says it's okay to transmit audio, and it only transmits the audio fed to it by the main CPU (which may or may not be coming from a microphone, audio file, Internet stream, etc.).

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#92

Post by cube13 »

ajross wrote: post #90
cube13 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This statement confuses me: >On most Android phones, this firmware has so much control that it could turn the product into a listening device. On some, it controls the microphone. On some, it can take full control of the main computer, through shared memory, and can thus override or replace whatever free software you have installed. With some models it is possible to exercise remote control of this firmware, and thus…

I don't see how your points are responsive. The fact that it's "on purpose" (of course it's on purpose!) doesn't changes RMS's argument that it's unethical and abusable. Your examples aren't "malicious", but it seems awfully naive to believe these are the only applications of that technology. And I don't think Stallman has anything against network-delivered software. He's been doing that for years. The complaint I re…

The main issue that I have with this specific issue that RMS is making an ideological argument that I don't feel is realistic. He states the following:

>Putting these points together, we can tolerate non-free phone network firmware provided new versions of it won't be loaded, it can't take control of the main computer, and it can only communicate when and as the free operating system chooses to let it communicate.

The problem here is that the phone component needs to be able to override the rest of the OS to receive a call. To suggest otherwise is a pretty huge potential privacy issue... would you want every application to have access to the phone firmware?

In addition, the phone firmware exists to make the phone actually work with a specific carrier. So it needs to have control of the microphone, the speakers, and the radio in order to function. That requirement exists in both a closed implementation, and a FOSS implementation. Therefore, a FOSS firmware implementation still has the exact same potential issues that RMS raised-complete control of the hardware, the ability to restrict the user from doing certain actions, the potential of using the device to spy on people through well obfuscated(or buggy) code, etc.

Some of the more malicious uses are mitigated by a FOSS implementation, I will agree. However, I don't think that RMS has a solution that actually solves any of the issues that he raised.

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#93

Post by joebadmo »

0x12 wrote: post #17

This thread has some people attacking RMS as a person without taking on the (guardian) article on its merits. Please read the article http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-fre... , the man raises some interesting points and is not just about your inability to inspect the source. The points that were specifically made (for those that want to rail against the article but that refuse to read it for so…

Google's openness is a pretty complex issue.[0]

If you define 'open' as binary, and only true if every item in a certain list is met, then it's almost certainly true that Android is not open.

But I don't think that's a particularly illuminating way to describe the situation.

I think it's fair to say that so far, the smartphone side of Android, up to and including Gingerbread, has been open in the way that Andy Rubin described in his tweet.

The tablet side, Honeycomb, has not. You can take this as evidence that Google nefariously pulled a bait-and-switch and unconscientiously uses principles like 'open' only when it suits them financially. Or you can give them the benefit of the doubt and accept their explanation that the source code for Honeycomb wasn't ready for public consumption, and they had to make a pragmatic decision in the interest of maintaining their platform.

Besides that issue, it seems to me that RMS's gripes are largely to do not with Android but with the entire phone industry, and most of every other electronics industry. It doesn't seem like a criticism of Android or Google as such. Like he said, Android brings smartphones closer to his dream than we've ever seen. It's really up to the parts that Google has little control over now.

"My personal take on all this is that if you base your offering on a huge amount of open source that you should keep the spirit of those whose code enables you to run your business alive and respond in kind."

I agree, and it seems to me that Google has mostly fulfilled its obligations.

[0]: I wrote a whole blog post on it: http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/9579550453/googles-open-hand-...

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#94

Post by leoc »

enjo wrote: post #23
0x12 wrote: post #17

This thread has some people attacking RMS as a person without taking on the (guardian) article on its merits. Please read the article http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-fre... , the man raises some interesting points and is not just about your inability to inspect the source. The points that were specifically made (for those that want to rail against the article but that refuse to read it for so…

The 3.0 thing is a really interesting case. Android's open source model is that the code is primarily written and managed by Google, and then released all at once "when it's ready". So the only pushes are version releases and related bug-fixes. It was pretty clear that Google never considered Honeycomb to be "complete". It was pushed out in a hurry to deal with the fact that manufacturers were pushing out terrible ex…

The timing of this opinion piece - just after Google annouces that Ice Cream Sandwich will ship on October or November - may be significant. Could it be that it's mainly intended to send a message to Google - a warning shot to encourage them to think twice about holding back the ICS source? Certainly other FSF people are ... actively managing the Google relationship http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL7BaJFotnU , so I think it's quite possible.

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#95

Post by tadfisher »

notatoad wrote: post #89
5hoom wrote: post #33

Ahh, the second controversial Richard on HN today ;) Love him or hate him, Richard Stallman is nothing if not consistent. The fact is that he is right on this issue. At this time Honeycomb is not open source software. I'm a big fan of google, and as the story says Android is the best of a bad bunch (with regards to software freedom), but it's good that we have people like Stallman who can give us cause to stop & take…

he's right, but in the wrong way. honeycomb is not open source software, but that does not mean that android is not open source software. honeycomb is a dead fork of the android project, it has no future. the android trunk is as open as it has ever been.

It is not as 'open' as most software projects. They develop in a closed environment and dump the results on the community. There are long-standing bugs that have been fixed in community distros such as Cyanogenmod, yet the Android team doesn't accept patches, because they're busy working on the next code dump.

At Google, there is no 'upstream'.

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#96

Post by billswift »

xentronium wrote: post #85
Tichy wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very difficult to not have the opportunity to become a millionaire. For example I could have bought a lottery ticket and won the lottery. But I didn't. Likewise, Google hasn't published the Honeycomb source yet. Also, it is strictly logic, you can follow everything from a false statement (false => anything). So, if Google had released the source for Honeycomb I could have been a millionaire is a strictly true st…

What point are you trying to prove?

I think he's trying to prove he doesn't understand logic. You can prove anything from contradictory true statements not from false ones.

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#97

Post by spokengent »

icebraining wrote: post #82
spokengent wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And my socks or bowl doesn't have the ability to record my personal calls or track my location. How do you know? You're just more trusting of stuff that doesn't look like it has extra functionality. For all you know, bowl manufacturers could embed GPS tracking devices in there. There comes a point where you just have to trust people selling you stuff won't be evil.

For all you know, bowl manufacturers could embed GPS tracking devices in there. I don't carry my bowls around ;) There comes a point where you just have to trust people selling you stuff won't be evil. I don't like that word. It oversimplifies the issues. Whether Google is evil is subjective and irrelevant. The fact is that their entire business revolves around collecting personal data, often without being clear to t…

> "The fact is that their entire business revolves around collecting personal data, often without being clear to the user about the details."

BS. They sell advertising.

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#98

Post by wmf »

lurker19 wrote: post #11
bleakgadfly wrote: post #8

If we'd follow everything Stallman said we'd all be "surfing the web" one email at a time ( http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.misc/134336/focus=1... )

Are you trying to discredit him by making fun of the way he organizes his reading to optimize his productive time and spotty Internet connectivity when traveling? Instapaper, much beloved in these parts, is a fancy modern take on the same idea as RMS's web-to-email system.

Or you could see it as a symptom of how much RMS has isolated himself from the world and how that hurts his campaign. Years after AJAX had become boring, RMS finally discovered that JavaScript exists and wrote a rant about how evil it is. When someone suggested that Emacs switch to Git, RMS basically said "I'm not going to read any Git documentation, someone please explain it to me". I wouldn't be surprised if he discovered the whole Honeycomb debate just in time for it to be over. The world is moving on and he's paying no attention.

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#99

Post by Dylan16807 »

cube13 wrote: post #92
ajross wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how your points are responsive. The fact that it's "on purpose" (of course it's on purpose!) doesn't changes RMS's argument that it's unethical and abusable. Your examples aren't "malicious", but it seems awfully naive to believe these are the only applications of that technology. And I don't think Stallman has anything against network-delivered software. He's been doing that for years. The complaint I re…

The main issue that I have with this specific issue that RMS is making an ideological argument that I don't feel is realistic. He states the following: >Putting these points together, we can tolerate non-free phone network firmware provided new versions of it won't be loaded, it can't take control of the main computer, and it can only communicate when and as the free operating system chooses to let it communicate. Th…

It's the job of the operating system to control what applications have access to. The firmware does not need to override anything. The OS should either implement a phone component or delegate to a phone app that has been configured to have phone permission.

Binary blob completley-isolated firmware is possible and simple to implement. It's also safe.

Post reply on HN