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

Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

osnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 236 posts

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#181

Post by morpher »

adamtaylor wrote: post #171
morpher wrote: post #57

In Sec. 1021 (the one about indefinite detention power), it clearly states: (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. So, how does this give the president the supposed power to detain US citizen…

How much do these provisions of the NDAA really matter? They are still trumped by the Bill of Rights, which clearly forbids indefinite detention of citizens without trial. (The Sixth Amendment, in particular.) And the Bill of Rights can't be superceded except by a new amendment to the constitution. I still wish these provisions weren't there, because they seem insane to me, but I'm wondering if they're really of very…

I agree that the bill of rights supersedes and I also think that the court would most likely assume that the intended interpretation of the clause above is (A). But, I feel bad for the guy waiting in jail while the case runs through the court system...

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#183

Post by tankenmate »

jonhendry wrote: post #150
rjbond3rd wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's just it, he spoke about free software, not these larger issues... What's larger than freedom?

There are many freedoms. I suspect Stallman would be happy if he achieved all his free software goals, even if he lost freedoms that most other people consider more important.

I think you completely misunderstand RMS then, I think you would find that he would argue that all freedoms are necessary and worth fighting for. In many speeches I have heard him give he has said that he could fight for other freedoms but the freedom he could do the best job of fighting for are software freedoms. I would suggest you read more of RMS's work and listen to more of his talks.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#184

Post by praptak »

pg wrote: post #130

This article doesn't seem to give any examples of specific predictions Stallman made that have turned out to be correct. All the article seems to be saying is that Stallman seemed paranoid, and present events seem to justify paranoia. (Incidentally, people always feel that.) Can anyone give some examples of specific predictions Stallman made that seemed surprising at the time, but that have come true? I'm not saying…

I do not believe that the article was about specific predictions and maybe not even about predictions at all. The main thesis of the article was that he was right, not that he is prescient.

Stallman's position has always been that it is bad for you not to have full control over the software you run. This is admittedly not very specific but I do not think it needs to be. It is a political view after all, not a scientifically verifiable hypothesis.

The article enumerates some cases of that badness which were not present when Stallman started his movement but are present now. That does not make him a prophet - it is just some new evidence that supports his views.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#185

Post by __alexs »

pg wrote: post #170
jaekwon wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the "Right to Read" 1997-02... "Dan had learned that each book had a copyright monitor that reported when and where it was read, and by whom, to Central Licensing." -> Streaming content, DMCA tech "It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a modified system kernel." -> Jailbreaking "But not only were they illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if you had one, without knowing…

Predicting DRM phoning home in 1997 does not seem startlingly prescient. Nor locked down systems; those already existed. The only novel idea I see here is the point that copyright, which was originally a restriction on publishers, has now become a restriction on consumers. But that doesn't seem so dystopian. Everyone is a publisher now.

> Predicting DRM phoning home in 1997 does not seem startlingly prescient.

Since when was being prescient the sole marker of an ideas value?

What's interesting about Stallman is that he's been repeating the same material since the 80's, and it only gets more relevant. He might be a paranoid weirdo but he does seem to at least be paranoid about something that has it's roots in reality.

We might have increasing equality, and perhaps some additional freedom over our own bodies, but at the same time the wide spread deployment of mass surveillance tech has come at the same time.

> But that doesn't seem so dystopian. Everyone is a publisher now.

This is only not a dystopia if those publishers have sufficiently uncorrelated output and distribution channels. I'm not sure that's the case.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#186

Post by skore »

siglesias wrote: post #178
jaekwon wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Laurence Lessig (in his book 'Code') argues that market forces is what paves the way for locked systems, which naturally leads to abuse.

Didn't market forces lead the iTunes music DRM to be eliminated?

It certainly has the power to do both and the usual course of action is indeed to jump into closed systems only to open them up later. That's all fine and well if we're only talking technology, but a number of companies increasingly invest in a dual strategy where they also make governments do their bidding when it comes to technology - that started out with software patents (clearly a pandoras box, opened, now) which are already harming innovation and is now leading into things like SOPA where, transparently, policy is proposed to 'fix' the technological empowerment that we have enjoyed on the Internet for so long in favor of protecting the deep pockets of a few corporations.

Remember - technology is only a tool and what happens with that tool is always guided by the ones who yield the most power. It was possible for Apple to eliminate DRM only because they maneuvered themselves into a position of power where media corporations were being lead by Apple and not the other way around. I think the actual reason why DRM was abandoned was because it was just not feasible, for music - remember the horror stories with Windows DRM for music, for instance. Removing DRM was both damage control by Apple and a 'hip' thing to do in the wake of consumer dissatisfaction. I have yet to see a similar push in any other field than music - extremely restrictive licensing and DRM are still alive and well in proprietary software and video content, respectively, and it doesn't seem like there is any change to that on the horizon. It probably helps that the Apple->Jobs->Pixar->Disney link is a very strong one and that video content is used fundamentally different compared to music.

Anyhow - it's always both - big corporations do have to pay attention to the market and both follow the will of the consumer and what is best for their own bottom line, which sometimes overlap. But sometimes they get weary of that and short circuit the system through politics (although that is often initiated by companies that are not primarily in technology). That's where any degree of authoritarianism is quite an asset.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#187

Post by samstave »

e2e8 wrote: post #177
samstave wrote: post #87

I think we are giving the government and Obama far too much credit for being stupid/naive/uncunning. Of course the NDAA funding auth is going to be passed. It must be - thus, they throw on insidious clauses like the detainment, and Obama is the lucky guy who just happens to be in the unfortunate position where he must sign it even though he opposed certain items. Here is an idea: require all laws to be single subject…

You make sound like the administration did not want the powers granted by the bill. This is incorrect. The administration initially opposed the language because they believed it restricted powers they already had to detain indefinatly. "the authorities granted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American peop…

No, I am saying the administration is expertly farking with public perception.

I am aware of their want to ensure their power was protected.

I am saying that most people are being played to think that obmama expressed "concerns" but was painted into a corner where he needed to sign this. The fact is they ADDED / ENSURED the clauses they wanted were in there, then played the perception of the signage to make it look like they were the VICTIM rather than the perp.

There is a very very good reason obama is a constitutional lawyer as potus.

Hint: it is not to ensure your freedoms.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#188

Post by loup-vaillant »

pg wrote: post #170
jaekwon wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the "Right to Read" 1997-02... "Dan had learned that each book had a copyright monitor that reported when and where it was read, and by whom, to Central Licensing." -> Streaming content, DMCA tech "It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a modified system kernel." -> Jailbreaking "But not only were they illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if you had one, without knowing…

Predicting DRM phoning home in 1997 does not seem startlingly prescient. Nor locked down systems; those already existed. The only novel idea I see here is the point that copyright, which was originally a restriction on publishers, has now become a restriction on consumers. But that doesn't seem so dystopian. Everyone is a publisher now.

> But that doesn't seem so dystopian. Everyone is a publisher now.

When you think it through, it does seem dystopian. Imagine that e-ink matures, and paper isn't that useful any more. That we no longer purchase dead-tree copies of our books, magazines, and so on. I think that can happen. I read right now a novel on my electronic reader, even though I have a dead-tree copy, because my reader is lighter and slimmer than my book.

Now, how do I lend you a book for which I have no dead-tree copy? I can't give you such a piece of dead-tree (and naturally lose it for myself). All I can do is make a copy and give it to you. And then I'm a publisher. And then what I'm doing is forbidden. And then I can't even lend you my book.

(One could imagine laws/DRM that would erase the copy I own if I ever give another copy to someone else. However, I don't think the IP Lords would want even that. They'd say it harms their revenue.)

But that's not dystopian enough. True dystopia is when the means of enforcing it kick in: the only know way right now is a "total surveillance" regime, where free software itself is forbidden.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#190

Post by Mordor »

People latch onto the word 'terrorist' and think it doesn't apply to them, but we are all 'terrorists' in one way or other because our thoughts and actions do not completely submit to the state. Indeed this is never possible.
Post reply on HN