11 ms·
Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream'
- daeken 16y agoYet again proving that RMS has no concept of the convenience-privacy continuum. Nothing to see here.
- raganwald 16y agoFirst, 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 see here for you, but when you say "Nothing to see here," you are speaking in absolutes. I have read a fair bit about his beliefs and I found a few things of interest in the article, such as the discussion about the Replicant variation of Android and the Tivoization of Android by carriers. This may not be news to you, but it's news to me. Therefore, I say there is something to see here. I can't speak to your thinking or motivations, so what follows is a general observation: On HN we have a principle of not downvoting comments just because we disagree. Upvotes and downvotes are ideally applied on the basis of whether they contribute positively to the discussion. A contribution can be made simply by opening a new line of thought, even if the premise is flawed. I am not going to get into whether I agree or disagree with Mr. Stallman's beliefs. 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. This suggestion is open to discussion: I am aware that some people think his zeal does more harm than good. But that's what I believe. I said above that I believe the article provides a public good by including information that someone like myself may not have already known. I now suggest that the article also presents something that is a public good by contributing positively to the general fabric of discussion about cell phone technology and privacy, even if you or I might disagree with Mr. Stallman's views. You are free to draw your own conclusions, of course. I'm just trying to explain mine.
- wladimir 16y agoPeople 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 people realize how much of their lives they are giving away there might be a push for it...
- raganwald 16y agoLightening 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 that. So how about we do this..."
- erikpukinskis 16y agowe'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.
- raganwald 16y agoIf 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.
- getsat 16y agoNot antagonising you, but you are aware that he did something similar during a lecture once, right? His lack of concern for social norms is... intriguing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ
- brlewis 16y agoThis interview started out on a cell phone, but with repeated dropped calls they had to finish it via email, presumably on RMS's all-free-software laptop. So in this instance covenience and privacy were on the same end of this supposed continuum.
- loup-vaillant 16y agoYou 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.
- SoftwareMaven 16y agoThey 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.
- Typhon 16y ago>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.
- michaeldhopkins 16y agoRMS 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?
- pessimizer 16y agoI have to agree with raganwald and say that I have no idea what you mean by the "convenience-privacy continuum" here. Do you mean that more convenient technologies are by nature less private? Or do you mean that you can convince people to give up their privacy in exchange for convenience? The second is clearly true (currently at least), but I don't see any evidence of the first.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- 6ren 16y agoWow, they're really not comfortable with letting you see the URL for single page: http://www.networkworld.com/cgi-bin/mailto/x.cgi?pagetosend=/news/2011/031411-richard-stallman.html&pagename=/news/2011/031411-richard-stallman.html&pageurl=http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/031411-richard-stallman.html&site=software&nsdr=n http://www.networkworld.com/cgi-bin/mailto/x.cgi?pagetosend=...
- ekidd 16y agoThere 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 matters; and he occasionally has a weird-but-powerful charisma. There are some praiseworthy things about Stallman: He appears to be utterly principled; he shows few signs of being tempted by money; and he has persevered for decades to bring about the world he wants. None of these things, good or bad, affect the underlying question: Is Stallman right? In my case, I often find Stallman's claims ridiculous at first. Why? Because Stallman is asking us to take extreme measures against threats which seem both unlikely and dystopian, such as the universal DRM he predicted in his 1997 short story, "The Right to Read." But I've noticed, over the years, that Stallman's most paranoid fears tend to come partially true. Today, we have an acronym for "DRM", and we've spent years fighting the legal powers granted by the DMCA. So I no longer automatically discount what Stallman says, because his pessimistic predictions have a better track record than my optimistic ones.
- pnathan 16y agoI 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.
- angdis 16y agoHe 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.
- m_myers 16y agoWould you prefer "Mao", then? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2328174 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2328174
- kjetil 16y agoIn Soviet Russia, cell phone call you!
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- AndrewMoffat 16y agoI think we nerdy types know this in the back of our minds about smartphones, but it's good to be reminded of it again from time to time.
- Estragon 16y agoSo, is it currently possible to run the Replicant fork of Android on a Motorola Droid on the Verizon network? I would like to give that a try, if so. This page says how to port Replicant to a new phone, but not which phones and networks it's been done for. http://trac.osuosl.org/trac/replicant/wiki/How_to_port_Replicant http://trac.osuosl.org/trac/replicant/wiki/How_to_port_Repli...
- jhamburger 16y agoI 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.
- drinian 16y agoIt'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-system-report-20110303-090520-169.html http://beta.sg.news.yahoo.com/beijing-trial-mobile-tracking-... This isn't a prediction, it's reality today.
- samatman 16y agoThe 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.
- jrockway 16y agoThe nature of the license for the software running on a radio has nothing to do with the ability to triangulate that radio, sadly. But you don't have to disclose the fact that that radio source over there is jrockway's radio. Freenet-style routing is an idea that comes to mind for solving this problem with software.
- drinian 16y agoYou're right, RMS could carry a Free Software phone right now, the OpenMoko. I think that your comment is basically condensing his argument. This problem is bigger than a Free Software issue, but any solution would require a Free Software base to resolve issues of trust. That being said, it's going to be really tough to find a technical solution that allows people to be found in an emergency, but not tracked by a Big Brother government. The solution might end up being legislative.
- Figs 16y agoWouldn'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?
- iuguy 16y agoGiven 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.
- LXicon 16y agoThe article does mention that Stallman uses a "rather slow" Lemote Yeeloong laptop because it's the only laptop with a free BIOS.
- jff 16y agoWhich 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.
- LXicon 16y agois u-Boot a System BIOS? it appears to be a Bootloader: http://sourceforge.net/projects/u-boot/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/u-boot/ Bootloaders are executed after the BIOS.
- jrockway 16y agoI thought it was the CPU microcode, not the BIOS? Because there are open source BIOSes that you can flash to a variety of more powerful machines.
- LXicon 16y agoyou are probably correct. the article just mentioned the BIOS. i looked around and could not find specific mention of the microcode in the laptop's specs :http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:Hardware/Freest#Lemote_Yeeloong_8089_and_8101 http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:Hardware/Freest#Lemote_Yee... or on Stallman's page : http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html or in this FSF paper page on free hardware: http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/how_hardware_vendors_can_help.html http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/how_hardware_vendors_can_hel...
- jpv 16y agoA little unrelated, but... "gNewSense" is the worst name for a laptop I've heard in a long time.
- tomkarlo 16y agoHaving met RMS a few times in my years at MIT, I have no doubt that he is genuine in his views and it's not merely the hyperbole you get some from pundits. The unfortunate downside of this is that he doesn't generally see the need to find compromise positions that are palatable to those who maybe agree with his thoughts but don't have the exact same value set. I may see his concern about privacy, etc but I also need to be reachable when I'm not at my desk. By being too extreme in his views, he reduces the chance that they'll be taken seriously.
- lallysingh 16y agoHonestly, after hearing his rants for years, I'm of the opinion that his language is far more extreme than his opinions. If you don't believe me, listen to some political talk shows. Not Glenn Beck, but the more mainstream ones. They're saying much more extreme things (when you think about them), but sounding much more rational than him. Really, if he talked like a sane, reasonable, rational person, he could make the same arguments and persuade more people. Right now, his extremism is making his supporters sound bad. He's a liability to his own cause. His filtering of technology is less extreme a change in lifestyle than veganism. But you can talk to most vegans and completely understand why they're doing what they're doing, and sympathize with their decisions far easier than this. The first, last, and only Stallman speech I went to gave me a real headache at the --- lets be honest -- Jackassitude of his entire presentation. I was on his side until I heard him speak!
- ck2 16y agoJust put your phone into airplane mode when you aren't using it. It has the benefit of making the batteries last extra long (because the cell and wifi radios are turned off).
- Someone 16y agoI have not read this article, but RMS surely would argue that without a completely open stack, you cannot really know what airplane mode does. You can check that it doesn't broadcast at any moment you want to check that, but how do you know it doesn't switch on for 5 seconds every 4 days, 13 hours, and 52 seconds, except for Thursdays or in March? Also, how do you know that it isn't listening for secret commands all the time?
- ebiester 16y agoAnd anyone who is likely to be tracked is going to know this, and will not trust phone communications. The more you have to hide, the more protections you must take. You cannot rely on technology. In extreme cases, it means eschewing technology entirely, living in caves, and living in Afghanistan and Sudan. You cannot rely on that which you do not control, including free software.
- dholowiski 16y agoI lost all respect for RMS when I saw him speak at WordCamp San Francisco 2010 - he spoke, and acted like a total child. I'd point you to the video of it, but he made them shut down the live stream before he started (after he was late, which he blamed on Google Maps).
- mvidal01 16y agoI recall recently reading that Erik Prince the ex CEO of Xe / Blackwater in this interview takes his batter out of his phone so it doesn't get turned into a wireless mic. http://www.mensjournal.com/an-american-commando-in-exile http://www.mensjournal.com/an-american-commando-in-exile Nice closing paragraph in the Network World article. Then again I live in Madison, Wi.
- codex 16y agoIn some U.S. states, cars cannot legally operate on the road unless they've been "validated" by the government. This worries me greatly; I should be able to drive whatever car I want, free from unwanted control. And this is why, instead of getting my emissions checked every year, I choose not to use cars, or even public busses.
- icefox 16y agoSolved that years ago, just need the money to get a chauffeur
- ldh 16y agoI should be able to drive whatever car I want, free from unwanted control Even if that car is a coal-fired chariot with whirling spikes extending from the axles? I agree with your sentiment entirely, but also recognize that so long as I live within the confines of human society, absolute freedom is impossible.
- vacri 16y agoSo you should be able to drive a car that has heavy tracks that chews up and destroys public roads, loudspeakers blaring 110db pink noise, emits a safe but heavily odourous powder that coats the buildings it passes by, and has random rotating high power searchlights guaranteed to throw blinding rays into other drivers' eyes, should you so feel like it? All so you can escape the 'burden of control'? When you do drive, do you bother to follow traffic lights? I mean, they're just another form of the government telling you what you can and can't do. You should just be able to drive when you like, where you like, right? Similarly license plates should be discarded, as they're just another way for the government to track your activities, which we should be free from. To be clear, what I'm trying to illustrate is the pointlessness of absolutist statements. Being human is an exercise in compromises, and libertarian talking points fail to take this into account.
- codex 16y agoForgive me, this post is intended to be facetious. My personal view is that the societal desire for and against privacy and human rights always trumps any technological barriers. Hitler and Stalin, for example, were able to do pretty bad things despite having relatively primitive technology. Examples date back to the dawn of recorded history. Even today, I can be tracked using my license plate number, fingerprints, DNA, etc. pretty handily. Where there is a will, there is a way. Fortunately, our society does not have the political will to do it--and, in fact, would likely find inappropriate tracking to be revolting. In this respect I think Stallman is way off base. Fighting to make sure your phone runs OSS does little to ensure that the culture we live in values the right things and has an ideal political structure (representative democracy). I'd argue it's a dangerous distraction, in fact, because it promulgates the incorrect notion that if only we had open technology, we'd be free from criminals, dictators, and other bad things, and we'd live in a world of ponies and rainbows. Because this is not true, I fear this effort diverts attention from where it deserves to be. That said, RMS's scare tactics to help to some degree, by reminding people that our societal values will always need to be projected into the latest wave of technology. I think this tends to happen naturally and organically, but whatever. Fortunately, the flipside is pretty good: given the right political environment, privacy and technological regulation can coexist peacefully. This is good because some amount of regulation of the commons is necessary and good, and this extends to new technologies (like the car, or the cell phone).
- bumbledraven 16y agoDrug dealers have known for years about untraceable cell-phones. One brand in the US is (strangely) called "tracfone". You can buy one for $20 cash, and, since there's no contract, it's way more difficult to link you to the device and therefore more difficult to track your movements. Also, I don't think proprietary software is a moral issue. People should have the right to make and buy something non-free if they wish. I do admire Stallman's principled lifestyle, though. Finally, it's interesting that Kevin Kelly (former editor of Wired), in his awesome book "What Technology Wants", also makes the case for not owning a cell phone, but for different reasons.
- code_duck 16y agoThe headline doesn't at all sum up this article. It's not about Stallman's opinion about phones in particular.