7 ms·

Yet again proving that RMS has no concept of the convenience-privacy continuum. Nothing to see here.

by daeken 16y ago

raganwald 16y ago
First, 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 ago
  People 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 ago
    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 that. So how about we do this..."
    - erikpukinskis 16y ago
      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.
      - raganwald 16y ago
        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.
      - getsat 16y ago
        Not 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
- whackberry 16y ago
  While I agree with the merit of what you just said, you too ended up sounding smug and arrogant. Open your comment in a text editor and count how many times you said " I ".
  - raganwald 16y ago
    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. Context affects my perspective on this. Sites like Quora, Stack Exchange, and Wikipedia exist to build compendiums of knowledge. Neutrality is crucial to their mission. But is the article comments of Hacker News the same kind of place? I don't know, but so far I don't think so. (I could have written, "But so far it seems this is not the case," I imagine). Hacker News is composed of people discussing ideas with people. Personal opinions seem to be the point of the comments section. So... When I state my opinions I use the word "I."
    - raganwald 16y ago
      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 consequences of sounding smug and arrogant. Is it possible that throwing opinions around is smug and arrogant, no matter how they are couched? Perhaps the real issue here is between pretending to be humble (option 1) or actually being humble (option 2)? Whackberry, this is very interesting, and I'm sorry I only have one upvote to give your response.
      - RyanMcGreal 16y ago
        I didn't find it smug in the least. (Alternate formation: it was not found smug in the least by this commenter.) One of the core principles of positive communication is to use "I" statements in place of blanket judgments: it's the difference between "This sucks" and "I don't like this".
- zephjc 16y ago
  Only re. point two, googling "privacy vs convenience" returns a whole mess of articles, about cell phones, data mining, etc.
- peterwwillis 16y ago
  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. ESR stated in Revolution OS that RMS's 'wholesale attack' on (was it software patents or intellectual property? i don't remember now) was one of the reasons it was hard to convince businesses this wasn't just a hippie pipe dream. The OpenMoko runs all Free code, afaik, so the whole "being tracked by Big Brother" deal sounds like tinfoil hat syndrome. This particular rant only points out that most cellphones run on proprietary software. Why don't we just shout about anything that uses proprietary software like cars or industrial manufacturing equipment? We know it's proprietary, but comparing it all to a fascist regime isn't going to contribute positively to a discussion to make it more open.
  - count 16y ago
    The OpenMoko does not run all free code, and neither does any other shipping cellular device. The code in the baseband processor is very specifically NOT open on anything. In most cases, neither is the GPS. This is because, iirc, that the FCC requires it to be that way, for spectrum licensing and usage reasons.
    - peterwwillis 16y ago
      Ok, this is a good point. The code encrypting/decrypting the GSM is not open, which means it'll eventually be cracked, and until then we have to just assume nobody else has figured it out. But does this have anything to do with being spied on? Other than the government decoding your GSM communications (which it can just ask Ma Bell to tap without a warrant and get away with, according to the W.Bush-era abuses) I don't see that particular un-free code helping in tracking or spying on you.
      - count 16y ago
        Well, it's not open, and all comms go through it - we have no idea what it actually does?
  - snippyhollow 16y ago
- shortlived 16y ago
  First, the word you're thinking of is "demonstrating," not "proving." But let's get to the big stuff. Since we are being snarky, what's with "Mr. Stallman"? Is he your high school math teacher?
brlewis 16y ago
This 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 ago
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.
- SoftwareMaven 16y ago
  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.
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 ago
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?
pessimizer 16y ago
I 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.

Yet again proving that RMS has no concept of the convenience-privacy continuum. Nothing to see here.

by daeken 16y ago

Yet again proving that RMS has no concept of the convenience-privacy continuum. Nothing to see here.

First, 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 ago
People 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 ago
  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 that. So how about we do this..."
  - erikpukinskis 16y ago
    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.
    - raganwald 16y ago
      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.
    - getsat 16y ago
      Not 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
whackberry 16y ago
While I agree with the merit of what you just said, you too ended up sounding smug and arrogant. Open your comment in a text editor and count how many times you said " I ".
- raganwald 16y ago
  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. Context affects my perspective on this. Sites like Quora, Stack Exchange, and Wikipedia exist to build compendiums of knowledge. Neutrality is crucial to their mission. But is the article comments of Hacker News the same kind of place? I don't know, but so far I don't think so. (I could have written, "But so far it seems this is not the case," I imagine). Hacker News is composed of people discussing ideas with people. Personal opinions seem to be the point of the comments section. So... When I state my opinions I use the word "I."
  - raganwald 16y ago
    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 consequences of sounding smug and arrogant. Is it possible that throwing opinions around is smug and arrogant, no matter how they are couched? Perhaps the real issue here is between pretending to be humble (option 1) or actually being humble (option 2)? Whackberry, this is very interesting, and I'm sorry I only have one upvote to give your response.
    - RyanMcGreal 16y ago
      I didn't find it smug in the least. (Alternate formation: it was not found smug in the least by this commenter.) One of the core principles of positive communication is to use "I" statements in place of blanket judgments: it's the difference between "This sucks" and "I don't like this".
zephjc 16y ago
Only re. point two, googling "privacy vs convenience" returns a whole mess of articles, about cell phones, data mining, etc.
peterwwillis 16y ago
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. ESR stated in Revolution OS that RMS's 'wholesale attack' on (was it software patents or intellectual property? i don't remember now) was one of the reasons it was hard to convince businesses this wasn't just a hippie pipe dream. The OpenMoko runs all Free code, afaik, so the whole "being tracked by Big Brother" deal sounds like tinfoil hat syndrome. This particular rant only points out that most cellphones run on proprietary software. Why don't we just shout about anything that uses proprietary software like cars or industrial manufacturing equipment? We know it's proprietary, but comparing it all to a fascist regime isn't going to contribute positively to a discussion to make it more open.
- count 16y ago
  The OpenMoko does not run all free code, and neither does any other shipping cellular device. The code in the baseband processor is very specifically NOT open on anything. In most cases, neither is the GPS. This is because, iirc, that the FCC requires it to be that way, for spectrum licensing and usage reasons.
  - peterwwillis 16y ago
    Ok, this is a good point. The code encrypting/decrypting the GSM is not open, which means it'll eventually be cracked, and until then we have to just assume nobody else has figured it out. But does this have anything to do with being spied on? Other than the government decoding your GSM communications (which it can just ask Ma Bell to tap without a warrant and get away with, according to the W.Bush-era abuses) I don't see that particular un-free code helping in tracking or spying on you.
    - count 16y ago
      Well, it's not open, and all comms go through it - we have no idea what it actually does?
- snippyhollow 16y ago
shortlived 16y ago
First, the word you're thinking of is "demonstrating," not "proving." But let's get to the big stuff. Since we are being snarky, what's with "Mr. Stallman"? Is he your high school math teacher?

brlewis 16y ago

This 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 ago

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.

SoftwareMaven 16y ago
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.

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 ago

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?

pessimizer 16y ago

I 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.