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: >Putti

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.