12 ms·
Richard Stallman Was Right All Along
- wycats 15y agoIt's worth noting that Obama, upon signing, issued a signing statement that said that he was against the indefinite detention provision, and importantly, that he would not indefinitely hold Americans without trial: "Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."
- ninjac0der 15y agoHow exactly is that note worthy?
- troels 15y agoI can't make out if you mean noteworthy or note worthy?
- jonhendry 15y agoYeah, great. Even if you believe him, that might mean as little as a year. What about the next administration? What about the administration after that? Laws last much longer than the administrations under which they are born.
- yuhong 15y agoBut remember this was just one provision of a larger bill, and I don't think line-by-line veto is possible anymore.
- oconnor0 15y agoThen you veto the entire bill - explaining why.
- sp332 15y agoHe would have, but this bill included the funding for salaries of military personnel. He actually said, at the time that he signed it, that Congress had forced his hand. Edit: OK I don't really know if he would have. But he did say that.
- jonhendry 15y agoHe still should have vetoed it. Once Congress knew he was willing to go that far, Congress would have been up against the wall and had to drop it in order for the paychecks to continue.
- shadowfiend 15y agoIt's extremely likely, given the criticality of the legislation to the military, that his veto would have been overridden by Congress. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to pick your fights. Then again, I'm extremely angry at him about this, too, so... Yeah, whatever. Heh. Though really I'm angry about the overall civil liberties history of the administration. This is just the proverbial straw.
- jonhendry 15y ago"It's extremely likely, given the criticality of the legislation to the military, that his veto would have been overridden by Congress. " Maybe. Or they could drop the problematic bit and redo it. Either way, the paychecks would go out.
- hammerdr 15y agoYou have to understand that the system isn't that simple. Bills do not exist in a vacuum. You cannot view these things as independent and completely unrelated to everything else going around it. Yes, the President could veto the bill but then the next few months becomes about him veto-ing a military appropriations bill. He would then need to explain to the American public why the freedoms it eroded were unacceptable and that their loved ones serving this country couldn't buy milk for a month. It would consume a significant amount of time and resources. Like shadowfiend, I'm not defending the decision to make civil liberties a lower priority than other issues (I am vehemently against that), but if you want to be someone that is more than a whiner then you need to first understand and then work to change it.
- OstiaAntica 15y agoObama the candidate opposed the use of signing statements. http://technorati.com/politics/article/signing-statements-redux/ http://technorati.com/politics/article/signing-statements-re...
- aamar 15y agoIt's important to note that Obama makes clear in both his campaign assertion and his official memo that he does not consider signing statements to be problematic in and of themselves. Rather, he argues, their use should be limited in scope and reach, clearly stating that President Bush went overboard. From Politifact's extensive discussion: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/516/no-signing-statements-nullify-instruction-congress/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/pr... Politifact consulted 5 experts, 4 of whom (at the time of consultation) felt he has kept his promise. Politifact itself has currently rated the promise as "compromise", meaning partial fulfillment.
- protomyth 15y agoPolitifact isn't exactly the beacon of truth it purports to be either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politifact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politifact - the SNL business was particularly odd
- aamar 15y agoI agree that they've made errors, but they seem deserving of their fairly good reputation (not as high as, say, NYT).
- protomyth 15y agoI would imagine the same people and groups that have problems with Politifact also have problems with NYT much like the other side has problems with the WSJ and Fox News.
- tomjen3 15y ago
- ams6110 15y agoBecause tyranny has never been delivered by leaders speaking soothing reassurances.
- eternalban 15y agoThe apparent mindset that the grandparent manifests is antithetical to the very principles that USA is founded upon. This is not a nation of personality cults; our system is based on checks and balances. (That was the whole point!) The fact that he signed it and issued that anti-American --- see above -- statement makes the act even more repugnant.
- rbanffy 15y agoIt kind of says everything is fine, for now. It's disappointing and scary he signed it - like I said a couple days ago, very bad legislation is contagious and some idiot will propose a similar provision elsewhere. And, since this stupid idea is the law now, consider very carefully who you vote for. Whoever sits in the oval office after your next presidential election will have much more power than usual.
- sp332 15y ago"We have always been at war with Eastasia."
- DasIch 15y ago"Niemand hat die Absicht, eine Mauer zu errichten." (Nobody has the intension to build a wall) - Walter Ulbricht Less than two months after that statement was made the work on the wall that separated Germany for decades started. Never should a citizen have to trust a representative. The moment you have to democracy becomes impossible.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- tomjen3 15y agoThen he should send a powerful signal, rally his base and do something right for a change: Not sign the fucking document.
- blago 15y agoThis is even worse: all I hear is that it is a virtue to apply "our most important traditions and values as a nation" when speaking of first-class beings (citizens of our great nation), but we are not bound by anything to extend the same courtesy to others. Embarrassing, humiliating, and sad.
- rbanffy 15y agoYou may trust him, but, being signed into law, such provisions requires you to trust each and every successor of his until a contrary provision becomes law.
- abjr 15y agoThe Act is called "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012". Is this something that is passed every year? Could the indefinite detention clauses be removed in the 2013 "version" ?
- ams6110 15y agoCertainly they could. How often does government give up a power like that though? Another possibility is that if used, the law could (and likely will) be challenged on constitutional grounds.
- zotz 15y ago> It's worth noting that Obama, upon signing, issued a signing statement... He originally promised not to sign it at all. Obama has no cred.
- muraiki 15y agoHe threatened to veto it because it threatened his power. The Obama administration claimed that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists Act of 2001 already gave him the authority to detain citizens, and that the original act confused that (by requiring military custody). There is a section that says that the requirement for military custody does not apply to US citizens, but that does not mean that US citizens cannot be detained by the President in civilian custody. This is the section that a lot of people are getting hung up on and saying, "Well, it says right here that US citizens can't be detained." No, it says that US citizens aren't required to be held in mandatory military custody.
- ori_b 15y agoIt's worth noting that indefinite detention is legal now, regardless of what Obama says his administration will do.
- vacri 15y agoAs a citizen of a country very strongly allied with the US, but not an American citizen myself, that statement scares me.
- Adam503 15y agoStop listening to Barack Obama talk. Obama talks likes FDR, but Obama's actions have way way to the right. Obama's not way right like Cheney but he is closing in on Reagan. Obama invaded more countries than Reagan, Reagan cut taxes more than Obama. Obama has kept extending Dubya tax cuts. Obama and Mittens borrowed ObamaCare from Bob Dole. Reagan never executed American citizens without trial. Actually, Obama's a bit right of Reagan now.
- gorbachev 15y agohttp://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/trust-me-is-not-enough-of-a-safeguard-says-amnesty-international-as-president-obama-signs-the-ndaa-i http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/trust-me-is-no... "Trust me" is not enough of a safeguard, says Amnesty International, as President Obama signs the NDAA into law This holds especially true with Obama given how he's almost complete reversed his positions on law-and-order type of issues after he was elected.
- paulhauggis 15y agoTake note who signed it.
- dpkendal 15y agoA Nobel Peace Prize winner? The man who promised to close down Guantanamo Bay and has still yet to manage to do so? Whose election campaign promised "Change" yet whose only significant move in that way so far, in office for 3 years, is the repeal of DADT? The man who I (along with so many liberals) want desperately to believe in, but who just makes it too hard for us? Yes, that man.
- clebio 15y agoInteresting take. I read the parent comment to mean, 'note who signed the OSnews article', which is Thom Holwerda, whose name I'm sorry to admit I'm unfamiliar with.
- paulhauggis 15y agoThis is exactly who I mean. People seem to have short memories. "A Nobel Peace Prize winner?" For doing what exactly? This actually makes me question the entire Nobel Peace Prize program.
- eCa 15y agoIt will probably be a while until they give it to a president of a nation in war again.
- jonhendry 15y agoIt was questionable when Henry Kissinger won it.
- dpkendal 15y ago"Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lehrer#Departure_from_the_music_scene http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lehrer#Departure_from_the_m...
- jasonallen 15y agoAgreed - Stallman was right all along. What's working against Stallman though is that his doomsday predictions are being delivered in piecemeal fashion. Each slight erosion doesn't seem too bad by itself. Only in retrospect does the magnitude of the problem reveal itself. Governments and corporations have evolved processes to change laws in such effective manners as to evade most human observation. tldr; No one tells you the plane's not coming - they just tell you it's 20m late, perpetually...
- jonhendry 15y agoI think the main flaw is that, no matter how popular GPL software becomes, it doesn't stop the government from saying "your machines need to run this closed-source software in order to be used or sold in this country".
- rcthompson 15y agoThat would be a difficult law to enforce without declaring martial law. If smartphones are any indication, it's difficult to design a device that cannot be convinced to run unauthorized code.
- SideburnsOfDoom 15y agoYou're saying something different. "can run unauthorized code" is different from "must run this closed-source software". Both could be true at the same time. What good is your free, open, secure channel if your phone is also a running mandatory rootkit, containing a GPS tracker and keylogger? See also: Carrier IQ.
- jonhendry 15y ago"If smartphones are any indication, it's difficult to design a device that cannot be convinced to run unauthorized code." True, but you could require that the device have a little semi-autonomous widget attached that monitors the rest of the device, can't be controlled by software on the main device, and can't be removed or deactivated without seriously reducing functionality of the device. The government would simply have to say "put this in your phones, and require devices on your network have it enabled, or you don't get FCC approval."
- Tycho 15y agoI just don't see the relationship between government overstepping the mark... and buying a proprietary product form a company you respect, because you want to use the product and are willing to sacrifice the desirable but non-essential quality of unfettered access to its innards. ...OK, actually I do see the connection. The suggestion is probably that if the technology is not totally open, you don't know how much power you're giving away (the manufacturers could be cooperating secretly with the authorities). But if you really feel like this, all you need to do is refrain from using your iClosedDevice for any type of work or communication that you wouldn't trust in the hands of the manufacturers/authorities. ... And OK, I see the point that we need to support the alternative methods or else their won't be any when we need them. It's just the either/or sentiment that bugs me.
- Zirro 15y ago... And OK, then you saw the point of the article, after all. EDIT: Lesson to self. Don't post while you have a cold, and pounding headache as a result. It'll get you downvoted.
- Tycho 15y agoBut the point of the article seems slightly different from Stallman's stance. The article said 'support Linux, even if you use Windows' - whereas IIRC the FSF says 'never use Windows' or something to that affect.
- omarqureshi 15y agoRather it's only use proprietary software if by doing so you are able to make it more free.
- Zirro 15y agoThat is true, and I agree with it. If that's what you meant, I apologize. My post came more out of annoyance that you kept adding more info with the "And OK"-label, which partially changed your initial stance.
- 15y ago
- SaintSal 15y ago"His only computer is a Lemote Yeelong netbook, because it's the only computer which uses only Free software - no firmware blobs, no proprietary BIOS; it's all Free." Interesting that it's made in China. I'm trying to reconcile the implications of that... http://www.lemote.com/en/products/Notebook/2010/0310/112.html http://www.lemote.com/en/products/Notebook/2010/0310/112.htm...
- rbanffy 15y agoNot surprising. Everything is made in China these days. ;-)
- jonhendry 15y agoAnd how does he know there are no "firmware blobs"?
- glimcat 15y agoBecause he can close his eyes and wish, I suppose. It's a netbook, there are microcontrollers. The microcontrollers have firmware. Besides which, I somehow doubt that all the relevant microcircuitry is open source.
- ars 15y agoHe's OK with that kind of firmware - as long as the code can not be updated the circuit is considered a black box. He doesn't ask for open source hardware either, so firmware directly tied to hardware is considered hardware.
- kevinalexbrown 15y agoOne problem with software you don't have control over is that anything is subpoenable. We don't have to wait for the government to impose their own tracking mechanisms, because as soon as they get probable cause, that's it (which includes missing a finger, having >7 days food supply at home, if you believe Rand Paul anyway). Or just look up Google's government transparency report[1]. When you don't have control over your data, it's just a warrant/polite request away from the government. Not all government access to private data is bad. After all, it's needed to stop things like child prostitution/pornography rings, and yeah, terrorism. But what I liked so much about this article was putting the slippery slope into perspective. It's easy enough to quote the transparency report, "The number of user data requests we received increased by 29% compared to the previous reporting period." and go "well - just 29%" but that's one year. I'll make the surprising bet it doesn't go down. Compare to three decades ago, and a lot of what's happening now seemed draconian then. [1] http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/
- Joakal 15y agoThere's no control over what is bought for customers, or if they're nice, they allow opening it up but there's an automatic gag order. Thanks to anti-circumvention laws among others. Part of the powerful copyright lobby.
- spodek 15y ago"I, too, disregarded Stallman as way too extreme... Only a short while ago I would've declared this as pure paranoia - but with all that's been going on recently, it's no longer paranoia." I considered him extreme until I thought more about it, then came to agree with him on most major points... ... that was in 1993. Glad to see others here.
- pyrhho 15y agoSince you recognised this issue so long ago, I'm sure you have some recommendations regarding how we can solve it?
- lukifer 15y agoI'll tell one thing which won't solve it: religious zealotry and advocations for everyone in the world to commit to FSF purity. Open software advocates should treat closed and controlled systems in the same fashion that techies implore content creators to treat piracy: an unstoppable force of nature that must be accepted and competed with, rather than feared and demonized. Also underlying both issues: the need for improved business models to sustain free software and open content. People like to get paid, and t-shirts + donations doesn't always cut it.
- Stormbringer 15y agoDisclaimer: I'm no RMS fanboy by a long stretch of the imagination. What you're saying is that they should throw their arms up in the air and say "welp, that's how the real world works in reality, so might as well give up and accept it". But I think you're being unfair. The normal open advocates don't fear and demonize closed source. They may secretly pity it, they may secretly hate it, I don't know. The RMS vision of open source, when you get right down to it, is that of two sandpits. In one sandpit, everyone shares their toys. In the other sandpit... who cares what they do? If someone comes from the closed source world and wants to play in the open source sandpit, they have to play by the rules (sharing and openness). I think RMS gets frustrated sometimes, because he doesn't want the other people playing in the open playpit giving their stuff away to the people in the selfish (no sharing) playpit. I think his thinking is that it would mean that there is less incentive for them "over there" to examine and repent of their selfish ways. Sometimes the people in the no-sharing playpit have rich relatives that buy them nice toys for Christmas. But RMS views that as okay, if the open playpit turns out to have a need for one of those, he is confident that the open source people have the ability to make something even better, if they can be bothered to do so.
- sunkencity 15y agoGood article but I disagree that supporting "Android (not Google) even though you like IOS" is a valid strategy for openness. android is all about monitoring and datamining the user. Sad to see the good old openmoko project die.
- zem 15y agoeven maemo and meego were a large step in the right direction.
- lunarscape 15y agoThe difference is that I have the source for Android, am running a kernel I compiled myself and have explicit control over all the processes running on it. The only flaw in it is that I have to rely on a closed binary blob for the radio as writing my own would be illegal (FCC etc). It can be treated as a closed circuit though. That's the compromise the openmoko projects are using. Also check out Replicant, Stallman's Android project.
- listic 15y agoEven if writing your own firmware would be illegal (would it be, really?), what prevents manufacturers from releasing the code for examination? Also, radio firmware isn't the only one missing. I think drivers for video and other hardware are not released for no particular reason. All this contributes to the fact that one cannot build firmware for any Android device from source. Accompanied by the fact that Google gets to do their mining on your data, Android looks just a little more open, compared to iOS. And it's a shame that there is no alternative in sight.
- lunarscape 15y ago"Even if writing your own firmware would be illegal (would it be, really?) " For a radio module I would say so. It's one of the reasons cited by the openmoko successors from not doing it. Radio devices have to be tested and certified that the device stays within FCC or EC standards. Changing the firmware changes behaviour. "what prevents manufacturers from releasing the code for examination?" Patents, security... I'm sure they have their reasons. "Accompanied by the fact that Google gets to do their mining on your data, Android looks just a little more open, compared to iOS." Not if you use your own ROM or root your phone and stop all Google applicatons.
- bonch 15y agoRichard Stallman also thinks necrophilia (http://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html http://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html) and "voluntary pedophilia" (http://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05 http://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05) should be legal, including possession of child pornography. Maybe not the best spokesperson to get behind.
- morpher 15y agoIn 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 citizens? (The oft quoted 'slippery' line about not requiring detention Americans is from the NEXT section, which is specifically about requiring detentions in some cases.
- rcthompson 15y agoBecause the president says so. Seems to be the justification for a lot of things.
- pingswept 15y agoIf this applies as you say, what's the purpose of Obama's signing statement? It seems like it would be unnecessary. (You're right that this is in the bill, as I just verified here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-11...)
- morpher 15y agoOk. I see now how this can be abused. Is it saying: (A) United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the US, or (any other persons who are caputred or arrested in the US) OR B) (United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the US, or any other persons) who are caputred or arrested in the US If one reads this as B, then once a citizen accused of being a terrorist steps foot outside of the country, they are screwed.
- jonhendry 15y ago"If one reads this as B, then once a citizen accused of being a terrorist steps foot outside of the country, they are screwed." Seems like they already are.
- adamtaylor 15y ago
- chc 15y agoThis article is just a complete non sequitur. The Stallman angle has nothing to do with any of the problems it cites. Free software wouldn't prevent Obama from signing an indefinite detention bill, it won't stop the government from forcing ISPs and DNS roots to do harmful things — the benefits of free software are completely different things.
- marquis 15y agoOne example: the free software movement should lead to a better DNS system where governments and corporations will have no control over how and where we access information online. I continue to support the EFF and groups like it in order to have funds directed into research on critical issues like this. Would you prefer a GPL DNS or proprietary?
- msbarnett 15y agoThe current DNS system is based almost entirely on GPL software...
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- throwaway64 15y agofree software, yes. GPL software, no. BIND is ISC liscensed...
- jonhendry 15y agoI don't really see how GPL enters into it, as the problems are with laws, policies and regulatory bodies. The problems with the DNS system that I assume you're alluding to aren't due to the software or the software's license. It's the data the system runs on, and the people with the power to influence that data.
- marquis 15y agoYes, that's understood, I realise I used the terminology incorrectly. I've just been reading up on DNS and regulatory control and now more deeply understand that DNS is an extremely difficult problem to solve so that it outside of overt disruption by both governments and rogue attacks. However I do hope to see in my lifetime a system implemented where DNS is no longer affected by a single country's politics. As bad_user comments above: "to change the world you don't need to change the laws. The alternative is to make them obsolete and technology has a habit of doing that". Back to Stallman: if anyone could help us imagine an truly democratic DNS system, I'm sure he could point us in the right direction.
- strmpnk 15y agoRichard Stallman may have been right about the issue but that doesn't mean is approach to solving these issues nor his philosophy are in the same bucket. I'd say he's always been right to a point since what he said years ago was true then and happens to be true now at a larger scale. It's not necessarily prophetic, just keenly observant. Likewise we have more free software options today than we did in the past. My personal opinion is that it'd be wrong to get rid of either end. Eliminating freedom from software ecosystems would be disastrous. Likewise, I don't think free solves all of our software problems either (one could possibly abstain from many things but that's avoiding not solving the problem). SOPA needs to be stopped but lets not assume that non-free software needs to be limited because of this. Live and let live (and never let your guard down).
- Craiggybear 15y agoOf course he was right all along. As we will all soon discover to our enormous cost.
- Jun8 15y agoYou have to counter the forces against freedom with an array of approaches, free software being only one of these. Without having a clear understanding of the economic and political understanding of the driving forces behind the ratcheting up of state control, resistance will be pretty much futile, I fear.
- samstave 15y agoI 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, single focus. If it is a funding measure, it cannot expand powers/modify any existing laws other than to either increase or decrease funding. If it is a law, such as one that is focused on the detainment of [whomever] then that should be a singular law stating under which circumstances this law shall be applied. This is the number one source of corruption in the government, the ability to abuse the structure of the legal system. By doing this one thing, you will cripple lobbying, create transparency and create accountability (you'll be able to understand where each rep is on each issue)
- e2e8 15y agoYou 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 people... Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk."
- samstave 15y agoNo, 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.
- 15y ago
- ypcx 15y agoFrom the "Yeeloong Notebook" page: "If you prefer warm interpersonal dialogs in solving problems, you can dial our hotline. Technical personnel will provide help in the first time." Now I can understand Mr. Stallman! On a more serious note, the only question is: How much worse do things have to get, in order to start getting better? Besides, the Yeeloong thing coming from China, I wouldn't be so sure it doesn't contain a bit of tracking circuitry.
- trotsky 15y agoRarely have I come across an article that promised such a ringing endorsement in its title only to find it peppered with bits of snarky back handed compliments. So it doesn't come as much of a surprise that there wasn't much there even for the mostly uninitiated, still good(?) press is good press. Surely, I thought, now that we've declared the imminent death of the Liberty and the Internet and its subsequent rescue by Saint Rick we must have hit bottom. In the fine tradition of the showman the best had been saved for last. Never fear, he says, because Stallman's had our backs all along - it may have taken a long time but thankss to Richard we have Free and Open platforms like Android* that will protect us in the dark days ahead. * resist temptation, remember: boot locks, carrier installs, 3rd party spyware, location tracking, cloud storage, baseband, drm everything, few security patches, etc.
- pg 15y agoThis 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 there haven't been any, just that such a list would be more useful than this article.
- desireco42 15y agoHis paranoia was based on knowledge that only free software, free access and freedom are ways to live your life. You will find very few people who are ready to go to lengths that he went to do what they preach.
- tmsh 15y agoI agree the title and wording in the article is not very specific. However, I think it's mostly just the general point that Stallman makes about free software (the 'prediction' is just that this is important). At the risk of hypothesizing how this point is relevant: freedom to modify software is an inalienable right, which increases the chances of people not taking advantage of other people with technology. Not in any absolute sense (it only increases the chances). But it just makes coming up with solutions to centralized, non-democratic uses of technology (SOPA, etc.) a lot more easy.
- Joakal 15y ago"Right to read" http://falkvinge.net/2011/06/03/stallmans-the-right-to-read-becomes-dreaded-insane-reality/ http://falkvinge.net/2011/06/03/stallmans-the-right-to-read-... (Related: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20069648-264/richard-stallman-break-free-of-e-book-chains/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20069648-264/richard-stall... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Read) Here's a lot more in the articles: http://stallman.org/#politics http://stallman.org/#politics Edit: IFSO: Richard Stallman: The Dangers of Software Patents; 2004-05-24 (transcript) http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-2004-05-24.html http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-2004-05-24.html Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF) https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.h... 2nd edit: You are a Terrorist (Du bist Terrorist) German, English Subtitles - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdIA0jeW-24 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdIA0jeW-24
- trotsky 15y agoThis is why you should support Android (not Google, but Android), even if you prefer the iPhone. [...] There's going to be a point where being Free/open is no longer a fun perk, but a necessity. Stallman on Android: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.htm...
- hnsmurf 15y agoJust because you're paranoid/doesn't mean they're not after you.
- desireco42 15y agoI can't like this enough
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- gonzo 15y agoThis whole "Stallman doesn't carry a phone" thing is BS. I spent a couple days with him in Hawaii. He most definitely has a cell phone.
- bennyboy 15y agoAnd don't talk about his laptop, how nowadays you can still use that kind of laptop?!
- aquanext 15y agoSorry, but the part about picking Android over iPhone is just bullshit. Android is totally open source and it still came preloaded with Carrier IQ on it. I agree with the sentiment, but let's not be stupid, okay?
- Cieplak 15y agoTo what extent can utilities like DTrace make proprietary software free? I know this is kind of a broad question, but can we detect hidden functionality in proprietary software without fully reverse-engineering it?
- tessellated 15y ago'Richard Stallman Was Right All Along' Is this really news anymore?
- antoinevg 15y agoExcerpted from Volume 43 of How To Boil Frogs by P. Latanna: *ribbit* To be sure the water is warmer this year but surely it is only 9.943 degrees hotter and not 10 degrees like the author claims. *ribbit*
- Mordor 15y agoPeople 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.
- dmoney 15y agoI can't find a news article saying that NDAA has been used to detain Occupy protesters, only that Occupy protesters have protested NDAA and some were arrested for failing to leave when ordered.
- Tharkun 15y agoInvoking Godwin's Law. Saying Stallman "was right all along", just because he's not completely wrong all the time, is a bit like saying "hitler was right all along". Complete and utter bullcrap. Stallman is a tit. Being an unwashed dick is his god given right, I won't dispute that. In spite of his undoubtedly good intentions, however, the man has such a poor image that he's done "his" FOSS cause more harm than good. He should go away. Or at least shut up.
- zeruch 15y agoVery few people actually dispute the crux of most of his arguments (at least those that have more than a surface awareness), but his dogmatism and often shrill OCD about slapping the GNU-prefix on things and poor social and personal hygiene have resulted in an image of a wildly paranoid crank which has made it easy to write him off casually by many of those who should be listening to him.
- BiosElement 15y agoAnd I predict everyone on this planet will die at some point in time! ... ... I guess that means I was right all along!
- jimmeh2 15y agoI've often thought that Stallman was too prickly as spokesman or organisational leader, but I've never regarded him as being too extreme from a free software, ideological perspective. His thinking along those lines has always been meticulously careful and he generally sought out and found extremely competent legal advise. His basic mode of argumentation is to point out various legal exploits and note that there was no good reason to assume that government and industry won't abuse them if given the right set of circumstances. It's a mystery why every ten years we have to have this discussion about whether we've entered a new age of ethical business and responsible government, where we somehow think that human nature and human organisations have changed permanently (through technological innovation!) in some egalitarian way.
- eddyweb 15y agoI love what Bob Dylan said in a song "...instead of learning to live, they are learning to die". That really summed it up for me
- Shorel 15y agoOf course he is right when he writes about fundamental issues. He's very smart and knows the implications of laws and licenses. However, he allows no room for dissent, no transition path, no concessions for the real world. His followers are the same. For this reason, I will never use the GPL for any of my projects (I prefer wxWidgets and MIT licenses).