4 ms·

It is not a problem if his friends don't object to borrowing him a phone, nor is it Stallman's responsibility to carry a phone so that his friends don't even ha

by yason 13y ago

It is not a problem if his friends don't object to borrowing him a phone, nor is it Stallman's responsibility to carry a phone so that his friends don't even have to not object. If someone doesn't like him asking for a phone or lunch or whatever, then I assume it would be up to that someone to reject his request. It's not like Stallman goes around grabbing people's phones or lunches without asking first.

IvyMike 13y ago
I've been reflecting on this, and I guess my annoyance is that I actually strongly agree with RMS that cell phones have us in a self-imposed virtual surveillance state. But in the end, the devil's deal of owning the phone is one I can't refuse, so I make the choice to bear that burden. BTW, on second reading, the lunch story came off harsher in my telling than I intended--it was really supposed to be a story of one of his cute eccentricities--"this dude doesn't think like your average person". Which is probably why he's able to contribute so much more to society than the average person. I would totally make lunch for RMS every day, given the opportunity. If he would only tell us what his favorite food was.
simula67 13y ago
Let me put forth another analogy from 'Surely You are Joking Mr Feynman': Lets say you believe killing someone is evil. Then would you think it is OK to ask some else to kill someone for you ? There is a reason people may not object to Stallman's request. Whatever that reason is it helps promote the surveillence mechanism that Stallman believes to be cellphones.
- lambda 13y ago
  But Stallman does not believe that making a phone call is evil. Nor does he believe that choosing to allow yourself to be tracked is evil. He objects to being tracked himself. If someone else has already chosen to be tracked, he might think that they made a poor decision, but it's their decision to make. There's nothing wrong with then asking them to use your phone. This is nothing like asking someone to kill for you. Killing is always wrong. Trading your freedom for being tracked for the ability to make phone calls on the move is a personal decision. Now, he would probably prefer that people not have to make that decision; that phones ran all free software, with no locked hardware that you can't get access to, so you could control your own phone and determine when it did or didn't broadcast. But that doesn't make it wrong for someone else to make a different decision than he did.

by yason 13y ago

IvyMike 13y ago

I've been reflecting on this, and I guess my annoyance is that I actually strongly agree with RMS that cell phones have us in a self-imposed virtual surveillance state. But in the end, the devil's deal of owning the phone is one I can't refuse, so I make the choice to bear that burden. BTW, on second reading, the lunch story came off harsher in my telling than I intended--it was really supposed to be a story of one of his cute eccentricities--"this dude doesn't think like your average person". Which is probably why he's able to contribute so much more to society than the average person. I would totally make lunch for RMS every day, given the opportunity. If he would only tell us what his favorite food was.

simula67 13y ago

Let me put forth another analogy from 'Surely You are Joking Mr Feynman': Lets say you believe killing someone is evil. Then would you think it is OK to ask some else to kill someone for you ? There is a reason people may not object to Stallman's request. Whatever that reason is it helps promote the surveillence mechanism that Stallman believes to be cellphones.

lambda 13y ago
But Stallman does not believe that making a phone call is evil. Nor does he believe that choosing to allow yourself to be tracked is evil. He objects to being tracked himself. If someone else has already chosen to be tracked, he might think that they made a poor decision, but it's their decision to make. There's nothing wrong with then asking them to use your phone. This is nothing like asking someone to kill for you. Killing is always wrong. Trading your freedom for being tracked for the ability to make phone calls on the move is a personal decision. Now, he would probably prefer that people not have to make that decision; that phones ran all free software, with no locked hardware that you can't get access to, so you could control your own phone and determine when it did or didn't broadcast. But that doesn't make it wrong for someone else to make a different decision than he did.