5 ms·

"You can be completely correct and still be a crackpot." Not really. At that point, you are just using the term as an ad hominem in a childish attempt to ward

"You can be completely correct and still be a crackpot." Not really. At that point, you are just using the term as an ad hominem in a childish attempt to ward off cognitive dissonance. You don't win an argument by calling the other guy a weirdo.

astrodust 13y ago
His observations are correct, but his conclusions are incorrect, just as people like Glenn Beck start out with facts and end up with paranoid delusions and fantasies. I think Stallman's observations are valid, but his method of dealing with the implications of those observations are impractical, if not completely wrong.
- lazyjones 13y ago
  When you are done attacking Stallman with a false analogy, would you care to name a few of his invalid conclusions? More specifically, what is so impractical or "completely wrong" about not using smartphones?
  - astrodust 13y ago
    He's not opposed to smartphones, he's opposed to cellular phones as these can serve as a tracking beacon, following your movements. Given that the cellular providers are capturing and archiving location data, this is fact, his conclusion is we should avoid using these sorts of phones completely. Why? The reasoning here is a awfully thin, but has something to do with "being tracked = bad" and then goes into crazy territory from there. It's the same thing with credit and debit cards. They can be tracked, therefore bad, therefore nobody should use them. If he's concerned about remaining invisible, then this must be applied rigorously across all aspects of his life. Does he wear dazzle face-paint or glasses with bright IR LEDs on them so that CCTV cameras can't pick him up? Does he only use methods of travel that require no identification? If the FBI wanted to retrace Stallman's activity on any given day, it'd take hours at most to piece it together. The sign that someone's a crackpot is in how inconsistent they are in applying what they've concluded. It means they're missing something important. For example, there are people that have a genuine need for absolute secrecy, that need to remain invisible, yet they still use cellular phones, email, and social networks. They're aware of the same risks as Stallman, but they take precautions instead of avoiding them completely. It's notable that Osama Bin Ladin was taken down because he'd gone to such great lengths to avoid being tracked that he stood out as an anomaly, an approach that proved to be self-defeating. He had this large house, but a paranoia about electronic snooping so severe that he had no internet connection, and that alone made that house highly suspicious. If you're that affluent, you have an internet connection, even if you barely use it. Everything Stallman advocates to avoid detection just makes him an even bigger target.
    - lazyjones 13y ago
      > Why? The reasoning here is a awfully thin, but has something to do with "being tracked = bad" and then goes into crazy territory from there. You don't understand why tracking may be bad? Or are you just trying very hard to mock his very valid conclusion? Here's other people's thoughts about cellphone tracking: http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention/ http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention/ (totally crazy, right!) > If he's concerned about remaining invisible, then this must be applied rigorously across all aspects of his life No, it mustn't. Every bit helps. > Does he wear dazzle face-paint or glasses with bright IR LEDs on them so that CCTV cameras can't pick him up? Perhaps he does not yet live in an area with seamless CCTV tracking. > The sign that someone's a crackpot is in how inconsistent they are in applying what they've concluded. It means they're missing something important. You must be a crackpot then because you're clearly missing that Stallman has probably managed to avoid having his daily movements tracked by some carrier. > Everything Stallman advocates to avoid detection just makes him an even bigger target. To whom, with what (crackpot-like) line of thought? Stallman is very open about his principles, his reasons and his actions. It would be extremely dumb for anyone to derive from this information that he is dangerous or a worthwhile target.
      - astrodust 13y ago
        Tracking can be bad for some people, it can ruin their careers, destroy their marriage, completely upend their life if that sort of information got out. However, for most of us, it's not especially valuable information and any one day will look like any other. When I engage with social networks, use a cellular phone, I'm aware of the liability. I'm making a conscious trade-off. I really would like it to be less of a big deal, that the privacy implications were minimal, but this is the world we live in. I support political parties and representatives that would restrict how this sort of information can be used, making it less likely to be collected in the first place. > No, it mustn't. Every bit helps. Either you're trying to avoid being detected, or you're not. There's no half measures here.
        lazyjones 13y ago
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    Stallman's stance is against all cell phones, not just smartphones. And I'd argue that in 2013, to the point where we're issuing basic phones to welfare recipients for the purpose of job searching, that this is an invalid conclusion. As is only using the FSF's definition of free software (where it matters less that the software itself is free, but that the software doesn't point out to you any nonfree addons. Fedora Linux is free software, as is Firefox but since they allow nonfree firmware blobs, and addons respectively, they don't count). Or free hardware, Good Luck With That, unless you like a single netbook made by a single company in China.
    - astrodust 13y ago
      There's been many missed opportunities to get truly open hardware, an to this day we're still missing out on them. There are initiatives to remedy this, but they're still far from complete and need more motivated drivers to carry them forward. Using a crappy computer from some no-name company in China is a protest vote and is not pushing things forward. On the other hand, getting hardware hackers together to create a 100% free hardware platform would. The Raspberry Pi is close, all that's really needed is for some more aggressive lobbying to get the PowerVR driver component open-sourced. Or consider, given how people are taping out custom Bitcoin ASICs, why is it inconceivable that someone could tape out an open-source CPU?
    - lazyjones 13y ago
      I fail to see how not owning a cellphone, only using free software and suitable hardware puts me at a greater inconvenience than, say, having all my life (movements, communication, interests) digitally recorded and made available for later arbitrary use (by any type of government we might have ...). I honestly wish I had the willpower and independence to pull it off. On the other hand, I totally understand the people who firmly believe that neither governments nor rogue personnel will ever abuse this information to their disadvantage. After all, billions of people firmly believe in some arbitrary deity and we haven't managed to prove them wrong.
      - Karunamon 13y ago
        That's a laughably false dichotomy. Using free software does not in any way guarantee that you won't be tracked online.

astrodust 13y ago

His observations are correct, but his conclusions are incorrect, just as people like Glenn Beck start out with facts and end up with paranoid delusions and fantasies. I think Stallman's observations are valid, but his method of dealing with the implications of those observations are impractical, if not completely wrong.

lazyjones 13y ago
When you are done attacking Stallman with a false analogy, would you care to name a few of his invalid conclusions? More specifically, what is so impractical or "completely wrong" about not using smartphones?
- astrodust 13y ago
  He's not opposed to smartphones, he's opposed to cellular phones as these can serve as a tracking beacon, following your movements. Given that the cellular providers are capturing and archiving location data, this is fact, his conclusion is we should avoid using these sorts of phones completely. Why? The reasoning here is a awfully thin, but has something to do with "being tracked = bad" and then goes into crazy territory from there. It's the same thing with credit and debit cards. They can be tracked, therefore bad, therefore nobody should use them. If he's concerned about remaining invisible, then this must be applied rigorously across all aspects of his life. Does he wear dazzle face-paint or glasses with bright IR LEDs on them so that CCTV cameras can't pick him up? Does he only use methods of travel that require no identification? If the FBI wanted to retrace Stallman's activity on any given day, it'd take hours at most to piece it together. The sign that someone's a crackpot is in how inconsistent they are in applying what they've concluded. It means they're missing something important. For example, there are people that have a genuine need for absolute secrecy, that need to remain invisible, yet they still use cellular phones, email, and social networks. They're aware of the same risks as Stallman, but they take precautions instead of avoiding them completely. It's notable that Osama Bin Ladin was taken down because he'd gone to such great lengths to avoid being tracked that he stood out as an anomaly, an approach that proved to be self-defeating. He had this large house, but a paranoia about electronic snooping so severe that he had no internet connection, and that alone made that house highly suspicious. If you're that affluent, you have an internet connection, even if you barely use it. Everything Stallman advocates to avoid detection just makes him an even bigger target.
  - lazyjones 13y ago
    > Why? The reasoning here is a awfully thin, but has something to do with "being tracked = bad" and then goes into crazy territory from there. You don't understand why tracking may be bad? Or are you just trying very hard to mock his very valid conclusion? Here's other people's thoughts about cellphone tracking: http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention/ http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention/ (totally crazy, right!) > If he's concerned about remaining invisible, then this must be applied rigorously across all aspects of his life No, it mustn't. Every bit helps. > Does he wear dazzle face-paint or glasses with bright IR LEDs on them so that CCTV cameras can't pick him up? Perhaps he does not yet live in an area with seamless CCTV tracking. > The sign that someone's a crackpot is in how inconsistent they are in applying what they've concluded. It means they're missing something important. You must be a crackpot then because you're clearly missing that Stallman has probably managed to avoid having his daily movements tracked by some carrier. > Everything Stallman advocates to avoid detection just makes him an even bigger target. To whom, with what (crackpot-like) line of thought? Stallman is very open about his principles, his reasons and his actions. It would be extremely dumb for anyone to derive from this information that he is dangerous or a worthwhile target.
    - astrodust 13y ago
      Tracking can be bad for some people, it can ruin their careers, destroy their marriage, completely upend their life if that sort of information got out. However, for most of us, it's not especially valuable information and any one day will look like any other. When I engage with social networks, use a cellular phone, I'm aware of the liability. I'm making a conscious trade-off. I really would like it to be less of a big deal, that the privacy implications were minimal, but this is the world we live in. I support political parties and representatives that would restrict how this sort of information can be used, making it less likely to be collected in the first place. > No, it mustn't. Every bit helps. Either you're trying to avoid being detected, or you're not. There's no half measures here.
      - lazyjones 13y ago
- Karunamon 13y ago
  Stallman's stance is against all cell phones, not just smartphones. And I'd argue that in 2013, to the point where we're issuing basic phones to welfare recipients for the purpose of job searching, that this is an invalid conclusion. As is only using the FSF's definition of free software (where it matters less that the software itself is free, but that the software doesn't point out to you any nonfree addons. Fedora Linux is free software, as is Firefox but since they allow nonfree firmware blobs, and addons respectively, they don't count). Or free hardware, Good Luck With That, unless you like a single netbook made by a single company in China.
  - astrodust 13y ago
    There's been many missed opportunities to get truly open hardware, an to this day we're still missing out on them. There are initiatives to remedy this, but they're still far from complete and need more motivated drivers to carry them forward. Using a crappy computer from some no-name company in China is a protest vote and is not pushing things forward. On the other hand, getting hardware hackers together to create a 100% free hardware platform would. The Raspberry Pi is close, all that's really needed is for some more aggressive lobbying to get the PowerVR driver component open-sourced. Or consider, given how people are taping out custom Bitcoin ASICs, why is it inconceivable that someone could tape out an open-source CPU?
  - lazyjones 13y ago
    I fail to see how not owning a cellphone, only using free software and suitable hardware puts me at a greater inconvenience than, say, having all my life (movements, communication, interests) digitally recorded and made available for later arbitrary use (by any type of government we might have ...). I honestly wish I had the willpower and independence to pull it off. On the other hand, I totally understand the people who firmly believe that neither governments nor rogue personnel will ever abuse this information to their disadvantage. After all, billions of people firmly believe in some arbitrary deity and we haven't managed to prove them wrong.
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      That's a laughably false dichotomy. Using free software does not in any way guarantee that you won't be tracked online.