11 ms·

Free Software Foundation issues statement on new iPhone models from Apple

214 points by eltondegeneres 13y ago

kilroy123 13y ago
What alternative do we really have? Android phones aren't anymore transparent. The carrier or phone manufacture can add whatever they like to android. Even if you flash your own os, you still aren't going to know if any backdoors have been added.
- spindritf 13y ago
  > Even if you flash your own os, you still aren't going to know if any backdoors have been added. CyanogenMod for example is open source. There might still be bugs, whether intentional or not, and you rely on the same hardware but I'd say that it's a definite improvement.
  - cheald 13y ago
    CM still relies on proprietary, opaque binary blobs for hardware support. Nobody in open source can say for sure that they're secure.
    - TheLegace 13y ago
      Also isn't it a fork of AOSP, so it's not like they went through the source code, I mean they don't have as much resources so how could they?
- benologist 13y ago
  FSF offers multiple alternatives to which you could add Firefox OS and Ubuntu, although you would have to trust the hardware is not betraying you.
  - kilroy123 13y ago
    With the FF OS phones, I wouldn't trust the phone manufacture not tampering with the OS, or like you said, the hardware.
    - mwcampbell 13y ago
      I wonder how the GeeksPhone Peak+ fares in this context. I pre-ordered one a few weeks ago.
  - doublec 13y ago
    Replicant attempts to remove proprietary binary components (http://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/HTCDreamHTCMagicProprietary http://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/HTCDream...) whereas Firefox OS does not.
    - rimantas 13y ago
      And when do they start to build cell towers?
- w1ntermute 13y ago
  > Android phones aren't anymore transparent. The carrier or phone manufacture can add whatever they like to android. Correction: most Android phones aren't transparent. But you can get a Google Experience phone (HTC One or Galaxy S4) or a Nexus device (4, 7, 10) and install a 3rd party ROM free of any closed-source software. This is also often possible with other, non-GE/Nexus phones. Hardware backdoors are a separate issue.
  - avar 13y ago
    > [...]and install a 3rd party ROM free > of any closed-source software. No you can't. I'm not aware of any commercial Android phone that doesn't need binary firmware blobs running in kernel space to work, e.g. for display drivers, WiFi, the radio stack etc. > Hardware backdoors are a separate issue. You don't need a hardware backdoor when you can just put a backdoor in the binary blob your users run along with some open source software they download along with it.
    - phaer 13y ago
      plus: There's software on your baseband processor (and afaik on your simcard) which you can't control.
    - Brakenshire 13y ago
      > No you can't. I'm not aware of any commercial Android phone that doesn't need binary firmware blobs running in kernel space to work, i.e. for display drivers, WiFi, the radio stack etc. Using an open source operating system is a step towards a fully transparent phone, even if it doesn't solve all the problems at once. It opens a market space for a company to release a phone with open-source drivers. Consumers need to force companies step-by-step towards the solutions we want, not just expect them to be delivered in a gift-wrapped package.
      - kamjam 13y ago
        So do we believe the new Firefox OS will be the way forward, as a good alternative open source OS? I haven't looked into it much yet, and the hardware of the ZTE is severely underpowered at the moment for my needs, but if this is truly open then I can see myself getting on board, even flashing an Android device with it (if the hardware allows). Didn't know about F-Droid, that's the kind of marketplace I think that is the best of both worlds, open source but verified by community members.
- tbirdz 13y ago
  The announcement recommended Replicant and FDroid. Perhaps in the future a Firefox OS or Ubuntu phone could be the basis for a free phone OS? Of course, rms himself doesn't even use any cell phone at all, so if you are as concerned as he is, you may be out of luck.
  - gfodor 13y ago
    The fact that rms does not use a cell phone in 2013 is telling.
    - mni3 13y ago
      rms emails a program which returns webpages via email, rather than visiting websites directly. He's completely out of touch with how modern computers or smartphones are used.
      - beedogs 13y ago
        Perhaps he's completely in touch.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        He has absolutely no expectation that people will follow his example in those cases. I read my email in a terminal, and often browse the web from one too. Hell, I also code in terminals! I am sure plenty of people, probably even most people, consider all of those nutty. Am I out of touch?
        sirmarksalot 13y ago
        I would say that you are willfully, self-consciously out of touch. This may not affect you on a day-to-day basis, but it will make you completely unqualified to make certain decisions for anybody else. Your designs will not be usable by the majority of the population. This might be okay if you're not targeting the general population, but there's a danger of forgetting just how out of touch you are. There's a danger that, like RMS and PG, you may create a website that is visually abominable, and convince yourself that it doesn't hamper the flow of information.
- AsymetricCom 13y ago
  The backdoors for mobile hardware is at the hardware level. I get the feeling that Google couldn't care less what you actually run inside of the VM that it android, what matters is how it manages access to resources like bandwidth and the associated meta/data required. I'm sure there is some kind of way to profile what the VM is doing and send it out remotely, but the real security concern is using the phone itself as a platform. People already have secure computing systems, what they don't have is secure (or insecure depending on perspective) network access.
richardking 13y ago
This statement seems to be a general 'complaint' about Apple, rather than specific to the new iPhone models introduced today. How is a fingerprint scanner restricting users' essential freedoms?
- ajross 13y ago
  That's pretty much exactly what it says: "... Instead, Apple has given us new hardware with the same old restrictions. ...". Their quip about the fingerprint scanner is mostly just an example as I read it. No, this isn't "news". The FSF position on Apple's products hasn't changed significantly in decades. That said calling attention to that position and discussing it seems worthwhile in context to me.
- vwinsyee 13y ago
  Presumably the fingerprinting issue is more of privacy than essential freedoms. Even if we believe Apple when it says that fingerprint data (and authentication?) will remain solely on the device, it's potentially only one vulnerability before someone collects or accidentally exposes millions of iPhone users' fingerprints. And unlike your private keys, you can't change your fingerprints.
  - diydsp 13y ago
    We could perhaps communicate this to people by way of saying that it resembles Bt corn. Bt works well as an infrequent insecticide, however, when it is used full-time, insects become immune to it and the usefulness of Bt is spoiled forever. We could also regard fingerprints as a classic example of Security-By-Obscurity, like SSNs. They work well when used in small, obscure places like Top Secret building locks, but once the obscurity is removed by the fingerprints being compromised through accidental distribution, the technique as a resource is collapsed as a whole for everyone.
- squidi 13y ago
  Yes, I think they failed to make a strong point in their blog post. I will be glad if Apple makes fingerprint scanning mandatory, as it will at least introduce the concept of securing your device to the 50% of iPhone users that currently do not use a passcode. I'm really surprised Apple have implemented this before Google.
Samuel_Michon 13y ago
This is not news. Stallman and the FSF are against all things Apple and have been ‘critical’ of the company for ages. http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/5-reasons-to-avoid-iphone-3g http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/5-reasons-to-avoid-iphone... http://www.defectivebydesign.org/apple http://www.defectivebydesign.org/apple http://stallman.org/apple.html http://stallman.org/apple.html http://www.geek.com/apple/fsf-attends-ipad-launch-with-warning-sign-1190692/ http://www.geek.com/apple/fsf-attends-ipad-launch-with-warni...
- stokedmartin 13y ago
  I see the statement as not a re-iteration of FSF's take on Apple but rather re-establishing the meaning of free software and its importance to people while the tide is high.
- kunai 13y ago
  I think this is the problem exemplified, especially the last one -- that was plain embarrassing. The FSF just cannot tactfully spread their (quite wise and forward-thinking) message. To any average Joe, the guy outside the Apple Store protesting the iPad is no different from the local drunk schizophrenic who lives on the alley corner yelling "REPENT, SINNERS!" until he passes out again. Their concept of professionalism is flawed -- actually, a more apt predicate adjective would be "completely nonexistent." Just look at their website. 2003 wants its two-tone website design back.
  - mwcampbell 13y ago
    To me there's nothing unprofessional about their web design. It's stark and clear, just like their message.
    - nikatwork 13y ago
      I love FSF and RMS and I'm glad they exist, but they really do have terribly disturbing design and PR. Geeks like to pretend that isn't important, but to the average Joe it matters. The FSF often comes across as timecube guy.
mni3 13y ago
In a different way, you could argue that the Apple Appstore (and similar) are protecting general computer users from malicious software. There hasn't previously been vetting of software, so novices would download malicious programs from websites unaware. Now Apple performs helpful quality assurance.
- mattkrea 13y ago
  Agreed. Browsing the Play store is like looking at one of those download pages that has 7 download links--one of which is the real link.
RachelF 13y ago
The deep irony is that iOS is based on BSD, which is free.
- aryastark 13y ago
  How so? I'm pretty sure RMS would pop out of the bushes right now and yell "told you so!!" That's why he went with GPL over BSD license.
- Samuel_Michon 13y ago
  No, iOS is based on Darwin (which is free), which is partially based on NeXTSTEP, which in turn was partially based on a mix of the Mach microkernel and BSD4 userland. There’s no telling how much BSD code is actually part of iOS, but stating that ‘iOS is based on BSD’ is like stating that humans are based on fish. Amit Singh[1] created a good presentation[2] about OS X’s innards. That was back in 2006, when OS X contained more NeXTSTEP code than it does now. According to him, the OS X kernel contained 25% BSD code at that time. [1] http://www.kernelthread.com/resume/ http://www.kernelthread.com/resume/ [2] http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/misc/osxinternals/osxinternals.html http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/misc/osxinternals/osxinternals... (Warning: contains Adobe Flash)
- belorn 13y ago
  A good example to bring up when picking a license. Would the author of a software package be happy having apple using the software, but never receive any attributions back. If the software is good, the CEO of apple get the praise, and the author get forgotten. If its bad, you get the bug reports. We all here know that iOS is built on BSD, but how many can name a single author of that code? How many know the author of the linux kernel?
  - X-Istence 13y ago
    How many people know anyone besides Linus Torvalds? FreeBSD for example is a project that was co-founded by Jordan Hubbard, who incidentally also worked at Apple for a long time on OS X... So named a single author, as requested. Linus may be known better, but when you are practically synonymous with badly behaved/child like/tantrum throwing behaviour you may want to rethink why you are well known...
badman_ting 13y ago
Points scored, pat yourselves on the back. Apple says the info stays on your device. "They're lying." Ok, but is there ANYTHING that could possibly convince someone of this mindset otherwise? I'm guessing the answer is along the lines of, Open source the whole thing. Oh well. Like I said, points scored.
- sanderjd 13y ago
  It seems like even within the text of your comment that yes, there is SOMETHING that could possibly convince someone of this mindset that they aren't lying - they could open source the whole thing.
npguy 13y ago
Apple should spend its cash on things that matter, like new product ideas. http://fakevalley.com/apple-investing-in-black-magic-to-get-product-ideas-from-steve-jobs/ http://fakevalley.com/apple-investing-in-black-magic-to-get-...
msisk6 13y ago
At some point this whole exercise gets rather silly. No matter how open and secure the phone is, there's the software that runs on the towers and in the telco system that tracks personably identifiable data and metadata. The solution is simple, though: if you really want to make sure your mobile device isn't spying on you just don't use one. A bit inconvenient, but it's not the end of the world. Unless you're a mobile developer. ;)
MisterWebz 13y ago
There were people in that other iPhone thread claiming that the discussion about the privacy issues of the fingerprint scanner were irrelevant to the discussion and that they'd much rather not talk about it because they were so sick of reading about the NSA. I kid you not.
abalone 13y ago
They've got it all wrong. Users are vastly better protected from the kind of network surveillance they mention with Apple products, thanks to their curated, controlled approach to third party software distribution. This is backed by hard data on malicious attacks from the Dept. of Homeland Security and the FBI. 79% occurred on Android, and just 0.7% on iPhone. I'm also 100% positive this will have no effect on the reasoning of the FSF. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23863495 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23863495
- tedks 13y ago
  This says nothing of NSA sleeper agents sneaking backdoors into Apple products, which seems pretty likely given the recent disclosures. The more centralized you build a system, the easier it is to completely own. Also, there's a massive confound in that Android phones come a lot cheaper than iPhones, making them far more accessible for the typical targets of active government surveillance.
  - ubernostrum 13y ago
    You could be an NSA sleeper agent, using HN to launch false-flag propaganda operations. Go ahead and prove otherwise, if you can. Until then I'm going to treat everything you say and do as an attempt to spy on me.
    - vincie 13y ago
      You could be an NSA sleeper-sleeper agent, using HN to launch false-false-flag propaganda operations. Go ahead and prove otherwise, if you can. Until then I'm going to treat everything you say and do as an attempt to spy on me.
      - mck- 13y ago
        Stack Overflow
      - sliverstorm 13y ago
davidedicillo 13y ago
Not to be a jackass, but "regular" people don't want open source. They want things that "just work." And there's no such thing as secure, unless you build your own software, that only talks to your own servers and that only uses your personal telco and your own infrastructure.
- vincie 13y ago
  Yes, they want things that "just work", but not against them. Most people realize that security is not perfect, but then most probably did not expect that that meant extensive and chronic surveillance.
- baddox 13y ago
  Sometimes, even people who love open source and can code themselves still want things that "just work." I'm one of those people, and I enjoy being able to hack a lot of my electronic equipment, but my phone is something I'd rather have "just work."
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  >Not to be a jackass, but "regular" people don't want open source. They want things that "just work." By what logic do you come to the conclusion that these things are mutually exclusive? Firefox "just works." 7zip "just works." There are innumerable things (like ssh) that "just work" so well that you don't even know when you're using them half the time. The difference is that with free software you can do the things that don't just work. With Apple if you want to do X thing and Apple deigns to provide X thing then you can do it without any futzing around. But if you want to do X thing and Apple deigns to neglect it then you will not be doing X thing whatsoever, regardless of how much you need it. So for example if you want to install the latest version of Debian on a PowerMac, you boot the install CD and press enter until it's installed. Generally speaking it "just works." And in the event that it doesn't, chances are that you yourself can make it work. By contrast, if you want to install the latest version of OS X on a PowerMac, you can't. Enjoy your paperweight. The end.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
EpicEng 13y ago
The FSF folks always come off as little more than crotchety old men. Right or wrong, their message obviously isn't being heard or perhaps few people actually care. People vote with their wallets, may e it's time the FSF evaluates their approach as they are completely ineffectual.
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  They'll be heard only by those who choose to hear them. It's pretty difficult to explain to a layman why they should value free over proprietary software, because most of the benefits aren't really noticeable to the average user who just sees a shiny GUI that does things. Not to mention the major players are doing a fine job of keeping people in a matrix, unaware of the alternatives. But really, most don't care. Perhaps if the public school system started using *nix in their curriculum, but with Microsoft funneling cash (like they did with the University of Waterloo and C#) that's unlikely.
  - EpicEng 13y ago
    I agree, which is why they are ineffectual. If they want to actually accomplish something they need to re-think their strategy.
- dgesang 13y ago
  ... or maybe it's time for the people should stop voting with their wallets and start listing. Then maybe their message would be heard and more people would start to care about what they are saying and realize that they ARE actually right.
  - EpicEng 13y ago
    Good luck with that approach. Idealogical, wishful thinking doesn't solve problems.
    - dgesang 13y ago
      How is people using their brains instead of their wallets idealogical or wishful thinking?
jonny_eh 13y ago
So the FSF says that people shouldn't use Apple phones because they don't run FSF software? I'm shocked!
- improv32 13y ago
  No, it's that they don't use Free Software. The FSF is not the only Free Software organization.
  - fc2 13y ago
    Not to mention all the patent trolling and hardware restrictions.
noonespecial 13y ago
I really hope that what gets stored and transmitted is a hash or some sort of meta-data generated using my fingerprint and not a scan of the actual print.
- jaekwon 13y ago
  Doubt it, for something as analog as a finger print, I'm having a hard time imagining a one-way hash function.
  - diydsp 13y ago
    This made me curious, so I found things like this: www.cse.unr.edu/~bebis/UdayFingerprint.pdf‎ and www.csis.pace.edu/~ctappert/dps/IJCB2011/papers/200.pdf‎ The features themselves are somewhat of a hash of the image, and as quantizable elements, they could be further hashed.
tnorthcutt 13y ago
We can't imagine a more hostile reaction to the wave of privacy concerns sweeping the world right now than debuting a proprietary, network-accessible fingerprint scanner as your new 'feature'. I can't imagine a more short-sighted view of product development than to assume that new hardware is a reaction to events which occurred only a few months before the first shipment of that new hardware.
- diydsp 13y ago
  They could have canceled the feature and launched the product without it. They could have referenced the privacy implications and their role in it, but they chose not to. The fingerprint scanner is clearly not a reaction to recent events, but we can't honestly pretend it has an existence outside their context. No matter how ineloquent the FSF may be, we need some people out there leading our introspection, driving us to answer questions for ourselves about the potential tradeoffs. We need multiple groups out their stirring people like us to communicate to "regular people in restaurants" and whatnot what the tradeoffs and technical capabilities are. This goes double for the new Google phone announced in the wake of the NSA scandal. One if it's new features? A single core is listening 24/7 for key phrases. We have to tell people why this is could be hazardous to their well-being.
nly 13y ago
I don't know why other comments are being so snarky or dismissive and apologetic in response to this. It doesn't matter whether or not you like the FSF, agree with Stallman, prefer Android, think the problem is rogue apps, the NSA, or think it's all irrelevant anyway due to the secret and proprietary nature of mobile firmware, baseband or hardware. The FSF have made a very astute observation about the implications of having a finger print scanner in a personal device which you can probably not trust with your secrets. Can't we talk about that specifically instead of flogging the same old dead horses? Do we really want to wait a few years until we discover that the authorities have been downloading fingerprint profiles from phones (like they're already known to do with messages and contacts) to acknowledge the insight here?
- mrmaddog 13y ago
  Why is harvesting fingerprints such a catastrophic possibility? The government already has your fingerprints if you've ever left or entered the country, and they've likely been taken during other periods in your life as well. Hell, even the Cambodian government decided to scan my fingers when I passed through. DrCube's counter-argument [1] is logical: that with these existing databases, the government can now access your phone. But really, is this feature being touted as a impenetrably secure way to unlock your phone? It seems to be positioned as "a way to make accessing your phone convenient for you and non-trivial for others," and I think this feature does exactly that. If you can't trust the phone vendor, why are you not more paranoid about entering your username/password on the device? What about location data? I really can't fathom why decrying fingerprint technology is the nexus of your argument here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6364725 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6364725
  - maxerickson 13y ago
    As a U.S. citizen, I've visited Canada and other places a few times. Any fingerprint collection that happened was incredibly subtle. I tend to look at tyranny as the problem, not whichever mechanism it is utilizing, but you are making quite the assertion there.
  - zevyoura 13y ago
jaekwon 13y ago
The onus is on the consumers to demand something better. I'm personally boycotting Apple products partially for this reason. If I were to found a company & give my employees cell phones, I would lean heavily towards open/free hardware/software. What hardware do you think is safe?
codex 13y ago
"Free software empowers users to replace any software hostile to their interests." I suppose so, but there's a much powerful mechanism: consumer choice. If a user feels a phone is hostile to them, they will buy one which is not. This replacement phone may be Free Software, or it may be non-Free. Free Software can be user-friendly software, yes, but it can also be user-hostile. Users won't use hostile Free software, but they won't use hostile closed source software, either. That's the free market at work. The FSF's position here is akin to: "Buy open source toasters, so you can easily modify it if it's a design which spontaneously explodes!" No thanks--I'll just buy a different toaster.
vankap 13y ago
I believe both sides have valid arguments depending on who you think the threat is. If you expect complete control over your data then you would want the system to be open source and transparent. To protect an average smartphone user from malicious apps, a closed and curated system like Apple's appstore makes sense.
shadowOfShadow 13y ago
How can somebody not know that Apple is the brand of rebellion. You didn't see WTO protestors winning the day with Windows Phones. When Bashar Assad gassed his country at night, you didn't see lives being saved by Android-mounted LED's. You saw iPads lighting the night sky. Just sayin.
- ewoodrich 13y ago
  Wait, what? You can't coordinate a protest on WP7/8 (or with dumbphones)? Why? And what's so bad about the camera flash on Android phones (or is it unpopular in Syria)? This comment sounds like a bad advertisement, and is completely meaningless.
- chatman 13y ago
  "Bashar Assad gassed his country at night" The matter is under investigation. Stop defaming him without publicly available proof.
desireco42 13y ago
I know everyone thinks this is nuts, but these people are the one who stand their ground and defend our freedom when it is almost crazy to do so. I admire them for pointing up obvious freedoms that people routinely give up.
- cwp 13y ago
  Most people are giving up a freedom that they can't exercise anyway, in exchange for something that the "free" alternative doesn't provide.
Tloewald 13y ago
> We can't imagine a more hostile reaction to the wave of privacy concerns sweeping the world right now than debuting a proprietary, network-accessible fingerprint scanner as your new 'feature'. That's what I call a serious failure of imagination.
Tloewald 13y ago
> We can't imagine a more hostile reaction to the wave of privacy concerns sweeping the world right now than debuting a proprietary, network-accessible fingerprint scanner as your new 'feature'. A serious failure of imagination.
- rimantas 13y ago
  And serious failure on facts. iPhone is not the first phone to have fingerprint scanner, and "network-accessible" is false is Apple is telling the truth. Unless FSF know better than Apple.
dil8 13y ago
Closed source with a finger print scanner!! No thanks...
nsxwolf 13y ago
It's network-accessible? I'm sorry, does the FSF know something we don't, or are they just ignorant and shooting off at the mouth?
- prezjordan 13y ago
  Apple says it isn't, but I guess the general argument is that there's simply no way to verify that claim.
kemiller 13y ago
Apocryphal, but funny story about Calvin Coolidge: After returning from church one day, his wife is supposed to have asked him, “What did the preacher talk about?” Mr. Coolidge is reported to have tersely replied, “Sin.” Still insistent, Mrs. Coolidge probed, “Well, what did he say about sin?” That is when Silent Cal responded, “He was agin’ it.” What did the FSF talk about? Proprietary software. What did they have to say about it? They're agin' it. And like the sorts of preachers who love to talk about sin, there's never room for subtlety or tradeoffs.
- thristian 13y ago
  You can't talk about tradeoffs without a firm understand of the two (or more) things you're trading off. There are a million PR agencies evangelising benefits of proprietary software and the drawbacks of Free software, and that viewpoint has been vehemently expressed for over 35 years (Bill Gates' "Open Letter to Hobbyists" was written in 1976, 37 years ago), so that side of the equation is very well understood. Meanwhile, the benefits of Free software and the drawbacks of proprietary software are much less frequently expressed. Sure, if you're a Linux user or subscribe to the nerdier-end of tech-news sites like HN, you've probably heard it all before, but that's still a small percentage of the IT industry, let alone the huge number of people considering updating to the iPhone 5S. There's room enough for blog-posts and multi-page articles debating where the author wants to draw their personal line between proprietary and Free; we shouldn't complain about the FSF trying to fit their message into a soundbite for their target audience.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    I had a friend bring this exact thread up over dinner. The reaction of pretty much everyone else at the table, myself included, was "Okay, and? How is this different from what the FSF does every day? Are they planning on releasing some silly PR flack every time a company comes out with a new device?" Meanwhile, the benefits of proprietary software are more immediately obvious (the professional content creation market, for instance, is completely unserved on Linux last I checked), while the benefits of free/open source software are much more subtle and more ideological than functional. The recent NSA shenanigans have (rightly, IMO) elevated the priority of that ideological fight, but it still is what it is. (Note that I believe the FSF is fighting a good fight, but their organization and leadership appears to be dogmatic and often unrealistic)
gesman 13y ago
One way to submit your fingerprints into a single database for free in an organized matter. Good move!
andrewflnr 13y ago
Is there a good reason they didn't include FirefoxOS on the list of alternatives?
rdl 13y ago
Rather than telling me not to use iOS (which I think is probably the best overall package right now), FSF should build something better. I'd probably tolerate Android 2.x-level quality if it were actually secure (i.e. I pick my own root of trust for all services, which might be a server I own), and ideally could run modern Android apps in nice little partitions. Neither Apple nor Google is really committed to building something like that, and I doubt Microsoft or Blackberry will, either.
laureny 13y ago
tl;dr: The FSF would rather you did not use any mobile phone at all since none exist that match their requirements. Nut jobs.
chatman 13y ago
It is hilarious to see how agrieved Apple (and Android) fanboys here have become to read the FSF post. Android and Apple, both have proprietary code. Both are inappropriate intrusions on users' freedom. Is it so hard to understand?
oscargrouch 13y ago
the big majority of the people in this thread seems to lack the understanding that whats is really bad by this new wave of walled gardens created by apple, is not only about inly closed software anymore.. its against to let someone to decide by you what is good or not.. if they dont like something, or is politically incorrect, you will never have the chance to choose for yourself! im not talking about virus, and malware.. but political matters.. we got several problems with this approach.. one is the monopoly of one.. the centralization.. this is bad economically and politically .. since the bad guys the ones who have the apple in their pockets already could own whatever apple has.. the other big implication, something unnaceptable for me.. is the fact they can do whatever they want remotelly from their central with something that you bough with your own money and SHOULD BE YOURS, its your property.. you do whatever you want with it... do you wanna sell a music you bought to somebody else.. can you? can you choose a app with artistic nude , because its your choice?? its not just about now, its about the future.. its about the freedom of the future generations.. i think all of this moves from any company ridiculous.. and by paying for this you are paying for the society failure in stand against something will take our liberties away.. its a pretty phone with a big trap inside of it... corporations are taking a ground they should not trespass and the problem is that others big companies just follow.. dont worry, they are your friends.. they will protect you! while this community in 100% in terms of technology wisdom , its visible the lack of critical thinking of so many people is this thread.. its pretty sad
yalogin 13y ago
Did they just jump the gun and issue a statement on something they did not even touch? If fingerprints are network accessible is their main complaint, should they not wait till its out, check it and then issue a statement?
drill_sarge 13y ago
Why is this the big deal? Apple stands for everything that the FSF fights against. Same goes for Microsoft and all the usual others. Just the usual statement in case you didn't know already.

214 points by eltondegeneres 13y ago

What alternative do we really have? Android phones aren't anymore transparent. The carrier or phone manufacture can add whatever they like to android. Even if you flash your own os, you still aren't going to know if any backdoors have been added.

spindritf 13y ago
> Even if you flash your own os, you still aren't going to know if any backdoors have been added. CyanogenMod for example is open source. There might still be bugs, whether intentional or not, and you rely on the same hardware but I'd say that it's a definite improvement.
- cheald 13y ago
  CM still relies on proprietary, opaque binary blobs for hardware support. Nobody in open source can say for sure that they're secure.
  - TheLegace 13y ago
    Also isn't it a fork of AOSP, so it's not like they went through the source code, I mean they don't have as much resources so how could they?
benologist 13y ago
FSF offers multiple alternatives to which you could add Firefox OS and Ubuntu, although you would have to trust the hardware is not betraying you.
- kilroy123 13y ago
  With the FF OS phones, I wouldn't trust the phone manufacture not tampering with the OS, or like you said, the hardware.
  - mwcampbell 13y ago
    I wonder how the GeeksPhone Peak+ fares in this context. I pre-ordered one a few weeks ago.
- doublec 13y ago
  Replicant attempts to remove proprietary binary components (http://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/HTCDreamHTCMagicProprietary http://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/HTCDream...) whereas Firefox OS does not.
  - rimantas 13y ago
    And when do they start to build cell towers?
w1ntermute 13y ago
> Android phones aren't anymore transparent. The carrier or phone manufacture can add whatever they like to android. Correction: most Android phones aren't transparent. But you can get a Google Experience phone (HTC One or Galaxy S4) or a Nexus device (4, 7, 10) and install a 3rd party ROM free of any closed-source software. This is also often possible with other, non-GE/Nexus phones. Hardware backdoors are a separate issue.
- avar 13y ago
  > [...]and install a 3rd party ROM free > of any closed-source software. No you can't. I'm not aware of any commercial Android phone that doesn't need binary firmware blobs running in kernel space to work, e.g. for display drivers, WiFi, the radio stack etc. > Hardware backdoors are a separate issue. You don't need a hardware backdoor when you can just put a backdoor in the binary blob your users run along with some open source software they download along with it.
  - phaer 13y ago
    plus: There's software on your baseband processor (and afaik on your simcard) which you can't control.
  - Brakenshire 13y ago
    > No you can't. I'm not aware of any commercial Android phone that doesn't need binary firmware blobs running in kernel space to work, i.e. for display drivers, WiFi, the radio stack etc. Using an open source operating system is a step towards a fully transparent phone, even if it doesn't solve all the problems at once. It opens a market space for a company to release a phone with open-source drivers. Consumers need to force companies step-by-step towards the solutions we want, not just expect them to be delivered in a gift-wrapped package.
    - kamjam 13y ago
      So do we believe the new Firefox OS will be the way forward, as a good alternative open source OS? I haven't looked into it much yet, and the hardware of the ZTE is severely underpowered at the moment for my needs, but if this is truly open then I can see myself getting on board, even flashing an Android device with it (if the hardware allows). Didn't know about F-Droid, that's the kind of marketplace I think that is the best of both worlds, open source but verified by community members.
tbirdz 13y ago
The announcement recommended Replicant and FDroid. Perhaps in the future a Firefox OS or Ubuntu phone could be the basis for a free phone OS? Of course, rms himself doesn't even use any cell phone at all, so if you are as concerned as he is, you may be out of luck.
- gfodor 13y ago
  The fact that rms does not use a cell phone in 2013 is telling.
  - mni3 13y ago
    rms emails a program which returns webpages via email, rather than visiting websites directly. He's completely out of touch with how modern computers or smartphones are used.
    - beedogs 13y ago
      Perhaps he's completely in touch.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      He has absolutely no expectation that people will follow his example in those cases. I read my email in a terminal, and often browse the web from one too. Hell, I also code in terminals! I am sure plenty of people, probably even most people, consider all of those nutty. Am I out of touch?
      - sirmarksalot 13y ago
        I would say that you are willfully, self-consciously out of touch. This may not affect you on a day-to-day basis, but it will make you completely unqualified to make certain decisions for anybody else. Your designs will not be usable by the majority of the population. This might be okay if you're not targeting the general population, but there's a danger of forgetting just how out of touch you are. There's a danger that, like RMS and PG, you may create a website that is visually abominable, and convince yourself that it doesn't hamper the flow of information.
AsymetricCom 13y ago
The backdoors for mobile hardware is at the hardware level. I get the feeling that Google couldn't care less what you actually run inside of the VM that it android, what matters is how it manages access to resources like bandwidth and the associated meta/data required. I'm sure there is some kind of way to profile what the VM is doing and send it out remotely, but the real security concern is using the phone itself as a platform. People already have secure computing systems, what they don't have is secure (or insecure depending on perspective) network access.

richardking 13y ago

This statement seems to be a general 'complaint' about Apple, rather than specific to the new iPhone models introduced today. How is a fingerprint scanner restricting users' essential freedoms?

ajross 13y ago
That's pretty much exactly what it says: "... Instead, Apple has given us new hardware with the same old restrictions. ...". Their quip about the fingerprint scanner is mostly just an example as I read it. No, this isn't "news". The FSF position on Apple's products hasn't changed significantly in decades. That said calling attention to that position and discussing it seems worthwhile in context to me.
vwinsyee 13y ago
Presumably the fingerprinting issue is more of privacy than essential freedoms. Even if we believe Apple when it says that fingerprint data (and authentication?) will remain solely on the device, it's potentially only one vulnerability before someone collects or accidentally exposes millions of iPhone users' fingerprints. And unlike your private keys, you can't change your fingerprints.
- diydsp 13y ago
  We could perhaps communicate this to people by way of saying that it resembles Bt corn. Bt works well as an infrequent insecticide, however, when it is used full-time, insects become immune to it and the usefulness of Bt is spoiled forever. We could also regard fingerprints as a classic example of Security-By-Obscurity, like SSNs. They work well when used in small, obscure places like Top Secret building locks, but once the obscurity is removed by the fingerprints being compromised through accidental distribution, the technique as a resource is collapsed as a whole for everyone.
squidi 13y ago
Yes, I think they failed to make a strong point in their blog post. I will be glad if Apple makes fingerprint scanning mandatory, as it will at least introduce the concept of securing your device to the 50% of iPhone users that currently do not use a passcode. I'm really surprised Apple have implemented this before Google.

Samuel_Michon 13y ago

This is not news. Stallman and the FSF are against all things Apple and have been ‘critical’ of the company for ages. http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/5-reasons-to-avoid-iphone-3g http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/5-reasons-to-avoid-iphone... http://www.defectivebydesign.org/apple http://www.defectivebydesign.org/apple http://stallman.org/apple.html http://stallman.org/apple.html http://www.geek.com/apple/fsf-attends-ipad-launch-with-warning-sign-1190692/ http://www.geek.com/apple/fsf-attends-ipad-launch-with-warni...

stokedmartin 13y ago
I see the statement as not a re-iteration of FSF's take on Apple but rather re-establishing the meaning of free software and its importance to people while the tide is high.
kunai 13y ago
I think this is the problem exemplified, especially the last one -- that was plain embarrassing. The FSF just cannot tactfully spread their (quite wise and forward-thinking) message. To any average Joe, the guy outside the Apple Store protesting the iPad is no different from the local drunk schizophrenic who lives on the alley corner yelling "REPENT, SINNERS!" until he passes out again. Their concept of professionalism is flawed -- actually, a more apt predicate adjective would be "completely nonexistent." Just look at their website. 2003 wants its two-tone website design back.
- mwcampbell 13y ago
  To me there's nothing unprofessional about their web design. It's stark and clear, just like their message.
  - nikatwork 13y ago
    I love FSF and RMS and I'm glad they exist, but they really do have terribly disturbing design and PR. Geeks like to pretend that isn't important, but to the average Joe it matters. The FSF often comes across as timecube guy.

mni3 13y ago

In a different way, you could argue that the Apple Appstore (and similar) are protecting general computer users from malicious software. There hasn't previously been vetting of software, so novices would download malicious programs from websites unaware. Now Apple performs helpful quality assurance.

mattkrea 13y ago
Agreed. Browsing the Play store is like looking at one of those download pages that has 7 download links--one of which is the real link.

RachelF 13y ago

The deep irony is that iOS is based on BSD, which is free.

aryastark 13y ago
How so? I'm pretty sure RMS would pop out of the bushes right now and yell "told you so!!" That's why he went with GPL over BSD license.
Samuel_Michon 13y ago
No, iOS is based on Darwin (which is free), which is partially based on NeXTSTEP, which in turn was partially based on a mix of the Mach microkernel and BSD4 userland. There’s no telling how much BSD code is actually part of iOS, but stating that ‘iOS is based on BSD’ is like stating that humans are based on fish. Amit Singh[1] created a good presentation[2] about OS X’s innards. That was back in 2006, when OS X contained more NeXTSTEP code than it does now. According to him, the OS X kernel contained 25% BSD code at that time. [1] http://www.kernelthread.com/resume/ http://www.kernelthread.com/resume/ [2] http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/misc/osxinternals/osxinternals.html http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/misc/osxinternals/osxinternals... (Warning: contains Adobe Flash)
belorn 13y ago
A good example to bring up when picking a license. Would the author of a software package be happy having apple using the software, but never receive any attributions back. If the software is good, the CEO of apple get the praise, and the author get forgotten. If its bad, you get the bug reports. We all here know that iOS is built on BSD, but how many can name a single author of that code? How many know the author of the linux kernel?
- X-Istence 13y ago
  How many people know anyone besides Linus Torvalds? FreeBSD for example is a project that was co-founded by Jordan Hubbard, who incidentally also worked at Apple for a long time on OS X... So named a single author, as requested. Linus may be known better, but when you are practically synonymous with badly behaved/child like/tantrum throwing behaviour you may want to rethink why you are well known...

badman_ting 13y ago

Points scored, pat yourselves on the back. Apple says the info stays on your device. "They're lying." Ok, but is there ANYTHING that could possibly convince someone of this mindset otherwise? I'm guessing the answer is along the lines of, Open source the whole thing. Oh well. Like I said, points scored.

sanderjd 13y ago
It seems like even within the text of your comment that yes, there is SOMETHING that could possibly convince someone of this mindset that they aren't lying - they could open source the whole thing.

npguy 13y ago

Apple should spend its cash on things that matter, like new product ideas. http://fakevalley.com/apple-investing-in-black-magic-to-get-product-ideas-from-steve-jobs/ http://fakevalley.com/apple-investing-in-black-magic-to-get-...

msisk6 13y ago

At some point this whole exercise gets rather silly. No matter how open and secure the phone is, there's the software that runs on the towers and in the telco system that tracks personably identifiable data and metadata. The solution is simple, though: if you really want to make sure your mobile device isn't spying on you just don't use one. A bit inconvenient, but it's not the end of the world. Unless you're a mobile developer. ;)

MisterWebz 13y ago

There were people in that other iPhone thread claiming that the discussion about the privacy issues of the fingerprint scanner were irrelevant to the discussion and that they'd much rather not talk about it because they were so sick of reading about the NSA. I kid you not.

abalone 13y ago

They've got it all wrong. Users are vastly better protected from the kind of network surveillance they mention with Apple products, thanks to their curated, controlled approach to third party software distribution. This is backed by hard data on malicious attacks from the Dept. of Homeland Security and the FBI. 79% occurred on Android, and just 0.7% on iPhone. I'm also 100% positive this will have no effect on the reasoning of the FSF. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23863495 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23863495

tedks 13y ago
This says nothing of NSA sleeper agents sneaking backdoors into Apple products, which seems pretty likely given the recent disclosures. The more centralized you build a system, the easier it is to completely own. Also, there's a massive confound in that Android phones come a lot cheaper than iPhones, making them far more accessible for the typical targets of active government surveillance.
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  You could be an NSA sleeper agent, using HN to launch false-flag propaganda operations. Go ahead and prove otherwise, if you can. Until then I'm going to treat everything you say and do as an attempt to spy on me.
  - vincie 13y ago
    You could be an NSA sleeper-sleeper agent, using HN to launch false-false-flag propaganda operations. Go ahead and prove otherwise, if you can. Until then I'm going to treat everything you say and do as an attempt to spy on me.
    - mck- 13y ago
      Stack Overflow
    - sliverstorm 13y ago

davidedicillo 13y ago

Not to be a jackass, but "regular" people don't want open source. They want things that "just work." And there's no such thing as secure, unless you build your own software, that only talks to your own servers and that only uses your personal telco and your own infrastructure.

vincie 13y ago
Yes, they want things that "just work", but not against them. Most people realize that security is not perfect, but then most probably did not expect that that meant extensive and chronic surveillance.
baddox 13y ago
Sometimes, even people who love open source and can code themselves still want things that "just work." I'm one of those people, and I enjoy being able to hack a lot of my electronic equipment, but my phone is something I'd rather have "just work."
AnthonyMouse 13y ago
>Not to be a jackass, but "regular" people don't want open source. They want things that "just work." By what logic do you come to the conclusion that these things are mutually exclusive? Firefox "just works." 7zip "just works." There are innumerable things (like ssh) that "just work" so well that you don't even know when you're using them half the time. The difference is that with free software you can do the things that don't just work. With Apple if you want to do X thing and Apple deigns to provide X thing then you can do it without any futzing around. But if you want to do X thing and Apple deigns to neglect it then you will not be doing X thing whatsoever, regardless of how much you need it. So for example if you want to install the latest version of Debian on a PowerMac, you boot the install CD and press enter until it's installed. Generally speaking it "just works." And in the event that it doesn't, chances are that you yourself can make it work. By contrast, if you want to install the latest version of OS X on a PowerMac, you can't. Enjoy your paperweight. The end.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

EpicEng 13y ago

The FSF folks always come off as little more than crotchety old men. Right or wrong, their message obviously isn't being heard or perhaps few people actually care. People vote with their wallets, may e it's time the FSF evaluates their approach as they are completely ineffectual.

vezzy-fnord 13y ago
They'll be heard only by those who choose to hear them. It's pretty difficult to explain to a layman why they should value free over proprietary software, because most of the benefits aren't really noticeable to the average user who just sees a shiny GUI that does things. Not to mention the major players are doing a fine job of keeping people in a matrix, unaware of the alternatives. But really, most don't care. Perhaps if the public school system started using *nix in their curriculum, but with Microsoft funneling cash (like they did with the University of Waterloo and C#) that's unlikely.
- EpicEng 13y ago
  I agree, which is why they are ineffectual. If they want to actually accomplish something they need to re-think their strategy.
dgesang 13y ago
... or maybe it's time for the people should stop voting with their wallets and start listing. Then maybe their message would be heard and more people would start to care about what they are saying and realize that they ARE actually right.
- EpicEng 13y ago
  Good luck with that approach. Idealogical, wishful thinking doesn't solve problems.
  - dgesang 13y ago
    How is people using their brains instead of their wallets idealogical or wishful thinking?

jonny_eh 13y ago

So the FSF says that people shouldn't use Apple phones because they don't run FSF software? I'm shocked!

improv32 13y ago
No, it's that they don't use Free Software. The FSF is not the only Free Software organization.
- fc2 13y ago
  Not to mention all the patent trolling and hardware restrictions.

noonespecial 13y ago

I really hope that what gets stored and transmitted is a hash or some sort of meta-data generated using my fingerprint and not a scan of the actual print.

jaekwon 13y ago
Doubt it, for something as analog as a finger print, I'm having a hard time imagining a one-way hash function.
- diydsp 13y ago
  This made me curious, so I found things like this: www.cse.unr.edu/~bebis/UdayFingerprint.pdf‎ and www.csis.pace.edu/~ctappert/dps/IJCB2011/papers/200.pdf‎ The features themselves are somewhat of a hash of the image, and as quantizable elements, they could be further hashed.

tnorthcutt 13y ago

We can't imagine a more hostile reaction to the wave of privacy concerns sweeping the world right now than debuting a proprietary, network-accessible fingerprint scanner as your new 'feature'. I can't imagine a more short-sighted view of product development than to assume that new hardware is a reaction to events which occurred only a few months before the first shipment of that new hardware.

diydsp 13y ago
They could have canceled the feature and launched the product without it. They could have referenced the privacy implications and their role in it, but they chose not to. The fingerprint scanner is clearly not a reaction to recent events, but we can't honestly pretend it has an existence outside their context. No matter how ineloquent the FSF may be, we need some people out there leading our introspection, driving us to answer questions for ourselves about the potential tradeoffs. We need multiple groups out their stirring people like us to communicate to "regular people in restaurants" and whatnot what the tradeoffs and technical capabilities are. This goes double for the new Google phone announced in the wake of the NSA scandal. One if it's new features? A single core is listening 24/7 for key phrases. We have to tell people why this is could be hazardous to their well-being.

nly 13y ago

I don't know why other comments are being so snarky or dismissive and apologetic in response to this. It doesn't matter whether or not you like the FSF, agree with Stallman, prefer Android, think the problem is rogue apps, the NSA, or think it's all irrelevant anyway due to the secret and proprietary nature of mobile firmware, baseband or hardware. The FSF have made a very astute observation about the implications of having a finger print scanner in a personal device which you can probably not trust with your secrets. Can't we talk about that specifically instead of flogging the same old dead horses? Do we really want to wait a few years until we discover that the authorities have been downloading fingerprint profiles from phones (like they're already known to do with messages and contacts) to acknowledge the insight here?

mrmaddog 13y ago
Why is harvesting fingerprints such a catastrophic possibility? The government already has your fingerprints if you've ever left or entered the country, and they've likely been taken during other periods in your life as well. Hell, even the Cambodian government decided to scan my fingers when I passed through. DrCube's counter-argument [1] is logical: that with these existing databases, the government can now access your phone. But really, is this feature being touted as a impenetrably secure way to unlock your phone? It seems to be positioned as "a way to make accessing your phone convenient for you and non-trivial for others," and I think this feature does exactly that. If you can't trust the phone vendor, why are you not more paranoid about entering your username/password on the device? What about location data? I really can't fathom why decrying fingerprint technology is the nexus of your argument here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6364725 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6364725
- maxerickson 13y ago
  As a U.S. citizen, I've visited Canada and other places a few times. Any fingerprint collection that happened was incredibly subtle. I tend to look at tyranny as the problem, not whichever mechanism it is utilizing, but you are making quite the assertion there.
- zevyoura 13y ago

jaekwon 13y ago

The onus is on the consumers to demand something better. I'm personally boycotting Apple products partially for this reason. If I were to found a company & give my employees cell phones, I would lean heavily towards open/free hardware/software. What hardware do you think is safe?

codex 13y ago

"Free software empowers users to replace any software hostile to their interests." I suppose so, but there's a much powerful mechanism: consumer choice. If a user feels a phone is hostile to them, they will buy one which is not. This replacement phone may be Free Software, or it may be non-Free. Free Software can be user-friendly software, yes, but it can also be user-hostile. Users won't use hostile Free software, but they won't use hostile closed source software, either. That's the free market at work. The FSF's position here is akin to: "Buy open source toasters, so you can easily modify it if it's a design which spontaneously explodes!" No thanks--I'll just buy a different toaster.

vankap 13y ago

I believe both sides have valid arguments depending on who you think the threat is. If you expect complete control over your data then you would want the system to be open source and transparent. To protect an average smartphone user from malicious apps, a closed and curated system like Apple's appstore makes sense.

shadowOfShadow 13y ago

How can somebody not know that Apple is the brand of rebellion. You didn't see WTO protestors winning the day with Windows Phones. When Bashar Assad gassed his country at night, you didn't see lives being saved by Android-mounted LED's. You saw iPads lighting the night sky. Just sayin.

ewoodrich 13y ago
Wait, what? You can't coordinate a protest on WP7/8 (or with dumbphones)? Why? And what's so bad about the camera flash on Android phones (or is it unpopular in Syria)? This comment sounds like a bad advertisement, and is completely meaningless.
chatman 13y ago
"Bashar Assad gassed his country at night" The matter is under investigation. Stop defaming him without publicly available proof.

desireco42 13y ago

I know everyone thinks this is nuts, but these people are the one who stand their ground and defend our freedom when it is almost crazy to do so. I admire them for pointing up obvious freedoms that people routinely give up.

cwp 13y ago
Most people are giving up a freedom that they can't exercise anyway, in exchange for something that the "free" alternative doesn't provide.

Tloewald 13y ago

> We can't imagine a more hostile reaction to the wave of privacy concerns sweeping the world right now than debuting a proprietary, network-accessible fingerprint scanner as your new 'feature'. That's what I call a serious failure of imagination.

Tloewald 13y ago

rimantas 13y ago
And serious failure on facts. iPhone is not the first phone to have fingerprint scanner, and "network-accessible" is false is Apple is telling the truth. Unless FSF know better than Apple.

dil8 13y ago

Closed source with a finger print scanner!! No thanks...

nsxwolf 13y ago

It's network-accessible? I'm sorry, does the FSF know something we don't, or are they just ignorant and shooting off at the mouth?

prezjordan 13y ago
Apple says it isn't, but I guess the general argument is that there's simply no way to verify that claim.

kemiller 13y ago

Apocryphal, but funny story about Calvin Coolidge: After returning from church one day, his wife is supposed to have asked him, “What did the preacher talk about?” Mr. Coolidge is reported to have tersely replied, “Sin.” Still insistent, Mrs. Coolidge probed, “Well, what did he say about sin?” That is when Silent Cal responded, “He was agin’ it.” What did the FSF talk about? Proprietary software. What did they have to say about it? They're agin' it. And like the sorts of preachers who love to talk about sin, there's never room for subtlety or tradeoffs.

thristian 13y ago
You can't talk about tradeoffs without a firm understand of the two (or more) things you're trading off. There are a million PR agencies evangelising benefits of proprietary software and the drawbacks of Free software, and that viewpoint has been vehemently expressed for over 35 years (Bill Gates' "Open Letter to Hobbyists" was written in 1976, 37 years ago), so that side of the equation is very well understood. Meanwhile, the benefits of Free software and the drawbacks of proprietary software are much less frequently expressed. Sure, if you're a Linux user or subscribe to the nerdier-end of tech-news sites like HN, you've probably heard it all before, but that's still a small percentage of the IT industry, let alone the huge number of people considering updating to the iPhone 5S. There's room enough for blog-posts and multi-page articles debating where the author wants to draw their personal line between proprietary and Free; we shouldn't complain about the FSF trying to fit their message into a soundbite for their target audience.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  I had a friend bring this exact thread up over dinner. The reaction of pretty much everyone else at the table, myself included, was "Okay, and? How is this different from what the FSF does every day? Are they planning on releasing some silly PR flack every time a company comes out with a new device?" Meanwhile, the benefits of proprietary software are more immediately obvious (the professional content creation market, for instance, is completely unserved on Linux last I checked), while the benefits of free/open source software are much more subtle and more ideological than functional. The recent NSA shenanigans have (rightly, IMO) elevated the priority of that ideological fight, but it still is what it is. (Note that I believe the FSF is fighting a good fight, but their organization and leadership appears to be dogmatic and often unrealistic)

gesman 13y ago

One way to submit your fingerprints into a single database for free in an organized matter. Good move!

andrewflnr 13y ago

Is there a good reason they didn't include FirefoxOS on the list of alternatives?

rdl 13y ago

Rather than telling me not to use iOS (which I think is probably the best overall package right now), FSF should build something better. I'd probably tolerate Android 2.x-level quality if it were actually secure (i.e. I pick my own root of trust for all services, which might be a server I own), and ideally could run modern Android apps in nice little partitions. Neither Apple nor Google is really committed to building something like that, and I doubt Microsoft or Blackberry will, either.

laureny 13y ago

tl;dr: The FSF would rather you did not use any mobile phone at all since none exist that match their requirements. Nut jobs.

chatman 13y ago

It is hilarious to see how agrieved Apple (and Android) fanboys here have become to read the FSF post. Android and Apple, both have proprietary code. Both are inappropriate intrusions on users' freedom. Is it so hard to understand?

oscargrouch 13y ago

the big majority of the people in this thread seems to lack the understanding that whats is really bad by this new wave of walled gardens created by apple, is not only about inly closed software anymore.. its against to let someone to decide by you what is good or not.. if they dont like something, or is politically incorrect, you will never have the chance to choose for yourself! im not talking about virus, and malware.. but political matters.. we got several problems with this approach.. one is the monopoly of one.. the centralization.. this is bad economically and politically .. since the bad guys the ones who have the apple in their pockets already could own whatever apple has.. the other big implication, something unnaceptable for me.. is the fact they can do whatever they want remotelly from their central with something that you bough with your own money and SHOULD BE YOURS, its your property.. you do whatever you want with it... do you wanna sell a music you bought to somebody else.. can you? can you choose a app with artistic nude , because its your choice?? its not just about now, its about the future.. its about the freedom of the future generations.. i think all of this moves from any company ridiculous.. and by paying for this you are paying for the society failure in stand against something will take our liberties away.. its a pretty phone with a big trap inside of it... corporations are taking a ground they should not trespass and the problem is that others big companies just follow.. dont worry, they are your friends.. they will protect you! while this community in 100% in terms of technology wisdom , its visible the lack of critical thinking of so many people is this thread.. its pretty sad

yalogin 13y ago

Did they just jump the gun and issue a statement on something they did not even touch? If fingerprints are network accessible is their main complaint, should they not wait till its out, check it and then issue a statement?

drill_sarge 13y ago

Why is this the big deal? Apple stands for everything that the FSF fights against. Same goes for Microsoft and all the usual others. Just the usual statement in case you didn't know already.