Richard Stallman: Cell Phones Are 'Stalin's Dream' 792
jbrodkin writes "Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream,' says free software pioneer Richard Stallman, who refuses to own one. 'Cell phones are tools of Big Brother. I'm not going to carry a tracking device that records where I go all the time, and I'm not going to carry a surveillance device that can be turned on to eavesdrop.' Even the open source Android is dangerous because devices ship with proprietary executables, Stallman says in a wide-ranging interview on the state of the free software movement. Despite some progress, Stallman is still dismayed by 'The existence and use of non-free software [which] is a social problem. It's an evil. And our aim is a world without that problem.'"
Open source vs proprietary (Score:3, Insightful)
And the social problem of non-free software? People do not care. They never have, they never will. I doubt Stallman cares about every little detail about things he uses but isn't that interested in. When he is cooking his tv dinner, he just wants a microwave that works. When Stallman goes to his weekly pony riding classes, he just wants a pony that works without going into every mundane detail. Some little girl could think that Stallman is evil because he doesn't raise, feed and have the pony at his home as part of the family, but while Stallman doesn't have time to raise a pony, he wants to ride one. That's when you take what's easy for you without going in to details.
Re:Open source vs proprietary (Score:3, Insightful)
You always need a (Score:5, Insightful)
harbinger [wiktionary.org].
RMS is seen as crying wolf, but many of his weirdest predictions have come true.
Viz. The Right to Read [gnu.org]
And we're already there with Amazon's action's regarding remote Kindle book manipulation.
Cell phones? Remember the article on government snooping while the phone's turned off? The fact that cell phones can and do track you is blindingly true, but for some reason, people don't even want to hear it.
Re:Open source vs proprietary (Score:5, Insightful)
When he is cooking his tv dinner, he just wants a microwave that works.
I doubt his TV dinner is open sourced either. Most people would be (or, at least, ought to be) more concerned about what's in their food that what's in their software.
Re:Open source vs proprietary (Score:5, Insightful)
Tracking people is a matter of supply and demand. The supply side (mobile phone vendors, and networks) are only too happy to get a few extra euro/dollar for nearly nothing. In our capitalist world, it's the only goal of a company to maximize profit. If it's therefore necessary to screw all citizens and track them all, the company will do it.
It's the governments, on the demand side, which should not want the information. It's governments who can (and should) regulate it. But they don't.
Don't blame the mobile phones for a side-effect of an otherwise practical invention.
The constant spying by governments on its citizens is the real problem... not the inventions that enable it.
Some developers have families to feed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You always need a (Score:2, Insightful)
RMS is seen as crying wolf, but many of his weirdest predictions have come true.
Viz. The Right to Read [gnu.org]
And we're already there with Amazon's action's regarding remote Kindle book manipulation.
Except that article has not come true. There's nothing to stop you lending your kindle/computer to someone else to read your eBooks. You're just not allowed to copy them without permission - same as with paper books.
RMS is no George Orwell. He's just a crank.
Re:Open source vs proprietary (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're going to rant about this, at least understand what the man is on about. It's not "OMG FOSS is just so better and Miscro$oft is teh evils!!!11!1ONE!!!"
His position is basically that if you don't have the source you don't have the freedom to control your own computing.
With closed source programs you are:
He considers those points (and at least one other, and possibly wider points than I have made) to be essential for a person to be free and to be in control of the device they are using. A computer is a general purpose device, shouldn't a user/owner be able (within their technical bounds) to make it do what they want?
Now, you may or may not agree with his stance (I don't agree with all of it, certainly), but for him and people like him this is not a question of utility.
Saying "where's the software" is therefore totally irrelevant to RMS and people of his views, because it becomes a moral issue. They wish to control their computing devices, they believe that it is their right to do so. Therefore they will not give money or time to those that promote a different agenda. Just like some people don't buy DRM, or Sony.
So yes, for them, being open source is enough reason. Or rather the reverse, something being closed source is enough reason to avoid it.
As I say, I do not necessarily buy into his stance, the guy has some views I don't agree with, but if you're going to rubbish him at least try to understand it instead of mindlessly bleating about how proprietary software is better. That's may be so, but it isn't the point.
Re:It is a pity (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>They are so handy
What is needed is not to give-up the tool (cellphone, printing press) but limit the ability of government to abuse the tool by guaranteeing the right to use the tool Freely without restriction.
Governments should not be able to use Cellphone data unless first obtaining a warrant, and informing the person that the search has taken place. The EU has such a "law" codified in its Fundamental Rights document, and the US needs something similar but with stronger effect.
Hitlers dream (Score:4, Insightful)
Affordable motorcars are Hitlers dream. What's his point?
Re:Gone off the deep end (Score:5, Insightful)
The FBI could have planted bugs in my apartment. They could bug my landline telephone. They could point a laser device at my window and pick up voice via the vibrations. They could be following me. They could have planted a tracking device on my car.
All of those except the landline require actions in the physical world, where resources are limited and distances are real. Those natural limitations will prevent large-scale invisible abuse. You can do it on a limited scale, or you can do it big scale but then the country turns visibly into a police state.
Bugging your landline or your phone, or reading your GPS coordinates remotely requires a computer and being the FBI so you can tell the telco to go and do it. Running it on 1000 people is only marginally more troublesome than running it on 100 people. And that's a very important difference.
Re:Open source vs proprietary (Score:5, Insightful)
And the social problem of non-free software? People do not care
Not the point. The point is that they should, and Stallman is trying to make that happen. I am not saying he is going about it in the best way (I'd would say that Eben Moglen is, more or less).
I doubt Stallman cares about every little detail about things he uses but isn't that interested in. When he is cooking his tv dinner, he just wants a microwave that works.
You know what, I think Stallman does care whether his microwave has a microphone in it, that he is not allowed to control. And I think he cares about whether his sneakers have a GPS that will not let him decide when it is off or on. I even think you do.
The difference is that the telephone has a microphone and gps already, for good reason. But that is not a good reason not to let the end user control those -
I do not care if you installed a bug in my house, or installed software on my phone behind my back, the end result is the same.
People would be alarmed, if every book came with surveillance technology and screamed bloody murder if it came near a photo copier. The 'political arm' of the free software movement is saying you should be equally alarmed with the current state of affairs.
Re:Some developers have families to feed (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm paid to write software, not write software to sell.
It wouldn't matter if my employer decided to start passing on freely the software I write for them, they'd still need to pay me to write software in the first place.
The more software they can bring in for free from elsewhere also means the more advanced and cutting edge software I get to write.
Software doesn't have to be sold on for developers to get paid. For many companies the software their developers write for them pays for itself in increased staff productivity so there's no need to try and monetise the software directly.
Re:Open source vs proprietary (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to teach them how to use it and advise them of its limitations daily.
Yes, open source software doesn't require teaching. Just tell the uers to RTFM.
Re:tracking in germany (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open source vs proprietary (Score:5, Insightful)
Stallman's answer to that would be "It's doesn't matter". He has regularly and without the least sense of irony said that he would always rather use "worse" Free Software than "better" closed software. This is fine in my opinion, it's his computer and he can put whatever he likes on it. The telling bit is here: "The existence and use of non-free software [which] is a social problem. It's an evil. And our aim is a world without that problem." As soon as one side of the debate has labeled the other side "evil", the entire concept of "debate" is becoming worthless. This is the problem with Stallman as an advocate. He's got no shades of gray. Fanatics make terrible representatives for a cause, because in a world with billions of people, the chance to get even part of what you want, without some sorts of compromise, is non-existent.
Some would argue "Well that's silly, obviously he's gotten some of what he wants look how popular certain free software projects are." I'd argue that this has happened largely in spite of Stallman, not becasue of him. It's only since guys like Eric Raymond started the more compromise oriented "Open Source" philosophy (strange to think of ESR as a compromiser, but by comparison he is), and guys like Torvalds have written popular FOSS software in a non-political way; that FOSS has started getting traction.
As as side note, Stallman could care less about the lack of a VS equivalent; or whether or not Eclipse is worse, comparable, or better than VS. If you ever read him describe how he uses a computer, it more or less froze in the 1970s. He uses almost exclusively text and terminal based tools. Last I heard he doesn't even use the internet beyond FTP (for posting the stuff he writes), mail, and USENET; and he get the mail and USENET from a periodic UUCP connection.
Re:Open source vs proprietary (Score:3, Insightful)
And the social problem of non-free software? People do not care
Not the point. The point is that they should, and Stallman is trying to make that happen.
The obvious question is why should they? Just because we're geeks and we care about such things doesn't mean that they're actually important.
Sure, it's good to have the source... It's nice to be able to see how things work, to make sure that they're doing the job we think they are, etc., etc. But that doesn't mean it's actually important to everyone that their software (and associated electronic devices) be open source.
I doubt Stallman cares about every little detail about things he uses but isn't that interested in. When he is cooking his tv dinner, he just wants a microwave that works.
You know what, I think Stallman does care whether his microwave has a microphone in it, that he is not allowed to control. And I think he cares about whether his sneakers have a GPS that will not let him decide when it is off or on. I even think you do.
I think you're being a bit obtuse here...
The point is that Stallman probably doesn't insist on full schematics for his microwave. He probably doesn't ask for the complete recipe for the TV dinner he's nuking. He probably doesn't tour the facility where the TV dinner (and/or microwave) was built. He probably doesn't check to make sure that the cows that were used to make the leather for his sneakers were free-range and humanely slaughtered.
Obviously covert surveillance is something to be at least vaguely concerned about... And a cell phone could be put to that use... But that isn't the point that's being made. The point is that everybody cannot pry into the intimate details of everything involved in their lives.
RMS is passionate about software and thinks it should all be free. That's fine for him. The average human being doesn't care. They just want to be able to turn on a computer and check their email and waste time on Facebook.
Other people are passionate about animals, or cooking, or cars, or sewing, or art, or carpentry, or gardening, or whatever... And they'll tell say you really ought to do things a certain way... And that way may very well be superior and better for everyone involved... But the average human being just doesn't care.
People would be alarmed, if every book came with surveillance technology and screamed bloody murder if it came near a photo copier. The 'political arm' of the free software movement is saying you should be equally alarmed with the current state of affairs.
See, that's the thing though... Most people wouldn't be alarmed if every book came with surveillance technology and screamed bloody murder if it came near a photo copier.
Some individuals - like school teachers - would have a problem with it. They'd want some kind of bypass or educational license or something so that they could make copies for students...
But your average person doesn't care all that much about books. Seriously. As long as they can pick up a novel and read it, they'd be happy.
Re:You always need a (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that article has not come true. There's nothing to stop you lending your kindle/computer to someone else to read your eBooks.
If you read the story, the main character does exactly that: he lends his computer to someone else, so she can read his books. In fact, what the character in that story does is considered a violation of the rules at some universities, since he also told someone else his password.
You're just not allowed to copy them without permission - same as with paper books.
Funny, because when I take a paper book to a copy machine, printed copies come out of the machine. There is no technical measure stopping me, only legal measures, and only if I am not engaging in fair use.
Re:Open source vs proprietary (Score:3, Insightful)
By just comparing software on how well it works, you're missing out on the whole ethics side of the argument.
I can't think of a car analogy, but here's a vegetable analogy. It's like comparing organic produce with non-organic produce and saying that organic farming is a waste of time as the tomatoes are smaller and until organic farming can produce bigger tomatoes than non-organic farming, it's a waste of time.
Re:This time of year already eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
But Stalin would also have loved computers. They are the perfect tool of big brother. I mean really folks here is a news flash for everybody. Technology can be used for good or for evil.
Jet aircraft can fly people to hospitals where they can get treatment or carry bombs.
The printing press can be used for the Bible, Penthouse, Mien Kampf, and text books. I will let you all argue over which is and is not evil.
And a cell phone can be used to call for help when you car is stranded or if you are hurt.
And the internet can be used to view websites like Godhatesfags, slashdot, whitehouse.gov and REI.com. Again you can pick which of those is evil and which is good.
Welcome to the real world. Many things can be used for good and evil. That is just the way of the universe.
Oh and China is pushing Linux!
EVIL!!!!!!!
Re:tackling that social problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed! Most programming languages are actually pretty easy, and I think most people wouldn't have much trouble learning the basics (it's just basic logic if/then, loops etc.), but the platforms are so monstrously complicated that it requires a massive time investment to get anything that does anything, that it's just not worth people's time.
Like most not-really-a-programmer types, I've learned the a portions of the web stack (SQL, PHP, Javascript), and I feel pretty comfortable reading other languages such as Python, Ruby, Java, or C--they just aren't that different. But learning how to get from lines of Objective-C, say, to a functional Application? Oh man, that'll take me weeks.
Stallman: a good incentive to get an iPhone (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Open source vs proprietary (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the problem with Stallman as an advocate. He's got no shades of gray. Fanatics make terrible representatives for a cause, because in a world with billions of people, the chance to get even part of what you want, without some sorts of compromise, is non-existent.
I think hardliners (to pick a word without the connotations of "fanatic" or "extremist") are quite useful in achieving a compromise.
I spent my youth disagreeing with hard-line Welsh nationalists, but I've come to realise that without their extreme demands (which they have not achieved), the Welsh language would have been killed by London-led government policy. I think the moderate situation we have now is about right, but it wouldn't have come about without the hardliners demanding something stronger.
Likewise, I'm glad of hard-line anti-war campaigners. I know there are situations on the global stage where the last resort of armed conflict becomes appropriate -- but I want peaceful resolution to be pursued wherever possible, so I'm grateful that there's a lobby demanding there be no war under any circumstances.
Re:Open source vs proprietary (Score:5, Insightful)
So what's your point? You can't complain about something that's wrong, if you don't complain about everything that's wrong?
Stallman himself has said that there are more important issues than free software, but, since he's a software guy, he talks about software.
The whole "How can you talk about A, when there's B in the world?" is just cheap rhetoric.
And just as a FYI, here's Stallman on hardware: http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=1999-06-22-005-05-NW-LF
Re:Open source vs proprietary (Score:5, Insightful)
The first three posters in this thread have brand new, nearly consecutive uids and are sitting around agreeing with one another about proprietary software and MS. Just saying.
Re:Open source vs proprietary (Score:3, Insightful)
As for such complaints as "unable to adapt them to your needs" and "never sure what they are doing", tell you what you do: Either write it yourself or go pay someone to write it for you.
This is about the most foolish comment you could have made. If the user/owner technical bounds allow him to adapt programs to his needs, then the user/owner has the technical abilities to create his own software thus alleviating his need to use proprietary software. Put simply in deference to you and RMS, if one can actually make use of the freedoms of free software, one does not need to use proprietary software.
If you and stall man are going to rubbish proprietary software, at least make a rational argument on how it is better for Joe Average User with no programming and development skills or interests rather than bleating on about how much freedom it provides everyone when most everyone could not exercise said freedom. The point is very simple: FLOSS really doesn't provide anymore freedom to 90% of computer users than proprietary software and proprietary software provides a much more usable product. If you don't like proprietary software, don't use it, shut the fuck up and and stop whining that proprietary software still exists.
To be blunt, the only reason I can see for RMS and his acolytes to keep whining about the existence of proprietary software is that they KNOW that the proprietary software is more popular and useful than the FLOSS offerings and want to be able to use the proprietary software but can't because doing so goes against their principles. RMS and companies complaints are nothing more than sour grapes.
Re:Open source vs proprietary (Score:5, Insightful)
15 year old mobile phones could be recycled if you could modify the software.
So I think you need the whole spectrum of views, it's good that we have someone who is very vocal about software freedom, I think RMS be even more hardline just to counterbalance. I too have been annoyed by the unfree software in mobile phones, I have 10 year old Sony Ericsson phones that would be useful if I could modify the software.
Re:Open source vs proprietary (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, the best compromise is one in which neither side is happy. 99.99% of the population is unable or unwilling to use a computer the way Stallman uses a computer. The Freedom provided to them by the availability of source is largely immaterial to them. They can't read it, and don't really want to be able to. They don't mind giving up that Freedom in exchange for usable, useful software. Even those of us who can read and understand the source code can find value in giving up the right to do so in exchange for better, more useful, or more fun software. Even as someone who can write, understand, and modify source code, and someone who often uses OSS software; I can count on one hand the number of times I've actually modified someone else's code before using the their software. On each of those occasions I'd have been just as happy if I'd just been given a binary blob that hadn't required it.
That said, if Stallman (or you for that matter) wants to use exclusively Free software I have no problem with it. I've made my choice to use a combination of OSS and commercial software depending on what works better. He's made his choice to use exclusively Free software regardless of what works better. Both are valid choices for an individual to make. My problem with Stallman is that he actually wants to remove that choice. He wants to free me by process of removing my choice to be non-free. I'd be just unhappy with a proprietary software company trying to take away my right an ability to use Free software.
There is plenty wrong with proprietary executables (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but getting totally fucked over by allowing myself to become dependent on orphanware, is how I became an "OSS geek." Proprietary executables have serious practical real-world disadvantages.
Free software isn't a religion; it's a rational strategic reaction. My Amiga went years without an OS update. OS/2 too. My current work machine can't run a lot of software because it has an obsolete version of Mac OS X and there is no upgrade for this hardware.
The proprietary compilers for the proprietary language that my former employer used (Clipper and Visual Objects) sucked and weren't getting maintained, and there wasn't anything to do about it except throw away thousands of lines of code that our products depended on. (Our solution was: go out of business. Problem solved.)
Then I look at all the computers I now own, and am grateful that every single one of them can and does get maintenance, because they run Free Software. The only way these computers will ever become obsolete, will be if I decide they're too old/slow/powerhungry. (It's surprisingly how many peoples' computers become obsolete for reasons other than those things.) The only weakness is that some of them have Nvidia hardware and I run the proprietary drivers, so some day I will upgrade a kernel, and the driver will no longer exist because Nvidia will decide, "fuck you, user." Fortunately, this day hasn't come yet for those machines -- and it won't come for any of my newer hardware, ever. (Why? Because I preemptively prevented it, by thinking about it before stupidly buying things which require proprietary drivers.)
If you use proprietary software, you get fucked, and that is the common case, not the rare case. It happens to most users at one time or another. Some of them realize what caused their problems and become "OSS geeks," and some of them don't get it, and repeat the mistake again and again and again, never ever learning how they set themselves up to become dependent on third parties.
Re:Have to agree..Facebook too! (Score:5, Insightful)
This makes no sense.
If people post on Facebook, they're making their lives public. You may as well complain that when you took out that front-page ad about what's in your pants, EVERYONE read it and knew about it. Private information freely discussed in public is PUBLIC information. If you don't want people to hear about it, don't post it all over the friggin' internet.
It's not Facebook's fault that people reveal stupid details. That's what they want to do. And if your friends in REAL LIFE are revealing gossip about you, that's YOUR FRIENDS that are the problem.
This is why few take Stallman seriously (Score:2, Insightful)
I really think he has a mental disorder, it goes way beyond tin foil hat. While I too would love to dream about a society where software is just created out of the goodness of peoples hearts, viruses and malware dont exist and everyone is connected to the internet....I usually wake up...Stallman doesn't but does very little to address the reality that people still need to make money, people wont just blindly trust other people and people will be willing to pay for a convenience or better experience than their free equivalent will provide. While I respect Stallman's right to live his life as he chooses IMHO paranoia and fear is not a brand of freedom I want to partake in.
Re:Open source vs proprietary (Score:0, Insightful)
How much does it cost to higher a programmer?
So, you would do away with trade secrets too. Nice to know.
Who is going to pay for a modification when one can purchase something that works the way one wants?
And, what of the one who invents the wheel? How does the inventor of the wheel gets recompense for his time, effort, and materials used to create the wheel?
Your car analogy fails because we are talking software and not computers. Each component of a car would is the equivalent of a piece of software. So, when a computer breaks, you take it to a repair person who finds the problem and fixes it. This can be as simple as a "tune up" by cleaning out old files, registry entries, etc. It could be by replacing a broken component such as a hard drive, faulty ram, re-installing a corrupted program or removing malware. It could be something serious such as a bad motherboard, processor, or having to reinstall the operating system. Really, try to use a valid analogy because I have no problem pointing out your failures.
I see, so I should be able to call you an evil person because you do something I don't like and if you don't like it, you just don't have to read it and all is well, yes?
It stopped being giving his opinion when he and his acolytes started trying to duplicate the functionality of proprietary software and complaining when their inferior software failed to gain market share. If one makes an inferior product, one should not spend all one's time whining that one is losing and how everyone should be using one's, often admittedly, inferior product for ideological, and not practical, reasons. Either step up and provide a quality product or shut the fuck up and stop whining. Do the job and stop fucking crying because people want things that work, work well, are easy to use, and don't require hours of searching to get installed and running. Oh, and stop bitching that people want to use modern technologies and paradigms instead of the 40+ year old text terminal tech.
All of RMS' bitching about people using proprietary software just because it is more usable and effective definitely sounds like jealousy to me. As does his insistence that the capability and effectiveness of a tool should not be considered when one is choosing a tool, and by tool I mean software. He would rather use an inferior FLOSS product than a proprietary product? Fine, now shut the fuck up and the rest of us will use the best tool for the job.