
Richard Stallman: Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream' - barredo
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/031411-richard-stallman.html?hpg1=bn
======
ekidd
There are many valid criticisms of Richard Stallman: He sometimes fails to
show ordinary courtesy, even to his supporters; he can be spectacularly bad at
common techniques of persuasion; and he has creeped out some women by making
passes at them (or so they tell me).

There are some morally neutral things which may be said about Stallman: His
views are far out of the mainstream; he is uncompromising even in small
matters; and he occasionally has a weird-but-powerful charisma.

There are some praiseworthy things about Stallman: He appears to be utterly
principled; he shows few signs of being tempted by money; and he has
persevered for decades to bring about the world he wants.

None of these things, good or bad, affect the underlying question: Is Stallman
_right?_

In my case, I often find Stallman's claims ridiculous at first. Why? Because
Stallman is asking us to take extreme measures against threats which seem both
unlikely and dystopian, such as the universal DRM he predicted in his 1997
short story, "The Right to Read."

But I've noticed, over the years, that Stallman's most paranoid fears tend to
come partially true. Today, we have an acronym for "DRM", and we've spent
years fighting the legal powers granted by the DMCA. So I no longer
automatically discount what Stallman says, because his pessimistic predictions
have a better track record than my optimistic ones.

~~~
ChuckMcM
There is the joke that even a broken watch is correct twice a day. I do think
his communication style, his use of hyperbole, and his unwillingness to bring
the listener 'along' work against him in most situations. However, he does
have a self consistent line of reasoning as far as I've been able to discern
for all of his positions.

But lets step back from the messenger for a moment and look at the message.
Richard's rant on cellphones is predicated, in part, that they can be used as
surveillance devices. The engineering of a cell phone network is such that it
presents, perhaps as an 'attractive nuisance'[1], the ability to extract
surveillance data. This has nothing to do with whether or not the software in
the phone is "free", rather it has everything to do with how that software is
used.

So a question that does not come up often, and I have yet to see in print, is
this, "If all software was 'free' and 'open' how would that change anything?"
So if the source code to the handsets is "free" and the source code to the
base stations is "free" and the PSTN software is "free", what changes? SIP
based phones have the same surveillance capabilities as GSM phones and one can
put together a nominally 'free' stack for such a phone network. I'm afraid I
don't have any good answers here.

[1] <http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/attractive-nuisance/> although in our
case the 'children' here are Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) who don't have
the resources to send someone out to follow you around.

~~~
streptomycin
He says his problem with cell phones is that they can be used for
surveillance. Later in the article he talks about how free software in the
phone could protect you from eavesdropping (not surveillance). He is correct.
If everything was encrypted, eavesdropping would be impossible. But they could
still track your position.

So, unless I'm misreading things, he never says that the issue with
surveillance is about "whether or not the software in the phone is 'free'".

~~~
potatolicious
Stallman wants to see a world built _entirely_ with free and open software -
in this world cell phones would be safe, since any and all surveillance-
related code and functionality would be out in the open for anyone to see.
There is no getting broadsided by sneaky surveillance code you didn't know was
built into your phone.

~~~
vacri
Doesn't matter how open the source code is, the phone network still needs to
know which cell you're in to direct your call. Knowing where you are is a
fundamental part of the cellphone system.

------
drinian
It's worth noting that the Chinese government is in fact debuting a system to
track the movements of every cell phone in Beijing right now:

[http://beta.sg.news.yahoo.com/beijing-trial-mobile-
tracking-...](http://beta.sg.news.yahoo.com/beijing-trial-mobile-tracking-
system-report-20110303-090520-169.html)

This isn't a prediction, it's reality today.

~~~
samatman
The Chinese government also runs the Great Firewall using primarily open
source technologies.

Free software on phones? If anyone can sideload whatever they want onto any
platform they want, it's the Chinese. How does this help you, when the
cellphone towers are tracking your phone's every movement, and when attempts
to evade that tracking are sufficient to get you arrested or worse?

The nature of the license for the software running on a radio has nothing to
do with the ability to triangulate that radio, sadly.

~~~
jrockway
_The nature of the license for the software running on a radio has nothing to
do with the ability to triangulate that radio, sadly._

But you don't have to disclose the fact that that radio source over there is
jrockway's radio.

Freenet-style routing is an idea that comes to mind for solving this problem
with software.

------
tomkarlo
Having met RMS a few times in my years at MIT, I have no doubt that he is
genuine in his views and it's not merely the hyperbole you get some from
pundits.

The unfortunate downside of this is that he doesn't generally see the need to
find compromise positions that are palatable to those who maybe agree with his
thoughts but don't have the exact same value set. I may see his concern about
privacy, etc but I also need to be reachable when I'm not at my desk. By being
too extreme in his views, he reduces the chance that they'll be taken
seriously.

~~~
lallysingh
Honestly, after hearing his rants for years, I'm of the opinion that his
language is far more extreme than his opinions. If you don't believe me,
listen to some political talk shows. Not Glenn Beck, but the more mainstream
ones. They're saying much more extreme things (when you think about them), but
sounding much more rational than him.

Really, if he talked like a sane, reasonable, rational person, he could make
the same arguments and persuade more people. Right now, his extremism is
making his supporters sound bad. He's a liability to his own cause.

His filtering of technology is less extreme a change in lifestyle than
veganism. But you can talk to most vegans and completely understand why
they're doing what they're doing, and sympathize with their decisions far
easier than this. The first, last, and only Stallman speech I went to gave me
a real headache at the --- lets be honest -- Jackassitude of his entire
presentation. I was on his side until I heard him speak!

------
6ren
Wow, they're really not comfortable with letting you see the URL for single
page: [http://www.networkworld.com/cgi-
bin/mailto/x.cgi?pagetosend=...](http://www.networkworld.com/cgi-
bin/mailto/x.cgi?pagetosend=/news/2011/031411-richard-
stallman.html&pagename=/news/2011/031411-richard-
stallman.html&pageurl=http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/031411-richard-
stallman.html&site=software&nsdr=n)

------
Figs
Wouldn't you also need "free hardware" to avoid the risk of your device being
used against you? If you're not willing to trust the software on your phone,
why would you trust that there isn't a tracking device built directly into the
chips on the phone?

~~~
LXicon
The article does mention that Stallman uses a "rather slow" Lemote Yeeloong
laptop because it's the only laptop with a free BIOS.

~~~
jrockway
I thought it was the CPU microcode, not the BIOS? Because there are open
source BIOSes that you can flash to a variety of more powerful machines.

~~~
LXicon
you are probably correct. the article just mentioned the BIOS. i looked around
and could not find specific mention of the microcode in the laptop's specs
:[http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:Hardware/Freest#Lemote_Yee...](http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:Hardware/Freest#Lemote_Yeeloong_8089_and_8101)
or on Stallman's page : <http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html> or in
this FSF paper page on free hardware:
[http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/how_hardware_vendors_can_hel...](http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/how_hardware_vendors_can_help.html)

------
dholowiski
I lost all respect for RMS when I saw him speak at WordCamp San Francisco 2010
- he spoke, and acted like a total child. I'd point you to the video of it,
but he made them shut down the live stream before he started (after he was
late, which he blamed on Google Maps).

------
Estragon
So, is it currently possible to run the Replicant fork of Android on a
Motorola Droid on the Verizon network? I would like to give that a try, if so.

This page says how to port Replicant to a new phone, but not which phones and
networks it's been done for.

[http://trac.osuosl.org/trac/replicant/wiki/How_to_port_Repli...](http://trac.osuosl.org/trac/replicant/wiki/How_to_port_Replicant)

------
bumbledraven
Drug dealers have known for years about untraceable cell-phones. One brand in
the US is (strangely) called "tracfone". You can buy one for $20 cash, and,
since there's no contract, it's way more difficult to link you to the device
and therefore more difficult to track your movements.

Also, I don't think proprietary software is a moral issue. People should have
the right to make and buy something non-free if they wish. I do admire
Stallman's principled lifestyle, though.

Finally, it's interesting that Kevin Kelly (former editor of Wired), in his
awesome book "What Technology Wants", also makes the case for not owning a
cell phone, but for different reasons.

------
ck2
Just put your phone into airplane mode when you aren't using it.

It has the benefit of making the batteries last extra long (because the cell
and wifi radios are turned off).

~~~
Someone
I have not read this article, but RMS surely would argue that without a
completely open stack, you cannot really know what airplane mode does. You can
check that it doesn't broadcast at any moment you want to check that, but how
do you know it doesn't switch on for 5 seconds every 4 days, 13 hours, and 52
seconds, except for Thursdays or in March? Also, how do you know that it isn't
listening for secret commands all the time?

~~~
xorglorb
Wire a toggle switch to cut the connection between the baseband and the
antenna, and it shouldn't be able to transmit more than a few inches.

------
mvidal01
I recall recently reading that Erik Prince the ex CEO of Xe / Blackwater in
this interview takes his batter out of his phone so it doesn't get turned into
a wireless mic.

<http://www.mensjournal.com/an-american-commando-in-exile>

Nice closing paragraph in the Network World article. Then again I live in
Madison, Wi.

------
ebiester
And anyone who is likely to be tracked is going to know this, and will not
trust phone communications.

The more you have to hide, the more protections you must take. You cannot rely
on technology. In extreme cases, it means eschewing technology entirely,
living in caves, and living in Afghanistan and Sudan.

You cannot rely on that which you do not control, including free software.

------
jhamburger
I don't quite see the point of what he is doing. I mean certainly there is
power to it if the public at large follows his lead, but he's resigned to the
fact that that won't happen. It's hard to imagine a scenario where he will
have more freedom on an individual level than the rest of us because of these
decisions.

------
codex
In some U.S. states, cars cannot legally operate on the road unless they've
been "validated" by the government. This worries me greatly; I should be able
to drive whatever car I want, free from unwanted control.

And this is why, instead of getting my emissions checked every year, I choose
not to use cars, or even public busses.

~~~
ldh
_I should be able to drive whatever car I want, free from unwanted control_

Even if that car is a coal-fired chariot with whirling spikes extending from
the axles?

I agree with your sentiment entirely, but also recognize that so long as I
live within the confines of human society, absolute freedom is impossible.

------
code_duck
The headline doesn't at all sum up this article. It's not about Stallman's
opinion about phones in particular.

------
AndrewMoffat
I think we nerdy types know this in the back of our minds about smartphones,
but it's good to be reminded of it again from time to time.

------
daeken
Yet again proving that RMS has no concept of the convenience-privacy
continuum. Nothing to see here.

~~~
raganwald
First, the word you're thinking of is "demonstrating," not "proving." But
let's get to the big stuff. What is this "convenience-privacy continuum?" I
just did a web search, I can't find anything. Citation, please. Third, I
dispute your suggestion that there is nothing to see here. Strongly.
Forcefully.

If someone has never read anything about or by Mr. Stallman, there is plenty
to see here. There may be nothing to see here for _you_ , but when you say
"Nothing to see here," you are speaking in absolutes. I have read a fair bit
about his beliefs and I found a few things of interest in the article, such as
the discussion about the Replicant variation of Android and the Tivoization of
Android by carriers. This may not be news to you, but it's news to me.

Therefore, I say there _is_ something to see here.

I can't speak to your thinking or motivations, so what follows is a general
observation: On HN we have a principle of not downvoting comments just because
we disagree. Upvotes and downvotes are ideally applied on the basis of whether
they contribute positively to the discussion. A contribution can be made
simply by opening a new line of thought, even if the premise is flawed.

I am not going to get into whether I agree or disagree with Mr. Stallman's
beliefs. However, I will suggest that his various missives, rants, and other
statements contribute positively to the general fabric of discussion around
software freedom and personal privacy. This suggestion is open to discussion:
I am aware that some people think his zeal does more harm than good. But
that's what I believe.

I said above that I believe the article provides a public good by including
information that someone like myself may not have already known. I now suggest
that the article also presents something that is a public good by contributing
positively to the general fabric of discussion about cell phone technology and
privacy, even if you or I might disagree with Mr. Stallman's views.

You are free to draw your own conclusions, of course. I'm just trying to
explain mine.

~~~
peterwwillis
_However, I will suggest that his various missives, rants, and other
statements contribute positively to the general fabric of discussion around
software freedom and personal privacy._

ESR stated in Revolution OS that RMS's 'wholesale attack' on (was it software
patents or intellectual property? i don't remember now) was one of the reasons
it was hard to convince businesses this wasn't just a hippie pipe dream.

The OpenMoko runs all Free code, afaik, so the whole "being tracked by Big
Brother" deal sounds like tinfoil hat syndrome. This particular rant only
points out that most cellphones run on proprietary software. Why don't we just
shout about anything that uses proprietary software like cars or industrial
manufacturing equipment? We know it's proprietary, but comparing it all to a
fascist regime isn't going to contribute positively to a discussion to make it
more open.

~~~
snippyhollow
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that a fully free cell phone OS is
preventing you from being tracked. Even if free software was bug/backdoors
free (I'm not sure about it). How do you connect to the network? Through a
SIM-card, with an ID, linked to your cell-phone contract. And whatever goes on
the broadband/network of your cell phone contract provider is free to read for
him. You don't initiate your phone calls with an exchange of GPG keys with
your contact, nor do you register your contract with a fake name. The only
solution for that is the combination of a prepaid SIM in cash with encrypted
VOIP on 3G+.

~~~
peterwwillis
You can be tracked anywhere there's a communications infrastructure. It is
required for things like law enforcement as well as being part of the
protocols that run the network. Since basically every country on the planet
does this, comparing it to a Stalinist order seems retarded, and I don't think
it will ever change.

~~~
TheAmazingIdiot
Better yet, if you are transmitting anything, there's these wonderful devices
called "Radio direction finders".

We dont need to know how GSM is transmitted, or what encryption schemes
they're using. If you are outputting a signal, you can be found. Hell, there's
competitions for RDF.

Now, just not carrying a cell phone is a good idea on not being tracked. Next
best is taking the battery out of the phone. "Off" does not mean off, even in
airplane mode. Some GSM frames are still transmitted, as per what my fellow
ham geeks have told me (I'm one as well).

------
jpv
A little unrelated, but... "gNewSense" is the _worst_ name for a laptop I've
heard in a long time.

~~~
m_myers
gNewSense is actually the "GNU/Linux" distribution:
<http://www.gnewsense.org/>

The laptop is the Lemote Yeeloong -- which I'll grant isn't much better to
English ears.

------
kjetil
In Soviet Russia, cell phone call you!

