Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RMS, Aaron Swartz Among 2013 Internet Hall of Fame Inductees

Posted by Soulskill on from the barry-bonds-given-the-cold-shoulder-again dept.

gnujoshua writes "The Internet Hall of Fame inducted 32 new members, today. This years class had a number of 'policy innovators' and activists including Aaron Swartz (posthumous), John Perry Barlow, Jimmy Wales, and Richard M. Stallman. Stallman had this to say upon his induction: 'Now that we have made the Internet work, the next task is to stop it from being a platform for massive surveillance, and make it work in a way that respects human rights, including privacy.'"

65 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. Re:A Plead from Jimmy Wales by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

    As annoying and pitiful as those pleas are he certainly belongs in the internet hall of fame.

  2. RMS named by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the world is actually finally reaching a more dire version of the 2010 panel of this xkcd: https://xkcd.com/743/

    1. Re:RMS named by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It was reached a long time ago, but we're finally starting to realize it. Where are all the smug "chicken little" accusations now?

    2. Re:RMS named by brit74 · · Score: 1

      How about this: open source software would've fixed NOTHING. The spying that's going on is on the network, it's not because you kept using Microsoft Word.

    3. Re:RMS named by kthreadd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How to you know that Microsoft Word doesn't spy on you? Do you have the source code?

    4. Re:RMS named by TeknoHog · · Score: 2

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAKEY

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    5. Re:RMS named by readingaccount · · Score: 2

      How to you know that Microsoft Word doesn't spy on you?

      Let me ask you this: how do you know that God doesn't exist? It's a stupid question because it's very difficult to proof the lack of an existence of something. Rather, the appropriate way to phrase the question is simply: how do you know that God exists? You have to prove your case, not get others to disprove it.

      Likewise: how do you know that Microsoft Word is spying on you? The burden of proof is on you to show this is happening. You make the point that the source code is not available, but there are many other ways to analyze the behavior of software, even when closed. Off the top of my head would be Wireshark.

      Do you really think, out of the millions (billions?) of Word users, including no doubt some very, very smart security researchers, that someone wouldn't have thought of this very issue and perhaps did some forensics to check to see if Word is somehow spying? If it could be shown that something nefarious was happening, it would be all over the net. But given this hasn't happened, it's more logical (and we geeks pride ourselves on thinking logically and rationally, right?) to assume that it's just a fucking word processor and nothing more.

    6. Re:RMS named by Xest · · Score: 1

      Because it's trivial to detect outbound data transfer.

      Seriously it's like the same argument with Microsoft using Kinect in the new XBox to spy on you - you think people wouldn't be able to detect a video/audio stream sent from their console? You think you can make this kind of data transfer magically invisible on the network?

      You may not control the software, you may not even control the hardware, but most people control the equipment those things have to pass through to get to their destinations. Even if the data transfer is encrypted it's enough to raise questions when you see a sizeable data transfer which would be required to transfer anything meaningful.

      The same is true of Windows activation which someone suggested may be a vector for this transfer - there's a big difference between the few kilobytes needed to activate software and the multi-megabytes that would be needed to transfer anything of value.

      This is why such conspiracy theories are just stupid, they seem to rely on some magical ability to hide data transfer across devices they don't even control. To get away with this sort of conspiracy theory Microsoft would have to not just hide everything so well that many millions of man hours of security research can't find it, but also be in league with every router, switch and network device manufacturer on the planet, every ISP at every hop along the way and so forth.

      This is why Prism has stuck to tapping the fibres and so forth - because it can be done transparently without anyone finding out if it weren't for whistleblowers. When you start adding exploits and backdoors into the devices people find out. You really think Russia's FSB and so forth are somehow so infinitely more incompetent than the NSA that they couldn't unmask this sort of thing?

      You only have to look at scenarios where security services have tried this sort of thing, it didn't exactly take that long for the likes of Stuxnet to be unmasked did it and that was pretty specifically targeted.

      There's a vast difference between NSA spying transparently and them backdooring actual hardware and software indiscriminately. They may get away with doing it to bug a targeted individual's system but they're never going to get away with it on hardware and software owned by millions of people around the globe without someone noticing something fishy.

      It's stupid, if you don't own and control the entire end-to-end infrastructure you can't hide anything, it's a two way street - just as you don't necessarily know what MS Word does being closed source (though that's not necessarily an impediment if you know assembly), they don't know what you can and can't see with your router or whatever on your network because they don't control and own it, hence they cannot hide anything from it.

    7. Re:RMS named by gigaherz · · Score: 1

      By that logic any piece of software that has ever linked to a socket library has the ability to spy. Regardless if it has any actual code to do so.

  3. Internet Hall of Fame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What is this? Is this seriously a thing now? Who gave the people in charge the authority for this? Or is it just another group of old white guys sitting around congratulating themselves on being rich?

    1. Re:Internet Hall of Fame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's progressive, activist, old white guys. Thanks.

      In short, it's old hippies who don't see the irony.

    2. Re:Internet Hall of Fame? by mapsjanhere · · Score: 2

      How can it be serious? They added RMS.

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
  4. RMS and unintended outcomes by hazeii · · Score: 4, Interesting

    >Stallman had this to say upon his induction: 'Now that we have made the Internet work, the next task is to stop it from being a platform for massive surveillance, and make it work in a way that respects human rights, including privacy.'"

    In retrospect, it would have been neat to have written that kind of thing into the GPL (the spooks would have run Windows servers instead, and our privacy would be safe if we used anything more complex than ROT13).

    --
    All your ghosts are just false positives.
    1. Re:RMS and unintended outcomes by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      The GPL would somehow stop the NSA?

      Not seeing it.

    2. Re:RMS and unintended outcomes by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and our privacy would be safe if we used anything more complex than ROT13)

      I like the naieve implication that the NSA is somehow incompetent. Recall that the original AES spec was amended with a recommendation from the NSA which was determined, around 10 years later, to have substantially strengthened it against just-now-being-discovered cryptographic attacks. Recall that the NSA is largely responsible for SELinux.

      Im sure there are other examples of their competence which escape it, but needless to say they arent exactly bumbling; theres every indication that some of the best security folks in the industry work @ the NSA.

    3. Re:RMS and unintended outcomes by hazeii · · Score: 1

      That's not what I was implying.

      --
      All your ghosts are just false positives.
    4. Re:RMS and unintended outcomes by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      SELinux is great. Configuring it could be somewhat easier.

    5. Re:RMS and unintended outcomes by game+kid · · Score: 1

      In retrospect, it would have been neat to have written that kind of thing into the GPL (the spooks would have run Windows servers instead, and our privacy would be safe if we used anything more complex than ROT13).

      Even the FSF says the GNU AGPL addresses some, but not all, of their issues with software run over a network—best to just roll your own versions of the cloud stuff on your compy if you really give a fuck about not being mined and mailed out.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    6. Re:RMS and unintended outcomes by Burz · · Score: 1

      Qubes OS is a heck of a lot stronger and less fuss than SELinux. Anything that is not using hardware VM features to keep apps and services from misbehaving is looking pretty outmoded, IMO.

    7. Re:RMS and unintended outcomes by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The GPL would stop government spooks trained in illegal activities from doing illegal spooky stuff? I had not realized the superpower that GPL had.

    8. Re:RMS and unintended outcomes by Xest · · Score: 1

      Yet their dirty secrets were spread far and wide by Edward Snowden, and that's the reality.

      They no doubt do have some absolute geniuses working for them but it only takes one bumbling manager to fuck it all up by saying something they shouldn't, or by mandating that their secrets should be accessible way beyond sensible levels of security. The fact a low level contractor at a 3rd party company had so much access to NSA secrets is evidence of that.

      Security is always limited by the weakest link and it's no different for the NSA, they could have the top 10,000 brightest security experts in the world working there but it'd only take their 10,001'th employee to be a bumbling idiot to fuck all that up. You don't need the NSA to be incompetent, you just need a single one of their employees to be incompetent, and guaranteeing 100% incompetence across a whole large organisation is an arguably impossible feat.

  5. Listen here. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    "the next task is to stop it from being a platform for massive surveillance, and make it work in a way that respects human rights, including privacy"

    Good. Is everybody now aware of the difference between warrantless, untracked government surveillance, and Amazon putting you into a list of potential Depends buyers?

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  6. You lost me at Jimmy Wales. Where is Larry Sanger? by Electrawn · · Score: 1

    Jimmy Wales
    Fueled the user collaboration and sharing trend as founder of Wikipedia

    Uh, what the hell?

  7. RMS is a hero in my eyes (again) by hojo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In my idealistic youth, I thought of him as a programming God.

    As I grew older, I began regarding him as more of a cranky old, "get off my lawn", impractical hard liner.

    Now, with the whole NSA/Snowden revelations, I realize I was wrong to be complacent. He has reverted to deity status for me.

    1. Re:RMS is a hero in my eyes (again) by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not sure what you think has changed. Unless you didn't already realize the NSA was doing this unlike the other 95% of the population did.

      We knew it already and still ignored him, because in the end, no one cares. They *say* they care, but they don't.

      In fact, at this point, I'd put even money on the assertion that the only reason anyone is even talking about this is because the media is telling us to care about it. You know, it's sort of like Jim Carrey figuring out he didn't like violence AFTER Newtown, but somehow having amnesia about Columbine, Virginia Tech, and well... just about every other act of violence before that.

      Were you wrong to be complacent? Maybe. Did *this* make you wrong? I don't see why it would. As far as can be told, other than finding out some details, you're still living in the same world you were complacent about a couple of months ago.

      I'm already working to figure out how many weeks it will be after Snowden is either caught, or safely in Ecuador, before everyone stops caring again.

    2. Re:RMS is a hero in my eyes (again) by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Its possible for a fanatic with no perspective to make good points. Hes still living in his own little world where all software should be created by publicly supported, roaming gypsy programmers.

      FOSS can be valuable, useful, and desirable without it being necessary (or even desirable) that it be the only option.

    3. Re:RMS is a hero in my eyes (again) by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In fact, at this point, I'd put even money on the assertion that the only reason anyone is even talking about this is because the media is telling us to care about it.

      Really? The coverage I have seen is focused almost exclusively on "the hunt for Eric Snowden" and takes very little time to discuss the substantive issues raised by his revelations--chiefly that most of our privacy has been a facade for the better part of a decade. I was never that cynical before this, so congratulations for being the first ones to believe something was amiss.

      --
      Who did what now?
    4. Re:RMS is a hero in my eyes (again) by grumpy_old_grandpa · · Score: 2

      > He's still living in his own little world where all software should be [GPL'ed]

      Reach for the stars - hit the moon

    5. Re:RMS is a hero in my eyes (again) by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      They've spent a fair amount of time looking at those implications already, I'd say. That they have moved on to the "action movie" drama that is unfolding only makes perfect sense for the news media.

      I still am shocked to find people who believe that there was some sort of privacy "facade" out there. Don't you guys know what the capabilities of the NSA are? Have we not already heard of things like tapping Soviet undersea cables, ECHELON, and other fun toys?

      Nothing has changed with this admission if you've been paying attention for the last twenty years or longer. They've always had the ability to spy on us. The fact that no one has actually shown that this has been abused in any way leads me to wonder how anyone, on sober reflection, could believe anything has changed at all.

      This is a media amplified circus where they have something exciting to report on. "An NSA agent is a leaker! He's ON THE RUN! HE THINKS HE MIGHT BE ASSASSINATED!" All of that is narcissism further enabled by the reporting. He wanted to be a hero so badly that he didn't even care that he didn't actually expose anything worth getting himself thrown in jail.

    6. Re:RMS is a hero in my eyes (again) by cinky · · Score: 1

      but he is a cranky old, "get off my lawn", impractical hard liner. What exactly would be the difference if we did it the "RMS way"?

    7. Re:RMS is a hero in my eyes (again) by cinky · · Score: 1

      yeah GNU Hurd is a nice example on how it works in the real world :)

    8. Re:RMS is a hero in my eyes (again) by Xest · · Score: 1

      To be fair the BBC at least has had a number of articles such as "What could they know about me?" and that sort of thing so it's not all media outlets that have been ignoring the questions the revelation raises.

    9. Re:RMS is a hero in my eyes (again) by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 1

      Nothing has changed with this admission if you've been paying attention for the last twenty years or longer. They've always had the ability to spy on us. The fact that no one has actually shown that this has been abused in any way leads me to wonder how anyone, on sober reflection, could believe anything has changed at all.

      Suspicion-free spying on every American doesn't count as "Abuse" in your book? What would they have to do to actually abuse their power based on your definition?

      Prior to this the facade of "innocent until proven guilty" and "the 4th Amendment" still applying existed. Just because they had the capability to spy on us didn't automatically mean they were--only a paranoid nutter believes everybody is out to get them without any actual evidence that they are. Ironically, it seems that, in fact, by shutting down the original warrantless wiretapping program under Bush, the government took that as incentive to go to FISA and get an order to spy on even more innocent people rather than reforming the investigation methodologies to fall in line with the constitution.

      Snowden's revelations change everything: For one thing, it reveals to a mostly ignorant public the existence of secret laws that we can't know about, secret courts whose rulings can't be appealed. Both of which are unconstitutional on their face. And even if a few conspiracy theory nutters/Alex Jones acolytes thought they knew the full depth of this and believed they could "prove" what was happening "years ago!" really doesn't matter--they didn't have any real proof beyond supposition. Now we all have proof and can take action.

      --
      Who did what now?
  8. Re:So do we have to call the Internet by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    GNU/Internet now?

    ... only the segment that orbits RMS.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  9. Re:First post by TWiTfan · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I bet you never even sailed on the RMS Aaron Swartz, did you?

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  10. Stallman by Danathar · · Score: 1

    Not that I agree completely with him on many topics, the idea about stopping the Internet from being a massive surveillance mechanism seems like a good idea...

    1. Re:Stallman by brit74 · · Score: 1

      Thank God that Stallman is around to tell us this novel and enlightening idea. Or maybe he was just repeating what a million other people have already said.

  11. Re:Induced by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

    Yes it is. Induced doesn't mean what you think it means.

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  12. Re:A Plead from Jimmy Wales by TWiTfan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Expect a crazy video to soon follow from John McAfee, detailing how the Illuminati stopped him from getting in.

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  13. Why Aaron Swartz? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hate to do this, but I have to question the inclusion of Aaron Swartz.

    Yes, what happened to the young man is a tragedy. But a 'Hall of Fame' should be for people with actual accomplishments. All Swartz did was get himself into trouble, and instead of enduring his legal difficulties he decided to commit suicide. That's a symbol of cowardice, not heroism.

    Should naive activists who are cowardly in the face of oppression be considered for any Hall of Fame?

    1. Re:Why Aaron Swartz? by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Suicide is not cowardice, it's either a mental disorder or logical. Probably a bit of grey in between those two.

    2. Re:Why Aaron Swartz? by DrGamez · · Score: 1

      Should naive commentators who are anonymously cowardly in the face of Slashdot be considered for any mod points?

    3. Re:Why Aaron Swartz? by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1. The guy had depression. You don't fuck with depression. The government did, until he could finally take no more. If you knew fucking *anything* about depression, then you might have even the slightest clue of how he must have felt. Hint: It's not a happy feeling.
      2. Yes, he got into trouble with a ridiculous federal law, and was made an example of by people in power who were had more greed than anything, wanting to utterly destroy his life just for a bit of fame and fortune on their end. In the end, their plan backfired--and deservedly so.
      3. Enduring his legal difficulties? I'm pretty sure just before his suicide *ALL* hope for a reduced prison sentence was thrown out the window in Ortiz's infinite wisdom, meaning "enduring his legal difficulties" would be "stuck behind bars for 35 years or so." He hung in there for a couple years until the U.S. removed all hope.
      4. The whole treatment the government gave him opened the eyes of a lot of people on the corrupt joke of the U.S. "justice" system, and in the end he has done the world a service on that alone. Changes are still likely to come, thanks to him.

    4. Re:Why Aaron Swartz? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Apparently Slashdot isn't your personal fiefdom, so the answer is: yes.

    5. Re:Why Aaron Swartz? by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

      Care to cite?

      "Last month, less than three months before his criminal trial was set to begin, Ortiz's office formally rejected a deal that would have kept Swartz out of prison. Two days later, Swartz killed himself."
      http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57570635-38/u.s-attorney-criticism-of-aaron-swartz-prosecution-is-unfair/

      Didn't think so.

      Not so fast. Can't I even get a chance to respond, dipshit?

      Just another fanboy martyr is all he was. The Cult Aaron Swartz... just another fanboy brigade who will chant his name any time IP is ever mentioned again.

      Nope, I guess not. You're just trolling.

    6. Re:Why Aaron Swartz? by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

      What? My shitty schools always applauded everything about this country. I refuse to buy into all of it, because frankly, a lot of it is pure horseshit. Just blind patriotism. I can see where the U.S. does things great, but I am most definitely not blind to all the things they fail miserably at. I am not blind to the corruption in government that keeps getting unraveled.

    7. Re:Why Aaron Swartz? by TeknoHog · · Score: 3, Informative
      Wikipedia:

      Swartz was involved in the development of the web feed format RSS, the organization Creative Commons, the website framework web.py and the social news site Reddit

      This is just from the summary that doesn't fully capture the range of his contributions, so you might want to read some more.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    8. Re:Why Aaron Swartz? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I don't know when or where you grew up, but in no way do schools push patriotism today. They stopped doing that in the 1980s. Most of the teachers I had were more likely to be in a peace march than extolling the virtues of America and patriotism.

    9. Re:Why Aaron Swartz? by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

      Funny, I was born in '85 and *all* of my schools pushed patriotism every chance they could get throughout the 90s and early 2000s. I just learned not to believe all the bullshit they spewed, and to use my head to form my own conclusions from the facts. Same with all the anti-drug propaganda they pushed, those retarded DARE and MADD presentations... a few of which I just said "fuck this shit" and took off out of the school. Yeah, that wasn't allowed, but they can suck it.

    10. Re:Why Aaron Swartz? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the inclusion of Swartz shows you right there this is a political game. They want to make a statement. I guess all of these judged honors are political to some extent, but this is clearly on the "highly political" end.

      I think it's unfortunate because it might give other young people the incentive to follow Swartz's example. It was a terrible precedent and it's irresponsible for adults to reward that behavior. Aaron Swartz died for what... so people won't have to pay for what seems to be inflated subscription rates to read academic journal articles?

    11. Re:Why Aaron Swartz? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      And if being in a peace march is patriotic? Loving one's country means more than being willing to kill for it.

  14. Re:First post by tnk1 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    The only thing that can sink the RMS Aaron Swartz is Aaron Swartz himself!

  15. Re:First post by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

    Hey, at least that ship lasted longer than the Itanic!

  16. Re:RMS yes by DrGamez · · Score: 1

    So edgy.
    So hard-lined!

    You really stuck it to that dead guy! Go hog wild!

  17. What a sham by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How can they expect to be taken seriously as an institution when they have repeatedly denied membership to internet pioneers such as Goatse Man and Ceiling Cat? And their refusal to adopt "You're the man now, dog" as their slogan is outrageous.

  18. Get your privacy back! by MaxDollarCash · · Score: 1

    Adnonify is a simple plug & play network device that will enable you to anonimize your surfing behaviour, avoid you being tracked by media/advertising companies and remove all intrusive advertising Support us on indiegogo http://igg.me/at/adnonify

  19. Re:A Plead from Jimmy Wales by kthreadd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://xkcd.com/978/

    The problem is that they want everything to be backed up by a verifiable source, and fails to enforce it. You either allow everyone to edit, or you follow established scientific procedures. Wikipedia does something in between, leaving both sides unhappy with it.

  20. Re:So do we have to call the Internet by kthreadd · · Score: 1

    Just make sure that you don't connect non-GPL parts of the Internet to the GPL parts and you'll be fine.

  21. Re:Richard Stallman! Hell Yeah! by kthreadd · · Score: 1

    Microsoft is integrating Git in Visual Studio. It starts small but you'll see, soon all they do will be open.

  22. Some things never change, Slashdot by petrus4 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I've got mod points today, and I figured that a good use of them would be beating the Stallmanite trolls into submission, who I knew would be infesting this thread. Unfortunately, there are far too many of them to be stopped by a measly five points.

    The vitriol directed towards Aaron Swartz, additionally, is nothing short of disgusting. Until someone is able to offer me concrete proof to the contrary, I am going to continue to believe that Swartz was the victim of assassination by the American government. If you want to convince me that I am wrong in believing that, then as I said, you had better have an extremely compelling argument.

    Jimmy Wales does not deserve induction into the Hall of Fame, either. Wikipedia has long since degenerated into a cess pit of pro-establishment pseudoskeptics, who ruthlessly delete anything which is not entirely in line with their agenda. Wales has also done absolutely nothing to try and restrain said people.

    1. Re:Some things never change, Slashdot by petrus4 · · Score: 1

      They've started doing that around here, now? I've been gone for a while. Given how fascist everything is getting everywhere else, it would be consistent.

  23. Re: So do we have to call the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Word is that RMS has graduated from eating toe jam to eating boogers. Good for him. Good for him.

  24. Re:So do we have to call the Internet by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't that be AGPL3?

  25. Who are these people? by Mehmet+Kse · · Score: 1

    Did I understand this correctly? RMS, Wales and Barlow has got in recently, so they are less famous then some guys have already been inducted, but I don't know any of them. Self appointed hall of fame?

  26. Re:A Plead from Jimmy Wales by crioca · · Score: 1
    It's enforced very often, just not always. Sooner or later someone (often like me) comes along and sweeps it up. I'm not a part of any "wiki-clique", I don't contribute any actual content, but if I'm browsing and I notice something untidy I'll tidy it up or put a relevant sign.

    Wikipedia does something in between, leaving both sides unhappy with it.

    You can't please everyone all the time, but Wikipedia does a damn good job at pleasing a lot of people.