Slashdot Mirror
Proprietary Software is the Driver of Unprecedented Surveillance: Richard Stallman (factor-tech.com)
From a wide-ranging interview of Richard Stallman, president of the Free Software Foundation, programming legend and recipient of at least 15 honorary doctorates and professorships: "The reason that we are subject now to more surveillance than there was in the Soviet Union is that digital technology made it possible," he says. "And the first disaster of digital technology was proprietary software that people would install and run on their own computers, and they wouldn't know what it was doing. They can't tell what it's doing. And that is the first injustice that I began fighting in 1983: proprietary software, software that is not free, that the users don't control." Here, Stallman is keen to stress, he doesn't mean free in the sense of not costing money -- plenty of free software is paid for -- but free in the sense of freedom to control. Software, after all, instructs your computer to perform actions, and when another company has written and locked down that software, you can't know exactly what it is doing. "You might think your computer is obeying you, when really its obeying the real master first, and it only obeys you when the real master says it's ok. With every program there are two possibilities: either the user controls the program or the program controls the users," he says. "It's free software if users control it. And that's why it respects their freedom. Otherwise it's a non-free, proprietary, user subjugating program."
The Free Software Foundation requirements are so restrictive that no mainstream Linux distribution qualifies. Stallman is living in a fantasy world where he thinks billions of people are going to start learning command lines and troubleshooting their own comparability issues. This is not reality.
Open source MUST be made easy to use or else Average Joe User will never use it. In the real world, rightly or wrongly, people care about EASE OF USE more than abstract philosophical concerns about free software.
The open source movement needs more businesspeople and fewer armchair philosophers. We do not need yet another FOSS project reinventing the wheel and having 3-5 developers trying to drum up support for their spin on something that has been done 50 times already. We need to see more along the likes of RedHat and Canonical if open source is going to take over the mainstream.
And then they can't be spied on and tracked via the web, because FF is free software.
Keep dreaming...
For the average person trying to decide whether to run some new support ticketing package on IIS or LAMP is thinking "free" as in beer, not free as in "I can get in and fork this web server library to suit my purposes." Most people have no more sense of whether or not their free-as-in-hackable module or plugin or OS is watching them or recording telemetry for their own good or not. And most them don't care, either. They just want it to work.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Now I think he's just right, and almost all the time.
His previous statements were warnings. This one is an "I told you so."
Most people in Antifa cannot even define actual fascism. This is video taken from an Antifa rally. The crowd literally CHEERS quotes from Hitler, not realizing that they are Hitler quotes:
http://tomwoods.com/leftists-accidentally-cheer-hitler-speeches/
I hate fascism. That is why I also hate Antifa.
Free/Open Software is an ideal of the STEM community. It is great and I think it is better. However the entire global software user base is not of the STEM mindset. Many companies want to have a business model of selling software licenses. Some sell both licenses and support. Stallman has long preferred the idea that we as a society share information the is easy to copy. He supports a reasonable compensation related to creative works. But puts more emphasis on compensation through continued support of that creative work. He cites situations where people use non-free/open software, support ends for that software and people are then often forced to either discontinue use, increase vulnerability or loss of productivity risks, and/or purchase a new license of what is essentially the same software that has extra non-security related enhancements. For the latter argument it is made that users end up paying not just for the enhancements, but also for the original product as well as a built in support retainer in many cases.
It is my belief that the problem Mr. Stallman really wants to fix is this last business model. For every person in the world to have full control over all the information they are given is a great idea. Reality is that the Human condition of greed, or improving ones self by disadvantaging another, prevents FOSS. It, indeed then, would be enough to mandate software and information not be double charged. That either an ongoing support license for use or a support license retainer built into an original product followed by cheaper enhancements with a further retainer built in be possible. Many companies already do this. It isn't FOSS, it isn't giving the user base full control over information. That isn't possible due to greed. In the same way certain governments such as Marxist Communism really isn't possible.
But, to defend greed just a bit, a sense of bettering ones self does drive many people to do things that are not comfortable, that are above average, that give them a sense of fulfillment in their lives. For those of us that embrace FOSS we are free to continue our scientific sharing of ideas. We should be thankful that those who oppose or seek to abuse FOSS must follow the same rules that protect non-free closed software.
There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
Richard Stallman is a pedophile
There is no evidence for that. All he ever did was say that he is "skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children".
Now, I personally disagree with him on that (and many other things), but this statement is insufficient evidence to label him a pedophile. Even if he is, a pedophile is someone who loves children. A pedosexual predator is someone who targets children for their personal sexual gratification. And I don't think Richard Stallman is any of these.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
is how many geeks who should know better, see nothing wrong with so-called "smart" so-called "telephones" -- which are the antithesis of what we computer hobbyists were trying to build for all those decades. The answer is to stop giving Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and such companies any of your time or money, and to stop being an enabler in the abusive relationships those companies have with your friends and co-workers.
Sadly, you are right. Most of nowadays privacy violations are actually voluntary (although perhaps unaware) cessions. You don't have any control on what you do on other machine like when performing virtually any action on a website. Making sure that your own system is on your side is certainly important, but it seems that the main battle is being able to somehow restrict the current wild-west like online reality. Users should knowledgeably agree (i.e., not being forced to accept a legal gibberish which nobody reads, but freely answering a clear request) before their information is collected.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Your comment is a great example of the delusion and denial we so often see from Firefox supporters. The GP gave us 20+ clear examples of how Firefox can violate a Firefox user's privacy. And how did you respond? You responded with a sad mix of denial, of ignorance, of equivocation, of excuses, and of pathetically trying to justify the unjustifiable. You have become a slave to ideology. Any thinking person realizes that there's only one way to see Firefox's failed approach to "privacy": as totally unacceptable. And they also see that there's only one way to deal with it: by never using Firefox.
The difference maybe being that it's trivially easy to remove any and all spying from OSS without compromising functionality.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Also, he's a wealthy and privileged Jew having been raised on the Upper Westside and spent his entire adult life in elite education institutions yet somehow not actually teaching anything or publishing any research.
Why is it that your post makes me feel a sudden surge of affection and respect for wealthy and privileged Jews who spend their entire adult life in elite education institutions?
To say that Stallman has never actually taught anything is an astonishing distortion, given that he has done more than anyone to popularize the benefits of free software. And what do you mean by "publishing research"? What Stallman has done is immensely more useful and practical than any "research" published in some learned journal.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
So what? Hitler said a lot of things that make sense. For example, he was against smoking and made several anti-smoking speeches.
As pretty much any other dictator. It's quite easy to cut Hitler speeches to support right-wingers as well. I can even do it with Lenin's speeches.
I bought a surround surroundbar from Vizio for my TV. It has an app to allow you to control it from your phone or tablet. It wanted permission to report it's location with the explanation that it would help it to find "wireless networks". Why a glorified remote control would need to find networks is a problem, but reporting home about where I'm at is out of the question. I just refused to install it and used the remote.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
It isn't even just about convenience. Users don't want to take the time to learn or understand software. Rather than use it as a tool they control, they want the software to do all the thinking for them. They want to push one, maybe two buttons, and have the software figure out what was intended and just do everything automatically. The moment you give them the control they really should have, they complain that "it's scary," "it's too complicated," or "it isn't intuitive."