Slashdot Mirror
Why Free Software Evangelist Richard Stallman is Haunted by Stalin's Dream (factordaily.com)
Richard Stallman recently visited Mandya, a small town about 60 miles from Bengaluru, India, to give a talk. On the sidelines, Indian news outlet FactorDaily caught up with Stallman for an interview. In the wide-ranging interview, Stallman talked about companies that spy on users, popular Android apps, media streaming and transportation apps, smart devices, DRM, software backdoors, subscription software, and Apple and censorship. An excerpt from the interview: If you are carrying a mobile phone, it is always tracking your movements and it could have been modified to listen to the conversations around you. I call this product Stalin's dream. What would Stalin have wanted to hand out to every inhabitant of the former Soviet Union? Something to track that person's movements and listen to the person's conservations. Fortunately, Stalin could not do it because the technology didn't exist. Unfortunately for us, now it does exist and most people have been pressured or lured into carrying around such a Stalin's dream device, but not me.
I am suspicious of new digital technology. I expect it to have new malicious functionalities. It has happened so many times that I have learned to expect this, so I have always checked before I start using some new digital technology. I asked to find out what is nasty about it and I found out these two things. It was something like 20 years ago, and I decided it was my duty as a citizen to refuse, regardless of whatever convenience it might offer me. To surrender my freedom in this way was failing to defend a free society. This is why I do not have a portable phone. I refuse to carry a portable phone. I never have one and unless things change, I never will. I do use portable phones, lots of different ones. If I needed to call someone right now, I would ask one of you, "Could you please make a call for me?" If I am on a bus and it is late and I need to tell somebody that I am going to arrive late, there is always some other passenger in the bus who will make a call for me or send a text for me. Practically speaking, it is not that hard.
I am suspicious of new digital technology. I expect it to have new malicious functionalities. It has happened so many times that I have learned to expect this, so I have always checked before I start using some new digital technology. I asked to find out what is nasty about it and I found out these two things. It was something like 20 years ago, and I decided it was my duty as a citizen to refuse, regardless of whatever convenience it might offer me. To surrender my freedom in this way was failing to defend a free society. This is why I do not have a portable phone. I refuse to carry a portable phone. I never have one and unless things change, I never will. I do use portable phones, lots of different ones. If I needed to call someone right now, I would ask one of you, "Could you please make a call for me?" If I am on a bus and it is late and I need to tell somebody that I am going to arrive late, there is always some other passenger in the bus who will make a call for me or send a text for me. Practically speaking, it is not that hard.
That works because everyone else is carrying Stalin's dream.
If nobody did, it'd be like the times before everyone had a cell phone. Life was quite tolerable then too.
Leftist is a term used by people who have run out of arguments. And probably thoughts.
There are no leftists in America that want Stalin's Dream. The people running tech companies are hard core Libertarians who would run over their own dogs if that dog was getting in between them and their stock options.
That's Capitalism, sport, nothing leftist about it. Tech wants to spy on you and sell your information. There is nothing liberal about that.
Find a new word, "leftist" fails as an insult because it is meaningless to everyone outside of the Glenn Beck/Alex Jones/Q-Anon crowd.
Like most leftists, he's fine with using Stalin's Dream as long as it's invading your life and not his
Bullshit.
He's saying quite clearly no one who cares about their freedom and/or privacy should carry around one of these devices. He's right.
He's also (indirectly implying or saying) that most people choose convenience over freedom. He's right about that too.
Finally, he's making the point to those who might care _almost_ as much about their freedom as convenience that, as long as there are so many people willing to trade their freedom for convenience, those who care about such things can piggy-back off of them to get almost the same level of convenience without compromising their location 24/7/365.25. He's right about that as well.
He is not saying "Freedom for me, not for you" he's merely mentioning a useful workaround that he probably himself hopes will become untenable someday (because everyone "sees the light" and stops carrying surveillance devices around). He's also implicitly acknowledging that that is most likely a pipe-dream, and he's right about that most of all.
But nice try on the right-wing anti-leftist spin against a guy who had the audacity to share his source code with the world, and write a license to help others do the same. I'm sure Putin likes you very much.
It's interesting -- I remember the first time I read Utopia (probably in high school?), my objection was that Moore's premise of living a perfect life in a perfect society relied on letting somebody else fight all the wars.
I respect Stallman and I'm glad he's out there, but I smell a whiff of that here: it's "not that hard" for him to live without the convenience of a cell phone because he's able to assume someone else will be.
It's strange that he doesn't just carry a pre-paid phone with the battery taken out. I don't carry a cell phone either but, I keep a pre-paid one in my car (or sometimes laptop bag if I'm traveling) with the battery taken out. No tracking, no listening and I basically get a portable pay phone that doesn't need quarters to operate.
Socialism is an evil and immoral philosophy that advocates treating human beings as chattel
No, it is not. Look up the definition: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.". Just like any political ideology it only becomes immoral if it is taken to extremes but that is just as true of capitalism as well.
Like most things in life generally what works best is a balance. The community needs to provide some regulation on production, distribution and exchange to provide protection for its weakest members but, at the same time, not too much regulation otherwise it stifles and prevents the innovation and entrepreneurship that we all rely on to make our lives better. I'm not a fan of socialism because its proponents tend to take it, in my opinion, far too far towards the regulation/control side of things. However, it is by no means an "evil and immoral philosophy" nor does it advocate "treating human beings as chattel". You are thinking about communism which is not at all the same thing.
This. These people aren't spying because of their party. They are spying because it pays them billions to.
...unless we're in China.
This is not an argument for either "side" per se, but rather a note of comparison:
In generally free societies, you get spied on for profit (if they can), and little-to-nothing more. The worst they do with your data to is sell what they learn about you to advertisers, who them toss up ads that hopefully get past ad-blockers and try to entice you out of some of your money.
Now let's contrast that with a totalitarian-oriented society, where that data, coupled with omnipresent external cameras, facial recognition, a bit of AI to back it up, and a government-owned/run social credit rating that can either make your life easier (if you're a 'model citizen'), or infinitely harder (if you don't sufficiently conform)?
Now - which of the two do you figure to be the most dangerous to individual life and liberty?
To be honest, I don't much mind carrying a smartphone in the US (half the time I'm out of any cell range anyway, given my rural locale). By contrast, I'd be scared shitless to carry one around if I were a citizen and resident of, say, Shanghai.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
No. It means individual freedom, but for everyone rather than the elite.
They both pushed right wing societal values such as attacking and even killing homosexuals, certain races and such, as well as governance by those with merit . At that when Stalin took charge, a lot of what is usually considered leftist in America was prosecuted. He even believed in capitalism, as long as the government was the capitalist running industry. Like most successful capitalists, he did hate the free market, as that means competition.
Neither one believed in the people and especially having the regular people involved in governance through democracy and neither made any moves in the direction of communism, which has as one of its basic tenants to not have government.
People are complex and can not be simply divided up into the right wing and left wing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism