I wonder if there is really a need to choose either convenience or privacy in the long run. Privacy-conscious technologies could be made easy to use. We're just not there yet, but it seems that lately security is being taken more seriously. When people realize how much of their lives they are giving away there might be a push for it...
I find this incredibly disrespectful. I considered flagging it because I think it's on the order of insulting someone's spouse, but I don't think that's exactly what "flag" is for.
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.
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).
Other than the government decoding your GSM communications (which it can just ask Ma Bell to tap without a warrant and get away with, according to the W.Bush-era abuses) I don't see that particular un-free code helping in tracking or spying on you.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-6140191.html
Tin foil hats wouldn't be quite as silly if mind control rays were real and already used in the field.
Open your comment in a text editor and count how many times you said " I ".
I also find such writing bloodless. Others may have a knack for doing it well, but when I write without putting myself into the words, it reads like I'm pretending to be an academic writing a paper with all the neutrality and "fair and balanced" viewpoints.
Context affects my perspective on this. Sites like Quora, Stack Exchange, and Wikipedia exist to build compendiums of knowledge. Neutrality is crucial to their mission. But is the article comments of Hacker News the same kind of place? I don't know, but so far I don't think so. (I could have written, "But so far it seems this is not the case," I imagine). Hacker News is composed of people discussing ideas with people. Personal opinions seem to be the point of the comments section.
So... When I state my opinions I use the word "I."
1. Stop using the word "I" but continue to state my opinions. 2. Stop stating my opinions. 3. Carry on, but live with the consequences of sounding smug and arrogant.
Is it possible that throwing opinions around is smug and arrogant, no matter how they are couched? Perhaps the real issue here is between pretending to be humble (option 1) or actually being humble (option 2)?
Whackberry, this is very interesting, and I'm sorry I only have one upvote to give your response.
If we want to start throwing around nearly antiquated terms of insult, it should be noted that the OP was being snide, and whackberry was being iniquitous. (This is true whether or not your comment was in fact smug btw).
It wasn't the use of "I"s. It was:
* Your borderline ad hominem-like nitpicking about "proving" vs "demonstrating". Unless there are gross language problems, I'd rather have people disagree with the ideas rather than language use.
* Your incredulous stance that you didn't understand what whackberry refers to when s/he writes "convenience-privacy continuum?" and asking for citation. I would have used the word "spectrum" but still I think it's perfectly clear what s/he means, and it's a well-known topic.
* Your last sentence, which sort of sounds dismissive of what the person you are disagreeing with thinks.
I didn't think it was perfectly clear, especially in the context of saying that Mr. Stallman doesn't understand or accept it. I can conjecture what I think people mean when they say this and what argument they are making and why they think Mr. Stallman doesn't agree with them, but how do I argue with my conception of someone else's conception of what Mr. Stallman believes without attacking a strawman?
I thought it was far better to challenge the phrase and ask what it means. If someone replies and says "There's trade-off between convenience and privacy," we can have a chat about false dichotomies or whether the convenience is for telcos or for users, and so on. Or maybe they explain something else, and I might discover something unexpected.
You could have just as easily written:
I think the trade-off between convenience and privacy is a false dichotomy.
And waited for a response or a correction. Or if you wanted to check first:
When you say privacy/convenience continuum, do you mean the trade-off between convenience and privacy?
Or if you didn't want to hazard a guess:
What do you mean when you say privacy/convenience continuum?
Any of which would have been far more gracious than what you actually said.
I didn't pretend to entertain the possibility of a citation, he (or you) could easily reply "It's the same thing as this thing or that thing, just different words." I still entertain this possibility.
If you want to say I was ungracious in replying to an incredibly terse statement, I do not disagree. But dishonesty doesn't enter into asking someone what they mean by a phrase that I haven't seen before--and which doesn't have Google hits--and asking for a citation.
Terse? Yes. Ungracious? Sure, why not. Dishonest? I don't think so.
EDIT: But still, thanks for the feedback. I like where you're coming from about graciousness.
First, the word you're thinking of is "demonstrating," not "proving." But let's get to the big stuff.
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.