SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Security researcher Collin Mulliner was surprised and angered to learn an open source toolkit he authored to enable hacking of Android phones, had been incorporated into the arsenal of spyware sold by the Hacking Team to its clients, which include a variety of police states around the world. Of course the discovery was made possible by the recent leak of over 400 GB of Hacking Team's source code; the tipster found Mulliner's contact info in the source code and figured he was a paid consultant.
Mulliner, a German researcher currently affiliated with Boston's Northeastern University, presented the toolkit at a security conference in 2012; it combines mechanisms for hooking Android API functions in Linux userspace, with NFC/RFID hardware-level hacking, the latter apparently done in collaboration with fellow researcher Charlie Miller. Installation requires being in close physical proximity to the target's phone, to exploit NFC.
Mulliner stops short of accusing the Hacking Team of using his code unlawfully, but feels violated nonetheless. He vowed that his future projects will come with a license prohibiting use by "bad actors" - while admitting he doesn't know what such a license would look like.
Richard Stallman has consistently opposed tacking a "no military use" or similar onto the GPL:
Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program as you wish. If a license restricts how you can run the program, the program is not free software.
This criterion is crucial. We cannot accept programs in the GNU system which have limits on what they can be used for. If we did, different programs would come with different limits. One program, perhaps written by Muslims, might ban use by restaurants that serve alcohol; another program, perhaps written by the Munich Oktoberfest committee, might ban use by restaurants that do not serve alcohol. Continuing along these lines, we might end up with a system that nobody would be allowed to use.
But of course, even open source advocates are free to disagree with Stallman on many issues.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2015, @03:48PM
Normally, I think Stallman takes a good idea, and applies it in such a broad way that it becomes ludicrous.
Principled people often appear ludicrous to those less principles. The less principled will argue about practical matters, but if the situation changes, so too will their opinion. Some people argue against the NSA's mass surveillance based on the fact that it is ineffective; this would mean that if the NSA's mass surveillance became effective, they would be in support of this illegal human rights violation.
The matter is about freedom first and foremost. Other objections come after that.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2015, @04:20PM
"Principled" is often just a more positive way of saying zealot. I'll taking pragmatists over zealots every time.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2015, @04:28PM
Valuing ethics and freedom over physical safety/convenience isn't being a zealot, but if it was, then being a zealot would be good indeed.
You're saying you'll accept people who will abandon you and your freedom at a moment's notice when it becomes convenient/safe over people who won't. You are silly.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2015, @06:27PM
You're saying you'll accept people who will abandon you and your freedom at a moment's notice when it becomes convenient/safe over people who won't. You are silly.
As opposed to accepting people who would still think that owning people as property is acceptable because they are "principled"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2015, @08:00PM
Your response doesn't even make sense, because slavery is completely offtopic.
I could just as easily say that you must accept someone who thinks that slavery is good because it's somehow beneficial.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2015, @11:04PM
you say pragmatists, i say common street hookers
(Score: 3, Informative) by urza9814 on Wednesday July 22 2015, @05:40PM
Yes -- but whose? The guy creating the exploits, or the guy whose computer they're being run on?
If your goal is freedom of developers, then use a BSD license.
If your goal is freedom of users, it would certainly make sense to try to tweak the GPL to prevent this sort of behavior.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 23 2015, @08:33PM
If your goal is freedom of users, it would certainly make sense to try to tweak the GPL to prevent this sort of behavior.
Actually, it would make sense not to. They're not using the software to violate people's Software Freedoms; they're using it to violate other freedoms. That abuse must be fought individually.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2015, @06:26PM
The less principled will argue about practical matters, but if the situation changes, so too will their opinion.
What exactly is wrong about that? If your principles are based on flawed data, why should you not change your principles when this is pointed out?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2015, @08:03PM
Because many principles are based on subjective values, not hard data. I value my freedom of privacy over any protection mass surveillance could provide, even if mass surveillance did provide safety.
If you want to know what the problem is, it's that these people aren't truly your friends. One day they're campaigning against mass surveillance, and then the mass surveillance gets 'better' and suddenly they're your opponents. None of their arguments are based on ethics or freedom, but pure practical value.
(Score: 2) by Lunix Nutcase on Wednesday July 22 2015, @06:37PM
Principled people often appear ludicrous to those less principles. The less principled will argue about practical matters, but if the situation changes, so too will their opinion.
So according to you its more important to indignantly hold on to a principle rather than to constantly question one's principles and discard those that are found to be based on false assumptions or facts? Never questioning your beliefs and principles is not a good quality.
Some people argue against the NSA's mass surveillance based on the fact that it is ineffective; this would mean that if the NSA's mass surveillance became effective, they would be in support of this illegal human rights violation.
Prove it. Most of the people I've seen make that argument do so as part of a larger list of issues and are far more nuanced than your strawman. Also, they would not support it even if it was shown to be effective.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2015, @08:11PM
Never questioning your beliefs and principles is not a good quality.
I never said that you should never question your beliefs. All I said was that principled people don't always base their arguments on practical matters, and instead often base them on their own subjective values (as in, someone might value freedom over safety). You could point out contradictions to get them to change their views, ask them to reevaluate their values, or some other such thing.
No amount of practical value could convince me to be in favor of mass surveillance because I do not base my opposition of mass surveillance based on its effectiveness. I hope that is clear.
Prove it. Most of the people I've seen make that argument do so as part of a larger list of issues and are far more nuanced than your strawman.
I said "some people". Therefore, if at least one person makes that argument, it is no straw man. I have seen people (on the news and on various forums) say they would support mass surveillance if it were effective, but since they don't believe it currently does, they do not support it at this time. Are these not real people? The notion of some people believing nonsensical things is not hard to believe. If what I said does not apply to you, ignore it.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Lunix Nutcase on Wednesday July 22 2015, @08:53PM
I never said that you should never question your beliefs. All I said was that principled people don't always base their arguments on practical matters, and instead often base them on their own subjective values (as in, someone might value freedom over safety).
But that isn't really questioning your beliefs then.
No amount of practical value could convince me to be in favor of mass surveillance because I do not base my opposition of mass surveillance based on its effectiveness. I hope that is clear.
And nor do most of the people who argue against it.
I said "some people".
Okay, so name a single one of those people specifically.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2015, @09:10PM
But that isn't really questioning your beliefs then.
Sure it is. You examine your beliefs, find contradictions, and revise them. Or your values change, and you revise your beliefs.
And nor do most of the people who argue against it.
Most? So you accept that there are some people who do?
Okay, so name a single one of those people specifically.
I'm supposed to name random people for you? No. You're acting as if it's just crazy for some people in a world with around 7 billion people to have that completely mundane belief; it's not as if anyone is claiming someone got abducted by aliens. Name me a single starving African child, or some other random person. If you see someone make an argument in some forum online somewhere, or see someone say something on television, do you really make a note of their name just in case someone asks you for it later?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday July 22 2015, @08:12PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2015, @09:14PM
"Principled" doesn't mean "never questioning your principles."
Care to point out where I said "Principled people never question their principles." or anything similar?
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Thursday July 23 2015, @08:07AM
In general the “hanging on tightly” part becomes the core problem¹, extremely exaggerated it is as if once they've done “1 + 1 = 2” they decide all arithmetical questions must be “1 + 1” and thus always answer “2” or compare any actual or given result with “2” :D
¹ And it applies no matter what one calls it; principles, ideals, ideology, religion, politics, values, the names don't matter.
I say “they” but it's a challenge for everyone and one has to actively fight it and try to avoid it (and also realize that one most likely haven't managed to: it's not like any of us are omniscient).
Principles all too often (nearly always) end up becoming simple excuses for not having to think; just another hindrance against actually thinking and a dumb template used to decide sides and “allegiances”.
Principles are very effective at removing or ignoring context (doing so is pretty much the definition of principle) and preventing reexamination, I think it would be better to never give any abstract notion (be it principles or anything else) such veto power over your thoughts/thinking. It seems to me that the more one argues/debates with oneself (aka thinking) and others the less useful and more harmful principles become.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 23 2015, @08:40PM
And it applies no matter what one calls it; principles, ideals, ideology, religion, politics, values, the names don't matter.
Politicians are the exact opposite of principled.
Principles all too often (nearly always) end up becoming simple excuses for not having to think; just another hindrance against actually thinking and a dumb template used to decide sides and “allegiances”.
Then those people are doing silly things unrelated to principles.
Principles are very effective at removing or ignoring context (doing so is pretty much the definition of principle) and preventing reexamination
People are effective at that, not principles.
I think it would be better to never give any abstract notion (be it principles or anything else) such veto power over your thoughts/thinking.
That should include pragmatic thinking, then.
It seems to me that the more one argues/debates with oneself (aka thinking) and others the less useful and more harmful principles become.
I thought you wanted to encourage thinking?
Say I value the freedom to be free from mass surveillance as more important than any safety mass surveillance can bring (even if it was effective). It's not that I'm unwilling to hear arguments that mass surveillance increases safety; it's that I don't care much because I don't base my opinion of mass surveillance on how much safety it brings.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Monday July 27 2015, @07:03AM
Sorry for replying late. The point I'm making (or trying to make) is well illustrated with a positive example by you at the end where you gave a brief example of some reasoning on a specific topic rather than invoking a (general) principle or reducing it to a principle. Maybe you thought of it as a principle but since the thoughts are too nuanced and specific it doesn't lend itself easily to that (although you could possibly have said something like “…the principle of individual liberty” and left it at that without anyone knowing nearly as much about what and how you actually think or even what you were talking about nor realizing it if all they did was fill in all the empty gaps with their own opinions).
Compared to espousing a principle (or its stronger relative: dogma, or any other “shortcuts”) your example got closer to the details and context and invites far more thinking by/in those who read it. It also opens up the possibility for people to get detailed either in support or in disagreement; a conversation. It communicates clearly or at least far more clearly than principles usually do, and fewer people trip and fall into battlefield trenches from preconceived notions and biases.
Many politicians are (unfortunately) very principled (principles doesn't automatically mean “good”, valuable, correct, sensible, or reasoned etc.). Silly things aren't necessarily unrelated to principles. Principles make it easier to ignore context, they are based on generalizations which of course means they are based on removing context, this is what principles are, it's the whole point of them to focus on something principal and it's why they're named principles. It sure does include pragmatic thinking, that shouldn't be given any kind of veto power either.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 1) by jdavidb on Monday July 27 2015, @06:21PM
Principles all too often (nearly always) end up becoming simple excuses for not having to think
I think you'd have to be able to read minds to be able to say that accurately. Most people are going to feel quite disrespected to have their conclusions dismissed with "you aren't thinking."
It seems to me that the more one argues/debates with oneself (aka thinking) and others the less useful and more harmful principles become.
I've had the opposite experience.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Thursday July 23 2015, @01:49AM
Principled people are destroying the world.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 23 2015, @02:08AM
We have a severe lack of principled people. No (or very few) politicians willing to defend the US constitution or our fundamental liberties if it means that their political careers will be in danger or that they will have less power. Most people are seemingly not principled, either.
(Score: 1) by JBanister on Thursday July 23 2015, @03:15AM
Pragmatic considerations are both necessary and beneficial, even for those who do not have fewer principles. No part of the GPL covers code that modifies the act of creation of the parent code through recursive temporal looping, because that situation does not obtain. Using this license to attempt to regulate people who are intent on committing criminal acts is pointless, as they're willing to ignore rules involving criminal liability to achieve their ends, and any additional penalty for also ignoring the GPL is comparatively insignificant.