Christine Hall of FOSS Force has interviewed Richard Stallman with a series of seven questions. The interview wraps up with a question about LLMs and a question about service as a software substitute which leads to a discussion about digital surveillance.
Let’s contrast this with traditional systems of age verification to see how much worse this is. When you buy alcoholic beverages, a store clerk will ask to see your ID, but won’t record your identity, only take note of your age. That practice respects your privacy; its surveillance impact is null. But digital age verification systems record who you are, and precisely everything you do.
At 73 years old, I am sure all the sites that do age verification would rule I am old enough. But doing the age verification would give them my name or an ID number, and I refuse to give them that.
Because of my age, I am entitled to a discount card for the Boston trains and buses. But the card would record my identity every time I board a subway train or bus. I would rather pay full fare than submit to that.
I don’t own a car, or want to, but we need to stop cars from reporting where people go. I hope to find a mechanic who will work out how to convert connected cars into “disconnected cars.” I think it could be done by wrapping some sort of metal sheets around the antennas that transmit privacy-violating data, or receive GPS. Or perhaps just unscrewing them. To do navigation, use a stand-alone GPS receiver that isn’t connected to the car’s surveillance system.
One of the dangers of tech companies storing your personal data — and personal data about you — in their servers is that agents of repression can get that data from the company without even informing you.
For more about digital surveillance, see
https://gnu.org/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.html.
One long-running theme which RMS emphasizes is that software freedom remains a moral issue.
Previously:
(2023) The Four Freedoms and The One Obligation of Free Software
(2018) Happy 35th Birthday GNU!
(2018) RMS on a Radical Proposal to Keep Your Personal Data Safe
(2017) The Free Software Movement is Barking Up the Wrong Tree
(2017) US Court Upholds Enforceability of GNU GPL as Both a License and a Contract
(2015) GNU Prophet Richard Stallman Calls Windows and MacOS Malware
« Meta Settles States' Child-Safety Claims for $18B; Florida Rejects Deal as "Peanuts" | Plastic Bottles Can be Turned Into Edible, Vanilla-Flavour Cookies »
Related Stories
El Reg published a story that quotes GNU evangelist and free-software advocate saying just about what we would expect him to say today about the current state of technology:
LinuxGNU firebrand Richard Stallman says Windows and Mac OS are malware, Amazon is Orwellian, and anyone who trusts the internet-of-things is an ass. In a column for The Guardian, Stallman preaches to the non-technical masses about the evils of proprietary software and vendor lock-in, and how closed-door coding facilitates clandestine deals with nation state spy agencies."What kinds of programs constitute malware? Operating systems, first of all," Stallman testifies.
"Apple systems are malware too: MacOS snoops and shackles; iOS snoops, shackles, censors apps and has a backdoor.
"Even Android contains malware in a non-free component: a back door for remote forcible installation or de-installation of any app."
Stallman references a a Bloomberg report in saying Microsoft "sabotages" Windows users by disclosing vulnerabilities to the NSA before patches are released. It isn't just Windows and MacOS that Stallman brands malware: Barbie dolls, smart TVs, and cars also earn his ire thanks to the potential for marketers to secretly pry on a child's worst fears or listen in to lounge room conversations.
I'm not sure that I'm going to worry about Barbie dolls listening on conversations, but I understand his concerns. I have often wondered about the expansion of sophisticated computer technology into all aspects of life, such as in HDTVs and cars. The possibilities for abuse are many, and we have learned over recent years governments are not immune from exploiting vulnerabilities to commit serious crimes and violations of our civil liberties.
[Editor's Comment: Original Submission]
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Although the first version of the GNU GPL was released by Richard Stallman back in 1989, and version 3 was issued in 2007, there have been surprisingly few court cases examining it and other open source licenses, and whether they are legally watertight.
A key case is Jacobsen v. Katzer from 2008. As a detailed Groklaw post at the time explained, the US appeals court held that open source license conditions are enforceable as a copyright condition. Now we have another important judgment, Artifex v. Hancom, that clarifies further the legal basis of open source licenses. It concerns the well-known Ghostscript interpreter for the PostScript language, written originally by L. Peter Deutsch, and sold by the company he founded, Artifex Software. Artifex was a pioneer in adopting a dual-licensing approach for Ghostscript. That is, you could either use the software under the GNU GPL, or you could avoid copyleft's redistribution requirements by taking out a conventional proprietary license.
Hancom is a South Korean company that produces Hangul, word-processing software that is primarily used in South Korea as an alternative to Microsoft Word. Artifex says that Hancom incorporated Ghostscript into its Hangul software, but neither sought a proprietary license, nor complied with the terms of the GPL by releasing the source code for the application that incorporated Ghostscript. As a result, Artifex took legal action, alleging copyright infringement and breach of contract. Hancom asked the court to dismiss Artifex's complaint on several grounds, but they were all denied. The most significant ruling is on Hancom's claim that the GNU GPL was not a contract. In her order, embedded below, Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley wrote:
The GNU GPL, which is attached to the complaint, provides that the Ghostscript user agrees to its terms if the user does not obtain a commercial license. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used Ghostscript, did not obtain a commercial license, and represented publicly that its use of Ghostscript was licensed under the GNU GPL. These allegations sufficiently plead the existence of a contract.
Joseph Graham has written a very short blog post about software freedom and the direction we might take to achieve it.
The free software movement, founded in the 80s by Richard Stallman and supported by the Free Software Foundations 1, 2, 3, 4, preaches that we need software that gives us access to the code and the copyright permissions to study, modify and redistribute. While I feel this is entirely true, I think it's not the best way to explain Free Software to people.
I think the problem we have is better explained more like this:
"Computer technology is complicated and new. Education about computers is extremely poor among all age groups. Technology companies have taken advantage of this lack of education to brainwash people into accepting absurd abuses of their rights."
Source : The Free Software movement is Barking up the wrong tree
Richard Stallman writes in the Guardian:
Journalists have been asking me whether the revulsion against the abuse of Facebook data could be a turning point for the campaign to recover privacy. That could happen, if the public makes its campaign broader and deeper.
Broader, meaning extending to all surveillance systems, not just Facebook. Deeper, meaning to advance from regulating the use of data to regulating the accumulation of data. Because surveillance is so pervasive, restoring privacy is necessarily a big change, and requires powerful measures.
The surveillance imposed on us today far exceeds that of the Soviet Union. For freedom and democracy's sake, we need to eliminate most of it. There are so many ways to use data to hurt people that the only safe database is the one that was never collected. Thus, instead of the EU's approach of mainly regulating how personal data may be used (in its General Data Protection Regulation or GDPR), I propose a law to stop systems from collecting personal data.
The robust way to do that, the way that can't be set aside at the whim of a government, is to require systems to be built so as not to collect data about a person. The basic principle is that a system must be designed not to collect certain data, if its basic function can be carried out without that data.
The GNU project was officially announced on 27 September 1983 by Richard Stallman. Thirty-five years of a project that has now become the fundamental building block of everything we use and see in technology in 2018. I would not be wrong to say that there isn't a single proprietary piece of software that anyone is still using from 35 years ago – please post comments if there is something still being used.
There is only one reason for this longevity: the GNU project was built upon the premise that the code is available to anyone, anywhere with the only restriction that whatever is done to the code, it shall always be available to anyone, forever. Richard Stallman's genius in crafting the copyleft license that is the GNU General Public License is probably the best hack of the 20th century software industry.
Extra: Happy Birthday, GNU: Why I still love GNU 35 years later
Educator Lionel Dricot explores the historical prescience of Richard Stallman's (RMS) warnings and prophecies which have been spot on since the beginning, including his proposed solutions. Dricot points out that the problem with acceptance of the solutions is not with RMS or the Free Software Foundation (FSF), instead the problem is us and that we didn't listen. In addition to the Four Freedoms, he points out one obligation which has been taken for granted and left unspoken until now: the obligation to prevent privatization of the Commons.
There was one weakness in RMS theory: copyleft was not part of the four freedoms he theorised. Business-compatible licenses like BSD/MIT or even public domain are "Free Software" because they respect the four freedoms.
But they can be privatised.
And that's the whole point. For the last 30 years, businesses and proponents of Open Source, including Linus Torvalds, have been decrying the GPL because of the essential right of "doing business" aka "privatising the common".
They succeeded so much that the essential mission of the FSF to guarantee the common was seen as "useless" or, worse, "reactionary". What was the work of the FSF? The most important thing is that they proof-bombed the GPL against weaknesses found later. They literally patched vulnerabilities. First the GPLv3, to fight "Tivoisation" and then AGPL, to counteract proprietary online services running on free software but taking away freedom of users.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02, @02:48PM (6 children)
This is what the antennas look like- no connector, nothing to unplug: https://duckduckgo.com/?ia=images&iax=images&q=smd+chip+antenna [duckduckgo.com]
As much as I hate the surveillance, data storage, and misuse, I'm even more worried that it's not protected, and really can't be. Evil people will get at it and copy it. Just more exposure to "identity theft", and nobody in power seems to actually care.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday September 02, @02:53PM
I know how to make them care, really fast: Steal and publicize their data. Unfortunately, their response will be not to actually dismantle the surveillance systems, but simply punish those who spread that data, and buy private and premium options that protect their data but not yours.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2, Interesting) by soylentone on Wednesday September 02, @10:29PM (4 children)
There is always a way, even if you just RF shield it as RMS states.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03, @01:24AM (3 children)
"Just"? Good luck! You need to find where the RF circuits are, and no matter how hard you try, some RF will leak out. Point is, for many of us it's much easier once you find the RF circuits and identify the SMD antenna (easy for EE's like me) you can, well, I'd find the chips feeding it and remove their power. That's only if I'm ever forced to have a 'net connected car. I'll keep my jalopies thank you.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Unixnut on Thursday September 03, @04:45PM (2 children)
Problem is that I suspect modern cars will not work unless they are connected to the mothership. If you disconnect/power down the tracking/spyware subsystems the car might not start, or it will be in "limp" mode until you go to a services to have them re-connect you (chargeable of course).
It will probably end up being forced, the EU has already started banning older cars from cities "to help the environment", and I expect they will carry on doing so and extending it until your choice is always-connected spyware on wheels, or using always-connected spyware public transport/taxies.
I know non-car (and even non-techy) people deliberately buy cars 2014 and older as anything newer is already too computerised and spyware infested, I too stick to even older cars, but they are getting expensive, hard to get parts for and maintain.
(Score: 2) by Bentonite on Friday September 04, @01:08AM
In a few more years, the Chinese will make enough improvements to LFP batteries and electric motor hardware, to allow for cheaply handcrafted, fully free GNU/Car and get better range than any older car.
Too bad the primary obstacle will be the government, who will complain about the quality of such vehicle.
Older cars don't seem to be much different to modern cars when it comes to the expense and difficultly of getting parts and carrying out maintenance.
Ideally a decent older car wouldn't need anything but fluid changes (until it comes time to replace the timing chain and brake pads) and with a cheap crappy car, you can ignore minor issues, like a slightly clogged fuel filter.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by cereal_burpist on Saturday September 05, @03:08AM
Yes, and it's already happening: Porsche Panic in Russia as Pricey Status Symbols Forget How to Car [soylentnews.org]
"Hundreds of Porsches in Russia were rendered immobile last week, ... traced the problem to a loss of satellite connectivity to their Vehicle Tracking Systems (VTS). This meant the systems thought a theft attempt was in progress, triggering the vehicle's engine immobilizer."
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02, @04:50PM
I'm always pleased to read that RMS is not compromising, and it's nice when he gets some press.
With apologies for my Subject, stolen from,
https://heinleinsociety.org/rah-rah-r-a-h-by-spider-robinson/ [heinleinsociety.org]
(Score: 2) by Username on Wednesday September 02, @05:21PM (5 children)
Let's say I am Tyler Robinson. I have dashcam footage of me in my car at the same time Charlie Kirk is killed. The GPS logs Ford keeps confirms this. The operators will have an extremely hard time disproving this. Their psyop will fail.
Let's say I take out the cam. I disconnect the GPS and wifi. How do I prove i did not kill Charlie Kirk?
(Score: 5, Touché) by pe1rxq on Wednesday September 02, @05:26PM
Cars did not have GPS in 1963, how are you going to prove you where not the second shooter in Dallas?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pTamok on Wednesday September 02, @05:56PM (3 children)
You don't.
There's this concept called 'innocent until proven guilty', where the first principle is that you are innocent, and it is for the prosecution to prove your guilt, often beyond reasonable doubt as determined by a jury of your peers.
If there is no GPS log, then there is no evidence that the GPS device was in the area of the shooting. In the absence of evidence, the first principle is that you are innocent.
You are under no obligation to make it easy for the prosecution by keeping a log of your whereabouts and sending patterns that is made available to the investigating authorities.
You do not need to prove your innocence: it is for the prosecution to prove your guilt.
(Score: 2) by GloomMower on Wednesday September 02, @07:46PM (1 child)
I think the judge would still allow it as admissible possible consciousness of guilt evidence, so then it would be up to the jury.
Lets say in the future 99.9% of cars are tracked, but your isn't. It might be considered similar to destroying your phone, wiping your drives. Might matter when the tracking was disabled for the vehicle.
The post above yours about in the 60s there was no tracking so how do we know you didn't shoot Kennedy, is in a different world than in one where tracking has been accepted. One where it might sway a juror.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday September 03, @12:33AM
Wiping your drives or destroying your own phone is perfectly legal unless you know that law enforcement is actively looking for whatever is on those drives (e.g. receiving a subpoena). Otherwise, they're your drives, you can delete data off them, run them over with your car, use them for target practice, or hit them with a sledgehammer. And there are lots of completely innocent reasons to do this sort of thing, e.g. to comply with data privacy regulations or contractual promises.
As for turning off my car's tracking: I just want to minimize power usage for things that have nothing to do with me getting from point A to point B. Or because I didn't want my wife to potentially learn that I frequented a sleazy by-the-hour motel. Or because I was tired of scammers using the fact that I entered a particular state in their scam attempts.
We should not be trying to turn legal activities into crimes just to make law enforcement's life easier when they want to ruin somebody's life, nor should we on juries automatically accept prosecutor's explanation of why certain things happened.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by Username on Thursday September 03, @02:16PM
>You are under no obligation to make it easy for the prosecution by keeping a log of your whereabouts
My point is the logs would help the defense. It's harder for the operator to spin their lies. Sure, they could steal my rifle while I'm gone and plant it at the scene, but if my dashcam proves I was somewhere else they will have to shift the narrative to fit. If they do it too many times people notice and the psyop fails.