As usual, Stallman was not only ahead of his time, but also swimming against the tide of conventional wisdom, immediately after the attacks of 9/11. While nearly everyone else was focused on more mundane concerns of immediate importance, he was worried and tried to warn us about long-term, higher-order, societal consequences. (He's always doing that -- worrying about long-term, higher-order consequences -- so his warnings and antics strike more practical people as being 'out of touch with reality.')
Like him or not, Richard Stallman is already a major historical figure, because his impact on society (via the gnu, FSF, various manifestos, and activism) will be felt for a very long time. Much of what he has said/written in the past has gained stature with the passing of time.
Indeed. Its funny how HN bashes on him, and then gets enraged about Obama's wiretapping! This man saw it coming and we ridiculed him for his fear - look at where we are now.
As usual, Stallman was not only ahead of his time, but also swimming against the tide of conventional wisdom
I think that depends on what you call 'conventional wisdom'. The Patriot Act was widely criticsed from the first second it was introduced. Take a look at this NY Times article from 2001:
Civil liberties advocates implored Congress to slow down and consider the legislation's impact, which they said could be a dangerous infringement on Americans' privacy and constitutional rights.
He was very, very far from being alone in his stance. It's just that those with power were not also the skeptical ones.
I suppose it's better late than never. Glad people start realizing this and seeing the scale of the iceberg. I hope the young generation will find value in his ideals and will not be put off by "swimming against the tide of conventional wisdom". After all, the hacker's virtue has always been... an unconventional wisdom :)
This is why I get very angry whenever somebody calls Stallman a nut. He's not a nut. He's a visionary; albeit a very pessimistic and dystopian one. Call him crazy now, but in 2023 you'll look back at what he said now, and you'll see how it's all right and wish you'd done something. Anything.
But no. Free software is not business-oriented. He's a nut because of his privacy advocation; he must have something to hide. Let's just ignore him, and start startups and get everyone to accept our vendor lock-in and remain blissfully unaware how we're harming everyone.
> Call him crazy now, but in 2023 you'll look back at what he said now, and you'll see how it's all right
You don't have to wait until 2023. The linked posting has a copyright date of 2001, and the wording of the last few paragraphs implies it was written late in 2001 a few months after 9/11.
And in the middle, is this sentence:
"What I am worried about is massive surveillance of all aspects of life: of our phone calls, of our email, and of our physical movements."
Which we have all now learned over the last few days is actually what has been happening, for far longer than anyone realized.
So you only have to look at this article with what we know today, to realize how correct his warnings actually were/are.
It's possible for someone to be visionary about some things and nuts about others.
Stallman seems to be right about the government's actions after 2001. That doesn't automatically mean he's right about the way I should or shouldn't run my business.
Most criticism of Stallman boils down to the fact that people are reluctant to resign from even the slightest bit of what is convenient or pleasurable, even if ethically this would be the right thing to do or even if it is likely to cause harm in the long-term. I mean I have never seen anyone criticize Stallman in a logically or ethically coherent way, most people just whine that they are not going to stop using Facebook or their mobile because they won't.
Stallman's only "flaw" (but I'm not even sure it is one, actually), IMO, is that he could be more tactful about spreading his message.
If most nerds don't take him seriously, why would any average non-techie person?
It's not that he's factually incorrect, it's that his conclusions are insane and that's what makes him dangerous. Like Glenn Beck, he starts in the realm of reasonable and ends up painting a picture that's surreal.
His solution to these problems is to disconnect, to remove himself from the equation to the best of his ability. No cellular phone. No internet connection. No credit cards. Cash only. Don't use web services. Turn off cookies and JavaScript and Java. His answer to any problem seems to be to boycott it, as if that'll change things. Who but Stallman can operate like this? Not even secret agents are as paranoid, they're trained to hide in plain sight.
What someone in his position should be doing is talking about how to avoid this dystopian future by promoting standards, accountability, and more transparency. They should be engaging with law enforcement to understand their need for information and protect a person's right to privacy. There's a legal framework out there that needs updating by people that understand technology, but if they're all stubbornly opposed to co-operating, more stupidly out of touch laws will be passed.
This is why the EFF and organizations like it are extremely important. They're not advocating shutting down the internet just because it's being wiretapped. They're not hiding in a cave while invasive laws are being passed.
>But no. Free software is not business-oriented. He's a nut because of his privacy advocation; he must have something to hide. Let's just ignore him, and start startups and get everyone to accept our vendor lock-in and remain blissfully unaware how we're harming everyone.
I had the same thought at about the same time. I think a lot of people saw this coming. Uber-surveillance has been a old standby for dystopian popular entertainment for a good while. It's almost like NSA spooks have been consulting to hollywood to make a little coin on the side.
What I admire more than Stallman-the-visionary is Stallman-the-idealist. The guy speaks his mind even when it's really difficult. Further, he appears to live in accordance with his thinking as best he can even though it's pretty inconvenient. These are both really very difficult to do consistently over the long haul.
At the time Stallman wrote this, it was a very unpopular thing to say. He was not just considered a crackpot but drink-in-the-face-at-parties unpatriotic.
For better or worse, I'm more of a pragmatist. I often experience the idealist as a pain in the ass and standing in the way of 'getting things done'. It's good for me to be reminded that the idealists must be listened to carefully. It might just be that I'm trying to get the wrong things done and I should slow down and listen.
I would only add that "pragmatic" versus "idealist" is privileged language in the classically Foucault sense.
Stallman in many respects is being pragmatic in the pursuit of his ideology.
Conversely, the NSA and like organizations are working toward their idealist beliefs.
The risk of being pedantic over language should at least be tempered against the realization that privileged language is at the core of much of this discourse[1].
Wow, Stallman sure has a way of predicting the future. This isn't the first time he's predicted the future with such accuracy -- remember the story that he wrote about a dystopian world far away in the future where books were under DRM? It's so funny that story came true so much earlier than expected.
Every time I think about that, I remember Amazon remote deleting bought copy of 1984 from the owners' kindles some time ago. You can justify it with legalese all you want, at the end of the day it's such a perfect example of how awful that whole thing is that it wouldn't pass as real in a story.
"Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices."
This is from Obama's commencement address (May 5th 2013, OSU).
Full quote:
“Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted.
We have never been a people who place all our faith in government to solve our problems. We shouldn't want to. But we don't think the government is the source of all our problems, either. Because we understand that this democracy is ours. And as citizens, we understand that it's not about what America can do for us, it's about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government. And class of 2013, you have to be involved in that process.”
I'll never forget growing up on reddit and digg during the Bush Era. People were talking about this stuff all the time, calling Bush Hitler and the Patriot Act evil, Gitmo unconstitutional, and raising awareness of the uncivilized wild-west Republican and Conservative Parties. I mean Redditor's honestly thought the USA was coming to an end. Then after Bush left and Democrat Obama got in things continued to get worse. Attacks on privacy and constitutional rights, drones, surveillance increased yet the backlash isn't there. Think of all the terrible things you read about Bush, now come to the realization that Obama is continuing this behavior yet people (Democrats in particular) aren't complaining. Because their party is in power.
That was the moment I realized the worst thing about America was the 2 party system. Each party is oblivious to it's own flaws, blames the other party for everything. It's called "Ingroup Bias" http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Ingroup... This same "Ingroup Bias" is what's preventing Americans from standing up against their party when they introduce invasive legislature AND preventing members of both the Republican and Democratic parties from standing up against their party's own extreme views on national security.
=== My Point ===
If either party puts a stop to the extreme surveillance and a terrorist attack happens, that party will forever be blamed by the other and will lose elections for quite some time.
So called "Totalitarian" regimes only spy on dissidents and free thinkers, they don't give a f* about other people. It's only democratic regimes that tend to keep a tally of every citizen and his/her movements.
True, props to Stallman for joining in, but there was much discussion along these lines at the time in late 2001. Or at least, the certainly was in the UK.
"Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help."
This seems fallacious. Computer-based face recognition would be significantly better than human-based, because computers can remember thousands of faces while humans can only recognize a few hundred at most.
This might be the most illogical and unsupported assertion, ever: "Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help."
The title is not very diplomatic: it suggest that privacy is worth sacrificing human lives. It is, to some extent, but suggesting it out loud is often liable to a "think of the children" knee jerk reaction.
Privacy is worth sacrificing human lives, for some amount of privacy and some number of lives...
However, that's not even the biggest problem with the knee-jerk response: it's not a trade being offered. If you could guarantee me 3000 lives saved in exchange for more invasion of my privacy and that of my billion closest friends (assuming they agreed), I'd have to think about it.
But no! 3000 lives were lost, and that is tragic, and it's more tragic that the fear it caused was then exploited to consolidate power. It was consolidated in the hands of people who are probably mostly reasonable people, and who are probably mostly trying to keep us safe, but there is no guarantee as to the number of lives saved (although "lives lost to terrorism in the 10 years prior when you didn't have these powers" helps us provide some upper bounds...), and moreover some of those people we're being asked to trust will prove not to be good people, power will be abused, and it might well cost more lives than it saves: governments have killed overwhelmingly more people than insurgents and terrorists over the past 100 years.
>I'm not talking about searches at airports here. Searches of people or baggage for weapons, as long as they check only for weapons and keep no records about you if you have no weapons, are just an inconvenience; they do not endanger civil liberties.
Although I do agree that today's events show that Stallman is right to be that much worried, I have to point out that his argument against face recognition is a weak one. Computer vision is superior to human in many aspects, and this is why the situation we 're facing is very complex.
With the benefit of hindsight and a single source this certainly might seem like future prediction or visionary thinking. However, with the events of the time, this idea was pretty obvious and similar opinions were shared by many. If there was vision, it was that he put his thoughts online for all to see.
[+] [-] cs702|12 years ago|reply
Like him or not, Richard Stallman is already a major historical figure, because his impact on society (via the gnu, FSF, various manifestos, and activism) will be felt for a very long time. Much of what he has said/written in the past has gained stature with the passing of time.
--
Edit: added last sentence.
[+] [-] spodek|12 years ago|reply
The 'm' in "Thousands dead, millions deprived of civil liberties?" should have been a 'b'.
"Bush" in "Congress hurried to pass a resolution giving Bush unlimited power" should have been "the Executive Branch."
Visionary as he was, history surpassed what he anticipated.
[+] [-] zallarak|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] untog|12 years ago|reply
I think that depends on what you call 'conventional wisdom'. The Patriot Act was widely criticsed from the first second it was introduced. Take a look at this NY Times article from 2001:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/13/us/nation-challenged-congr...
Civil liberties advocates implored Congress to slow down and consider the legislation's impact, which they said could be a dangerous infringement on Americans' privacy and constitutional rights.
He was very, very far from being alone in his stance. It's just that those with power were not also the skeptical ones.
[+] [-] znowi|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kunai|12 years ago|reply
But no. Free software is not business-oriented. He's a nut because of his privacy advocation; he must have something to hide. Let's just ignore him, and start startups and get everyone to accept our vendor lock-in and remain blissfully unaware how we're harming everyone.
[+] [-] pwg|12 years ago|reply
You don't have to wait until 2023. The linked posting has a copyright date of 2001, and the wording of the last few paragraphs implies it was written late in 2001 a few months after 9/11.
And in the middle, is this sentence:
"What I am worried about is massive surveillance of all aspects of life: of our phone calls, of our email, and of our physical movements."
Which we have all now learned over the last few days is actually what has been happening, for far longer than anyone realized.
So you only have to look at this article with what we know today, to realize how correct his warnings actually were/are.
[+] [-] gyardley|12 years ago|reply
Stallman seems to be right about the government's actions after 2001. That doesn't automatically mean he's right about the way I should or shouldn't run my business.
[+] [-] stiff|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GuiA|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] astrodust|12 years ago|reply
His solution to these problems is to disconnect, to remove himself from the equation to the best of his ability. No cellular phone. No internet connection. No credit cards. Cash only. Don't use web services. Turn off cookies and JavaScript and Java. His answer to any problem seems to be to boycott it, as if that'll change things. Who but Stallman can operate like this? Not even secret agents are as paranoid, they're trained to hide in plain sight.
What someone in his position should be doing is talking about how to avoid this dystopian future by promoting standards, accountability, and more transparency. They should be engaging with law enforcement to understand their need for information and protect a person's right to privacy. There's a legal framework out there that needs updating by people that understand technology, but if they're all stubbornly opposed to co-operating, more stupidly out of touch laws will be passed.
This is why the EFF and organizations like it are extremely important. They're not advocating shutting down the internet just because it's being wiretapped. They're not hiding in a cave while invasive laws are being passed.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rfnslyr|12 years ago|reply
Could you please expand on this?
[+] [-] Ayabashi|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] methehack|12 years ago|reply
What I admire more than Stallman-the-visionary is Stallman-the-idealist. The guy speaks his mind even when it's really difficult. Further, he appears to live in accordance with his thinking as best he can even though it's pretty inconvenient. These are both really very difficult to do consistently over the long haul.
At the time Stallman wrote this, it was a very unpopular thing to say. He was not just considered a crackpot but drink-in-the-face-at-parties unpatriotic.
For better or worse, I'm more of a pragmatist. I often experience the idealist as a pain in the ass and standing in the way of 'getting things done'. It's good for me to be reminded that the idealists must be listened to carefully. It might just be that I'm trying to get the wrong things done and I should slow down and listen.
[+] [-] foolrush|12 years ago|reply
Stallman in many respects is being pragmatic in the pursuit of his ideology.
Conversely, the NSA and like organizations are working toward their idealist beliefs.
The risk of being pedantic over language should at least be tempered against the realization that privileged language is at the core of much of this discourse[1].
[1] "Terrorist"
[+] [-] winter_blue|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nolok|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] astrodust|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fennecfoxen|12 years ago|reply
"Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices."
(The Ohio State University commencement address)
[+] [-] GuiA|12 years ago|reply
“Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted.
We have never been a people who place all our faith in government to solve our problems. We shouldn't want to. But we don't think the government is the source of all our problems, either. Because we understand that this democracy is ours. And as citizens, we understand that it's not about what America can do for us, it's about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government. And class of 2013, you have to be involved in that process.”
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/05/obama_to_o...)
[+] [-] ChrisNorstrom|12 years ago|reply
I'll never forget growing up on reddit and digg during the Bush Era. People were talking about this stuff all the time, calling Bush Hitler and the Patriot Act evil, Gitmo unconstitutional, and raising awareness of the uncivilized wild-west Republican and Conservative Parties. I mean Redditor's honestly thought the USA was coming to an end. Then after Bush left and Democrat Obama got in things continued to get worse. Attacks on privacy and constitutional rights, drones, surveillance increased yet the backlash isn't there. Think of all the terrible things you read about Bush, now come to the realization that Obama is continuing this behavior yet people (Democrats in particular) aren't complaining. Because their party is in power.
That was the moment I realized the worst thing about America was the 2 party system. Each party is oblivious to it's own flaws, blames the other party for everything. It's called "Ingroup Bias" http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Ingroup... This same "Ingroup Bias" is what's preventing Americans from standing up against their party when they introduce invasive legislature AND preventing members of both the Republican and Democratic parties from standing up against their party's own extreme views on national security.
=== My Point ===
If either party puts a stop to the extreme surveillance and a terrorist attack happens, that party will forever be blamed by the other and will lose elections for quite some time.
[+] [-] flexie|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nsns|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeremyswank|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tbrownaw|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codeulike|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seldo|12 years ago|reply
This seems fallacious. Computer-based face recognition would be significantly better than human-based, because computers can remember thousands of faces while humans can only recognize a few hundred at most.
[+] [-] jessaustin|12 years ago|reply
...has never been shown to work on the scale needed to secure access to commercial air travel.
[+] [-] mtgx|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] karamazov|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] opminion|12 years ago|reply
Ah, here!
He didn't have to spend much effort in predicting the future in 2001, he just had to be consistent.
[+] [-] gculliss|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] loup-vaillant|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dllthomas|12 years ago|reply
However, that's not even the biggest problem with the knee-jerk response: it's not a trade being offered. If you could guarantee me 3000 lives saved in exchange for more invasion of my privacy and that of my billion closest friends (assuming they agreed), I'd have to think about it.
But no! 3000 lives were lost, and that is tragic, and it's more tragic that the fear it caused was then exploited to consolidate power. It was consolidated in the hands of people who are probably mostly reasonable people, and who are probably mostly trying to keep us safe, but there is no guarantee as to the number of lives saved (although "lives lost to terrorism in the 10 years prior when you didn't have these powers" helps us provide some upper bounds...), and moreover some of those people we're being asked to trust will prove not to be good people, power will be abused, and it might well cost more lives than it saves: governments have killed overwhelmingly more people than insurgents and terrorists over the past 100 years.
[+] [-] icebraining|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] youngerdryas|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greenonion|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bcoates|12 years ago|reply
But not in any way relevant to the September 11 hijackings as the hijackers were travelling under their real identities including real photo ID cards.
[+] [-] gcr|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tvjunky|12 years ago|reply