There are many valid criticisms of Richard Stallman: He sometimes fails to show ordinary courtesy, even to his supporters; he can be spectacularly bad at common techniques of persuasion; and he has creeped out some women by making passes at them (or so they tell me).
There are some morally neutral things which may be said about Stallman: His views are far out of the mainstream; he is uncompromising even in small matters; and he occasionally has a weird-but-powerful charisma.
There are some praiseworthy things about Stallman: He appears to be utterly principled; he shows few signs of being tempted by money; and he has persevered for decades to bring about the world he wants.
None of these things, good or bad, affect the underlying question: Is Stallman right?
In my case, I often find Stallman's claims ridiculous at first. Why? Because Stallman is asking us to take extreme measures against threats which seem both unlikely and dystopian, such as the universal DRM he predicted in his 1997 short story, "The Right to Read."
But I've noticed, over the years, that Stallman's most paranoid fears tend to come partially true. Today, we have an acronym for "DRM", and we've spent years fighting the legal powers granted by the DMCA. So I no longer automatically discount what Stallman says, because his pessimistic predictions have a better track record than my optimistic ones.
I had the opinion once that he was a crackpot who had attracted a following. Today, he seems - while still appearing a little eccentric - at least to have an ability to discern computing issues far out on the horizon. I don't think his reasonings can be discarded without a careful analysis.
There is the joke that even a broken watch is correct twice a day. I do think his communication style, his use of hyperbole, and his unwillingness to bring the listener 'along' work against him in most situations. However, he does have a self consistent line of reasoning as far as I've been able to discern for all of his positions.
But lets step back from the messenger for a moment and look at the message. Richard's rant on cellphones is predicated, in part, that they can be used as surveillance devices. The engineering of a cell phone network is such that it presents, perhaps as an 'attractive nuisance'[1], the ability to extract surveillance data. This has nothing to do with whether or not the software in the phone is "free", rather it has everything to do with how that software is used.
So a question that does not come up often, and I have yet to see in print, is this, "If all software was 'free' and 'open' how would that change anything?" So if the source code to the handsets is "free" and the source code to the base stations is "free" and the PSTN software is "free", what changes? SIP based phones have the same surveillance capabilities as GSM phones and one can put together a nominally 'free' stack for such a phone network. I'm afraid I don't have any good answers here.
He says his problem with cell phones is that they can be used for surveillance. Later in the article he talks about how free software in the phone could protect you from eavesdropping (not surveillance). He is correct. If everything was encrypted, eavesdropping would be impossible. But they could still track your position.
So, unless I'm misreading things, he never says that the issue with surveillance is about "whether or not the software in the phone is 'free'".
Stallman wants to see a world built entirely with free and open software - in this world cell phones would be safe, since any and all surveillance-related code and functionality would be out in the open for anyone to see. There is no getting broadsided by sneaky surveillance code you didn't know was built into your phone.
Doesn't matter how open the source code is, the phone network still needs to know which cell you're in to direct your call. Knowing where you are is a fundamental part of the cellphone system.
Well, if all software was free, you could run your own base station, not just a phone. Likely other people would do the same thing. With a free and open cell network, tracking an individual cell phone would become much harder.
Another option might be for your phone to check into a different tower, or only check in at intermittent intervals, but I'm not sure that that would be enough - signal strength would probably give you away.
> But I've noticed, over the years, that Stallman's most paranoid fears tend to come partially true.
I've noticed the same about Nostradamus' predictions. Oh, and Jules Verne's fiction. ;) Irony aside, counting how many vaguely described predictions came partially true, is hardly a good way to judge whether someone's opinion is right.
To judge whether a principle should be called moral or ethical, I try to ask myself whether it can be thought of a universal. Otherwise, it's just a matter of personal preferences.
Accordingly, Stallman's principles are just personal preferences although he tries to sell them as universal.
Surely, he's entitled to try but that doesn't make his principles right.
There are some morally neutral things which may be said about Stallman: His views are far out of the mainstream; he is uncompromising even in small matters; and he occasionally has a weird-but-powerful charisma.
There are some praiseworthy things about Stallman: He appears to be utterly principled; he shows few signs of being tempted by money; and he has persevered for decades to bring about the world he wants.
None of these things, good or bad, affect the underlying question: Is Stallman right?
In my case, I often find Stallman's claims ridiculous at first. Why? Because Stallman is asking us to take extreme measures against threats which seem both unlikely and dystopian, such as the universal DRM he predicted in his 1997 short story, "The Right to Read."
But I've noticed, over the years, that Stallman's most paranoid fears tend to come partially true. Today, we have an acronym for "DRM", and we've spent years fighting the legal powers granted by the DMCA. So I no longer automatically discount what Stallman says, because his pessimistic predictions have a better track record than my optimistic ones.