View Single Post
dos1's Avatar
Posts: 257 | Thanked: 2,053 times | Joined on Sep 2010 @ Warsaw, Poland
#1495
Originally Posted by wicket View Post
The FSF has quite a large following and their endorsement and publicity could help this project a lot. I'm not asking you to change anything to comply with the FSF. As I see it, you both strive for user privacy and that's why I'm interested in their opinion of the differences. Maybe it's a lack of understanding on their part or maybe they're just being stubborn. Do they realise that the Neo900 is the best we are going to get in terms of user privacy? Maybe they can be swayed - even RMS used computers before the existense of the computer that meets all of his criteria.
That's exactly what that article will be for. Long story short - we believe that strict monitoring of what modem does and raising user awareness that it's in fact a blackbox is the only sensible approach and blocking firmware upgrade is in fact violating user freedom without giving anything in return (FSF believes it's better for privacy, but we're not really convinced - it could be easily workarounded by modem manufacturer with malicious intents).

I hope that it will raise the discussion and awareness of the topic. We don't want to point out "haha FSF is wrong, don't listen to them", that would be pointless and mad. Instead we want to say "hey, FSF, we think some of your recommendations need some adjustments, and here's why". It's nothing new, we were saying that all the time in some IRC discussions etc. - so we felt like it should be written in some way, so it can reach more interested people and will enable us to stop repeating ourselves over and over again
__________________
Sebastian Krzyszkowiak - https://dosowisko.net/
Long term Openmoko supporter. Owner of two Neo Freerunners, a few N900s and some others too.
Future owner of the Neo900

Last edited by dos1; 2013-12-14 at 21:10.
 

The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to dos1 For This Useful Post: