Active Topics
-
maemo.org (1)
to Community by sixwheeledbeast - 6 hrs, 32 mins ago -
Old stuff for Nokia 770 (0)
to Nokia 770 by teroyk - 10 hrs, 29 mins ago - more...
 |
|
2013-12-16
, 22:18
|
|
Moderator |
Posts: 2,622 |
Thanked: 5,447 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
|
#1512
|
My take is that Neo900 team and FSF are speaking different languages regarding the last point. Neo900 team proposes something that would provide the best possible privacy, while the FSF, to endorse anything requires all the software to be free. I think we are in a situation that the FSF really likes the project, wants to endorse it, and is trying to find a loophole in it's own guidelines to do so.
By christening the modem "circuit" it doesn't make the problem any less, it just moves the problem out of the jurisdiction of the FSF and into that of one imaginary FHF.
If there is another, saner way to actually be compliant with the FSF guidelines and at the same time ensure decent privacy, IMO it would benefit both parties.
Last edited by qwazix; 2013-12-16 at 22:21.
By christening the modem "circuit" it doesn't make the problem any less, it just moves the problem out of the jurisdiction of the FSF and into that of one imaginary FHF.
If there is another, saner way to actually be compliant with the FSF guidelines and at the same time ensure decent privacy, IMO it would benefit both parties.
__________________
Proud coding competition 2012 winner: ρcam
My other apps: speedcrunch N9 N900 Jolla –– contactlaunch –– timenow
Nemo UX blog: Grog
My website: qwazix.com
My job: oob
Proud coding competition 2012 winner: ρcam
My other apps: speedcrunch N9 N900 Jolla –– contactlaunch –– timenow
Nemo UX blog: Grog
My website: qwazix.com
My job: oob
Last edited by qwazix; 2013-12-16 at 22:21.
|
|
2013-12-16
, 22:36
|
|
Posts: 18 |
Thanked: 15 times |
Joined on Nov 2013
@ Hungary
|
#1513
|
Hello!
I just recently got hold of an N900, i wanted it for really long for its features. It turned out its more comfortable than my android based phone, thats also a reason why i follow this thread, and i am sure that i want a Neo900 when its ready.
But... i dont know, i feel like this level of privacy security is unnecessary for a normal user. Or the struggle to reach it. I know there is a big fuss around this topic but it feels like overreaction for me.
Its just my toughts about it, i am more interested in a working device with sane amount of secure privacy than perfect privacy on papers/plans.
I just recently got hold of an N900, i wanted it for really long for its features. It turned out its more comfortable than my android based phone, thats also a reason why i follow this thread, and i am sure that i want a Neo900 when its ready.
But... i dont know, i feel like this level of privacy security is unnecessary for a normal user. Or the struggle to reach it. I know there is a big fuss around this topic but it feels like overreaction for me.
Its just my toughts about it, i am more interested in a working device with sane amount of secure privacy than perfect privacy on papers/plans.
 |
|
2013-12-16
, 22:44
|
|
Posts: 634 |
Thanked: 3,266 times |
Joined on May 2010
@ Colombia
|
#1514
|
Originally Posted by dos1
I too respect the FSF which is why I am surprised by their argument on read-only firmware not counting as software. Sorry for my headline suggestion, it was a bit radical and I did not mean to represent this project in a bad way.
[speaking privately now]
That's not the purpose of the paper and I won't put my name under anything that's worded in such way. I believe that FSF is well-intended and I respect them not only for what they did past 30 years, but also for what they're doing now. Still, it's Free Software Foundation, so I wouldn't expect them to be infallible about the hardware. In fact, no one is infallible about any topic - and I believe we found a rule that does very little (or maybe even nothing at all) about user privacy, so we think it shouldn't be promoted in the name of it.
I (we?) would like to raise the discussion about this topic, but without doing any finger-pointing. It's not about FSF. It's about technical discussion on what we can do to respect privacy of our users. After all, it might turn out that there in fact is something we couldn't come up with that FSF already had in mind when stating such rules - we're also humans and we can also be wrong. So please, keep it technical!
__________________
DebiaN900 - Native Debian on the N900. Deprecated in favour of Maemo Leste.
Maemo Leste for N950 and N9 (currently broken).
Devuan for N950 and N9.
Mobile devices with mainline Linux support - Help needed with documentation.
"Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." - Henry Spencer
Maemo Leste for N950 and N9 (currently broken).
Devuan for N950 and N9.
Mobile devices with mainline Linux support - Help needed with documentation.
"Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." - Henry Spencer
 |
|
2013-12-16
, 22:53
|
|
Posts: 257 |
Thanked: 2,053 times |
Joined on Sep 2010
@ Warsaw, Poland
|
#1515
|
Originally Posted by viktor80
That's understandable. The majority of the society thinks in this way I guess
Hello!
I just recently got hold of an N900, i wanted it for really long for its features. It turned out its more comfortable than my android based phone, thats also a reason why i follow this thread, and i am sure that i want a Neo900 when its ready.
But... i dont know, i feel like this level of privacy security is unnecessary for a normal user. Or the struggle to reach it. I know there is a big fuss around this topic but it feels like overreaction for me.
Its just my toughts about it, i am more interested in a working device with sane amount of secure privacy than perfect privacy on papers/plans.
However, there are also people who really care about their privacy. User freedom we want to provide with Neo900 contains also the freedom to decide on how paranoid the user wants to be about his/her privacy and we're happy to assist them in pursuing the perfect device for them. After all, what does all this freedom mean when we don't care about such basic thing as privacy around ones mobile phone?
Don't worry. Joerg and Nikolaus aren't stopping their work just to focus on privacy
It won't also affect anyone who don't care or simply don't care as much about it - you can just ignore all those "omg-so-amazing-privacy-stuff" if you want. It's just one of the topics we're working on, one out of many - and it was there from the very beginning.Anyway, thank you for your support!
__________________
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
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
|
|
2013-12-16
, 23:11
|
|
Posts: 915 |
Thanked: 3,209 times |
Joined on Jan 2011
@ Germany
|
#1516
|
Originally Posted by viktor80
From what I understand implementing the super-paranoid privacy features (with considering modem a black box) is trivial compared to the difficulties of sourcing the missing parts and proper technical hardware testing.
this level of privacy security is unnecessary for a normal user. Or the struggle to reach it. I know there is a big fuss around this topic but it feels like overreaction for me.
Its just my toughts about it, i am more interested in a working device with sane amount of secure privacy than perfect privacy on papers/plans.
So iff all the parts can be sourced and the HW design will reach its final stages privacy will pretty much just be icing on the cake.
I, for one like sweets, but nothing will stop you from using your Neo900 for automated GPS-based facebook status updates every few seconds.
After having written this the fact that Google and Apple will not grant you that super-paranoid privacy which wouldn't cost them any extra money makes me even more paranoid.
|
|
2013-12-16
, 23:18
|
|
Posts: 461 |
Thanked: 358 times |
Joined on May 2010
@ Bilbao (Basque Country [Spain])
|
#1517
|
The more the project advance, the more I am interested, and less in Jolla. To have so good privacy is an unexpected and appreciated extra . I love the resistive screen, having the zoom on volume keys, the fm transmiter...
About the modem and FSF, I think that the solution proposed of monitoring and controling the modem, it's better than FSF ask, so explaining that to them, maybe RMS and FSF will love it.
The three things that stop me from for participating are:
1-Not having for sure 1Gb RAM.
2-The price seems high but maybe having an N900 (sadly with a broken usb port, surviving with external charger) will reduce the final price.
3- Not being sure of having a modern free (libre) OS. I like Maemo, but I am hypnotized with SailfishOS XD.
But I will continue here, promoting it by publications in Google+ and if this continue improving at this rate, and reach to 1Gb RAM, maybe I won't have any excuse to not paying whatever is needed to have it in my hands XD.
Great work
Thanks, sincerely.
Last edited by malkavian; 2013-12-16 at 23:22.
. I love the resistive screen, having the zoom on volume keys, the fm transmiter...About the modem and FSF, I think that the solution proposed of monitoring and controling the modem, it's better than FSF ask, so explaining that to them, maybe RMS and FSF will love it.
The three things that stop me from for participating are:
1-Not having for sure 1Gb RAM.
2-The price seems high but maybe having an N900 (sadly with a broken usb port, surviving with external charger) will reduce the final price.
3- Not being sure of having a modern free (libre) OS. I like Maemo, but I am hypnotized with SailfishOS XD.
But I will continue here, promoting it by publications in Google+ and if this continue improving at this rate, and reach to 1Gb RAM, maybe I won't have any excuse to not paying whatever is needed to have it in my hands XD.
Great work
Thanks, sincerely.
Last edited by malkavian; 2013-12-16 at 23:22.
 |
|
2013-12-17
, 04:12
|
|
Posts: 2,222 |
Thanked: 12,651 times |
Joined on Mar 2010
@ SOL 3
|
#1518
|
Originally Posted by malkavian
1. (1GB [not Gb] RAM) Since this is a much requested feature and we finally found a way and components to do it, you can consider the probability that we will get 1GB RAM at around 95%. Doing a preorder will greatly improve the probability since the RAM is easier to source in 1000 quantities and we could do this when phase-V completed.
[...]
The three things that stop me from for participating are:
1-Not having for sure 1Gb RAM.
2-The price seems high but maybe having an N900 (sadly with a broken usb port, surviving with external charger) will reduce the final price.
3- Not being sure of having a modern free (libre) OS. I like Maemo, but I am hypnotized with SailfishOS XD.
[...]
2. The difference in price between the bare GTA04-NeoN board to DIY-retrofit into your N900 and a complete Neo900 incl case and stuff from N900 will be around 150EUR at least. Of course you can make excellent use of a broken N900 with defect USB like this. And each single donation makes the device less expensive - again see rationale given in phase-V
3. Some guys already ported sailfishOS/Nemo to N950 and N9 and I have no doubt somebody will do same porting as soon as they get their hands onto a Neo900 with sufficient RAM. Particularly now that Neo900 will even support multitouch for pinch/rotate-gestures
You could consider the 100EUR donation like a season ticket to watch and contribute and participate (and of course support and make happen) one of the most exciting and entertaining projects of the last few years, and odds are in the end you even get your value back in form of a great device you can order discounted by 106 or 110 EUR. Your arguments to not do it seem to vanish like snow in the sun
Thanks for your interest and support
cheers
jOERG
| The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to joerg_rw For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2013-12-17
, 06:23
|
|
Posts: 2,222 |
Thanked: 12,651 times |
Joined on Mar 2010
@ SOL 3
|
#1519
|
Originally Posted by qwazix
I wholeheartedly agree with every word you wrote :-)
My take is that Neo900 team and FSF are speaking different languages regarding the last point. Neo900 team proposes something that would provide the best possible privacy, while the FSF, to endorse anything requires all the software to be free. I think we are in a situation that the FSF really likes the project, wants to endorse it, and is trying to find a loophole in it's own guidelines to do so.
By christening the modem "circuit" it doesn't make the problem any less, it just moves the problem out of the jurisdiction of the FSF and into that of one imaginary FHF.
If there is another, saner way to actually be compliant with the FSF guidelines and at the same time ensure decent privacy, IMO it would benefit both parties.
The problem is in FSF's definition of own "territory". In my book it's not their call to judge about peripherals, no matter how closely integrated or remotely attached those peripherals are mechanically. For every normal user it's pretty clear that the printer for example is irrelevant for evaluating FOSS properies of the PC and the OS running on that (unless it's a GDI aka "windows" printer). Likewise it's not relevant what firmware is running on the USB UMTS dongle you plug into your PC. Now what we did is moving the dongle inside the case but it still is a USB dongle for all the logical/IT properties. FSF needs a better more sharp definition of what they consider "system" and what's "peripheral" and not relevant to them. We (Neo900 team) can't help with that.
/j
 |
|
2013-12-17
, 09:45
|
|
Posts: 2,355 |
Thanked: 5,249 times |
Joined on Jan 2009
@ Barcelona
|
#1520
|
Originally Posted by wicket
The fact that submission already happened with another Openmoko-related device is just icing...
it should make a good excuse for another Slashdot submission, "FSF criticised for promoting user restrictions".
Originally Posted by joerg_rw
The fact is, when you talk about "the Neo900", you're including this "peripheral." If the Neo900 had no such peripheral, and you/another company was shipping privative peripherals for it, I'm sure they'd see no problem in endorsing the Neo900 (it would be like the PC & Printer case you described). Albeit they may have problems endorsing you/that other company then
I wholeheartedly agree with every word you wrote :-)
The problem is in FSF's definition of own "territory". In my book it's not their call to judge about peripherals, no matter how closely integrated or remotely attached those peripherals are mechanically.
Originally Posted by dos1
False dichotomy. You could give the option to upgrade the firmware AND be endorsed by the FSF: create and ship a free firmware for the modem.
We believe that it's better for user freedom to give him/her the ability to upgrade the firmware. We're convinced that any effort to make sure that "nothing can alter the radio modem's own software" is futile, because it would need us to trust the manufacturer anyway - and if we would trust the manufacturer, we wouldn't have to block it at all. We're proposing tight monitoring of what modem does instead. More about that in the article
The position of the FSF is clear cut here. In their view, "Upgradable firmware" is just a weasel word for "software", and all software must be free. Period. They must draw the line somewhere.
Personally, I do see their point. Despite the clear chicken and egg problem here (because the FSF and even the FOSS movement in general have solved much more problematic chicken and egg problems). Obviously, we're all here to solve this chicken and egg problem, in our own ways....
Last edited by javispedro; 2013-12-17 at 09:47.
That's not the purpose of the paper and I won't put my name under anything that's worded in such way. I believe that FSF is well-intended and I respect them not only for what they did past 30 years, but also for what they're doing now. Still, it's Free Software Foundation, so I wouldn't expect them to be infallible about the hardware. In fact, no one is infallible about any topic - and I believe we found a rule that does very little (or maybe even nothing at all) about user privacy, so we think it shouldn't be promoted in the name of it.
I (we?) would like to raise the discussion about this topic, but without doing any finger-pointing. It's not about FSF. It's about technical discussion on what we can do to respect privacy of our users. After all, it might turn out that there in fact is something we couldn't come up with that FSF already had in mind when stating such rules - we're also humans and we can also be wrong. So please, keep it technical!
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