Quote:
Originally Posted by latepaul
The baseband OS is there to allow the Android OS to function.
|
That's part of the problem. It should be Android OS that allows the baseband to function. It's backwards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by latepaul
If you're suggesting that the phone carrier might update it in a way that stops a user-hacked version of Android working - it's extremely unlikely that they would be able to do that without also disabling Android in general including non-hacked versions.
|
Denial of service is a threat, but there are far worse consequences to allowing carriers (thus governments) and anyone with an SDR to have full control over the baseband. An eavesdropper can turn on the microphone surreptitiously, a voyeur perv with an SDR configured as a cell tower can remotely turn on the camera (think high school locker rooms or stalker victim). This design also facilitates
tracking of phones that appear to be powered off.
BTW, when you say "user-hacked version of Android", you are in fact already talking about taking freedoms that (by design) you were prevented from having.
Quote:
Originally Posted by latepaul
So if I have an Android phone I can modify the most important bits of software that run on it.
|
No you cannot - not without hacking it. And even if you give credit to suppliers who tried to stop you, but then look the other way when you hack it, the baseband can manipulate everything anyway, even your hacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by latepaul
There are a few bits I can't get to.
|
Like the bits to the master OS kernel.
No big deal, right?
You are handing the keys to the castle over to someone you don't even know. You need to realize the critical role that open source plays with security. This is not merely some insignificant piece. The baseband OS is both closed, and it's controlled by untrusted parties. The user does not even have control over which closed source bits to use for the baseband OS. The baseband OS has complete control (and visibility) on the guest OS.
If the Facebook app is closed source - fair enough. It's a reasonable compromise if I at least have the option of preventing it from executing. But the most important bits are closed - bits that are running in master kernel space and thus critical to the security of everything you do on the phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by latepaul
But the alternative that rms and apparently you propose is not to use such a device at all because of the small part that I can't hack. That to me is an extreme position.
|
You're letting the size carry too much weight. The most damaging malware in the world is tiny enough to fit on a 1980s floppy disk. It's not the size that matters. The master OS kernel could not be more important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by latepaul
I choose to give up some freedom for utility. As we all do in many areas of life because freedom is not an absolute.
|
Giving up both control and visibility to the master OS is an absurdly colossal compromise. The freedom you think you have is largely an illusion. Having only marginal control over a guest OS is atrocious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by latepaul
He opposes the idea of copyright on software.
|
No he doesn't. Maybe software as tools, but software as video games, for example, is another matter. Video games are uniquely artistic, and should be treated similar to a painting, for example. rms acknowledges that the value in modifying and redistributing video games is less important than the same rights on software utilities. Stallman endorses the compromising consumer freedoms on video games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by latepaul
By the way, he wouldn't thank you for comparing software copyright with copyright on movies, books etc. He specifically separates them, it's why he doesn't like the term "intellectual property" because it conflates what he sees as different things.
|
I'm impressed that you know that -- it confirms you are in fact familiar with his stance. However, nothing I said obviates the value of that separation. Of course the separate kinds of works and appropriate rights of each can of course be compared.
Quote:
Originally Posted by latepaul
I propose that we do what we do in other areas of life and balance our freedoms against those of others.
|
So the status quo? IOW, letting lobbyists backed by big money interests continue to pressure congress to favor corporate greed? That's precisely what we do to get "balance", in all areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by latepaul
If I find that it's useful for me to give up the freedom to change some software in exchange for the usefulness it provides that that is a decision I am free to make.
I am therefore not against copyright on software.
|
That's actually very close to Stallman's (and my own) position. Stallman endorses giving up unimportant or insignificant freedoms in exchange for stimulating creation of works, and gaining access to them. The only difference, I sense, is that you're willing to give up important/significant consumer freedoms as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by latepaul
And in many ways I agree. I certainly agree it's time to look again at copyright lengths, especially for creative works. But I'm not against copyright per se, and I certainly am not against it for software.
|
So you endorse copyright on
all software, with no separation and without regard to how it's used?