His observations are correct, but his conclusions are incorrect, just as people like Glenn Beck start out with facts and end up with paranoid delusions and fantasies.
I think Stallman's observations are valid, but his method of dealing with the implications of those observations are impractical, if not completely wrong.
He's not opposed to smartphones, he's opposed to cellular phones as these can serve as a tracking beacon, following your movements.
Given that the cellular providers are capturing and archiving location data, this is fact, his conclusion is we should avoid using these sorts of phones completely. Why? The reasoning here is a awfully thin, but has something to do with "being tracked = bad" and then goes into crazy territory from there. It's the same thing with credit and debit cards. They can be tracked, therefore bad, therefore nobody should use them.
If he's concerned about remaining invisible, then this must be applied rigorously across all aspects of his life. Does he wear dazzle face-paint or glasses with bright IR LEDs on them so that CCTV cameras can't pick him up? Does he only use methods of travel that require no identification? If the FBI wanted to retrace Stallman's activity on any given day, it'd take hours at most to piece it together.
The sign that someone's a crackpot is in how inconsistent they are in applying what they've concluded. It means they're missing something important.
For example, there are people that have a genuine need for absolute secrecy, that need to remain invisible, yet they still use cellular phones, email, and social networks. They're aware of the same risks as Stallman, but they take precautions instead of avoiding them completely.
It's notable that Osama Bin Ladin was taken down because he'd gone to such great lengths to avoid being tracked that he stood out as an anomaly, an approach that proved to be self-defeating. He had this large house, but a paranoia about electronic snooping so severe that he had no internet connection, and that alone made that house highly suspicious. If you're that affluent, you have an internet connection, even if you barely use it.
Everything Stallman advocates to avoid detection just makes him an even bigger target.
> If he's concerned about remaining invisible, then this must be applied rigorously across all aspects of his life
No, it mustn't. Every bit helps.
> Does he wear dazzle face-paint or glasses with bright IR LEDs on them so that CCTV cameras can't pick him up?
Perhaps he does not yet live in an area with seamless CCTV tracking.
> The sign that someone's a crackpot is in how inconsistent they are in applying what they've concluded. It means they're missing something important.
You must be a crackpot then because you're clearly missing that Stallman has probably managed to avoid having his daily movements tracked by some carrier.
> Everything Stallman advocates to avoid detection just makes him an even bigger target.
To whom, with what (crackpot-like) line of thought? Stallman is very open about his principles, his reasons and his actions. It would be extremely dumb for anyone to derive from this information that he is dangerous or a worthwhile target.
Tracking can be bad for some people, it can ruin their careers, destroy their marriage, completely upend their life if that sort of information got out. However, for most of us, it's not especially valuable information and any one day will look like any other.
When I engage with social networks, use a cellular phone, I'm aware of the liability. I'm making a conscious trade-off. I really would like it to be less of a big deal, that the privacy implications were minimal, but this is the world we live in. I support political parties and representatives that would restrict how this sort of information can be used, making it less likely to be collected in the first place.
> No, it mustn't. Every bit helps.
Either you're trying to avoid being detected, or you're not. There's no half measures here.
> it can ruin their careers, destroy their marriage, completely upend their life if that sort of information got out.
> I'm making a conscious trade-off.
No, you're not. If you and the people who have had what you wrote happen to them (they obviously would have been more careful than you) were making conscious trade-offs, nothing bad would have happened to anyone as a result. In fact, you do not even know what information you are disclosing to FB (it's more than you are writing) and other, unknown to you, parties, so a conscious trade-off is impossible. You are just patting yourself on the back for being satisified with your ignorance.
> Either you're trying to avoid being detected, or you're not. There's no half measures here.
From what I understand, he is refusing to provide personal information to a carrier and possibly other unknown parties, because that is potentially harmful and not beneficial in any way to him. Why are you insinuating that he is trying to avoid detection, as if he were some criminal? And by the way, even criminals aren't stupid enough to do everything wrong because they cannot do everything right.
I don't use Facebook specifically because of their habit of leaking information to anyone and everyone. I do use other "social networks" where I'm not obligated to provide a dossier on my life.
I've even got Facebook's site and associated flam blocked on my computer so I'm not bombarded with their inane commenting system, "Like" buttons, tracking features, or other garbage I want nothing to do with.
I'm taking a risk by using a cellular phone, I understand thins, however I believe the down-side of using one is better than the down-side of not using one. That I'm not a politician or celebrity factors in to this decision.
I'm not even sure what Stallman's full reasoning is behind cellular phones as it's always glossed over with some kind of hand-waving about tracking.
"Tracking can be bad for some people, it can ruin their careers, destroy their marriage, completely upend their life if that sort of information got out. However, for most of us, it's not especially valuable information and any one day will look like any other."
> I think the thing to realize here is life can change very quickly. What if, for one reason or another, you become a celebrity all of a sudden - Or happen to acquire particularly well-connected enemies. When this kind of powerful info is used against you things look quite different.
Stallman's stance is against all cell phones, not just smartphones. And I'd argue that in 2013, to the point where we're issuing basic phones to welfare recipients for the purpose of job searching, that this is an invalid conclusion.
As is only using the FSF's definition of free software (where it matters less that the software itself is free, but that the software doesn't point out to you any nonfree addons. Fedora Linux is free software, as is Firefox but since they allow nonfree firmware blobs, and addons respectively, they don't count).
Or free hardware, Good Luck With That, unless you like a single netbook made by a single company in China.
>As is only using the FSF's definition of free software (where it matters less that the software itself is free, but that the software doesn't point out to you any nonfree addons.
You're conflating the FSF's definition of free software, and the FSF's criteria for recommending software to users.
The FSF sees Firefox as free software (now that the proprietary error-reporting system they used is removed); they won't recommend Firefox, because it recommends non-free software. Fedora is a distribution, not a specific program, and they won't recommend it because it recommends non-free software.
By the FSF definition, a license is free if it protects the Four Freedoms; but software licensed under that could be something the FSF doesn't wish to endorse.
I fail to see how not owning a cellphone, only using free software and suitable hardware puts me at a greater inconvenience than, say, having all my life (movements, communication, interests) digitally recorded and made available for later arbitrary use (by any type of government we might have ...). I honestly wish I had the willpower and independence to pull it off.
On the other hand, I totally understand the people who firmly believe that neither governments nor rogue personnel will ever abuse this information to their disadvantage. After all, billions of people firmly believe in some arbitrary deity and we haven't managed to prove them wrong.
There's been many missed opportunities to get truly open hardware, an to this day we're still missing out on them. There are initiatives to remedy this, but they're still far from complete and need more motivated drivers to carry them forward.
Using a crappy computer from some no-name company in China is a protest vote and is not pushing things forward.
On the other hand, getting hardware hackers together to create a 100% free hardware platform would. The Raspberry Pi is close, all that's really needed is for some more aggressive lobbying to get the PowerVR driver component open-sourced.
Or consider, given how people are taping out custom Bitcoin ASICs, why is it inconceivable that someone could tape out an open-source CPU?
I think Stallman's observations are valid, but his method of dealing with the implications of those observations are impractical, if not completely wrong.