Re: [security-discuss] Freedom 0: the utilitarian vs. the deontologist

[Nomen Nescio]

brandon said:

> This is a bunk argument.  If, for example, a server is set up to
> deny you access to files because you don't have an account and,
> thus, you cannot download them with wget, the server is not denying
> freedom 0 to you.

GNU wget is equipped with httppost capability and cookie management,
so a login wall is non-blocking for wget users.  And for that reason,
there would be no freedom 0 compromise.  While in the case at hand,
GNU Radio Foundation, Inc. *is* blocking wget users.

> Is GNU denying you freedom 0 because we don't let you use wget to
> download files from our private servers without an account?  Of
> course not.

As mentioned above, the false analogy makes this question moot.

> You're still using wget however you want (to download files that,
> for any given reason, are not available to you).  You're just not
> getting the results that you want.

Not delivering results is in fact the means by which GNU Radio
Foundation, Inc. "stops" wget users, and hence freedom 0 (search for
the word "stopped").

> Or, to be more absurd,

Try not being absurd, you're less likely to produce false analogies
that way.

> the fact that reality won't allow me to use wget to download 10 kg
> of gold doesn't mean that reality is denying me freedom 0 in my
> usage of wget.

The first problem is that because "reality" is not a person or
organization, it has no duty to conform to any principle whatsoever.
It is principles that are based on reality, not the other way around.

It's also a false analogy, because "stopping" implies that in the
absence of stopping there is a possiblity.  If the possibility doesn't
exist in the first place, then no one weilds the power to stop it.  To
impose on freedom 0 requires first having the power to do so.

> I'm free to try using wget for such a silly purpose, but I might as
> well prepare myself for disappointment.

Disappointment can manifest from many different events.  It's
disappointment as a result of freedom 0 obstruction that is at issue.

> Whether gnuradio.org is actively blocking Tor users can be discussed
> (and discussed and discussed, going around in circles apparently),
> but the discussion is completely unrelated to freedom 0.

That's incorrect.  You need to reread freedom 0, paying particular
attention to the words "or stopped", which inherently includes
"blocking" among other ways of /stopping/ someone's use of a tool.

--
Please note this was sent anonymously, so the "From:" address will be unusable.
List archives will be monitored.