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

[Brandon Invergo]

On Thu, 2017-03-09 at 19:28 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> > 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.

Regardless of whether it's due to not having an account, due to your
proxy being blocked or due to user incompetence, your ability to access
the data had nothing to do with your freedom to use the software.

> 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").

Nothing stopped you from running the program.  You ran the program, you
got negative results.

By the way, you should search for "stopped" and then read the next
sentence: "It has nothing to do with what functionality the program
has, or whether it is useful for what you want to do."  You want to
download from gnuradio.org using wget.  No one stopped you from running
the program; it ran just fine.  Unfortunately, it wasn't functional for
your purpose and it wasn't useful.  Freedom 0 retained.

> 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.

Did the gnuradio.org admins put code in wget or your operating system to
prevent wget from running?

-brandon

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part