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.
> 
> 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.

Of course it does.  It's already been established that "stopping"
someone using wget in the manner they want suppresses freedom 0.  Here
you're just stating the contrary position without actually countering
what you've quoted.

> > 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.

Freedom 0 is not limited to simply the right to use the program.
That's only the trivial benefit.  Freedom 0 also includes the right to
use the program *how the user wants to*.

> 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."

Indeed I read that line.  It reasonably limits freedom 0 to exclude
two sitations that (in the absense of that line) would trigger a
freedom 0 issue, neither of which I'm making use of.  GNU wget was
already equipped for the job and also fit for purpose *before being
stopped by the access denial*.  Tor-using wget users are not relying
on the exempted criteria to claim a freedom 0 problem.

> You want to download from gnuradio.org using wget.

Not just that.  I want to download from gnuradio.org using wget to
proxy over Tor.

> 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.

You're just repeating yourself here.  Your assumption is that if the
program executes, "freedom 0 is retained".  That's very insufficent,
and defeated above.

> > 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?

This is a /begging the question/ fallacy.  Your assumption is first
that preventing execution outright is the sole way to violate freedom
0.  The assumption is disputed, so it cannot logically form the
premise of a new argument.  It makes no difference whether
gnuradio.org did a code injection on wget or the OS when the disputed
assumption is then used to build an argument that's inherently flawed
by the premise.


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