> 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.
You don't understand why tracking may be bad? Or are you just trying very hard to mock his very valid conclusion?
Here's other people's thoughts about cellphone tracking: http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention/ (totally crazy, right!)
> 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.