I’ve been thinking about Stallman and Free Software recently, and there’s another point that doesn’t seem to get much air time. Ever since the Snowden revelations, we’ve been woke to the fact that “they” are collecting an enormous amount of infortmation about us. We’ve also learned since then that “they” include both state and non-state actors. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if you use a machine with even one small piece of non-free software, then you always have a “black box” running on your computer, with no idea what it’s doing. “They” could be using that black box to run their instructions on your computer. And there is nothing you can do about it. You are required to trust the company you bought it from that it isn’t doing something you don’t like.
To head off an objection, I realize that the fraction of the worlds population that can read code is minuscule. And so, just like I have to trust my mechanic with my car, I’d have to pay someone else to review the code and trust their report. So trust would still be necessary, even if every bit of software running on your computer was free. But, I’d have a much greater ability to decide who I trust.
I don’t really see a way around my basic point: if you have non-free software running on your computer, it could be doing anything. Why should we accept that as the status quo? It’s one of the most compelling reasons I’ve seen for advocating and using Free Software.
While black boxes are certainly a concern access privileging can contain. If something which reads text can phone home something is fundamentally wrong from a design standpoint.
Which I suppose is one unsung bonus of apt-get. It seperates the update query mechanism from the program so it can't phone home to get any more data than "yep that is someone getting the latest dev build".
Your last point is not quite correct. Closed source software could be doing anything but in order for you to verify what the software is doing you only need it to be open source - not free. Software can be non free but still open source.
If you look at the Open Source Definition[0] you'll see that no, it's not sufficient that you can read the code. That would not be Open Source, it would be something else (Source Available?)
Practically speaking (given the linked definition), software that is Open Source is also Free Software.
To head off an objection, I realize that the fraction of the worlds population that can read code is minuscule. And so, just like I have to trust my mechanic with my car, I’d have to pay someone else to review the code and trust their report. So trust would still be necessary, even if every bit of software running on your computer was free. But, I’d have a much greater ability to decide who I trust.
I don’t really see a way around my basic point: if you have non-free software running on your computer, it could be doing anything. Why should we accept that as the status quo? It’s one of the most compelling reasons I’ve seen for advocating and using Free Software.