I don't know if you understand what I am saying.
I do not. Since you are redefining words, it is not surprising. The
definition of freedom you list match the one I gave you. They do not say
"freedom means no limitation" (like you wrote). That is fortunate because
your definition is useless: since you can always made up things nobody can do
(go back in time, turn into a tomato, etc.), nobody is and can ever be "free"
by your definition!
Freedom has no opposite.
Yes, it has: slavery. Freedom is having no master, "exempt from; not in
bondage, acting of one's own will" (the definition you give!). It is not
"being unlimited".
It is the least worse for the moment.
So, you now recognize that there are "levels of privacy respects". I mean if
it was 0/1, like you pretended earlier, writing "the least worse for the
moment" would make no sense.
And that is due to the poor design.
What? Why is "the poor design" (of what?) the reason people are more at risk
of being duped by phishing?
It is possible to have TOR-ed nodes which pull them and host them.
That is against the Terms of Service (see my reply to SuperTramp83).
Exactly. But nobody pulls the cord (except RMS perhaps).
Contrary to you, RMS trusts the free software community. He believes in in
the collective control of the software through freedom 3. He neither reads
nor wants to read all the source code of the programs he uses.
Still I don't claim to be no expert, technology moves too fast to follow
every aspect of it.
That is true for everybody. We are all limited, i.e., nobody is free and can
be free by your useless definition of freedom. Yet you want the source code
of every program to be understandable by everybody, even non-programmers. It
is simply impossible.
Where is the source code?
In the hands of its only user, Google, that is in control, as it should:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html
I think services can be privacy respecting without having to trust a mid-man.
Yes, they can. But being privacy-preserving has nothing to do with being
free/proprietary. They are two separate (and both important) issues.
Then I am waiting to see the lines of code with explanation proving that it
is incorrect, so that everyone can understand it.
It is incorrect that "excercising the freedom 1 is a next to impossible
effort which obviously nobody would waste time on" (as you wrote). Take
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/toolkit/components/telemetry/TelemetryScalar.cpp
as a random example. Many different people edited it (they need to study it
before doing so!) and there are certainly many more users who read it without
proposing changes:
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/log/tip/toolkit/components/telemetry/TelemetryScalar.cpp
You are mixing different things.
My sentence was not clear: airports that force you to enter a body scanner
(where you almost appear naked) are *more* invasive than those only requiring
your ID. There are "levels of privacy respects".
Trying to justify these privacy violating things by evaluating them through
FSF's 4 freedoms is meaningless.
Indeed. I repeat that since the beginning: privacy is a feature, not a
freedom. That does not mean it is not important. It is just a separate
issue. Software should always be free, controlled by its users. Any piece
of software can be free. Its authors only have to distribute it under a free
software license. In contrast, we cannot expect the software to be 100%
secure + 100% privacy-respectful + 100% efficient + 100% user-friendly + 100%
accessible + 100% localized + 100% [add here your favorite feature]. Not
only it requires a lot of work but it usually is impossible to have all that.
There are physical limitations. There are trade-offs too.
