FSF approves TAZ 3 printer as privacy respecting

FSF (Free Software Foundation), founded by Richard M Stallman, has approved TAZ 3 as privacy respecting and awarded it Respects Your Freedom (RYF) certification. TAZ 3 is the fifth model in the LulzBot line of 3D printers by Aleph Objects, Inc.

“Aleph Objects, Inc. is honored to receive RYF certification for our latest 3D printer, the TAZ 3. No organization has greater credibility when it comes to user freedom than the Free Software Foundation, which for nearly thirty years has been prescient about technology issues that threaten user freedom. Our goal is to continue to practice these principles as we develop new technology,” said Jeff Moe, president of Aleph Objects, Inc.

FSF has certified other models of LulzBot 3D printer for respecting privacy.

About Swapnil Bhartiya

A free software fund-a-mental-ist and Charles Bukowski fan, Swapnil also writes fiction and tries to find cracks in the paper armours of proprietary companies. Swapnil has been covering Linux and Free Software/Open Source since 2005.

6 thoughts on “FSF approves TAZ 3 printer as privacy respecting

  1. FSF has a lot of credibility regarding software freedom.

    Unfortunately FSF has no clue about privacy. For example, the FSF solution to how a group of people should communicate privately is that they all should have access to the taped recordings in all eternity, because no DRM-like solution is acceptable.

    The FSF absolutely does not believe in privacy for groups of people. Implementing self-destructing “selfie” image services using hardware encryption is something the FSF is against, again proving that they do not stand for privacy.

    That is okay, the FSF fights for “freedom”. Just do not pretend that they fight for privacy. The two are not the same.

      1. I have not said anything about encryption of personal storage.

        There is a fundamental conflict of interest between privacy and freedom when more than one person is communicating.

        If you and me hold a meeting where we discuss things that should be held secret, then we might need to agree to leave our cellphones/recording devices outside of the room.

        If the “room” was a video conference, the “leave our recording devices outside” would be implemented using DRM, then since the FSF is against DRM, they would not accept this privacy-protecting software.

        The FSF position is to always give “freedom” (to record, if it is in violation of the privacy of another party) higher priority than privacy.

        Thus, it is wrong to associate FSF with privacy.

        1. Oh, I see. I misunderstood what you were saying. Although I think you are wrong because a DRM method would still remain susceptible to analog recording, so it wouldn’t really have the benefit of greater privacy.

          1. It would have greater privacy. If the hurdle for violating the agreement (no recording) is higher, then it will happen less.

            Regarding what the FSF did, I am not even sure if ‘privacy’ was part of the prize they gave. I think the article author here might have misread what the FSF did.

Leave a Reply