28 ms·

If the default settings are for user information to be shared, then the defaults are evil (even if the intent behind them is not). I say this because they know

by Esau 10y ago

If the default settings are for user information to be shared, then the defaults are evil (even if the intent behind them is not). I say this because they know most people will accept the defaults. Maybe there needs to be a law about default settings and privacy.

totony 10y ago
Or we should stop overlesgislating. Users are responsible for their own actions.
- Esau 10y ago
  I used to think that but the unchecked greed of corporations is disgusting. It is obvious that they will act unethically for a buck.
- bballer 10y ago
  I agree, people are all to quick today to say, hey I don't like what that company is doing! Lets write laws to force them to change! It's like people forgot that the ultimate form of voting is with your dollars and patronage/use (even if its free). If you don't like what a company is doing, why are you supporting them by using their product? I know this doesn't work for some monopolies, but Microsoft is far from a monopoly, use Linux or OS X. Show them how much you are dissatisfied with their approaches by abandoning their product suites.
  - tunap 10y ago
    The problem lies with when the malicious(IMO) practices become ubiquitous AND profitable it becomes the norm. Any informed user would question thee practices IF THEY WERE INFORMED. MS has a monopoly, through intent & ubiquity, on business class software, gaming & new computer sales(w/ OSX it is duopoly). Sure there are options for the technical folks, for everyone else it's spyware.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    Because we actually do want to use Microsoft products, or Apple, or Google, or Facebook. If we don't enact laws then jumping boats only leads to the next popular thing being careless with our privacy. I want to be certain that regardless of what software I'm using the people who developed that software have a common concern for the protection of privacy. When enough people have a common concern we usually enact those concerns in laws because it's the minimum we expect from civil participants in society.
    - bballer 10y ago
      Alright, I concede, there should be laws surrounding principles of basic privacy in which the use of opt-out features must be converted to opt-in and cannot be masked around dark pattern UIs, and any remote communication that includes personal data must be clearly stated in both its execution and intent. But saying you want to use Facebook is like saying you want to get cancer.
      - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
        I thoroughly agree with you regarding Facebook. Putting that in with the others was ludicrous. Personally, I haven't been on Facebook for over a year and have no intentions of ever using it again.
    - anonbanker 10y ago
      I'm no fan of facebook (Deleted my account in 2007), but they were better about privacy than MySpace (especially under News Corporation), which they replaced. If this trend continues, the company that replaces facebook will have much better respect of privacy than those that came before it.
- eximius 10y ago
  That's a problem with these industries of oligarchies and megacorps. If we say, "Microsoft, we refuse to use your product until you fix this", there isn't an alternative to go to to force them to change. There are a number of cultural issues that we'll have to face, but the cognitive dissonance that occurs in corporations whereby employees make decisions that benefit the company but harm themselves is one of the most important.
  - pmarreck 10y ago
    Linux or another OS could (and can) emulate the Windows API though, even if it's an imperfect solution
    - zeta0134 10y ago
      Really, the vast majority of what I use my computer for, Linux is a better OS than Windows ever was. But even on Mac (which I never use) I'm generally OK as long as I can install a decent web browser. For the average computer user, Windows is not really necessary, and equivalent software exists on other platforms. For professional users this probably isn't true, and it'll depend on what their businesses choose to deploy, and how cross-platform that software is. I currently work for a datacenter that officially support Windows and Mac, and allows employees to run Linux unofficially and self-support. While the community that arose from this is quite frankly awesome, it's been a troubling journey, and I still have some convenience features that I learned to live without. Windows, for all its faults, has tighter integration with all of our company's tools, and living without the un-managed company images and easy updates is unproductive for most of our staff that aren't linux/mac enthusiasts. The choice is there though, and I'm grateful for that.
      - cm2187 10y ago
        The problem with linux is the zero discoverability. I am sure it is extremely powerful to an existing expert who knows all the syntax of the command lines by heart and understands the architecture of the system, but the RTFM approach is not appealing to everyone. Particularly to enthusiasts like me who like to do advanced stuff occasionally, ie not frequently enough that it makes sense to learn by heart all sort of commands, and where the cost of having to understand all sort of concepts and acronyms is prohibitive if I just want to do something once. Windows for that is very powerful, the UI goes quite a long way.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  You've heard of dark patterns right? Dark Patterns are User Interfaces that are designed to trick people. In my opinion that shares a remarkable similarity to the concept of fraud: In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. How can the user be responsible for their own actions when the results of their actions are deliberately obscured by the people who wrote the software?
  - microcolonel 10y ago
    In that case, could you not just sue them for standard fraud?
    - aylons 10y ago
      Because the current law on fraud is not enough for this. And that is a good thing: a fraud law so flexible as to prevent this beforehand would clearly be an overly broad law.
      - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
        Agreed, for sure. I think I'd prefer something like an International Standards / World Best Practice certification, along with a mandated plain English (or whatver localised language) EULA.
        jdmichal 10y ago
        There is no such thing as a plain language EULA. They are legally binding contracts and therefore must use legal terminology. Even when companies do provide an alternative "non-legalese" version, there's always a clause indicating that the legalese version takes precedent in any legal interpretation.
        analognoise 10y ago
        Everyone should be forced to read this statement until it sinks in.
- rwallace 10y ago
  I agree that it's better when we can do without legislation and rely on individual action instead. For example, individuals should be able to take a copy of Windows 10, reverse engineer it, disable the spyware and offer the result for free download. Unfortunately, government legislation in the form of copyright law prohibits this. If it were up to me, copyright law would be repealed. But failing that, we can't have a situation where all the laws favor corporations and none favor individuals, at least not unless we want to slide into the kind of dystopia cyberpunk writers have been warning us about for generations.
  - totony 10y ago
    No, users should be free not to use the proprietary software.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - userbinator 10y ago
    Unfortunately, government legislation in the form of copyright law prohibits this. AFAIK what it doesn't prohibit is sharing information on how to disable that spyware, or even software that will do it for you. Take an original Windows ISO, feed it to an app, and out comes an ISO with your customisations. If you're feeling neighbourly and rebellious, you can share that ISO with others. This is not a new concept --- see projects like nLite, and all the various customised Windows versions that you can find on the torrent sites.
- fucking_tragedy 10y ago
  Nice opinion, care to offer a solution to the problem in the OP instead of parroting a libertarian talking point?
apatters 10y ago
A less heavy-handed alternative could be to pass a law requiring the clear disclosure of certain privacy-compromising or otherwise user hostile behaviors prior to installation. Not hidden in a 100 page EULA that no one actually reads, but summarized briefly and clearly on the same screen where the user consents to the install. We do this kind of thing successfully with nutrition facts for example. This regulation would be easier for even small companies to comply with, and as a consumer if you still eat the candy bar or install Windows 10 at least you're informed and who are we to say you shouldn't be able to make your own choices.
- zdkl 10y ago
  That feels like the android permission page all over again. Not saying I have a better suggestion but that didn't seem to change things for the better much. [Edit] Maybe add a sample of live data potentially usable with the requested permission? Give people the 'why does he want my fiancé's number?' moment
  - jdmichal 10y ago
    The problem with the Android permissions page, in my opinion, is that it doesn't give enough information for people that care, and it gives too much information for people that don't. It's pretty much impossible to create any non-trivial app without at least one permission that will cause the permissions pop-up on install. That's the "too much" part. But then, it doesn't show you the actual permissions requested, but instead some general grouping that makes it extremely difficult to know exactly what you're agreeing to without feeling paranoid. That's the too little part.
    - kijin 10y ago
      The Android permissions system has changed a lot in Marshmellow. Now the system ask for your permission when an app actually requests personal information, not when you install an app for the first time. It's still inferior to Cyanogenmod's Privacy Guard feature that can silently revoke permissions without the app being aware of it, but I think it's a step in the right direction.

by Esau 10y ago

totony 10y ago

Or we should stop overlesgislating. Users are responsible for their own actions.

Esau 10y ago
I used to think that but the unchecked greed of corporations is disgusting. It is obvious that they will act unethically for a buck.
bballer 10y ago
I agree, people are all to quick today to say, hey I don't like what that company is doing! Lets write laws to force them to change! It's like people forgot that the ultimate form of voting is with your dollars and patronage/use (even if its free). If you don't like what a company is doing, why are you supporting them by using their product? I know this doesn't work for some monopolies, but Microsoft is far from a monopoly, use Linux or OS X. Show them how much you are dissatisfied with their approaches by abandoning their product suites.
- tunap 10y ago
  The problem lies with when the malicious(IMO) practices become ubiquitous AND profitable it becomes the norm. Any informed user would question thee practices IF THEY WERE INFORMED. MS has a monopoly, through intent & ubiquity, on business class software, gaming & new computer sales(w/ OSX it is duopoly). Sure there are options for the technical folks, for everyone else it's spyware.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  Because we actually do want to use Microsoft products, or Apple, or Google, or Facebook. If we don't enact laws then jumping boats only leads to the next popular thing being careless with our privacy. I want to be certain that regardless of what software I'm using the people who developed that software have a common concern for the protection of privacy. When enough people have a common concern we usually enact those concerns in laws because it's the minimum we expect from civil participants in society.
  - bballer 10y ago
    Alright, I concede, there should be laws surrounding principles of basic privacy in which the use of opt-out features must be converted to opt-in and cannot be masked around dark pattern UIs, and any remote communication that includes personal data must be clearly stated in both its execution and intent. But saying you want to use Facebook is like saying you want to get cancer.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
      I thoroughly agree with you regarding Facebook. Putting that in with the others was ludicrous. Personally, I haven't been on Facebook for over a year and have no intentions of ever using it again.
  - anonbanker 10y ago
    I'm no fan of facebook (Deleted my account in 2007), but they were better about privacy than MySpace (especially under News Corporation), which they replaced. If this trend continues, the company that replaces facebook will have much better respect of privacy than those that came before it.
eximius 10y ago
That's a problem with these industries of oligarchies and megacorps. If we say, "Microsoft, we refuse to use your product until you fix this", there isn't an alternative to go to to force them to change. There are a number of cultural issues that we'll have to face, but the cognitive dissonance that occurs in corporations whereby employees make decisions that benefit the company but harm themselves is one of the most important.
- pmarreck 10y ago
  Linux or another OS could (and can) emulate the Windows API though, even if it's an imperfect solution
  - zeta0134 10y ago
    Really, the vast majority of what I use my computer for, Linux is a better OS than Windows ever was. But even on Mac (which I never use) I'm generally OK as long as I can install a decent web browser. For the average computer user, Windows is not really necessary, and equivalent software exists on other platforms. For professional users this probably isn't true, and it'll depend on what their businesses choose to deploy, and how cross-platform that software is. I currently work for a datacenter that officially support Windows and Mac, and allows employees to run Linux unofficially and self-support. While the community that arose from this is quite frankly awesome, it's been a troubling journey, and I still have some convenience features that I learned to live without. Windows, for all its faults, has tighter integration with all of our company's tools, and living without the un-managed company images and easy updates is unproductive for most of our staff that aren't linux/mac enthusiasts. The choice is there though, and I'm grateful for that.
    - cm2187 10y ago
      The problem with linux is the zero discoverability. I am sure it is extremely powerful to an existing expert who knows all the syntax of the command lines by heart and understands the architecture of the system, but the RTFM approach is not appealing to everyone. Particularly to enthusiasts like me who like to do advanced stuff occasionally, ie not frequently enough that it makes sense to learn by heart all sort of commands, and where the cost of having to understand all sort of concepts and acronyms is prohibitive if I just want to do something once. Windows for that is very powerful, the UI goes quite a long way.
TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
You've heard of dark patterns right? Dark Patterns are User Interfaces that are designed to trick people. In my opinion that shares a remarkable similarity to the concept of fraud: In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. How can the user be responsible for their own actions when the results of their actions are deliberately obscured by the people who wrote the software?
- microcolonel 10y ago
  In that case, could you not just sue them for standard fraud?
  - aylons 10y ago
    Because the current law on fraud is not enough for this. And that is a good thing: a fraud law so flexible as to prevent this beforehand would clearly be an overly broad law.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
      Agreed, for sure. I think I'd prefer something like an International Standards / World Best Practice certification, along with a mandated plain English (or whatver localised language) EULA.
      - jdmichal 10y ago
        There is no such thing as a plain language EULA. They are legally binding contracts and therefore must use legal terminology. Even when companies do provide an alternative "non-legalese" version, there's always a clause indicating that the legalese version takes precedent in any legal interpretation.
        analognoise 10y ago
        Everyone should be forced to read this statement until it sinks in.
rwallace 10y ago
I agree that it's better when we can do without legislation and rely on individual action instead. For example, individuals should be able to take a copy of Windows 10, reverse engineer it, disable the spyware and offer the result for free download. Unfortunately, government legislation in the form of copyright law prohibits this. If it were up to me, copyright law would be repealed. But failing that, we can't have a situation where all the laws favor corporations and none favor individuals, at least not unless we want to slide into the kind of dystopia cyberpunk writers have been warning us about for generations.
- totony 10y ago
  No, users should be free not to use the proprietary software.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- userbinator 10y ago
  Unfortunately, government legislation in the form of copyright law prohibits this. AFAIK what it doesn't prohibit is sharing information on how to disable that spyware, or even software that will do it for you. Take an original Windows ISO, feed it to an app, and out comes an ISO with your customisations. If you're feeling neighbourly and rebellious, you can share that ISO with others. This is not a new concept --- see projects like nLite, and all the various customised Windows versions that you can find on the torrent sites.
fucking_tragedy 10y ago
Nice opinion, care to offer a solution to the problem in the OP instead of parroting a libertarian talking point?

apatters 10y ago

A less heavy-handed alternative could be to pass a law requiring the clear disclosure of certain privacy-compromising or otherwise user hostile behaviors prior to installation. Not hidden in a 100 page EULA that no one actually reads, but summarized briefly and clearly on the same screen where the user consents to the install. We do this kind of thing successfully with nutrition facts for example. This regulation would be easier for even small companies to comply with, and as a consumer if you still eat the candy bar or install Windows 10 at least you're informed and who are we to say you shouldn't be able to make your own choices.

zdkl 10y ago
That feels like the android permission page all over again. Not saying I have a better suggestion but that didn't seem to change things for the better much. [Edit] Maybe add a sample of live data potentially usable with the requested permission? Give people the 'why does he want my fiancé's number?' moment
- jdmichal 10y ago
  The problem with the Android permissions page, in my opinion, is that it doesn't give enough information for people that care, and it gives too much information for people that don't. It's pretty much impossible to create any non-trivial app without at least one permission that will cause the permissions pop-up on install. That's the "too much" part. But then, it doesn't show you the actual permissions requested, but instead some general grouping that makes it extremely difficult to know exactly what you're agreeing to without feeling paranoid. That's the too little part.
  - kijin 10y ago
    The Android permissions system has changed a lot in Marshmellow. Now the system ask for your permission when an app actually requests personal information, not when you install an app for the first time. It's still inferior to Cyanogenmod's Privacy Guard feature that can silently revoke permissions without the app being aware of it, but I think it's a step in the right direction.