20 ms·

Google's software mistreats or harms the user

336 points by eddyg 7y ago

esotericn 7y ago
All of this is trivially and obviously true to power users of GNU/Linux systems. My machine does precisely what I want, when I want it, in the way that I want it. If it doesn't, within reasonable constraints like physical possibility, I can open a text editor, and make it do so. Sure, that might take me a long time. I can add almost all of this configuration to stuff like git repos; back it up; transfer it between completely different machines; I can have a very high degree of certainty that any laptop or desktop I pick up off the shelf will just work and that within 30mins - 1hour I can have it working _identically_ to the old one. By contrast, right now I am using my phone for USB tethering. There is literally no way for me to make this automatic because it's a black box. I have to enable it every time; if the cable moves a bit and disconnects; etc. Trivial, basic example? Sure. The fact that even this most basic behaviour is completely unfixable proves the point. I'm really looking forward to stuff like the Librem, pinephone, etc. The IBM-compatible PC might well be the greatest contributor to the progress of technology in the last few decades. It's heart-breaking that smartphones are this custom random locked down mess of nonsense. Hell, this article has reminded me I was meaning to set up a donation to the FSF. Off it goes. A small impact but an impact nonetheless. I really appreciate the work you guys are doing for those who can't.
- lima 7y ago
  Even worse: tethering uses a different APN, which allows providers to rate limit tethered traffic, and without root access, you can't bypass it.
  - nolok 7y ago
    For anyone reading this and not knowing this; since your post doesn't make it explicit enough, it uses a different APN because Google specifically made it do so. They could let it be hidden. Of course carrier would then mod it in anyway, but here Google did it for them.
  - mfontani 7y ago
    I'm fairly sure tethering can also be trivially detected by inspecting the TTL of packets, as a device sitting "behind" the tethering device will increase the TTL by one. https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/47819/how-can-phone-companies-detect-tethering-incl-wifi-hotspot https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/47819/how-can-ph... seems to have more on the matter.
    - ben7799 7y ago
      This can be spoofed/hidden extremely easily if both devices are open source and you want to change it though. It's not like TTL can't be changed. The tethering device can just rewrite the packets to hide the tethered device.
      - lima 7y ago
        Even better - you only need root on either device. Just set a higher initial TTL on your tethered device, or rewrite the TTL on the phone. But carriers don't use that anymore, too easy to bypass.
    - esotericn 7y ago
      Clever! I hadn't considered that at all. I suspect you mean decrement by one, though. On Linux: `sysctl net.ipv4.ip_default_ttl` (mine was 64) `sysctl net.ipv4.ip_default_ttl=65` Done ;)
- ktm5j 7y ago
  If you have an android phone then you probably can automate that: https://llamalab.com/automate/ https://llamalab.com/automate/ USB tethering is specifically listed under features, presumably there's some API that developers have access to. Apparently by use of the class WifiManager in android.net.wifi you can programmatically change the state of USB tethering without any kind of special privileges.
  - nextos 7y ago
    Or try AOSP, while imperfect its closer to GNU.
    - decoyworker 7y ago
      Nope. AOSP runs on a mobile device which is malware https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-mobiles.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-mobiles.html
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        Those complaints have nothing to do with the device that AOSP is running on.
- new_realist 7y ago
  The fact that you have a beef with USB tethering does not refute the fact that OSS usability is generally shit, and that would likely also apply to smartphones. So it’s a choice between “good” and “poor, but OSS.”
  - esotericn 7y ago
    "Good" is in the eye of the beholder, surely. A TV dinner is extremely usable compared to say, cooking from scratch. It has its' benefits. Not for me, though.
  - yarrel 7y ago
    Smartphones are based on Free Software. This is part of what makes them so frustrating from a user freedom point of view - they lock some of the most successful Free Software out of the user's reach while sitting in their own hands.
- UncleMeat 7y ago
  This is true, but is it bad? I work at a major tech company. I have multiple degrees in CS. I've never recompiled anything except maybe in a class ages ago. Among even my most technical peers, I'd bet a lot of money that they percentage of them that have actually modified the software that they are using by editing its source is less than 2%. I'd wager that among the population of people using computers in some way that the percentage is less than 1 in 100,000. And if I asked people who had never done this if they'd like to be able to do it, I'd wager that the huge majority would say "not really". Its fine for power users to want something different than the rest of the world. But it becomes ridiculous to expect people to go out of their way to accommodate these tiny use cases.
nolok 7y ago
Given this thread and the one about Apple, I can't help but notice that Microsoft feels, to me, much better on that front. Far from perfect or even good enough for the (very sane) criterias GNU aims for, but I feel very much more in control of my Microsoft box that I am of my Apple or Google one. Of course there are dozen of areas where Microsoft fails as bad as the other two, but I notice there are a couple dozen where they let me while the others don't, while the reverse is not quite true.
- tcd 7y ago
  > but I feel very much more in control of my Microsoft box that I am of my Apple or Google one. Hahaha, you haven't seen the data MS collects on Windows 10 users? Try enable full telemetry and download their tool, every damn URL gets logged and even some of the "basic" data might reveal trends when combined with other data sets. NO "big tech" company is to be trusted. Cambridge Analytica and co taught us that. Data and information is being weaponized, the 2016 election proved that, go read the Mueller report for more information on this.
  - nolok 7y ago
    You may have missed my point, which was not about the default or intent, but about the amount of control they let me have on my actual computer; the ability to change its behavior to make it do what I want. I have done what you say about having a look at the telemetry feeds, and as such I know that a simple run of 0&0 ShutUp 10 allows me to stop it. Not a complex kernel thing or whatever, just a simple user land application that has like 3 buttons to click and doesn't even require an install. So I stand by my opinion, which again is not intent or what they do by default, but how much they allow me to change it on my own hardware.
    - wyre 7y ago
      >0&0 ShutUp 10 What is this?
      - DHPersonal 7y ago
joeblau 7y ago
What is interesting about this and the Apple post[1] is that no one is actually taking responsibility or signing their name. It's just a generic blog post with a list of issues. Where is the GNU's "open" log of who is publishing this info? Without a source, I can't really verify if the author has some ulterior motive. [1] https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html
- nolok 7y ago
  > Without a source, I can't really verify if the author has some ulterior motive Is it actually something you need to appreciate the points the post is making ? I actually very much like raw things like this, that you can appreciate without letting yourself be influenced by who said it. I often wish for a timeline where we could see the community's reactions to some things Jobs or Musk said if they didn't know it was their words, for exemple.
  - joeblau 7y ago
    I think the points in the post are valid, but there are also things about GNU that are terrible as well. It's just that nobody is wiring GNU faults. If someone did a write up, I would expect that person to own their work as well.
- GuiA 7y ago
  The author has an ulterior motive, which is that to advance the agenda of the FSF*.
  - klez 7y ago
    Sorry to nitpick: GNU is a project, the foundation is the Free Software Foundation. There's no GNU Foundation.
    - GuiA 7y ago
      Indeed, thanks!
tcd 7y ago
I mean, anyone who bothers to take the time to do a Google Takeout and actually looks at the data in the JSON files can see just how much information they are storing, and it is quite alarming. Thing is, companies keep data about you even if you don't have an account, which is impossible to GDPR. Some of the sources here are questionable; there's a sun.co.uk URL which is obviously tabloid trash, so please apply critical thought, the article presents what appears to be a convincing piece but some of the "sources" are not to be trusted. But even on Linux you can't escape Google's web, even if you really really tried, some developers use Google's APIs for fonts, jQuery/scripts etc, so it's really hard to use the web without Google knowing about it and building up their knowledge graph.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
judge2020 7y ago
> Google/Alphabet intentionally broke Revolv home automatic control products that depended on a server to function, by shutting down the server. The lesson is, reject all such products. Insist on self-contained computers that run free software! The last two sentences seem a little pretentious. The people who bought these products don't know (or want to take the time to learn) how to use git or edit config files or install docker. A consumer IoT product that provided an easy GUI, uses device discovery, and of course was only LAN would be a big win for privacy conscious people, but I'm not aware of something like that existing.
- admax88q 7y ago
  The demand is that they run self contained free software, not that they run got and docker with text confog files. Its possible to have GUIs and ease of use with free software.
- wvenable 7y ago
  One technical person could make this work for everyone else. I have a few pieces of hardware right now that are "broken" because the companies that made them went of business. These products have millions of owners. With the source code and encryption keys I could personally make this hardware work for those users indefinitely. And there are hundreds (if not thousands) of users just like me.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > One technical person could make this work for everyone else. Yup. An oft-missed but crucial point. The benefit of software freedoms isn't that everyone has to do everything themselves. The benefit is that everyone can do it themselves if they like, but they can also delegate the job to anyone else that wants to take it, like someone's friendly neighbourhood techie, or a small local business. In this way, free software actually promotes free markets, by enabling unrestricted competition on adding value on top of what free software offers (vs. locking it down and making money by rent seeking).
- greyhair 7y ago
  Hubitat comes very close. Once it is set up, it neer has to call home other than for updates.
TheIronYuppie 7y ago
The "censorship software" point is extremely dumb. I have kids. I want them to have a phone for communication purposes when they move from place to place (come back from school). I also want the to lock down the phone so if they sneak it out or something, they can't watch it for 12 straight hours. That's it. That's what this does.
- dantondwa 7y ago
  I am not commenting on you directly, but, in general, I find the kind of control that the Google parental control app gives to be excessive. It makes talking unnecessary and gives a direct window to a personal dimension of the kid. You really have a total power over the kids phone and activity. I get the reasons to install this on the phone of a child, but at the same time I'm afraid that it might be too much and that it might give to the kids the sensation of being watched by the parent all the time. Respecting their spaces, having their own dimensions that is out of the eye of the parent is also important, in my opinion.
  - dantondwa 7y ago
    To further specify: go read the user reviews of the kids in Google Play Store for the app. Apart from being hilarious, they are actually quite sad and I understand, in part, their points.
    - metabagel 7y ago
      Sorry, for which app?
      - dantondwa 7y ago
        Sorry, I didn't specify it. It's "Google Family link for children and teens" (and not the similarly named app for the parents).
        ben7799 7y ago
Ajedi32 7y ago
Almost all of this is heavily exaggerated, presenting relatively innocuous features as if they were harmful, or calling out simple bugs as if they were intentional and actively malicious. None of it is flat-out wrong per-se (at least as far as I can tell), and I can certainly see where GNU is coming from, but I think for the average user most of the features they're criticizing actually do a lot more good than harm. Just a few examples, to demonstrate my point: - They describe Google's demonstrated ability to remove malware from user's devices as a "backdoor" - They describe parental controls as "censorship" - They consider the fact that Android supports DRM "malware" - They cite the fact that Android malware exists as a security flaw. (Ignoring the fact that there is basically no OS in existence that can't be infected with malware.) - They consider the ability for users to remotely reset their Android lockscreen combo if they know their Google account password a "back door" - They describe a bug where Google Assistant incorrectly identified the "Okay Google" hotword as "Google Assistant recording users' conversations" - They describe the fact that a Google message app doesn't delete conversations until the user asks it to as "surveillance" Again, I'm not saying this point of view is necessarily wrong. From a certain point of view, all of the claims I described above are actually quite logical. (I even find myself agreeing with some of them.) But from the perspective of the average user, the vast majority of this stuff simply isn't worth worrying about, and I think it's a little extreme to characterize it as "malware". Just something to keep in mind.
- normalhuman 7y ago
  The average user certainly doesn't worry about any of this, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't. The worst, of course, is the tragedy of the commons dynamics. A lot of harm that comes from surveillance capitalism does not affect someone in particular, but it amounts to great damage to society as a whole. For example, by degrading public discourse, addicting people to screen time while robbing them of living their actual lives, and assisting authoritarian regimes in oppressing their own people (project dragonfly).
  - nolok 7y ago
    > The average user certainly doesn't worry about any of this, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't. I think the point he was making, in part, was that if the average user worried about those things, they would WANT most of those features and decisions.
19ylram49 7y ago
As an Android user, what are some ways that I can deal with the problems addressed here? (I already do a number of things, but I’m curious what everyone else does.)
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Ignore this list and find a better one that actually represents the issues fairly.
  - 19ylram49 7y ago
    Many of the points made are legitimate concerns. I’m guessing that you work for Google (or Apple)?
    - 19ylram49 7y ago
      Aaaaand confirmed! You do work for Apple. (It took me 30 seconds to visit your website and confirm this.)
      - dang 7y ago
        You can't attack another user like this here. We ban accounts that do this. Please don't do it again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      Neither. There are valid arguments against both companies, but these aren't it.
      - kragen 7y ago
        Your resume on your website says you work for Apple: http://archive.is/aALeV http://archive.is/aALeV Did you mean to say that you worked for neither Google nor Apple? Because it appears that in answer to the question, “I’m guessing that you work for Google (or Apple)?” you answered, “Neither.”
decoyworker 7y ago
https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html Apple's Operating Systems are Malware Is there anything these guys like? Stallman and Gnu are extremists
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > Is there anything these guys like? Free (as in freedom) Software. > Stallman and Gnu are extremists The word you're looking for is "radicals"; "extremists" carries connotations with violence and illegal behavior, which is the exact opposite of what Stallman/FSF stand for. Are these views radical? Yes. But are they wrong? The way I see it, RMS has been writing about what's wrong with the software world for decades and predicting the consequences. The industry has been ignoring this for just as long, and then people keep complaining about consequences materializing as predicted. Makes you wonder whether it's RMS that's really radical, or whether our Overton window has shifted so much that doing the right thing fell off it?
  - notyourday 7y ago
    Look, I like RMS. I casually know him. We had dinner a few times, mostly with other people at the table. He is very interesting to talk to. It pains me to say it but he is a Luddite. He would be quite happy in the world of late 1980s because that's where him and his quaint way of technology, society and progress fits in swimmingly. And maybe he is right. But here's the thing: he simply outsourced his need for modern communications to others -- he does not call restaurants to make reservations, his hosts do. He does not use GPS and maps -- drivers that his hosts use do. He does not need to use a banking app/deal with payments/scheduling/etc that are needed for him to appear at conferences -- those that invite him do. I wish I could have a life like that. Probably a lot of us would. All the advantages and none of the inconveniences.
    - plttn 7y ago
      I think it's one of those situations where he has the ability to wax poetic from his ivory tower simply because he doesn't have to exist in the real world in terms of technology. If he had to exist in the real world, he would find it a lot harder to stick to those principles.
holy_city 7y ago
I feel like DRM is basically the prisoner's dilemma at this point where it's in everyone's interest to give it up, but no one wants to be the first person to do it. But honestly it's weird for GNU to fault the person being held at gunpoint for the situation, not the person holding the gun.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  If you have a choice between doing the right thing, and the wrong thing, and you choose to do the wrong thing, you've chosen poorly. I'm increasing not a fan of naked individual initiative as the sole response to abuses of power; that itself is and long has been a tool of power, to skirt its own responsibilities. Annie Leonard's essay on the "Crying Indian" anti-littering (that is: pro-disposable packaging) advertising campaign is a key case in point: http://www.pfree.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Moving-from-Individual-Change-to-Societal-Change-Annie-Leonard-2013.pdf http://www.pfree.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Moving-fro... (PDF) But raising awareness and consciousness can help us get to a collective action promoting the common weal, which is the goal here.
- bduerst 7y ago
  That's an interesting perspective, and I would take it a step further to say it's prisoner's dilemma but with millions of prisoners. From the media owners' perspective, there's always going to be users who defect to piracy, so DRM is the resulting Nash equilibrium that maximizes benefit from not catering to pirates while still catering to customers.
- pessimizer 7y ago
  These are not people, they are businesses; and they are not victims, but producers of a product that they can also choose not to produce, or to produce differently.
hnsocks 7y ago
Oh my listen Zachary Vochies.. Real truths of this liar company. Google go away. Discrace of technology..
kd3 7y ago
We need the Librem phone today. It is long overdue.
- jasonvorhe 7y ago
  We? Pardon me, I'll rather wait for the next Pixel.
  - jazoom 7y ago
    We = kd3 + jazoom + whoever else kd3 was referring to. "We" doesn't have to include all 7 billion human inhabitants of Earth. You were not included.
summerlight 7y ago
https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html Actually, they listed most of software companies in their set of malware. While I don't necessarily agree with them, but their stance have been at least consistent.
freakynit 7y ago
Glad someone is pointing these out. All may not be true, but, it certainly shows what all is going on
titzer 7y ago
People should be more concerned about the location tracking inserted into Android in the form of Google Play Services. Generally those who know the technical details of these systems are bound, as current or former employees, not to reveal confidential information that includes technical details about how these systems work, how they could be corrupted or manipulated, how auditing works, and how far they are subject to warrants, subpoenas and national security letters for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. For a layperson and an outsider, if you don't fully trust Google, you should probably uninstall all Google-bundled software, principally Google Play Services and maps. Some settings can reduce the tracking but it is mercurial and often opaque, and informed user consent is specious here, since the technical details are so secret. Location data is the next goldmine of advertising. There is already an economy springing up around it. Even if it is banal today, it won't be tomorrow. Pervasive location tracking is the backbone of a terrifying technological dystopia. Fight it.
robertheadley 7y ago
This is purposely written in a foreboding way. A lot of this stuff is standard SaaS procedure. Google does tend to make some boneheaded moves though and Transparency is constant struggle for them. I personally stopped using chrome due to manifest V3. Not because of the tracking, the tracking makes my life easier. Just keep things secure, ok?
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > This is purposely written in a foreboding way. A lot of this stuff is standard SaaS procedure. Just because it's standard, doesn't mean it's moral. FSF has been speaking about immorality of these practices for decades now. Their point is essentially that as a software creator, you shouldn't do it, and as a user, you shouldn't (for both ethical and practical reasons) subject yourself to these practices.
  - robertheadley 7y ago
    I just want to avoid technology becoming the boogeyman to normal people that don't necessary understand this kind of thing. Then again, I suppose the odds of a normie going to FSF is probably moderately low. They aren't wrong. I would just appreciate a bit more finesse in their wording.
    - pessimizer 7y ago
      The FSF's goal is to make technology not a boogeyman, modern tech culture has a goal of making the inside of every device opaque enough that a boogeyman could hide there.
  - spookthesunset 7y ago
    Casting the vast majority of tech workers as immoral is a great way to win people over. Pragmatism wins over purity, and the FSF is far, far, far from pragmatic.
    - yarrel 7y ago
elamje 7y ago
This article claims that Netflix is malware. I don’t have an opinion about Netflix, but would like to hear why someone considers it malware.
- favorited 7y ago
  I know Stallman hates Netflix because they use DRM, but I don't know what part makes it "malware."
  - elamje 7y ago
    Yeah, that makes sense why it’s in the article. As much as people hate DRM, I can’t see a way for Netflix to be offered for the same price and content selection if the users were able to own the content indefinitely. It seems like it would just devolve into the iTunes Store where you purchase each episode/movie. Am I misunderstanding what DRM accomplishes?
    - favorited 7y ago
      They could just stream unencrypted movies in the browser, but that would make it trivial for people to save copies of the stream, and no big film distributer would go for that. Even moves you buy from the iTunes Store have DRM so they only play on authorized devices (to keep one person from buying it, and giving all of their friends a copy).
- yoz-y 7y ago
  The whole article takes the principle of charity in inverse and goes on a rant. I like the idea behind FSF but becoming a troll is not going to help them get much credibility.
Causality1 7y ago
I used to hate all this FSF stuff. That, though, was back in the day when taking back control of your devices was as simple as changing a couple of settings, uninstalling a few things, and flipping a couple of switches in a registry. Now that I've been screwed a few times by this "we know better than you" tech culture my opinion has changed. Richard Stallman is still a lunatic with poor personal hygiene but he makes some excellent points.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jeromebaek 7y ago
There's one each for Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Amazon at https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.html, https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-google.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-google.html, https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html, and https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-amazon.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-amazon.html. Funny there's no https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-facebook.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-facebook.html.
agdpf 7y ago
Linux on the desktop is a real mental harm for the user.
- chopin 7y ago
  In what way? I am writing this from a Linux desktop. Couldn't be happier. I have to use Windows at work, so it's fair to say I know the difference between the two.
- cosmojg 7y ago
  Windows on the desktop is a real mental harm for the user.
riazrizvi 7y ago
The DRM stance is ambiguous IMO. Property rights of content creators are generally considered worth protecting in a good society. The issue is with locked down software which 1) abuses this privacy to violate user privacy, and 2) takes the creative freedoms that the software publishers enjoyed when they wrote their software and creates a contract which denies those freedoms to their users. I feel like we would better highlight the core complaint by calling the issue Digital Rights Reciprocity.
- yarrel 7y ago
  DRM (Digital Restrictions Machinations) being an ineffective and harmful measure isn't ambiguous. There is no reciprocity to them, and they are generally neither imposed by nor respectful of creators.
  - spookthesunset 7y ago
    Don't consume that content then! You don't own the content! Does DRM work against businesses who implement it? I'd say hell yes it does. It drives people to piracy. But I don't think inventing childish, misleading names is going to fix anything. Much better to point out how it causes people pain (unstoppable commercials, inability to play content on all the devices you own, etc).
zaat 7y ago
> Updated: $Date: 2019/08/17 09:55:24 $ Are those $ signs an Emacs limitation?
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  It looks more like automatic interpolation of values in version control systems from the times of CVS and SVN.
scarejunba 7y ago
Haha, privacy advocates love this sort of sensationalism. They run around saying the world is ending. Then, when they spend all their time yelling that autocomplete is surveillance, they wonder why no on is listening. I, for one, am fully informed of all this and choose to share my info. Even better, when Google gets "My Timeline" wrong, I correct it. For free. That's right. For free. Because there's no nuance to their arguments, they end up looking like the crazy guy with the sign about contrails on Market St. Then when MKULTRA comes out, they act like they predicted it when the f-score of their predictions is near zero.
omgtehlion 7y ago
I would like to add to the list software_reporter_tool.exe which spontaneously consumes 100% CPU on windows machines
jonstaab 7y ago
Honest question: in many cases, how can you _not_ have a backdoor? Obviously, it depends on what kind of software you're writing, but pieces like this seem to have this utopian goal of software that "just works", independent of any human except its user. In reality though, other humans are always necessary — whether to explain how to use the technology, to do something that can't be done through the software, to fix the software (after isolating the problem using your data). If there's trust between the user and the software provider, why not leverage it to fill in the gaps that software leaves in functionality. If there's no trust, how do you use software without giving the provider the keys to the kingdom?
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  All your questions have a single answer, which FSF is arguing for: Free Software. No, seriously: > In reality though, other humans are always necessary — whether to explain how to use the technology, You can do that through good UI design, manuals, tutorials and support (possibly paid support). > to do something that can't be done through the software, to fix the software This doesn't mean the people doing this have to be the vendors selling the software. You should be able to do it yourself, or hire a third party. > (after isolating the problem using your data). Doesn't justify getting that data without consent. > If there's trust between the user and the software provider, why not leverage it to fill in the gaps that software leaves in functionality. One of the point of Free Software is that this shouldn't be a two-party relationship. The relationship should include all other users of the software, and put them all in similar positions of power. (Personal aside: maybe this is because I'm past my 20s, but I start to hate this growing trend where buying a product forces you to establish a relationship with a vendor. I don't want a relationship, I want the product.) > If there's no trust, how do you use software without giving the provider the keys to the kingdom? Open source.
  - jonstaab 7y ago
    Maybe it has something to do with the domain I work in, or maybe it's just a problem with how software is done, but the expectation in my industry that there ought to be a relationship that comes along with the software. Also, Open Source is not an answer to the last question. The majority of software users don't have the technical expertise to evaluate the safety of a given OSS, even if there's a community established around making recommendations — but even then, that's a trust relationship too. Edit: maybe I should be more open minded. How is OSS a substitute for trust? Is it a redirection of trust to a group whose interests are aligned with yours? How do you facilitate that network without putting too much burden on the user? Are there any good examples of working OSS that involves non-technical end users?
jonstaab 7y ago
Ironically, I opened this in a new tab just before going on a two hour saga of fighting Chrome's autocomplete behavior and losing. That particular decision of Google's is so painful to deal with, and I'm not alone, this issue is well worth skimming through, just for fun: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=587466 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=587466 It's been three years since they broke autocomplete="off", and in the meantime forms are less secure (for multi-user computers), user-friendly (e.g. when the web app provides its own autocomplete, which then gets hidden by Chrome's), and error-prone (when the same field means different things in different contexts, like when filling out a customer's address rather than your own).
- bromuro 7y ago
  My Safari iOS is crashing opening that link :(
greyhair 7y ago
Such screaming! The issue I perceive is that Google and FSF are both at opposite ends of a spectrum. I know that Google has a commercial agenda, and I know that Google uses my data. Maybe the headline should be that Google harms clueless ignorant users. The rest of us have made a partial deal with the devil, and we live with it. FSF has its own screeching issues in any case. I understand much of where Stallman comes from, and how this influences the FSF, but I don't necessarily agree with Stallmaan or the FSF on every point. In particular, I think that GPLv3 is useful for some individuals, but a hindrance to others, who are free to use GPLv2 (or BSD/MIT/...) as they wish. The screeching, at times, comes across like that of PETA. Also: a lot of this post is old and needs to be updated. Android 5.0 anyone?

336 points by eddyg 7y ago

All of this is trivially and obviously true to power users of GNU/Linux systems. My machine does precisely what I want, when I want it, in the way that I want it. If it doesn't, within reasonable constraints like physical possibility, I can open a text editor, and make it do so. Sure, that might take me a long time. I can add almost all of this configuration to stuff like git repos; back it up; transfer it between completely different machines; I can have a very high degree of certainty that any laptop or desktop I pick up off the shelf will just work and that within 30mins - 1hour I can have it working _identically_ to the old one. By contrast, right now I am using my phone for USB tethering. There is literally no way for me to make this automatic because it's a black box. I have to enable it every time; if the cable moves a bit and disconnects; etc. Trivial, basic example? Sure. The fact that even this most basic behaviour is completely unfixable proves the point. I'm really looking forward to stuff like the Librem, pinephone, etc. The IBM-compatible PC might well be the greatest contributor to the progress of technology in the last few decades. It's heart-breaking that smartphones are this custom random locked down mess of nonsense. Hell, this article has reminded me I was meaning to set up a donation to the FSF. Off it goes. A small impact but an impact nonetheless. I really appreciate the work you guys are doing for those who can't.

lima 7y ago
Even worse: tethering uses a different APN, which allows providers to rate limit tethered traffic, and without root access, you can't bypass it.
- nolok 7y ago
  For anyone reading this and not knowing this; since your post doesn't make it explicit enough, it uses a different APN because Google specifically made it do so. They could let it be hidden. Of course carrier would then mod it in anyway, but here Google did it for them.
- mfontani 7y ago
  I'm fairly sure tethering can also be trivially detected by inspecting the TTL of packets, as a device sitting "behind" the tethering device will increase the TTL by one. https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/47819/how-can-phone-companies-detect-tethering-incl-wifi-hotspot https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/47819/how-can-ph... seems to have more on the matter.
  - ben7799 7y ago
    This can be spoofed/hidden extremely easily if both devices are open source and you want to change it though. It's not like TTL can't be changed. The tethering device can just rewrite the packets to hide the tethered device.
    - lima 7y ago
      Even better - you only need root on either device. Just set a higher initial TTL on your tethered device, or rewrite the TTL on the phone. But carriers don't use that anymore, too easy to bypass.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    Clever! I hadn't considered that at all. I suspect you mean decrement by one, though. On Linux: `sysctl net.ipv4.ip_default_ttl` (mine was 64) `sysctl net.ipv4.ip_default_ttl=65` Done ;)
ktm5j 7y ago
If you have an android phone then you probably can automate that: https://llamalab.com/automate/ https://llamalab.com/automate/ USB tethering is specifically listed under features, presumably there's some API that developers have access to. Apparently by use of the class WifiManager in android.net.wifi you can programmatically change the state of USB tethering without any kind of special privileges.
- nextos 7y ago
  Or try AOSP, while imperfect its closer to GNU.
  - decoyworker 7y ago
    Nope. AOSP runs on a mobile device which is malware https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-mobiles.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-mobiles.html
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      Those complaints have nothing to do with the device that AOSP is running on.
new_realist 7y ago
The fact that you have a beef with USB tethering does not refute the fact that OSS usability is generally shit, and that would likely also apply to smartphones. So it’s a choice between “good” and “poor, but OSS.”
- esotericn 7y ago
  "Good" is in the eye of the beholder, surely. A TV dinner is extremely usable compared to say, cooking from scratch. It has its' benefits. Not for me, though.
- yarrel 7y ago
  Smartphones are based on Free Software. This is part of what makes them so frustrating from a user freedom point of view - they lock some of the most successful Free Software out of the user's reach while sitting in their own hands.
UncleMeat 7y ago
This is true, but is it bad? I work at a major tech company. I have multiple degrees in CS. I've never recompiled anything except maybe in a class ages ago. Among even my most technical peers, I'd bet a lot of money that they percentage of them that have actually modified the software that they are using by editing its source is less than 2%. I'd wager that among the population of people using computers in some way that the percentage is less than 1 in 100,000. And if I asked people who had never done this if they'd like to be able to do it, I'd wager that the huge majority would say "not really". Its fine for power users to want something different than the rest of the world. But it becomes ridiculous to expect people to go out of their way to accommodate these tiny use cases.

nolok 7y ago

Given this thread and the one about Apple, I can't help but notice that Microsoft feels, to me, much better on that front. Far from perfect or even good enough for the (very sane) criterias GNU aims for, but I feel very much more in control of my Microsoft box that I am of my Apple or Google one. Of course there are dozen of areas where Microsoft fails as bad as the other two, but I notice there are a couple dozen where they let me while the others don't, while the reverse is not quite true.

tcd 7y ago
> but I feel very much more in control of my Microsoft box that I am of my Apple or Google one. Hahaha, you haven't seen the data MS collects on Windows 10 users? Try enable full telemetry and download their tool, every damn URL gets logged and even some of the "basic" data might reveal trends when combined with other data sets. NO "big tech" company is to be trusted. Cambridge Analytica and co taught us that. Data and information is being weaponized, the 2016 election proved that, go read the Mueller report for more information on this.
- nolok 7y ago
  You may have missed my point, which was not about the default or intent, but about the amount of control they let me have on my actual computer; the ability to change its behavior to make it do what I want. I have done what you say about having a look at the telemetry feeds, and as such I know that a simple run of 0&0 ShutUp 10 allows me to stop it. Not a complex kernel thing or whatever, just a simple user land application that has like 3 buttons to click and doesn't even require an install. So I stand by my opinion, which again is not intent or what they do by default, but how much they allow me to change it on my own hardware.
  - wyre 7y ago
    >0&0 ShutUp 10 What is this?
    - DHPersonal 7y ago

joeblau 7y ago

What is interesting about this and the Apple post[1] is that no one is actually taking responsibility or signing their name. It's just a generic blog post with a list of issues. Where is the GNU's "open" log of who is publishing this info? Without a source, I can't really verify if the author has some ulterior motive. [1] https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html

nolok 7y ago
> Without a source, I can't really verify if the author has some ulterior motive Is it actually something you need to appreciate the points the post is making ? I actually very much like raw things like this, that you can appreciate without letting yourself be influenced by who said it. I often wish for a timeline where we could see the community's reactions to some things Jobs or Musk said if they didn't know it was their words, for exemple.
- joeblau 7y ago
  I think the points in the post are valid, but there are also things about GNU that are terrible as well. It's just that nobody is wiring GNU faults. If someone did a write up, I would expect that person to own their work as well.
GuiA 7y ago
The author has an ulterior motive, which is that to advance the agenda of the FSF*.
- klez 7y ago
  Sorry to nitpick: GNU is a project, the foundation is the Free Software Foundation. There's no GNU Foundation.
  - GuiA 7y ago
    Indeed, thanks!

tcd 7y ago

I mean, anyone who bothers to take the time to do a Google Takeout and actually looks at the data in the JSON files can see just how much information they are storing, and it is quite alarming. Thing is, companies keep data about you even if you don't have an account, which is impossible to GDPR. Some of the sources here are questionable; there's a sun.co.uk URL which is obviously tabloid trash, so please apply critical thought, the article presents what appears to be a convincing piece but some of the "sources" are not to be trusted. But even on Linux you can't escape Google's web, even if you really really tried, some developers use Google's APIs for fonts, jQuery/scripts etc, so it's really hard to use the web without Google knowing about it and building up their knowledge graph.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

judge2020 7y ago

> Google/Alphabet intentionally broke Revolv home automatic control products that depended on a server to function, by shutting down the server. The lesson is, reject all such products. Insist on self-contained computers that run free software! The last two sentences seem a little pretentious. The people who bought these products don't know (or want to take the time to learn) how to use git or edit config files or install docker. A consumer IoT product that provided an easy GUI, uses device discovery, and of course was only LAN would be a big win for privacy conscious people, but I'm not aware of something like that existing.

admax88q 7y ago
The demand is that they run self contained free software, not that they run got and docker with text confog files. Its possible to have GUIs and ease of use with free software.
wvenable 7y ago
One technical person could make this work for everyone else. I have a few pieces of hardware right now that are "broken" because the companies that made them went of business. These products have millions of owners. With the source code and encryption keys I could personally make this hardware work for those users indefinitely. And there are hundreds (if not thousands) of users just like me.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > One technical person could make this work for everyone else. Yup. An oft-missed but crucial point. The benefit of software freedoms isn't that everyone has to do everything themselves. The benefit is that everyone can do it themselves if they like, but they can also delegate the job to anyone else that wants to take it, like someone's friendly neighbourhood techie, or a small local business. In this way, free software actually promotes free markets, by enabling unrestricted competition on adding value on top of what free software offers (vs. locking it down and making money by rent seeking).
greyhair 7y ago
Hubitat comes very close. Once it is set up, it neer has to call home other than for updates.

TheIronYuppie 7y ago

The "censorship software" point is extremely dumb. I have kids. I want them to have a phone for communication purposes when they move from place to place (come back from school). I also want the to lock down the phone so if they sneak it out or something, they can't watch it for 12 straight hours. That's it. That's what this does.

dantondwa 7y ago
I am not commenting on you directly, but, in general, I find the kind of control that the Google parental control app gives to be excessive. It makes talking unnecessary and gives a direct window to a personal dimension of the kid. You really have a total power over the kids phone and activity. I get the reasons to install this on the phone of a child, but at the same time I'm afraid that it might be too much and that it might give to the kids the sensation of being watched by the parent all the time. Respecting their spaces, having their own dimensions that is out of the eye of the parent is also important, in my opinion.
- dantondwa 7y ago
  To further specify: go read the user reviews of the kids in Google Play Store for the app. Apart from being hilarious, they are actually quite sad and I understand, in part, their points.
  - metabagel 7y ago
    Sorry, for which app?
    - dantondwa 7y ago
      Sorry, I didn't specify it. It's "Google Family link for children and teens" (and not the similarly named app for the parents).
      - ben7799 7y ago

Ajedi32 7y ago

Almost all of this is heavily exaggerated, presenting relatively innocuous features as if they were harmful, or calling out simple bugs as if they were intentional and actively malicious. None of it is flat-out wrong per-se (at least as far as I can tell), and I can certainly see where GNU is coming from, but I think for the average user most of the features they're criticizing actually do a lot more good than harm. Just a few examples, to demonstrate my point: - They describe Google's demonstrated ability to remove malware from user's devices as a "backdoor" - They describe parental controls as "censorship" - They consider the fact that Android supports DRM "malware" - They cite the fact that Android malware exists as a security flaw. (Ignoring the fact that there is basically no OS in existence that can't be infected with malware.) - They consider the ability for users to remotely reset their Android lockscreen combo if they know their Google account password a "back door" - They describe a bug where Google Assistant incorrectly identified the "Okay Google" hotword as "Google Assistant recording users' conversations" - They describe the fact that a Google message app doesn't delete conversations until the user asks it to as "surveillance" Again, I'm not saying this point of view is necessarily wrong. From a certain point of view, all of the claims I described above are actually quite logical. (I even find myself agreeing with some of them.) But from the perspective of the average user, the vast majority of this stuff simply isn't worth worrying about, and I think it's a little extreme to characterize it as "malware". Just something to keep in mind.

normalhuman 7y ago
The average user certainly doesn't worry about any of this, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't. The worst, of course, is the tragedy of the commons dynamics. A lot of harm that comes from surveillance capitalism does not affect someone in particular, but it amounts to great damage to society as a whole. For example, by degrading public discourse, addicting people to screen time while robbing them of living their actual lives, and assisting authoritarian regimes in oppressing their own people (project dragonfly).
- nolok 7y ago
  > The average user certainly doesn't worry about any of this, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't. I think the point he was making, in part, was that if the average user worried about those things, they would WANT most of those features and decisions.

19ylram49 7y ago

As an Android user, what are some ways that I can deal with the problems addressed here? (I already do a number of things, but I’m curious what everyone else does.)

saagarjha 7y ago
Ignore this list and find a better one that actually represents the issues fairly.
- 19ylram49 7y ago
  Many of the points made are legitimate concerns. I’m guessing that you work for Google (or Apple)?
  - 19ylram49 7y ago
    Aaaaand confirmed! You do work for Apple. (It took me 30 seconds to visit your website and confirm this.)
    - dang 7y ago
      You can't attack another user like this here. We ban accounts that do this. Please don't do it again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    Neither. There are valid arguments against both companies, but these aren't it.
    - kragen 7y ago
      Your resume on your website says you work for Apple: http://archive.is/aALeV http://archive.is/aALeV Did you mean to say that you worked for neither Google nor Apple? Because it appears that in answer to the question, “I’m guessing that you work for Google (or Apple)?” you answered, “Neither.”

decoyworker 7y ago

https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html Apple's Operating Systems are Malware Is there anything these guys like? Stallman and Gnu are extremists

TeMPOraL 7y ago
> Is there anything these guys like? Free (as in freedom) Software. > Stallman and Gnu are extremists The word you're looking for is "radicals"; "extremists" carries connotations with violence and illegal behavior, which is the exact opposite of what Stallman/FSF stand for. Are these views radical? Yes. But are they wrong? The way I see it, RMS has been writing about what's wrong with the software world for decades and predicting the consequences. The industry has been ignoring this for just as long, and then people keep complaining about consequences materializing as predicted. Makes you wonder whether it's RMS that's really radical, or whether our Overton window has shifted so much that doing the right thing fell off it?
- notyourday 7y ago
  Look, I like RMS. I casually know him. We had dinner a few times, mostly with other people at the table. He is very interesting to talk to. It pains me to say it but he is a Luddite. He would be quite happy in the world of late 1980s because that's where him and his quaint way of technology, society and progress fits in swimmingly. And maybe he is right. But here's the thing: he simply outsourced his need for modern communications to others -- he does not call restaurants to make reservations, his hosts do. He does not use GPS and maps -- drivers that his hosts use do. He does not need to use a banking app/deal with payments/scheduling/etc that are needed for him to appear at conferences -- those that invite him do. I wish I could have a life like that. Probably a lot of us would. All the advantages and none of the inconveniences.
  - plttn 7y ago
    I think it's one of those situations where he has the ability to wax poetic from his ivory tower simply because he doesn't have to exist in the real world in terms of technology. If he had to exist in the real world, he would find it a lot harder to stick to those principles.

holy_city 7y ago

I feel like DRM is basically the prisoner's dilemma at this point where it's in everyone's interest to give it up, but no one wants to be the first person to do it. But honestly it's weird for GNU to fault the person being held at gunpoint for the situation, not the person holding the gun.

dredmorbius 7y ago
If you have a choice between doing the right thing, and the wrong thing, and you choose to do the wrong thing, you've chosen poorly. I'm increasing not a fan of naked individual initiative as the sole response to abuses of power; that itself is and long has been a tool of power, to skirt its own responsibilities. Annie Leonard's essay on the "Crying Indian" anti-littering (that is: pro-disposable packaging) advertising campaign is a key case in point: http://www.pfree.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Moving-from-Individual-Change-to-Societal-Change-Annie-Leonard-2013.pdf http://www.pfree.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Moving-fro... (PDF) But raising awareness and consciousness can help us get to a collective action promoting the common weal, which is the goal here.
bduerst 7y ago
That's an interesting perspective, and I would take it a step further to say it's prisoner's dilemma but with millions of prisoners. From the media owners' perspective, there's always going to be users who defect to piracy, so DRM is the resulting Nash equilibrium that maximizes benefit from not catering to pirates while still catering to customers.
pessimizer 7y ago
These are not people, they are businesses; and they are not victims, but producers of a product that they can also choose not to produce, or to produce differently.

hnsocks 7y ago

Oh my listen Zachary Vochies.. Real truths of this liar company. Google go away. Discrace of technology..

kd3 7y ago

We need the Librem phone today. It is long overdue.

jasonvorhe 7y ago
We? Pardon me, I'll rather wait for the next Pixel.
- jazoom 7y ago
  We = kd3 + jazoom + whoever else kd3 was referring to. "We" doesn't have to include all 7 billion human inhabitants of Earth. You were not included.

summerlight 7y ago

https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html Actually, they listed most of software companies in their set of malware. While I don't necessarily agree with them, but their stance have been at least consistent.

freakynit 7y ago

Glad someone is pointing these out. All may not be true, but, it certainly shows what all is going on

titzer 7y ago

People should be more concerned about the location tracking inserted into Android in the form of Google Play Services. Generally those who know the technical details of these systems are bound, as current or former employees, not to reveal confidential information that includes technical details about how these systems work, how they could be corrupted or manipulated, how auditing works, and how far they are subject to warrants, subpoenas and national security letters for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. For a layperson and an outsider, if you don't fully trust Google, you should probably uninstall all Google-bundled software, principally Google Play Services and maps. Some settings can reduce the tracking but it is mercurial and often opaque, and informed user consent is specious here, since the technical details are so secret. Location data is the next goldmine of advertising. There is already an economy springing up around it. Even if it is banal today, it won't be tomorrow. Pervasive location tracking is the backbone of a terrifying technological dystopia. Fight it.

robertheadley 7y ago

This is purposely written in a foreboding way. A lot of this stuff is standard SaaS procedure. Google does tend to make some boneheaded moves though and Transparency is constant struggle for them. I personally stopped using chrome due to manifest V3. Not because of the tracking, the tracking makes my life easier. Just keep things secure, ok?

TeMPOraL 7y ago
> This is purposely written in a foreboding way. A lot of this stuff is standard SaaS procedure. Just because it's standard, doesn't mean it's moral. FSF has been speaking about immorality of these practices for decades now. Their point is essentially that as a software creator, you shouldn't do it, and as a user, you shouldn't (for both ethical and practical reasons) subject yourself to these practices.
- robertheadley 7y ago
  I just want to avoid technology becoming the boogeyman to normal people that don't necessary understand this kind of thing. Then again, I suppose the odds of a normie going to FSF is probably moderately low. They aren't wrong. I would just appreciate a bit more finesse in their wording.
  - pessimizer 7y ago
    The FSF's goal is to make technology not a boogeyman, modern tech culture has a goal of making the inside of every device opaque enough that a boogeyman could hide there.
- spookthesunset 7y ago
  Casting the vast majority of tech workers as immoral is a great way to win people over. Pragmatism wins over purity, and the FSF is far, far, far from pragmatic.
  - yarrel 7y ago

elamje 7y ago

This article claims that Netflix is malware. I don’t have an opinion about Netflix, but would like to hear why someone considers it malware.

favorited 7y ago
I know Stallman hates Netflix because they use DRM, but I don't know what part makes it "malware."
- elamje 7y ago
  Yeah, that makes sense why it’s in the article. As much as people hate DRM, I can’t see a way for Netflix to be offered for the same price and content selection if the users were able to own the content indefinitely. It seems like it would just devolve into the iTunes Store where you purchase each episode/movie. Am I misunderstanding what DRM accomplishes?
  - favorited 7y ago
    They could just stream unencrypted movies in the browser, but that would make it trivial for people to save copies of the stream, and no big film distributer would go for that. Even moves you buy from the iTunes Store have DRM so they only play on authorized devices (to keep one person from buying it, and giving all of their friends a copy).
yoz-y 7y ago
The whole article takes the principle of charity in inverse and goes on a rant. I like the idea behind FSF but becoming a troll is not going to help them get much credibility.

Causality1 7y ago

I used to hate all this FSF stuff. That, though, was back in the day when taking back control of your devices was as simple as changing a couple of settings, uninstalling a few things, and flipping a couple of switches in a registry. Now that I've been screwed a few times by this "we know better than you" tech culture my opinion has changed. Richard Stallman is still a lunatic with poor personal hygiene but he makes some excellent points.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jeromebaek 7y ago

There's one each for Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Amazon at https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.html, https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-google.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-google.html, https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html, and https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-amazon.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-amazon.html. Funny there's no https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-facebook.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-facebook.html.

agdpf 7y ago

Linux on the desktop is a real mental harm for the user.

chopin 7y ago
In what way? I am writing this from a Linux desktop. Couldn't be happier. I have to use Windows at work, so it's fair to say I know the difference between the two.
cosmojg 7y ago
Windows on the desktop is a real mental harm for the user.

riazrizvi 7y ago

The DRM stance is ambiguous IMO. Property rights of content creators are generally considered worth protecting in a good society. The issue is with locked down software which 1) abuses this privacy to violate user privacy, and 2) takes the creative freedoms that the software publishers enjoyed when they wrote their software and creates a contract which denies those freedoms to their users. I feel like we would better highlight the core complaint by calling the issue Digital Rights Reciprocity.

yarrel 7y ago
DRM (Digital Restrictions Machinations) being an ineffective and harmful measure isn't ambiguous. There is no reciprocity to them, and they are generally neither imposed by nor respectful of creators.
- spookthesunset 7y ago
  Don't consume that content then! You don't own the content! Does DRM work against businesses who implement it? I'd say hell yes it does. It drives people to piracy. But I don't think inventing childish, misleading names is going to fix anything. Much better to point out how it causes people pain (unstoppable commercials, inability to play content on all the devices you own, etc).

zaat 7y ago

> Updated: $Date: 2019/08/17 09:55:24 $ Are those $ signs an Emacs limitation?

TeMPOraL 7y ago
It looks more like automatic interpolation of values in version control systems from the times of CVS and SVN.

scarejunba 7y ago

Haha, privacy advocates love this sort of sensationalism. They run around saying the world is ending. Then, when they spend all their time yelling that autocomplete is surveillance, they wonder why no on is listening. I, for one, am fully informed of all this and choose to share my info. Even better, when Google gets "My Timeline" wrong, I correct it. For free. That's right. For free. Because there's no nuance to their arguments, they end up looking like the crazy guy with the sign about contrails on Market St. Then when MKULTRA comes out, they act like they predicted it when the f-score of their predictions is near zero.

omgtehlion 7y ago

I would like to add to the list software_reporter_tool.exe which spontaneously consumes 100% CPU on windows machines

jonstaab 7y ago

Honest question: in many cases, how can you _not_ have a backdoor? Obviously, it depends on what kind of software you're writing, but pieces like this seem to have this utopian goal of software that "just works", independent of any human except its user. In reality though, other humans are always necessary — whether to explain how to use the technology, to do something that can't be done through the software, to fix the software (after isolating the problem using your data). If there's trust between the user and the software provider, why not leverage it to fill in the gaps that software leaves in functionality. If there's no trust, how do you use software without giving the provider the keys to the kingdom?

TeMPOraL 7y ago
All your questions have a single answer, which FSF is arguing for: Free Software. No, seriously: > In reality though, other humans are always necessary — whether to explain how to use the technology, You can do that through good UI design, manuals, tutorials and support (possibly paid support). > to do something that can't be done through the software, to fix the software This doesn't mean the people doing this have to be the vendors selling the software. You should be able to do it yourself, or hire a third party. > (after isolating the problem using your data). Doesn't justify getting that data without consent. > If there's trust between the user and the software provider, why not leverage it to fill in the gaps that software leaves in functionality. One of the point of Free Software is that this shouldn't be a two-party relationship. The relationship should include all other users of the software, and put them all in similar positions of power. (Personal aside: maybe this is because I'm past my 20s, but I start to hate this growing trend where buying a product forces you to establish a relationship with a vendor. I don't want a relationship, I want the product.) > If there's no trust, how do you use software without giving the provider the keys to the kingdom? Open source.
- jonstaab 7y ago
  Maybe it has something to do with the domain I work in, or maybe it's just a problem with how software is done, but the expectation in my industry that there ought to be a relationship that comes along with the software. Also, Open Source is not an answer to the last question. The majority of software users don't have the technical expertise to evaluate the safety of a given OSS, even if there's a community established around making recommendations — but even then, that's a trust relationship too. Edit: maybe I should be more open minded. How is OSS a substitute for trust? Is it a redirection of trust to a group whose interests are aligned with yours? How do you facilitate that network without putting too much burden on the user? Are there any good examples of working OSS that involves non-technical end users?

jonstaab 7y ago

Ironically, I opened this in a new tab just before going on a two hour saga of fighting Chrome's autocomplete behavior and losing. That particular decision of Google's is so painful to deal with, and I'm not alone, this issue is well worth skimming through, just for fun: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=587466 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=587466 It's been three years since they broke autocomplete="off", and in the meantime forms are less secure (for multi-user computers), user-friendly (e.g. when the web app provides its own autocomplete, which then gets hidden by Chrome's), and error-prone (when the same field means different things in different contexts, like when filling out a customer's address rather than your own).

bromuro 7y ago
My Safari iOS is crashing opening that link :(

greyhair 7y ago

Such screaming! The issue I perceive is that Google and FSF are both at opposite ends of a spectrum. I know that Google has a commercial agenda, and I know that Google uses my data. Maybe the headline should be that Google harms clueless ignorant users. The rest of us have made a partial deal with the devil, and we live with it. FSF has its own screeching issues in any case. I understand much of where Stallman comes from, and how this influences the FSF, but I don't necessarily agree with Stallmaan or the FSF on every point. In particular, I think that GPLv3 is useful for some individuals, but a hindrance to others, who are free to use GPLv2 (or BSD/MIT/...) as they wish. The screeching, at times, comes across like that of PETA. Also: a lot of this post is old and needs to be updated. Android 5.0 anyone?