5 ms·

Not for nothing, but the "slowly boiled frog" idea is a myth. When the water gets too hot, the frog will jump out. In other words, when the problem becomes ba

Not for nothing, but the "slowly boiled frog" idea is a myth. When the water gets too hot, the frog will jump out. In other words, when the problem becomes bad enough, we as metaphorical frogs, will react normally. This is a Good Thing, and you should be wishing Microsoft, Apple, Google did this more often, because if they did, we'd all be meaningfully safer, having lost zero liberty along the way. Nobody's freedom is threatened because Microsoft removed software that was notoriously unsafe and was also set to stop working at the same time. Maybe a more apt analogy would be "boy who cried wolf"...

EvanAnderson 6y ago
How is taking away an ability my computer had, without my consent, not threatening my freedom? (I'd like to see the EULAs for the affected Windows and Flash versions, too. I don't recall reading licenses for on-prem installed software that talk about the licensor being free to arbitrarily disable or remove features.)
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  You don't own the software. You didn't even purchase the Flash player. Adobe has zero obligations to you. You could turn around and claim their behavior is a CFAA violation but good luck winning.
  - EvanAnderson 6y ago
    I get that. I understand that software is licensed. I agreed to a license. If that license doesn't say that the "manufacturer" can arbitrarily remove features at a later date then I'm not sure how they get a pass for that. Edit (to your edit): Yeah. It sounds criminal to me. They'd be exceeding their access granted to my system. Definitely sounds like CFAA territory in the US. Fat chance that anything would be done about it, but it can still piss me off (and make me try to gin-up pissed-off feelings in other people).
    - thombat 6y ago
      From the EULA: 7.2 Updating. If your Computer is connected to the Internet, the Software may, without additional notice, check for Updates that are available for automatic download and installation to your Computer and let Adobe know the Software is successfully installed. 10. Limitation of Liability. IN NO EVENT WILL ADOBE, ITS SUPPLIERS, OR CERTIFICATION AUTHORITIES BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DAMAGES, CLAIMS OR COSTS WHATSOEVER INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, OR ANY LOST PROFITS OR LOST SAVINGS, EVEN IF AN ADOBE REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH LOSS, DAMAGES, OR CLAIMS. THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS APPLY TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW IN YOUR JURISDICTION. ADOBE’S AGGREGATE LIABILITY AND THAT OF ITS SUPPLIERS AND CERTIFICATION AUTHORITIES UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THE SOFTWARE, IF ANY. So their argument would be that you accepted that the software would update automatically and that in any event you'd have no claim for loss. Does CFAA apply once you've already bent over?
  - dietr1ch 6y ago
    ok, but if the machine was working offline you'd still be able to play one of those flash games right? I really couldn't care less about the agreements, they are something nobody can afford to read and many times something that can be changed without notice anyways.
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  A) You did consent, as you indicated here. B) Your computer still has the ability to run Flash programs, this is removing the Adobe Flash Player, not disabling Flash programs entirely, which leads to C) The Flash Player is disabling itself on January 13th, so Microsoft is not removing any capability for you at all, Adobe is, and D) since it’s free software they licensed to you, the have every right in the world to make it do whatever they want (including making it not work any longer), and you have every right in the world to remove the app early if you don’t like what it provides.
  - EvanAnderson 6y ago
    The Flash EULA[1] contains language about updates re: If your Computer is connected to the Internet, the Software may, without additional notice, check for Updates that are available for automatic download and installation to your Computer and let Adobe know the Software is successfully installed. The Software may automatically download and install updates from time to time from Adobe. These updates may take the form of bug fixes, new features, or new versions. You agree to receive such updates from Adobe as part of your use of the Software. I could see an argument that a self-destruct mechanism is a "bug fix" or a "new version". I could also see an argument that it's not. I'm coming around to the line of thinking that another poster mentioned-- that this could be considered Adobe criminally exceeding the access to my system that I've granted them. I agreed to updates. Not to removal of functionality. I can't do a damned thing about it, but it pisses me off, and I want other people to be pissed off about it to. Taking away functionality in somebody else's computer is unethical in my moral framework. Normalizing that idea is dangerous and wrong to me, too. [1] https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/licenses-terms/pdf/Flash_Player_32_0.pdf https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/licenses-terms... Edit: Would it be your contention that all software developers have the right to remove functionality in their software at any time? Does consideration paid factor into that? What if it's expeditious for my business model to disable my older software to get you to move to my new software? Does such disabling constitute an "update"?
    - TameAntelope 6y ago
      At this point my primary concern is that the language and severity you’re claiming here diminishes the impact of future discussions, when something vastly more serious may actually be an overreach.
- quesera 6y ago
  > How is taking away an ability my computer had, without my consent, not threatening my freedom? Because "threatening my freedom" is either a) an incredible overreaction, or b) meaningless. You are not going to have your freedoms curtailed. You will not go to prison. You will be able to share your opinion on the matter without restriction. You may continue to practice your chosen religion. You will not be taxed. You will not have additional restrictions placed upon your travel. You will not be required to house troops in your residence. You can even choose to not install the OS update, and your old software will continue to work. You can choose to reinstall an old version of the OS, and your old software will continue to work. Perhaps you desire an ongoing and perpetual right to download new versions of a commercial software product, which will never include changes that you do not personally desire. That right does not exist and it never has. This is not a threat to your freedom.
  - VRay 6y ago
    > You can even choose to not install the OS update, and your old software will continue to work. You can choose to reinstall an old version of the OS, and your old software will continue to work. ?? It's possible to hack around the update, but it's a forcibly-pushed update that breaks something on your machine, and the only easy way to stop it is to go offline permanently
    - derefr 6y ago
      Why would you expect that doing something that goes against what everyone else wants, would have been made easy for you? You're basically becoming your own "distro" of Windows. Of course that's hard. But the point the GP is making is that it's also not totally implausible to do, if there were any real motivation for people to pursue it. There was a real reason for people to want to "take control" of Android, and so we got LineageOS.
userbinator 6y ago
This is a Good Thing, and you should be wishing Microsoft, Apple, Google did this more often, because if they did, we'd all be meaningfully safer, having lost zero liberty along the way. Hell no. This is essentially the rise of authoritarianism...
- Spivak 6y ago
  I mean it very literally took Apple refusing to support Flash to start its rapid decline. Voting with your wallets has never really worked. Consumer preferences do change overtime but getting millions of people to act in unison is an exercise in futility. Until someone with actual market-swaying power brakes the wheel it will keep on spinning.
  - anfilt 6y ago
    Like boycotts have and do work. I think the problem is average/majority user does not quite understand the minutia. Successful boycotts seems to deal with worker mistreatment, racial discrimination and other unethical behavior that a business may be doing. Even then they are not always successful but it certainly is easier to explain the situation to people in those cases. However, still run into issues like it is too essential like food or just too much apathy for the entire market of that product.
    - TameAntelope 6y ago
      Boycots, largely, do not work: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/do-boycotts-work-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/do-boycotts-work-a-new-frea...
derefr 6y ago
The frog thing is about the spinal/muscular reflexes of recently-deceased frogs, or about separated frog legs. A dead frog will "jump out" if placed in boiling water, but not if brought up to temperature gradually.

EvanAnderson 6y ago

How is taking away an ability my computer had, without my consent, not threatening my freedom? (I'd like to see the EULAs for the affected Windows and Flash versions, too. I don't recall reading licenses for on-prem installed software that talk about the licensor being free to arbitrarily disable or remove features.)

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
You don't own the software. You didn't even purchase the Flash player. Adobe has zero obligations to you. You could turn around and claim their behavior is a CFAA violation but good luck winning.
- EvanAnderson 6y ago
  I get that. I understand that software is licensed. I agreed to a license. If that license doesn't say that the "manufacturer" can arbitrarily remove features at a later date then I'm not sure how they get a pass for that. Edit (to your edit): Yeah. It sounds criminal to me. They'd be exceeding their access granted to my system. Definitely sounds like CFAA territory in the US. Fat chance that anything would be done about it, but it can still piss me off (and make me try to gin-up pissed-off feelings in other people).
  - thombat 6y ago
    From the EULA: 7.2 Updating. If your Computer is connected to the Internet, the Software may, without additional notice, check for Updates that are available for automatic download and installation to your Computer and let Adobe know the Software is successfully installed. 10. Limitation of Liability. IN NO EVENT WILL ADOBE, ITS SUPPLIERS, OR CERTIFICATION AUTHORITIES BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DAMAGES, CLAIMS OR COSTS WHATSOEVER INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, OR ANY LOST PROFITS OR LOST SAVINGS, EVEN IF AN ADOBE REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH LOSS, DAMAGES, OR CLAIMS. THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS APPLY TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW IN YOUR JURISDICTION. ADOBE’S AGGREGATE LIABILITY AND THAT OF ITS SUPPLIERS AND CERTIFICATION AUTHORITIES UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THE SOFTWARE, IF ANY. So their argument would be that you accepted that the software would update automatically and that in any event you'd have no claim for loss. Does CFAA apply once you've already bent over?
- dietr1ch 6y ago
  ok, but if the machine was working offline you'd still be able to play one of those flash games right? I really couldn't care less about the agreements, they are something nobody can afford to read and many times something that can be changed without notice anyways.
TameAntelope 6y ago
A) You did consent, as you indicated here. B) Your computer still has the ability to run Flash programs, this is removing the Adobe Flash Player, not disabling Flash programs entirely, which leads to C) The Flash Player is disabling itself on January 13th, so Microsoft is not removing any capability for you at all, Adobe is, and D) since it’s free software they licensed to you, the have every right in the world to make it do whatever they want (including making it not work any longer), and you have every right in the world to remove the app early if you don’t like what it provides.
- EvanAnderson 6y ago
  The Flash EULA[1] contains language about updates re: If your Computer is connected to the Internet, the Software may, without additional notice, check for Updates that are available for automatic download and installation to your Computer and let Adobe know the Software is successfully installed. The Software may automatically download and install updates from time to time from Adobe. These updates may take the form of bug fixes, new features, or new versions. You agree to receive such updates from Adobe as part of your use of the Software. I could see an argument that a self-destruct mechanism is a "bug fix" or a "new version". I could also see an argument that it's not. I'm coming around to the line of thinking that another poster mentioned-- that this could be considered Adobe criminally exceeding the access to my system that I've granted them. I agreed to updates. Not to removal of functionality. I can't do a damned thing about it, but it pisses me off, and I want other people to be pissed off about it to. Taking away functionality in somebody else's computer is unethical in my moral framework. Normalizing that idea is dangerous and wrong to me, too. [1] https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/licenses-terms/pdf/Flash_Player_32_0.pdf https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/licenses-terms... Edit: Would it be your contention that all software developers have the right to remove functionality in their software at any time? Does consideration paid factor into that? What if it's expeditious for my business model to disable my older software to get you to move to my new software? Does such disabling constitute an "update"?
  - TameAntelope 6y ago
    At this point my primary concern is that the language and severity you’re claiming here diminishes the impact of future discussions, when something vastly more serious may actually be an overreach.
quesera 6y ago
> How is taking away an ability my computer had, without my consent, not threatening my freedom? Because "threatening my freedom" is either a) an incredible overreaction, or b) meaningless. You are not going to have your freedoms curtailed. You will not go to prison. You will be able to share your opinion on the matter without restriction. You may continue to practice your chosen religion. You will not be taxed. You will not have additional restrictions placed upon your travel. You will not be required to house troops in your residence. You can even choose to not install the OS update, and your old software will continue to work. You can choose to reinstall an old version of the OS, and your old software will continue to work. Perhaps you desire an ongoing and perpetual right to download new versions of a commercial software product, which will never include changes that you do not personally desire. That right does not exist and it never has. This is not a threat to your freedom.
- VRay 6y ago
  > You can even choose to not install the OS update, and your old software will continue to work. You can choose to reinstall an old version of the OS, and your old software will continue to work. ?? It's possible to hack around the update, but it's a forcibly-pushed update that breaks something on your machine, and the only easy way to stop it is to go offline permanently
  - derefr 6y ago
    Why would you expect that doing something that goes against what everyone else wants, would have been made easy for you? You're basically becoming your own "distro" of Windows. Of course that's hard. But the point the GP is making is that it's also not totally implausible to do, if there were any real motivation for people to pursue it. There was a real reason for people to want to "take control" of Android, and so we got LineageOS.

userbinator 6y ago

This is a Good Thing, and you should be wishing Microsoft, Apple, Google did this more often, because if they did, we'd all be meaningfully safer, having lost zero liberty along the way. Hell no. This is essentially the rise of authoritarianism...

Spivak 6y ago
I mean it very literally took Apple refusing to support Flash to start its rapid decline. Voting with your wallets has never really worked. Consumer preferences do change overtime but getting millions of people to act in unison is an exercise in futility. Until someone with actual market-swaying power brakes the wheel it will keep on spinning.
- anfilt 6y ago
  Like boycotts have and do work. I think the problem is average/majority user does not quite understand the minutia. Successful boycotts seems to deal with worker mistreatment, racial discrimination and other unethical behavior that a business may be doing. Even then they are not always successful but it certainly is easier to explain the situation to people in those cases. However, still run into issues like it is too essential like food or just too much apathy for the entire market of that product.
  - TameAntelope 6y ago
    Boycots, largely, do not work: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/do-boycotts-work-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/do-boycotts-work-a-new-frea...

derefr 6y ago

The frog thing is about the spinal/muscular reflexes of recently-deceased frogs, or about separated frog legs. A dead frog will "jump out" if placed in boiling water, but not if brought up to temperature gradually.