3 ms·
Wait. Does this mean that you are against the use of any tech product made by a company? From the description and the author comment it looks like they are not
by yoz-y 5y ago
Wait. Does this mean that you are against the use of any tech product made by a company? From the description and the author comment it looks like they are not transmitting the keystrokes to their server (and it does not seem to have any need for it anyways). How is this different from using say, a compiler made by a company (they have access to all your code), or an image editor (they have access to all your photos).
- lasfter 5y agoIf I can sign a binding contract that regulates how my data will be used for as long as I have this software then I'm happy to use most products. Your examples don't capture what is happening here. Fig is freely downloadable, with implicit terms of use. They can say whatever they want in HN comments, but that has no bearing on what the software will actually do. If I buy a compiler, I get explicit terms of use. If I use an open-source compiler, I know what I'm using and I can change it if it's doing something sketchy, or roll back if it updates in some way I don't like. I wouldn't use a proprietary compiler I didn't pay for. Image editors too. And you can bet I wouldn't let either of those use the network (why do they need to?) Moreover, the potential harm of my code or my images being leaked is much smaller than every keystroke into the terminal being leaked. Not even saying anything about Fig requiring access to other aspects of your machine too. So even if Fig did have a binding contract I'd be wary, because if the app gets exploited the consequences could be devastating.