3 ms·

ChromeOS is a privacy nightmare I cannot recommend to anyone which is a real shame because it is perhaps the most secure consumer focused workstation operating

by lrvick 4y ago

ChromeOS is a privacy nightmare I cannot recommend to anyone which is a real shame because it is perhaps the most secure consumer focused workstation operating system out there. I wish any vendor would offer a privacy-by-default telemetry-disabled ChromiumOS option I could actually recommend.

dathinab 4y ago
But if we are honest: 1. is it really worse then windows 2. google does has privacy option, partially thanks to the EU forcing them and as far as I can tell they are not randomly "undone" with updates from time to time 3. a lot of more common users do also have instagram and similar, do most things through android/iOS apps and use google search and chrome, or some chrome derivate. How much additional information does using ChromeOs expose? Don't get me wrong for most people on HN it probably is degrading privacy. But this is not targeting the common HN user. This is targeting: - existing ChromeOs users looking for an upgrade - this includes devs - this includes less tech affine people - this includes people which bought that premium Chromebook with a 3:2 Google sold years ago - this includes a bunch of google (ex-)employs which might have been the driving factor for bringing out a ChromeOs version - this includes junior devs which grew up with a edu focused chrome book - people which care about the mission of framework, but are not highly tech affine, they might seem rare but they do exist - presents, Chromebooks can be nice presents to less tech affine users and if they anyway use mainly Chrome and similar it's not necessary "reducing their privacy" - people feed up by Linux desktop issues but disgusted with Apple Hypocrisy and totally feed up with windows since a while - especially if they are not supper sensitive wrt. privacy. And while such devs might sound like a myth on HN I have meet docents of them Lastly it's the same hardware and probably more or less the same driver support issues, so the cost of shipping such a version is probably not too high while at the same time it can give you a bit more supply chain stability (by removing hardware choices outside of cards). The main question is if the firmware is in a state where you could just install Linux or Windows if you want.
- lrvick 4y ago
  Giving ChromeOS devices to low tech users that cannot understand the privacy and lock-in risks feels like a tech version of giving kids cigarettes. It is simply unethical. The HN crowd can make informed decisions to give Google control of their entire digital lives but we should not make that choice for others. I would never recommend Windows or MacOS to anyone for similar reasons so those are not a comparison I care about either. I would certainly recommend a Chromebook over either if someone absolutely has no choice but those three, but there are almost always other choices if you make some time to teach someone. Most Linux distros are a security shit show so pre-installed linux machines are hard to recommend to anyone that does anything high risk on their machines like financial work or journalism. Degoogled ChromiumOS feels like a good security/privacy balance for most people but that is not currently a user friendly option for installation and upgrades. In practice I find myself using and teaching others using their machines for anything remotely privacy or security sensitive to install and use QubesOS. For all the excellent privacy and security design it has a high learning curve and strict hardware requirements making it untenable for low-budget or low-tech users.
  - water-your-self 4y ago
    >but we should not make that choice for others. Much of the HN crowd has their finances intertwined with forcing these kinds of choices on consumers. Sometimes I dream of an awful de-anonymized internet where your financial holdings are bound to every post that you make online. I think binding that incentive might change how we ingest opinions.
    - lrvick 4y ago
      Already on the internet we can choose to use our real name when we are comfortable having our reputation tied to our words giving them more weight, and we can also be anonymous other times when we are okay with our words holding very little weight, but also very little risk to us. I think many people, if they find a comment really impactful, will take a look and see if this was said by someone using their real name and if there are obviously relevant major corporate biases they didn't disclose. Or maybe I am weird and am just trying to justify that I personally do this often. Regardless, both anonymous and identified communication are very valuable depending on the particular goal, and it should always be a switch everyone is empowered to be able flip at any time. Sometimes when I am testing out ideas to decide how I even feel about something myself, I may choose to be anonymous. Most of the time, I am fine with most of my posts on HN being under my real name and tied to my reputation and that of the security and privacy consulting company I run. I still reserve the right to change my mind and be wrong sometimes and trust most of my target customers to give me some room for that :)

by lrvick 4y ago

dathinab 4y ago

But if we are honest: 1. is it really worse then windows 2. google does has privacy option, partially thanks to the EU forcing them and as far as I can tell they are not randomly "undone" with updates from time to time 3. a lot of more common users do also have instagram and similar, do most things through android/iOS apps and use google search and chrome, or some chrome derivate. How much additional information does using ChromeOs expose? Don't get me wrong for most people on HN it probably is degrading privacy. But this is not targeting the common HN user. This is targeting: - existing ChromeOs users looking for an upgrade - this includes devs - this includes less tech affine people - this includes people which bought that premium Chromebook with a 3:2 Google sold years ago - this includes a bunch of google (ex-)employs which might have been the driving factor for bringing out a ChromeOs version - this includes junior devs which grew up with a edu focused chrome book - people which care about the mission of framework, but are not highly tech affine, they might seem rare but they do exist - presents, Chromebooks can be nice presents to less tech affine users and if they anyway use mainly Chrome and similar it's not necessary "reducing their privacy" - people feed up by Linux desktop issues but disgusted with Apple Hypocrisy and totally feed up with windows since a while - especially if they are not supper sensitive wrt. privacy. And while such devs might sound like a myth on HN I have meet docents of them Lastly it's the same hardware and probably more or less the same driver support issues, so the cost of shipping such a version is probably not too high while at the same time it can give you a bit more supply chain stability (by removing hardware choices outside of cards). The main question is if the firmware is in a state where you could just install Linux or Windows if you want.

lrvick 4y ago
Giving ChromeOS devices to low tech users that cannot understand the privacy and lock-in risks feels like a tech version of giving kids cigarettes. It is simply unethical. The HN crowd can make informed decisions to give Google control of their entire digital lives but we should not make that choice for others. I would never recommend Windows or MacOS to anyone for similar reasons so those are not a comparison I care about either. I would certainly recommend a Chromebook over either if someone absolutely has no choice but those three, but there are almost always other choices if you make some time to teach someone. Most Linux distros are a security shit show so pre-installed linux machines are hard to recommend to anyone that does anything high risk on their machines like financial work or journalism. Degoogled ChromiumOS feels like a good security/privacy balance for most people but that is not currently a user friendly option for installation and upgrades. In practice I find myself using and teaching others using their machines for anything remotely privacy or security sensitive to install and use QubesOS. For all the excellent privacy and security design it has a high learning curve and strict hardware requirements making it untenable for low-budget or low-tech users.
- water-your-self 4y ago
  >but we should not make that choice for others. Much of the HN crowd has their finances intertwined with forcing these kinds of choices on consumers. Sometimes I dream of an awful de-anonymized internet where your financial holdings are bound to every post that you make online. I think binding that incentive might change how we ingest opinions.
  - lrvick 4y ago
    Already on the internet we can choose to use our real name when we are comfortable having our reputation tied to our words giving them more weight, and we can also be anonymous other times when we are okay with our words holding very little weight, but also very little risk to us. I think many people, if they find a comment really impactful, will take a look and see if this was said by someone using their real name and if there are obviously relevant major corporate biases they didn't disclose. Or maybe I am weird and am just trying to justify that I personally do this often. Regardless, both anonymous and identified communication are very valuable depending on the particular goal, and it should always be a switch everyone is empowered to be able flip at any time. Sometimes when I am testing out ideas to decide how I even feel about something myself, I may choose to be anonymous. Most of the time, I am fine with most of my posts on HN being under my real name and tied to my reputation and that of the security and privacy consulting company I run. I still reserve the right to change my mind and be wrong sometimes and trust most of my target customers to give me some room for that :)