10 ms·

Ehh, I think this is also a bad take. Turn off telemetry, delete ChatGPT conversations, and I like having an LLM for GitHub versus Give us all your personal

Ehh, I think this is also a bad take. Turn off telemetry, delete ChatGPT conversations, and I like having an LLM for GitHub versus Give us all your personal data and we're sharing it with ad partners, your personal data is our number one product and secondary products are only made to support the first endeavor.

Permit 3y ago
> sharing it with ad partners, What do you mean by this? What kind of information do advertisers get to receive?
- _nalply 3y ago
  Corporate has data about people. For example, if you plan a holiday, Google, Meta, and others know it. If your wife suffers from a serious condition, Google, Meta, and others know it. Corporate has extensive databases and every person is potentially profiled with a lot of detail. Advertisers don't usually receive detailed information, instead they are promised that their advertisements are targeted correctly. To do that the data about people is used. But with this data Corporate gets too much power. Corporate needs to follow Human Rights, like states. One aspect is that there is no due process in case of conflicts, like someone being wrongly excluded from using a Corporate service. We also need transparency about how this data is used exactly and who else gets views. Europe is trying to establish transparency with the GDPR, however is foiled by malicious compliance by Corporate. It does not help that Europe is clumsy.
- tadfisher 3y ago
  None, because the data asymmetry is how Google earns revenue. If they just sold the data, you'd set up a competing ad network that undercuts AdSense by operating on slightly outdated snapshots.
  - hedora 3y ago
    This is why they charge third parties to run unauditable google-provided code on top of your data instead. Also, they sell provide it governments in the form of warrant requests. For more info, read up in google ad auction fraud, and google location warrant. Microsoft is actually worse though. For one thing, Windows’ default telemetry level lets them pull files off your machine. Here’s a Microsoft apologist explaining it: https://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-telemetry-secrets/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-telemetry-secrets/ The US CLOUD Act (which Microsoft lobbied for) means that they have to pull that data in response to US warrant requests, regardless of what country you are in. Also, they already merged mojang (minecraft) into the Microsoft login umbrella. It is clearly a dry run for when they merge linkedin and github in, so they can provide better worker surveillance capabilities to their corporate customers.
CoastalCoder 3y ago
> Turn off telemetry I may be working from old information, but doesn't Windows 10 still have unstoppable, and unauditable, telemetry?
- derefr 3y ago
  > Unstoppable Use a PiHole?
  - cyberlurker 3y ago
    Btw, I do this and sometimes stuff stops working suddenly when you block random telemetry. This applies to MS and Apple products.
  - CursedUrn 3y ago
    This is trivial for Microsoft to bypass. They've already been consolidating and moving server addresses. Unless you block all internet traffic, you have no idea what's getting through. They can update the opaque code at any time. This is not a solution.
    - bee_rider 3y ago
      Blockers are going to have to switch to whitelisted IP addresses instead, I bet. Annoying!
- wiseowise 3y ago
  The original comment was talking about VS Code, wasn't it?
  - CoastalCoder 3y ago
    I was speaking more generally about MS vs. Google.
    - bastardoperator 3y ago
_nalply 3y ago
It's fine semantics. Google and Microsoft are different. The same: I am reluctantly using products from both. The different: Their history and their products. However I don't think that you should differentiate your trust between them. We should think about why Corporate does enshittification and how to prevent it.
rectang 3y ago
> I like having an LLM for GitHub That LLM was trained on FOSS software that others like myself wrote and did not consent to have used in such a manner. Even if you're also a FOSS contributor and you're fine with it, I'm not. So you like it, but you're not the party whose consent matters. You're the customer consuming the laundered goods from the fence.
- zztop44 3y ago
  If you release source code under a FOSS license doesn’t that specifically mean that you explicitly consent to it being used in ways you might not be fine with?
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    No, the licence is the thing that defines what they'd be fine with. I don't think it's possible to write a licence that allows you to do things with the software that the licence forbids.
    - zztop44 3y ago
      I think that’s mostly my point. GP release source code, presumably under a license that permitted this use. It’s okay to not be happy that it was used this way… but that’s life
      - lvass 3y ago
        No license except CC0/unlicense permits laundering authorship like Copilot does.
        rectang 3y ago
        Yes, this is exactly true among the popular FOSS licenses. The attribution licenses such as ALv2, BSD, MIT, etc. which are generally considered to be "permissive" still require attribution, and this condition is not upheld by popular LLMs. Of course, the copied material has to be judged substantial enough for the license to apply in a court of law, which is a human-arbitrated threshold. It will most likely be a copyleft author who eventually brings a court case, but the attribution licenses do not allow for LLM usage either unless the LLM provides attribution and preserves notices as spelled out in the licenses.
croes 3y ago
MS has lot more products were you can't completely turn off telemetry if you aren't using the Enterprise version. Don't forget the Office 365 "productivity" measures. And the latest insanity, at least for me, ads in the settings of Windows 11. Never ever put ads in any configuration menu of the operating system. That clearly says, it's not my computer, its MS's and they try to squeeze every penny out they can get. So they aren't any different from Google, they even try to push you to the Cloud and then make mistakes a cloud enterprise shouldn't make
- dizhn 3y ago
  Back in the dot com boom era they would give you a whole computer for free just so you would look at their ads. Now you pay for the computer and the OS and you get to look at the ads. The Free PC people must be wondering what they did wrong.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  >ads in the settings of Windows 11. Never ever put ads in any configuration menu of the operating system. Why not? I think they're great: they make more money for M$. If the users don't like it, too bad. Why should I care about them? >That clearly says, it's not my computer, its MS's and they try to squeeze every penny out they can get. That's right. It's not your computer, and you should just accept that and get used to it. You chose this path, by choosing MS as your OS provider. >So they aren't any different from Google No, they are different: Google doesn't control my PC's OS. The only PC OS they control is ChromeOS, which only runs on certain (usually low-end) hardware, and isn't normally used for any serious work.

Permit 3y ago

> sharing it with ad partners, What do you mean by this? What kind of information do advertisers get to receive?

_nalply 3y ago
Corporate has data about people. For example, if you plan a holiday, Google, Meta, and others know it. If your wife suffers from a serious condition, Google, Meta, and others know it. Corporate has extensive databases and every person is potentially profiled with a lot of detail. Advertisers don't usually receive detailed information, instead they are promised that their advertisements are targeted correctly. To do that the data about people is used. But with this data Corporate gets too much power. Corporate needs to follow Human Rights, like states. One aspect is that there is no due process in case of conflicts, like someone being wrongly excluded from using a Corporate service. We also need transparency about how this data is used exactly and who else gets views. Europe is trying to establish transparency with the GDPR, however is foiled by malicious compliance by Corporate. It does not help that Europe is clumsy.
tadfisher 3y ago
None, because the data asymmetry is how Google earns revenue. If they just sold the data, you'd set up a competing ad network that undercuts AdSense by operating on slightly outdated snapshots.
- hedora 3y ago
  This is why they charge third parties to run unauditable google-provided code on top of your data instead. Also, they sell provide it governments in the form of warrant requests. For more info, read up in google ad auction fraud, and google location warrant. Microsoft is actually worse though. For one thing, Windows’ default telemetry level lets them pull files off your machine. Here’s a Microsoft apologist explaining it: https://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-telemetry-secrets/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-telemetry-secrets/ The US CLOUD Act (which Microsoft lobbied for) means that they have to pull that data in response to US warrant requests, regardless of what country you are in. Also, they already merged mojang (minecraft) into the Microsoft login umbrella. It is clearly a dry run for when they merge linkedin and github in, so they can provide better worker surveillance capabilities to their corporate customers.

CoastalCoder 3y ago

> Turn off telemetry I may be working from old information, but doesn't Windows 10 still have unstoppable, and unauditable, telemetry?

derefr 3y ago
> Unstoppable Use a PiHole?
- cyberlurker 3y ago
  Btw, I do this and sometimes stuff stops working suddenly when you block random telemetry. This applies to MS and Apple products.
- CursedUrn 3y ago
  This is trivial for Microsoft to bypass. They've already been consolidating and moving server addresses. Unless you block all internet traffic, you have no idea what's getting through. They can update the opaque code at any time. This is not a solution.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    Blockers are going to have to switch to whitelisted IP addresses instead, I bet. Annoying!
wiseowise 3y ago
The original comment was talking about VS Code, wasn't it?
- CoastalCoder 3y ago
  I was speaking more generally about MS vs. Google.
  - bastardoperator 3y ago

_nalply 3y ago

It's fine semantics. Google and Microsoft are different. The same: I am reluctantly using products from both. The different: Their history and their products. However I don't think that you should differentiate your trust between them. We should think about why Corporate does enshittification and how to prevent it.

rectang 3y ago

> I like having an LLM for GitHub That LLM was trained on FOSS software that others like myself wrote and did not consent to have used in such a manner. Even if you're also a FOSS contributor and you're fine with it, I'm not. So you like it, but you're not the party whose consent matters. You're the customer consuming the laundered goods from the fence.

zztop44 3y ago
If you release source code under a FOSS license doesn’t that specifically mean that you explicitly consent to it being used in ways you might not be fine with?
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  No, the licence is the thing that defines what they'd be fine with. I don't think it's possible to write a licence that allows you to do things with the software that the licence forbids.
  - zztop44 3y ago
    I think that’s mostly my point. GP release source code, presumably under a license that permitted this use. It’s okay to not be happy that it was used this way… but that’s life
    - lvass 3y ago
      No license except CC0/unlicense permits laundering authorship like Copilot does.
      - rectang 3y ago
        Yes, this is exactly true among the popular FOSS licenses. The attribution licenses such as ALv2, BSD, MIT, etc. which are generally considered to be "permissive" still require attribution, and this condition is not upheld by popular LLMs. Of course, the copied material has to be judged substantial enough for the license to apply in a court of law, which is a human-arbitrated threshold. It will most likely be a copyleft author who eventually brings a court case, but the attribution licenses do not allow for LLM usage either unless the LLM provides attribution and preserves notices as spelled out in the licenses.

croes 3y ago

MS has lot more products were you can't completely turn off telemetry if you aren't using the Enterprise version. Don't forget the Office 365 "productivity" measures. And the latest insanity, at least for me, ads in the settings of Windows 11. Never ever put ads in any configuration menu of the operating system. That clearly says, it's not my computer, its MS's and they try to squeeze every penny out they can get. So they aren't any different from Google, they even try to push you to the Cloud and then make mistakes a cloud enterprise shouldn't make

dizhn 3y ago
Back in the dot com boom era they would give you a whole computer for free just so you would look at their ads. Now you pay for the computer and the OS and you get to look at the ads. The Free PC people must be wondering what they did wrong.
midoridensha 3y ago
>ads in the settings of Windows 11. Never ever put ads in any configuration menu of the operating system. Why not? I think they're great: they make more money for M$. If the users don't like it, too bad. Why should I care about them? >That clearly says, it's not my computer, its MS's and they try to squeeze every penny out they can get. That's right. It's not your computer, and you should just accept that and get used to it. You chose this path, by choosing MS as your OS provider. >So they aren't any different from Google No, they are different: Google doesn't control my PC's OS. The only PC OS they control is ChromeOS, which only runs on certain (usually low-end) hardware, and isn't normally used for any serious work.