4 ms·

Linux Outfit Canonical Launches Campaign to Silence Privacy Critic

29 points by mmpozulp 13y ago

codezero 13y ago
"But Lee isn’t taking the thing down" Good for you. Hosting a shell script with informative keywords seems like completely reasonable fair use, so if this goes to court, I doubt they will have a case. The site fixubuntu.com doesn't appear to have any logos on it now, maybe it did before? So at the very least, it looks like he pulled that, if they were there in the first place. This article seems to imply the logo was there.
- thejosh 13y ago
  Seems they only like it when it has "good" connotations to the name, as sites like OMGUbuntu and other sites stay up, while sites that want to help users remove the Amazon go down.
  - oblique63 13y ago
    legitimate question: how many of these 'anti-ubuntu/amazon' sites are there, and how many of them have actually been threatened to be taken down in the past? Because right now this is looking like an isolated incident (albeit an inconvenient one for Canonical's PR), so it could be meaningless to try and read into it too much...
jcastro 13y ago
This was just a misunderstanding, comments from Mark S: https://plus.google.com/116812394236590806058/posts/5jdibY5iR9b https://plus.google.com/116812394236590806058/posts/5jdibY5i... EDIT: and subsequent blogpost: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1299 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1299
- throwaway9848 13y ago
  s/misunderstanding/shrewd recognition of a budding PR disaster/ Canonical has really gone astray. Hell, the takedown order would never have been necessary in the first place without this shopping lens stupidity.
  - jcastro 13y ago
    If you don't like the online lenses then you can turn them off.
    - throwaway9848 13y ago
      Yes, I can apparently set up a website with instructions for doing so and get a nastygram from Canonical, too. I run Fedora, anyway. edit: I wish people wouldn't try to make a 1 size fits all desktop for mobile/tablet/desktop, but Unity is pretty much a wash with GNOME 3 for me.
      - trentlott 13y ago
        I don't understand why anyone used it after Unity, honestly.
        trycatch 13y ago
        Because of Unity, for example. With exception of some annoyances (like poor work with workspaces, not enough customizability, poor notifications), it's not so far to my personal definition of perfect DE, and miles ahead of other Linux DEs.
- u2328 13y ago
  I agree with Mark that it's not worth beating up Canonical over a bureaucratic slip up. Latching on to simple mistakes that are the result of internal miscommunication and misinterpretations of policy is foolish. And ideologues (especially in the software world) love to do that blindly, but it's not intelligent discourse. That being said, I don't think that absolves Canonical of the underlying criticism: your company is active pushing a product, despite its open-source-ness, that betrays the trust and privacy of your users unless they're informed enough about the situation to opt-out. I know Canonical is a corporation and has to generate revenue. I won't sit and pretend like I know how to solve that problem for your company. It doesn't change the dilemma, however. I'd like to recommend a user-friendly Linux to my friends and family. I won't recommend Ubuntu until the privacy issue is opt-in instead of opt-out. In fact, if they're less-technical, I recommend iPads and Macs. At least Apple doesn't ship off desktop search results to a third party that we're aware of. I hold enough trust with Apple to believe that they are not. It's unfortunate that I can't say the same for Canonical.
  - ghshephard 13y ago
    "At least Apple doesn't ship off desktop search results to a third party that we're aware of" Care to wager what Apple resells your desktop/iphone/iPad search results for? I'm guessing it's on the order of 100 million dollars/year. Certainly more than 10 million dollars.
    - u2328 13y ago
      Citation please.
    - x0x0 13y ago
      unless there is something new in the latest release of osx 10.9, what on earth are you talking about? Also, apple sells google the right to be the default search engine on ios (see eg [1]); this is very different than selling your search queries or results. For instance, when you get a google results page, only the very stupidest could be unaware that, well, google knows what you searched for. [1] http://bgr.com/2013/02/11/google-apple-ios-default-search-1-billion-324728/ http://bgr.com/2013/02/11/google-apple-ios-default-search-1-...
- JamesZaya 13y ago
  I am glad there is a clarifcation from Mark - http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1299 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1299. >Last week, the less-than-a-month-at-Canonical new guy sent out the toughest template letter to the folks behind a “sucks” site. Now, that was not a decision based on policy or guidance; as I said, Canonical’s trademark policy is unusually generous relative to corporate norms in explicitly allowing for this sort of usage. It was a mistake, and there is no question that the various people in the line of responsibility know and agree that it was a mistake. But if the person who sent the template letter was new, then surely this becomes a training issue? Trademark violations can soon become PR disasters just like this has become. So perhaps companies and start up's may wish to learn from Canonical's mistake as it can easily happen to them. No one is perfect. Mistakes happen...
detcader 13y ago
Well obviously Canonical isn't going to bother OMG! Ubuntu!, it generally helps users to keep using Ubuntu and stay in the "Ubuntu community". Edit: as another user just commented: https://plus.google.com/116812394236590806058/posts/5jdibY5iR9b https://plus.google.com/116812394236590806058/posts/5jdibY5i...
ghshephard 13y ago
I don't see an Ubuntu/Canonical trademark on this website. Certainly if: "http://makingchangeatwalmart.org/" http://makingchangeatwalmart.org/" doesn't get shut down, "fixubuntu.com" should be ok. Edit: from: http://blog.canonical.com/2013/11/08/trademarks-community-and-criticism/ http://blog.canonical.com/2013/11/08/trademarks-community-an... "The site owner has already agreed to remove the Ubuntu logo and clarified that there is no connection; from our perspective the situation has been resolved, "
mig39 13y ago
Ubuntu, meet Streissand Effect.
promoCode 13y ago
The dumbest shittiest, most fucking god-awful aspect in all of this is the following... Linux Mint exists as a distro, conceived as a response to the fact that Ubuntu refused to package proprietary binaries because they were not open source. Since Ubuntu wouldn't bundle popular software packages, such as Flash, Sun/Oracle Java and codecs, such as MP3, Mint stepped up to fill the gap. One might misinterpret the reason Ubuntu refused to bundle said software as per the normal Copyleft reason behind an aversion to proprietary binaries: It erodes the trust of the end user, and forces them into agreements that might not be in their best interests. But then. Then, they fucking include spyware that transmits your local desktop searches to remote third-party private interests. Seriously. Fuck Mark Shuttleworth.
drderidder 13y ago
Been a longtime Ubuntu fan but Canonical's newfound disrespect for users privacy and ham fisted response means I'm looking for another distro now. Nice try by Mark Shuttleworth to explain the whole thing away (plays the "blame it all on the new guy" card) but once you've turned to into a datapimp it's hard to regain trust.

29 points by mmpozulp 13y ago

"But Lee isn’t taking the thing down" Good for you. Hosting a shell script with informative keywords seems like completely reasonable fair use, so if this goes to court, I doubt they will have a case. The site fixubuntu.com doesn't appear to have any logos on it now, maybe it did before? So at the very least, it looks like he pulled that, if they were there in the first place. This article seems to imply the logo was there.

thejosh 13y ago
Seems they only like it when it has "good" connotations to the name, as sites like OMGUbuntu and other sites stay up, while sites that want to help users remove the Amazon go down.
- oblique63 13y ago
  legitimate question: how many of these 'anti-ubuntu/amazon' sites are there, and how many of them have actually been threatened to be taken down in the past? Because right now this is looking like an isolated incident (albeit an inconvenient one for Canonical's PR), so it could be meaningless to try and read into it too much...

jcastro 13y ago

This was just a misunderstanding, comments from Mark S: https://plus.google.com/116812394236590806058/posts/5jdibY5iR9b https://plus.google.com/116812394236590806058/posts/5jdibY5i... EDIT: and subsequent blogpost: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1299 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1299

throwaway9848 13y ago
s/misunderstanding/shrewd recognition of a budding PR disaster/ Canonical has really gone astray. Hell, the takedown order would never have been necessary in the first place without this shopping lens stupidity.
- jcastro 13y ago
  If you don't like the online lenses then you can turn them off.
  - throwaway9848 13y ago
    Yes, I can apparently set up a website with instructions for doing so and get a nastygram from Canonical, too. I run Fedora, anyway. edit: I wish people wouldn't try to make a 1 size fits all desktop for mobile/tablet/desktop, but Unity is pretty much a wash with GNOME 3 for me.
    - trentlott 13y ago
      I don't understand why anyone used it after Unity, honestly.
      - trycatch 13y ago
        Because of Unity, for example. With exception of some annoyances (like poor work with workspaces, not enough customizability, poor notifications), it's not so far to my personal definition of perfect DE, and miles ahead of other Linux DEs.
u2328 13y ago
I agree with Mark that it's not worth beating up Canonical over a bureaucratic slip up. Latching on to simple mistakes that are the result of internal miscommunication and misinterpretations of policy is foolish. And ideologues (especially in the software world) love to do that blindly, but it's not intelligent discourse. That being said, I don't think that absolves Canonical of the underlying criticism: your company is active pushing a product, despite its open-source-ness, that betrays the trust and privacy of your users unless they're informed enough about the situation to opt-out. I know Canonical is a corporation and has to generate revenue. I won't sit and pretend like I know how to solve that problem for your company. It doesn't change the dilemma, however. I'd like to recommend a user-friendly Linux to my friends and family. I won't recommend Ubuntu until the privacy issue is opt-in instead of opt-out. In fact, if they're less-technical, I recommend iPads and Macs. At least Apple doesn't ship off desktop search results to a third party that we're aware of. I hold enough trust with Apple to believe that they are not. It's unfortunate that I can't say the same for Canonical.
- ghshephard 13y ago
  "At least Apple doesn't ship off desktop search results to a third party that we're aware of" Care to wager what Apple resells your desktop/iphone/iPad search results for? I'm guessing it's on the order of 100 million dollars/year. Certainly more than 10 million dollars.
  - u2328 13y ago
    Citation please.
  - x0x0 13y ago
    unless there is something new in the latest release of osx 10.9, what on earth are you talking about? Also, apple sells google the right to be the default search engine on ios (see eg [1]); this is very different than selling your search queries or results. For instance, when you get a google results page, only the very stupidest could be unaware that, well, google knows what you searched for. [1] http://bgr.com/2013/02/11/google-apple-ios-default-search-1-billion-324728/ http://bgr.com/2013/02/11/google-apple-ios-default-search-1-...
JamesZaya 13y ago
I am glad there is a clarifcation from Mark - http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1299 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1299. >Last week, the less-than-a-month-at-Canonical new guy sent out the toughest template letter to the folks behind a “sucks” site. Now, that was not a decision based on policy or guidance; as I said, Canonical’s trademark policy is unusually generous relative to corporate norms in explicitly allowing for this sort of usage. It was a mistake, and there is no question that the various people in the line of responsibility know and agree that it was a mistake. But if the person who sent the template letter was new, then surely this becomes a training issue? Trademark violations can soon become PR disasters just like this has become. So perhaps companies and start up's may wish to learn from Canonical's mistake as it can easily happen to them. No one is perfect. Mistakes happen...

detcader 13y ago

Well obviously Canonical isn't going to bother OMG! Ubuntu!, it generally helps users to keep using Ubuntu and stay in the "Ubuntu community". Edit: as another user just commented: https://plus.google.com/116812394236590806058/posts/5jdibY5iR9b https://plus.google.com/116812394236590806058/posts/5jdibY5i...

ghshephard 13y ago

I don't see an Ubuntu/Canonical trademark on this website. Certainly if: "http://makingchangeatwalmart.org/" http://makingchangeatwalmart.org/" doesn't get shut down, "fixubuntu.com" should be ok. Edit: from: http://blog.canonical.com/2013/11/08/trademarks-community-and-criticism/ http://blog.canonical.com/2013/11/08/trademarks-community-an... "The site owner has already agreed to remove the Ubuntu logo and clarified that there is no connection; from our perspective the situation has been resolved, "

mig39 13y ago

Ubuntu, meet Streissand Effect.

promoCode 13y ago

The dumbest shittiest, most fucking god-awful aspect in all of this is the following... Linux Mint exists as a distro, conceived as a response to the fact that Ubuntu refused to package proprietary binaries because they were not open source. Since Ubuntu wouldn't bundle popular software packages, such as Flash, Sun/Oracle Java and codecs, such as MP3, Mint stepped up to fill the gap. One might misinterpret the reason Ubuntu refused to bundle said software as per the normal Copyleft reason behind an aversion to proprietary binaries: It erodes the trust of the end user, and forces them into agreements that might not be in their best interests. But then. Then, they fucking include spyware that transmits your local desktop searches to remote third-party private interests. Seriously. Fuck Mark Shuttleworth.

drderidder 13y ago

Been a longtime Ubuntu fan but Canonical's newfound disrespect for users privacy and ham fisted response means I'm looking for another distro now. Nice try by Mark Shuttleworth to explain the whole thing away (plays the "blame it all on the new guy" card) but once you've turned to into a datapimp it's hard to regain trust.