5 ms·

Reform corporate surveillance

128 points by Tsiolkovsky 13y ago

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
TruthElixirX 13y ago
No thanks, I quite enjoy what I am getting in exchange for my privacy from Google, Apple, Facebook, et al.
pachydermic 13y ago
Thank you, fsf. Hard to ignore the irony when Google, Facebook and even freakin' Linked In (ugh) are calling to increase protections for peoples' privacy. I don't know what the answer to all of this is - I like free products as much as the next guy - but it seems like a messed up situation. If the NSA were stopped from collecting our data, that would only prevent one party from doing so. Even if you don't use Facebook or gmail these companies still track you so it's pretty hard to actually keep your privacy unless you hardly use the internet (and from public computers) and don't have a cellphone. I don't think it should be that hard.
- skj 13y ago
  How exactly is it ironic? Google, Facebook, et al, collect data in exchange for a service. You can use incognito mode for Google, or just not use Facebook at all. The NSA collects your data whether you want it to or not, and you have no say other than to just not create any data. In the same way that Google has access to your data if it's in their datacenters and you use their services, the NSA assumes access to your data if it's within their abilities to get it, and they find you slightly suspicious. It's really not the same thing and claiming it is the same thing is disingenuous.
  - Helianthus 13y ago
    I don't know if it's ironic so much as it is simple two-facedness. >Google, Facebook, et al, collect data in exchange for a service. You can use incognito mode for Google, or just not use Facebook at all. >The NSA collects your data whether you want it to or not, and you have no say other than to just not create any data. The contrast between these two sentences is what makes your point weak. There might be a difference between corporate and government surveillance, but you haven't approached it.
    - skj 13y ago
      Sorry if I wasn't clear. The difference is that Google, Facebook, et al are opt-in. The NSA offers you no such choice.
      - shadowfox 13y ago
        > The difference is that Google, Facebook, et al are opt-in With the remarkable penetration of things like google analytics and the ilk, this may not be quite that simple.
        hdevalence 13y ago
        Moxie has also pointed out that the choice is not simply "Do I want to be surveilled by Google?" or "Do I want the telco to track my every move?". It's stuff like "Do I want to stop talking to all of my friends who use GMail?". Or "Do I want to not have a cellphone and prevent myself from participating in informal social event planning?".
      - Helianthus 13y ago
        You were perfectly clear. You've made it clear yourself that the opt-in fiction is just that, just as the difference between corporate and government surveillance, such as it is, does not rely on any opt-in mechanism or lack thereof. Don't give us this crap that there is a difference between the two when your point is so self-defeating.
        skj 13y ago
        I guess one difference is that you are relying on the assumption that Google is a bad actor. Google's actions have not shown that, and the benefit of the doubt is an important ideal.
        sharemywin 13y ago
        how do you even know they do it all behind closed doors. with a one size fits all non negotiable contract.
puppetmaster3 13y ago
This won't happen. The citizens of USA are in Consumer reporting DB's, ex: credit report. This is illegal in EU. That be the place to start.
ISL 13y ago
The FSF is right; a lot of companies implicitly centralize information behind closed doors. It is damaging to liberty in the long term. What's missing from the statement is a plan. How can users get services equal to or better than those offered by Google/Facebook/Yahoo/... without centralized "cloud" computing? How are the developers going to support themselves financially? I love and support the efforts of FSF. Almost all of my scientific work rests upon a GNU footing. But before distributed software can eat the centralized software world, it has to be equal or better. This is no different from global warming; if solar power were cheap and effective, nobody would be burning coal. Even when code is open-sourced, and alternatives are available (gitlab, anyone?) users still flock to centralized services like github. I do, with repos at github. I served my own mail, read it with mutt, and filtered my own spam in the past on my own server. GMail is way better at all three of those things, and I don't have to burn a couple of man-days/year keeping configuration up to snuff. The unstoppable advantage of free software is that it's a ratchet. Whenever something good emerges, it never goes away. If someone can duplicate GMail's functionality in free software, it will be with us until email goes the way of sanskrit.
- pekk 13y ago
  The question isn't about how to get a better service. A better service is one which does not enable surveillance. The question is how to get people to stop handing over the keys to the kingdom. Life went on before Facebook, it can go on after Facebook. But as long as people take this attitude that it is essential to have Facebook, network effects will make surveillance very effective.
  - davidw 13y ago
    > A better service is one which does not enable surveillance. That's one criterion. For many people, ease of use, spam filtering, and so on are others, that may be more important than absolute guarantees about NSA (or other governments') spying.
zvrba 13y ago
> Microsoft Windows provides back doors for the NSA. FSF FUD again. Can they substantiate their claims?
- zxcdw 13y ago
  "Again"? Can you substatiate your claim? Maybe they refer to the fact that Microsoft indeed does share 0-days with NSA[1]. 1: http://www.dailydot.com/news/bloomberg-microsoft-zero-day-exploits/ http://www.dailydot.com/news/bloomberg-microsoft-zero-day-ex...
  - zvrba 13y ago
    Yes, again: https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-responds-to-microsofts-privacy-and-encryption-announcement https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-responds-to-microsofts-privacy-... with a completely bogus jail analogy. FSF is on a witch hunt, and I dislike it very much. Regardless: sharing zero-day exploits ahead of time is way different from actively inserting backdoor code into the OS.
    - zxcdw 13y ago
      How is it way different? It's exactly analolous to providing a backdoor -- giving means to take advantage of the weaknesses. Whether the vulnerabilities are there by purpose or for by accident doesn't change the fact how exploits are provided and for what purpose. It would be naive, if not outright dishonest to believe that exchanging 0days is not for offensive purposes, especially after knowing the extent NSA actions go, and of course remembering Stuxnet and Flame.

128 points by Tsiolkovsky 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

TruthElixirX 13y ago

No thanks, I quite enjoy what I am getting in exchange for my privacy from Google, Apple, Facebook, et al.

pachydermic 13y ago

Thank you, fsf. Hard to ignore the irony when Google, Facebook and even freakin' Linked In (ugh) are calling to increase protections for peoples' privacy. I don't know what the answer to all of this is - I like free products as much as the next guy - but it seems like a messed up situation. If the NSA were stopped from collecting our data, that would only prevent one party from doing so. Even if you don't use Facebook or gmail these companies still track you so it's pretty hard to actually keep your privacy unless you hardly use the internet (and from public computers) and don't have a cellphone. I don't think it should be that hard.

skj 13y ago
How exactly is it ironic? Google, Facebook, et al, collect data in exchange for a service. You can use incognito mode for Google, or just not use Facebook at all. The NSA collects your data whether you want it to or not, and you have no say other than to just not create any data. In the same way that Google has access to your data if it's in their datacenters and you use their services, the NSA assumes access to your data if it's within their abilities to get it, and they find you slightly suspicious. It's really not the same thing and claiming it is the same thing is disingenuous.
- Helianthus 13y ago
  I don't know if it's ironic so much as it is simple two-facedness. >Google, Facebook, et al, collect data in exchange for a service. You can use incognito mode for Google, or just not use Facebook at all. >The NSA collects your data whether you want it to or not, and you have no say other than to just not create any data. The contrast between these two sentences is what makes your point weak. There might be a difference between corporate and government surveillance, but you haven't approached it.
  - skj 13y ago
    Sorry if I wasn't clear. The difference is that Google, Facebook, et al are opt-in. The NSA offers you no such choice.
    - shadowfox 13y ago
      > The difference is that Google, Facebook, et al are opt-in With the remarkable penetration of things like google analytics and the ilk, this may not be quite that simple.
      - hdevalence 13y ago
        Moxie has also pointed out that the choice is not simply "Do I want to be surveilled by Google?" or "Do I want the telco to track my every move?". It's stuff like "Do I want to stop talking to all of my friends who use GMail?". Or "Do I want to not have a cellphone and prevent myself from participating in informal social event planning?".
    - Helianthus 13y ago
      You were perfectly clear. You've made it clear yourself that the opt-in fiction is just that, just as the difference between corporate and government surveillance, such as it is, does not rely on any opt-in mechanism or lack thereof. Don't give us this crap that there is a difference between the two when your point is so self-defeating.
      - skj 13y ago
        I guess one difference is that you are relying on the assumption that Google is a bad actor. Google's actions have not shown that, and the benefit of the doubt is an important ideal.
        sharemywin 13y ago
        how do you even know they do it all behind closed doors. with a one size fits all non negotiable contract.

puppetmaster3 13y ago

This won't happen. The citizens of USA are in Consumer reporting DB's, ex: credit report. This is illegal in EU. That be the place to start.

ISL 13y ago

The FSF is right; a lot of companies implicitly centralize information behind closed doors. It is damaging to liberty in the long term. What's missing from the statement is a plan. How can users get services equal to or better than those offered by Google/Facebook/Yahoo/... without centralized "cloud" computing? How are the developers going to support themselves financially? I love and support the efforts of FSF. Almost all of my scientific work rests upon a GNU footing. But before distributed software can eat the centralized software world, it has to be equal or better. This is no different from global warming; if solar power were cheap and effective, nobody would be burning coal. Even when code is open-sourced, and alternatives are available (gitlab, anyone?) users still flock to centralized services like github. I do, with repos at github. I served my own mail, read it with mutt, and filtered my own spam in the past on my own server. GMail is way better at all three of those things, and I don't have to burn a couple of man-days/year keeping configuration up to snuff. The unstoppable advantage of free software is that it's a ratchet. Whenever something good emerges, it never goes away. If someone can duplicate GMail's functionality in free software, it will be with us until email goes the way of sanskrit.

pekk 13y ago
The question isn't about how to get a better service. A better service is one which does not enable surveillance. The question is how to get people to stop handing over the keys to the kingdom. Life went on before Facebook, it can go on after Facebook. But as long as people take this attitude that it is essential to have Facebook, network effects will make surveillance very effective.
- davidw 13y ago
  > A better service is one which does not enable surveillance. That's one criterion. For many people, ease of use, spam filtering, and so on are others, that may be more important than absolute guarantees about NSA (or other governments') spying.

zvrba 13y ago

> Microsoft Windows provides back doors for the NSA. FSF FUD again. Can they substantiate their claims?

zxcdw 13y ago
"Again"? Can you substatiate your claim? Maybe they refer to the fact that Microsoft indeed does share 0-days with NSA[1]. 1: http://www.dailydot.com/news/bloomberg-microsoft-zero-day-exploits/ http://www.dailydot.com/news/bloomberg-microsoft-zero-day-ex...
- zvrba 13y ago
  Yes, again: https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-responds-to-microsofts-privacy-and-encryption-announcement https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-responds-to-microsofts-privacy-... with a completely bogus jail analogy. FSF is on a witch hunt, and I dislike it very much. Regardless: sharing zero-day exploits ahead of time is way different from actively inserting backdoor code into the OS.
  - zxcdw 13y ago
    How is it way different? It's exactly analolous to providing a backdoor -- giving means to take advantage of the weaknesses. Whether the vulnerabilities are there by purpose or for by accident doesn't change the fact how exploits are provided and for what purpose. It would be naive, if not outright dishonest to believe that exchanging 0days is not for offensive purposes, especially after knowing the extent NSA actions go, and of course remembering Stuxnet and Flame.