41–50 of 93 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it a deal breaker?
It's a deal breaker because THAT'S NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS, and that also goes for Copyfish. It smells fishy to me, and _promises_ never kept prying eyes away secret documents. People who handle confidential documents should never use SaaS. It's an issue of trust, and Copyfish deserves none.
We need to evolve a grammar for describing privacy implications, because proper classification of this software would allow it to be marked as malware/spyware. It is beyond irresponsible for mozilla to do nothing to prevent this malware from being recommended on their platform.
Are you misunderstanding the extension or am I missing something bigger?
E: A total guess: "the server will see the image you are trying to OCR"? That's about as much privacy as I could see being intruded upon.
We need to evolve a grammar for describing privacy implications, because proper classification of this software would allow it to be marked as malware/spyware. It is beyond irresponsible for mozilla to do nothing to prevent this malware from being recommended on their platform.
We need to evolve a grammar for describing privacy implications, because proper classification of this software would allow it to be marked as malware/spyware. It is beyond irresponsible for mozilla to do nothing to prevent this malware from being recommended on their platform.
Similar Chrome extension I wrote using Google Cloud APIs: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cloud-vision/nblmo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it a deal breaker?
It's a deal breaker because THAT'S NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS, and that also goes for Copyfish. It smells fishy to me, and _promises_ never kept prying eyes away secret documents. People who handle confidential documents should never use SaaS. It's an issue of trust, and Copyfish deserves none.
We need to evolve a grammar for describing privacy implications, because proper classification of this software would allow it to be marked as malware/spyware. It is beyond irresponsible for mozilla to do nothing to prevent this malware from being recommended on their platform.
How about you explain what on earth you're talking about if you're going to take the time to disparage this product here?
Look down the bottom.
It uploads everything to a commercial OCR service. Which provides these CPU cycles 'for free'.
Who owns this data? Do you have a privacy agreement with ocr.space? Can you trust them as far as you could spit?
It doesn't matter that this is documented though. Unless it had a popup banner EVERY TIME YOU USED IT saying "Your data will be sent to a cloud service for OCR, which may keep/index/sell you data without restriction."
We need to evolve a grammar for describing privacy implications, because proper classification of this software would allow it to be marked as malware/spyware. It is beyond irresponsible for mozilla to do nothing to prevent this malware from being recommended on their platform.
Maybe I'm missing something - but it only OCR's things you choose to capture and isn't constantly trying to OCR every single thing you see. Are you misunderstanding the extension or am I missing something bigger? E: A total guess: "the server will see the image you are trying to OCR"? That's about as much privacy as I could see being intruded upon.
It is good that it isn't scanning everything, i.e. complete exfiltration, but that is a low bar. It leaks every time you use it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand that hosted OCR, just like SaaS in general, is not suitable for every use case. On the other hand, the OCR.space OCR API has a very strict privacy policy: https://ocr.space/privacypolicy - All uploaded images and the extracted text are deleted immediatly after processing.
> All uploaded images and the extracted text are deleted immediately Until they are served with a subpoena for a particular client, or a sweeping subpoena to store everything forever, or the company is sold and the new parent has different values, or the company decides to mine customer data for advertising uses, or there's a bug in the software, or there's a long-lived cache of the data, or it gets into their backup…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All uploaded images and the extracted text are deleted immediately Until they are served with a subpoena for a particular client, or a sweeping subpoena to store everything forever, or the company is sold and the new parent has different values, or the company decides to mine customer data for advertising uses, or there's a bug in the software, or there's a long-lived cache of the data, or it gets into their backup…
It doesn't seem reasonable to blame them for an arbitrary potential future when they're currently doing the right thing.