Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Avoid Non-Microsoft Antivirus Software

robert.ocallahan.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 388 posts

Re: Avoid Non-Microsoft Antivirus Software

#371

Post by slgeorge »

edejong wrote: post #250
slgeorge wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No Ubuntu doesn't , and nor has it every done. It connects on-line and off-line searches, so it shows you the result in on-line locations. The underlying assumption was that users increasingly see on-line and off-line content as all part of the same world ("their content"). The commercial aspect was that it connected to places like Amazon. It made money for Canonical by using affiliate links if the user chose to make…

I'm sorry, but I think I trust Canonicals' privacy policy as a source more than you: "Unless you have opted out, we will also send your keystrokes as a search term to productsearch.ubuntu.com and selected third parties so that we may complement your search results with online search results from such third parties including: Facebook, Twitter, BBC and Amazon. Canonical and these selected third parties will collect yo…

Perhaps, I wasn't clear enough with my point. You stated that Canonical sold data - "unity sells your searches". I was factually correcting you because it doesn't and didn't. Whereas you said in the previous comment - "search terms entered in Unity were send, by default, to third-party servers!", this is a true statement, though there's far more nuance behind it. The two things are not the same (Canonical didn't sell the searches), and in the context of the wider thread I felt it was confusing.

The rest of your points are personal opinions on users and data privacy, I shouldn't have commented on that area, I apologise. I see no value in getting drawn into discussing the strong emotions associated with this area as it never ends well :-)

Re: Avoid Non-Microsoft Antivirus Software

#372

Post by emodendroket »

bad_user wrote: post #150
bjd2385 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

_Everyone_ is collecting our data nowadays. Who's left to sell it to?

Not true. Google collects your searches. They don't sell your searches, they sell whatever they infer from your searches (your compiled and quite vague profile and I know, because I interacted with their AdSense platform), because they'd be stupid to sell your actual searches, since that's their most valuable property. Does anybody else know your search history? Besides the NSA, whom I assume have access to all US-ho…

What kind of porn are you looking at that you feel the need to use Tor and anonymized search, is my question.

Re: Avoid Non-Microsoft Antivirus Software

#373

Post by slgeorge »

the_af wrote: post #257
slgeorge wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No Ubuntu doesn't , and nor has it every done. It connects on-line and off-line searches, so it shows you the result in on-line locations. The underlying assumption was that users increasingly see on-line and off-line content as all part of the same world ("their content"). The commercial aspect was that it connected to places like Amazon. It made money for Canonical by using affiliate links if the user chose to make…

I agree it's not the same as collecting user history and selling it to third parties. However, it's still against the expectations of most users of FOSS. These things, if they must be there at all, must absolutely be opt-in, never opt-out . Canonical deserved the backlash.

Yeah, agreed it was against user expectation - it's a great demonstration of what happens when organisations don't prepare their audience well or read the emotional response.

It's a personal frustration and professional regret that desktop Linux is under-funded to compete on an equal footing - the business model challenge feels intractable. RedHat/SUSE, Mandriva and Canonical have tried different options. But, there's been no sustained success that can get desktop Linux over 5% of market. Perhaps Google will have more success with ChromeOS.

Re: Avoid Non-Microsoft Antivirus Software

#374

Post by digi_owl »

slgeorge wrote: post #373
the_af wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it's not the same as collecting user history and selling it to third parties. However, it's still against the expectations of most users of FOSS. These things, if they must be there at all, must absolutely be opt-in, never opt-out . Canonical deserved the backlash.

Yeah, agreed it was against user expectation - it's a great demonstration of what happens when organisations don't prepare their audience well or read the emotional response. It's a personal frustration and professional regret that desktop Linux is under-funded to compete on an equal footing - the business model challenge feels intractable. RedHat/SUSE, Mandriva and Canonical have tried different options. But, there'…

The basic problem is that none of them are interested in actually keeping APIs stable. Likely because their big income stream is support contracts.

Observe by contrast the efforts Google goes to with the Android APIs.

Re: Avoid Non-Microsoft Antivirus Software

#375

Post by emodendroket »

chime wrote: post #362
emodendroket wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For this exact reason docx macros are disabled by default and you have to do some enabling. Presumably there are also more sophisticated exploits that don't rely on the user dismissing multiple security warnings.

These viruses show a blank docx file in macro-disabled mode with only one image, which says "Enable macros to view secure invoice" and shows a picture guide on how to enable macros. Some of them have better instructions than the user guides I write for my users.

Still, some user intervention is required. Assuming you found a vulnerability in Office, it'd be preferable to have a vector where the user just had to open the file.

Re: Avoid Non-Microsoft Antivirus Software

#376

Post by Const-me »

emodendroket wrote: post #370
Const-me wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> statements about probability can be factual Depends. In natural science or in medicine you can estimate that probability (because control groups, multiple experiments, statistical methods, etc). In such context, a statement about probability can indeed be factual. In general conversation or in legal context they can’t. If you have facts, there’s no “probably” because you know for sure. And if you don’t, it can be y…

Bit strange to go from a hyper-rational scientific stance on one point to using anecdotal evidence for another.

Well, what I’ve seen with my own eyes during 17 years in the industry is much more believable than the BS about evil corporations that (mostly liberal) media wants me to believe. That’s no evidence. That’s what makes me so sure.

Speaking of which, what makes you so sure plenty of US companies are breaking the law?

Re: Avoid Non-Microsoft Antivirus Software

#377

Post by emodendroket »

Const-me wrote: post #376
emodendroket wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bit strange to go from a hyper-rational scientific stance on one point to using anecdotal evidence for another.

Well, what I’ve seen with my own eyes during 17 years in the industry is much more believable than the BS about evil corporations that (mostly liberal) media wants me to believe. That’s no evidence. That’s what makes me so sure. Speaking of which, what makes you so sure plenty of US companies are breaking the law?

Do you ever read the newspaper? Do you remember Enron? Robosigning? Wells Fargo helping Mexican cartels launder money (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico...)? Conflict minerals? Nestle and slave labor (https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/feb/01...)? There seems to be plenty of evidence that corporate malfeasance is a serious problem.

And, yes, there are certainly lots of compliance programs out there, but I'd argue those have more to do with avoiding enforcement action than necessarily adhering to the law. I'd guess Wells Fargo (Wachovia at the time) had a compliance department while they were laundering money for drug cartels and yet it still happened.

I find it eminently believable that many or even most US companies would comply with an illegal request from US intelligence agencies.

Re: Avoid Non-Microsoft Antivirus Software

#378

Post by edejong »

slgeorge wrote: post #373
the_af wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it's not the same as collecting user history and selling it to third parties. However, it's still against the expectations of most users of FOSS. These things, if they must be there at all, must absolutely be opt-in, never opt-out . Canonical deserved the backlash.

Yeah, agreed it was against user expectation - it's a great demonstration of what happens when organisations don't prepare their audience well or read the emotional response. It's a personal frustration and professional regret that desktop Linux is under-funded to compete on an equal footing - the business model challenge feels intractable. RedHat/SUSE, Mandriva and Canonical have tried different options. But, there'…

It had nothing to do with reading emotions or preparing expectations and everything to do with being stubborn, arrogant and aloof.

Re: Avoid Non-Microsoft Antivirus Software

#379

Post by slgeorge »

edejong wrote: post #378
slgeorge wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, agreed it was against user expectation - it's a great demonstration of what happens when organisations don't prepare their audience well or read the emotional response. It's a personal frustration and professional regret that desktop Linux is under-funded to compete on an equal footing - the business model challenge feels intractable. RedHat/SUSE, Mandriva and Canonical have tried different options. But, there'…

It had nothing to do with reading emotions or preparing expectations and everything to do with being stubborn, arrogant and aloof.

You're passionate and certain in your beliefs - probably from a strong philosophical basis; My opinions are formed by my practical "experiences" and hard work for 10 years in this space. There's never been a good quality discussion when philosophical certainty crashes against pragmatic experience!

You're clearly angry, but I don't deserve the implication of being called stubborn, arrogant or aloof.

I've already apologised to you for pushing your comment side-ways in the other thread - I'm not sure what else you'd like from me at this point.

Re: Avoid Non-Microsoft Antivirus Software

#380

Post by Const-me »

emodendroket wrote: post #377
Const-me wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, what I’ve seen with my own eyes during 17 years in the industry is much more believable than the BS about evil corporations that (mostly liberal) media wants me to believe. That’s no evidence. That’s what makes me so sure. Speaking of which, what makes you so sure plenty of US companies are breaking the law?

Do you ever read the newspaper? Do you remember Enron? Robosigning? Wells Fargo helping Mexican cartels launder money ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico... )? Conflict minerals? Nestle and slave labor ( https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/feb/01... )? There seems to be plenty of evidence that corporate malfeasance is a serious problem. And, yes, there are certainly lots o…

Just as I expected, your beliefs are by 100% caused by media.

The image of the world as it’s shown in the media is extremely biased. Watch this: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_and_ola_rosling_how_not_to_be... The video is about inequality and education, but the topic of corporate crime is skewed just as much.

There are 6 million companies operating in US, employing 115 million people. If the majority of them were breaking the law, you’d knew about that not just from the media but also from some of those 115 million people who happen to be your friends and family.

> I find it eminently believable that many or even most US companies would comply with an illegal request

I don’t find it believable because I don’t see motivation for such compliance.

In an authoritarian state, a government can abruptly take away your business (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euroset) and optionally throw you in jail for 10 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukos) if you don’t comply, and you can’t do anything against it. That’s a strong motivation to comply. I don’t see such motivation for western companies.

Post reply on HN