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

Google's software mistreats or harms the user

gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 291 posts

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#71

Post by henryfjordan »

whatshisface wrote: post #32
Ajedi32 wrote: post #25

Almost all of this is heavily exaggerated, presenting relatively innocuous features as if they were harmful, or calling out simple bugs as if they were intentional and actively malicious. None of it is flat-out wrong per-se (at least as far as I can tell), and I can certainly see where GNU is coming from, but I think for the average user most of the features they're criticizing actually do a lot more good than harm.…

If you come at it from the perspective that Google is your friend, as in not like a real friend (who I wouldn't let change my passwords), but a friend that's even better than a real friend, then sure, these points are paranoid. The GNU perspective is very distrustful of the idea that anyone else should be administrating their devices, and refuses to trust any corporation more than they would a friend.

The GNU completely ignores the value that you get from Google. For instance this point:

> Google Chrome contains a key logger that sends Google every URL typed in, one key at a time

They are describing the auto complete feature...

I get that people should be making informed choices about what data they share, but for the FSF to so intentionally mis-describe what is going on does not help inform anyone.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#72

Post by mav3rick »

leshow wrote: post #39
Ajedi32 wrote: post #25

Almost all of this is heavily exaggerated, presenting relatively innocuous features as if they were harmful, or calling out simple bugs as if they were intentional and actively malicious. None of it is flat-out wrong per-se (at least as far as I can tell), and I can certainly see where GNU is coming from, but I think for the average user most of the features they're criticizing actually do a lot more good than harm.…

> - They describe Google's demonstrated ability to remove malware from user's devices as a "backdoor" from wikipedia "A backdoor is a method, often secret, of bypassing normal authentication or encryption in a computer system, a product, or an embedded device " Seems to fit. > - They describe parental controls as "censorship" "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the…

You will have no legal viable product if you don't ban extreme hate speech or child pornography on your platform. Is a GNU "approved" platform okay with supporting those ? It's very easy to right these tenets and criticize every company. It's hard to build products used by billions and stipulating to laws in different countries.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#73

Post by decoyworker »

plttn wrote: post #70
notyourday wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, I like RMS. I casually know him. We had dinner a few times, mostly with other people at the table. He is very interesting to talk to. It pains me to say it but he is a Luddite. He would be quite happy in the world of late 1980s because that's where him and his quaint way of technology, society and progress fits in swimmingly. And maybe he is right. But here's the thing: he simply outsourced his need for modern…

I think it's one of those situations where he has the ability to wax poetic from his ivory tower simply because he doesn't have to exist in the real world in terms of technology. If he had to exist in the real world, he would find it a lot harder to stick to those principles.

I think it's also that his entire livelihood depends on him continuing to do so.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#74

Post by hyperhopper »

new_realist wrote: post #61
johannes1234321 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Picking a random point: DRM is malware. It is extra software with the only purpose to limit what I can do. Of course there is no alternative as long as consumers accept it. And consumers don't care since it all seems to work.

If DRM allows you to consume content you would not otherwise have access to, it is a feature. What does it limit you from doing, in particular? Running custom software on your device? That’s a funny definition of malware.

DRM doesn't allow you to consume content. There is nothing technical about DRM that helps deliver content to me.

I think you may be referring to businesses making an anti-user decision to withhold content, and mistaking exceptions to that to be things useful to a user.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#75

Post by UncleMeat »

esotericn wrote: post #2

All of this is trivially and obviously true to power users of GNU/Linux systems. My machine does precisely what I want, when I want it, in the way that I want it. If it doesn't, within reasonable constraints like physical possibility, I can open a text editor, and make it do so. Sure, that might take me a long time. I can add almost all of this configuration to stuff like git repos; back it up; transfer it between co…

This is true, but is it bad?

I work at a major tech company. I have multiple degrees in CS. I've never recompiled anything except maybe in a class ages ago. Among even my most technical peers, I'd bet a lot of money that they percentage of them that have actually modified the software that they are using by editing its source is less than 2%. I'd wager that among the population of people using computers in some way that the percentage is less than 1 in 100,000. And if I asked people who had never done this if they'd like to be able to do it, I'd wager that the huge majority would say "not really".

Its fine for power users to want something different than the rest of the world. But it becomes ridiculous to expect people to go out of their way to accommodate these tiny use cases.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#76

Post by titzer »

People should be more concerned about the location tracking inserted into Android in the form of Google Play Services.

Generally those who know the technical details of these systems are bound, as current or former employees, not to reveal confidential information that includes technical details about how these systems work, how they could be corrupted or manipulated, how auditing works, and how far they are subject to warrants, subpoenas and national security letters for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. For a layperson and an outsider, if you don't fully trust Google, you should probably uninstall all Google-bundled software, principally Google Play Services and maps. Some settings can reduce the tracking but it is mercurial and often opaque, and informed user consent is specious here, since the technical details are so secret.

Location data is the next goldmine of advertising. There is already an economy springing up around it. Even if it is banal today, it won't be tomorrow. Pervasive location tracking is the backbone of a terrifying technological dystopia. Fight it.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#77

Post by mfontani »

lima wrote: post #3
esotericn wrote: post #2

All of this is trivially and obviously true to power users of GNU/Linux systems. My machine does precisely what I want, when I want it, in the way that I want it. If it doesn't, within reasonable constraints like physical possibility, I can open a text editor, and make it do so. Sure, that might take me a long time. I can add almost all of this configuration to stuff like git repos; back it up; transfer it between co…

Even worse: tethering uses a different APN, which allows providers to rate limit tethered traffic, and without root access, you can't bypass it.

I'm fairly sure tethering can also be trivially detected by inspecting the TTL of packets, as a device sitting "behind" the tethering device will increase the TTL by one.

https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/47819/how-can-ph... seems to have more on the matter.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#78

Post by BryantD »

henryfjordan wrote: post #71
whatshisface wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you come at it from the perspective that Google is your friend, as in not like a real friend (who I wouldn't let change my passwords), but a friend that's even better than a real friend, then sure, these points are paranoid. The GNU perspective is very distrustful of the idea that anyone else should be administrating their devices, and refuses to trust any corporation more than they would a friend.

The GNU completely ignores the value that you get from Google. For instance this point: > Google Chrome contains a key logger that sends Google every URL typed in, one key at a time They are describing the auto complete feature... I get that people should be making informed choices about what data they share, but for the FSF to so intentionally mis-describe what is going on does not help inform anyone.

I think it's useful to describe the features in terms that make it very clear what's going on. On the other hand, I disagree with the assumption that users should not be willing to make the tradeoff of using the software anyway.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#79

Post by robertheadley »

This is purposely written in a foreboding way. A lot of this stuff is standard SaaS procedure. Google does tend to make some boneheaded moves though and Transparency is constant struggle for them.

I personally stopped using chrome due to manifest V3. Not because of the tracking, the tracking makes my life easier. Just keep things secure, ok?

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#80

Post by badrequest »

skybrian wrote: post #69
whatshisface wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you come at it from the perspective that Google is your friend, as in not like a real friend (who I wouldn't let change my passwords), but a friend that's even better than a real friend, then sure, these points are paranoid. The GNU perspective is very distrustful of the idea that anyone else should be administrating their devices, and refuses to trust any corporation more than they would a friend.

Your "friend" analogy is basically the perspective of someone who wouldn't put their money in a bank. If you wouldn't trust a friend to hold thousands of dollars for you, why would you trust a bank? It's questionable whether Google deserves similar trust as a bank since they aren't regulated in a similar way. But it isn't unusual for people to trust companies over friends for some things, such as their life savings.…

You bring up regulatory controls on banks, but then dismiss them as if most folks would willingly put their money into them if the regulations weren't there. If you'd trust the bank with your money without the regulations, I'd love to send you details about the bank I'm forming.
Post reply on HN