This article claims that Netflix is malware. I don’t have an opinion about Netflix, but would like to hear why someone considers it malware.
Google's software mistreats or harms the user
101–110 of 291 posts
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither. There are valid arguments against both companies, but these aren't it.
Your resume on your website says you work for Apple: http://archive.is/aALeV Did you mean to say that you worked for neither Google nor Apple? Because it appears that in answer to the question, “I’m guessing that you work for Google (or Apple)?” you answered, “Neither.”
It's out of date; I no longer work at either company.
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#103Earlier 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'm fairly sure that a hypothetically retired RMS would have no problem calling a restaurant, over a landline or hopefully a freedom-respecting mobile device. Also that, should he go for a drive, maybe to a folk-dancing festival, he would use GPS and maps, maybe the paper variety. As for the people inviting him to speak at a conference taking care of his scheduling and accommodation, I think that's fairly common and…
(a) he does not do it
(b) it is not really possible for those whom he wants to "empower" to live like it is 1980s while maintaining life as it is needed in 2019.
This is why he rubs people the wrong way when he peddles his philosophy as something that is possible in practice. Do I, a person who is pretty happy playing with computers, writing code, sometimes helping others with their technological issues or helping them to leverage technology to do something that they do more efficiently, care if my phone can't trigger Netflix playback on a Chromecast? Not at all, I will just look at one of the fifty something projects that I have in a state of a mess and work on something for fun. Will my wife have the same opinion if she can't watch "Mindhunter" because we are FSF only household and Chromecast is made by a tracking company? Yeah, now we know why his companion is a parrot.
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#104Almost 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.…
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.
Say you want to send data to an untrusted destination and want the data to be read-only and non-copyable. DRM is the solution. That's not malware, it's part of the threat/loss prevention model for certain kinds of data.
There are plenty of issues with DRM from a practical and philosophical level. But I think calling it malware is disingenuous. Alice doesn't cede her rights over her data by transmitting it to Bob, and DRM is how Alice protects the data when Bob is a malicious actor. If Bob wants to gain more privileges over all his data, he doesn't need to accept communication from Alice.
That said, buggy DRM can be atrocious and cost more money than it saves. I know plenty of folks who pirate software they own because it's easier than an legal install. But that's a UX problem, not a DRM problem.
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Wait but that's literally what the auto complete feature does. Most users understand the value of the feature (they use it!) but there's a good reason to spell out the cost too. I agree with the criticism that they should draw a clearer line between the cost and the benefit but there's nothing to be gained by softening the language used to describe the cost.
The costs? Are you joking? Of to the 2 Billion people using Chrome, point out just one for whom the privacy implications around autocomplete have imposed a non-theoretical cost. There's the cost you impose on yourself for paranoia, but lay THAT at the feet of the FSF.
And if you say bandwidth you're fired. It's privacy the FSF is grumbling about. And for that it's been rhetoric and theoretical suffering, but no actual real-world damage. And not for lack of adoption.
Put that cost in your pipe and smoke it.
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait but that's literally what the auto complete feature does. Most users understand the value of the feature (they use it!) but there's a good reason to spell out the cost too. I agree with the criticism that they should draw a clearer line between the cost and the benefit but there's nothing to be gained by softening the language used to describe the cost.
I'd naively consider a keylogger to be software that captures your keypresses universally. I use Firefox and have search suggestions disabled there so I am somewhat sympathetic to their point. That said, calling server-side autocomplete on a field you explicitly are typing in strikes me as about as sensible and forthright as calling an Amazon text field that takes my credit card number a card skimmer.
There are keyloggers targeted to specific fields too. It depends on what vulnerability is being exploited to install a keylogger.
I think the description of autocomplete as a keylogger is a good fit from the security perspective.
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your resume on your website says you work for Apple: http://archive.is/aALeV Did you mean to say that you worked for neither Google nor Apple? Because it appears that in answer to the question, “I’m guessing that you work for Google (or Apple)?” you answered, “Neither.”
It's out of date; I no longer work at either company.
Let's suppose that's true. You didn't think it was relevant, in response to a question about whether you might not be impartial because you worked for Google or Apple, to mention that you worked at Apple a few months ago? Instead, to simply reply with a misleading flat denial? Is that really your standard of integrity?
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#108Almost 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.…
FSF have an incredibly annoying track record of being precisely right, about a decade ahead of everyone else.
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#109I used to hate all this FSF stuff. That, though, was back in the day when taking back control of your devices was as simple as changing a couple of settings, uninstalling a few things, and flipping a couple of switches in a registry. Now that I've been screwed a few times by this "we know better than you" tech culture my opinion has changed. Richard Stallman is still a lunatic with poor personal hygiene but he makes some excellent points.
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#110I feel like DRM is basically the prisoner's dilemma at this point where it's in everyone's interest to give it up, but no one wants to be the first person to do it. But honestly it's weird for GNU to fault the person being held at gunpoint for the situation, not the person holding the gun.
If you have a choice between doing the right thing, and the wrong thing, and you choose to do the wrong thing, you've chosen poorly.
I'm increasing not a fan of naked individual initiative as the sole response to abuses of power; that itself is and long has been a tool of power, to skirt its own responsibilities. Annie Leonard's essay on the "Crying Indian" anti-littering (that is: pro-disposable packaging) advertising campaign is a key case in point: http://www.pfree.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Moving-fro... (PDF)
But raising awareness and consciousness can help us get to a collective action promoting the common weal, which is the goal here.