Google's software mistreats or harms the user • Hacker News Board

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#121

Post by CobrastanJorji » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 7:06 PM UTC

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…

A tool to remove malware may qualify as a backdoor, and backdoors may generally be considered as malware, and malware does generally harm or mistreat users, but it does not follow from all of that that tools to remove malware harm or mistreat users.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#122

Post by lazyasciiart » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 7:07 PM UTC

badrequest wrote: post #80

skybrian wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most folks, maybe not. Everyone who's ever used bitcoin though....

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#123

Post by notyourday » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 7:09 PM UTC

jancsika wrote: post #117

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…

> It pains me to say it but he is a Luddite. A Luddite would argue that the technology (NB: not the implementation or design but the very concept) takes something away from quality, morality, and/or spirituality of life. Thus, Luddite Stallman would refuse any help from anyone using any kind of handheld communication device including walkie talkies, free software laptops over wireless access points, etc. Stallman is…

Luddites were not against the technology. They were against a specific kind technology that in their view harmed them and a society in whole.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-rea...

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#124

Post by lazyasciiart » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 7:09 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #100

ssully wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also have my gripes with DRM, but what you defined is 100% not malware, and also an insincere definition of DRM.

> also an insincere definition of DRM I have no idea what you mean by that. I really need you to elaborate, because it sounds like a perfect description of DRM. It's there to stop you from playing/copying files, and nothing else.

The purpose is to extend what I as the producer of the files can do, giving me the ability to send you a file and still control your usage.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#125

Post by lazyasciiart » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 7:11 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #56

scblock wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely this. There are real issues worth real discussion, both on this post and their related Apple post. But these are the posts of a conspiracy theorist instead; they don't enable any sort of rational discussion.

How is that? All the claims are strictly true. They just carry a moral judgement some people disagree with, and most people don't care about. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's enumeration of facts.

It is an incomplete enumeration of facts which presents a biased picture. This is not some kind of novel technique, it's been around for a long time under the name "lying by omission".

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#126

Post by jcranberry » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 7:12 PM UTC

badrequest wrote: post #80

skybrian wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't see where he made any such dismissal.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#127

Post by joshuamorton » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 7:12 PM UTC

badrequest wrote: post #80

skybrian wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You've managed to acknowledge and then ignore the point. You aren't trustworthy. Or maybe you are, but I don't know that. A bank is. There's history of acting, if not ethically, at least not totally unethically, even without government regulations. Wells Fargo, Visa, and Coinbase all have decreasing sets of regulations, but all have more consumer trust than "badrequest".

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#128

Post by ben7799 » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 7:13 PM UTC

mfontani wrote: post #77

lima wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This can be spoofed/hidden extremely easily if both devices are open source and you want to change it though. It's not like TTL can't be changed.

The tethering device can just rewrite the packets to hide the tethered device.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#129

Post by CobrastanJorji » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 7:14 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #56

scblock wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely this. There are real issues worth real discussion, both on this post and their related Apple post. But these are the posts of a conspiracy theorist instead; they don't enable any sort of rational discussion.

How is that? All the claims are strictly true. They just carry a moral judgement some people disagree with, and most people don't care about. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's enumeration of facts.

There are facts in here, but they're very selective facts.

For example, in the "Sabotage" section, it describes how by turning off a server, Google turned a device "into a $300 out-of-warranty brick."

Now, it is a fact that the device did cost $300 and it was out-of-warranty, but pointing out that the device is out of warranty without also pointing out that Google offered full refunds for all of the devices is deceptive wording.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#130

Post by joshuamorton » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 7:14 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #99

mav3rick wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such BS. When you put a baby in a car seat and he/she starts crying, you don't have their consent. However, legally the parent is the guardian of the child and is responsible for the well being. Stop using semantic bullshit to justify random arguments.

It's not semantic bullshit. It depends on what value you substitute for "child" when you think about it. It's different when you're thinking 5yo vs. 15yo. If anything, being outraged at calling parental controls censorship is what's bullshit. "Censorship is bad and protecting children is good, therefore parental controls are not censorship". We could instead call spade a spade, and then talk about when its use is jus…

Then GNU shouldn't try to use providing censorship tools as a pejorative.

If we agree that there are ethical ways to use censorship, providing censorship tools cannot be inherently unethical and companies shouldn't be faulted for doing so.