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

131–140 of 291 posts

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#131

Post by sieabahlpark »

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 consider the ability for users to remotely reset their Android lockscreen combo if they know their Google account password a "back door"

It literally is a backdoor into your phone. Whether it's ethical or not depends if they've ever used it with law enforcement or for their own personal gain.

> They describe a bug where Google Assistant incorrectly identified the "Okay Google" hotword as "Google Assistant recording users' conversations"

This isn't necessarily great but I've run into situations where it activated on completely unrelated phrases. Is it Google's best interest as an ad company to sell data to fix this? No.

The issues you see as someone else pointed out are because you implicitly trust Google. I personally don't trust Google. The fact they manipulate their products for "algorithmic fairness" is proof they have ulterior motives one way or another. Is it that far of a stretch to think they could be abusing other components of their platform either intentionally or not?

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#132

Post by saagarjha »

tylerl wrote: post #105
ChrisSD wrote: post #81

Earlier 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.

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 actua…

> point out just one for whom the privacy implications around autocomplete have imposed a non-theoretical cost

Type "p" in the address bar at work?

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#133

Post by favorited »

elamje wrote: post #101

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.

I know Stallman hates Netflix because they use DRM, but I don't know what part makes it "malware."

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#134

Post by mighty_bander »

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.

If only there were some middle ground between "not having autocomplete" and "ruthlessly data mining the everliving fuck out of everything I do in order to sell me shit." Oh well, nothing we can do, I guess, except shut up and take it.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#135

Post by ben7799 »

dantondwa wrote: post #89
metabagel wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, for which app?

Sorry, I didn't specify it. It's "Google Family link for children and teens" (and not the similarly named app for the parents).

Thanks, the reviews were entertaining.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#136

Post by saagarjha »

holy_city wrote: post #104
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.

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…

> Say you want to send data to an untrusted destination and want the data to be read-only and non-copyable.

Barring quantum technology, I don't think this is possible.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#137

Post by pvg »

dredmorbius wrote: post #108
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.…

FSF have an incredibly annoying track record of being precisely right, about a decade ahead of everyone else. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

If you squint hard enough, cherry pick and are highly motivated, more or less anyone who makes sweeping predictions about the future can be 'precisely right'. Even this particular essay isn't really 'precisely right', never mind every single prediction, dire warning or position the FSF has ever taken.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#138

Post by mikejb »

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.

> All the claims are strictly true. They just carry a moral judgement some people disagree with, and most people don't care about.

This is a poor standard. For example:

> Kim Jong-un is an elected leader

It's technically correct, but it does not provide any useful information, and could be classified as heavily misleading. But hey, technically it's true!

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#139

Post by saagarjha »

decoyworker wrote: post #43
nextos wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or try AOSP, while imperfect its closer to GNU.

Nope. AOSP runs on a mobile device which is malware https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-mobiles.html

Those complaints have nothing to do with the device that AOSP is running on.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#140

Post by joshuamorton »

dredmorbius wrote: post #108
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.…

FSF have an incredibly annoying track record of being precisely right, about a decade ahead of everyone else. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

Pretty much nothing here resembles the world I live in. Can you precisely articulate which pieces are right now?

I've been reading a lot recently, and so buying a lot of books. Some digital, some not. As far as I can tell I own a single copy of the physical ones. I can transfer them to someone by handing them my copy. I can do the same with digital ones. It's legal for other people to read my paperback, or for me to hand them my Kindle. I can even, get this, do stuff to the mobi file I get when I download the ebook.

What am I missing?

Post reply on HN