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

141–150 of 291 posts

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#141

Post by shrimp_emoji »

jmkb wrote: post #116
tylerl wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If your browsing history is of value, than giving it (or even just the portions of it that are manually typed into the url bar) away is a cost to you. You can't point to a dollar amount on an invoice, so in that sense it's not "non-theoretical." But if you believe that personal information can be valuable -- and it's pretty clear that it can, especially in the aggregate -- then calling this a "cost" is not a joke.

Unquantifiable externalities.

At the end of the day, serverside autocomplete is useful, and coal is cheap!

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#142

Post by saagarjha »

notyourday wrote: post #53
TeMPOraL wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there anything these guys like? Free (as in freedom) Software. > Stallman and Gnu are extremists The word you're looking for is "radicals"; "extremists" carries connotations with violence and illegal behavior, which is the exact opposite of what Stallman/FSF stand for. Are these views radical? Yes. But are they wrong ? The way I see it, RMS has been writing about what's wrong with the software world for decades…

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…

> But here's the thing: he simply outsourced his need for modern communications to others -- he does not call restaurants to make reservations, his hosts do. He does not use GPS and maps -- drivers that his hosts use do. He does not need to use a banking app/deal with payments/scheduling/etc that are needed for him to appear at conferences -- those that invite him do.

Unfortunately we've ended up in this sort of world where this is necessary, because it's impractical for people to exist where non-free software is widely used by everyone. Another example of something similar would be Facebook: I don't have an account, but I indirectly benefit from it by knowing people who do and share that information with me. But this is only required because people expect Facebook to be a valid way to communicate with everyone, so there's really no way out of this until everyone leaves…

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#143

Post by gcbw2 »

chucksmash wrote: post #91
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.

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.

consider the following example:

You are going to visit example.com, a site which you have an account.

You think your clipboard have the string "example.com". But while the browser opened, you clicked your password manager and already copied the password for it. (or for the sake of the example, you might have been typing an email you didn't not want to share, maybe it had financial information about your IPO... I am going with password as it is clearly something you want and need to keep private)

When Chrome opens, you click the address bar and paste. See your mistake, press backspace a few types, type example.com and press return. Now google has on it's logs (and associated to your user profile) your example.com's password and you never had any feedback that it was sent, unless there was search results for your password (let's hope not)!

Had you used firefox with autocomplete off (which you should) you would have seen the mistake before pressing return. or if you did press return, it would have been very clear to you that you just sent your password to google.

So, defend it all you want, but it is a dark pattern that logs everything you type on a somewhat unrelated field and only show you feedback on certain cases. It is worlds apart from typing your credit card on amazon!

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#144

Post by tedunangst »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #47
decoyworker wrote: post #31

https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html Apple's Operating Systems are Malware Is there anything these guys like? Stallman and Gnu are extremists

> Is there anything these guys like? Free (as in freedom) Software. > Stallman and Gnu are extremists The word you're looking for is "radicals"; "extremists" carries connotations with violence and illegal behavior, which is the exact opposite of what Stallman/FSF stand for. Are these views radical? Yes. But are they wrong ? The way I see it, RMS has been writing about what's wrong with the software world for decades…

How weird to argue about the connotations of a word like extremist in response to a comment about calling Apple malware.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#145

Post by Drew_ »

johannes1234321 wrote: post #51
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.…

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.

TIL authorization is malware apparently.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#146

Post by tedunangst »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #88
creeble wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't the parental controls voluntary censorship? That is requested by the user? True by definition, but not by intent.

Depends on who you consider the user. Children subject to parental control censorship aren't voluntary parties.

Wait, I thought it was a good thing for the owner of a phone to decide how it can be used?

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#147

Post by mav3rick »

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…

The point is that legally parents are allowed to make that choice among other things. It doesn't matter if the kids are the direct user. This is the legal framework we live in

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#148

Post by johannes1234321 »

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…

By sending it me you have to copy it, either onto a medium or network, I then have to copy it (from some medium/network at least into main memory and then copy either into video or audio memory which then do magic to highlight pixels or create audio waves)

The copy is essence of what a computer does. A computer can essentially only do some math and copying.

If you ask me to install some DRM software (or maybe even some hardware containing DRM stuff as in HDMI) you are asking me to run additional complex software where the only purpose is to restrict the functionality of my computer.

I do that, since I like some movies and other things I get this way. However the software serves no purpose to me as the user. It is there to do Digital Restriction Management.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#149

Post by zeveb »

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…

> 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.

You've never accidentally typed a password in a URL bar? You've never accidentally focussed the browser window when typing something you don't want Google or anyone else to know?

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#150

Post by ariwilson »

shrimp_emoji wrote: post #141
jmkb wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your browsing history is of value, than giving it (or even just the portions of it that are manually typed into the url bar) away is a cost to you. You can't point to a dollar amount on an invoice, so in that sense it's not "non-theoretical." But if you believe that personal information can be valuable -- and it's pretty clear that it can, especially in the aggregate -- then calling this a "cost" is not a joke.

Unquantifiable externalities. At the end of the day, serverside autocomplete is useful, and coal is cheap!

My thermometer is a pretty clear indicator of a quantifiable externality of coal.
Post reply on HN