Live data from Hacker News

Reasons not to use Facebook

stallman.org

191–200 of 376 posts

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#191

I honestly don't understand why people value Stallman's opinions on these matters so highly. I completely disagree with him on essentially everything he writes about these topics. Granted, he's an incredible programmer who contributed immensely to the development of our modern operating systems and the tools we use, and people here love to bring that up ("what - you DON'T KNOW WHO STALLMAN IS? SHAME? HOW DARE YOU CRI…

> because any _viable_ company that wants to provide a service that a consumer other than Stallman himself will use will "infringe" on those two idiotic requirements.

I work for a data center operator and ISP and our customer database is air gapped. We're in the business for 18 years now.

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#192
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are still far away from this short story reflecting reality. Do you have a better example?

Another great example would be the example of stallman "In the future, debuggers will be illegal to use" and a recent court case where a person was sent to jail for accessing a website with a spoofed user agent using wget.

If you're talking about weev, I can not think of a more disingenuous way of describing what he was sent to jail for. Otherwise, I can't find what you're talking about with a simple search.

I am completely unsure how you went from a prediction that hasn't come true to an unrelated computer crime.

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#193
post #25

At this point in the evolution in technology, I find that Stallman is increasingly irrelevant when his commentary is basically stating every basic point of the site and then saying its bad. Don't want to use your real name? Don't join a site where the goal is to publicly connect with people you know. Don't want your privacy violated, post only what you feel comfortable with. With every new step in the advance of tech…

>At this point in the evolution in technology, I find that Stallman is increasingly irrelevant Funny, because after all the NSA/Snowden/Confirmed-backdooring-everywhere hooplah I feel as if his view points--especially those having to do with machine ownership and the need for free software to get to that point--are increasingly relevant.

Agreed. I appreciate Free Software a hell of a lot more now that I know the US government basically has secret control over any US tech company they are interested in. Free software isn't immune to outside influence, but it feels a hell of a lot safer than blind trust in companies we know are compromised.

Just recently the complaints about all kinds of bad software behavior having me seeing why Stallman has been right all along.

Think about the idealized versions of software we see on certain movies and TV shows, or even art. They're all cluttered and free from ads or exploitation - because that's what people really want. I understand people need a way to pay for their site, but we've gone overboard with surveillance and monetization of the user.

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#194
post #52

His opinion may seem ridiculous to many here, but the following has happened quite a few times before: 1. Stallman shares radical opinion 2. He's ridiculed for his outlandish claims 3. Some news breaks or things happen gradually 4. Now people say 'Stallman called it' or realize he was right all along

Some examples, please

He has refused to own a cell phone since inception because he doesn't like the idea of having his movements tracked.

It's now well-known that most of the crypto we depend upon for cellular calls and messaging is broken and can be tapped easily. Seemless, real-time, local area SMS and call interception has been publicly demonstrated, and these demonstrations were not from nefarious or particularly well resourced groups, just keen nerds.

It's also been publicly demonstrated that someone can track your location down to cell tower granularity, from anywhere in the world, without permission, using just your cell phone #, without prior access to your phone, and with only commercially available network access.

And none of this even touches on the ticking timebomb of proprietary firmware in phones that is basically unsupported and untouched by manufacturers and networks from the moment you walk out of the shop. The opportunity to exploit vulnerabilities alone is mind-boggling.

Oh and the fact that most people are replacing all this with centralised messaging platforms like Snapchat, Facebook chat, and Whatsapp.

You're completely naive right now if you think every SMS you've ever sent, every call you ever made, and every location query you've ever put through Googles Location Service hasn't been logged or acquired by NSA.

And frankly, the idea that NSA or GCHQ can silently ring your phone and turn it in to a listening device doesn't sound so James Bond these days.

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#195
The worst thing about Facebook I personally see is the peer (or even professional) pressure to have an account there and be active. And them doing what all (American?) megacorps do: buying small companies, stripping them of assets, absorbing them and forgetting them.

Then again, some people build start-ups for this very reason, don't they.

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a funny one: Stallman came to my uni to give a speech to CompSci alumni 10 years ago, and he told the audience that he didn't own a cellphone, cos phones were being used to track people. He also talked about the backdoors in several OS's. Everybody was laughing at his words. We're talking 10 years ago. Few months ago remembering this speech with old uni mates we talked about how damn right that excentric man w…

Every one in tech thought 10years ago there are backdoors everywhere - well there were backdoors everywhere 20 years ago. And everyone thought government agencies use phones for tracking. The public opinion might have been different, but in tech circles this was and is mainstream.

"...in tech circles this was and is mainstream."

Things are different now. Take online tracking and privacy for example; many people in the tech community are perfectly fine with the online tracking carried out by Google and Facebook. They consider it relatively benign and useful. Some people (many?) are even happy to defend these companies over their tracking practices, are after all they are private companies, not government agencies.

The degree of tracking by these companies is unprecendented and often it's not even anonymous. Google, for example, has an entire OS that tracks you by default. It's tied to your identity, so it's not anonymous. If you have a Google or Facebook account, these companies probably already know more about your online behaviour than you know yourself.

At some point in the future, Google and Facebook may well be able to track you from cradle to grave. Does that sound far-fetched? Perhaps. Even now, Google's push into education means they hoard vast quatities of data about the online behaviour of students.

Even if you trust these companies, why is it considered perfectly acceptable for them to track you to such a relentless degree?

I can understand how the general public may be unaware of the privacy implications of such pervasive online tracking, but what excuse does the tech community have for not highlighting these issues and their privacy implications? Most of the reaction from the tech community over online tracking is equivalent to a "yeah, so what?" shrug of the shoulders.

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#197
post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course phones were used to track people 10 years ago. And it wasn't even a secret. Location-based services were the hot shit back then for mobile carriers (at least in Europe). Bullshit; I remember trying to instill the same point to techies 7 years ago and a majority of technically competent people would say that, while possible, is not certain . Hindsight is 20-20.

Even today, very few people accept to believe that the NSA actually leverages their technology to do mass tracking. Few people have an idea of the scale of their operations actually. Most of them now think they have the gear, but that they only leverage it in state investigations.

> Of course phones were used to track people 10 years ago\

"In 1996, a detailed description of ECHELON was provided by New Zealand journalist Nicky Hager in his 1996 book "Secret Power – New Zealand's Role in the International Spy Network""*

This was common knowledge in the 90's ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#198
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course phones were used to track people 10 years ago. And it wasn't even a secret. Location-based services were the hot shit back then for mobile carriers (at least in Europe). Making that to be a big conspiracy to infringe upon everybody's freedom and privacy is what makes Stallman's position so ridiculous. It always sounds like the rambling of a technophobic. No, that's not entirely true. Like the rambling of an…

> Of course phones were used to track people 10 years ago. And it wasn't even a secret. Location-based services were the hot shit back then for mobile carriers (at least in Europe). Bullshit; I remember trying to instill the same point to techies 7 years ago and a majority of technically competent people would say that, while possible, is not certain . Hindsight is 20-20.

If your mobile carrier offered a product to find the nearest gas station/hospital/supermarket 10 years ago (at least mine in Austria did), then of course it worked like that. At least in Austria and Germany, media regularly mentions police being able to locate people's phones by sending "silent text messages". That also uses the same principle. How else? People that knew about such tools and features, but did not realize that this obviously can be abused, how ignorant must they have been?

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#199

A friend of mine was turned off of a potentially new employee the other day because the candidate exclaimed that they recognized a customer from their instagram profile and that they followed it, loved it, etc. The customer was obviously embarrased, exclaimed that he had not used instagram in over a year, and promptly left the store. This left an uneasy feeling in my friend (the store owner). Which confused me to be…

"The customer was obviously embarrased, exclaimed that he had not used instagram in over a year, and promptly left the store."

Was there a significant age difference between the luckless candidate and the customer? Just guessing.

Re: Reasons not to use Facebook

#200
post #47

I view my decision to use Facebook as a transaction. Sure, I lose some "privacy", but I also get a lot of value in return. I use quotes around "privacy" because I'm not sure I understand it the same way that Facebook critics do. When I'm using a changeroom, I expect privacy. When I take on a pseudonym and don't identify myself by name, I expect privacy. When I'm knowingly uploading photos that I am happy for the worl…

There is not only the privacy inside Facebook but also outside facebook. People are generally aware of what they give inside Facebook but I'm not sure most people expect Facebook to store their entire web history with dodgy techniques.

True. Through the "Like" buttons on pages and such, I presume? Do we know for sure that they are keeping that full log?
Post reply on HN