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

111–120 of 291 posts

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#111

Post by robertheadley »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #94
robertheadley wrote: post #79

This is purposely written in a foreboding way. A lot of this stuff is standard SaaS procedure. Google does tend to make some boneheaded moves though and Transparency is constant struggle for them. I personally stopped using chrome due to manifest V3. Not because of the tracking, the tracking makes my life easier. Just keep things secure, ok?

> This is purposely written in a foreboding way. A lot of this stuff is standard SaaS procedure. Just because it's standard , doesn't mean it's moral . FSF has been speaking about immorality of these practices for decades now. Their point is essentially that as a software creator, you shouldn't do it, and as a user, you shouldn't (for both ethical and practical reasons) subject yourself to these practices.

I just want to avoid technology becoming the boogeyman to normal people that don't necessary understand this kind of thing. Then again, I suppose the odds of a normie going to FSF is probably moderately low.

They aren't wrong. I would just appreciate a bit more finesse in their wording.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#112

Post by craigsmansion »

rhinoceraptor wrote: post #96
craigsmansion wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> should he go for a drive Almost every modern car has similar tracking capabilities to cell phones. And they're jam-packed full of microcontrollers running proprietary firmware, and computers running proprietary software.

Fair enough, but one doesn't need to have a modern car, and even if you do, one model is enough: you just buy that one.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#113

Post by OrgNet »

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"

It is a backdoor... They can install or remove any apps on my device without my authorization and I cannot disable "that feature" even if I know about it. So it's almost like a rootkit.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#115

Post by saagarjha »

kragen wrote: post #107
saagarjha wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Let's suppose that's true.

It is.

> 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?

I didn't find the question that was being asked to be relevant, since Apple has nothing to do with this article and I have never worked at Google. In any case, if you're actually looking for my opinion on this topic, I suggest looking at this comment, which is basically saying what I was too lazy to and which you can judge for potential conflict of interest yourself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20749104

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#116

Post by jmkb »

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…

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.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#117

Post by jancsika »

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…

> 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 instead a surprisingly pragmatic free software advocate. He ignores software which runs as if it were low-level hardware circuitry (and says very little about hardware since it can't be produced with anything near zero marginal cost). Plus he qualifies his stance against cellphones as a symbolic stance against mass surveillance.

I don't see any difference between that symbolic stance and, say, a celebrity who tries to have a zero-carbon footprint in their abode. The inconvenience in cost is obviously in service of the benefit of raising awareness, which he does every time he's asked about how he gets around in the world without a cellphone. Not everyone gets royalties from TV drama to pay for a fancy house and not everyone can outsource their schedule to friends aren't serious criticisms of symbolic stances.

Edit: WRT pragmatism-- I'll be interested to see if FSF approve the Purism Phone. It's got a proprietary baseband OS but that can be turned off...

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#118

Post by bduerst »

holy_city wrote: post #40

I 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.

That's an interesting perspective, and I would take it a step further to say it's prisoner's dilemma but with millions of prisoners.

From the media owners' perspective, there's always going to be users who defect to piracy, so DRM is the resulting Nash equilibrium that maximizes benefit from not catering to pirates while still catering to customers.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#119

Post by davvolun »

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.

> 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

Exactly, and waters down the impact of the termminology. If "card skimmer" is anything that can read a credit card, than the term is meaningless for security.

If "keylogger" is anything connected to the web that responds to a keypress...

GNU is risking turning into the boy who cried wolf here.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#120

Post by jeromebaek »

There's one each for Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Amazon at https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.html, https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-google.html, https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html, and https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-amazon.html.

Funny there's no https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-facebook.html.

Post reply on HN