Linux on the desktop is a real mental harm for the user.
Google's software mistreats or harms the user
151–160 of 291 posts
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#152Earlier 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.
Google already stores your browsing history in the cloud if you're signed in, which most users are. The "keylogging" wouldn't really add any value to the data, and thus I don't really buy that cost.
If you're not logged in, as I'm sure FSF people are, then this is a much bigger deal, but it doesn't apply to the vast majority of people.
All that said, the keylogger would take a good deal of interpretation to get a complete or even partial history, since autocomplete choices would likely be chosen anyways, not fully typed out URL's. If they send that history anyways on any time you press enter, the autocomplete feature again doesn't matter because they have it with our with.
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#153Almost 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.…
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.
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.
If you start an argument with a false premise (like the above), then sure, you can come to just about any kind of conclusion you want.
The GNU perspective is very distrustful of the idea that anyone else should be administrating their devices [etc etc]
Which is a perfectly reasonable position to have, and no one takes issue with GNU for having it.
What one takes issue with is the consistent use of manipulative language, egregious omission of context (e.g. like what was just said about Google in the post above) and other generalized mindfuckery that GNU folks seem to routinely resort to in order to get you to buy into their shtick. As exemplified in the article referred to in the original post for this thread.
And which has gotten to be way beyond old. For like, multiple decades now.
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#154Earlier 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.
Yes, this is a keylogger. Autocomplete with a remote backend is too.
The Overton window has moved so far in the last ten years.
A while back we (and by we I don't mean me, I mean hackers collectively) would consider a piece of software that opened a TCP socket unless it had a real reason to malware.
Now? It's fairly common for like, webpages to send back every keystroke you might accidentally make whilst a tab is focused.
The fact that this is frequent, possibly even 'normal' behaviour does not make it sane.
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#155This 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."
Yeah, that makes sense why it’s in the article. As much as people hate DRM, I can’t see a way for Netflix to be offered for the same price and content selection if the users were able to own the content indefinitely. It seems like it would just devolve into the iTunes Store where you purchase each episode/movie.
Am I misunderstanding what DRM accomplishes?
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
Right... consumers trust bankers now?
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 so…
When Apple dropped DRM from their music downloads it was a great day. Suddenly one could download music for a competitive price legally from the internet and use in all the ways. Putting it on my mp3 player or my media server and create a backup, which I can trust to be usable even a few years. If a new audio standard comes by I even can re-encode and keep it.
Meanwhile however we have Spotify and are back in the walled garden.
Movie industry unfortunately went directly from physical media (with stupid DRM restrictions - my favorite one is that on a "legal" DVD player I am forced to watch a short sequence on how bad pirates are, on my "illegal" DRM free player I can skip that part) to streaming. Making sure I don't "own" a thing and making sure my computer runs software limiting what I can do with my computer.
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I have a DRM'd artificial heart to sell you. I feel so free!
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#159Earlier 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.
TIL authorization is malware apparently.
Software running on my computer, not letting me things do I want to do is malware. Yes.
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#160Almost 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.
Given that 'malware' is short for 'malicious software', one might make a semantic argument that DRM is actually anti-malware, as it prevents other software from operating maliciously. Copyright infringement is undoubtedly a malicious act under the law in most places.
Any kind of security, authentication, or encryption software ever written was done so to "limit what you can do", so I don't think that is enough to constitute maliciousness.
That being said, many DRM software implementations have been known to go beyond just protecting the rights of the content creators, and that's a different story.