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

191–200 of 291 posts

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#191

Post by pessimizer »

robertheadley wrote: post #111
TeMPOraL wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The FSF's goal is to make technology not a boogeyman, modern tech culture has a goal of making the inside of every device opaque enough that a boogeyman could hide there.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#192

Post by hutzlibu »

aflag wrote: post #106
chucksmash wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are keyloggers targeted to specific fields too. It depends on what vulnerability is being exploited to install a keylogger. I think the description of autocomplete as a keylogger is a good fit from the security perspective.

No, as a keylogger is the term for a malware to capture ALL your keystrokes in secret (to usually later fish out the interesting ones like passwords). It is misleading, to mix it up with a software, that captures your textinput from a textfield, even though it is not communicated clearly to the average user that his text goes to a server.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#193

Post by ggg3 »

spookthesunset wrote: post #165
johannes1234321 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software running on my computer, not letting me things do I want to do is malware. Yes.

You own your computer, yes. But you don't always own the data on it. Ownership of something is a legal and social construct, not a technical one. PS: I think most DRM works against the businesses that attempt to implement it. But it isn't malware. It is a data protection layer.

lol. it's all "data protection layer" until sony ships an actual rootkit.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#194

Post by ben_w »

saagarjha wrote: post #136
holy_city wrote: post #104

Earlier 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…

> 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.

Even with quantum technology, there is such a thing as a “good enough” copy — my phone can record 4k/60fps, and while it would be a bit fiddly to set it up right to copy a video by filming a display, it can be done.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#195

Post by yarrel »

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.

If the text field sent everything you type but didn't autocomplete, it would be spyware.

Autocompleting doesn't change that.

The Amazon text field would have to send your credit card number for a credit check without telling you to compare.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#196

Post by gmueckl »

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.

At least some of the microcontrollers in cars are the kind of thing that need to be extra tamper proof. There are some niche applications where safety trumps freedom. If a device has a computer in it solely for the purpose of controlling the functionality of the device's primary function, then the priorities really become different.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#197

Post by nybble41 »

kube-system wrote: post #160
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.

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 co…

> Copyright infringement is undoubtedly a malicious act...

You're seriously trying to argue that people who commit copyright infringement do so maliciously, i.e. with the intent of harming the copyright holder? That seems... novel. And not very plausible. If true, however, it would be much more effective to ignore the work altogether, thus denying the copyright holder both direct income and free publicity.

> 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.

The point of security, authentication, and encryption software is to protect the interests of the owner of the device. Defending yourself from malicious attacks by others is not an act of malice. DRM is malicious because it perverts the owner's computing resources to thwart the owner's interests and subverts their control over their own device.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#198

Post by yarrel »

new_realist wrote: post #63
esotericn wrote: post #2

All of this is trivially and obviously true to power users of GNU/Linux systems. My machine does precisely what I want, when I want it, in the way that I want it. If it doesn't, within reasonable constraints like physical possibility, I can open a text editor, and make it do so. Sure, that might take me a long time. I can add almost all of this configuration to stuff like git repos; back it up; transfer it between co…

The fact that you have a beef with USB tethering does not refute the fact that OSS usability is generally shit, and that would likely also apply to smartphones. So it’s a choice between “good” and “poor, but OSS.”

Smartphones are based on Free Software. This is part of what makes them so frustrating from a user freedom point of view - they lock some of the most successful Free Software out of the user's reach while sitting in their own hands.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#199

Post by nybble41 »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #124
Dylan16807 wrote: post #100

Earlier 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.

> ...giving me the ability to send you a file and still control your usage.

This is exactly why DRM is malware. It's not your device. You don't get to say what it may or may not do. That's for the device's owner to decide.

malware: Software that is specifically designed to disrupt, damage, or gain unauthorized access to a computer system. " rel="nofollow">https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/malware>

Your explicit intention is to disrupt the operation of the computer running the DRM software. This disruption is not authorized by the owner of the device. Ergo: malware.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#200

Post by tedunangst »

kodt wrote: post #166
tedunangst wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

IDK according to my kid it's "his ipad".

But did he lick it? Common law doesn't recognize property rights unless it's been licked.
Post reply on HN