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

91–100 of 291 posts

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#91

Post by chucksmash »

ChrisSD wrote: post #81
henryfjordan wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#92

Post by ahupp »

hyperhopper wrote: post #74
new_realist wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If DRM allows you to consume content you would not otherwise have access to, it is a feature. What does it limit you from doing, in particular? Running custom software on your device? That’s a funny definition of malware.

DRM doesn't allow you to consume content. There is nothing technical about DRM that helps deliver content to me. I think you may be referring to businesses making an anti-user decision to withhold content, and mistaking exceptions to that to be things useful to a user.

Payments are also not something technical that helps deliver content to you, yet without them you'd have no content to consume. Same with DRM.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#93

Post by mav3rick »

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.

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.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#94

Post by TeMPOraL »

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.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#95

Post by musicale »

new_realist wrote: post #61
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.

If DRM allows you to consume content you would not otherwise have access to, it is a feature. What does it limit you from doing, in particular? Running custom software on your device? That’s a funny definition of malware.

> What does it (DRM) limit you from doing, in particular?

How about:

- Using the fast forward function in media playback software to skip over advertisements.

- Ripping DVD and Blu-Ray movies for use with a media server.

- Playing movies and games from other countries (region locking.)

- Recording or streaming console gameplay (e.g. HDCP on PS3, disabling the share function in certain PS4 games.)

- Running certain software, even some single-player games, if you are not connected to the internet ("always-on DRM.")

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#96

Post by rhinoceraptor »

craigsmansion wrote: post #85
notyourday wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#97

Post by kragen »

saagarjha wrote: post #57
19ylram49 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of the points made are legitimate concerns. I’m guessing that you work for Google (or Apple)?

Neither. There are valid arguments against both companies, but these aren't it.

Your resume on your website says you work for Apple: http://archive.is/aALeV Did you mean to say that you worked for neither Google nor Apple? Because it appears that in answer to the question, “I’m guessing that you work for Google (or Apple)?” you answered, “Neither.”

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#98

Post by tylerl »

cptskippy wrote: post #82
tathougies wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ignoring the fact that there is basically no OS in existence that can't be infected with malware. To be fair to GNU, GNU Hurd cannot be infected with malware because no one is quite sure how to install it and keep it running for any meaningful amount of time.

I thought it was agreed that Security through obscurity was frowned upon.

No no, it's all self consistent. Safe computers are a fiction. Computers running GNU Hurd are a fiction. It fits.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#99

Post by TeMPOraL »

mav3rick wrote: post #93
TeMPOraL wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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 justified.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#100

Post by Dylan16807 »

ssully wrote: post #66
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.

I also have my gripes with DRM, but what you defined is 100% not malware, and also an insincere definition of DRM.

> 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.

Post reply on HN