Ubuntu 13.10 the second step to spy its users ?
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
Hi all. Today I saw this article: "Ubuntu One Set-Up"
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/08/ubuntu-one-log-in-added-to-ubuntu-13-10-installer
You remember Amazon search bar from Ubuntu.From what I see Ubuntu does step by step to resemble with Apple and Windows 8.1 which both now require to put your name and email when you install a copy of their operating system.
I notice a comment from a user named: Emblem Parade. He wrote:
((This is nice in principle, but the "Log in later" button does not make it clear enough that this is *entirely optional*. I can see potential new users being put off by this... "Why is this account required and what is it good for? Do I need to be connected to the Internet to use Ubuntu?"))
I am a member!
Hm. Not sure that qualifies as spying. Although they could word it more clearly. In general though, it's just an optional service they provide, nothing wrong with setting it up during the install?
I am thinking if they will have a such service will be like a SaaS (software like a service) and they keep all the trafic and maybe storage the information, you know "for a better understanding for users' needs ".
I am a member!
Very possible.. But that's not different from essentially every other cloud service people like using. =p
And if they wanted to add, I donno, optional DropBox or Email setup to the installer, don't see anything inherently wrong with that. =x
On 30/08/13 21:01, erikthorsen wrote:
> But that's not different from essentially every other cloud service
> people like using. =p
That doesn't make it okay. Because almost every other OS people are
using doesn't respect their freedom, and that doesn't make it "okay".
We live in an era of "Big Data", where it's apparently "okay" to subject
people to ridiculous levels of surveillance, like these:
https://www.propublica.org/article/everything-we-know-about-what-data-brokers-know-about-you
Even if Ubuntu One had a good privacy policy (I haven't read it, so I
don't know if it's any good) they will, most likely, keep that
information indefinitely. Forever is a long time, a lot can happen in a
decade. For example, do we know if Ubuntu will be sold in the next ten
years? And will those people respect Ubuntu users' privacy?
I think building a database of people that use Ubuntu is especially bad.
Since it seems like most users will do whatever is default, that
database will probably be pretty reasonably accurate.
Andrew.
I am a member!
That's your opinion on cloud services, and it's entirely irrelevant seeing as all I said was it's perfectly ok to include service setup in the installer.
And again, why do you even care? Not many people here use straight Ubuntu, based on this thread I would assume you don't either, and nobody forces anyone to sign up for Ubuntu One or any other cloud service for that matter.
There's nothing "especially" bad about building databases about any particular group of people as opposed to another. Nothing bad at all when they willingly opt in to it.
On 31/08/13 05:10, erikthorsen wrote:
> That's your opinion on cloud services, and it's entirely irrelevant
> seeing as all I said was it's perfectly ok to include service setup
> in the installer.
I disagree. IMHO the service setup only be used when a person wants to
use it, not on installation. I'm not convinced that Ubuntu One or other
cloud-connector services should be encouraged. Seems like Canonical is
riding the wave of what's popular.
> And again, why do you even care? Not many people here use straight
> Ubuntu, based on this thread I would assume you don't either, and
> nobody forces anyone to sign up for Ubuntu One or any other cloud
> service for that matter.
Okay, so maybe this topic should be deleted then? Not sure why you
voiced your opinion then either.
> There's nothing "especially" bad about building databases about any
> particular group of people. Nothing bad at all when they willingly
> opt in to it.
The screenshot asks the user to create an account or "login later". It
doesn't say whether the account is required or not for Ubuntu to work.
That's a very sneaky "opt-in".
On building databases:
http://www.privacy.org.au/Resources/PAS-STH.html
It is also not necessary for building a cloud service. Firefox Sync is a
good example of what's possible with PKI (although it unfortunately
requires registration).
--
Andrew Roffey http://andrew.roffey.org
GPG fingerprint F9E6 E6C4 0080 85F4 0E30 B0D9 7F7B DC7F 9657 B073
I am a member!
Well, I see no harm in doing service setup at install time. But suppose we'll just have disagree on that point.
The O in IMHO does stand for Opinion after all.
Seems to have generated a little discussion, and that's always nice. =x
As for voicing an opinion, to be perfectly honest, I'm just a real sucker for speaking against silliness and hyperbole. No offense intended of course, but as stated I do consider this a non-issue.
We already agreed they should make the verbiage clearer. Was only objecting to your implication that somehow collecting data on Ubuntu users was worse than, say, collecting data on Amazon users or FreeBSD users or.. I donno, CoolNewTechnologyIncorporated users.
That is neat.
I dont think there is anything silly about questioning these things.
Just wondering why you would go out of your way to try and reduce
the amount of enquiry. We should question everything, always ask why
While it's not nearly as bad as this, this kinda reminds me of the *entirely optional* donation at Ubuntu download time. The options are labeled "Pay with PayPal" and "Not now, take me to the download".
E.g. http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/questions?distro=desktop&bits=32&release=latest
Nice style of doing business those Ubuntu folks have...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2013-08-30 05:42, name at domain wrote:
> Hi all. Today I saw this article: "Ubuntu One Set-Up"
>
> http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/08/ubuntu-one-log-in-added-to-ubuntu-13-10-installer
>
>
>
> You remember Amazon search bar from Ubuntu.From what I see Ubuntu
> does step by step to resemble with Apple and Windows 8.1 which both
> now require to put your name and email when you install a copy of
> their operating system. I notice a comment from a user named:
> Emblem Parade. He wrote:
>
> ((This is nice in principle, but the "Log in later" button does not
> make it clear enough that this is *entirely optional*. I can see
> potential new users being put off by this... "Why is this account
> required and what is it good for? Do I need to be connected to the
> Internet to use Ubuntu?"))
>
Much like the Gnome project adopted ownCloud for its upcoming versions
to provide similar (but autonomous, free software-based) services, I
would expect free software projects to adopt something like Mozilla
Persona + Mozilla Sync for similar functionality.
The pieces are there, but it will take time/resources to achieve the
same integration. A few examples:
https://github.com/vickenty/browserid-pam
https://docs.services.mozilla.com/howtos/run-sync.html
Firefox OS is probably the closest to that, and Mozilla's resources
are probably not going to be focusing on existing GNU/Linux, Android
or other OSs to propose this integrated login + sync vision in an
autonomous way in addition to the all-inclusive "better for users",
cloud-managed one... so if you are worried about this, about the only
way to do something tangible about it is to check what Mozilla has
done and help bring that support to the OS we like - Debian seems like
the best way to propagate this downstream to its derivatives.
There is a team working on this at Mozilla:
http://identity.mozilla.com/
Yes, I noticed supporting existing logins (Gmail, Yahoo) to integrate
to their system is the latest focus, and part of a greater effort /
strategy.
I will be at the Mozilla Summit and I will try to influence some
decisions about this, if anyone is interested in this particular field
(identity/persona integration in Debian/derivatives), there is a
mailing list:
http://identity.mozilla.com/
Cheers,
Fabian
F.
- --
Fabián Rodríguez
http://fsf.magicfab.ca
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: PGP/Mime available upon request
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlIgnmwACgkQfUcTXFrypNVr0gCdEApwLXy5zapzJvD2mJbeAF5d
qrgAoLGkoZ1VllUu2MPdSTU2RJhOD7aA
=ljI3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I am a member!
If Ubuntu makes it obvious that Ubuntuone setup is optional, I don't see a problem with it. Thanks for the heads-up; if I decide to test Ubuntu 13.10, I'l be sure not to accidentally register for U1; am keeping out of the clouds.
There's a key difference between this and the search-sent-to-canonical feature: this one requires participation from the user. As long as they don't make it look like it's required, it's fine.
I am a member!
Yea- it would be better if Canonical wasn't so misleading in its wording. I'm a bit skeptical this wasn't a business decision to get more users to think the sign up was required-or at very least guide there actions toward it. We resist work and if one thinks they have to research it before they're liable to just sign up and deal with it even if they know they suspect they don't have to.
In addition that what was said...
- Has anyone noticed how Ubuntu's logo has the same shape as the UK's (where this distribution is based) electronical spy agency's HQ (that is the equivalent of, and is connected to, the USA's NSA)?
- How this distro is used by Google, that is known to be spying on everyone?
- How Mark Shuttleworth is a millionaire, like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs?
- How Ubuntu is making deals with the top corporations in the world?
- How much this distro is favoured by the corporate media, in detriment of others?
- How its present CEO came from one of the top arms manufacturers?
- How good and ultra-professional its propaganda is (appearing to have been made by some top marketing company in the corporate world)?
- How much this distribution facilitates the installation of non-free software?
- And the distortion that this distribution makes, in its repositories, of the term "free software", distinguishing the software with the tag "free" or a price tag?
What better way (for the majority of the corporate world, that wants to keep privileges, money, control and valuable knowledge for itself - and, also, *spy* on everyone that threatens its monopoly) of sabotaging the Free Software movement and divert it from its original purposes, than to create a distribution that does just that (that slowly and incrementally diverts its adepts from the principles of Free Software)?
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
--- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
I am a member!
Mmhm.. Paranoia = Good, Money & Corporations & Popularity = Bad, Google = Evil.. And apparently the Ubuntu people designed the English langauge. Right. Right.
And a quote from one of the worst mass murderers in modern history. I think we have a winner.
I don't see any information about Vladimir Lenin being a "mass murderer" in any fashion. I see nothing about any purges during his time, nothing about using police force against his political enemies, and no other cases of murder that he was responsible for. When and who did he kill?
I am a member!
...Lenin was the one who started the Red Terror, and had tens of thousands of people executed under his rule. Sure, it's not "as bad" as Stalin and Mao, but really now.
Lenin was nothing more than a butcher, who laid all the groundwork for Stalin, and a traitor. Quite literally considering it was Germany who snuck him back into Russia to destabilize the tsarist regime and thus have one less player to content with in WW1.
I am a member!
Did you ever hear of the White Terror? That was what engendered the Red Terror. It was started by a Russian fascist named Kornilov. One of his supporters was the U. S. Government. Just setting the record straight.
I am a member!
Never said the fascists were any better than the commies. I certainly don't admire either one, as both have the blood of countless on their hands.
When it gets right down to brass tax both ideologies are more or less the same. They differ only in the specific details of how the economy is run (nationalization vs subjugation) and what groups one divides society into.
I am a member!
You kind of missed the finer points of my post. And I recognize that this is way off topic. But the brutality of the bolsheviks was started by the counter-revolution. It was a response. And the White Terror was directly supported by the United States government. It wasn't just fascists against communists. It was communists against the Capitalist supported fascists. Sort of like what happened in Spain, Indonesia, and Chile later on. Lenin never supported terror until the White Terror.
I am a member!
True, it is off topic. The brutality of the bolsheviks was an inherent part of their brutal and dogmatic communist idealogy, and it started the day they seized power and butchered the whole ruling family.
That's the plain facts, violent revolution, persecution and socialistic dictatorship was the name of their game.
As for Lenin, already pointed out that he was a traitor, and he supported whatever measures it took to seize and hold power. That's also the plain facts.
Quite frankly, to try somehow blaming the capitalistic west for the atrocities committed by communist regimes seems just very apologetic to me.
Ah, I didn't hear of the Red Terror before. That's pretty bad.
Their is a lot of books with facts out there regarding Lenin and his friends, but that is a discussion for somewhere ells. I will not say more.
To face the truth that a persons world view and his way of life for maybe their whole life is based on lies is a big thing to swallow. The problem is that many cant and instead will ignore the facts or attack the messenger because it's so long way out or their (BELIEF) world view, their (political) identity and their way of life. It comes down to psychology.
I am a member!
I agree that Corporations = Bad because they are basically sociopaths. And to that extent Google is bad. The rest is troll.
I am a member!
Corporations might be bad at times, although I'd argue that they're neither good nor evil, merely effective entities built for the purposes of profit and propagating themselves. They might be sociopathic in form, but they're still necessary sociopaths. It really comes down to how you regulate and stave off corruption.
And let's be perfectly honest here, history has demonstrated quite plainly that having government run the economy is far, far worse.
" Money & Corporations & Popularity = Bad"
Stallman said some time ago that any big corporation acts like a psychopath.
I don't agree with him completely, since a psychopath surely kills people etc. and most companies don't, but it's true that a company starts developing a certain "inner dynamic" when getting bigger and bigger, perhaps because of the feeling of competition between the employees, and because every single employee feels less and less responsible in a moral way for the actions of the company.
So I'm really not sure whether the whole thing about "big corporation = bad" is just a prejudice and trolling or perhaps this is really very sensible to claim, at least for the wast majority of companies.
I am a member!
What makes you think corporations don't kill people? They don't kill people if it doesn't make them money, but otherwise, sure. Examples? The tobacco companies knew for years that cigarettes caused cancer and yet they suppressed the evidence and continued to market their product to kids. Union Carbide through negligence killed 16,000 people in Bhopal India and then did whatever they could to avoid paying reparations for their criminal behavior. A.H. Robbins Co. continued to market and promote the use of Dalkon Shield IUDs after several studies had come out documenting it's lethality. After the product was removed from the market in the U. S. they continued to market it in the third world.
The list goes on and on. There is no doubt, corporations act like human sociopaths. They are legally bound to promote profit over any ethical consideration. That's the definition of sociopathy.
Psychopaths are not, necessarily, people who kill other people. But, are just people incapable of feeling empathy towards others and who take pleasure out of seeing other people suffering. (And, not necessarily dying...) Remember that, if you're the head of a company, you'll need other people (alive) to do the work you don't want to.
And, when I say, or imply, that big corporations are bad, I'm not "trolling". I'm just someone who's (very) well informed about those same big corporations (their methods, their deeds, and their ultimate goals) and who has made a habit out of warning other people about it. (http://www.amazon.com/True-Story-Bilderberg-Group/dp/0979988624/)
Speaking of Stallman...
Stallman also sometimes refers to a book called "Nineteen Eighty-Four" (www.amazon.com/1984-Signet-Classics-George-Orwell/dp/0451524934/) - which was written by someone who worked for the big economic interests I'm talking about.
In that book, an organization known as "The Brotherhood" (a name whose meaning resonates with the meaning of the word "Ubuntu") was also supposedly fighting the establishment. Later, the main character discovers that such an organization was actually a trap, and one that served the interests of that same establishment.
This book that Stallman often refers too, is not a mere work of fiction. Or the product of a great oversight capability of its author. It's a description of part of the society that was, at the time, already being planned for us (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7_YFKyhQMI). And also a description of some of the control methods that this same big economic interests use on the rest of the population.
If you all ever decide to read it (and are well informed about what's happening, of important, around the world) you'll find many parallels with what you see nowadays happening in our society.
I am a member!
Hmm.. Now that is an interesting analogy, very interesting. =p
Although I will say that 1984 was about socialism taken to the literal extreme, and has nothing to do with a capitalistic economy or "big economic interests".
You might also wanna look more closely at Brave New World and the writings of Huxley, as he's the one who predicted the massive drugging of the public into docility, which is what we see today. I mean, like half of kids these days are on ritalin or lithium or god knows whatever groovy crap they come up with next.
Not to mention a very large percentage of adults are on antidepressants and the like. As a result whatever democracy we once had has faded right into obscurity and docile political correctness.
And I do think that a Brave New World-style society is a substantially more likely outcome than the more traditional dystopia portrayed in 1984.
EDIT: ..Ooops, I missed the youtube link.. Boy do I feel silly now.
Nineteen Eighty-Four is about totalitarianism, not necessarily fascism or socialism. The origin of Oceania is left intentionally vague, as is the original claimed ideology of Ingsoc (it's short for "English Socialism", but note that the Nazi party called itself "national socialist" when the ideology it promoted was more like fascism).
(I don't know if you're also well-informed about what I'm talking about, but you "hit the nail in the head"...)
What these people want, is (putting it in simple terms) a "fascist" society, that is a mixture of capitalist and communist ideals. That is, a society where big corporations dictate what happens, and in which almost everything is privatized, but in which there's also a pretty strong "Welfare State" - which decides what type of education people get, what type of healthcare etc, and which taxes more the people who earn more (except for the ultra-rich, who have their puppets making the laws), so that everyone ends up earning pretty much the same, as in a communist society. And, were (despite the rhetoric) that so-called "Welfare State" actually exists to control people in their private lives, by eliminating their power of decision to spend their money as they see fit. And, where people who don't obey the State (that is, behind the scenes, controlled by the big corporations) don't get their (tax) money back.
As I said in a previous comment, and as any well-informed person about politics knows...
This is pretty much what we already have... Even with the so-called "socialist" parties in Europe, that, when occupying a government, either maintain the economy in private hands, or even privatize it. And, the similarity with Nazi Germany is no coincidence... Since that, Fascism is a by-product of such an ideal of society. Having the fascist leaders taken some ideas from propaganda that existed, in the beginning of the last century, that already advocated for such a society.
Some of the surviving nazis, and people who shared the nazi ideology, were even recruited for this project of society, due to its similarity with their "previous" ideology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Party_of_Europe, http://paramimtantofaz.blogspot.pt/2010/06/quem-sera.html). And, it's no coincidence that the surveillance project known as "Facebook", for example, has even a "former" nazi behind it (http://www.danielestulin.com/2011/05/12/facebook-la-maquina-espia-mas-atroz/).
All that you have to do, to notice such similarities with what our Western society has gradually evolved to, is to (even slightly) study the history of fascist movements. And, when/if you do it, always remember the (very) important aspect that, before they were dictatorships, the countries with such regimes were also democracies. (And, if it happened once...)
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
--- Benito Mussolini
And, speaking of Facebook...
- Has anyone noticed, also, how Ubuntu rapidly started integrating its desktop for use with social networks, where people are urged to give their personal data to big corporations?
(Here's, by the way, an aerial photograph of the British electronic spy agency, equivalent to the NSA, that I mentioned earlier... - http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Columnist/Columnists/2013/6/22/1371917215634/NEW-GCHQ-GOVERNMENT-COMMU-010.jpg)
("Facebook" is also a CIA front, by the way... - http://www.danielestulin.com/2012/02/03/facebook-y-sus-conexiones-con-cia-y-darpa/)
- And here goes an (Ubuntu-)Amazon-CIA link(!):
(Such nice friends that Canonical has...)
I am a member!
Socialism and fascism is for nearly all practical purposes the same thing, and as such national socialism is a very apt name, as that is exactly what it was. Socialism with a nationalistic bend. Not to mention it literally grew out of the early german socialistic wing.
"You might also wanna look more closely at Brave New World and the writings of Huxley, as he's the one who predicted the massive drugging of the public into docility, which is what we see today. I mean, like half of kids these days are on ritalin or lithium or god knows whatever groovy crap they come up with next."
I didn't talk with Huxley personally, but the "soma" in brave new world seems to be much more something like alcohol in our society; it's pretty normal and accepted, and people need it in order to feel happy. Ritalin etc. is still something people try to avoid;
so I think alcohol has better chances to become our "soma".
And yeah, it's a fantastic book everyone should read.
Yes. It's like it's said in the YouTube video. (And, like I said in my previous comment...)
"Nineteen Eighty-Four" only tells /part/ of the story of what is planned for us. And, this and Aldous Huxley's most well-known work are not alone. You can see this type of plots in modern-day Hollywood films, also, for example. (Like "Equilibrium", "The Island" etc.) And all this are made to try to "condition" people to accept such a society. (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=79424.msg923065#msg923065)
Concerning the "socialist" component of such a society (that we already pretty much have), onpon4 hit the nail in the head. And, I will respond to him (and you) below/above/wherever the following comment shows up.
Psychopaths aren't necessarily sadists, either. Psychopathy is just the lack of ability to feel empathy. It's a perfect description for corporations.
Note that many politicians are psychopaths. It makes perfect sense; psychopaths are better than most people at projecting false images of themselves and otherwise being manipulative.
From what I remembered reading, quite some time ago, I had the impression that psychopaths were people who even felt a need/urge to cause harm to other people. But, after reading some more again, I think you might be right...
Thank you for your correction.
As for the people who run the top corporations and political parties...
You're also right. That's what I've been hearing and reading (and also realizing...), through the last years, when researching about what they're up to.
Just adding to the conversation: you have to have an Ubuntu One account to register in the ubuntu forums now:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2164051
"In order to improve login security, Ubuntu Forums now only accepts login via Ubuntu One single sign on at https://login.ubuntu.com. You cannot login via other SSO providers. Neither can you login from your Launchpad account, which was an option prior to a major upgrade to the forum software in February 2013."
It seems what they are doing is, you have to have Ubuntu One to login into everything Canonical. This kind of centralization may make some sense to their security team, but for users it's not a good thing.
Thanks for that (very valuable) piece of information, that definitely adds to the debate about all the control/spying that Ubuntu is starting to impose on its users (or trying to "invite" their users to adhere to).
Definitely, another incentive to use Trisquel, instead...
If they get your wife or husbands address and so called secrete info what will they do with it to harm you. Maybe send it to the KGB or a hit-man. They will have to look through thousands of info and then target you (are you that important). Canonical are not gathering any info to hurt, damage or spy on you. If you are a criminal or have some very dark secretes rather watch out for the cops. Its like these people saying Elvis never really died or aliens are spying on us and doing some experiments on us. Or are you really really that important? Canonical I believe are very responsible and use any info only to better it and your experience. I have no skeletons in my cupboard. The are not collection any info like banking accounts, salary info or any stuff that can harm you.
It's not a question of being guilty of something, it's a question of trying to make us use all of Canonical's services, the more the better for them. But this is concentration of both user info and of power over the user, which is never a good thing (see the omnipresence of Google).
Edit: corrected a typo.
I think the only reason I would try and defend a big corporation's right to collect data on individual citizens, is if I had already invested my personal choices, browsing habits and family photos. Then I would probably want to defend my earlier decisions and say that everyone else is being paranoid. "jump in the water's fine" while swiming with sharks. Otherwise I would treat it like any other contract and question it!
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios