returned to trisquel7
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti
So i guess you understand why security is important. Since you now ask about privacy let me try to explain. Even though like "ethics" i believe security and privacy go hand in hand.
Users deserve privacy, because if not things they do on their computer can be used against them.
For example, The same way the stasi in nazi germany used seemingly innocent information to blackmail people into doing things that would hurt others in their communities. Because things we do in private should sometimes stay private because it could lead to endangering others physical well being or hurt them mentally, when it is unnecessary and taken out of context or misunderstood. Because I don't believe users should be treated as a product unknowingly for others gain, whether monetary or not, for all the above reasons. These things can stall our human evolution.
What I gave you in my previous post is examples of how private information being monitored is accomplished.
"For example, The same way the stasi in nazi germany (...)"
Major history-knowledge fail.
just look up when the stasi was founded and when nazi germany ended....
Ok secret service, gestapo, stasi, doesn't take away from the point.
Users deserve privacy, because if not things they do on their computer can be used against them.
Then, why shouldn't computer usages be used against people? At some point, you will have to end up with "because it is right" or "because it is wrong", i.e., a principle.
Simply saying something can be used against your wishes is not enough for people to understand. You have give examples. did you not read the rest of my post? lol...wow, let me say it again for you.
"For example, The same way the stasi in nazi germany used seemingly innocent information to blackmail people into doing things that would hurt others in their communities. Because things we do in private should sometimes stay private because it could lead to endangering others physical well being or hurt them mentally, when it is unnecessary and taken out of context or misunderstood. Because I don't believe users should be treated as a product unknowingly for others gain, whether monetary or not, for all the above reasons. People are not property or products, and treating them as such can stall our human evolution, which hurts our well being"
replace stasi with gestapo, or nazi germany with post wwII, so i can be historically correct in case my point is missed and flies over you head...
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/proprietary.html
This gnu philosphy page on proprietary software describes some of the different ways it can potentially spy on users information or stop them from sharing it. Which can even lead to a persons death in some extreme cases.
Good security limits malware/invasions of privacy.
> The same way to stasi used seemingly innocent information to blackmail people
> into doing things that would hurt others in their communities.
Why should the Stasi not use blackmail? Principle.
Why should people not hurt others in their community? Principle.
> things we do in private should sometimes stay private
Principle. Also, I prefer 'always' as opposed to 'sometimes'.
> it could lead to endangering others physical well being
Why should people's physical well being not be endangered? Principle.
> hurt them mentally
Why should people not be hurt mentally? Principle.
> Because I don't believe users should be treated as a product for others gain,
> whether monetary or not.
Pure, sweet, principle.
Do you not see the contradiction?
The only thing being proved contradictory in your post, is your own statement that there is a contradiction, when claiming that something is based on principle is contradictory to itself. I think you are confusing yourself now lol Its wrong, and not even what we are debating in the first place. We are debating why you would have to explain why something is "unethical" or "immoral" and just declaring something as so is not enough.
"For example, The same way the stasi in nazi germany used seemingly innocent information to blackmail people into doing things that would hurt others in their communities. Because things we do in private should sometimes stay private because it could lead to endangering others physical well being or hurt them mentally, when it is unnecessary and taken out of context or misunderstood. Because I don't believe users should be treated as a product unknowingly for others gain, whether monetary or not, for all the above reasons. People are not property or products, and treating them as such can stall our human evolution, which hurts our well being"
^ but these are examples to define why invading ones privacy is potentially "unethical"
You fail to understand that what you believe is immorral, might not be considered so by someone else. The burden on you is to explain why something is "unethical" or immoral. Simply stating so will never convince anyone. Some people, believe it or not, don't know the difference between right or wrong. And if you can't do that, then you will be seen as someone who doesn't understand it yourself. As i said in another thread, man is born evil, he learns to be good and control his impulses. Its the whole reason why power corrupts.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/proprietary.html
^ examples of why proprietary software can be "unethical?
Sure, I might make a statement based on principle. But what you chose to ignore, is that I can back it up with examples as to why.
You keep coming off as someone who thinks people who program the software are more entitled to have control over it, then those that don't.
I actually keep on writing the exact opposite: that the users (not the developers) of a computer program are entitled to have control over it because it is their work (not the developers') that is achieved through the use of the program.
You are the ones focusing on specific features, when you seperate "ethics' from privacy and security.
Ethics is not a feature. Developing an ethical software (i.e., a free software) rather than an unethical one (i.e., a proprietary software) is no different from a technical point of view.
now you are, its about fkn time. Ty for changing your posts. You are not better then me cause you are a developer/programmer and I'm not. I'm glad you finally realize that.
And if its no different then why argue with me on what reasons are more important to use free software? Would you rather free software stay unpopular so you can feel more special for using it yourself?
Ty for changing your posts.
I have not.
You are not better then me cause you are a developer/programmer and I'm not. I'm glad you finally realize that.
I have never pretended otherwise.
And if its no different then why argue with me on what reasons are more important to use free software?
I do not care about your reasons to use free software. I believe nobody does. We only correct the false statements you write: writing that "reasons to use free software all boil down to privacy and security" is wrong; writing that "any bug can be a possible malicious exploit" is wrong; etc.
Your last staement says it all, You don't care, and thats why society doesn't care about free software.
I don't say they all boil down to privacy security, BUT thats what it boils down to for ME! Being able to modify software to add my own features, is not important to me. But I would never make a self righteous comment that someone elses reasons for using free software are less important then mine to the movement. Nor would I spend time arguing why it shouldn't be someones main reasons for using it.
But I would never make a self righteous comment that someone elses reasons for using free software are less important then mine to the movement. Nor would I spend time arguing why it shouldn't be someones main reasons for using it.
That is precisely what you do.
wrong, that is what you do when you claim "ethics" is more important then privacy and security. I am trying to explain to you that they are one and the same. And anyones reasoning for using free software is no less important then another. By claiming otherwise, you drive people away.
> I am trying to explain to you that they are one and the same.
BUUUUUULLSHIT!
The driving factor behind free software is a principle- that users should have
control over their computing. Is their any particular reason for this? No. Not
really. It is a principle. It has no real objective justification- but the
majority of people (I hope) would accept this as being right in and of itself.
If you reject all principled arguments, you reject basically every argument
ever- including your slavish adoration of security (though it puzzles me why
you then go on to defend Windows), as well as your very right to life. Why
should you not be shot in the face? Again, that too is based on principle.
Principles matter, and should not just be rejected out of hand. If we abandon
the principle of people not being arbitrarily killed, then society would
essentially collapse. Principles are valid in and of themselves simply because
people instinctively accept them. If the vast majority accept a given
principle, then it is completely valid to base an argument on it.
Privacy and security, on the other hand (which I think you'll find also boil
down to a matter of principle) are features. People want privacy and security,
and, due to the nature of free software and the fact that it evolves to meet
its users needs (as opposed to those of Microsoft), those features are
commonplace in free software. They're nice perks, and they constitute yet
another reason to choose free software. But those features are not there for
the sake of the features themselves- they are there because of the respect for
the needs of the user inherent in free software. Why? Because principle.
Please try to understand.
then you disagree with GNU's definitions and examples of why proprietary software is "unethical"
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/proprietary.html
The other reasons for free software, besides potential malware, for me is that it might prohibit users from sharing knowledge with each other. But that is not any more an important reason then privacy and security, or any other reason for preferring free software. Claiming so drives people from your movement.
To use the word "principle" as a cop out and an excuse for not having to explain your philosophy, is very shameful. I can't reject something you can't even define. But I do reject you rejecting my reasons for using free software. Understand?
That page doesn't describe why proprietary software is unethical. It describes examples of malware in proprietary software, one bad effect of proprietary software. It's unethical because you deserve control over your computer. Why do you deserve control over your computer? Well, freedom. There's really no deeper reason than that. If you don't, through empathy, come to the conclusion that you deserve the freedom to control your computing, fine, disagree with the libre software movement all you want. But don't go around claiming that the FSF says something it does not.
"Power corrupts, so the proprietary program's developer is tempted to design the program to mistreat its users—that is, to make it malware. (Malware means software whose functioning mistreats the user.) Of course, the developer usually does not do this out of malice, but rather to put the users at a disadvantage. That does not make it any less nasty or more legitimate."
The point of me linking that page, is to show you that your "ethics" is not more important thyen privacy and security, even according the FSF. An organization you supposedly represent. They are one and the same. Again, knowing something is immoral is NOT human nature. But hurting others whether intentional or not, IS. Pain is something that we understand from birth, because it is a physical and biological real existence, not an idea. But we must learn and be taught why we shouldn't cause it to others.
Privacy and security is important, because not not only can prop software stop you from sharing information with others. But the methods of malware described by the FSF, in their description of prop software, can enable malicious people to destroy your pc hardware, they can cause you to lose your job, lose your money. These are all potential things that can happen, due to the human nature the FSF is implying, by how power corrupts. Again, human nature which you fail to understand.
But I have outlined many other examples of why privacy and security are important to ones self, yet you keep ignoring them. So I will keep reposting it and reposting it, until you have the balls to address it and stop ignoring it claiming i gave none.
"For example, The same way the stasi in nazi germany used seemingly innocent information to blackmail people into doing things that would hurt others in their communities. Because things we do in private should sometimes stay private because it could lead to endangering others physical well being or hurt them mentally, when it is unnecessary and taken out of context or misunderstood. Because I don't believe users should be treated as a product unknowingly for others gain, whether monetary or not, for all the above reasons. People are not property or products, and treating them as such can stall our human evolution, which hurts our well being"
Again, Claiming an idea deserves no explanation, because you think its something that should be automatically known as human beings, not only shows your lack in understanding of human nature, but is a poor excuse and copout to hide the fact you don't understand the philosophy yourself. And i implore you to stop being so self righteous and arrogant, because you end up driving away new users. you draw a dividing line like you do between the words gnu / linux, when claim one reason for supporting free software, is more important then another. And you especially come off self righteous and ego feeding, when you are claiming these things with words that have identical meanings to what you are arguing against.
Any reason for using free software is as important as another. Learn that they all make up your definition of "ethics" and "morality", and that they all should be embraced by your community.
> The point of me linking that page, is to show you that your "ethics" is not more important thyen privacy and security, even according the FSF.
Uh, no. How about you actually read what you're linking to?
"Proprietary software, also called nonfree software, means software that doesn't respect users' freedom and community. This means that its developer or owner has power over its users. This power is itself an injustice.
The point of this page is that the initial injustice of proprietary software often leads to further injustices: malicious functionalities."
(Emphasis mine.)
That whole page is about malware, do you not believe that malware is directly related to privacy and security? wow...
Further injustices, meaning more then things such as prohibiting the sharing of information or modified software. I keep trying to explain that things such are those are not any more important then reasons of privacy and security ... which = malware, which the FSF dedicated a whole page and link to labeled philosophy/proprietary. Yet you are still here arguing the contrary....
That whole page is about malware, do you not believe that malware is directly related to privacy and security?
Not necessarily. Take any DRM for instance. A DVD player forcing you to read that "piracy kills kittens" is neither a security issue nor a privacy concern. It is a malware through: nobody wants to waits seconds on that screen. Free software players do not show that screen because the users control the program.
I'm not claiming that privacy and security are more important then being able to share information. But you are certainly seem to be trying to claim the opposite when you claim "ethics" is more important then privacy and security.
Back doors
Insecurity
Sabotage
Interference
Surveillance
Are all just as important as censorship. Not more, not less. And if anyone is using free software for any of those reasons, that should be good enough. They should not be considered any less righteous, or any less a part of the community, and they should not be told so. To do so is wrong and will lose their respect.
then you disagree with GNU's definitions and examples of why proprietary software is "unethical"
This is the article on GNU's website that explains why free software is important: https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html
Security and privacy are "advantages" (see the section right before the conclusion).
lmao, the actual title of a section in that article you linked is "Free Software: More Than “Advantages”"
wow dude, you are already not grasping what that article is trying to say, What that article is actually saying. is to NOT explain them as advantages.
"I'm often asked to describe the “advantages” of free software. But the word “advantages” is too weak when it comes to freedom"
Yet you chose to use it! lol You are contradicting that article with your statement already!! Being able to share software, can be considered just as much an "advantage" as security and privacy benefits. Being able to modify software could also be considered an "advantage". Being able to redistribute modified software, is another "ADVANTAGE" Again, NO DIFFERENCE!! ONE IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE OTHER! To claim otherwise, and to describe it as an "advantage" goes against another line in that article, which is:
"Freedom includes the freedom to cooperate with others. Denying people that freedom means keeping them divided, which is the start of a scheme to oppress them. "
And this is my point. You divide people when you claim your reasons are "more important" then someone elses reasons for supporting free software. The word advantages is meant to seperate reasons from others as being more or less important. The reasons people hae are ALL just as important, and ALL fall under why supporting it is the "right" "ethical" thing to do.
"I'm often asked to describe the “advantages” of free software. But the word “advantages” is too weak when it comes to freedom"
Precisely. Freedom. Not security.
Many of us are FSF members. We know what we stand for.
Can you believe this guy?
I DON'T use any proprietary driver. AT ALL. I never told you I did. Why are you openly lying? What's your point?
I NEVER SAID to no one that Trisquel is not good enough. What are you talking about? STOP TROLLING dude seriously.
Can we people just stop feeding this mayor one?
I could vouch for super tramp that he does not use any proprietary drivers.
I would like someone to feed me this guy to me "TROLL", I got my Southern deep fry pan ready to pinch his soft-side of a WANT TO BE troll coming from my repertoire of a nasty troller.
For over 3 years., I use Trisquel 6 and not 7 in other 3 machines. My decision in not upgrading is mines and no ones else. I use Debian 7.30 in my laptop and one desktop, I keep it updated, with the Libre Debian repos.
Yes, I enjoy Trisquel as much as Debian.
And how can you know he doesn't use proprietary drivers, are you on his machine?
Are you?
How can anyone not want to use trisquel because it is not popular enough for them.
There are advantages in belonging to a larger community. Better support for instance. But why do you even care about the validity of the reasons someone provides to justify her use of Debian or Trisquel? You are entitled find those reasons stupid. But it is no justification for acting like the Spanish inquisition, pointing out anyone that does not us free software for the same reasons you do and saying (s)he is a "wuss".
The real reasons must be the same as every other free software advocate who uses debian over trisquel. For prop drivers.
So, basically, you do not know but assumes that he is a liar. With no proof whatsoever. If anything, buying a dongle that Linux-libre runs suggests refusing proprietary drivers/firmware as much as possible.
The fact he uses debian and not trisquel, makes him fake enough as it is, regardless if he uses prop drivers or not.
Where did he lie about using Trisquel when he was actually using Debian? You are probably just making more things up...
" But I still feel more secure using windows, which I use for gaming, then I do gnu/linux."
what do you base that on?
as you cant even rely check how secure windows is as the source code is not available
He bases that on the fact that he's a TROLL.
What do you do, run an SSH server all day with a weak password and then taunt millions of people to get them to invade your system?
I'm sure I've pissed some people off before, but I'm not aware of anyone breaking into my system at all, let alone messing with my files.
That's just plain bullshit. I've pissed off my fair share of people in IRC,
even with a notoriously insecure IRC client (irssi, though it is still my
favourite) and a plain connection and I have never even gotten a virus, let
alone have people actively trying to hack me. It's ridiculous to argue that
Windows is more secure than GNU.
Or maybe it was just the extent to which you pissed them off. I wouldn't be
surprised.
Just saying the word "bullshit" is not threatening enough to people. Because you will change nobodies minds like that. You actually have to be able to make sense and properly explain your point of view and hit on truths.
But going around preaching about security, when not only gov't agents, but more importantly, EX gov't agents, and criminal malicious hacking cyber thieves, cheating gamers and security researches, want to keep people vulnerable to get their jollies off. Then yes you are a threat.
I've actually gotten the michaelangleo virus and CIH viruses when I was a kid, and have gotten viruses in modern times. And I can guarantee you i'm way more careful on my pc then you, and my box is way more hardened. So that really just leads me to believe, that you wouldn't know you had a virus if it bit you in the ass hahah. Especially if you use linux.
But nowadays, don't feel bad. its more common for viruses to go in a drives firmware, gpu memory and bioses, so most of us wouldn't know, and even if we did, wouldn't be able to get rid of it. The jellyfish proof of concept that went public last month is one example of how much more common it is now. That hacking group put it out there to wake up the gnulinux community. But of course it fell on deaf arrogant ears.
The BSD operating systems are popular with companies that like to take the code, make it locked down, and keep the improvements to themselves. Apple with OSX, Sony with their PlayStation 4, and Netflix come to mind.
Netflix programmers are always at the conferences talking about how much they love BSD, but would never release code back. Why? They probably would list "competitive advantage" as one reason and fear of backlash from the mega media corporations as another.
They are popular for firewalls and routers because they requires much less maintenance then linux. Its more about a set it and forget it thing.
bTW, I Returned from trisquel6 to trisquel7
and not from bad distributions
hhhhhh
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti