Slashdot Mirror
Mark Shuttleworth Addresses Ubuntu Privacy Issues
sfcrazy writes "Mark Shuttleworth has for the first time talked about the privacy issues in Ubuntu Dash after being criticized by EFF and FSF. He mentioned some changes in the way use can 'disable' the search results. However the company has showed that under no circumstances they will disable the online search by default as demanded by EFF and FSF. Shuttleworth was simply spinning the wheel moving things around to give an impression that something has been done where as the core problem remains — Dash sends keystrokes by default and legally every user agrees to send such keystrokes to PRODUCT.canonical.com server to be shared with partners like Facebook."
127.0.0.1 product.canonical.com
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
All that will happen is people will move to fedora or mint or countless other Linux distros.
Mark, if you want to make some money try selling something worthwhile. Games would be one idea, hell get steam to give you a cut if you make installation of steam optional during OS install. Selling users data is a bad idea.
I would say that pretty much ends the usefulness of the Ubuntu line. Anyone who thinks that sending all my keystrokes to their server - which they can in turn sell off to third parties - is, in my not so humble opinion, bat fucking crazy.
You should not have to edit hosts files or anything else to make a product usable, because that product should not be spying on you from install forward. I do believe my personal response to Mark is a big "FUCK OFF AND DIE". End of story. End of Ubuntu.
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
It amazes me that people in charge of projects like Ubuntu think that a policy like that won't have a significant impact on the popularity of the distro over the long term, especially with heavily slanted tech crowd that uses Linux distros in the first place.
I replaced Ubuntu with Mint when I was first confronted by Unity because I couldn't abide the new UI.
Sounds like that was the least of the reasons to go...
I was thinking that it's been a while and that I should have another look at how Unity has evolved, but not if they are reduced to doing this to stay in business.
Slashdot ... is much more annoying, since to disable ads you have to download AdBlock.
Or just get positive Karma and check the "disable advertisements" options :)
Agreed. You can disable it. And you don't even have to fiddle around with apt or anything, it's an option present in their own GUI. Slashdot, Google and the whole rest of the internet is much more annoying, since to disable ads you have to download AdBlock. Canonical is giving you a choice. "Here, use our ad-supported OS. You don't want ads? Ok, then, just use the damn thing entirely free anyway!" I fail to see how that can be anything other than completely ethical.
Except they aren't offering that choice, they where sneaky and underhanded. As other have said, it's spyware. Ubuntu did a great job for a while, but first it was Unity and now this. They're treating their users like we don't have a choice. I do and won't be installing Ubuntu again.
Parent is flamebaiting a bit, but I agree. There are no lack of Debian-based distros which don't come with the increasingly concerning baggage that Ubuntu is being bundled with. I retired my last Ubuntu machine about eight months ago and am Debian-only now.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
No. There's a world of difference between the stuff I might put up on a blog, Facebook, G+ and whatever else social network exists, and the data I use my computer to handle. What if you're having legal troubles? IRS are after you? You have applications for a Betty Ford-like clinique? Tax returns? These are things that you're NOT going to be putting up on Facebook or your blog, but documents you might have to have. This is data Ubuntu has no business knowing that I have on my computer.
Mark Shuttleworth has devolved. He's decided to accept the definition of User as something other than Owner. He's raised the port cullis and thrown open the doors for third parties to hunt User metadata, revealing his allegiance, defaulting to a state of non-concern for the least among us.
I'm sure it's convenient for him to imagine he's still engaged in promoting Linux, but at what cost?
How much did he get for his soul? How much did he get for everyone else's?
It amazes me that there are people who will excuse the ethics of an action, if it is a business doing so to support a free product. Who cares if its "super easy" for the non-technical users ubuntu is marketed at to find and edit the hosts file. Giving users a product for free doesn't justify everything. Selling user data without an explicit opt-in is unethical, and I don't want to contribute in any way to a distro engaging in that practice.
This is the problem with "success" of open projects as they grow they require more and more money to continue to reinforce their expansion and it only snowballs downhill from there. Before you know it your out there selling your soul and your users data to the highest bidder. You can still reap profit on support alone but you can't expect it to support an organization of any size with fat paychecks for all doing this. There aint any shortage of corporate customers happily willing to purchase yearly support subscriptions whether they actually need it or use it.
Distributions put together by people who give a shit don't have this problem. The cost of packaging in time and effort is such a minsicule effort and mostly a solved problem contrasted with the effort required to produce operating system and software bundled with it.
What if bash maintainers decided they need more money too and decided to ship your keystrokes off to facebook as well? What if the maintainers of every one of the thousands of packages that go into a modern distribution followed suite? Spying by default is indefensible.
Using Ubuntu these days goes against why I used Linux to start with.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
It amazes me that when somebody does something as a business that it infuriates people especially when they get something for free. Yes, Ubuntu is taking free software, wrapping it as a supportable bundle and distributing it. So now they've hooked into the information sharing arrangement. It's easy enough to disable as well and the hosts file solution is also there. I wonder if just charging $10 a download / dvd would make more sense then adding another keylogging data collector out there. Frankly Facebook is the worst and the network of data collectors it's partnered with is becoming more and more troublesome.
I donated 40 EUR, while downloading Ubuntu image many mohths ago. Do I get to complain now, since I didn't get it for free? Hell, I'd probably be willing to pay them reasonable yearly 'support' fee in order to help them make some money - it would be worth it.
I won't be donating them anything ever again, nor will I be using it, since I simply don't trust Ubuntu anymore and never will. For all I know, they might re-enable things that I disabled without even asking me, when applying updates. They seem to think that everything is a fair game.