[Tfug] [Bulk] Re: Stallman vs Ubuntu

[Bexley Hall]

Hi Rich,

On 12/15/2012 3:24 PM, Rich Smit wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Bexley Hall<bexley401 at yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
>> The problem with "spyware" (whether clandestine or acknowledged)
>> is that it is insidious.  It watches (or *can* watch) EVERYTHING!
>>
>> You can *decide* to pay with a credit card or cash on a transaction
>> by transaction basis.  You can opt to apply for a job that will require
>> a background check -- or not.  You can avoid traveling roads with
>> photoenforcement -- or not.  You can opt to leave your cellphone
>> on -- or off.  And, you can opt to take a photo -- or not.  Each
>> "item" is a conscious decision on your part -- to trade *your*
>> convenience for *your* privacy.  I've never been arrested, active in
>> any industry or job that *required* such a check or otherwise "brought
>> to the attention of law enforcement" -- yet my fingerprints are "on
>> file".  A choice I had to make...
>
> Oh phooey. Each of those cases is as much "spyware" as Ubuntu's co-opting
> your search terms; namely:
>
> Credit card purchase data can be shared between resellers.

No.  Ubuntu isn't *just* recording your PURCHASES.  It is recording
everything you are INTERESTED IN.  I can walk through Target and
examine 10,000 items -- spending various amounts of time (presumably
related to my relative interest in the item in question) -- and
the CC company will *only* know which item I *purchased*.

[If I leave the store without purchasing ANYTHING, they won't
know what I examined or even that I visited the store and left,
emptyhanded!  All of this information is important to them -- but
they can't get it (currently), easily.]

OTOH, if I had to interact with a (automated!) "sales associate"
in order to browse the items that were available at Target, they
would *know* what I was interested in, the level of my interest
and what I ultimately purchased.  ("Hmmm... he spent a lot of
time examining the Foomatic3000 -- but ended up purchasing the
WizzBang88.  What can we learn from this to get someone *like*
him to buy the Foomatic3000 in the future?  Or, should we simply
stop offering the Foomatic3000??")

Spyware follows this second example.

> Opting out of a job that requests a background check? Haha! That's a good
> one.

You've never done that?  I guess, perhaps, you're not as marketable
as you might hope...  <frown>

I've turned down job offers because they wanted me to wear a *tie*!

I had to (voluntarily) disclose some "personal details" in advance of
a tour of the Cheyenne Mountain Complex (NORAD).  But, that seemed
to be a fairly obvious precaution on the gummit's part.  And, a fair
trade (in my mind) for being able to go inside the mountain.

But, these are all *obvious* transactions.  I consciously give
X for Y.  It's something I am continuously aware of at all times
(does spyware ask you:  "Should I track *this* action you are taking?"
each time you *do* something?)

> Avoiding traffic revenue CCTV cameras? Yeah, when you see the sign, you
> just stop and turn around, right?

If you are aware of the cameras locations (and, near as I can tell,
few of these are "secrets"), you can choose to avoid those locations.
Even if you "stumble across" one that you had no foreknowledge of,
you can *choose* not to travel that route in the future (having
"seen" you once doesn't give the camera knowledge of your *future*
actions/whereabouts)

> People normally carry cellphones in order to be contacted. They don't
> imagine they're being tracked day in, day out, and that law enforcement
> doesn't even need to take special action to obtain the data any more.

They have traded their *privacy* for *convenience*.  Ditto with
credit cards and personal checks.  [At the time of the "60 minutes"
episode of which I wrote -- i.e., more than 30 years ago -- a
police officer did not need a court order to request copies of
your canceled checks!]

> Most people — including the Vice staffer who gave away McAfee's precise
> location — aren't aware their smartphone is writing latitude and longitude
> data in the Exif header's of photos.

So, you're *defending* the fact that these issues are downplayed by
the device vendors?  That their RATIONALIZATION of them in order to
"provide a more useful experience" in lieu of drawing attention
to how they may be (or *are*) abused is acceptible?  "Hey, we
told you that using our medicine could result in death.  Why are
you now *suing* us??"

> It's personal choice whether or not to use Ubuntu too. Right? Insidious my
> arse.

Do you understand the meaning of the term "insidious"?  Google claims:
- Proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with harmful effects: "the
   insidious effects of stress".
- Treacherous; crafty: "an insidious alliance".

And, here's my use of the term:
   "The problem with "spyware" (whether clandestine or acknowledged)
   is that it is insidious.  It watches (or *can* watch) EVERYTHING!"
The fact that it is *you* (the user) who is causing the spyware to
have an increasing effect in your life doesn't change the fact that
*it* is insidious.

You don't really think folks created spyware for *your* benefit,
do you??

>> Spyware happens continuously.  It doesn't just track the fact that
>> you spent $27.43 at Target -- it tracks the *items* that you purchased,
>> which cashier handled your purchase and what other departments you
>> visited while in the store (as well as any people you may have spoken
>> to while there, what you said and the clothes you were wearing!).
>
> Ahem. Using a credit card gives the retailer and their associates exactly
> what you describe.

Really?  It ONLY tells them what I purchased and the register at which
the transaction was processed.  They have no idea where I wandered *in*
the store, what I looked at (but elected NOT to buy), who I talked to
(including other customers, friends or neighbors I may have bumped into
while there), what I said to those people nor how I was attired.  They
don't even know how *long* I was in the store (i.e., did I come to
the store expressly LOOKING for that/those items?  Or, was I "just
browsing" -- impulse purchase?)

> This doesn't support your position that the user has
> choice in the matter, because credit cards are capable of the exact spying
> you decry in Ubuntu.

No, you've clearly missed the point, entirely.  Credit cards are
far *less* intrusive than spyware.  Is there a button I can click
to turn off spyware while I "do whatever" for the next few minutes?
I can turn off the credit card simply by keeping it in my pocket.
It has no knowledge of where I am, or what I am doing unless I
*choose* to use it.  And, then, it ONLY knows about the transaction
that it is involved in.  Nothing more.  Nothing leading up to that
"decision" nor following thereafter.

> Only it's far, far worse, because it's doing it for
> everyday purchases, and not just the expensive items you happen to find on
> Amazon.

Does it know when you are looking for information on a particular
health disorder?  Or, that you LOOKED AT the "Lovely Lolita
inflatable doll"?  Or, the newest Volvo sedans?  Unless you
*purchased* one of these items, your credit card, checking account,
financial advisor, spouse (see my comments re: my ex B-in-L), etc.
has no knowledge of your actions.

> So it looks like we're done. Ubuntu's spyware is no more insidious than any
> of the above I used for comparison.
>
>> Do you remember what the terms were for each smartphone app that
>> you installed?
>
> Smartphone apps are another matter entirely. (I didn't think of that
> because I have a dumb phone—which still reports my position.)

And I don't carry *any* phone.

But, to apply my above argument to the "apps" (desktop) that I use,
I *won't* use a piece of software that is going to "spy" on me
(more exactly, I won't let any piece of software that *might*
spy on me see anything that I don't want it to see).  "No thanks,
I'll use another product"

>> When you signed up for that "store card", it was for the appeal
>> of "special sale prices" ("Ooooh!  3c off on bananas!").  There
>> didn't seem to be any downside to the decision (obviously, the
>> store has your best interests at heart, eh?  :>  ).  Six months
>> later, the good prices are gone -- replaced by the same general
>> "sale" prices that the other, "non-card" stores have (except
>> you *need* that card in order to keep shopping at that store!).
>
> (This is a bait-and-switch argument, not privacy.)

No, its not.  You are initially extended the *hope* for "good
prices" in exchange for your personal data *and* the idea
that you will be "watched".  The fact that those good prices
don't turn out to be any better than the non-card competitors
is just "bad luck" on your part.  The store has lived up to
*it's* agreement -- only people with cards will be able to
receive the benefits of those sale items (though, in practice,
most stores have instructed their cashiers to give *everyone*
the discounts -- using a "store card" that the cashiers keep in
their drawers).

You didn't really *think* that the store's taking on a "card
program" (administrative costs) was actually going to allow them
to lower their *costs* (hence, prices) appreciably, did you?
I.e., so that they could sell things cheaper than their competitors
(who are each capable of adopting a similar card program and
obtaining the exact same "benefits").

[BTW, there is no Easter Bunny]