As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

RMS Yells At Cloud, Sticks Foot In Mouth As Usual

AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
edited October 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
In a development that will come as a shock to absolutely no one, the "guru" of free software makes an ass of himself by going all Chicken Little regarding cloud computing.

In his "argument", RMS makes two arguments. One is his typical "they're trying to lock mes into their ebil web of propritariness," which we've pretty much torn to shreds. The other, which actually has a tiny bit of merit, is the privacy issues. But to be honest, the problem here is that the law hasn't caught up to technology yet, not that the technology is a problem. Furthermore, cloud computing is here to stay, as it provides too many advantages.

In short, RMS should perhaps stick to yelling at real clouds.

XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
AngelHedgie on
«1

Posts

  • SzechuanosaurusSzechuanosaurus Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2008
    How is say, using Google Mail any different from me using my 1and1 email? Besides being free, it still basically does the same thing. The emails are stored on another company's computer and I can choose to download them or not.

    How else should email work? My computer has to operate as a web server now so I can manage my email and domains locally? Presumably also run my website off it as well? On my shitty home broadband connection? Yeah? Nah. I'll just pay some evil company to host it for me ta thanks. I mean, I'm paying an evil company for the broadband anyway, so I'm fucked either way. Except not, because it turns out that businesses can offer services in exchange for money (or in exchange for your eyeballs seeing adverts) without them trying to kidnap my wife and tying her to a train track.

    Szechuanosaurus on
  • JustinSane07JustinSane07 Really, stupid? Brockton__BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2008
    With Google losing the battle to Viacom and having to turn over data, a few months back, the privacy issues are the biggest concern for me with my GMail and Hotmail accounts. But what are you supposed to do as a home user? Even my work e-mail is subject to privacy issues because the company can see it any time they want.

    But I do think RMS is just being a "panicky pete", as they say. As far as we know, the system has not been abused yet and one can hope it remains that way.

    Edit: To add to what Szechuanosaurus said...I downloaded a game about a year and a half back through a torrent site. A week later, my dad got an e-mail from Comcast saying that if this continues, they could suspend or terminate our service. The e-mail had the torrent file name and the URL I got it from and everything. So this means Comcast was looking at our internet records. I feel like I should ask RMS if I should be my own ISP now because the big evil company looked into what I was doing with their internet connection.

    JustinSane07 on
  • stiliststilist Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Edit: To add to what Szechuanosaurus said...I downloaded a game about a year and a half back through a torrent site. A week later, my dad got an e-mail from Comcast saying that if this continues, they could suspend or terminate our service. The e-mail had the torrent file name and the URL I got it from and everything. So this means Comcast was looking at our internet records. I feel like I should ask RMS if I should be my own ISP now because the big evil company looked into what I was doing with their internet connection.
    Irrelevant, because in his ideal world you’d be able to compile the game yourself and thus pirating is a forgotten memory.

    stilist on
    I poop things on my site and twitter
  • SzechuanosaurusSzechuanosaurus Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2008
    stilist wrote: »
    Edit: To add to what Szechuanosaurus said...I downloaded a game about a year and a half back through a torrent site. A week later, my dad got an e-mail from Comcast saying that if this continues, they could suspend or terminate our service. The e-mail had the torrent file name and the URL I got it from and everything. So this means Comcast was looking at our internet records. I feel like I should ask RMS if I should be my own ISP now because the big evil company looked into what I was doing with their internet connection.
    Irrelevant, because in his ideal world you’d be able to compile the game yourself and thus pirating is a forgotten memory.

    But he'd still be downloading, legitimately, software over an internet connection owned by someone else. And paying for it. Just saying paying tastes like I'm eating another man's shit.

    Szechuanosaurus on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    With Google losing the battle to Viacom and having to turn over data, a few months back, the privacy issues are the biggest concern for me with my GMail and Hotmail accounts. But what are you supposed to do as a home user? Even my work e-mail is subject to privacy issues because the company can see it any time they want.

    But I do think RMS is just being a "panicky pete", as they say. As far as we know, the system has not been abused yet and one can hope it remains that way.

    Well, your work email isn't "yours", so there's no real expectation of privacy.

    The main thing that would help solve the privacy issue isn't technological, but legal. The law hasn't caught up to the technology, and it really needs to.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • SzechuanosaurusSzechuanosaurus Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2008
    I suspect the law will catch up right about the time that a company tries to do something really nefarious with the trust placed in it by users of their product. Like, if Google decided to let anybody search other people's private emails via the search engine. People would go absolutely crazy and the law would be forced to implement legislations against it.

    Szechuanosaurus on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    One is his typical "they're trying to lock mes into their ebil web of propritariness," which we've pretty much torn to shreds.

    Oh, man. Why did you have to remind me of that terrible, terrible thread?

    RMS is a ranting wacko. However, like a lot of Chicken Littles, he has a grain of truth to his ranting. If you use a personal email client that downloads mail to your PC in an open file format like, say, Thunderbird, then historical access to your mail archive is not beholden to the whims of your mail provider. They can go out of business, start charging you money, go all Jonestown and mass-suicide... and you haven't lost any old email. If your web-based email provider goes belly-up (gmail is a poor example) then you're pretty much screwed.

    Of course, that's easily solved: don't use a web-based app to store personal data without the capability of exporting that data to an open offline format. Gmail supports POP, so anybody who uses gmail should probably make a backup of their mail using the POP client of their choice.

    I agree with Larry Ellison about "cloud" computing. It's a buzzword. I can't tell if "cloud" computing is supposed to be a new way of talking about web-based applications or if it's a new way of talking about distributing computing. Either way, it's nothing new and I think it's a buzzword that promotes really fuzzy thinking - promoting the notion of the Internet as a homogenous cloud is not conducive to getting people to think about where their data is going and what it's doing. Imprecise language, especially in computer jargon, bugs me; and talking about "the cloud" is as imprecise as it gets.

    Finally, privacy issues. Yes, computing on the Internet is rife with privacy issues. Is this new? Whether your mail is stored in gmail or comes through a POP server to Thunderbird, at some point your mail provider had access to it, and, presumably, made a backup of it. Moving from a web-based mail app to an offline app doesn't eliminate the privacy concerns, it just reduces the possibility that when the mail provider decides to fuck over your privacy that they'll have as much dirt to dig up. The way to deal with this is not to go to open-source (which, inherently, is no more protective of privacy than proprietary software) but to pay attention to the privacy agreements of any online service or application and to try to make the legislative body of your choice and the general public aware of a burgeoning overall need to have some clear standards for privacy of personal information coded in the law.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • stiliststilist Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Finally, privacy issues. Yes, computing on the Internet is rife with privacy issues. Is this new? Whether your mail is stored in gmail or comes through a POP server to Thunderbird, at some point your mail provider had access to it, and, presumably, made a backup of it. Moving from a web-based mail app to an offline app doesn't eliminate the privacy concerns, it just reduces the possibility that when the mail provider decides to fuck over your privacy that they'll have as much dirt to dig up. The way to deal with this is not to go to open-source (which, inherently, is no more protective of privacy than proprietary software) but to pay attention to the privacy agreements of any online service or application and to try to make the legislative body of your choice and the general public aware of a burgeoning overall need to have some clear standards for privacy of personal information coded in the law.
    And to use GPG or something of that nature.

    stilist on
    I poop things on my site and twitter
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    As I developer, I have to say the only people who seriously use the term "cloud" are either:

    1) non technical dipshits who don't know what they mean and are speaking in buzzword
    2) a dev who is addressing a non techhnical dipshit and doesn't want to get into actual specifics.

    RiemannLives on
    Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    stilist wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Finally, privacy issues. Yes, computing on the Internet is rife with privacy issues. Is this new? Whether your mail is stored in gmail or comes through a POP server to Thunderbird, at some point your mail provider had access to it, and, presumably, made a backup of it. Moving from a web-based mail app to an offline app doesn't eliminate the privacy concerns, it just reduces the possibility that when the mail provider decides to fuck over your privacy that they'll have as much dirt to dig up. The way to deal with this is not to go to open-source (which, inherently, is no more protective of privacy than proprietary software) but to pay attention to the privacy agreements of any online service or application and to try to make the legislative body of your choice and the general public aware of a burgeoning overall need to have some clear standards for privacy of personal information coded in the law.
    And to use GPG or something of that nature.
    ^ This. If you are really worried about the privacy of your email to that level, then you should be encrypting it.

    electricitylikesme on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    stilist wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Finally, privacy issues. Yes, computing on the Internet is rife with privacy issues. Is this new? Whether your mail is stored in gmail or comes through a POP server to Thunderbird, at some point your mail provider had access to it, and, presumably, made a backup of it. Moving from a web-based mail app to an offline app doesn't eliminate the privacy concerns, it just reduces the possibility that when the mail provider decides to fuck over your privacy that they'll have as much dirt to dig up. The way to deal with this is not to go to open-source (which, inherently, is no more protective of privacy than proprietary software) but to pay attention to the privacy agreements of any online service or application and to try to make the legislative body of your choice and the general public aware of a burgeoning overall need to have some clear standards for privacy of personal information coded in the law.
    And to use GPG or something of that nature.
    ^ This. If you are really worried about the privacy of your email to that level, then you should be encrypting it.

    The issues regarding privacy are not limited to e-mail, and likewise are not limited to technologies which are conducive to encryption, and finally simply because we have the technical means of protecting ourselves does not mean we should not also have legal protection as well.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    stilist wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Finally, privacy issues. Yes, computing on the Internet is rife with privacy issues. Is this new? Whether your mail is stored in gmail or comes through a POP server to Thunderbird, at some point your mail provider had access to it, and, presumably, made a backup of it. Moving from a web-based mail app to an offline app doesn't eliminate the privacy concerns, it just reduces the possibility that when the mail provider decides to fuck over your privacy that they'll have as much dirt to dig up. The way to deal with this is not to go to open-source (which, inherently, is no more protective of privacy than proprietary software) but to pay attention to the privacy agreements of any online service or application and to try to make the legislative body of your choice and the general public aware of a burgeoning overall need to have some clear standards for privacy of personal information coded in the law.
    And to use GPG or something of that nature.
    ^ This. If you are really worried about the privacy of your email to that level, then you should be encrypting it.

    The issues regarding privacy are not limited to e-mail, and likewise are not limited to technologies which are conducive to encryption, and finally simply because we have the technical means of protecting ourselves does not mean we should not also have legal protection as well.
    This was decidedly not what I was saying. Obviously you should have legal protection of your privacy, but my point was addressed the original comment on cloud computing and "other people" having the potential to look at your data - if it is a serious concern, then you should be encrypting it.

    Although I am confused as to which technologies could raise a privacy issue yet not be conducive to encryption.

    electricitylikesme on
  • stiliststilist Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    stilist wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Finally, privacy issues. Yes, computing on the Internet is rife with privacy issues. Is this new? Whether your mail is stored in gmail or comes through a POP server to Thunderbird, at some point your mail provider had access to it, and, presumably, made a backup of it. Moving from a web-based mail app to an offline app doesn't eliminate the privacy concerns, it just reduces the possibility that when the mail provider decides to fuck over your privacy that they'll have as much dirt to dig up. The way to deal with this is not to go to open-source (which, inherently, is no more protective of privacy than proprietary software) but to pay attention to the privacy agreements of any online service or application and to try to make the legislative body of your choice and the general public aware of a burgeoning overall need to have some clear standards for privacy of personal information coded in the law.
    And to use GPG or something of that nature.
    ^ This. If you are really worried about the privacy of your email to that level, then you should be encrypting it.
    The issues regarding privacy are not limited to e-mail, and likewise are not limited to technologies which are conducive to encryption, and finally simply because we have the technical means of protecting ourselves does not mean we should not also have legal protection as well.
    Certainly, but in the meantime.

    stilist on
    I poop things on my site and twitter
  • stiliststilist Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Although I am confused as to which technologies could raise a privacy issue yet not be conducive to encryption.
    Any data that lives solely on the web is only encrypted if the site owner wishes it, and even then they’ll probably be the only ones who can access it that way—such as PMs here on the forums.

    It’s quite possible from a technical standpoint, but it’s not done.

    stilist on
    I poop things on my site and twitter
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Although I am confused as to which technologies could raise a privacy issue yet not be conducive to encryption.

    Instant messaging and SMS come immediately to mind.
    stilist wrote: »
    It’s quite possible from a technical standpoint, but it’s not done.

    Yeah, exactly. By "conducive," I don't mean conducive for the vendor or the developer, I mean conducive for the customer.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    stilist wrote: »
    Although I am confused as to which technologies could raise a privacy issue yet not be conducive to encryption.
    Any data that lives solely on the web is only encrypted if the site owner wishes it, and even then they’ll probably be the only ones who can access it that way—such as PMs here on the forums.

    It’s quite possible from a technical standpoint, but it’s not done.
    Reasonable. Though similarly that is a situation where Feral's comment basically applies - the first thing you ask yourself with Facebook is whether or not Facebook is offering privacy of your stuff when you specify it.

    However I find this situation not at all like the idea that you're data is potentially accessible to people simply by virtue of being hosted by them as is more implied in the cloud computing criticism - which is where "encrypt it" if it's an actual concern applies.

    electricitylikesme on
  • GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    The way to deal with this is not to go to open-source (which, inherently, is no more protective of privacy than proprietary software) but to pay attention to the privacy agreements of any online service or application and to try to make the legislative body of your choice and the general public aware of a burgeoning overall need to have some clear standards for privacy of personal information coded in the law.

    Fuck that! Next you'll be saying that I have to pay my own taxes and raise my own kids. What we really need is wild rants from an idealistic publicity hound.

    Seriously though, I think RMS is just one end of the bell curve and there'll always be someone like him. On the other end there are probably people who think the whole world should move onto thin clients provided by private companies.

    I just wish he didn't do so much to confuse the ideas of open format and open source in the minds of less techie people.

    Gorak on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Gorak wrote: »
    On the other end there are probably people who think the whole world should move onto thin clients provided by private companies.

    There are definitely people who think that.
    And usually they're the one selling the thin clients.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • BarrakkethBarrakketh Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Although I am confused as to which technologies could raise a privacy issue yet not be conducive to encryption.

    Instant messaging and SMS come immediately to mind.

    You have a point about SMS, but if you wanted encrypted instant messaging there are solutions out there that work with multiple protocols such as Pidgin and OTR.

    Barrakketh on
    Rollers are red, chargers are blue....omae wa mou shindeiru
  • JaninJanin Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I agree pretty much 100% with RMS on this one, and no amount of laws are going to solve what he's pointing out. If you store all your e-mail online, laws can't *force* the company you use to stay in business -- they go down, so does your data. If some intern hits the wrong key and formats your email, no amount of laws will get your mail back (backups do fail).

    I've also experienced the lock-in he mentioned. I used to store all my bookmarks in Google Bookmarks, so they'd be easily accessible from any computer. One day I decided to back them up to my local system so I could experiment with them, and it turns out Google Bookmarks only lets you download 25 at a time. Cue about three hours of manually copying them into ma.gnolia, which lets me download every bookmark I have at once whenever I want. From then on, I've been much more careful about which online services I depend on and always check the data export/backup policies.

    Janin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Janin wrote: »
    I agree pretty much 100% with RMS on this one, and no amount of laws are going to solve what he's pointing out. If you store all your e-mail online, laws can't *force* the company you use to stay in business -- they go down, so does your data. If some intern hits the wrong key and formats your email, no amount of laws will get your mail back (backups do fail).

    I've also experienced the lock-in he mentioned. I used to store all my bookmarks in Google Bookmarks, so they'd be easily accessible from any computer. One day I decided to back them up to my local system so I could experiment with them, and it turns out Google Bookmarks only lets you download 25 at a time. Cue about three hours of manually copying them into ma.gnolia, which lets me download every bookmark I have at once whenever I want. From then on, I've been much more careful about which online services I depend on and always check the data export/backup policies.

    You're conflating a privacy issue with a data storage and formatting issue.

    Nobody here has argued that web app vendors should be forced by law to include effective import/export functions.

    However, a couple of us did argue that web app (and service) vendors should be required by law to adhere to some basic privacy standards.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • JaninJanin Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Janin wrote: »
    I agree pretty much 100% with RMS on this one, and no amount of laws are going to solve what he's pointing out. If you store all your e-mail online, laws can't *force* the company you use to stay in business -- they go down, so does your data. If some intern hits the wrong key and formats your email, no amount of laws will get your mail back (backups do fail).

    I've also experienced the lock-in he mentioned. I used to store all my bookmarks in Google Bookmarks, so they'd be easily accessible from any computer. One day I decided to back them up to my local system so I could experiment with them, and it turns out Google Bookmarks only lets you download 25 at a time. Cue about three hours of manually copying them into ma.gnolia, which lets me download every bookmark I have at once whenever I want. From then on, I've been much more careful about which online services I depend on and always check the data export/backup policies.

    You're conflating a privacy issue with a data storage and formatting issue.

    Nobody here has argued that web app vendors should be forced by law to include effective import/export functions.

    However, a couple of us did argue that web app (and service) vendors should be required by law to adhere to some basic privacy standards.

    Then I fail to see what your argument has to do with RMS, since he was arguing against "cloud computing" based on third parties controlling access to your data. The privacy argument isn't very interesting anyway, since it's basically a solved problem -- use GNU Privacy Guard or similar encryption software on any data you don't want to expose.

    Janin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Janin wrote: »
    Then I fail to see what your argument has to do with RMS, since he was arguing against "cloud computing" based on third parties controlling access to your data. The privacy argument isn't very interesting anyway, since it's basically a solved problem -- use GNU Privacy Guard or similar encryption software on any data you don't want to expose.

    You could try reading the thread. It's not even an entire page yet, so you can't use "it's too long" as an excuse. We've fully elucidated our various arguments, if you fail to understand them, try re-reading them.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • JaninJanin Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Janin wrote: »
    Then I fail to see what your argument has to do with RMS, since he was arguing against "cloud computing" based on third parties controlling access to your data. The privacy argument isn't very interesting anyway, since it's basically a solved problem -- use GNU Privacy Guard or similar encryption software on any data you don't want to expose.

    You could try reading the thread. It's not even an entire page yet, so you can't use "it's too long" as an excuse. We've fully elucidated our various arguments, if you fail to understand them, try re-reading them.

    All you've said against GPG is some vague argument that some data isn't "conductive" to encryption, and then as argument used technologies that are often used with encryption. I've still yet to hear in what way RMS is incorrect that could justify such a thread.

    Janin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Janin wrote: »
    I agree pretty much 100% with RMS on this one, and no amount of laws are going to solve what he's pointing out. If you store all your e-mail online, laws can't *force* the company you use to stay in business -- they go down, so does your data. If some intern hits the wrong key and formats your email, no amount of laws will get your mail back (backups do fail).

    Wow, the "cloud" isn't a magical fix for problems that have existed since the dawn of computing? Who would have thunk it? Nobody is arguing that the cloud will magically make problems go away.
    Janin wrote: »
    I've also experienced the lock-in he mentioned. I used to store all my bookmarks in Google Bookmarks, so they'd be easily accessible from any computer. One day I decided to back them up to my local system so I could experiment with them, and it turns out Google Bookmarks only lets you download 25 at a time. Cue about three hours of manually copying them into ma.gnolia, which lets me download every bookmark I have at once whenever I want. From then on, I've been much more careful about which online services I depend on and always check the data export/backup policies.

    Two words: caveat emptor.

    Frankly, you've said nothing that actually addresses the criticisms leveled against his latest paranoia-filled rant, namely that he's basically showing that he has issues with trust and as such is willing to toss away beneficial improvements to soothe his own paranoia.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    On the other end there are probably people who think the whole world should move onto thin clients provided by private companies.

    There are definitely people who think that.
    And usually they're the one selling the thin clients.

    Then they must know what they are talking about.
    Do you perchance have a brochure that I could peruse?

    Gorak on
  • JaninJanin Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Frankly, you've said nothing that actually addresses the criticisms leveled against his latest paranoia-filled rant, namely that he's basically showing that he has issues with trust and as such is willing to toss away beneficial improvements to soothe his own paranoia.

    What paranoia? He said exactly what I said: Don't give somebody else all your data, or you might not be able to get it back.

    Janin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Janin wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Janin wrote: »
    Then I fail to see what your argument has to do with RMS, since he was arguing against "cloud computing" based on third parties controlling access to your data. The privacy argument isn't very interesting anyway, since it's basically a solved problem -- use GNU Privacy Guard or similar encryption software on any data you don't want to expose.

    You could try reading the thread. It's not even an entire page yet, so you can't use "it's too long" as an excuse. We've fully elucidated our various arguments, if you fail to understand them, try re-reading them.

    All you've said against GPG is some vague argument that some data isn't "conductive" to encryption, and then as argument used technologies that are often used with encryption. I've still yet to hear in what way RMS is incorrect that could justify such a thread.

    I guess I'll repeat myself from the last thread: it's not all about you. And that especially goes when you start dealing with things like "cloud computing" which are, by their very nature reliant on you going out and trusting people.

    It's become pretty clear that RMS is a misanthrope at heart, who believes that people cannot be trusted. (The GPL is testament to this, when looks at such things as the virality clause.) Which is fine for him, I guess (though I have to imagine that it's not really all that pleasant a worldview.) But frankly, it gets tiresome when he basically decries any invention because "oh no you can't trust the people behind it". Frankly, I'm an adult, I can evaluate my decisions on my own, and if I choose to give up certain freedoms for other benefits, then that's my business.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Janin wrote: »
    Frankly, you've said nothing that actually addresses the criticisms leveled against his latest paranoia-filled rant, namely that he's basically showing that he has issues with trust and as such is willing to toss away beneficial improvements to soothe his own paranoia.

    What paranoia? He said exactly what I said: Don't give somebody else all your data, or you might not be able to get it back.

    No, he's claiming that if you don't follow him, you're an idiot. Which, frankly, gets tiresome after a while.

    Edit: He's also showing his rather well documented control freak nature as well. Everything is about balance - a lesson that frankly, has eluded him and his followers.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • JaninJanin Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    No, he's claiming that if you don't follow him, you're an idiot. Which, frankly, gets tiresome after a while.

    He's claiming, specifically, that you're an idiot if you give your data to a third party without being able to take it back.
    I guess I'll repeat myself from the last thread: it's not all about you. And that especially goes when you start dealing with things like "cloud computing" which are, by their very nature reliant on you going out and trusting people.

    My e-mail is very much about me. Me me me me me. It's mine, and I want to keep it mine, and I don't care who is helped if I lose access to it.
    It's become pretty clear that RMS is a misanthrope at heart, who believes that people cannot be trusted. (The GPL is testament to this, when looks at such things as the virality clause.) Which is fine for him, I guess (though I have to imagine that it's not really all that pleasant a worldview.) But frankly, it gets tiresome when he basically decries any invention because "oh no you can't trust the people behind it". Frankly, I'm an adult, I can evaluate my decisions on my own, and if I choose to give up certain freedoms for other benefits, then that's my business.

    People can't be trusted! If they could, there'd be no need for laws.

    Janin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Janin wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Janin wrote: »
    Then I fail to see what your argument has to do with RMS, since he was arguing against "cloud computing" based on third parties controlling access to your data. The privacy argument isn't very interesting anyway, since it's basically a solved problem -- use GNU Privacy Guard or similar encryption software on any data you don't want to expose.

    You could try reading the thread. It's not even an entire page yet, so you can't use "it's too long" as an excuse. We've fully elucidated our various arguments, if you fail to understand them, try re-reading them.

    All you've said against GPG is some vague argument that some data isn't "conductive" to encryption, and then as argument used technologies that are often used with encryption. I've still yet to hear in what way RMS is incorrect that could justify such a thread.

    Okay, let me break it down for you very, very simply.

    RMS said that if you want to maintain control of your own data, you should store it on your own computer. However, that is not an effective method of ensuring privacy of any data transmitted on the Internet, because regardless of where the data is stored, that data has at some point passed through either a third-party (such as a mail server) or has been sent to a semi-trustworthy or un-trustworthy second party (such as a online store). So clearly the issue is not "cloud" computing or web-based applications, because even non-"cloud", local applications are vulnerable to privacy intrusions.

    The response to this, apparently, is to use GPG. That is not a perfect solution, for three reasons: first, GPG plugins are not available for all potential applications that one might use to transmit data on the Internet or other digital networks (for instance: SMS). Second, any end-to-end encryption assumes that the second party is trustworthy - it does not prevent, for instance, an online vendor releasing your personal information to a business partner. Third, if we're speaking about privacy issues as a social rather than an individual problem, this puts the onus on the user - who may or may not have expertise in programming, networking, and cryptography - to properly select and implement an encryption solution. Failure of a user to do so does not and should not imply that their data is then fair game: much in the same way that forgetting to lock your door is not an invitation for somebody to trespass in your house. Therefore, there should be legal protections available to lay users to prevent their privacy from being violated.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • JaninJanin Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Okay, let me break it down for you very, very simply.

    RMS said that if you want to maintain control of your own data, you should store it on your own computer. However, that is not an effective method of ensuring privacy of any data transmitted on the Internet, because regardless of where the data is stored, that data has at some point passed through either a third-party (such as a mail server) or has been sent to a semi-trustworthy or un-trustworthy second party (such as a online store).

    You are confusing "control" and "privacy". Control means that you will be the one in charge of maintaining access to your e-mail. No matter how large or powerful a third-party system is, they won't last forever. When they do stop allowing access, you won't be able to read your e-mail unless it is available on your local system. As long as the e-mail is on your local system, you can read it no matter what happens to your mail service.

    Furthermore, this applies even if your mail service doesn't fail completely but simply begins degrading access. If at some point in the future GMail has been bought by <evil company here> and they start charging you for access to mail more than a month old, you're screwed unless you have local backups of your data.

    Privacy, in contrast, is preventing unauthorized third parties from accessing your data. Definitions of unauthorized may vary, but it's not unreasonable for it to include your ISP or mail service.
    Feral wrote: »
    The response to this, apparently, is to use GPG. That is not a perfect solution, for three reasons: first, GPG plugins are not available for all potential applications that one might use to transmit data on the Internet or other digital networks (for instance: SMS).

    However, everybody has access to at least one GPG-enabled method. You can't easily send encrypted text over SMS or Twitter or smoke signals, but e-mail and instant messengers are easily available to all internet users.
    Feral wrote: »
    Second, any end-to-end encryption assumes that the second party is trustworthy - it does not prevent, for instance, an online vendor releasing your personal information to a business partner.

    It's not intended to. GPG secures the channel between two parties. It does not, cannot, and will not perform background checks on whoever you're communicating with. This is not a software issue at all.
    Feral wrote: »
    Third, if we're speaking about privacy issues as a social rather than an individual problem, this puts the onus on the user - who may or may not have expertise in programming, networking, and cryptography - to properly select and implement an encryption solution. Failure of a user to do so does not and should not imply that their data is then fair game: much in the same way that forgetting to lock your door is not an invitation for somebody to trespass in your house. Therefore, there should be legal protections available to lay users to prevent their privacy from being violated.

    Yes, but if my goal is to prevent unwanted intruders, locking my door is a prudent measure. If my landlord installed doors without locks, I should get a new landlord. I would also advise any future and present tenants to do the same.

    Janin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I"m at a loss. Is RMS a misanthrope? Probably. Is he overstating a lot of facts to push a point forward? Yeah, he's pretty much on the front rows of a propaganda war.
    However, it's usually pretty easy, to parse the rabble-rabble and see the point he makes and in this case it seems like he's reminding people that you can not actually own information if you do not have physical access to at least one copy of it.
    I have zero doubts that if possible, proper security & privacy procedures as well as data-retrieval guarantees associated with remote storage, terminal services, web applications etc would never be implemented unless a sufficient number of users care to ask for them. So yeah, can't say I have anything against RMS shouting around as much as he wishes.

    Edit: And seriously, we're not talking just about privacy here. Privacy online is already a lost cause.

    zeeny on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Janin wrote: »
    This is not a software issue at all.

    That's exactly what I'm saying.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • JaninJanin Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Janin wrote: »
    This is not a software issue at all.

    That's exactly what I'm saying.

    In case you're unaware, RMS is head of the Free Software Foundation. Its purpose is to oppose the spread of proprietary software. Therefore, when he discusses the downsides of using a particular kind of software, it's not actually coded double-speak for society as a whole.

    Janin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Janin wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Janin wrote: »
    This is not a software issue at all.

    That's exactly what I'm saying.

    In case you're unaware, RMS is head of the Free Software Foundation. Its purpose is to oppose the spread of proprietary software. Therefore, when he discusses the downsides of using a particular kind of software, it's not actually coded double-speak for society as a whole.

    Except that oddly, when he talks about the downside of some software, it always turns into a social argument. Funny, that.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Janin wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Janin wrote: »
    This is not a software issue at all.

    That's exactly what I'm saying.

    In case you're unaware, RMS is head of the Free Software Foundation. Its purpose is to oppose the spread of proprietary software. Therefore, when he discusses the downsides of using a particular kind of software, it's not actually coded double-speak for society as a whole.

    Oh man, you were so close to reality, and then you flew away.

    Whether or not a web-based application has functional data export and backup capability is completely unrelated to whether or not it is proprietary.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • JaninJanin Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Oh man, you were so close to reality, and then you flew away.

    Whether or not a web-based application has functional data export and backup capability is completely unrelated to whether or not it is proprietary.

    I did not say the two were linked, you invented that part yourself. Keeping all your data in a Free web-based application is just as bad.

    Janin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Janin wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Oh man, you were so close to reality, and then you flew away.

    Whether or not a web-based application has functional data export and backup capability is completely unrelated to whether or not it is proprietary.

    I did not say the two were linked, you invented that part yourself.

    Pro-tip: bringing up concepts in your post that are unrelated to your point just obfuscates your argument.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • JaninJanin Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Janin wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Oh man, you were so close to reality, and then you flew away.

    Whether or not a web-based application has functional data export and backup capability is completely unrelated to whether or not it is proprietary.

    I did not say the two were linked, you invented that part yourself.

    Pro-tip: bringing up concepts in your post that are unrelated to your point just obfuscates your argument.

    How could I have removed the "Free" from my post and still had it make sense at all?

    Janin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Sign In or Register to comment.