Mark Shuttleworth Addresses Ubuntu Privacy Issues 279
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."
NOT LEGAL (Score:0, Interesting)
An EULA is only lawful where it alludes to copyright protection.
The interception and broadcast of traffic is not a copyright issue as it is defined under existing wiretap laws.
Ubuntu is involved in a criminal interception program and key members should be arrested.
Re:Amazing. (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder if just charging $10 a download / dvd would make more sense then adding another keylogging data collector out there.
YES! Enough of this ad-supported bull shit. Enough of this it's Open Source so it should be free, but not really free because we gotta eat so we'll sneak in some underhanded revenue stream bull shit. If you want to make money sell your product at a fair price. Make it Open Source, which means that people can compile their own version for free if they want, Sell the Binaries.
I'd gladly pay $10, $20, $30 to download a good binary version that saves me time. I'd gladly pay $10-30 for a good product.
Uninstalling tonight (Score:0, Interesting)
I had no idea this was going on..... I do guess that is my fault. Does this happen even if you remove unity?
Ubuntu has been pissing me off more and more with each release lately, but thats the last straw, I am switching to Mint tonight. Is anyone aware of similar issues with Mint?
Re:hello hosts file (Score:5, Interesting)
I would argue that once a distribution has gone "dark" in the manner that Ubuntu and its parent company Canonical have, measures like these are a moot point... Yes, you can block their servers. Now. If they decide to write a daemon that watches the host file for alterations and automatically restores it to a protected backup, what then? You find a way around it of course. Then they come up with more protection, you come up with more ways around said protection...and nobody wins.
The alternative is to use something else. I have a favourite distribution but I'm not going to hawk it here as an alternative because I'm not a shill :P I do suggest this though, in all seriousness -- instead of measures like these, try another distribution. Any one that you like! And be sure to let Canonical know you switched -because- they forced you into taking measures like altering your host file just to feel secure from THEIR OWN SPYWARE!
Linux distro's survive upon word of mouth and goodwill from the community -- if you take away that second part, the first part tends to dry up rather quickly too. Don't fight with your own OS to protect your security, just use one that doesn't force you into it in the first place, no matter what that might be!
Re:Amazing. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.