[Tfug] [Bulk] Re: Stallman vs Ubuntu

[Rich Smit]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Bexley Hall <bexley401 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi Rich,
>
> 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.


See, you talk about putting data together, but when it comes to it, you're
blinkered to it. Your credit card, which records your life now, put
together with phone location data, which records your aspirations (not to
mention the QR codes you scanned) … these sustained over a period of
months, tell a far greater story than stuff you might have pondered
ordering on Amazon. Aside from anything else, it tells exactly how much
money you have to spend.

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*!
>

Was that an intentional ad hominem, or a mere slip into condescension? See,
I'm not a narcissus: I wasn't talking about myself.

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)

Yes, they're on the public record – including the mobile vans [
http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/police/radar-van].
But as CCTV spreads (and I forgot to mention installations at larger stores
and at airports, probably schools and colleges too?) the average person's
privacy is eroded further.


> 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.


You argue one side that "they choose to do X", then you ignore when there's
no upfront agreement that a user will be tracked. That's your "insidious
spyware".

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?


Huh? Come again? I don't see where I defended anything.


> 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??"


English comprehension fail there, mate.

It's personal choice whether or not to use Ubuntu too. Right? Insidious my
>> arse.
>>
>
> Do you understand the meaning of the term "insidious"?


Do you understand the meaning of the term "pretentious"? Jesus mate, take
it down a notch.

>
>
>  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?

Yeah yeah. Using a credit card—with a cellphone in your pocket and driving
a car into their parking lot and wearing that brand of clothing tells…

 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,

Parking lot CCTV.


> 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),

Cellphone location data.


> what I said to those people nor how I was attired.

RFID-enabled clothing.

Sorry, you're owned, several times over.

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.


Sorry to leave you behind there. We've moved on a bit since then.


>  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.
>
Unless it's RFID-enabled. Good luck finding a Faraday-shielded wallet that
actually works…


> And I don't carry *any* phone.
>
Clearly not that marketable…


> (This is a bait-and-switch argument, not privacy.)
>>
>
> No, its not.

The way you described it, it abso-bloody-lutely is, mate.


>  You are initially extended the *hope* for "good
> prices"

Bait…

> in exchange for your personal data *and* the idea
> that you will be "watched".

…and…

>  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.

…switch.

You're welcome.


> You didn't really *think* that [more condescension]


Yeah, we're done. See ya.

R.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tfug.org/pipermail/tfug_tfug.org/attachments/20121216/52e3d469/attachment-0002.html>