Hacker News Reader

Comment by sp332 | Hacker News Reader

It's too bad Canonical thinks they have a right to my data on my own machine. WTF, Canonical?

I was especially appalled when Mark Shuttleworth's response was something to the effect of, "Look - you should trust us absolutely - we practically have root access to your machines". That's not a good attitude. I originally switched away from Ubuntu because I didn't like the stuff I saw getting pushed to my machine in updates.

That actually isn't what he said at all. He did not say "you should trust us". He said "you do trust us". There is a considerable difference. Here is the full question and answer.

Q: Why are you telling Amazon what I am searching for?

A: We are not telling Amazon what you are searching for. Your anonymity is preserved because we handle the query on your behalf. Don’t trust us? Erm, we have root. You do trust us with your data already. You trust us not to screw up on your machine with every update. You trust Debian, and you trust a large swathe of the open source community. And most importantly, you trust us to address it when, being human, we err.

http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1182

I would trust Ubuntu not to push down damaging updates that it would be impossible for them to do without it being discoverable.

I would not trust them to hold on to my personal data with no way of knowing what they are going to do with it.

"You do trust us" is a classic false dichotomy fallacy.

Fair point on the quote, but I still stand by my point. Just because I do download updates from you does not mean you can make a fundamental change in where my data goes without my explicit permission. That's how you lose the trust I have given you.

Well, that's the whole point, isn't ? We do not trust them anymore.

Only my laptop was running on ubuntu, the whole affair made me realize a month ago it was the good time to give mint a try.

I think that comment did more harm than good. The problem appears to be that Ubuntu users trusted them to not do things like the shopping lens, and the statement that "you implicitly trust us anyway, so it's okay for us to get your data in this way" seems to be ignoring what their users are complaining about.

Now that many users are rethinking if it is appropriate to allow Canonical to have root on their boxes, that comment may provoke a reaction for some; "you may have root, sir, but I have physical access."

That response doesn't answer the question but it does contain a lot of diversionary handwaving.

Short version, yes we do tell Amazon, we just claim to preserve your anonymity. Given the deceit implicit in this obfuscation, there is not reason to believe anything Shuttleworth has to say on this subject.

> I originally switched away from Ubuntu because I didn't like the stuff I saw getting pushed to my machine in updates.

What are you referring to?

I saw quite a large quantity of stuff being downloaded that was doing nothing but adding Ubuntu branding to other packages like Firefox, etc. Nothing like the Amazon scandal in terms of how close it is to being 'malicious' - but I still didn't like the attitude / trend it indicated.

I hate it, but they absolutely have the right. That's like saying "too bad Google thinks they have a right to my emails". They're up front about it, and you're perfectly free to a.) campaign to change their decision or b.) not use their product.

If I send my email to Google's servers, or register an account for people to send email intended for me to Google's servers, then I'm OK with Google having my email. If I type something on my own machine, I do not think it's right for anyone else to think they can just take it.

Maybe it's not the most perfect comparison, but it's still the user choosing to use the service/software.

Maybe adverts on a website is more apt. A company is putting time and money into a product, and attempting to monetise it with advertising. As a user, you can chose "this level of advertising is fine by me" or "this is too much I don't want it", and then either stop using their product, or prevent the adverts from happening. And sure, I go to websites with popups and pop-unders and etc. etc. which make me think "what the hell are these assholes playing at", but I'd never question whether they have the right to do it on their own website, only whether I want to visit that website again in the future.

OK, but I think you might be missing the point. I guess I appreciate that they are making this issue apparent instead of trying to sneak it in without my knowledge. My point in writing is to let them know that I will not be using their product. We are (as you put it) campaigning to try to change Canonical's mind (and also to prevent any confusion by other people who might make this decision in the future).

When Gmail first came out, there was a lot of privacy concerns with them simply scanning email for targeting advertising.

It's amazing how quickly we've forgotten about that...

Maybe its not about forgetting those concerns, but it has become so common for (online) companies to disregard privacy issues that its getting increasingly more difficult to escape it, to the point that it is pointless to complain about it. And when few people complain it becomes "normal" / the status quo.

For Google, I don't truly have a choice because there is no serious competitor for both the quality and the privacy, so I just ticked a.).

For Ubuntu, a.) and b.). Shuttleworth's childish attitude is shocking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com