
Reform corporate surveillance - Tsiolkovsky
https://www.fsf.org/news/reform-corporate-surveillance
======
ISL
The FSF is right; a lot of companies implicitly centralize information behind
closed doors. It is damaging to liberty in the long term.

What's missing from the statement is a plan. How can users get services equal
to or better than those offered by Google/Facebook/Yahoo/... without
centralized "cloud" computing? How are the developers going to support
themselves financially?

I love and support the efforts of FSF. Almost all of my scientific work rests
upon a GNU footing. But before distributed software can eat the centralized
software world, it has to be equal or better. This is no different from global
warming; if solar power were cheap and effective, nobody would be burning
coal.

Even when code is open-sourced, and alternatives are available (gitlab,
anyone?) users still flock to centralized services like github. I do, with
repos at github. I served my own mail, read it with mutt, and filtered my own
spam in the past on my own server. GMail is _way_ better at all three of those
things, and I don't have to burn a couple of man-days/year keeping
configuration up to snuff.

The unstoppable advantage of free software is that it's a ratchet. Whenever
something good emerges, it never goes away. If someone can duplicate GMail's
functionality in free software, it will be with us until email goes the way of
sanskrit.

~~~
pekk
The question isn't about how to get a better service. A better service is one
which does not enable surveillance. The question is how to get people to stop
handing over the keys to the kingdom. Life went on before Facebook, it can go
on after Facebook. But as long as people take this attitude that it is
essential to have Facebook, network effects will make surveillance very
effective.

~~~
davidw
> A better service is one which does not enable surveillance.

That's one criterion. For many people, ease of use, spam filtering, and so on
are others, that may be more important than absolute guarantees about NSA (or
other governments') spying.

------
pachydermic
Thank you, fsf.

Hard to ignore the irony when Google, Facebook and even freakin' Linked In
(ugh) are calling to increase protections for peoples' privacy. I don't know
what the answer to all of this is - I like free products as much as the next
guy - but it seems like a messed up situation. If the NSA were stopped from
collecting our data, that would only prevent one party from doing so. Even if
you don't use Facebook or gmail these companies still track you so it's pretty
hard to actually keep your privacy unless you hardly use the internet (and
from public computers) and don't have a cellphone. I don't think it should be
that hard.

~~~
skj
How exactly is it ironic?

Google, Facebook, et al, collect data in exchange for a service. You can use
incognito mode for Google, or just not use Facebook at all.

The NSA collects your data whether you want it to or not, and you have no say
other than to just not create any data.

In the same way that Google has access to your data if it's in their
datacenters and you use their services, the NSA assumes access to your data if
it's within their abilities to get it, and they find you slightly suspicious.

It's really not the same thing and claiming it is the same thing is
disingenuous.

~~~
Helianthus
I don't know if it's ironic so much as it is simple two-facedness.

>Google, Facebook, et al, collect data in exchange for a service. You can use
incognito mode for Google, or just not use Facebook at all.

>The NSA collects your data whether you want it to or not, and you have no say
other than to just not create any data.

The contrast between these two sentences is what makes your point weak.

There might be a difference between corporate and government surveillance, but
you haven't approached it.

~~~
skj
Sorry if I wasn't clear.

The difference is that Google, Facebook, et al are opt-in. The NSA offers you
no such choice.

~~~
shadowfox
> The difference is that Google, Facebook, et al are opt-in

With the remarkable penetration of things like google analytics and the ilk,
this may not be _quite_ that simple.

~~~
hdevalence
Moxie has also pointed out that the choice is not simply "Do I want to be
surveilled by Google?" or "Do I want the telco to track my every move?". It's
stuff like "Do I want to stop talking to all of my friends who use GMail?". Or
"Do I want to not have a cellphone and prevent myself from participating in
informal social event planning?".

------
zvrba
> Microsoft Windows provides back doors for the NSA.

FSF FUD again. Can they substantiate their claims?

~~~
zxcdw
"Again"? Can you substatiate your claim?

Maybe they refer to the fact that Microsoft indeed does share 0-days with
NSA[1].

1: [http://www.dailydot.com/news/bloomberg-microsoft-zero-day-
ex...](http://www.dailydot.com/news/bloomberg-microsoft-zero-day-exploits/)

~~~
zvrba
Yes, again: [https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-responds-to-microsofts-
privacy-...](https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-responds-to-microsofts-privacy-and-
encryption-announcement) with a completely bogus jail analogy. FSF is on a
witch hunt, and I dislike it very much.

Regardless: sharing zero-day exploits ahead of time is way different from
actively inserting backdoor code into the OS.

~~~
zxcdw
How is it _way_ different? It's exactly analolous to providing a backdoor --
giving means to take advantage of the weaknesses. Whether the vulnerabilities
are there by purpose or for by accident doesn't change the fact how exploits
are provided and for what purpose.

It would be naive, if not outright dishonest to believe that exchanging 0days
is not for offensive purposes, especially after knowing the extent NSA actions
go, and of course remembering Stuxnet and Flame.

------
puppetmaster3
This won't happen. The citizens of USA are in Consumer reporting DB's, ex:
credit report. This is illegal in EU. That be the place to start.

------
TruthElixirX
No thanks, I quite enjoy what I am getting in exchange for my privacy from
Google, Apple, Facebook, et al.

