More over, I don't see anything intrinsically evil in not having different choices of service providers (this is not a violation of any of user's software freedom), so this is neither a reason to ban features from free software.
El domingo 01 de noviembre del 2015 a las 1710 horas, Isaac David escribió: > My 2 cents: I think Shackra is right. To me the distinction between > explicitly partnering with a bad service (like Mozilla did) vs only > using a bad service that already existed (MSN) is largely irrelevant as > far as privacy recommendations are concerned. Sure, intentions matter > unless you are a consequentialist, but both scenarios are equally > unacceptable for privacy. I would discourage Shackra from using MSN as > much as Firefox Hello. > > This is not equivalent to saying the current Icecat and Iceweasel > packages don't comply with the policy or something. They clearly are OK > and I appreciate Emulatorman or whoever did it for washing that Mozilla > mess away, but there's room for moving them to [nonprism] if somebody > wants to maintain a less stripped-down version in [libre]. > > Offtopic: > > Le dim. 1 nov. 2015 à 10:33, Florian Pelz <[email protected]> > a écrit : >> libre is for free software > > Not just [libre], all the Parabola repositories strive to contain only > free software. What [libre] really is for is modifications or > replacements for Arch packages bearing freedom issues (not all of them. > The blacklist documents which ones get fixed in [libre] and which ones > we completely discard. your-freedom is built from the blacklist). > [libre] also contains a few original packages that would rather stay in > [core] or [extra] if they came from Arch. > >> >> Then again, some things on the libre blacklist are blacklisted because >> of support for Skype / non-privacy search engines / …. >> >> What I want is no SaaSS. Right now the description of nonprism in the >> Wiki isn't very clear ("nonprism contains packages provided by the >> Parabola community without services under global data surveillance >> programs like PRISM.") and I'm not sure its policy is what I want, >> even >> though the de facto changes are what I want. >> >>> SSAS is evil, but if Firefox Hello falls in such category, as some >>> are suggesting, then it seems to me that any XMPP service should too. >>> >> >> For XMPP, you can choose which provider to use, like e-mail. You can >> switch to a different provider whenever you want to. You can also host >> your own. XMPP is not as restrictive as Hello. > > [nonprism] does not actually deal with SaaSS, much less it > discriminates networking programs that give you "choice" of service > providers from those which don't. It really only does what you read in > the Wiki. your-privacy bans perfectly free software packages known to > use online services which in turn are known to engage in mass > surveillance; and [nonprism] patches some or all of those packages so > that you can use them without worrying. Yet if you want to avoid SaaSS > then activating [nonprism] is a reasonable step in that direction > because of the correlation between SaaSS and mass surveillance. > However, [nonprism] doesn't guarantee you that even the most obscure > free software client program meant to be used with SaaSS will be > blacklisted. There's nothing a distro can do to make sure the user > never connects to SaaSS; you still need to think about your online > practices. > > It's also worth pointing out that online communications don't strictly > classify as SaaSS because while they are services and potential privacy > threats they don't substitute local computing. Communication is a joint > activity. > > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev -- 👋 Pax et bonum. Jorge Araya Navarro https://es.gravatar.com/shackra _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
