Evan Daniel skrev:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Zero3<zero3 at zerosplayground.dk> wrote:
>> Evan Daniel skrev:
>>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Zero3<zero3 at zerosplayground.dk> wrote:
>>>> Matthew Toseland skrev:
>>>>> Also the uninstall survey has dried up, there are very few responses
>>>>> now, too few to be useful. Maybe we should always show it if opennet was
>>>>> enabled? Or would even that be too much?
>>>> Please don't. It is very hostile (usability wise) to automatically pop
>>>> up these kind of surveys. Not even speaking of the fact that we
>>>> effectively would stab uninstalling users in the back by automatically
>>>> contacting freenetproject.org (which *MOST LIKELY* will be monitored in
>>>> hostile regimes).
>>> If the user was running opennet in a hostile regime, they already shot
>>> themselves in the foot. Loading that web page won't make things any
>>> worse.
>> Surely there is no point in nailing the coffin an extra time by connecting
>> to something as obviously Freenet-ish as our official home page?
>>
>> I don't think we should assume that because opennet was enabled, the user is
>> caught anyway, and thereby thinking that we might as well use the
>> opportunity to ask for his uninstallation feedback ("Thanks. You just gave
>> me 10 years in prison. Best regards, Mr. Wong" ;)).
>
> If he turned on opennet, then it downloaded the seednodes list from
> that server, right? I suppose there's some chance he installed it in
> a safe regime, moved to a hostile regime that monitors the web server
> but not the seednodes, didn't turn off opennet, and is now
> uninstalling -- but that seems like a rather unlikely case.
We used to do that in the online installers. AFAIK we only use bundle
installers now? (We do for Windows, at least. Which are most of the
installations). In the bundle installers, the seednodes file is included
If the user got the installer straight off our homepage though,
obviously it won't matter, no :). The whole point of switching to bundle
installers are to allow people in hostile regimens to actually install
Freenet by getting the installer from a safe source.
> Besides, if you're uninstalling, you're not doing anything illegal any
> more. I don't think I've heard about people disappearing just for
> visiting a single web page, even in rather oppressive regimes. The
> problem is running Freenet, not visiting the web site (though that
> might get you noticed).
Hopefully not :/.
> We should worry about our users' security. However, if we don't
> collect survey data, it's harder to improve Freenet. That has
> security implications as well: if Freenet isn't usable, our potential
> users are using less secure alternatives (or not communicating).
> Security risks are worth worrying about, but sufficiently tiny ones
> don't outweigh things that are useful for other reasons, imho.
True, I agree. IMHO it is a fair way to do it as in the Windows
installer: Ask the user kindly, and if he doesn't want to, we shouldn't
force him. Since most of our survey results have disappeared since we
started asking, I take that as a hint that people don't *want to* answer
the surveys - hence I don't think we should try to force them.
- Zero3
