> *That* (not adding noise) would be extremely inefficient. And why stopping
there? By your logic, every website should continuously broadcast whatever
they host to all online systems!
And by your logic it is much more efficient that the clients (which are
always more than the servers) broadcast all kinds of personally identifying
info, that special software and hardware should be made to ensure security,
that that should be further infected by the organizations which prefer the
"efficient" way of doing things etc. I question that. And I question it on a
bigger scale. I don't know if you understand what I am saying. That's why I
opened the other thread.
> No it does not.
Yes, it does. One cannot be limited, attached, conditioned, dependent,
restrained and free.
> You are not less free because you cannot fly, for instance.
Yes, you are - physically. Otherwise man wouldn't invent flying devices.
> Freedom means "exemption from *external* control, interference, regulation,
etc." (emphasis is mine): www.dictionary.com/browse/freedom
This source is wrong. If one excercises control psychologically, i.e.
inwardly, one is not free. Examples: fear, self censorship, suppression etc.
You may better check the original original (etymological) meaning:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/free
"exempt from; not in bondage, acting of one's own will," (read the rest for
yourself, there is no mention of external whatsoever)
Also https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/free mentions many times unconstrained,
as well as confirms "to be enjoyed without limitations; unrestricted;"
The earliest know meaning of freedom is from Sanskrit and means love.
> As I wrote: being in control of your *own* life.
But do you own life? Is there anyone who does? Is ownership something actual
or a concept created by thought? You see - man creates the idea of ownership
(this is my land/cow/food/nation/data), then separates the whole world into
pieces, they inevitably conflict with each other. Then man tries to impose
strict restrictions to those peaces, to _control_ them harder and harder till
absolute tyrany is achieved. And all that business of "personal and national
security" creates more insecurity, some good people create FOSS systems with
the hope to escape the tyrany but it is not freedom. It is a fight for the
control. I wonder if you understand what I am saying. The reaction to
non-freedom is not freedom. Freedom has no opposite. I don't want to get too
off-topic. Again - I welcome you to discuss things in the other thread as I
am really intersted to talk with technically knowledgeable people about what
we can do about our real freedom.
So "to control one's own life" really means conformity to certain patter
(adopted from an external source or invented for oneself). It is not freedom.
> So you agree that the enhanced security your parents get is worth the
privacy they give up?
Unfortunately yes. It is the least worse for the moment.
> Don't you think most users are like your parents and less like you?
And that is due to the poor design. Technology as it is makes people more
stupid, more dependent and less free. I don't even need to give examples, do
I?
> Distributing the lists is not the hard part. Creating them is.
There is no need to create them. It is possible to have TOR-ed nodes which
pull them and host them.
BTW I wonder if you have ever asked yourself why all the malware exists but I
won't go into that question here. Let's just say - with a good design it
wouldn't be hard. It may even be unnecessary. Example: in Windows you need
antivirus programs. In Linux - unlikely + there is fairly low interest in
creating viruses. Why? Because of better overall design. Same for
defragmentation programs etc.
> Trusting nobody, not even free software communities, and not being a
programmer, you should stop using software. All of it.
Exactly. But nobody pulls the cord (except RMS perhaps). Personally I have
started programming about 30 years ago (Commodore 64, then another 8-bit
computer, then 8086 etc) and although I neither made it into a profession nor
I do it actively, I have a fairly good view on how hardware and software
works, so at least I don't try to do something which may be dangerous. Still
I don't claim to be no expert, technology moves too fast to follow every
aspect of it. That's why I was saying previously - if one is a general
layman, things are very very dangerous.
> Google's server (the software they run on their side) is trivially free:
there is one single user and it has all four freedoms.
Where is the source code? Can anyone download and install it? If yes - then
we can outstrip Google. BTW sth interesting which I saw today in tcpdump:
when i open https://duckduckgo.com/html/ - many connections to amazonaws.com
:)
> On the contrary, Windows is distributed to many users that do not have the
control they deserve on it. Maybe you wanted to write "Google's services" but
services cannot be said free/proprietary:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html
No, I didn't want to say that. I think services can be privacy respecting
without having to trust a mid-man. Encrypted peer-to-peer connections,
broadcasting, things like that.
> You apparently think it is worth it on your parents' computer.
It is not worth it. It is the least worse. - 2 quite different things.
> That is not correct.
Then I am waiting to see the lines of code with explanation proving that it
is incorrect, so that everyone can understand it. So far I read only
accusations about how bad my bug report is and about good theories in the
articles of various people.
> How should Firefox's telemetry component be called?
Nothing. There shold be no telemetry. I already said that.
> You may agree to show your ID to take a plane but you would not accept nude
pictures of you to be taken and published.
You are mixing different things.
1. You don't agree to show your ID because you are free to do or not. It's
the law. Supposedly: that is for the safety of society. However as we see
that this system is also used for tracking and not always for catching a
terrorist. But there is no escape from it. If you want to fly - they must
know who you are.
2. No law requires from you to show your nude pics, so that is up to you
only. Breaching that privacy would not be good for society.
So these are not levels of privacy but a different forms of non-privacy.
Perhaps we are used to introduce a level of privacy based on the degree of
harm it may expose oneself to but that seems incorrect and even dangerous
because it can be exploited through conceptualization (for the sake of
establishing trust and breaking into privacy easier).
> There are levels of security too. And of ease of use. And of performance.
Etc. Often, trade-offs between those features (again: they are not freedoms)
must be sought. 100% privacy would mean not interacting with anybody. Ever.
That's why I question the whole idea of security through isolation - which is
the current model established in computers. But we cannot be secure when we
are isolated and the more we isolate, the more we strengthen the conflict.
One man cannot live without other people. We are secure only when we are
together, one isolated man cannot do anything in this world. But strangely
man likes to isolate - separate nations, separate countries, seperate
religions, separate this or that. Our whole culture is based on separation
which inevitably creates conflict. It is really a big mess.
> We cannot promise you to write bug-free programs. But we can respect your
freedoms. Letting you control, individually and collectively, the software
you use. Including to fix bugs.
Neither telemetry, nor Ubuntu's case are bugs. Trying to justify these
privacy violating things by evaluating them through FSF's 4 freedoms is
meaningless. I think I have spent enough time to explain that, so I won't do
it again. I hope you don't mind.
> ... You want the impossible.
What I want I have done and it is not based on theories or quotes. I invited
you to do something better and to share the results - that would be useful
for the community. It is up to you, up to your free time and desire. But
merely criticizing my bug reports hardly has any value. You may try to prove
verbally whatever you want, provide the best articles from the most
respectable sources but that won't eradicate the packets shown by tcpdump.
Firefox (and its clones) communicate with hosts without user initiating that
explicitly, that is a privacy issue. Chromium developers have confirmed it in
a reply from today that nothing should be sent, even though for their browser
only a single packet is sent to translate.google.com upon opening of settings
- definitely possible to fix. Brave's developers also confirmed that this is
a privacy issue. The rest of the results for the browsers I tested are also
shared in this thread.
This is my last lengthy post in this thread. I feel like I am writing a book.
