> It is much better than doing nothing.

You seem to ignore the most common scenario (which I already explained but again:) host A is perfectly clean/libre system communicating with host B which is PRISM'ed (= all communication is tapped). Now consider that hosts like A are very few and hosts like B are almost all other computers and (currently) all mobile phones. So this "much better" is really wishful thinking.


> Privacy, like pollution, is an ecological issue.

Privacy is not issue. The issue is surveillance and yes - it is ecological. But you won't stop it by securing one or 10k hosts. As long as there are infected hosts in the whole network, capable of spying on others, the whole network is unhealthy.

> Mozilla is a non-profit foundation that promotes Free Software and open standards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#Affiliations

> They are not perfect, but their business model is not to surveil you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMALm1VthGY

> Of course, Mozilla respects your privacy better than Google.

Based on what is that "of course"? What evidence do you personally observe? Please stop speaking based on random articles around the web. Bloggers need traffic, I don't.

> If you want to argue the opposite, please provide proof, particularly proof that Mozilla is purposely abusing my privacy, and in a worse way than Google, to boot.

I don't want to argue. I have already provided enough info in the web browsers thread. And I don't claim that this info is complete and final because I haven't used (or tested) each and every product and service by both companies. Still it is first hand info unlike the articles by bloggers who never tested anything.

> Just like when you say Edward Snowden may have been a plant. The burden of proof is on you heyjoe. If you have no proof then you are just libeling a person and an organization both of whom seem to be on the side of a more just world.

If one wants to find out the truth about anything one must be objective. I have no proof of that and you have no proof of the opposite. So if we are objective we have to admit that both are equally possible. The fact is that media can highly influence people to think something without a proof and there are people who use that lever. Another fact is - well, he worked for NSA, so he agreed to do nasty things. Why should he not do another even nastier thing? I admit that it as possibility and I admit the other possibility too. It is an open door. Personally I find Wikileaks a more reliable source of factual info. Don't ask me why.

> Nobody is disregarding their technical expertise. That is precisely what makes them such a dangerous company. For the last time, their business model is to surveil you. This is not up for argument.

I don't think their business model is mere surveillance. It is much bigger than that. Also it is not their expertise that makes them dangerous but how they use that expertise.

> I believe all people should care about the freedom of their computing, so I would never recommend somebody to run Windows... You are presenting a false dichotomy.

I was answering your questions from your previous post:

>> Meanwhile you are so worried about what happens in ring-3? Again, where is the logic?

so that you can understand. But you don't. You simply see the word "Windows" and jump into the "Gnullelujah, I believe". Nobody asked you what you think is better or not. You asked me about the logic and I gave you my answer. What's the point of asking someone what he thinks if you don't really care about anything but yourself? If you do that you are not looking for a dialog, you are merely preaching your own thing. Don't waste my time please.

> I think I understand well enough what ME is. You speak of Intel ME as if it were a sentient being. Who, precisely, has full access to every single bit of my data...etc. etc. even while my system is shut down? Who is simultaneously spying on all of us like this? Microsoft? Google? The NSA? The local mobster? All of them? Do you have any proof that this is happening? Intel ME is a potential backdoor. Spectre and Meltdown are security vulnerabilities. I doubt that if I decide not to use Gmail, Google's employees are going to start collecting data on me thrugh ME, or Spectre or Meltdown or any other vulnerability in the hardware of my computer.

https://www.blackhat.com/eu-17/briefings/schedule/index.html#how-to-hack-a-turned-off-computer-or-running-unsigned-code-in-intel-management-engine-8668

Spectre and Meltdown are yet to be exploited by malicious hackers. These are separate.

> I do not mind that you think what you wish and that you make a case for what you think. I do mind that you conflate issues, confuse others, and make it sound as though using free software has no purpose. I do mind that you seem so paranoid about security, privacy, surveillance, and yet use the services of at least one of the surveillance giants. You can't have it both ways heyjoe. And if you wish to libel others, particularly those who are in service of a more free society, those who have dedicated their lives to it, even risked their lives for it, I suggest you cough up some hard evidence or stop complaining when you are called up on your unsubstantiated libels.

I do mind that you waste my time to explain you things and answer your questions (multiple times), so that you make another set of disrespectful conclusions based on your own lack of knowledge about certain things. So next time you ask me something - don't wonder if I decide not to answer. Mind that.

Reply via email to