> 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
> 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
> They are not perfect, but their business model is not to surveil you.
> 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,
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
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
I was answering your questions from your previous post:
>> Meanwhile you are so worried about what happens in ring-3? Again, where is
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.
Spectre and Meltdown are yet to be exploited by malicious hackers. These are
> 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