SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Register spotted Ubuntu behaving badly again with respect to users' privacy. In their article "Ubuntu wants to slurp PCs' vital statistics – even location – with new desktop installs: Data harvest notice will be checked by default", they note that in addition to installing popcon and apport by default, Canonical seeks much deeper data mining (without using the word "telemetry"):
[...] "We want to be able to focus our engineering efforts on the things that matter most to our users, and in order to do that we need to get some more data about sort of setups our users have and which software they are running on it," explained Will Cooke, the director of Ubuntu Desktop at Canonical.
[...] Data Canonical seeks "would include" the following: Ubuntu Flavour, Ubuntu Version, Network connectivity or not, CPU family, RAM, Disk(s) size, Screen(s) resolution, GPU vendor and model, OEM Manufacturer, Location (based on the location selection made by the user at install). No IP information would be gathered, Installation duration (time taken), Auto login enabled or not, Disk layout selected, Third party software selected or not, Download updates during install or not, [and] LivePatch enabled or not.
The system plans to leverage the power of the default setting by making the choice opt-out, not opt-in as popcon has been in the past: Cooke explained to the ubuntu-devel audience that "Any user can simply opt out by unchecking the box, which triggers one simple POST stating, 'diagnostics=false'. There will be a corresponding checkbox in the Privacy panel of GNOME Settings to toggle the state of this."
El Reg also noted Ubuntu's plan to address user privacy concerns:
"The Ubuntu privacy policy would be updated to reflect this change."
This seems less egregious than Ubuntu's past invasions of privacy, but much more invasive and Windows 10-like.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 20 2018, @01:09PM (15 children)
I remember when Linux was the OS that just did what the user told it and never spied on the user. It was YOUR computer and Linux respected that. (Back in the days of Slackware and early Red Hat)
But that was considered normal and expected behavior then. Even Windows acted that way! (Windows 95, 98, NT)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by janrinok on Tuesday February 20 2018, @01:19PM (6 children)
It still is - the user decides whether to activate this feature or not. This differs significantly from the Microsoft option where it is next to impossible to remove the telemetry feature and, if you do, it will probably get reinstalled at the next update. It would be better to be opt-in rather than opt-out but, if you are capable of installing your own OS, you should be able to deselect the appropriate option at installation time.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Grishnakh on Tuesday February 20 2018, @05:45PM (3 children)
It still is - the user decides whether to activate this feature or not. This differs significantly from the Microsoft option where it is next to impossible to remove the telemetry feature and, if you do, it will probably get reinstalled at the next update.
You still have the option, as a user, to decide whether to activate these features with Microsoft Windows 10. If you don't want these telemetry features, it's very simple: don't install or use Windows 10. No one's physically forcing you to sit at a Windows 10 computer and use it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @01:38AM
Wow, thanks for the tip, moron.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday February 21 2018, @03:26PM (1 child)
No one's physically forcing you to sit at a Windows 10 computer and use it.
forced to use win10 at work ;(
we use linux for real work, but the corp idiots who know nothing - OF COURSE picked MS for the whole company and so there's no real choice for the employees.
last job we used linux at the desktop and it was great. no MS at all in my working day. now, sadly, they are forcing everyone (even win7) to 'upgrade'. they take people's laptops for half a day, render that employee useless for that time, and then return the pc with that crapware on it.
sometimes, security really is just a word that is used by corps but not at ALL understood. my current company is like that ;(
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday February 21 2018, @03:45PM
forced to use win10 at work ;(
1. No one's physically forcing you to do that job, and preventing you from finding another.
2. At work, you're being paid to put up with bullshit. Dealing with stuff like Win10 and "enterprise software" is part of the job, and what you're being paid for.
3. Perhaps most importantly, if you're working at a company of any real size, there's no telemetry in Windows 10 (which is what this thread was complaining about in the first place). The enterprise edition of Win10 doesn't have it. And even if it did, they're spying on your employer, not you.
last job we used linux at the desktop and it was great.
Should have stuck with that job :-) There are jobs like this, and if more people avoided the Win10 jobs and went for the Linux-only jobs, we'd have some improvement. When a corporate recruiter calls and tries to get you to interview with them, find out what their IT system is running, and when you find out it's Win10, tell them you're not interested in dealing with that, or you expect a very handsome salary bump for it. Maybe they'll eventually learn if enough candidates tell them this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @09:25AM (1 child)
According to the summary, this is not the case. Ubuntu decides to activate this feature, and the user may decide to opt out, when he happens to learn about it three years later.
Until the user touches the checkbox in question, the user has not decided to activate it.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday February 21 2018, @12:15PM
If you are installing an OS and don't know what you are doing, perhaps you shouldn't be installing an OS!
You have to select locale, disk configuration and formatting, what packages you wish (server, desktop etc), which environment (MATE, KDE etc) and so on. Yet you think the same person who can make informed decisions on such things cannot decide whether to accept or decline the option to feed some data back to Ubuntu?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 20 2018, @02:50PM (4 children)
Linux isn't collecting your data. Canonical / *buntu is collecting data. People commonly make a similar mistake with telephones. "My phone is spying on me - Android is terrible!" In actuality, Android doesn't spy on you - your phone provider configured the phone to spy on you. Linux is very different from *buntu. *Buntu is a customer of Linux, Linux is not dependent on *buntu.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 20 2018, @10:47PM (1 child)
You're drawing an awfully fine distinction to protect Linux's good name.
The fact that Linux can be and is being configured to spy on you thanks to a very, very popular distribution does sully Linux. Linux is not a "safe" choice.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 20 2018, @11:14PM
It really isn't that fine a distinction. You go to an auto dealership, buy a car, and drive it home. Over the course of time, you figure out that your car has GPS tracking attached to it. Someone is spying on you. Investigation determines that the dealership equips all cars sold at their lot with GPS tracking devices, so that they can repossess more easily. Do you blame General Motors for that tracking?
Linux isn't configured OOB to spy on anyone. Torvalds offers his kernel, free of charge, with source code, to be configured however people wish to configure it. He encourages the people who own the computer to compile and configure his kernel to their liking. Ubuntu is doing exactly that - they are configuring the kernel and the OS to their liking.
You don't confuse an auto dealership with the auto manufacturer, why are you confusing a distro with the kernel? This isn't Windows, which does actively spy on your computer usage. Nor is it Apple's walled garden. If you don't like something on your computer - change it. Anything and everything can be changed. Unless, of course, you don't own your computer. Ahhh, Ubuntu. Ubuntu has made decisions in the past that suggest that they wish to retain ownership of your computer. So far, the nefarious level has only reached the level of "alarming". That is, we should all be alarmed that Canonical doesn't respect user's rights. Canonical isn't Microsoft, but they would like to be.
No matter what you wish to acquire, always make sure that the sales force isn't trying to screw you over. You can get the same Linux elsewhere, at the same price, WITHOUT any kind of tracking. Choose a better salesman.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @09:28AM
Too bad they all use the Google version of Android (If google had a dime for every time they spied on someone, they would be as rich as - well, Google).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @02:05PM
"Android" may not spy on me, but Google, via GApps and other very tightly connected apps does. I think confusing the two is fair for most purposes, in the same way that if IE6 was spying on Internet use in 1998, it would be fair for people to say "Windows is spying on my Internet use". Actually, it's more fair. The main Android OS distros, as promoted by the phone companies, includes GApps as a selling point and most people aren't even aware there is an alternative to the Google Play Store. At least in 1998, most people knews there were other browsers available and were easy to install.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Arik on Tuesday February 20 2018, @06:28PM
Those days are now.
http://slackware.com/
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:34AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @12:42PM
I have been using Linux since 1995.
I understand all the pitfalls.
The endless fragmentation of Linux distributions and policy changes within them means someone who just wants an OS they can trust and trust to just work is not a simple task.
Your dismissive attitude of others who aren't experts is part of the "Linux" problem. But, it has ALWAYS been this way. Nothing changes, and this is why Linux is forever an OS suitable only to run servers, maintained by people who do this for a living.