Privacy features in Touch (cyanogenmod)?

[Marc Deslauriers]

On 13-06-24 03:58 PM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Marc Deslauriers
> <marc.deslauriers at canonical.com <mailto:marc.deslauriers at canonical.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 13-06-23 04:06 PM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
>     > The person in question has perhaps the most foremost expertise on Information
>     > Security and Privacy in our community and perhaps in other communities as
>     well.
>     > He is widely respected and I don't think its just his opinion. I think its
>     > widely held that the Amazon Scope is a privacy fail by community members
>     at ever
>     > level of the Ubuntu project.
> 
>     Different people have different levels of privacy. Some people refuse to use
>     Facebook, but I do, even though I know they are using my information for ad
>     purposes. That's a level I am ok with.
> 
>     When I showed a Friend the Amazon Scope, he though it was so cool he asked how
>     to install it in Ubuntu 12.04.
> 
> 
> So one friend liking the feature justifies ignoring widely held views that the
> feature is invasive and should be opt-in?

Well, if you're allowed to present anecdotal evidence that it's "widely held",
so am I. I present anecdotal evidence of a single friend to demonstrate the fact
that privacy levels are a personal thing.

>  
> 
> 
>     Please stop assuming everyone has the same notion of privacy as you do. Opinions
>     differ. I completely disagree with the notion that having a global search box in
>     Ubuntu is a privacy issue.
> 
> 
> I'm not assuming everyone has the same notion of privacy that I do.  I do
> however I assume that most people do not know what truly is and why it is
> important. Privacy is more than just preventing private information from being
> share or leaked. It is more importantly about the choice of users and
> individuals to decided when and where there information is shared.

I totally agree that privacy is about choice, and that information shouldn't be
leaked without the user's consent. Which is why I think the Unity global search
respects user privacy by stating "Search your computer and online sources" in
the global search box, allowing the user to easily search locally without
sending their search terms to the Internet, and allowing users to disable
Internet in the global search with a privacy applet in the system settings.

> 
> In the case of the scope in question it does not give users control or choice by
> default but instead makes the choice for them. That is a lack of privacy.

Of course it gives users a choice by default. You can simply not use the global
search field, and use local search fields, you can disable Internet access in
the privacy applet, or you can simply uninstall the relevant scopes.

> 
> 
>     In Unity 8, you can select right in the Dash which scopes can see your search
>     queries, and which don't.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure and you can disable it currently but thats not the point. The point is that
> Canonical has made a decision for its user in regards to how information is
> shared by default and that again is a lack of privacy and disrespectful to user
> choice.

No, it's not. It's respecting what most users expect of a modern operating
system. If you don't believe me, poll users of Siri on iOS. I'm sure they will
agree that having a global search _that actually works_ is what is expected.

>     >     The trade-off of the scopes features was well understood and just like
>     >     many other controversial decisions that have been made over the years,
>     >     it was decided that overall it would benefit the project the most in
>     >     the mid/long-term.
>     >
>     >
>     > I'm not saying all scopes are bad or privacy fails because not all scopes are
>     > install by default and not all scopes take users search queries in the home
>     > portion of the Unity Dash with such blatant lack of respect for user
>     choice and
>     > privacy.
> 
>     I don't know what you mean by that. It's clear that you're searching the
>     Internet, and it can be disabled with a single click. What do you consider to be
>     a "blatant lack of respect for user choice and privacy"?
> 
> 
> Any occasion where users systems upon upgrade or fresh install will result in
> their searches on their desktop being sent to a private company without them
> opting in to such. Privacy is all about control and choice.

Privacy has nothing to do with opt-in or opt-out.

Please see the following web page for a pretty good description of what privacy is:

http://blog.sidstamm.com/2012/12/what-is-privacy.html


1- Collection of data is transparent.

Yep, the search box says "Search your computer _and online sources_", and
there's a link to a legal notice that details how your search term is going to
be used.

2- Individuals must be provided choice.

Any user is free to decide if they want their search terms to be collected. They
can simply not use the global search of the dash, or they can disable Internet
use of it.

3- they must be given control over collection

Yep, the legal notice instructs users how to disable online search, and it's a
simple switch in the Privacy section of the system settings.


Marc.