Ignoring privacy sabotages Ubuntu's best chance for success

[Matthew Paul Thomas]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Benjamin Kerensa wrote on 25/02/14 20:35:
> 
> On 2/24/14, 3:08 AM, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: ...
>> 
>> Ubuntu has extensive designs for privacy settings on both PC and 
>> phone. <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityAndPrivacySettings> As 
>> with everything else in Ubuntu, there's always more to do than
>> we have time for.
> 
> Except the fact that it requires opt-out to sending queries to 
> Canonical and then on to third parties. And that there are still 
> scopes/lenses enabled by default that do not use SSL which leaks
> user queries.

Both of those are problems, but neither is an "exception" to what I said.

>> Protracted but non-specific comparisons to DuckDuckGo aren't that
>>  useful. Most useful would be for you to implement privacy
>> features yourself, or find new contributors to do so. But at a
>> minimum, you could be more specific about improvements you'd like
>> to see.
> 
> You're suggesting that individuals are going to be able to submit 
> patches to improve privacy and that those patches would even be 
> acknowledged?

All patches should be acknowledged, but no, that's not what I said.

> Please explain then why a member of the Ubuntu Tech Committees
> patch has sat without review for two years. 
> https://code.launchpad.net/~kees/libunity/remote-search-none
> 
> ...

I have no idea. Seems like a good change to me.

- -- 
mpt

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlMPaqgACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecoyigCfUbqRBVTgSVKXoRpADK42HdYO
qUoAn3ENDpRVkd5YCITCWjENVxdNGCJ6
=ReWo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----