[Ubuntu-UY] Ubuntu Spyware: What to Do?

[Pablo Rubianes]

Con todo el respeto que le podría llegar a tener a Stallman estoy 100% con
Jono Bacon
http://www.jonobacon.org/2012/12/07/on-richard-stallman-and-ubuntu/
Saludos
El 09/12/2012 08:00, "Federico Kouyoumdjian" <fedekp en autistici.org>
escribió:

> http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/**ubuntu-spyware-what-to-do<http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/ubuntu-spyware-what-to-do>
>
>  One of the major advantages of free software is that the community
> protects users from malicious software. Now Ubuntu GNU/Linux has become a
> counterexample. What should we do?
>
> One of the major advantages of free software is that the community
> protects users from malicious software. Now Ubuntu GNU/Linux has become a
> counterexample. What should we do?
>
> Proprietary software is associated with malicious treatment of the user:
> surveillance code, digital handcuffs (DRM or Digital Restrictions
> Management) to restrict users, and back doors that can do nasty things
> under remote control. Programs that do any of these things are malware and
> should be treated as such. Widely used examples include Windows, the
> iThings, and the Amazon "Kindle" product for virtual book burning, which do
> all three; Macintosh and the Playstation III which impose DRM; most
> portable phones, which do spying and have back doors; Adobe Flash Player,
> which does spying and enforces DRM; and plenty of apps for iThings and
> Android, which are guilty of one or more of these nasty practices.
>
> Free software gives users a chance to protect themselves from malicious
> software behaviors. Even better, usually the community protects everyone,
> and most users don't have to move a muscle. Here's how.
>
> Once in a while, users who know programming find that a free program has
> malicious code. Generally the next thing they do is release a corrected
> version of the program; with the four freedoms that define free software
> (see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/**free-sw.html<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>),
> they are free to do this. This is called a "fork" of the program. Soon the
> community switches to the corrected fork, and the malicious version is
> rejected. The prospect of ignominious rejection is not very tempting; thus,
> most of the time, even those who are not stopped by their consciences and
> social pressure refrain from putting malfeatures in free software.
>
> But not always. Ubuntu, a widely used and influential GNU/Linux
> distribution, has installed surveillance code. When the user searches her
> own local files for a string using the Ubuntu desktop, Ubuntu sends that
> string to one of Canonical's servers. (Canonical is the company that
> develops Ubuntu.)
>
> This is just like the first surveillance practice I learned about in
> Windows. My late friend Fravia told me that when he searched for a string
> in the files of his Windows system, it sent a packet to some server, which
> was detected by his firewall. Given that first example I paid attention and
> learned about the propensity of "reputable" proprietary software to be
> malware. Perhaps it is no coincidence that Ubuntu sends the same
> information.
>
> Ubuntu uses the information about searches to show the user ads to buy
> various things from Amazon. Amazon commits many wrongs (see
> http://stallman.org/amazon.**html <http://stallman.org/amazon.html>); by
> promoting Amazon, Canonical contributes to them. However, the ads are not
> the core of the problem. The main issue is the spying. Canonical says it
> does not tell Amazon who searched for what. However, it is just as bad for
> Canonical to collect your personal information as it would have been for
> Amazon to collect it.
>
> People will certainly make a modified version of Ubuntu without this
> surveillance. In fact, several GNU/Linux distros are modified versions of
> Ubuntu. When those update to the latest Ubuntu as a base, I expect they
> will remove this. Canonical surely expects that too.
>
> Most free software developers would abandon such a plan given the prospect
> of a mass switch to someone else's corrected version. But Canonical has not
> abandoned the Ubuntu spyware. Perhaps Canonical figures that the name
> "Ubuntu" has so much momentum and influence that it can avoid the usual
> consequences and get away with surveillance.
>
> Canonical says this feature searches the Internet in other ways. Depending
> on the details, that might or might not make the problem bigger, but not
> smaller.
>
> Ubuntu allows users to switch the surveillance off. Clearly Canonical
> thinks that many Ubuntu users will leave this setting in the default state
> (on). And many may do so, because it doesn't occur to them to try to do
> anything about it. Thus, the existence of that switch does not make the
> surveillance feature ok.
>
> Even if it were disabled by default, the feature would still be dangerous:
> "opt in, once and for all" for a risky practice, where the risk varies
> depending on details, invites carelessness. To protect users' privacy,
> systems should make prudence easy: when a local search program has a
> network search feature, it should be up to the user to choose network
> search explicitly each time. This is easy: all it takes is to have separate
> buttons for network searches and local searches, as earlier versions of
> Ubuntu did. A network search feature should also inform the user clearly
> and concretely about who will get what personal information of hers, if and
> when she uses the feature.
>
> If a sufficient part of our community's opinion leaders view this issue in
> personal terms only, if they switch the surveillance off for themselves and
> continue to promote Ubuntu, Canonical might get away with it. That would be
> a great loss to the free software community.
>
> We who present free software as a defense against malware do not say it is
> a perfect defense. No perfect defense is known. We don't say the community
> will deter malware without fail. Thus, strictly speaking, the Ubuntu
> spyware example doesn't mean we have to eat our words.
>
> But there's more at stake here than whether some of us have to eat some
> words. What's at stake is whether our community can effectively use the
> argument based on proprietary spyware. If we can only say, "free software
> won't spy on you, unless it's Ubuntu," that's much less powerful than
> saying, "free software won't spy on you."
>
> It behooves us to give Canonical whatever rebuff is needed to make it stop
> this. Any excuse Canonical offers is inadequate; even if it used all the
> money it gets from Amazon to develop free software, that can hardly
> overcome what free software will lose if it ceases to offer an effective
> way to avoid abuse of the users.
>
> If you ever recommend or redistribute GNU/Linux, please remove Ubuntu from
> the distros you recommend or redistribute. If its practice of installing
> and recommending nonfree software didn't convince you to stop, let this
> convince you. In your install fests, in your Software Freedom Day events,
> in your FLISOL events, don't install or recommend Ubuntu. Instead, tell
> people that Ubuntu is shunned for spying.
>
> While you're at it, you can also tell them that Ubuntu contains nonfree
> programs and suggests other nonfree programs. (See
> http://www.gnu.org/distros/**common-distros.html<http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html>.)
> That will counteract the other form of negative influence that Ubuntu
> exerts in the free software community: legitimizing nonfree software.
>
> Copyright 2012 Richard Stallman
> Released under the Creative Commons Attribution Noderivatives 3.0 license
>
> --
> Ubuntu-uy mailing list
> Ubuntu-uy en lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/**
> mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uy<https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uy>
>
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-uy/attachments/20121209/3ba444a2/attachment.html>