Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, SecretSquirrel, notfred
strongbadburg wrote:it is not paranoid hysteria
...
I can go on, but this thread is going to be locked, or even deleted, because big business hates individual privacy.
strongbadburg wrote:No credible link is needed, and it is not paranoid hysteria. This is called connecting the dots. Detectives do it, FBI officials do it, just about everybody who has ever been a name in history has done it. Anybody who has ever founded a successful business, or has ever been in politics knows what I am talking about. What has made Ubuntu more successful than any other Linux distro? Was it the freely shipped cd's? That was part of the plan. Was it the ease of use? That sure made a huge difference. Is it because Mark Shuttleworth has been backing the whole thing? Your getting much warmer. I can go on, but this thread is going to be locked, or even deleted, because big business hates individual privacy. Put a frog in a pot of water, and slowly turn up the heat. He won't even realize it until it's too late.
strongbadburg wrote:No credible link is needed, and it is not paranoid hysteria. This is called connecting the dots. Detectives do it, FBI officials do it, just about everybody who has ever been a name in history has done it. Anybody who has ever founded a successful business, or has ever been in politics knows what I am talking about. What has made Ubuntu more successful than any other Linux distro? Was it the freely shipped cd's? That was part of the plan. Was it the ease of use? That sure made a huge difference. Is it because Mark Shuttleworth has been backing the whole thing? Your getting much warmer. I can go on, but this thread is going to be locked, or even deleted, because big business hates individual privacy. Put a frog in a pot of water, and slowly turn up the heat. He won't even realize it until it's too late.
sweatshopking wrote:I suppose i'd just say "since it's open source, and neck bearded linux lovers are often paranoid, don't you think somebody would just LOOK at the source code?"
Skrying wrote:What's even crazier about this thread is we're talking about open source software...
bdwilcox wrote:So that means you volunteer to go through the Zeitgeist code line by line to see if it's doing anything shady, including all future versions? Wow! Thanks!
bdwilcox wrote:Since when is concern over the implementation of information aggregators a negative?
bdwilcox wrote:We should all be concerned when our data is being indexed and archived. The big differences between a browser history and this is the fact that the browser keeps tabs only on itself not the whole OS, the browser history can be turned off without affecting the browser's functionality and the browser isn't an integral part of the OS.
bdwilcox wrote:At first, no data will be shared, but little by little things can be changed and small additions added to the "functionality" of Zeitgeist, always framed in out best interest, of course. Government and industry violate our privacy wholesale when they can get away from it (iPhone GPS tracking) or in increments small enough to swallow without inciting revolt (Windows Genuine Advantage).
bdwilcox wrote:Here the concern is that this is simple and innocuous but can become not so innocent over time. And now with the NSA getting its nose into operating systems and the Web, we should all be concerned where things like Zeitgeist might lead.
bdwilcox wrote:It also doesn't help that they named it after an Illuminati plan for world domination and control that parallels the UN's Agenda 21.
bdwilcox wrote:Skrying wrote:What's even crazier about this thread is we're talking about open source software...
So that means you volunteer to go through the Zeitgeist code line by line to see if it's doing anything shady, including all future versions? Wow! Thanks!
bdwilcox wrote:Skrying wrote:What's even crazier about this thread is we're talking about open source software...
So that means you volunteer to go through the Zeitgeist code line by line to see if it's doing anything shady, including all future versions? Wow! Thanks!
strongbadburg wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist_%28framework%29 Look at this and don't tell me that this could not be a security and privacy concern with use of application which DO submit data offsite, and is easily exploitable with a malicious Java script or applet combined with an application which also has security holes.
strongbadburg wrote:Now Ubuntu is guilty of including malware disguised as an innocent-looking feature known as Zeitgeist. It keeps track of way too many things, and is part of the Unity desktop. And apparantly is or will be part of Gnome 3 as well. It keeps track of usage patters, instant messages, and such. I moved away from Windows because it had become a piece of Malware on it's own, and now this! Anyone in doubt can google it. Removing zeitgeist cripples Unity, and I suppose would do the same to Gnome 3. I know there are other desktops out there, but shouldn't the Linux community have seen this and objected to it?
strongbadburg wrote:Now Ubuntu is guilty of including malware disguised as an innocent-looking feature known as Zeitgeist. It keeps track of way too many things, and is part of the Unity desktop. And apparantly is or will be part of Gnome 3 as well. It keeps track of usage patters, instant messages, and such. I moved away from Windows because it had become a piece of Malware on it's own, and now this! Anyone in doubt can google it. Removing zeitgeist cripples Unity, and I suppose would do the same to Gnome 3. I know there are other desktops out there, but shouldn't the Linux community have seen this and objected to it?
stmok wrote:... This is why I don't use Ubuntu. I stick with Debian and Xfce desktop environment...Its more work to set-up at the beginning, but at least I can control exactly what's being installed from the start by installing the core bits and then only adding what I need and use.