Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
Once the Apple Craze slows down considerably (slow sales) and someday it'll happen. Apple Inc will become Data Miners themselves.
It's all about the revenue.
It's all about the revenue.
Returning to old Gmail
- Thread starter daves66nova
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Your way off base on Apple and privacy. Apple is the world leader in privacy over all the big names. Also putting Google and Apple in the same category is incorrect.
Google's business model is data mining, Apple is not even close to being that.
One really needs to rely on oneself for privacy, not just what other companies claim to do. As Triple_Se7en notes, things can change at Apple. Secondly, they're not the saints you claim them to be. See
this link. Of course, there is more to my use of technology than simply privacy concerns.
I really dislike vendor lock in, particularly as implemented in Apple's business model. They've really gone back in time with respect to some of these things. First off, if someone is claiming that something is concerned with my privacy, they had better be able to prove it by having the source code available for inspection. Apple won't do that. They can claim to be concerned about my privacy, but if they're not willing to put the source code where their mouths are, I'm not convinced. That's one reason Phil Zimmerman moved along after NAI took over his product. He could personally guarantee the integrity of the last version when he was there, but wasn't in the position to guarantee no back doors on future versions. I trust Phil Zimmerman's word. I had no reason to trust NAI's word. That shows how a company can go from having something trusted for privacy and integrity, and then suddenly that was no longer there, and a proprietary, opaque model was being enforced. It ended up biting eventual owner, McAfee, in the backside, anyhow, since the few people conversant with the product had long moved to the free and open source competition, and the company was left holding a white elephant. Before that, Symantec had released source code after it had been protected for 8 years or so, but that ship had already sailed, and I suspect they realized they had spent a bunch of money on said white elephant.
The iTunes model is absolutely an abomination. It has all the elegance, grace, and sense of playing Russian roulette with an autopistol. Despite Apple's protests, storage on an iPhone or iPod doesn't require a complex, kludgy interface. The storage is nothing more than a glorified USB stick. If I can't copy music to it by the "cp" command or its equivalent from any operating system or use a GUI file browser, I'm not interested. I'm also not interested in buying music from Apple. They push DRM restrictions, and I will not take part in that under any circumstances. Apple's model and similar models have upturned many years of convention when it came to music copyright. If I buy a CD, the courts both in Canada and the States have ruled I can make a a copy of my CDs for each of my vehicles, or a cassette copy for an ancient Walkman, digital copies to listen to on my computer, and reel to reel should I so desire for my personal use. Apple's business model won't allow that, so I'm not interested.
I've been in favour of the free software movement since it started, heck, before it started. I started with computers at the time when if you wanted a computer to do something, you sat down, wrote a program, and if it worked well, you gave it to your friends. I will use proprietary software. I'm not completely rigid on this. That's especially true for games. While there are FLOSS games out there, the reality is that the easiest way to game in comfort is to have a console hooked up to your HDTV and go to town; in that case, I still prefer buying the physical media where feasible. However, I'm not using proprietary software where a reasonable FLOSS equivalent is available. Even when I do get stuck using Windows, I still stick to whatever FLOSS software I can. The added bonus is that much of it is cross platform. I'm also not afraid of sending in useful bug reports (that don't get buried or dumped in File G) and identifying a workaround or even providing a fix.
The reality is there is very little that I (or most people, for that matter) do with computers that requires proprietary software. I don't need Apple's help to send email, browse the net, write a document or spreadsheet, set up a playlist, watch videos, or listen to music, and, most importantly, to make telephone calls.
With respect to credit reporting agencies, there are certain provisions here, and credit reporting things aren't completely "mandatory." However, if I want some big business loans, I have little choice but to participate.
Your way off base on Apple and privacy. Apple is the world leader in privacy over all the big names. Also putting Google and Apple in the same category is incorrect.
Google's business model is data mining, Apple is not even close to being that.
One really needs to rely on oneself for privacy, not just what other companies claim to do. As Triple_Se7en notes, things can change at Apple. Secondly, they're not the saints you claim them to be. See
this link. Of course, there is more to my use of technology than simply privacy concerns.
I really dislike vendor lock in, particularly as implemented in Apple's business model. They've really gone back in time with respect to some of these things. First off, if someone is claiming that something is concerned with my privacy, they had better be able to prove it by having the source code available for inspection. Apple won't do that. They can claim to be concerned about my privacy, but if they're not willing to put the source code where their mouths are, I'm not convinced. That's one reason Phil Zimmerman moved along after NAI took over his product. He could personally guarantee the integrity of the last version when he was there, but wasn't in the position to guarantee no back doors on future versions. I trust Phil Zimmerman's word. I had no reason to trust NAI's word. That shows how a company can go from having something trusted for privacy and integrity, and then suddenly that was no longer there, and a proprietary, opaque model was being enforced. It ended up biting eventual owner, McAfee, in the backside, anyhow, since the few people conversant with the product had long moved to the free and open source competition, and the company was left holding a white elephant. Before that, Symantec had released source code after it had been protected for 8 years or so, but that ship had already sailed, and I suspect they realized they had spent a bunch of money on said white elephant.
The iTunes model is absolutely an abomination. It has all the elegance, grace, and sense of playing Russian roulette with an autopistol. Despite Apple's protests, storage on an iPhone or iPod doesn't require a complex, kludgy interface. The storage is nothing more than a glorified USB stick. If I can't copy music to it by the "cp" command or its equivalent from any operating system or use a GUI file browser, I'm not interested. I'm also not interested in buying music from Apple. They push DRM restrictions, and I will not take part in that under any circumstances. Apple's model and similar models have upturned many years of convention when it came to music copyright. If I buy a CD, the courts both in Canada and the States have ruled I can make a a copy of my CDs for each of my vehicles, or a cassette copy for an ancient Walkman, digital copies to listen to on my computer, and reel to reel should I so desire for my personal use. Apple's business model won't allow that, so I'm not interested.
I've been in favour of the free software movement since it started, heck, before it started. I started with computers at the time when if you wanted a computer to do something, you sat down, wrote a program, and if it worked well, you gave it to your friends. I will use proprietary software. I'm not completely rigid on this. That's especially true for games. While there are FLOSS games out there, the reality is that the easiest way to game in comfort is to have a console hooked up to your HDTV and go to town; in that case, I still prefer buying the physical media where feasible. However, I'm not using proprietary software where a reasonable FLOSS equivalent is available. Even when I do get stuck using Windows, I still stick to whatever FLOSS software I can. The added bonus is that much of it is cross platform. I'm also not afraid of sending in useful bug reports (that don't get buried or dumped in File G) and identifying a workaround or even providing a fix.
The reality is there is very little that I (or most people, for that matter) do with computers that requires proprietary software. I don't need Apple's help to send email, browse the net, write a document or spreadsheet, set up a playlist, watch videos, or listen to music, and, most importantly, to make telephone calls.
With respect to credit reporting agencies, there are certain provisions here, and credit reporting things aren't completely "mandatory." However, if I want some big business loans, I have little choice but to participate.
Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Your way off base on Apple and privacy. Apple is the world leader in privacy over all the big names. Also putting Google and Apple in the same category is incorrect.
Google's business model is data mining, Apple is not even close to being that.
One really needs to rely on oneself for privacy, not just what other companies claim to do. As Triple_Se7en notes, things can change at Apple. Secondly, they're not the saints you claim them to be. See
this link. Of course, there is more to my use of technology than simply privacy concerns.
I really dislike vendor lock in, particularly as implemented in Apple's business model. They've really gone back in time with respect to some of these things. First off, if someone is claiming that something is concerned with my privacy, they had better be able to prove it by having the source code available for inspection. Apple won't do that. They can claim to be concerned about my privacy, but if they're not willing to put the source code where their mouths are, I'm not convinced. ...)
I think we are getting a little "out there" on the conspiracy theory.
I never said claimed Apple a Saint. Ummm ... that goes for any company.
We do agree, its up to the person to safeguard their personal information but lets face it, people dont. Apple does and their business model doesnt depend on selling your data like google does.
Simple and clear statement, thats all.
"Things can change" - well that can go for any company, not just Apple but right now, Apple prides itself on privacy for you and they are vocal about it, I think the chances of it changing are far less then any other HUGE company on planet earth just for the fact that is more and more their business model.
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Your way off base on Apple and privacy. Apple is the world leader in privacy over all the big names. Also putting Google and Apple in the same category is incorrect.
Google's business model is data mining, Apple is not even close to being that.
One really needs to rely on oneself for privacy, not just what other companies claim to do. As Triple_Se7en notes, things can change at Apple. Secondly, they're not the saints you claim them to be. See
this link. Of course, there is more to my use of technology than simply privacy concerns.
I really dislike vendor lock in, particularly as implemented in Apple's business model. They've really gone back in time with respect to some of these things. First off, if someone is claiming that something is concerned with my privacy, they had better be able to prove it by having the source code available for inspection. Apple won't do that. They can claim to be concerned about my privacy, but if they're not willing to put the source code where their mouths are, I'm not convinced. ...)
I think we are getting a little "out there" on the conspiracy theory.
I never said claimed Apple a Saint. Ummm ... that goes for any company.
We do agree, its up to the person to safeguard their personal information but lets face it, people dont. Apple does and their business model doesnt depend on selling your data like google does.
Simple and clear statement, thats all.
"Things can change" - well that can go for any company, not just Apple but right now, Apple prides itself on privacy for you and they are vocal about it, I think the chances of it changing are far less then any other HUGE company on planet earth just for the fact that is more and more their business model.
I dislike the new Gmail too!
I am not so concerned about Google scanning my email for marketing purposes.
I know that I must pay the provider directly to avoid that.
But as often as Google makes improvements they also take big backward steps from my perspective as a user. Not just in Gmail, but in their Android OS and apps too.
For those seeking alternatives, I'll add the email service from the people who bring us Startpage for searches:
https://www.startmail.com/en/
I am not so concerned about Google scanning my email for marketing purposes.
I know that I must pay the provider directly to avoid that.
But as often as Google makes improvements they also take big backward steps from my perspective as a user. Not just in Gmail, but in their Android OS and apps too.
For those seeking alternatives, I'll add the email service from the people who bring us Startpage for searches:
https://www.startmail.com/en/
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
Nothing free (beyond the trial period) with Startmail.
Originally Posted by alarmguy
I think we are getting a little "out there" on the conspiracy theory.
I wouldn't agree. Of course, that depends which aspect you're talking about. If you're talking about me preferring the FLOSS model, well, yes, that's a conspiracy. Many thousands of volunteers around the world conspire to make the best software they can in a collaborative fashion that's free to use, in every aspect of the word "free." Because of when I started to get involved in computers, I'm very rarely interested in having a company hand me a product and tell me, "Here you go, it's ready to use just the way it is, have at it, and you don't need to understand how it works and have no need to modify it." That's not likely to fly with me with respect to software or hardware. It does fly quite well with a very large segment of the population, because, despite what the world likes to claim about how technologically savvy people are getting, especially young people, that's patently false. What we have is a bunch of chimps that have been trained to manipulate a cell phone. The average "technologically savvy" user out there today has absolutely no concept about the basic principles of computer science, and can't even answer what a file is or use something as simple as a text file on multiple platforms. My god daughter, for instance, can take videos on her phone, send them to various sites and services, send them to all kinds of people in groups or as individuals, put filters on pictures, all kinds of things like that. Now, you ask her to write a text file on her phone, email it to herself, get the email on a computer, and edit again in any text editor, let alone emacs, I might as well be asking her to recreate the Apollo project. Ask her to take one of her videos, transfer it to a computer, and turn it into something viewable on any DVD player on the planet, regardless of age or region limitations, well, that's never going to happen. Ask her to take video from my surveillance cameras and convert them to a format that's viewable on her cell phone, again, not going to happen. If I do it for her and send it to her in a multipart rar file, I might as well have not wasted my time. For the vast majority of the populace as it is, a multipart rar file would stymie them every bit as much as military grade encryption.
If you're talking about me wanting to be able to inspect source code and use products without DRM restriction, that's really not a conspiracy. That's my choice of doing things. I simply do not accept and cannot accept Apple's Terms of Service for any of their products, so I won't be buying any of them. Most particularly, Apple doesn't get to arbitrarily change how I use music. That's the one that sticks in my craw the most. They ensure that music is very portable, but only insofar as you own an iThing and have one with you wherever you go, rather than let you change the media to suit the environment.
If you're talking about my anecdote about Phil Zimmerman, whether or not there's conspiracy theory going on there doesn't change what went wrong. PGP users have generally been in two camps that are not mutually exclusive, and actually overlapped in a big way. They were a bunch of paranoid nutbags and/or a bunch of very computer savvy people. You make the privacy software proprietary and hide the source code and charge fees, you're going to make the paranoid nutbags flee from your product out of fear Whether their fear is justified or not, you've lost the customers. You're also going to annoy the technologically savvy customers and they're going to flee, too. Phil Zimmerman's PGP and the proprietary versions at the end of and after his association with the product were just as difficult to use as the GnuPG version, and the latter was and is absolutely free with public source code. So, which should the tech savvy customers choose? A difficult to use proprietary software package that's closed source and costs money, or a similarly difficult, yet free and open source software package that uses compatible encryption and is cross platform? The proprietary product is now essentially dead and valueless.
Now, if you call RMS's ramblings a conspiracy theory, yes, probably, but for every nutbar point he makes, he's not wrong. I don't like that Apple pays people to assemble its products for terrible wages. Lots of companies do that, and me pointing at Apple alone isn't very helpful. The other points he makes, particularly in his area of expertise, are dead on. I don't appreciate Apple (or anyone else) scanning email content, even if it's to search for spam, as per the link Stallman gave. 99% of email spam can be stopped by an algorithm that would properly analyze an email header, and I'm actually surprised he didn't point that out himself. The content of the email is irrelevant. As an aside, here's where encryption of the email body would stymie them immediately.
Even if Apple commits for eternity to guard my privacy, remember, as I mentioned before, that doesn't protect me from others doing what they shouldn't. Companies do get hacked. Companies do fall victim to corporate espionage. Companies do fail. That's why I'm hesitant to let companies hold data for me, or to deal with much in the way of cloud computing or online applications. Further, I'm not running a VT100 terminal, so if my computer can't handle what I need it to do locally, why do I have the thing? Certain things on the cloud have some value, particularly if it's used to enhance redundancy of data and there are appropriate safeguards. Aside from that, this isn't 1986, so I'm not going to compute like it is.
With respect to what does or doesn't happen to huge companies, I'd prefer to minimize my reliance on that. If Apple gets hacked, they have nothing of mine to have stolen, much less misused. If Apple pulls the plug tomorrow, my credit cards and banking and payment methods still work as always, my music collection is untouched, my computer usage won't change in the slightest, and my landline still works the same as always.
I think we are getting a little "out there" on the conspiracy theory.
I wouldn't agree. Of course, that depends which aspect you're talking about. If you're talking about me preferring the FLOSS model, well, yes, that's a conspiracy. Many thousands of volunteers around the world conspire to make the best software they can in a collaborative fashion that's free to use, in every aspect of the word "free." Because of when I started to get involved in computers, I'm very rarely interested in having a company hand me a product and tell me, "Here you go, it's ready to use just the way it is, have at it, and you don't need to understand how it works and have no need to modify it." That's not likely to fly with me with respect to software or hardware. It does fly quite well with a very large segment of the population, because, despite what the world likes to claim about how technologically savvy people are getting, especially young people, that's patently false. What we have is a bunch of chimps that have been trained to manipulate a cell phone. The average "technologically savvy" user out there today has absolutely no concept about the basic principles of computer science, and can't even answer what a file is or use something as simple as a text file on multiple platforms. My god daughter, for instance, can take videos on her phone, send them to various sites and services, send them to all kinds of people in groups or as individuals, put filters on pictures, all kinds of things like that. Now, you ask her to write a text file on her phone, email it to herself, get the email on a computer, and edit again in any text editor, let alone emacs, I might as well be asking her to recreate the Apollo project. Ask her to take one of her videos, transfer it to a computer, and turn it into something viewable on any DVD player on the planet, regardless of age or region limitations, well, that's never going to happen. Ask her to take video from my surveillance cameras and convert them to a format that's viewable on her cell phone, again, not going to happen. If I do it for her and send it to her in a multipart rar file, I might as well have not wasted my time. For the vast majority of the populace as it is, a multipart rar file would stymie them every bit as much as military grade encryption.
If you're talking about me wanting to be able to inspect source code and use products without DRM restriction, that's really not a conspiracy. That's my choice of doing things. I simply do not accept and cannot accept Apple's Terms of Service for any of their products, so I won't be buying any of them. Most particularly, Apple doesn't get to arbitrarily change how I use music. That's the one that sticks in my craw the most. They ensure that music is very portable, but only insofar as you own an iThing and have one with you wherever you go, rather than let you change the media to suit the environment.
If you're talking about my anecdote about Phil Zimmerman, whether or not there's conspiracy theory going on there doesn't change what went wrong. PGP users have generally been in two camps that are not mutually exclusive, and actually overlapped in a big way. They were a bunch of paranoid nutbags and/or a bunch of very computer savvy people. You make the privacy software proprietary and hide the source code and charge fees, you're going to make the paranoid nutbags flee from your product out of fear Whether their fear is justified or not, you've lost the customers. You're also going to annoy the technologically savvy customers and they're going to flee, too. Phil Zimmerman's PGP and the proprietary versions at the end of and after his association with the product were just as difficult to use as the GnuPG version, and the latter was and is absolutely free with public source code. So, which should the tech savvy customers choose? A difficult to use proprietary software package that's closed source and costs money, or a similarly difficult, yet free and open source software package that uses compatible encryption and is cross platform? The proprietary product is now essentially dead and valueless.
Now, if you call RMS's ramblings a conspiracy theory, yes, probably, but for every nutbar point he makes, he's not wrong. I don't like that Apple pays people to assemble its products for terrible wages. Lots of companies do that, and me pointing at Apple alone isn't very helpful. The other points he makes, particularly in his area of expertise, are dead on. I don't appreciate Apple (or anyone else) scanning email content, even if it's to search for spam, as per the link Stallman gave. 99% of email spam can be stopped by an algorithm that would properly analyze an email header, and I'm actually surprised he didn't point that out himself. The content of the email is irrelevant. As an aside, here's where encryption of the email body would stymie them immediately.
Even if Apple commits for eternity to guard my privacy, remember, as I mentioned before, that doesn't protect me from others doing what they shouldn't. Companies do get hacked. Companies do fall victim to corporate espionage. Companies do fail. That's why I'm hesitant to let companies hold data for me, or to deal with much in the way of cloud computing or online applications. Further, I'm not running a VT100 terminal, so if my computer can't handle what I need it to do locally, why do I have the thing? Certain things on the cloud have some value, particularly if it's used to enhance redundancy of data and there are appropriate safeguards. Aside from that, this isn't 1986, so I'm not going to compute like it is.
With respect to what does or doesn't happen to huge companies, I'd prefer to minimize my reliance on that. If Apple gets hacked, they have nothing of mine to have stolen, much less misused. If Apple pulls the plug tomorrow, my credit cards and banking and payment methods still work as always, my music collection is untouched, my computer usage won't change in the slightest, and my landline still works the same as always.
Originally Posted by BearZDefect
But as often as Google makes improvements they also take big backward steps from my perspective as a user. Not just in Gmail, but in their Android OS and apps too.
The new Gmail is not terribly quick, either. That's my biggest beef with the "upgrade."
But as often as Google makes improvements they also take big backward steps from my perspective as a user. Not just in Gmail, but in their Android OS and apps too.
The new Gmail is not terribly quick, either. That's my biggest beef with the "upgrade."
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Originally Posted by Garak
Of course, Equifax et al gather credit information for a very good purpose. And yes, we still have to protect our privacy with respect to them, too. I'm willing to have Equifax know things about me so my bank will let me have a house. Google and Apple don't need to know that, unless they're underwriting my mortgage.
And yes, we do have to pick our battles. Some people do not use credit cards or any of that sort of thing. I don't exactly plan on copying RMS's lifestyle or moving into the bush. Picking one's battles is one thing. Paying companies to eavesdrop, track, and annoy me simply isn't going to happen. I despise cell phones enough based on the nuisance factor that I won't use one. The rest is just gravy.
alarmguy: Apple is no better. Their vendor lock in model is atrocious. As far as that goes, I prefer even Microsoft, as much as I choke on those words.
Well no one agrees on everything Garak (we were doing pretty good for a while though!)
Your way off base on Apple and privacy. Apple is the world leader in privacy over all the big names. Also putting Google and Apple in the same category is incorrect.
Google's business model is data mining, Apple is not even close to being that.
Hey, Im no Apple fan, always hated Apple products but I am changing my tune. For goodness sakes, hopefully you watched Tim Cooks Speech.
Even when using the popular (and fantastic) Waze app on my work provided I-Phone if I close the Waze app on my Iphone, the phone warns me that Waze is still tracking me, I then learned (which almost NO one knows unless you have an Iphone) how to properly close the app so you no longer are tracked.
When using the Waze app on an Android phone you get no such warning, but because of my Iphone I know the trick to close the app now.
But bottom line Apple protects your privacy, however if you install free apps, then of course you are free to expose yourself.
Googles andriod phones track every single thing you do/every place you go and report it back to google.
As far as credit reporting agencies, in the USA you can "opt out" of the bureaus sharing your information, I like getting offers though so I dont opt out.
However, I do have a LOCK on all the credit bureau's where no one can pull my credit report without my passcode and it was all free ...
The issue here being you won't get an accurate quote on any insurance products with a "lock" on your credit. A lock affects more than just your credit. Insurance companies have found those with higher credit scores file less claims-consequently they want to know before they quote you. Any independent agent will quote you-but it will be at their highest rates-with a credit lock on your reports.
Originally Posted by Garak
Of course, Equifax et al gather credit information for a very good purpose. And yes, we still have to protect our privacy with respect to them, too. I'm willing to have Equifax know things about me so my bank will let me have a house. Google and Apple don't need to know that, unless they're underwriting my mortgage.
And yes, we do have to pick our battles. Some people do not use credit cards or any of that sort of thing. I don't exactly plan on copying RMS's lifestyle or moving into the bush. Picking one's battles is one thing. Paying companies to eavesdrop, track, and annoy me simply isn't going to happen. I despise cell phones enough based on the nuisance factor that I won't use one. The rest is just gravy.
alarmguy: Apple is no better. Their vendor lock in model is atrocious. As far as that goes, I prefer even Microsoft, as much as I choke on those words.
Well no one agrees on everything Garak (we were doing pretty good for a while though!)
Your way off base on Apple and privacy. Apple is the world leader in privacy over all the big names. Also putting Google and Apple in the same category is incorrect.
Google's business model is data mining, Apple is not even close to being that.
Hey, Im no Apple fan, always hated Apple products but I am changing my tune. For goodness sakes, hopefully you watched Tim Cooks Speech.
Even when using the popular (and fantastic) Waze app on my work provided I-Phone if I close the Waze app on my Iphone, the phone warns me that Waze is still tracking me, I then learned (which almost NO one knows unless you have an Iphone) how to properly close the app so you no longer are tracked.
When using the Waze app on an Android phone you get no such warning, but because of my Iphone I know the trick to close the app now.
But bottom line Apple protects your privacy, however if you install free apps, then of course you are free to expose yourself.
Googles andriod phones track every single thing you do/every place you go and report it back to google.
As far as credit reporting agencies, in the USA you can "opt out" of the bureaus sharing your information, I like getting offers though so I dont opt out.
However, I do have a LOCK on all the credit bureau's where no one can pull my credit report without my passcode and it was all free ...
The issue here being you won't get an accurate quote on any insurance products with a "lock" on your credit. A lock affects more than just your credit. Insurance companies have found those with higher credit scores file less claims-consequently they want to know before they quote you. Any independent agent will quote you-but it will be at their highest rates-with a credit lock on your reports.
[/quote]
The issue here being you won't get an accurate quote on any insurance products with a "lock" on your credit. A lock affects more than just your credit. Insurance companies have found those with higher credit scores file less claims-consequently they want to know before they quote you. Any independent agent will quote you-but it will be at their highest rates-with a credit lock on your reports.[/quote]
Incorrect (just trying to help)
First let me say I do not pay for any services that claim to protect my credit.
1. Ok, you can contact ALL 3 credit bureaus and put a lock on your credit for free. Period, done. Your protected No one will lend you money if they can not pull your credit report.
If you then need to borrow money you will need to remove the lock (using a passcode or whatever) so they can pull your report - non issue. Insurance companies dont pull your report only a score/credit rating.
2. You can also "opt out" of the bureaus sharing your general credit score/information with companies who wish to sell you products or credit cards. More or less what they share is not personal information but general information on how reliable you are.
The issue here being you won't get an accurate quote on any insurance products with a "lock" on your credit. A lock affects more than just your credit. Insurance companies have found those with higher credit scores file less claims-consequently they want to know before they quote you. Any independent agent will quote you-but it will be at their highest rates-with a credit lock on your reports.[/quote]
Incorrect (just trying to help)
First let me say I do not pay for any services that claim to protect my credit.
1. Ok, you can contact ALL 3 credit bureaus and put a lock on your credit for free. Period, done. Your protected No one will lend you money if they can not pull your credit report.
If you then need to borrow money you will need to remove the lock (using a passcode or whatever) so they can pull your report - non issue. Insurance companies dont pull your report only a score/credit rating.
2. You can also "opt out" of the bureaus sharing your general credit score/information with companies who wish to sell you products or credit cards. More or less what they share is not personal information but general information on how reliable you are.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by alarmguy
I think we are getting a little "out there" on the conspiracy theory.
If you're talking about me wanting to be able to inspect source code and use products without DRM restriction, that's really not a conspiracy. That's my choice of doing things. I simply do not accept and cannot accept Apple's Terms of Service for any of their products, so I won't be buying any of them. Most particularly, Apple doesn't get to arbitrarily change how I use music. That's the one that sticks in my craw the most. They ensure that music is very portable, but only insofar as you own an iThing and have one with you wherever you go, rather than let you change the media to suit the environment.
If.
Lets keep in mind we were discussing, in general, privacy for the average citizen. I simply stated Apple does this far better then any big company out there. One just need to watch Tims Cook speech.
I was talking about Google/Gmail and the others selling your private information including your family and kids for profit, in fact its googles business model to offer you free products.
Proton Mail is one solution as any private email is, also duckduckgo.com search engine.
If you want to see the source code, that is not the average user and honestly, what was thought of as the most secure open source browser in the world, examined by 100s of thousands of nerds, well turns out, governments have always had a back door in. So you looking at code, again, whatever makes us feel good, me, again, just want to limit HUGE companies who get rich off selling personal information.
Originally Posted by alarmguy
I think we are getting a little "out there" on the conspiracy theory.
If you're talking about me wanting to be able to inspect source code and use products without DRM restriction, that's really not a conspiracy. That's my choice of doing things. I simply do not accept and cannot accept Apple's Terms of Service for any of their products, so I won't be buying any of them. Most particularly, Apple doesn't get to arbitrarily change how I use music. That's the one that sticks in my craw the most. They ensure that music is very portable, but only insofar as you own an iThing and have one with you wherever you go, rather than let you change the media to suit the environment.
If.
Lets keep in mind we were discussing, in general, privacy for the average citizen. I simply stated Apple does this far better then any big company out there. One just need to watch Tims Cook speech.
I was talking about Google/Gmail and the others selling your private information including your family and kids for profit, in fact its googles business model to offer you free products.
Proton Mail is one solution as any private email is, also duckduckgo.com search engine.
If you want to see the source code, that is not the average user and honestly, what was thought of as the most secure open source browser in the world, examined by 100s of thousands of nerds, well turns out, governments have always had a back door in. So you looking at code, again, whatever makes us feel good, me, again, just want to limit HUGE companies who get rich off selling personal information.
Originally Posted by alarmguy
If you want to see the source code, that is not the average user and honestly, what was thought of as the most secure open source browser in the world, examined by 100s of thousands of nerds, well turns out, governments have always had a back door in. So you looking at code, again, whatever makes us feel good, me, again, just want to limit HUGE companies who get rich off selling personal information.
Which open source browser had a government back door?!?! And these "governments" had a back door into WHAT?
You are aware that open source software is OPEN for everyone to see? There are thousands of eyes on the source code and the project maintainers have to approve all additions.
Can you please provide a reputable source for this "back door" in an *open source software project*?!
If you want to see the source code, that is not the average user and honestly, what was thought of as the most secure open source browser in the world, examined by 100s of thousands of nerds, well turns out, governments have always had a back door in. So you looking at code, again, whatever makes us feel good, me, again, just want to limit HUGE companies who get rich off selling personal information.
Which open source browser had a government back door?!?! And these "governments" had a back door into WHAT?
You are aware that open source software is OPEN for everyone to see? There are thousands of eyes on the source code and the project maintainers have to approve all additions.
Can you please provide a reputable source for this "back door" in an *open source software project*?!
I'll be the first to admit when I'm wrong and I might have jumped the gun on this as I heard it on the radio or whatever, since I don't use the browser I wasn't that interested except it caught my attention as well as the fact that law enforcement does Target groups using the browser anyway so I just did a quick search and this is what I came up with.
click.. pc mag
general search, click
in case you missed this click
click.. pc mag
general search, click
in case you missed this click
Last edited:
Originally Posted by alarmguy
If you want to see the source code, that is not the average user and honestly, what was thought of as the most secure open source browser in the world, examined by 100s of thousands of nerds, well turns out, governments have always had a back door in. So you looking at code, again, whatever makes us feel good, me, again, just want to limit HUGE companies who get rich off selling personal information.
Yes, you were mistaken, as you pointed out, but the "tech writers" weren't exactly clear or helpful. Government didn't insert a back door. Government doesn't distribute the product. And if anyone inserts a back door, I or anyone else can take it out of an open source product. If there's a back door in Apple products, you'll never know it, and won't be able to remove it.
What the real issue there was is javascript. Anyone trying to use a browser in any way that's even attempting anonymity knows to completely disable Flash and javascript at the outset. Those will leak back the IP anyway.
Apple is interested in you buying more of their products. They aren't [yet] selling the information to anyone else, because they want you buying their products, using their app store, and so forth. I have a computer where the OS doesn't try to sell me anything, at all, not even pushing me towards going to iTunes for music. No iTunes, no push for an AV upgrade, no push to get Windows Office Professional, or a "better" DVD burning program. Nothing steers me to Google or Yahoo, either, much less Amazon.
If you want to see the source code, that is not the average user and honestly, what was thought of as the most secure open source browser in the world, examined by 100s of thousands of nerds, well turns out, governments have always had a back door in. So you looking at code, again, whatever makes us feel good, me, again, just want to limit HUGE companies who get rich off selling personal information.
Yes, you were mistaken, as you pointed out, but the "tech writers" weren't exactly clear or helpful. Government didn't insert a back door. Government doesn't distribute the product. And if anyone inserts a back door, I or anyone else can take it out of an open source product. If there's a back door in Apple products, you'll never know it, and won't be able to remove it.
What the real issue there was is javascript. Anyone trying to use a browser in any way that's even attempting anonymity knows to completely disable Flash and javascript at the outset. Those will leak back the IP anyway.
Apple is interested in you buying more of their products. They aren't [yet] selling the information to anyone else, because they want you buying their products, using their app store, and so forth. I have a computer where the OS doesn't try to sell me anything, at all, not even pushing me towards going to iTunes for music. No iTunes, no push for an AV upgrade, no push to get Windows Office Professional, or a "better" DVD burning program. Nothing steers me to Google or Yahoo, either, much less Amazon.
The Tor browser itself is a derivative of Firefox. To eliminate this supposed vulnerability, you go to about:config in the address bar, then go to the javascript.enabled line and toggle it to false.
Garak,
Thats easy to do and say, years after the exploit was discovered in Tor, I was only saying, looking at source code does not stop huge government projects from spying on certain people, and that is fine by me, for the last time, my posts were only intended to stop or put the brakes on as much as possible, Google whoring out/selling information on me, my family and kids to the highest bidders.
People can make up the most lazy A++ reasons not to do anything about it and put a stop to it but they are just too lazy. One perfect place to start the ball rolling is Proton Mail and others like it.
Another thing you are wrong on (indirectly) is you say government doesnt distribute Tor, that part is true but our government funded a good part of Tor. Again, I could care less, my posts and all my posts from the very first in this thread, was about challenging and working on putting an end by google and the others selling Americans family information to the highest bidders.
and .. you can trash Apple as much as you want but they dont do it.
Tor Government Funding
Thats easy to do and say, years after the exploit was discovered in Tor, I was only saying, looking at source code does not stop huge government projects from spying on certain people, and that is fine by me, for the last time, my posts were only intended to stop or put the brakes on as much as possible, Google whoring out/selling information on me, my family and kids to the highest bidders.
People can make up the most lazy A++ reasons not to do anything about it and put a stop to it but they are just too lazy. One perfect place to start the ball rolling is Proton Mail and others like it.
Another thing you are wrong on (indirectly) is you say government doesnt distribute Tor, that part is true but our government funded a good part of Tor. Again, I could care less, my posts and all my posts from the very first in this thread, was about challenging and working on putting an end by google and the others selling Americans family information to the highest bidders.
and .. you can trash Apple as much as you want but they dont do it.
Tor Government Funding
Last edited:
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Another thing you are wrong on (indirectly) is you say government doesnt distribute Tor, that part is true but our government funded a good part of Tor.
Funding is not distribution, though. The source code used to make the Tor executable is open for all to see and examine. Tor is meant for those living in oppressive or dangerous environments who need their traffic encrypted and their data's pathways obfuscated. Of course, criminals and other miscreants use it likely orders of magnitude more than Syrian journalists.
I have still never gotten a simple, straight answer about who exactly can glean what information from a Tor user beyond hypotheticals involving javascript (which is light years from being some sort of code-injected "back door").
The transparency and objective of serving the users is what makes any open source software project infinitely more appropriate for those consumers who value their security and privacy; otherwise you are a cash cow of one sort or another.
Another thing you are wrong on (indirectly) is you say government doesnt distribute Tor, that part is true but our government funded a good part of Tor.
Funding is not distribution, though. The source code used to make the Tor executable is open for all to see and examine. Tor is meant for those living in oppressive or dangerous environments who need their traffic encrypted and their data's pathways obfuscated. Of course, criminals and other miscreants use it likely orders of magnitude more than Syrian journalists.
I have still never gotten a simple, straight answer about who exactly can glean what information from a Tor user beyond hypotheticals involving javascript (which is light years from being some sort of code-injected "back door").
The transparency and objective of serving the users is what makes any open source software project infinitely more appropriate for those consumers who value their security and privacy; otherwise you are a cash cow of one sort or another.
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Another thing you are wrong on (indirectly) is you say government doesnt distribute Tor, that part is true but our government funded a good part of Tor. Again, I could care less, my posts and all my posts from the very first in this thread, was about challenging and working on putting an end by google and the others selling Americans family information to the highest bidders.
and .. you can trash Apple as much as you want but they dont do it.
Funding isn't terribly relevant. Again, if someone puts something in there (i.e. is paid to), that can be removed fairly easily, or even just forked. However, nothing was put in the browser. The Tor browser is a fork of Firefox, actually a fork of a fork, I believe. With respect to that vulnerability, in addition to what uc50ic4more mentioned, even the timing wasn't that relevant. It's been stated for years by those people paranoid about privacy to disable javascript. The plugin is there basically because some people do not wish to play around with browser settings disabling javascript completely or wish to have an easier way to adjust it as needed. So, technically, it's not a Tor exploit, because that plugin is available for Firefox. Secondly, recommendations and warnings about javascript security predated all this by a significant margin, with knowledge about the hypothetical IP leakage through javascript being publicised for years.
The general use of Tor would be, let's say I'm a whistleblower somewhere with less freedom of the press, or heck, even here. I have some information I want to get to a chosen news agency, particularly one that's smart enough to know how to use encryption, and there are a couple. Go to a public computer or use your own, have a Live DVD or Live CD or Live USB distro with the Tor browser and associated tools on it. Fire it up. Disable javascript. Prepare your documents. Encrypt them as needed, preferably unsigned and not encrypted to oneself as well unless one really knows what one is doing, and set up some anonymous and/or throwaway email; their commitment to privacy will be irrelevant here, since you're ensuring the privacy and anonymity. Send the material off. There is no record of your computer transmitting data to the destination IP through DNS records, IP records, or email headers, and the data is encrypted by a private key through the entire process, negating any concerns over man in the middle attacks, eavesdropping, or weaknesses in any data protocols used in transmitting the material.
Sure, Google is a problem. But they're not the only one. Apple is not much better. Google sells my information to others. Apple would use my information internally to incite me to purchase more from them. I don't need a new iPhone every two years because they ensure they bloat iOS to kill a phone. Ma Bell provided virtually indestructible telephones that they'd have people rent monthly at exorbitant rates. Apple spends $6 to make an iPhone that they charge the consumer hundreds for that will be dead in less than two years either from shoddy construction or iOS making it useless; it's the same monopolistic behaviour. I have no need for a desktop or laptop with their operating system. As I've already mentioned, their approach to music is really a monstrosity. It's horrible for the users, and worse for the artists. You do not want to know how much the iTunes model has dropped royalties.
Where a company like Proton would shine might be company email in a small to medium sized company. Hushmail has an option, and Proton probably does, where one could use one's corporate domain name and set up company email through them. That way, they get all the advantages of the encryption and the privacy policies for all employees, with the implementation being fairly transparent. GnuGP is difficult, and other safeguards like security dongles aren't quite as seamless a solution as the Hush model would be.
For software and operating systems, the FLOSS model is what works best for me. I have no interest in purchasing an operating system, and even less on spending money on proprietary software (or using adware or bloatware) where free versions are equal or even better.
For email, I'm eccentric anyhow. I already have rules about what happens to people if they send email banalities, struggle in any way with attaching files, or continually insist upon sending HTML email. And yes, I implemented those rules before The Big Bang Theory debuted on TV.
Another thing you are wrong on (indirectly) is you say government doesnt distribute Tor, that part is true but our government funded a good part of Tor. Again, I could care less, my posts and all my posts from the very first in this thread, was about challenging and working on putting an end by google and the others selling Americans family information to the highest bidders.
and .. you can trash Apple as much as you want but they dont do it.
Funding isn't terribly relevant. Again, if someone puts something in there (i.e. is paid to), that can be removed fairly easily, or even just forked. However, nothing was put in the browser. The Tor browser is a fork of Firefox, actually a fork of a fork, I believe. With respect to that vulnerability, in addition to what uc50ic4more mentioned, even the timing wasn't that relevant. It's been stated for years by those people paranoid about privacy to disable javascript. The plugin is there basically because some people do not wish to play around with browser settings disabling javascript completely or wish to have an easier way to adjust it as needed. So, technically, it's not a Tor exploit, because that plugin is available for Firefox. Secondly, recommendations and warnings about javascript security predated all this by a significant margin, with knowledge about the hypothetical IP leakage through javascript being publicised for years.
The general use of Tor would be, let's say I'm a whistleblower somewhere with less freedom of the press, or heck, even here. I have some information I want to get to a chosen news agency, particularly one that's smart enough to know how to use encryption, and there are a couple. Go to a public computer or use your own, have a Live DVD or Live CD or Live USB distro with the Tor browser and associated tools on it. Fire it up. Disable javascript. Prepare your documents. Encrypt them as needed, preferably unsigned and not encrypted to oneself as well unless one really knows what one is doing, and set up some anonymous and/or throwaway email; their commitment to privacy will be irrelevant here, since you're ensuring the privacy and anonymity. Send the material off. There is no record of your computer transmitting data to the destination IP through DNS records, IP records, or email headers, and the data is encrypted by a private key through the entire process, negating any concerns over man in the middle attacks, eavesdropping, or weaknesses in any data protocols used in transmitting the material.
Sure, Google is a problem. But they're not the only one. Apple is not much better. Google sells my information to others. Apple would use my information internally to incite me to purchase more from them. I don't need a new iPhone every two years because they ensure they bloat iOS to kill a phone. Ma Bell provided virtually indestructible telephones that they'd have people rent monthly at exorbitant rates. Apple spends $6 to make an iPhone that they charge the consumer hundreds for that will be dead in less than two years either from shoddy construction or iOS making it useless; it's the same monopolistic behaviour. I have no need for a desktop or laptop with their operating system. As I've already mentioned, their approach to music is really a monstrosity. It's horrible for the users, and worse for the artists. You do not want to know how much the iTunes model has dropped royalties.
Where a company like Proton would shine might be company email in a small to medium sized company. Hushmail has an option, and Proton probably does, where one could use one's corporate domain name and set up company email through them. That way, they get all the advantages of the encryption and the privacy policies for all employees, with the implementation being fairly transparent. GnuGP is difficult, and other safeguards like security dongles aren't quite as seamless a solution as the Hush model would be.
For software and operating systems, the FLOSS model is what works best for me. I have no interest in purchasing an operating system, and even less on spending money on proprietary software (or using adware or bloatware) where free versions are equal or even better.
For email, I'm eccentric anyhow. I already have rules about what happens to people if they send email banalities, struggle in any way with attaching files, or continually insist upon sending HTML email. And yes, I implemented those rules before The Big Bang Theory debuted on TV.
Yes, you can have your own domain with Proton, its quite a robust service.
Yes, google is a problem, people need to understand nothing is free without a cost. In Googles case, world wide sale of your private and that of your family and children's information using ANY of their services, some of it, more intimate then people are capable of understanding.
Apple does not do this.
Yes, google is a problem, people need to understand nothing is free without a cost. In Googles case, world wide sale of your private and that of your family and children's information using ANY of their services, some of it, more intimate then people are capable of understanding.
Apple does not do this.
Last edited:
No, perhaps not now, but Apple will bug me to spend more money on their products and services. Companies don't get to tell me how to use their products (at least beyond the basic points of common sense). Yes, you can tell me to plug it into an ordinary wall jack and not try to hotwire it with a welder. You don't get to tell me that I must listen to music through iTunes, much less dictate what operating system I'll use.
Besides, there's really little point in comparing Apple to Google. Apple is primarily a hardware company that sells a bit of software and services. Google is primarily a software and service company that provides a bit of hardware. It's not like you're choosing one over the other; there's really not that much overlap in their products and services. Apple wants you to buy more iThings. Google wants you to buy from people who advertise with them.
Things like Hush and Proton are great ideas for business email, as I mentioned. It would meet most companies' privacy policies, not to mention data protection statutes. The flaw is the cost. Hushmail's basic fees for business start at a setup fee plus $4.79 per user per month. That can get a little pricey. Proton, it seems you have to ask them. The general rule, of course, for any service or product, is that they hose business customers. Consumers think they get hosed on banking fees; walk in and set up a commercial account. Make sure you're sitting down when you look at the fee schedule. Think contractors charge a lot to change your water heater? Call in a contractor to a business and compare the hourly rates.
Generally speaking, when it comes to email, Proton and Hush would offer me no personal advantage over my ISP email. First off, my other email contacts don't use one of those services, so I'm not getting the encryption anyhow. For those few I know who use encryption, we're doing it with GnuPG. The ISP email is also available as webmail, so it's portable in that regard. Finally, my ISP is either selling or not selling my information. Me either using or declining to use their email won't change that.
Besides, there's really little point in comparing Apple to Google. Apple is primarily a hardware company that sells a bit of software and services. Google is primarily a software and service company that provides a bit of hardware. It's not like you're choosing one over the other; there's really not that much overlap in their products and services. Apple wants you to buy more iThings. Google wants you to buy from people who advertise with them.
Things like Hush and Proton are great ideas for business email, as I mentioned. It would meet most companies' privacy policies, not to mention data protection statutes. The flaw is the cost. Hushmail's basic fees for business start at a setup fee plus $4.79 per user per month. That can get a little pricey. Proton, it seems you have to ask them. The general rule, of course, for any service or product, is that they hose business customers. Consumers think they get hosed on banking fees; walk in and set up a commercial account. Make sure you're sitting down when you look at the fee schedule. Think contractors charge a lot to change your water heater? Call in a contractor to a business and compare the hourly rates.
Generally speaking, when it comes to email, Proton and Hush would offer me no personal advantage over my ISP email. First off, my other email contacts don't use one of those services, so I'm not getting the encryption anyhow. For those few I know who use encryption, we're doing it with GnuPG. The ISP email is also available as webmail, so it's portable in that regard. Finally, my ISP is either selling or not selling my information. Me either using or declining to use their email won't change that.
- Status
Similar threads
