Linux Outfit Canonical Launches Campaign to Silence Privacy Critic(wired.com)
wired.com
Linux Outfit Canonical Launches Campaign to Silence Privacy Critic
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/11/fixubuntu/
23 comments
I agree with Mark that it's not worth beating up Canonical over a bureaucratic slip up. Latching on to simple mistakes that are the result of internal miscommunication and misinterpretations of policy is foolish. And ideologues (especially in the software world) love to do that blindly, but it's not intelligent discourse.
That being said, I don't think that absolves Canonical of the underlying criticism: your company is active pushing a product, despite its open-source-ness, that betrays the trust and privacy of your users unless they're informed enough about the situation to opt-out.
I know Canonical is a corporation and has to generate revenue. I won't sit and pretend like I know how to solve that problem for your company. It doesn't change the dilemma, however. I'd like to recommend a user-friendly Linux to my friends and family. I won't recommend Ubuntu until the privacy issue is opt-in instead of opt-out. In fact, if they're less-technical, I recommend iPads and Macs. At least Apple doesn't ship off desktop search results to a third party that we're aware of. I hold enough trust with Apple to believe that they are not. It's unfortunate that I can't say the same for Canonical.
That being said, I don't think that absolves Canonical of the underlying criticism: your company is active pushing a product, despite its open-source-ness, that betrays the trust and privacy of your users unless they're informed enough about the situation to opt-out.
I know Canonical is a corporation and has to generate revenue. I won't sit and pretend like I know how to solve that problem for your company. It doesn't change the dilemma, however. I'd like to recommend a user-friendly Linux to my friends and family. I won't recommend Ubuntu until the privacy issue is opt-in instead of opt-out. In fact, if they're less-technical, I recommend iPads and Macs. At least Apple doesn't ship off desktop search results to a third party that we're aware of. I hold enough trust with Apple to believe that they are not. It's unfortunate that I can't say the same for Canonical.
The real question is why they allow the new guy to send a cease-and-desist without any revision whatsoever, and why does (s)he think this is correct.
Just goes to diminish my (already very low) opinion of lawyers
Just goes to diminish my (already very low) opinion of lawyers
"At least Apple doesn't ship off desktop search results to a third party that we're aware of"
Care to wager what Apple resells your desktop/iphone/iPad search results for? I'm guessing it's on the order of 100 million dollars/year. Certainly more than 10 million dollars.
Care to wager what Apple resells your desktop/iphone/iPad search results for? I'm guessing it's on the order of 100 million dollars/year. Certainly more than 10 million dollars.
Citation please.
unless there is something new in the latest release of osx 10.9, what on earth are you talking about?
Also, apple sells google the right to be the default search engine on ios (see eg [1]); this is very different than selling your search queries or results. For instance, when you get a google results page, only the very stupidest could be unaware that, well, google knows what you searched for.
[1] http://bgr.com/2013/02/11/google-apple-ios-default-search-1-...
Also, apple sells google the right to be the default search engine on ios (see eg [1]); this is very different than selling your search queries or results. For instance, when you get a google results page, only the very stupidest could be unaware that, well, google knows what you searched for.
[1] http://bgr.com/2013/02/11/google-apple-ios-default-search-1-...
Ah. When I first read your response I was wondering, "What possible searches could be resold other than the browser search results."
You obviously can't resell something like a file/application search on the local computer (akin to Spotlight search on OS X).
Apparently I was wrong: http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/09/ubuntu-bakes-amazon-...
That is bad on so many levels - privacy, security, network performance, etc... Presumably every time I do one of those searches, traffic is sent over my internet connection...
I wonder what's going through Canonical's mind - And why they think this is a good idea...
You obviously can't resell something like a file/application search on the local computer (akin to Spotlight search on OS X).
Apparently I was wrong: http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/09/ubuntu-bakes-amazon-...
That is bad on so many levels - privacy, security, network performance, etc... Presumably every time I do one of those searches, traffic is sent over my internet connection...
I wonder what's going through Canonical's mind - And why they think this is a good idea...
The idea is to join your offline and online worlds. Maybe you don't remember if you had that file on your desktop or google drive or dropbox or ubuntu one. The unfortunate part is that online searches were launched with just Amazon, which makes it look like a money grab, when it was intended just to help the user keep their worlds in order. More online scopes will launch soon, and it'll be a lot more obvious that this is just trying to make your life better.
Yes, Canonical also makes a tiny bit of money for the Amazon integration, but that was not the driving factor behind the feature as a whole. There will be more online scopes to come, and the hope is to make your life easier, by not having to remember exactly where you put all your stuff.
Also, you can easily turn off all online searches with a single toggle inside Settings -> Security and Privacy -> Search.
Canonical knows there is a lot of heat around the feature, and they're not ignoring that, despite what it may seem like from the outside.
Yes, Canonical also makes a tiny bit of money for the Amazon integration, but that was not the driving factor behind the feature as a whole. There will be more online scopes to come, and the hope is to make your life easier, by not having to remember exactly where you put all your stuff.
Also, you can easily turn off all online searches with a single toggle inside Settings -> Security and Privacy -> Search.
Canonical knows there is a lot of heat around the feature, and they're not ignoring that, despite what it may seem like from the outside.
bs. companies implement the most important things first. now maybe canonical is running to implement searching other stuff as a fig leaf -- oh guys, no wait, we weren't just doing this to sell your local searches to advertisers. but if that weren't the purpose dropbox and google drive would have been the first implementations.
I am glad there is a clarifcation from Mark - http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1299.
>Last week, the less-than-a-month-at-Canonical new guy sent out the toughest template letter to the folks behind a “sucks” site. Now, that was not a decision based on policy or guidance; as I said, Canonical’s trademark policy is unusually generous relative to corporate norms in explicitly allowing for this sort of usage. It was a mistake, and there is no question that the various people in the line of responsibility know and agree that it was a mistake.
But if the person who sent the template letter was new, then surely this becomes a training issue?
Trademark violations can soon become PR disasters just like this has become. So perhaps companies and start up's may wish to learn from Canonical's mistake as it can easily happen to them.
No one is perfect. Mistakes happen...
>Last week, the less-than-a-month-at-Canonical new guy sent out the toughest template letter to the folks behind a “sucks” site. Now, that was not a decision based on policy or guidance; as I said, Canonical’s trademark policy is unusually generous relative to corporate norms in explicitly allowing for this sort of usage. It was a mistake, and there is no question that the various people in the line of responsibility know and agree that it was a mistake.
But if the person who sent the template letter was new, then surely this becomes a training issue?
Trademark violations can soon become PR disasters just like this has become. So perhaps companies and start up's may wish to learn from Canonical's mistake as it can easily happen to them.
No one is perfect. Mistakes happen...
s/misunderstanding/shrewd recognition of a budding PR disaster/
Canonical has really gone astray. Hell, the takedown order would never have been necessary in the first place without this shopping lens stupidity.
Canonical has really gone astray. Hell, the takedown order would never have been necessary in the first place without this shopping lens stupidity.
If you don't like the online lenses then you can turn them off.
Yes, I can apparently set up a website with instructions for doing so and get a nastygram from Canonical, too.
I run Fedora, anyway.
edit: I wish people wouldn't try to make a 1 size fits all desktop for mobile/tablet/desktop, but Unity is pretty much a wash with GNOME 3 for me.
I run Fedora, anyway.
edit: I wish people wouldn't try to make a 1 size fits all desktop for mobile/tablet/desktop, but Unity is pretty much a wash with GNOME 3 for me.
I don't understand why anyone used it after Unity, honestly.
Because of Unity, for example. With exception of some annoyances (like poor work with workspaces, not enough customizability, poor notifications), it's not so far to my personal definition of perfect DE, and miles ahead of other Linux DEs.
I don't see an Ubuntu/Canonical trademark on this website.
Certainly if: "http://makingchangeatwalmart.org/" doesn't get shut down, "fixubuntu.com" should be ok.
Edit: from: http://blog.canonical.com/2013/11/08/trademarks-community-an... "The site owner has already agreed to remove the Ubuntu logo and clarified that there is no connection; from our perspective the situation has been resolved, "
Certainly if: "http://makingchangeatwalmart.org/" doesn't get shut down, "fixubuntu.com" should be ok.
Edit: from: http://blog.canonical.com/2013/11/08/trademarks-community-an... "The site owner has already agreed to remove the Ubuntu logo and clarified that there is no connection; from our perspective the situation has been resolved, "
"But Lee isn’t taking the thing down"
Good for you.
Hosting a shell script with informative keywords seems like completely reasonable fair use, so if this goes to court, I doubt they will have a case.
The site fixubuntu.com doesn't appear to have any logos on it now, maybe it did before? So at the very least, it looks like he pulled that, if they were there in the first place. This article seems to imply the logo was there.
Good for you.
Hosting a shell script with informative keywords seems like completely reasonable fair use, so if this goes to court, I doubt they will have a case.
The site fixubuntu.com doesn't appear to have any logos on it now, maybe it did before? So at the very least, it looks like he pulled that, if they were there in the first place. This article seems to imply the logo was there.
Seems they only like it when it has "good" connotations to the name, as sites like OMGUbuntu and other sites stay up, while sites that want to help users remove the Amazon go down.
legitimate question: how many of these 'anti-ubuntu/amazon' sites are there, and how many of them have actually been threatened to be taken down in the past?
Because right now this is looking like an isolated incident (albeit an inconvenient one for Canonical's PR), so it could be meaningless to try and read into it too much...
Because right now this is looking like an isolated incident (albeit an inconvenient one for Canonical's PR), so it could be meaningless to try and read into it too much...
Been a longtime Ubuntu fan but Canonical's newfound disrespect for users privacy and ham fisted response means I'm looking for another distro now. Nice try by Mark Shuttleworth to explain the whole thing away (plays the "blame it all on the new guy" card) but once you've turned to into a datapimp it's hard to regain trust.
Ubuntu, meet Streissand Effect.
Well obviously Canonical isn't going to bother OMG! Ubuntu!, it generally helps users to keep using Ubuntu and stay in the "Ubuntu community".
Edit: as another user just commented: https://plus.google.com/116812394236590806058/posts/5jdibY5i...
Edit: as another user just commented: https://plus.google.com/116812394236590806058/posts/5jdibY5i...
https://plus.google.com/116812394236590806058/posts/5jdibY5i...
EDIT: and subsequent blogpost: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1299