[kwlug-disc] Linuxaria: Open Source Has Taken over the Software Industry

[Russell McOrmond]

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 4:10 PM, B.S. <bs27975 at yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> I believe this, in and of itself, is erroneous. And what I mean / what
> went through my mind in reading your note, is that cloud storage, in any
> mass repository / facility, particularly if the vendor is providing the
> service to multiple clients, is that the use of such facilities will be
> subject to their TOS.


  You do realize you took most of your message to discuss "the cloud"
(server infrastructure where the owner of the data isn't the same as the
owner of the hardware, as would be the case for a server room inside a
corporation) in response to a message I wrote about desktops?

  I agree with most of what you wrote about non-user controlled ICT when it
comes to the cloud, so that isn't the area we likely disagree with.  You
believe what I said was erroneous as you thought I was saying that non-user
controlled ICT was "safe", when in fact I was talking about how nearly all
desktop computers are also non-user controlled ICT and is as unsafe as
people perceive "the cloud" to be.

  I am saying it is not the physical location of the hard disks, CPU or RAM
that determines who controls a computer.  Computers do what the software
tells it to do, and who decides what software can and cannot run on a
computer is who controls it.  People *should* be as sceptical of the
operations of most of the devices sitting in their pocket/desktop/home/etc
as they are about "the cloud".


Yes, but what we're talking about here is general attitude towards cloud. I
> don't expect many will so manage the entire software stack. The majority of
> users will still not be so covered.
>

  Agreed, which is true of both desktop and cloud computing.   I suspect
the percentage of people who control the entire software stack on the
server side is much higher than it is on the desktop side, even if those
percentages are small in both cases.

In essence, you're also pointing out that we all need to do a better job
> with desktop computers, too.


  In
http://mcormond.blogspot.ca/2016/03/windows-10-last-desktop-version-of.html
I suggest we should do away with the concept of a "one size fits all"
desktop computer and move to computing where we use the right tool for the
right job.   I believe this is inevitable, but may be delayed by people
nostalgic for the way things used to be and not recognizing the benefits of
moving forward.

  Those of us  (which is likely a majority in this forum, even if an
extreme minority in the general population) who are our own system
administrator would be using "workstations", and that majority who are not
system administrators would move to mobile devices where the heavy lifting
is done in server rooms where there are system administrators.  Users then
realize they are having to choose between companies with system
administrators that they have to trust with their data.  Currently their
data is wide open with the vast majority of destkops being infected with
one thing or another (4'th party control), and by design under 3'rd party
control (the hardware/software vendors they have "chosen" without realizing
what that choice meant).


If your stack resides on a U.S. server, or, I suspect, if the bits even
> pass through, you are not so covered - no matter what you, yourself, do.
> The vendor will be required to, and will, hand over your stuff, without
> your consent, at the mere whiff of the Patriot Act. Granted, you may have
> encrypted it, but they will decrypt it, eventually, if sufficiently
> motivated.
>

   I am just as vulnerable running a software stack on a desktop or mobile
device that is under the control of a US company as I am running software
on a physical computer that resides within the USA.   If it is the US
government you are concerned with (which is the least of my worries, BTW),
then you should be equally worried about any US government or US corporate
controlled computing -- regardless of the physical location of the
computing.

  We are relying on confusion in the legal community about how much control
vendors have of non-user controlled computing and the physical location.  I
suspect this is something that the "Apple vs FBI" case may provide clarity
to, in that Apple does have (even with secure enclave BTW -- but I can't
explain that in a sound-bite) control that is very close to on-par with
what a cloud hosting company has over its customers.  Once those floodgates
are open, then it will be governments rather than only criminals accessing
the remote control options of these non-user controlled devices.


You make me thing of .mp3's, where the content is actually degraded
> versions of what one owns. And such has become normal, the degraded version
> becomes the norm, and what we actually purchase. (.mp3's being lossy
> compressed versions of the originals.)
>

  I think mandatory non-owner control of computing is far more than a
"degradation" of the computing experience, but a complete flip of whether
the computer is working for us or if it is working for someone else against
us.

  I know of no "negative" music file format which sucks musing out of your
head through your ears rather than working the other way around :-)


I take your point, but I also think you are missing one aspect. Most trust
> as you say, because they think their data doesn't matter.



  I don't believe it is that simple.  Most people presume there is
"someone" out there that is somehow protecting them from the bad things in
the world.  Some believe it is corporations protecting them from bad
governments (and thus the Apple vs FBI farce), or it is governments
protecting them from bad corporations, good governments protecting them
from bad governments, and so-on.   They don't realize that these large
bureaucracies are often even more confused about what is happening around
them than they are, and that they need to learn more and do more to protect
their own rights -- including from the very people they are currently
believing are protecting them.

  The independent technology community hasn't done as well as we could to
articulate this issue.

To me it's not about countries, it's about 3rd parties, of any stripe.
> Their agenda will never be your (one's) agenda. And once you're on the
> cloud, they have access, and all bets are off.
>

  Agree with these sentences, but still concerned you don't include a 4'th
which recognizes that with non-owner controlled devices in your possession
that equally "all bets are off".


-- 
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>

Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights
as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! http://l.c11.ca/ict/

"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable
media player from my cold dead hands!" http://c11.ca/own
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kwlug.org/pipermail/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org/attachments/20160314/38a5c98d/attachment.htm>