Article 13 and Article 11

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Re: Article 13 and Article 11

Post by teo123 » Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:00 am

brimstoneSalad wrote:Firefox is an interesting case, getting money from Google with other proprietary software. Follow the money, you'll find copyrights.
Well, the only part of Chrome that's not open source is the code that's used to communicate with Google servers (Chromium, a web-browser with the same functionality as Chrome, but which doesn't communicate with Google servers other than when browsing Google websites, is completely open-source). That is, exactly the code we'd need to study to verify that Chrome isn't sending our private information to Google is hidden from us. And considering how much money Google makes by selling the supposedly anonymous information to the government and to advertising companies, don't you think it suggests they are using the copyright laws exactly to hide something from us?
brimstoneSalad wrote:However, the corollary to that is that in the event of uncertainty you should also be against repealing extant laws.
Hey, listen, the new European copyright law (with Article 11 and Article 13) has been passed, but it's not yet in effect. But there are countless warnings, including from tech-companies, that it will do more harm than good.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:04 pm

teo123 wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:00 am
don't you think it suggests they are using the copyright laws exactly to hide something from us?
No. Unless there are only a couple people programming this stuff at Google, it would have to be a conspiracy. If you think something is a conspiracy, find another more plausible explanation.
teo123 wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:00 am
brimstoneSalad wrote:However, the corollary to that is that in the event of uncertainty you should also be against repealing extant laws.
Hey, listen, the new European copyright law (with Article 11 and Article 13) has been passed, but it's not yet in effect. But there are countless warnings, including from tech-companies, that it will do more harm than good.
Tech companies are probably smarter than media companies, but you just speculated on how they're nefarious, so why do you believe them?

teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Wed Apr 17, 2019 4:28 am

brimstoneSalad wrote:No. Unless there are only a couple people programming this stuff at Google, it would have to be a conspiracy. If you think something is a conspiracy, find another more plausible explanation.
I am not saying everybody who works at Google could be involved in that. But such things can and do happen. It happened a few times that a company responsible for issuing the cryptography keys for HTTPS uses its knowledge of the private keys to intercept the connection and sell the private data, or sells its knowledge of the private keys to hackers (DigiNotar, for instance, went bankrupt when it was found that they were doing that, but it took years).
Why do you think Google doesn't let us study the code Chrome uses to send its crash reports to Google and to auto-update and to sync the passwords? Why do they seem to rely on security through obscurity?
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tech companies are probably smarter than media companies, but you just speculated on how they're nefarious, so why do you believe them?
I didn't say it's possible for everyone working at Google to be involved in that.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:09 pm

If there's a way that just one or two people could have done something like that without anybody else noticing, then it's plausible. It's not something that Google as a whole would want to do, though, since it would introduce a lot of liability for bad PR and even lawsuits. If it's happening, it's a consequence of obscurity and not the reason for it.
teo123 wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 4:28 am
Why do you think Google doesn't let us study the code Chrome uses to send its crash reports to Google and to auto-update and to sync the passwords? Why do they seem to rely on security through obscurity?
Maybe it's just that: security. The less hackers know about how your code works the safer it is.

teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:19 am

brimstoneSalad wrote:The less hackers know about how your code works the safer it is.
Can you point me to some study that confirms that? It seems to me it doesn't play a big role, if it doesn't even have the opposite effect.
Internet Explorer is completely closed-source, and it's arguably the browser with more known security exploits than any other browser.
And Firefox is completely open-source, and it's arguably the most secure commonly used browser. Namely, it's one of few browsers (Vivaldi and Konqueror also supporting that) that support master passwords.
Most other browsers only support cyphering the passwords using the user account password as a key. And while it can sometimes come convenient, it's actually quite flawed: somebody with a physical access to your computer could use a Linux Live CD to change the Administrator password (he'd need NTFS drivers for that, but it's not hard to modify the ISO of the Linux Live CD to include them before burning the disk), then log on as an administrator, run the browser using the "runas" command, and then use the Developer Tools to get your passwords in plain text.
Firefox security isn't as good as it could be, a not-so-secure hashing algorithm (SHA-1) is hard-coded in it as the way to check whether the user has entered the right master-password, and a reprogrammed GPU can be used to break it in a few hours, but this is still far better than the way other browsers (open-source or not) evidently do that (since they don't ask for the master password before saving your passwords).
And the same goes for software other than the browsers. Windows, which is almost completely closed-source, has far more known security exploits than MacOS (which is based on an open-source kernel) or Linux (which is completely open-source) do. And Linux is far more commonly used on servers (that hackers mostly attack) than Windows is. To be fair, though, many of the known security exploits in Windows come indirectly from the NetCore framework, which is actually open-source. Similarly, Oracle Enterprise Linux Kernel has quite a few more well-known security exploits than the Red Hat Linux Kernel does, in spite of Oracle Linux Enterprise Kernel being a closed-source version of the Red Hat Linux made specifically to be more secure and stable than Red Hat Linux. Maybe it has to do with the fact that it's more commonly used on servers than Red Hat Linux is, but I don't think that negates my point.
In short, I see no reason to think Chrome is actually more secure because of the code used to sync the passwords being hidden. Maybe it has little effect, but an open-source program that implements a good cyphering algorithm is certainly a lot more secure than a closed-source program that implements a flawed one.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:07 pm

Google may be more concerned with exploits and spoofing their data than the security of consumers' devices.
You're thinking of this in the wrong way: consumer and hacker vs corporation and spoofer (who, for example, wants to influence search results by creating the appearance that a website is more popular than it is).
Neither of us know what important data or methods they may be obscuring.

teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:29 am

brimstoneSalad wrote:who, for example, wants to influence search results by creating the appearance that a website is more popular than it is
Well, yes, the search algorithm is quite untransparent. Still, we have relatively good reasons to think it's biased towards left-wing media. For instance, the suggestions it gave when somebody typed "Hillary Clinton" in the search box during the elections were unrelated to the suggestions other search engines were giving. It also admits to implement algorithms to censor genocide revisionism and racial realism websites. If you ask me, they are probably making it harder to figure out what the truth is: how could they know, for example, whether the Massacre of Vukovar actually happened better than somebody living near Vukovar? Though even my web-hosting admits to implement such algorithms, which is a part of the reason why I don't express my views about it on my website (it may lead to all my other work, including my revision of the Croatian toponyms, getting deleted).
But making people afraid to express bad ideas, if they even are really bad ideas, does nothing to eliminate them. If there were a Nazi in the room, wouldn't you want to know who they are?
brimstoneSalad wrote:Neither of us know what important data or methods they may be obscuring.
Again, it's much more important to put the effort into making a database cyphered with proven algorithms, than it is to put the effort into making sure it's not available on-line.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:35 pm

teo123 wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:29 am
It also admits to implement algorithms to censor genocide revisionism and racial realism websites.
Don't confuse government censorship with a private company just choosing not to feature something.

This is a good thing, it's basic responsibility. We don't need people learning anti-vaxx, pro-nazi, or pro-flat earth, etc propaganda.
You've demonstrated yourself (with flat earth, then with other things) that the average person isn't competent to figure out which claim is credible without help.
teo123 wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:29 am
how could they know, for example, whether the Massacre of Vukovar actually happened better than somebody living near Vukovar?
What is the consensus among historians?
teo123 wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:29 am
But making people afraid to express bad ideas, if they even are really bad ideas, does nothing to eliminate them.
It inhibits their proliferation. If you had never heard of flat earth, you wouldn't have become a flat earther.
teo123 wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:29 am
If there were a Nazi in the room, wouldn't you want to know who they are?
Not really, not unless I can do something about it. And I don't want to find out if it means the only way is by that person sharing propaganda with the room.
Keeping registries of nazis is fine, it helps employers avoid hiring them, helps prevent people from dating them, etc.
Helping them spread their propaganda is something else.

teo123 wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:29 am
Again, it's much more important to put the effort into making a database cyphered with proven algorithms, than it is to put the effort into making sure it's not available on-line.
When it comes to passwords, that may be true, but we don't know what all Google is relying on here.
Unless there is evidence of the security of the browser being harmed by this it seems like a weak argument.

teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Sat Apr 20, 2019 3:21 am

brimstoneSalad wrote:Don't confuse government censorship with a private company just choosing not to feature something.
Why? Google has more power to influence what people think about politics (and science, and religion...) than any politician does, don't you think? There is a difference between a small business deciding not to feature something, and a big business that controls the information flow on-line more than any government does deciding not to feature something. Also, big business usually works hand-in-hand with the government, often at the expense of small business and customers (Amazon and Walmart advocating for a substantial increase in the minimum wage...).
brimstoneSalad wrote:What is the consensus among historians?
Well, I suppose most historians believe without evidence that the Massacre of Vukovar happened, just like I used to believe that until I actually thought about it.
Since then, it appears to me there is less evidence of the Massacre of Vukovar than of God and of Santa Claus: for God and Santa Claus, there are at least countless stories of gifts magically appearing under a tree and of miraculous healing. I mean, sure, countless people claim to believe that the Massacre of Vukovar happened (the same is true for God, although not for Santa), but how is that supposed to affect what I believe? Why should I believe that human beings can be that evil for no apparent reason? And accepting that the Massacre of Vukovar happened just opens countless new questions: Why it is that I don't see any damaged houses, even in Vukovar (I've been there a few times), when allegedly the entire city and much around it was destroyed less than 30 years ago? It seems quite as if it is a myth made up (maybe by inflating a somewhat-true story) to justify the discrimination against Serbs.
Why should it matter what the consensus among historians is? History is certainly less of a science than linguistics is, and you are saying the consensus of linguists shouldn't be taken too seriously.
Besides, if you think it would be irresponsible for Google to show non-mainstream positions in search results, where do you draw the line? Do you also think that my alternative interpretation of the Croatian toponyms shouldn't be featured by search engines?
brimstoneSalad wrote: If you had never heard of flat earth, you wouldn't have become a flat earther.
Probably. But I came up with the idea that airplanes didn't exist all by myself, I hadn't heard it from anyone or read it somewhere.
brimstoneSalad wrote:Helping them spread their propaganda is something else.
So, do you think it's a good thing if Nazis are afraid to talk about their beliefs?
brimstoneSalad wrote:we don't know what all Google is relying on here.
If it's relying on unproven methods, even with good intentions, that's still a reason not to trust it, right?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests