Ubuntu's multisearch surprise [LWN.net]

Ubuntu's multisearch surprise

Posted Aug 7, 2009 23:33 UTC (Fri) by beuno (guest, #44010)
Parent article: Ubuntu's multisearch surprise

I can understand how some users feel uncomfortable with this, but the fact is that it was introduced in an alpha version, with the express intent of investigation on how the user experience could be improved as well as researching other ways to continue hiring developers to improve and build open source software.
If the user experience was damaged, then the developers learned a lesson, and can understand better what changes can be done.

I love that the community holds Canonical to such high standards, but this is really blown out of proportion considering Ubuntu's track record of delivering great user experiences.

to post comments

Missing the point: it's about privacy

Posted Aug 8, 2009 9:38 UTC (Sat) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (15 responses)

The article is about privacy.

If someone wants to test usability by collecting personal info about me, I might let them, but I want to be informed before the fact.

The silent data collection was intentional. The usability problems were an accident, and we're lucky they occurred! If not, this data collection behaviour could have silently ended up in a non-alpha release.

Missing the point: it's about privacy

Posted Aug 9, 2009 4:02 UTC (Sun) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link] (14 responses)

Do you use any build of firefox? Do you feel you were given the opportunity to make informed consent concerning data sharing between Google and Mozilla that is already happening?

I think the horse is out of the barn a little on the privacy issue. There's been little to no controversy about how Google and Mozilla share data and revenue for existing firefox installs in our linux distributions of choice. I doubt Canonical would have access to any more information that Mozilla is already able to get through Google. All this really does is potentially give data and revenue to Canonical that would have otherwise gone to Mozilla. Should you trust Canonical any less than Mozilla?

Though I do think that Mozilla could take this opportunity to talk more about how the existing partnership works and what sort of information they collect from existing firefox users and make some suggestions about what is appropriate from a privacy policy notification standpoint.

-jef

Missing the point: it's about privacy

Posted Aug 9, 2009 21:43 UTC (Sun) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (5 responses)

> I think the horse is out of the barn a little on the privacy issue.

I've never understood this attitude. These are our rights, and we'll fight for them even when we're over-powered and when it looks like we're losing.

Our privacy is being eroded by Google with the help of Mozilla. Google should stop that, but I have low expectations from Google, they're not part of our community. Mozilla should stop that. Until they do, we should not trust them as a source of free software. We should use builds of Firefox that come from people we trust - be it Debian, gNewSense, GNU, etc.

It's sad to see that Ubuntu cannot be added to the list of software providers we can trust.

Missing the point: it's about privacy

Posted Aug 10, 2009 16:30 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] (4 responses)

>> I think the horse is out of the barn a little on the privacy issue.

>I've never understood this attitude. These are our rights, and we'll fight for them even when we're over-powered and when it looks like we're losing.

Note that Jef does not offer an opinion as to whether the Google-Mozilla situation is good or bad. He *observes* that it has stirred up little controversy.

FWIW, I use Epiphany. And will be moving completely to Epiphany-Webkit as soon as practicable. For a host of reasons which include, but are not limited to, the effect that money, and Mozilla Corp, have had upon the Mozilla Foundation. Mozilla Corp is supposed to be a subsidiary. But it's pretty clear that the tail has been wagging the dog for some time now. In fact, almost from the very day that Mozilla Corp was established.

Missing the point: it's about privacy

Posted Aug 10, 2009 18:23 UTC (Mon) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link] (3 responses)

I've been using epiphany off and on for a while now too.

One thing about it though, is that I feel that it's a net privacy loss, because I lack the customize-google and adblock plugins.

So when I use firefox, I can easily screw around with the google cookie, block analytics, etc. When I use Epiphany (while they're less slimy or Google-connected than MozillaCo is), I'm much more visible to Google (and friends) overall.

Missing the point: it's about privacy

Posted Aug 10, 2009 19:00 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] (2 responses)

apt-get install epiphany-extensions

The adblocker uses filterset.G and now has an editor for the blacklists and whitelists.

And just as a tidbit that I learned about not long ago, when you specify a bookmark in the bookmark bar, you can define it with something like:

Title: Google
Address: http://www.google.com/search?q=%s

and it will appear in the bookmark bar as a text entry field. Customize to taste.

Missing the point: it's about privacy

Posted Aug 10, 2009 19:09 UTC (Mon) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link] (1 responses)

Thanks. That adblock extension works great.

It's still missing the functionality of customize-google though. Specifically, the ability to anonymize the google cookie, and block analytics.

Missing the point: it's about privacy

Posted Aug 10, 2009 20:02 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]

Well... there are two bits of functionality which might be helpful. Note that Epiphany now supports the Greasemonkey extension. And Epiphany extensions are supposed to be fairly straightforward to write (in Python).

I should note that I have never used Greasemonkey or written an Epiphany extension. But I felt I should mention the options anyway.

Missing the point: it's about privacy

Posted Aug 10, 2009 16:19 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] (5 responses)

Wow. You surprised me. Good answer. But that was not what I was expecting you to say.

Missing the point: it's about privacy

Posted Aug 10, 2009 17:14 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link] (4 responses)

The flipside of course is that Mozilla Corporation is a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation (a non-profit)..and as a subsidiary of a non-profit there is more transparency with regard to Mozilla Corp. finances than there is with the privately held Canonical Ltd. If at some point either entity sold user data as a revenue stream which would be able to keep that secret? I don't think Mozilla could..at least not for very long. That sort of revenue would have to show up in the end of the year reports I think. But then again, people would also have to care enough to look at the Mozilla Foundation's financials and ask the uncomfortable questions.

It's also important to note that Mozilla is trying to figure out how to walk the line with regard to web services and data privacy.

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/privacy/firefox-en.html
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/privacy/firefox-third-...
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/privacy-policy.html

The text on the third-party services page gives an indication that someone in the Mozilla fortress is thinking about privacy as it relates to integrated web services and the role of service partners play there. Would Canonical post the same sort of thing once they integrate default 3rd party services? Probably. The existing UbuntuOne and Launchpad privacy policies aren't particular different than the yawn inducing boilerplate that mozilla has for its website privacy policy. But is this sort of privacy notification enough? If a 3rd party breaches whatever agreement they have with Mozilla concerning data correlation what is the remedy to an end-user?

The issue of data privacy and terms of service notification in a social desktop context where a diverse set of web services are going to be interacting to provide functionality is going to be a very hard and complex issue. And most likely a moot one unless the very small minority of people who really care about data privacy figure out a way to get the much larger majority of web services users to start taking notice.

Something like the use of a specialized search page is just the tip of the iceberg of what you could get upset about. There's really nothing stopping any website you contact or interact with from sharing (and selling) its website access logs including details about ip addresses.

-jef

Missing the point: it's about privacy

Posted Aug 10, 2009 19:26 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (3 responses)

Canonical selling user data as a revenue stream is unlikely to happen. UK
data protection laws are pretty strict and as of next April the
Information Commissioner will have power to levy quite substantial fines
for violation of that law. The UK *had* its privacy Chernobyl, and it
wasn't Canonical who triggered it, it was contractors working for the
taxman.

Missing the point: it's about privacy

Posted Aug 10, 2009 19:39 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link] (2 responses)

I'll make it a point to read up on the UK privacy protection situation. But this underlines the point I'm trying to make. There's much more serious issues already associated with data privacy with existing network services activity, especially business-to-business and business-to-government services that we aren't direct participants that involves the sharing of data about us. Actively regulated consumer protection laws are probably the only serious way to balance the explosion of data sharing that is underpinning the digital services economy.

-jef

Missing the point: it's about privacy

Posted Aug 10, 2009 21:19 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Agreed: the US is appallingly bad in this situation. It's actually illegal
to transfer personal data out of the EU to an organization outside it (in
the US or elsewhere) unless that organization commits to following EU
regulations in this area: unfortunately, this is widely breached :(((

they are not selling user data

Posted Aug 10, 2009 22:27 UTC (Mon) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

they are not collecting user data on ubuntu servers and selling it.

they are selling page impressions (advertising)

yes, the act of rendering the page tells the servers that are being queried what you are looking for, and your IP address because that's the way the Internet works (it may also send a cookie if you leave them enabled, which may let them correlate your queries more precisely than they could just with the IP). it's not clear at this point that your IP address can/should be considered private information.

selling access to your eyeballs is something _very_ different from gathering your personal info and selling that.

Missing the point: it's about privacy

Posted Aug 13, 2009 3:30 UTC (Thu) by akumria (guest, #7773) [Link] (1 responses)

Part of the problem here is that Canonical completely screwed the user experience.

I would previously use Google, via the search bar, and have useful results.

With multisearch, I would use Google and get garbage.

Missing the point: it's about privacy

Posted Aug 13, 2009 12:42 UTC (Thu) by beuno (guest, #44010) [Link]

Agreed. The experience should match or exceed the default google.com one.