A lot of people are pointing out that if you do not like something, don't use it. It's simple enough, and have a "sounds right" tone to it. As an implied statement with this, anyone complaining should just shut up then.
This is a rather crazy line of thought once one actually starts to think about it. If I see a poisonous (say rotten) food being sold, I find it almost my duty to inform people. Somehow it's now being argued, that I should stay quiet and vote with my feet/wallet instead? If a company does something clearly distasteful and harmful to others, staying quiet and voting with your feet is not a good idea. This should be obvious to everyone. At best, you are ignoring the problem, and at worst, you are implicitly allowing the situation to continue.
If something is harming others, staying quiet or saying that "users should know better and not act like they do" is not the way to go. If the search box was labeled "ask amazon about this", then this would have been a no-brainer and no one would object to this. Its the same as labeling some food-like objects as non-edible. Canonical search however does not do this, and tricks users to send data that they believe is private.
Imagine a worker at a company, using this function to search for internal document including a string with company secrets. Whooops, now that data is at Amazon. Imagine a police worker, seaching for email with witness details. whooops, now that data is also sent to Amazon. Imagine a normal person searching for emails that includes their credit card. Whoops, gone gone. And let's not discuss things that private people honestly, truly, do not wish other people know, or for that matter, journalists.
This is not fair to the users, and RMS points this out. It might even be illegal in some if not all european countries. At the least it's something to write about and inform users about the risk involved.
One of the solutions suggested by rms strikes me as reasonable: Ubuntu should make make search only local by default, but show a "search online too" toggle button right next to all search results.
If Ubuntu does that, the problem goes away, because users who want only local search don't have to do anything, and users who want global search can turn online search on/off at will by clicking a toggle button right there on the Unity panel.
No it doesn't. Ubuntu's "problem" is that it's not making any money, at least not enough to support the 500 employees it has. Making it non-default will kill 99% of the revenue from Amazon since hardly anyone(not enough people to make money on) will go out of the way to click the toggle button.
Having "a family to feed" is not a good defense for spying. They need to downsize apparently. Not a bad thing either. I could do without the constant churn of desktop components.
Trying guilt your customer base into doing something is a bad plan, especially on Linux. If people really do start to dislike this option the same day someone will post a script to remove it. Now you will have people using your product and Canonical is left holding the bag.
I think it's time to research other ways of keeping the lights on.
They could put a special plea on the install screen for permission to enable all the search functions. That might get a large number of folks clicking OK to enable these while still giving informed consent.
This is a problem with paying people to work on an open source project, no? Either those people accept working without pay, or else they have to make compromises that might involve defying the principles of the Open Source Movement.
Theoretically a company can get around this by offering a commercial enterprise on top of their free project, but that's harder to pull off, especially if the point of your project is to offer a good enough open source environment that people want to use it.
I think the important question is what the users expect. Existing Ubuntu users are used to that box searching only local files and applications, so are annoyed that it now does remote searches as well. For new users, it's quite clear from the first time they use it that that box does a local+remote search. It's not tricking them. Of course, they may still wish that local-only search was more convenient. But they might also find it a useful default, especially as more kinds of results are integrated.
The 'poisonous food' analogy isn't quite right, because it's not as simple as selling something bad as something good. Done right, remote search results could be a useful feature, it's just not the feature many of us would expect in that place.
Its like with food-like objects, like plastic decorative fruits, pickled decorative food, and small candy like objects. With clear labeling, everything is fine and those objects do fulfill their role. Without clear labels however, they are a risk to people. Pickled decorative food is a special notable case here, in which if it was eaten, is indeed very poisonous.
And while I hope, really hope that people will figure it out based on what information they get back from first time using the search box, I somehow doubt the majority of people will realize that the information is actually based on what they themselves wrote in the box and thus someone now has a record of it. A large portion of people dont even figure this out when using search on the Internet. Maybe that's a bit pessimistic, and its only a small fraction of people that do not know that every word they type in Google and Facebook is saved for all eternity. The data I can gather from observing people I see around me however, sadly support the more pessimistic view.
I don't think it's warranted to leap from 'this product does external searches' to 'this product is spying nefariously on you and is therefore analogous to poisoned food.'
They are providing your data to a third party who intend to use it for profit without your explicit consent.
How heinous you view this act depends on how much you value your data, I suppose, but I think the analogy quite accurately describes Stallman's feelings on the matter and is thus an apt analogy for him to use in an article. It may not represent your feelings on the matter. It would be more productive to dispute why you think Canonical's actions are not a breach of privacy or not offensive to you rather than taking exception to his analogy.
> Imagine a worker at a company, using this function to search for internal document including a string with company secrets. Whooops, now that data is at Amazon.
Some people used to say that you should not search for domain names at Google, because then Google would have the name and someone in Google could snatch it and squat it and you'd lose out.
That's a paranoid extreme, but you get the idea. Some things are realistic, some other things not so much.
> Imagine a police worker, seaching for email with witness details. whooops, now that data is also sent to Amazon.
I really freakin' hope that police have better policies for keeping details protected. I recognise (from many of the leaks recently) that this might not be the case.
> Imagine a normal person searching for emails that includes their credit card. Whoops, gone gone.
Wait, what? 5275655718086695 is a credit card number, but what use is that to anyone without a name, address, and CVC/ CVV2 number?
Considering that many many people have emails stored on someone else's machine not on their local network, and that email is sent in plain text, this has been a problem for very much longer than Ubuntu's search box has existed.
Canonical people are posting here, so perhaps they can say if future versions of the Business Desktop Remix will have the search feature enabled by default in countries with a local Amazon store.
The current Business Desktop Remix is 12.04 which pre-dates the issue.
This is absolutely right. We are free to vote with our feet/wallet, but that doesn't mean our mouths stop working and we can't voice our opinions about why Ubuntu is going in the wrong direction.
Personally, while I generally agree with rms, in this particular situation I think he went overboard. Not in expressing his opinion, but in the way he did it.
I say this as a free software advocate; this situation arises from a sad reality, and one that rms doesn't even address: it's really hard to make money from free software. I don't think Mark Shuttleworth was enthusiastic about sending users' information, the deal with Amazon is just a way to try to monetize an OS which its users mostly don't pay for.
So, instead of rallying the people to boycott Canonical, rms should be more understanding of the situation. After all, the Free Software Foundation is well aware of the difficulties of obtaining money in this space. Have you noticed that the three biggest patrons of the FSF are companies whose money comes largely from non-free software? I'm talking about Google, Oracle and IBM. What does it tell us about the free software movement.
https://www.fsf.org/patrons
We are close to 2013, many years ago, when I started using Slackware Linux, I would have expected that by this time there would be many thriving companies offering free software solutions for the desktop and competing for my money based not on lock-in, but on quality and innovation. Where's my flying car?
I understand and completely support the "respect user's privacy" argument, but we should also understand the "money doesn't fall from trees" argument and seek acceptable solutions, otherwise the year of Linux on the desktop will never come.
I think RMS's stance is by definition always the extreme. He sees these things in black and white, so there's no degrees of compromise. If software phones home with private information without the users explicit consent, it's against his principles, period. And I think that's an excellent position to have, which is not to say you're not right either--making money is an important and difficult aspect of FOSS. But the day that RMS starts compromising will be a sad day.
Agreed, RMS essentially has as his sole professional obligation to the community to explore, stake out, and shine a light on a very deontologic position. It is a lonely camp and it wouldn't hurt us to put some rice in his bowl.
Even if I get your point, it sounds like you're trying to imply that the results of the search (documents, email, etc.) are sent, not the search alone, which is completely false.
>"function to search for internal document including a string with company secrets"
Ie, that string is now gone. Some people select rather large parts of a document to find other documents with the exact same data in them. If one were to ask Google, I think they would say that they get everyday multiple page documents sent in a single search request.
I did not get the impression that the GP was implying that the search results are sent.
Even if the data sent is made entirely of the search query, then it is troublesome. (Disclaimer: I haven't used this feature, so I do not have first-hand knowledge of how it works.)
The difference between this and your rotting fish analogy is that there is no objective way to say that Ubuntu search surveillance is harmful. Rotten fish can objectively be proven to make you sick. Giving targeted ads may be a useful feature for some users.
In this case, you should not tell people not to use Ubuntu. It's a personal preference, not something that is physically harmful. What should be done is educating people about how their information can be used. If they find that their personal information is being used to provide a service they like, they can make their own decision. Personally, if I have to see ads, I'd prefer they are for things I may actually be interested in.
> there is no objective way to say that Ubuntu search surveillance is harmful
I would argue that all 3rd party "surveillance" is harmful.
Where I define 'surveillance' to mean information collected about individuals (and their computing systems) without their full conscious knowledge and active decision to give it.
Let Ubuntu charge a dollar or two for Ubuntu OS. I'm ready to pay year on year for the service.
Also most big Enterprises are running Ubuntu boxes within their organization, why don't they contribute? Ubuntu or Canonical don't have an enterprise
model?
With developers who are paranoid like me, and are willing to pay a dollar or two to opt-out of ads and spywares, let them keep a dialog box for a $ payment during installation or a donate option to opt-out of Amazon ads.
And If you don't pay, then you get ads. Makes sense with this model.
But having such tie-ups with Amazon and selling user behaviors, their intentions are not clear. They will loose their loyal fan-boys. So am I, who is very paranoid now.
This is a great example of how nothing is free. Linux isn't free, not only does it cost time, it costs privacy. I do enjoy playing with it, so the first cost is meaningless to me, but the second absolutely is not.
Frankly, Ubuntu is mismanaged. From the absurd new UI to a built-in privacy trojan? I'd rather just pay for an OS that doesn't hate me or use a different distro. Not sure what the allure of Ubuntu is at this point. If you can install and use Ubuntu, you can install and use Debian. Or Xubuntu if you're still an Ubuntu loyalist.
I hate this rhetorical trick. The article says "Ubuntu" and you generalize to all Linux distributions.
What's the point of that mud-slinging against all Linuxes, including projects like Debian whose maintainers work at great expense to ensure user's freedoms are protected? (e.g. by having an extra team "Debian-legal" that studies all licenses and ensures there remains a clear cut between free and proprietary software)
> Linux isn't free, not only does it cost time, it costs privacy.
How does that follow?
I'm assuming you're using an economic rather than ideological definition of the world "free", which sort of misunderstands the point of the article, but OK.
The Linux kernel does not, to my knowledge, include anything which explicitly violates your privacy. If a Linux system distributor chooses to install privacy-invading bits on your hard drive, I don't see how you can blame the kernel or the entire free software ecosystem for this invasion.
(The argument about time is possibly valid, though I find it takes more time to configure Windows to a point that I consider it usable than it does to do the same for a Linux system. As it turns out, learning new things does take time. You had to learn how to use Windows or MacOS as well, though chances are you learned it through assimilation. Some of us learned Linux this way, and thus don't quite understand people griping about how it's hard to use or takes too much time to set up).
Its 100% obvious from the context of my post that I was using linux as a shorthand for this distro.
I really hate this disingenuous rhetorical trick. When people start talking about stupid things distros do suddenly its "OH WAIT, LINUX IS JUST A KERNEL!" Err, no one is just running the kernel. We're all running some distro.
Its like a 'god of the gaps' argument for geeks. You get backed into a corner and suddenly its "wait wait, its just a kernel, how dare you criticize it?! Its pure." Yeah but we're still all running some distro. Why do distros like ubuntu and mint have these privacy issues and have ads in them? Lets not sweep these important issues under the rug of technical minutia.
"Linux" is not a valid shorthand for "Ubuntu" when you are saying things like "Linux costs privacy". Using such unannounced "shorthands" makes you appear to be a troll, and because of Poe's Law it is exceedingly difficult to rule out the possibility that trolling is exactly what you are doing.
If you want to avoid these accusations, be clear and either type out Ubuntu instead of saving a single letter by writing Linux, or explicitly announce your "shorthand".
Yet, instead of singling out the offending distro (Ubuntu), you implicated all Linux-based operating systems. It's not 100% obvious what you meant by painting with such a wide brush.
Linux includes Android smartphones, most of the top supercomputers in the world right now, stock exchanges, and so on. It's true that "we're all running some distro" but 99.9% of the distros don't have this problem, so you can't say that "Linux" has this problem.
If that is 100% obvious to you, I would recommend some writing classes, along with a good bit of reading comprehension work. Good luck on your journey to meaningful communication.
"I'd rather just pay for an OS that doesn't hate me..."
I am not aware of a "for pay" consumer OS that wouldn't make Ubuntu's intrusion look positively benign by comparison. You're getting hammered because you took your argument overboard there. It also doesn't help that you said "Linux" instead of "Ubuntu".
"When the user searches her own local files for a string using the Ubuntu desktop, Ubuntu sends that string to one of Canonical's servers."
That's not how I see it. I'd correct this to "When the user performs a global search for a string using the Ubuntu desktop, Ubuntu sends that string to one of Canonical's servers to perform that search".
If a user wants to search his own local files without searching the entire Internet, then perhaps he shouldn't perform a global search.
The global search box (the Dash) didn't previously exist before Canonical invented it. I think it's fair that they get to define what it does. If you don't like it, then don't use it, or change its behaviour (it is open source, and you don't need a fork to change what is effectively a setting), or just use Xubuntu, Lubuntu or Kubuntu, all of which are acknowledged as official flavors by Canonical and none of which use Unity or the Dash by default.
"People will certainly make a modified version of Ubuntu without this surveillance."
And Canonical even support the existence of these modified versions! If you don't like it, just vote with your feet and install Xubuntu instead. Install popularity-contest to show people your vote. Job done.
By all means go ahead and complain that the default doesn't do what you want it to do, but please stop with the hyperbole that is actually misleading to readers about what the real situation is.
There is some mileage to this argument - the search box doesn't really pretend to be local-only. But for the last three releases (from when Unity was introduced), it was only a local search, and I think many users expected it to stay that way. It's also somewhat uncomfortable that the easiest way to launch an application or open a file is to do an online search.
For me, it's annoying, and I've turned it off in the settings. But it's not such a big deal that I want to fork Ubuntu, or even switch distro.
"stop with the hyperbole that is actually misleading to readers about what the real situation is"
I wonder if readers do really understand the situation or not. I don't think the hyperbole is a bad idea when features like these should be opted in and not a default for everybody. I don't know if this feature is properly advertised by the system and if there will be someone that didn't know about it.
I'm a happy 12.04 user and, since it's LTS, I'll avoid 12.10 until this issue is sorted out.
I think Canonical has been appropriately forward with discussion of what the situation is, and who gets information. I think it's an awful idea — who really wants commercial results built into their desktop? — but calling it spyware is disingenuous.
I also think it'll kill adoption of Ubuntu. It made me adopt a different distribution, and I think it will cause others to do the same.
> who really wants commercial results built into their desktop?
The distinction between the desktop and the Internet is going away. Some argue that "the desktop is dead"; I just think that it'll get more integrated.
I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing, providing that you have adequate control over your own privacy settings and have a choice of providers (both large and small). An open source project that is promised to always remain so is the safest place for this, since you'll always be able to find instructions to turn things off if the defaults don't suit you.
I much prefer this over the world switching to web-based hosted solutions for everything.
In fact it turns out that 12.04 has some lens making queries to different services when I was searching stuff using the dash, and I didn't know about it.
I fixed it with: sudo apt-get remove unity-scope-musicstores unity-lens-video unity-lens-music
(I couldn't find how to disable it)
It's not like I agreed to this when I installed the system, because I upgraded from a previous version (and a previous version, etc), and that behaviour wasn't there.
I don't know how Canonical could advertise these changes, but in the Amazon lens case I think RMS did it right.
if you type something in to the search box, and get search results from the internet it is pretty immediately clear that your search string is being sent to the internet. If you can't make that connection, you also likely don't understand the potential privacy risk in having your search strings sent to the internet.
I've yet to hear any valid argument as to why the amazon search is bad that doesn't revolve around some mythical user who is clueless about how computers work, unable to make logical assumptions, and also incredibly privacy conscious.
>"People will certainly make a modified version of Ubuntu without this surveillance."
I've been using Cinnamon, Mint Linux's alternative to Unity, and I find it's Dash-like launcher works better anyway. Using Cinnamon also, strangely, fixed an audio issue I'd been too lazy to troubleshoot.
I hate to point out the obvious, but for people who don't click the link: that bug was filed in irony (and by somebody who didn't "get" the home lens as a global search tool, but that perceptual problem is ours more than it is anybody else's). The global search functionality could be queried from the commandline (by writing a tool that talked to the backends over dbus, as the dash does), and I half expect somebody to implement a kludgy version of "grep" that did exactly that, it is in no way something we're going to ever ship.
It's always interesting to read RMS' posts, though I don't agree with a lot of them.
In this case, he's got a very valid point (I disabled the adverts on my Ubuntu install), but he uses such over the top language that it makes much of his writing seem like a parody.
Ubuntu sending all desktop searches to Amazon by default (even if it's via a proxy) isn't cool, and isn't what most users would expect, but I don't believe screeds like this aren't going to make Canonical think again.
What was "over the top" about the linked piece? It's got to be the most even-tempered thing I've ever read from RMS. Did you actually read TFA before posting this comment?
He didn't assert anything about peoples associations. He asserted that that there is an association between proprietary software and malicious treatment of the user. Now knowing a little about what RMS regards as malicious that is undoubtedly true in terms of the lack of freedoms.
Even on a narrower definition of malicious if it includes user tracking/monitoring then large amounts of proprietary software can be regarded as malicious. I would narrow my definition of malicious a little more personally but there are large amounts of fairly malicious software out there, very little of it Free software.
You might need to pick another line to take apart.
And I said that I would narrow my definition of malicious a little more so I basically agree although I should have mentioned informed consent and whether it is opt in or out.
I believe you're wrong. The vast majority of "linux users" don't buy into RMS's particular ideology. RMS proactively describes the differences between the OpenSource and "Free Software" philosophies.
Most Linux users might not buy into a boycott of Ubuntu -- in that sense they reject RMS's ideology.
But I think few would argue that proprietary software does tend towards bullshit -- the very DRM and the like that RMS is calling malicious. They might not go around calling it malicious, but they wouldn't consider RMS's attitude there extreme, just the actions he advocates.
Still disagree. I think your definition of "linux users" tends to be more desktop-oriented, where there is more of a philosophical bent towards an RMS ideology. My definition of "linux users" would include developers and sysadmins that are using it as a server, and use it for more practical reasons.
And malicious has strong connotations..e.g malware, spyware, which most "linux users" wouldn't necessarily apply to developers of legit proprietary software.
So you dismiss RMS's arguments just because he doesn't talk and write the way you think he should? Talk about derailment, by this logic you don't have to agree with anyone or anything just as long as you feel they aren't nice or polite or well spoken enough.
just because he doesn't talk and write the way you think he should
If he can't communicate his ideas in a calm and balanced way, perhaps those ideas don't have as much value as he thinks they do. Sorry, but method of delivery counts for a lot.
Jeez you are so emotional, you should just calm down. If you can't say anything nicely, you shouldn't say anything at all. Who believes an angry ranter like this anyway.
> If you ever recommend or redistribute GNU/Linux, please remove Ubuntu from the distros you recommend or redistribute.
Whether or not I agree with it I found it quite calm and balanced (just like the phrase quoted above). Note there are no insults or exclamation points.
Perhaps his writing isn't the issue here, but your perception.
No, what I agree is his overall vision on free software. I don't care how he talk and write, but I can't agree with the way he speaks of his opinion (and maybe many others') as if it were a hard fact. Its not a matter of being polite or not, its more about the fact that basing an argument on opinion is not really credible.
Its a very loaded and picturesque description to use, but is it an wrong description?
The goal of book burning is to remove information, private owned books in this case, from the public by destroying them. While one could smash them and disintegrate them through the use of massive force, burning was the practical tool used.
If kindle suddenly create a goal of removing information from the public, in this case some private owned books, and goes through this act by destroying the information from private people own devices, doesn't that act align itself perfectly with book burning, through instead of using fire, they used electronic means.
Sure, its not something I would like to see on Wikipedia. Its not neutral, and there are better, impartial wording one could use to describe, but is it wrong to use in a blog?
> doesn't that act align itself perfectly with book burning,
> through instead of using fire, they used electronic means
If that was the primary purpose of Kindle, you'd be right. However, for that to be true you constructed a scenario which is opposite to the real and intended use of Kindle.
Of course its not the primary purpose of the Kindle to destroy information. They have however made it their goal once before in regard to one book.
The original blog post could be interpreted as claiming what the kindles main purpose is, but I doubt RMS would defend such interpretation. A one time act, while notable, does not equal primary purpose, and he and everyone else knows that.
I found it merely confusing. In the context of computers, "burning" means "saving to disk" (as in "rip, mix, burn" or "we burn the documents as a secondary cache"), which is exactly something that Kindle tries to make harder.
I think you may intend somewhere towards the 3(b) definition but even that doesn't quite fit. Maybe another dictionary has a definition for your intended meaning.
It's actually not rhetoric - it's a play on Bradbury's comment about e-readers "smelling like burned fuel" (read Fahrenheit 451 for the background of this).
I own a Kobo, but it's been seriously hacked by myself so it doesn't call home and only talks to SD cards. It also only gets non DRM epubs on it. Anything more would be considered virtual book burning on my part as well.
It's actually not rhetoric - it's a play on Bradbury's comment about e-readers "smelling like burned fuel" (read Fahrenheit 451 for the background of this).
Well, it's probably used for surveillance, though?
Not in the 'what did John search for yesterday' sense. But I'm pretty sure it's used for 'what are people searching for this week'.
He definitely got the point across to me! I had been considering installing Ubuntu desktop, but this article definitely made me think twice. So, I'd say the article had its intended effect.
That being said, reading the other comments here, it looks like there's more nuance in what is actually happening here. This is Ubuntu Desktop using the global search, which sends search queries to a central server. While I don't appreciate that either, at least it's not what I had thought from reading the headline that it was sending all local file searches to a server. So, it's a particular behavior, but still, Ubuntu should provide transparency as to what is happening, and even though the user can turn this feature off, (Stallman even states as such: "Ubuntu allows users to switch the surveillance off") the default on behavior is what I sense he is objecting to.
Perhaps a suggestion for a more nuanced title (which might not have the same dramatic effect, but would be more accurate): "Ubuntu Desktop Global Search sends Queries to Central Server, and shares with Amazon, by Default!"
There is local search - either by turning off remote results, or using the files/application lenses (Super+F/A). But the default search box does a global search.
As someone who nods my head in agreement to RMS most of the time (although I use proprietary software extensively), when I actually went to see him speak in person, I ended up feeling that he had weakened his case with the way he presented himself.
Canonical is not the first to do this. And nobody minded.
In Chrome, every time you start to type a URL, it tries to autocomplete. One source of autocompletions is that it contacts Google, which sends back suggestions. Therefore by default Google knows every search you do in Chrome, even if you didn't want to go to Google. (They turn this off for incognito mode.)
I don't know how long this has been the case for Chrome, but I use this feature a lot more than I'd use Canonical's search.
Yes, but it's somewhat less of a privacy violation, because you usually expect to send out the URL you type over the internet. That's different from trying a local search on your machine and finding it ended up on the internet.
No, you only expect it to send the URL when you hit "enter". For instant results, however, it must send each character typed to Google. Also, when I type a non-google URL into my address bar, I don't expect Google to be notified. As it is, they can track all your internet travels from Chrome, and I don't like it. Hence why I use Firefox and Duck Duck Go.
You're absolutely right, that's why I wrote "somewhat less".
It's happened to me more than once that I accidentally pasted a password into the Chrome bar so that I had to go and change it, and so like you, I much prefer having an address bar without function creep. All I meant is that the potential for much worse privacy leaks is much much greater with the Unity bar than with the Chrome bar.
Lots of people minded. There was a huge shitstorm when Google introduced it on the search front page, there was one when Firefox enabled it in the search box and there was one when Chrome was released without a separation between the location and search box.
At least the search suggestions are genuinely useful, in stark contrast to the Amazon ads.
Google Chrome has always had this feature, yet it didn't stop it from gaining 20% market share. Neither does it stop the "why don't Firefox merge the search and location bar?" comment seen in almost every comment thread whenever Firefox's UI is discussed. I don't think that anyone is under the illusion that the average user care about this behavior in any way.
Sure. But whether or not the average user cares isn't relevant to the question if a vocal minority does. I think the amount of resistance the Ubuntu change gets is broadly comparable to the changes I mention. It's probably roughly the same people complaining.
I'm kind of boycotting on pricinple. I recognize that Google has an on-going interest in that kind of practice, and I don't want to deal with it in the future. If a key benefit of open-source is more-eyes-on-the-code, there's another browser that has more-eyes-with-the-same-priorities-as-me on the code.
I have to say, having been a huge ubuntu fan for many years, I am seriously dismayed and dissapointed. This destroys my trust in Ubuntu completely. They have ruined a great thing.
Was just about to put Ubuntu on a new machine, now I'll have to switch distos. Any recommendations?
Edit: I think I have misunderstood. I assumed this referred to a commmand line (s)locate or find or grep or similar. Apparently it refers to a GUI search box on the desktop from which you can do global searches (local plus web). OK not so bad - in fact I have no problem in supporting Ubuntu in this way, providing local searches remain private.
Local searches do not remain private as there is only one search box for global and local stuff.
So when you type "goat porn" expecting it to open your folder of goat porn on your workstation, it will send it to amazon and show goat porn that you didn't want to see and tell amazon and canonical that you are interested in goat porn.
In a few years time[1], on your lifetime leased IPV6 address you will pop up a legitimate web site and get adverts for goat porn. Look at the display on the fridge: goat porn. Walk into the bedroom to see your Android Clock showing you the latest "Russian Bride Goats".
[1] This is apparently not possible at the moment as they "don't store or process your IP address", but we all know how Mark bends over when someone waves cash at him. After all he is a businessman.
Not fully accurate. The main search box does local+global search unless you turn off the global part in settings. But you can easily do local searches only: Super+F for files, Super+A for applications.
To be clear, my 'not fully accurate' was in response to your "Local searches do not remain private". Local searches do remain private, and there are several ways of doing them. But the default search is not a local-only search.
I agree with you: I expect the default search to be local-only, and I've turned off remote results. But it's not as though it hides the fact that it's searching remotely. So I stand by my words: it's not fully accurate to say that local searches are exposed.
Looks like he gets the issues of privacy and trust completely wrong. Imagine catching your cleaning lady reading your diary. And she says, without a sign of guilt, "Don't trust me? Erm, I got keys to your apartment.".
Time for a new cleaning lady.
Time for a new distro. I happily switched to Mint.
You can always turn it off. You can always use Gnome Shell over Unity (should anyway as its nicer). You can always buy another operating system. You know, vote with your wallet. Ah, wait...
There has to be a price for free. In RMS world everybody is a hacker, everything is free (as in love) and open and nobody needs to eat, kids grow up not costing a penny. But in my world, I understand that sometimes I'm getting something for free that is actually superior to the paid stuff, and sometimes those giving it to me need to feed a kid or two, or buy their Mrs that new outfit on the high street. And since they don't charge me outright they try different things, one of which is trying to sell affiliate links to Amazon. They don't even force me to do it because I can turn it off. But they do it by default hoping that I won't. Its a revenue channel, albeit probably a small one at the end of the day. And you know what, had I used Unity I'd probably keep it on and do my Amazon shopping via the OS to give something back.
I also understand RMS-style extreme is vital to balance out the Corporate extreme of the software world. But come on man, choose your battles better and you'll have my support. This one is a waste of time.
>>> I'm getting something for free that is actually superior to the paid stuff, and sometimes those giving it to me need to feed a kid or two, or buy their Mrs that new outfit on the high street.
Classy. You get my vote for that and subsequently pointing out that "They don't even force me to do it because I can turn it off". This.
I also liked the way you ended it. We definitely need RMS, but he definitely needs to choose his battles wisely.
But why not present it as an option to the user on first launch, or first search? Considering how relatively few people actually want shopping suggestions on their desktop, I expect the majority of users who don't turn it off to be people who simply can't be bothered to find the setting and change it. Exploiting user apathy is not my idea of software that respects its users, which is what the FSF is all about.
Because, realistically, given choice upfront most will probably choose to disable it even though they won't mind it if its there. When installing an OS I don't want many questions. I just want to get on with it. Ask me a question and you won't get my full attention and given the option to disable something I might just disable it.
Maybe a compromise is a notice while installing that the default is to search with Amazon and instructions on how to disable it. Those who really mind it can find their way there after the OS is installed.
The difference is that - for a chunk of people - this functionality isn't crap. It's actually useful.
It's out of the way for people who don't care. It's there for people who do. I've seen folk go "that's so cool" when the amazon stuff came up.
This stuff is much closer to the adds folk get in Google search. It's often relevant to what they're doing at the time.
Do people using Ubuntu not also use web browsers? If so, then they are also being spied on by others such as google, amazon, facebook, twitter - every time they use one of their sites.
I just find it overly dramatic to be focusing on this one point of Ubuntu's search being harvested for keywords when this sort of thing is commonplace on the web. At least with Ubuntu you have the option to turn it off.
We don't associate google, amazon, twitter and facebook with free software and personal liberties though - where Ubuntu is traditionally associated with these due to it's origins.
Just because something is commonplace does not make it justified, and it's perfectly right to criticize the decision to do it. We criticize google and the rest for doing the same - just that most people are not concerned, or not informed.
IMO, any communication done by your OS to any server, without informed consent is a direct threat to privacy, and should be criticized, even if it's "convenient".
As for me, I’ve became wary of Ubuntu since it started shipping Ubuntu One pre-installed. It was clear back then that personal liberties are not that important for Canonical.
It's a question of context and expectations. I expect people to look at me funny when I walk around in boxer shorts in public, but not at home. Were someone to stand at my window while I'm on my couch and complain about my choice in clothing, I'd have a right to complain.
Your angst over this new system depends largely on whether you consider behavior outside of your browser to take place in a public or private space.
It is clear when you're on a browser that your search terms and text inputs go to a server somewhere. And RMS has plenty of warnings about such things as Google Instant, Facebook "likes" and other sneaky ways websites spy on you.
But at least up until now you could stay away from that stuff by just not opening a browser, and you knew to be careful when you did. Now there is no line, just "be careful what you type on a computer, period. You don't know who's watching". And that's a lot worse. What if your private journal on your hard drive is mined for targeted advertising? No, keep the web and my desktop separate, that's the point.
Not always. I have some Ubuntu VMs in which the web browsers are prevented from talking to the internet. I use these for secure development and testing of projects that really need to be secret.
I do, however, have to allow the system to talk to Canonical servers if I want to have security patches and other software updates.
This puts me in the position of having to choose between privacy on my desktop and an OS that doesn't conspire with its vendor and 3rd parties to undermine it.
I will not be installing another Canonical OS as far as is practical. Unity sucked anyway.
The answer is yes, people who use shit like google/facebook is being spied.
The problem is, traditionally, people who used Linux know how to deal with these things (eg: use StartPage instead of google, use a shared IP, etc). But having to fight your own distro of choice is a different matter. This shouldn't be happening. As much as I loved Ubuntu, now I'm already testing other distros to make the switch.
Relevant: Canonical have just said there will be more retailers integrated in 13.04 (which was always expected). And: "We are also testing a few additional user controls like filters for local and global searching – more to come on this front as we learn from those sessions."
3. Launch dconf-editor, navigate to: com -> canonical -> unity -> webapps, and then remove everything under allowed-domains, dontask-domains and preauthorized-domains
Ubuntu is also shipping with two new Firefox extensions that ask to "install" certain web apps when you visit them. Havent audited them yet, but my tinfoil suspicion is that these add-ons are leaking private information to Canonical by asking "is this a web app that can be downloaded?" (this is in addition to the current controversy that Unity searches are being leaked).
By the way, Amazon is pre-installed. I noticed yesterday that Amazon web pages still open up in the Amazon icon on Unity -- even after I had removed the unity-shopping-lens.
Ubuntu install a custom application that does something involving sending data out -> We're doomed! They're spying and tracking you! Grab the pitchforks!
Of course, that's RMS' viewpoint and he's entitled to it, and it often provokes some very interesting discussions around it, but he's terrible at being anything other than over the top. For what it's worth I don't think what Ubuntu did was that a bad a thing, it's a nice revenue stream for those that use it and that's a good thing for the future of the project, but I can also understand the view point of people who are uncomfortable with search results peppered with ad's.
"...it's a nice revenue stream for those that use it..."
I'm not entirely convinced that this is going to make a lot of money for Canonical. It will be interesting to see figures in a couple of releases if Canonical (which is a private company) decide to tell us.
What do we think the value to Amazon is of my random desktop searches for files & stuff on my desktop?
The 'slow typing' problem is real: search is dynamic and can, as a result of network latency and fat fingering show results of unfortunately shortened search terms. There is no content filtering on the results. That is actually why I switched it off.
I'd imagine they'll get some money out of it, even if it's not a huge amount, there's plenty of people who like it and think it's useful. The value to Amazon isn't what you're searching, but that you might go "Hey, that's the album I was thinking of buy", and then you're in their content ecosystem.
I don't use Unity as a daily driver but I switched it off due to the network latency and general slowness inside a VM. Aside from that I thought it was pretty decent, it'd be nice if there was more content sources but you can't win them all.
Which version, QQ or 13.04? I'm on QQ with Unity. Everything Everywhere is having some fun with their 'profile generator' at present, and we have exactly 0.24Mbit/s of bandwidth, so that might be an issue.
Yes, much better. Working off a USB stick with persistent space, (I have the Gnome Ubuntu Remix as PC os at present) and this box has Nvidia graphics, and we have problems with the broadband. So as slow a combination as I can imagine anyone new to Ubuntu seeing.
Searches now seem to be completing before sending to Amazon, and my maths related file name terms were bringing up sensible UK relevant suggestions from Amazon, mainly textbook titles. This 'feature' has got a lot smoother since I first saw it.
I've used Debian GNU/Linux as my primary desktop OS and as a server OS since 1995. Many ditros (such as Ubuntu) are derived from it. People who have grown accustomed to deb packages and synaptic, etc may like to try it.
Stuff like this should be opt-in. And, if you want it to succeed, it should be good enough that people want to opt-in.
People search on Google -- they opt-in to Google Search -- because the results satisfy them (more than the competition).
If Canonical's partners want people to opt-in to their collaborative offerings, they should make them offer significant value. And Canonical, for its part, if they want to successfully build out this revenue stream, should ensure that they partner with partners who demonstrably do so.
I already use affiliate links when I think that the affiliate has given me something of value [1], in discovery or qualified opinion or some other combination of factors.
I think Canonical provides me and the broader community things of significant value. Offer a monetization scheme that is 1) opt in, and 2) Respects my concerns, e.g. privacy, and I would be consciously, favorably inclined to use it.
--
[1] One example, although Amazon may not particularly like this one:
>People search on Google -- they opt-in to Google Search -- because the
results satisfy them (more than the competition).
Um, no. A lot of people don't even know there is competition to Google. They
don't "opt-in" to Google just as much as they don't "opt-in" to using Windows,
they've just always used it because it comes with their browser/PC. There's a
reason Google pays Mozilla a few million every year to be the default search
engine.
I'd guess that the only way to really dislodge the Amazon widget would be to make sure it remains unprofitable. If it remains a major talking point and doesn't pull in enough money to compensate for its negative effect on community evangelism, it won't last long.
I have mixed feelings about the new system. On the one hand, I respect a lot of what Canonical is doing with linux regarding mainstreaming, streamlining, and even Unity. I also recognize that they are a company and need to make money, and think Amazon integration is preferable to dozens of preinstalled, hard-to-remove junkware applications.
On the other hand, I really don't like the intrusive-by-default nature of the integration, and the fact that I'll have to go tell all the folks I've installed Ubuntu for that they need to essentially disable spyware the next time they do a distribution upgrade.
On the third hand (what, you don't have one?) I'm not sure what other profitable solutions Canonical might implement in a community that values privacy and freedom.
Amazon postage is prohibitively expensive for those outside the US (except perhaps for those who live in another country where Amazon is based?) The only time I'd ever use Amazon is if I'm after an old rare book which is out of print and Amazon is the only place I can find a second hand copy. And in those times I'd actually be deliberately searching for it, checking many sites in my browser, not casually using Unity!
According to Wikipedia, Amazon has national sites covering North America, most of Europe, Brazil, Japan & China. That's a pretty substantial slice of the world's population.
It's a pretty big stretch to call this "spyware". It's an ill-advised feature, sure, but "spying" indicates secrecy and subterfuge. If I came up behind you while you were typing, and started reading aloud your words as you typed them, would you call me a "spy"? I think real spies would be offended.
Are there other distros with Wubi (or something like it) and automatic updates? If it weren't for Wubi I don't think I would have ever fully switched to Linux. VMs are OK for a bit and repartitioning is right out if all you want to do is try something out for a while. I don't use Ubuntu anymore but Wubi really was the gateway drug for me. I personally don't care about automatic updates but I think it's a big one for some others. When I switched away from Ubuntu I thought I'd be missing out on the community behind it but it's really the Linux community in general that's awesome, a lot of the stuff just ends up on Ubuntu forums and much of the advice is universal. I think people need to know that.
Good old Fravia. Like Stallman, Fravia seems to have been "hard to swallow" by the community at large. However, just like Stallman, when you dug into Fravia's stuff it turned out to be pretty great.
I'm pretty surprised that Shuttleworth didn't see this kind of reaction coming, considering his long-time involvement in free software. Or maybe he did see it coming, and just doesn't care?
In either case, you're in a bad position when you're distributing a Linux distro that RMS starts to call out. Shuttleworth would do well to observe what happened to GNOME: they ignored their core user base, and they've been in such hot water for it that now they're backpedaling (GNOME Legacy). If Linux can't even please its core user base--aka the evangelists--it doesn't stand a chance in the wild.
Seeing this reaction coming and not caring is a reasonable strategy. In free software, RMS holds a lot of philosophical sway, but Ubuntu operates in the larger open-source ecosystem.
Let's say that free software adherents decide that Ubuntu is bad for their interests. How will they react? The GPL prevents them from forbidding Ubuntu from bundling their work as long as Ubuntu's use of the work is GPL-compliant. This leaves them with few options. They can refuse to support Ubuntu, which is fine; other software developers can patch the bugs and fork projects that the original maintainers refuse to update. They can call out why Ubuntu is bad for a free software ecosystem; this is a good thing to do, but has little impact on those who are familiar with the four freedoms but don't buy into their absolute necessity.
As a tool to exercise free use of software, GPL is very strong. But as a coercive tool, GPL is pretty weak (by design). Shuttleworth recognizing these strengths and weaknesses and adapting the company's motion to account for it is shrewd business.
Accepting the notion "I don't approve of your use of my software, but I respect your right to use, study, redistribute, and modify free software" is an implicit aspect of the free software philosophy.
There are two problems with the Ubuntu search box.
1) Not being very clear to your users that the search box is now global and will send information out of the local machine
2) Amazon search sucks.
I haven't used recent versions of Ubuntu, but linking a good distro with the disaster that is Amazon search is not something appealing to me. I don't think it's going to improve my experience on Ubuntu. I strongly feel it's going to make my search experience really sucky.
Note that I am ad-tolerant, and I don't really care about information getting sent off to other servers (so long as I'm told about it before hand) so Canonical have a bit of work to do to persuade me that the new experience is not as awful as Amazon search is on the website.
PS: Apologies to any Amazoners here, but come on, you know the search is terrible, right?
People really use Unity? I might be rolling my eyes a bit at Canonical for this decision, but seriously who would even want to use Unity, they can do what they want with it as far as I'm concerned.
We can't have it both ways, for software to be free, Canonical has to be 'allowed' to do this. The community is now very aware of what is going on, and that is good. We can make our own decisions as informed users. Uninformed users have always been at a disadvantage, that will never change. Case closed to me, lets not turn this into an episode of the 'Real Housewives of the GNU' it really shouldn't be as dramatic as this comment war would have you believe.
Even in arguments around copyright law (like this recently concluded debate... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4882364) the general consensus seems to flow around comments such as "... was not trying to reignite the Great Internet Copyright Argument for the millionth time, and instead was making a point about what was politically actionable today"
On similar lines, why not acknowledge the reality of running a viable, commercial venture around FOSS by tapping viable revenue models?
A few others have written some very good points that I really enjoyed reading. Here they are (in no particular order of preference):
that makes the point of why the situation is much more nuanced for someone like Canonical. And if Linux adoption has to succeed big time, we need the Canonicals and Mints (with their warts and all) that give the general public a viable alternative. Mandriva Linux was facing bankruptcy a few years ago, if I am not mistaken.
The difference is that - for a chunk of people - this functionality isn't crap. It's actually useful.
It's out of the way for people who don't care. It's there for people who do. I've seen folk go "that's so cool" when the amazon stuff came up.
This stuff is much closer to the adds folk get in Google search. It's often relevant to what they're doing at the time. (anecdata, sure. happens to match mine ;-) )
What distro would you recommend take the place of Ubuntu, as a recommended for newbs distro?
I mean a distro that you would feel comfortable recommending to a stranger that you will not be able to help install or support the distro, as well as the more traditional "lemme help you with that."
As a subset of that, what apt based distro would you recommend for that niche?
Is plain Debian really something that people feel comfortable recommending to non-supported strangers? Something that you would not be embarrassed about if they looked you up and told you what happened?
I hope that my reading of your question as a rhetorical one than a literal one is correct?
Because your entire comment is one big reason I have been rooting for Canonical from day one. I have been on Linux on and off since slackware 1.0, Redhat 5 (5.0 (Hurricane)/5.1 (Manhattan)) all the way to SuSE 7.0 and not one time was I able to get someone (anyone) to adopt it completely -- despite all my handholding and regular support! Finally resorted to recommending Cygwin as an alternative, and I was still called upon to help with "things" ;-)
The first/only time I managed to get a successful switch and retain, was when I recommended Ubuntu.
Linux Mint as a Debian based version of their distro, which comes with all the desktop polish of Mint, but in their own words: "it's not as stable. Things are likely to break more often but fixes can also come quicker. For this reason, LMDE requires a deeper knowledge and experience with Linux, dpkg and APT"
Personally I'd take a look at OpenSuSE. It was a pretty good as a Just Works desktop last I looked, but that was a few years ago.
Another option is actually PC-BSD. I've never quite gotten along with it, but that is mainly because I want to do all kinds of hacky strangeness, but for a newbie desktop it's solid with great documentation and easy to install software.
I'm a little surprised at how accepting people are here relating to the Amazon feature in Ubuntu. I would assume that there are a lot of critical thinkers here as comp sci people tend to have that mentality. Possibly not!
The usual excuses are "we can turn it off etc" or just shrug it off and carry on.
Have you thought long term? If you don't make a stand with this feature, one will eventually be added which can't be turned off or is far more invasive.
If spyware is a continuum from onerous to innocuous, then at the moment Canonical's string sending/sharing is somewhere near the innocuous end of the line. But it's still within the continuum.
By excusing it as innocuous and (for now) flippable, we shorten the line.
And then shorten the line again for the next thing that finds itself happily closer to the innocuous end of the line.
Taking a political angle on it: Won't the free software market decide winners and losers?
In other words, there are hundreds of Linux distributions. Choose a different one. If you really like it fork it and rebuild it without support for that feature.
Isn't the point of free software that you have the inherent right to do whatever you want to the software to make it do what you want (or not do what you don't)?
You're exactly right - and his article is explicitly encouraging this behaviour. He's not calling for any additional action than for people to create, recommend and use distributions that don't do this, and to make others aware of the potentially harmful effects of Ubuntu's decision.
I came back to Ubuntu when I got a System 76 laptop earlier this year with it preinstalled. I was actually impressed. It was pretty good, with some tiling features I liked and lots of keyboard shortcuts. But the prospects of 12.10 spyware made me dump it for Slackware 14, which came out around the same time.
And I never looked back, because man, Slackware is great. Install that instead.
Windows XP search assistant* has a database of file types it uses for filtering and to determine which files are worth searching into. It also has a small misfeature where it updates this database every time you search. It doesn't send anything to Microsoft about what you're searching for, it's just an overly persistent auto-update mechanism.
The usual suspects freaked out about this, of course.
* The little dog that makes intermittent scratching noises when you accidentally leave explorer open, slowly driving you mad
Whilst his point is clearly that Ubuntu should be punished (by users switching to alternative distros), it would have been nice to provide or link to some detail about how to disable this behaviour, for those who can't or won't reinstall.
Also, 'virtual book burning', really? These snide little terms detract from his core (and important) message, and come across as just petty. I think there's probably an Internet Law that you can safely ignore anything by people who use a $ symbol in the word 'Microsoft'.
Book burning: Amazon turned off access to people's Kindle copies of 1984, that they had purchased from Amazon.
When I buy a book at the store it stays bought, and the store is not going to break in to my apartment and take that book back. Giving me my money back would not make up for it in the slightest. If there's a dispute with the publisher or copyright inheritors, that's Amazon's problem post-sale.
If they can do this in a quasi-legitimate situation ("We're going to get sued! Fuck the customers!"), then they could do it at the behest of a government or investor, or maniacal CEO.
When I buy a DRM-free book from O'Reilly or Packt, it stays bought.
Yes, book burning may be an inflammatory phrase, but I think it's apt.
My sister home schools two kids, cooks three squares a day, and doesn't care if someone knows she googled for "bread pudding recipe." They have an old, aging computer, and when I gave an Ubuntu CD to her husband, they were so incredibly grateful.
I see this feature being excellent for her, because she has a bunch of documents on her computer that contain her recipes, and then maybe she'll see a cookbook she might want to buy. Maybe she'll be looking for the days curriculum, and see a book that might help her youngest figure out her multiplication tables.
These are all relatively impractical use cases for the nerds of Hacker News. Ubuntu will still serve their needs, but Canonical wants to "cross the chasm" and have ordinary muggles using Ubuntu. Those people will find all of these features "valuable" and don't actually want to turn them off.
This is such bullshit. There is a big difference between googling and searching your own files, while the anecdote you give probably accounts for only 1% of that computer's usage or even less. Reading this opinion I even pictured a stock-photo with family members gathered around a laptop, stupidly laughing at a photo of "bread pudding".
Your sister could be searching within her own files for strings like "last year debt", "ass ventura crack detective", "bondage", "dvdrip" and "office keygen".
I'm sure your sister doesn't do that, but other people do. And searches can express and hint to your deepest desires/taboos and things that might lead one to think of illegal activities.
My non-technical wife asked me one day, during a funny conversation about sex gadgets, if people at Google can see what she's typing and I taught her how to use incognito mode. At some point I also made her aware that Facebook sends and publishes her lat/lon coordinates when typing a message from her phone. She understood the dangers of online activity and took steps to protect herself, without me even trying too hard to explain, but this required some amount of education which is out of reach for most normal people who either don't have a technical friend that understands such issues, or that technical friend thinks it isn't a problem, such as yourself.
I agree, the Linux community as a whole has never stood for these malfeasons ever!! I say we stand up, I use Ubuntu on ALL my PC's home and work, so we're talking 15 to 20 PC's that I might have to move over to another Distro here soon. This is not the first time Ubuntu has tried these "Windowz" practices on it's users, but this needs to be the last! The first was taking away our choice in the first release of Unity, it was sooooo much a pain in the but to get back to default Gnome that most people didn't try.
Mint allowed it's user's to do so from the get go, so that means it was possible but Ubuntu made the choice for us instead of allowing configuration choices, that's what Linux is all about, choices! Ubuntu has been trying to take our choices away for a long, long time.
We as a Linux community first and foremost need to stand up and let the Linux community as a whole know we will not stand for this. Ubuntu is the first doing this, but if we let them get away with it then companies like Amazon might go to other Distro's and try the same thing. If a small distro see's an easy way to make money and people don't care, or don't show they care, they might do it.
With no place to run Linux becomes "Windowz"! We need to let them know we are not standing for this before it gets out of hand and happens all over the place.
I personally haven't used Unity since day one on any of my 20 PC's, I hate it. So I have never been in the position to be used by Canonical to pad their pockets in this search thing. I don't ever even suggest people to use Unity since it's such a pain in the butt! But other people will be affected by this more than likely. My simple solution is don't use Unity ha ha but that's not a solution, that's a band aid.
If we let Canonical get away with it without screaming they will just continue as long as Amazon funnels cash into their caufers! If they loose user base then we win and Linux as a whole wins since they are the big distro on the block.
> Ubuntu has been trying to take our choices away for a long, long time.
How has it taken any of your choices away? All of Debian is available in Ubuntu, and Debian is all about choice. You can manipulate your systems as you please. You can even roll your own installation CD exactly how you want it.
Canonical even supports Xubuntu, Kubuntu, Lubuntu etc., all of which have taken a different set of choices and all of which are released at the same time as Ubuntu itself.
Sigh.... you mean well. But you'll never win this battle/war of words... Someone summed this whole thing on another earlier thread on.... (wait for it......) Ubuntu, a few days ago...
This is a rather crazy line of thought once one actually starts to think about it. If I see a poisonous (say rotten) food being sold, I find it almost my duty to inform people. Somehow it's now being argued, that I should stay quiet and vote with my feet/wallet instead? If a company does something clearly distasteful and harmful to others, staying quiet and voting with your feet is not a good idea. This should be obvious to everyone. At best, you are ignoring the problem, and at worst, you are implicitly allowing the situation to continue.
If something is harming others, staying quiet or saying that "users should know better and not act like they do" is not the way to go. If the search box was labeled "ask amazon about this", then this would have been a no-brainer and no one would object to this. Its the same as labeling some food-like objects as non-edible. Canonical search however does not do this, and tricks users to send data that they believe is private.
Imagine a worker at a company, using this function to search for internal document including a string with company secrets. Whooops, now that data is at Amazon. Imagine a police worker, seaching for email with witness details. whooops, now that data is also sent to Amazon. Imagine a normal person searching for emails that includes their credit card. Whoops, gone gone. And let's not discuss things that private people honestly, truly, do not wish other people know, or for that matter, journalists.
This is not fair to the users, and RMS points this out. It might even be illegal in some if not all european countries. At the least it's something to write about and inform users about the risk involved.