Man we really despise innovation attempts for some reason today on HN. Canonical is trying to push computing into the future and progress user interface by doing really hard stuff. They're sailing uncharted waters and giving us all a lot of good research, and all for free. This is honestly awesome. Not because it's going to be a UI revolution but because we get to see a well funded company, that cares about user rights, genuinely trying to innovate and make our lives better.
Plus the HUD sounds great. Anyone here use Quicksilver or mac spotlight or gnome do? I use them non stop, I can launch/search/command my computer using a simple interface without leaving my keyboard. Now I have this built into each application. And soon developers will start to build applications with this in mind and it'll get even slicker.
Theres no reason to poo on Canonical. They are trying super hard in the face of an ungrateful tech community. It's not about developing the system you personally would enjoy. It's about innovation and the future.
I think the consensus is that everyone wants Ubuntu to be the "mainstream" Linux, which is most like the other mainstream desktop OSes and can be put up on a pedistal for its stability. All the recent changes like Unity and now this shake up a paradigm that has been in place for 2 decades.
I know for a fact that things like Unity keep me from installing Ubuntu on every family members PC as a general purpose OS. They are too different from Windows (nobody on my side really got on the OSX bandwagon) and then because of these constant huge UI changes things break that they can't fix and it would frustrate them to no end.
I don't want to speak for everyone, but I want to see experimental projects like this in some kind of Ubuntu test bad like Firefox has Aurora / Nightly to test new features. Things that work and are widely popular could be pushed into mainline releases, and things that aren't can be scrapped, maybe revisited later.
But throwing these paradigm shifts into release products makes everyone lean away from Ubuntu as a general purpose OS, which is what it was becoming best at. I think everyone just mourns the loss of potential.
I was using Mint until last year until I switched back to Ubuntu again last december, for 11,10. I was not really looking forward to that since I had heard so many things about Unity being a horrible choice and so on. I was pleasantly surprised that it was far from being the broken interface many people were screaming about. It may not be perfect (I still prefer KDE for several reasons) but it is, nevertheless, functional and it does the job.
Mainsteam users who can't adapt to those kind of changes are not going to use Ubuntu anyway. Windows is already very good at keeping its interface consistent from one generation to another.
I see no reason to hate Ubuntu for their choices - I don't think they are after market leadership, they want to make a place for themselves, and differenciation is key to achieve that. And at heart, Unbuntu still retains a number of qualities like stability and relatively good compatibility across a large range of hardware.
the only consensus i'm seeing is that everybody wants to hate ubuntu. a mainstream product is the perfect place to test new UI concepts, because mainstream users don't care about these things and they don't have any expectations. despite what you might think, being very similar but not quite windows is not a good thing for a mainstream user.
everybody i've tested unity on has adapted to it really quickly. the very basics need teaching (things like showing them how to open the launcher), but beyond that users are pretty good at discovering things for themselves. the problem with making things very like windows is that people expect it to be exactly like windows, and panic when something isn't where they expect it to be. unity removes expectations and the user starts off with a blank slate, and they can learn fairly quickly. also, mainstream users don't panic over change they way you imply they do. they just don't notice change. there's a presentation from google that mentions when testing google instant, many users didn't even notice anything different.
the people who are hating on unity and ubuntu are not speaking for the mainstream, they are speaking for the power users who have a library of learned behaviours that they don't want to unlearn. a mainstream user doesn't have a whole lot of learned behaviours to overcome, and they will benefit more from a UI improvement than any other because so many of them are essentially re-learning the system every single time they try to accomplish something. lots of people say they want ubuntu to be built for the mainstream, but what they actually mean is that they want is a distro built specifically for themselves.
> mainstream users don't care about these things and they don't have any expectations.
You talk like a "mainstream" user has never used a computer before.
> the very basics need teaching (things like showing them how to open the launcher),
This is the reason why, in Windows, the start button is called the start button. After all these years, the start button doesn't have a label anymore because everyone, everywhere, now knows you that click the button in the bottom left corner to do anything.
for all intents and purposes, it's pretty safe to assume that a mainstream user has never used a computer before. after a couple years of onsite tech support, the biggest thing i took away was that when the average user sits down at a computer, they don't remember any usage patterns they may have learned during their last session. the way to make your UI usable is to assume that every user is using your software for the first time, every time.
there was a good rant on the verge a while back about the condescending UI, but from everything i've seen a little condescension is an essential part of a good UI.
I don't think people here are giving Canonical a hard time because they're trying to innovate. I think it's because while Canonical is innovating, they're shoving alpha-quality innovations down the throats of their users. They're making their users their alpha and beta testers, in effect.
This is a perfect example. If Canonical's past innovations are any hint, HUD will be released broken and unfinished--and in an LTS release no less. If they completely replace the menubar in this LTS, users will get mad (and rightly so), and Canonical will throw up their hands and say, "But guys it's not done yet! Give it a chance in the next release!" Which is what they always say.
That's no fun for people who just want to get work done.
Though this is a bit foil-hat for most people it can be a real privacy concern. Can your mac be used to secretly spy on you? Absolutely. Has apple done this before to their customers? 100% (and so have others) see carrier IQ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CarrierIQ
If something like this bothers you theres no reason you should be using any closed source software at all.
It's that easy. If you're concerned about your privacy and system integrity don't use any software from a source you don't personally trust and that can't be reviewed by a third party.
There are certain expectations that the customer has about the parties involved and what the voluntarily collected data will be used for. It would be hard to make make a case that warrantless seizure of data fit into the customer's expectations.
Under existing law voluntary disclosure of the customer's data to law enforcement doesn't appear to be illegal, if the company wants to disclose it (as opposed to having its data centers raided, which does require a warrant). At worst it'd be a violation of the privacy policy, if the privacy policy is held to be legally enforceable.
For example, Facebook has been careful to never make an explicit statement to the effect of, "we never share data with law enforcement unless we receive a warrant or subpoena". My guess is that this is because they do share data without asking for a warrant.
To me, this supreme court decision stands as precedent against the ISP's forced tracking. If recording your vehicle moves constitutes a search, then recording your online moves surely constitutes a search.
The only difference is that the supreme court ruling mentions officers having to enter a constitutionally protected area(your car) to install the searching device. With ISP data recording they would have to make no such intrusion, as it would be built in. It would be as though every car came with GPS monitoring and all the feds had to to was ask for it from your car's manufacturer.
It would surprise me if the police hadn't gone to OnStar to get exactly that kind of tracking information. Even if they haven't, just reframing the case the way you have reduces the applicability of the ruling significantly. It wouldn't be hard to argue "the Internet is a public place" and as such, there is no expectation of privacy (perhaps with the exception of SSL, but AFAIK, PCIPA doesn't require keeping the actual data, just the logs of where you went, which, even with SSL, the IP address you are visiting is clear text).
I think we will need new legislation or some serious divine intervention for this decision to protect our online privacy from the government.
Nobody with "interesting" data (and half a brain) will be physically bringing it across a border.
What's super ironic about this legislation is that it makes local law enforcement's job of actually catching criminals harder. No one's going to get caught at the border with anything but parakeets shoved down their pants. And now criminals are forced to use full-disk encryption and secure delete for everything if they want to travel which will likely lead to more security at home and more obstacles for local law enforcement.
We also need to seriously start electing people that represent us. Honestly, we need to pick people who understand technological issues and we need to cycle them regularly.
Most importantly, we all need to participate in government.
- Use full-disk encryption.
- Secure it with a very long hard to guess password.
- Turn your computer off at least 10 minutes before going through customs.
- You don't legally have to tell anyone the password with out a court order.
- You don't have to give them any information to aid in their search.
- Secure delete everything before you travel.
Super important:
- DO NOT LIE.
- You can simply not answer a question. But never lie.
- Say, "I'm sorry, but I cannot answer that question."
Super super important:
- Plan!!!
- Decide what you will do *before* you get to customs.
- Don't stress out, just relax and don't answer questions you don't want to.
I've read some people here on HN (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3496070), saying that they will start using TrueCrypt to hide their data. This is explicitly discouraged by EFF, stating:
Although TrueCrypt hidden volumes may have some practical applications, we think they are unlikely to be useful in the border search context because they are most helpful when lying to someone about whether there is additional hidden data on a disk. Lying to border agents is not advisable, because it can be a serious crime.
I'll add this here, so it can be read by someone reading your resume.
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to: 1) knowingly and willfully; 2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; 3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. Your lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as it is "within the jurisdiction" of the ever expanding federal bureaucracy. Though the falsehood must be "material" this requirement is met if the statement has the "natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it is addressed."
(Ironically, the government lies to us all the time, but there are apparently no penalties for that.)
That article gives a ton of good reasons to flat out refuse to talk about anything of substance to any agent, ever, without your attorney present.
I would highly recommend reading it. Even if you don't think you're personally the target of an investigation, the way these things go, anyone that they can catch in the net is a potential target, so you should be nervous - it always looks better to indict N+1 people than N, and if you talk to the investigators at all without a lawyer present, you greatly increase your chances of being that +1, even if you truly and honestly haven't done anything wrong.
As a non-citizen, I would not risk being labelled uncooperative by the border agents. Just because they cannot compell you to surrender your passphrase doesn't mean they couldn't hold it against you in the future (longer visa processing times, extra background checks).
As suggested in the pdf, a wiser approach is cross the border with an immaculate system and download your data afterwards.
Well, for what is worth there is absolutely no due process for being denied entry to the US as a non-citizen. I would really not try to be uncooperative and I'll heavily try to look very very dumb (I guess it's some sort of lying). As a non-citizen you have no rights at the border - the guy can send you back for no reason or for the reason he's a dick or detain you without due process.
Say, "I'm sorry, I don't feel comfortable answering that question."
And when they ask why say, "Because I believe that it is my right not to."
But nothing more. Just be short, to the point, and courteous. You're not guilty of anything for saying that, and they will understand that you understand your rights.
They may make your life a tiny bit harder because of it, but if your courteous and patient you can maintain your dignity and your privacy.
Two points here. First, don't answer specific questions about anything. This means refusing to answer questions about piracy, terrorism, etc.
Second, unless there is evidence you're breaking criminal distribution laws they're not going to care about the MP3s your friend gave you or the copy of Doom you downloaded from a BBS 15 years ago.
Considering I spend most of the year travelling around or living in East Asia, my best choice is just to avoid the US completely, including transit flights (as we now have our passports checked).
I know the chances of being asked anything, including, "have you bought pirated movies or software while in Asia?" Is pretty hard to refute if you've lived or traveled there for the last decade.
I don't think the agents are all that sophisticated, but if they notice you doing any funny business, you will get the third degree. So don't try anything.
If you're that concerned, make sure it contains nothing but Free (libre) software. Then you will be able to prove your innocence.
Let me say this a different way: having any media on your machine whatsoever is now "funny business". If you have movies ripped to your laptop for your kids to watch, as I do, then you can legally be held under suspicion of piracy, and your property can accordingly be confiscated. The burden is on you to satisfy whatever requirements the government may have for the media.
IANAL. You have 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. You don't have to answer. How do you word that? No idea, but that would be the route to take I think.
"You have 5th amendment rights against self incrimination."
My concern is while that is often stated, those people aren't sitting in the detention centre with you for hours while your digital devices and the material on them is being searched and you are being 'threatened' with further detention, likely bogus charges and pressured to admit guilt for using your laptop as a normal user does.
These are standard interrogation tactics that people need to be prepared for. If you really feel threatened, speak to a qualified layer before you make any decisions, say anything, or agree to anything you don't want to.
Standing up for your rights and privacy isn't always going to be easy. But sitting in detention for a little while is really a small price to pay for your liberty. Plus, you'll waste a lot of public money in the process.
As far as I know, constitutional rights apply equally to both citizens and non-citizens. Of course, if citizens aren't protected in this case, neither will non-citizens, but I think the distinction should not matter in constitutional matters.
I believe that current rulings indicate US Constitutional rights do not apply to non-citizens outside US borders.
Quote:
Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating ". . . it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments,
(Note "within the territory of the United States")
Lets take this seriously for a second. Say we're actually trying to catch cyber criminals and child pornographers and we're discussing enacting this law. Someone speaks up and says, "For all the discomfort and trouble we're putting innocent people through, the real criminals will just store their data online and travel with cleaned computers." How do you continue enacting this legislation? I'm trying to be as serious as possible.
How does any legislator look at the people they represent and come to the conclusion that this is a good idea?
In my opinion this is exactly like SOPA, a corporation-sponsored bill. Why would any government care if you "pirate" a movie? There is no tax on cinemas, but you pay an tax + extra fees if you're buying blank CD/DVDs -- because they presume you're going to write ("burn") illegal content.
Put copyright aside for a sec and lets try to actually frame it in the case of child porn or drug trafficking. How can any legislator conclude that disrupting the public like this is acceptable after having a reasonable discussion about how easy it would be for criminals to circumvent?
The hugely ironic part of all of this is that laws like this don't make moving data harder for criminals. It just forces them to use better data-securing practices in their day to day lives which make it harder for local law enforcement to get their job done.
The only impact I can see this legislation having is making law abiding citizens upset with their democracy.
Put copyright aside for a sec and lets try to actually frame it in the case of child porn or drug trafficking. How can any legislator conclude that disrupting the public like this is acceptable after having a reasonable discussion about how easy it would be for criminals to circumvent?
Did you see the excerpts from the SOPA hearings? The legislators can conclude that this degree of disruption is acceptable because they are morons.
I guess so. If you could steal the deeds to Harry Potter, then tell the publishers to deposit royalty checks in your account, that would be IP theft. You would have stollen the right to control publication, which is the real IP.
If you copy a movie, that's not the theft of the IP (i.e. the underlying copyright), it's infringement.
Piracy isn't like the theft of a piece of land, it's like trespassing. You don't say someone squatting in your lawn is stealing your lawn, you just say he's a trespasser.
While I understand why you, and others do it, it gets annoying that people try to define piracy out of existence, by wordplay.
I get told it's not theft, or piracy, it is copyright infringement. Now there is no intellectual property.
While I can understand wanting to re-frame the argument, reframing it in terms of terms much longer (copyright infringement) than the terms everyone current uses (piracy, theft) looks like a pure attempt to downplay the issue.
Not entirely sure what my point is here. Come up with a short (1 word, no longer than 7 letters) alternative for copyright infringement, and I might start using it. I'm not going to start talking about copyright infringement when having this discussion with my uncle. I'll say piracy.
Sure, use piracy. We all understand what that means. But I'm not trying to define it out of existence, I'm trying to use the english language effectively. It's plainly not theft. And furthermore theres no such thing as intellectual property. Unfortunately you will never own any of your copyrightable creations. Your will just own a temporary monopoly on their reproduction in certain circumstances.
It's as simple as that. Thinking that you own any creative works is misunderstanding the law and society. Thinking that copying something is theft of it(or indirectly theft of anything else) is a misunderstanding of the same.
I don't really understand the difference you place between physical property, and intellectual property. My ownership of both is imposed by the government. Without government support, I am sure I would lose control of both my physical and intellectual property very quickly (unless, in both cases, I started shooting people who tried to take them).
You don't own "Intellectual Property". You own a temporary monopoly on its reproduction in certain circumstances. But the creative work itself you don't own. Sure, if you paint a painting, you own the physical canvas, paint, and wood frame. Those are your property. But the depicted image? You don't own that. You own its copyright. Which is that temporary monopoly I described before.
It's not 7 letters, but it got me thinking, and I came up with copyfoul/copyfouling. I particularly pleased with it, especially after looking up the definition of foul, one of which involves committing infringement of rules.
Plus the HUD sounds great. Anyone here use Quicksilver or mac spotlight or gnome do? I use them non stop, I can launch/search/command my computer using a simple interface without leaving my keyboard. Now I have this built into each application. And soon developers will start to build applications with this in mind and it'll get even slicker.
Theres no reason to poo on Canonical. They are trying super hard in the face of an ungrateful tech community. It's not about developing the system you personally would enjoy. It's about innovation and the future.
Think different mother fuckers.