Hey Sup Forums just wanted to call you out on your bullshit real quickly. You complain about Operating Systems that """spy""" on (You) and argue that it doesn't matter whether you are hiding something or not, because everyone is entitled to privacy. Many of these SAME people also choose to use FOSS software. If you are one of those people who falls into both categories, I have this to say to you. Why on Earth do you only use open source if you do not audit the code? Face it, your reasoning behind this is because you assume that if a program is open source it has "nothing to hide". Yet, you demolish the argument of "nothing to hide" when someone suggested you should just use Windows. It's a double standard, you and I both know it and you specifically cherrypick exceptions to your self-disciplinary principles so you feel that your actions align with your ideaology.
Try to retort without calling me a cuck, shill, fag, etc. and instead prove me wrong:)
>Pic related is (You)
Hey Sup Forums just wanted to call you out on your bullshit real quickly...
I'm only partly using FOSS software, but let me explain my thing.
Imagine the Panopticon concept. Put yourself in the middle, in the tower, where you can look at them, but they can't look at you.
The prisoners are the devs.
They behave as if they're constantly watched, which prevents them from trying to pull shit like this.
Well
Hum
Look at you
Windows spys on you for a fact
Linux doesn't
what about that smart guy
I audit my system through monitoring my network and the use of a firewall. Admittedly, this is not the same as auditing the source code of the various softwares I use, however, if things can't get in and out without my permission, I really don't care. I've yet to find anything malicious in anything I've installed.
Knowing how "autistic" the Linux community can be has put my mind at ease as well because there are definitely people out there who do examine the source code and they would definitely point out any faults.
DELET THIS
Your reasoning is very circular. It is the developers of the particular software who choose the FOSS/GPL/whatever license that have nothing to hide. They chose that license, just like I have a choice to use that particular piece of software or not. It is the developers that have "nothing to hide" as you say. Propriatary software does not provide that same gaurantee of "nothing to hide," which is the reason I choose to avoid it if possible.
My point here is that associating a trait like 'Trustworthy' with a liscnece is a weak line of defense and also shows you are a hypocrite. Unless you actively monitor the source code of FOSS software you shouldn't assume that it is perfectly fine just because it has "nothing to hide", because that is the same argument someone who uses Windows uses and you immediately dismantle.
Sup Forums is so sad
>guys I use a specific OS that doesn't spy on me
>also I own and operate a cell phone
It has already been proven beyond any reasonable doubt propriatary software is not trustworthy, especially a product likw W10.
Until whichever FOSS program has been proven to be malicious or harmfull, I will continue to trust the open source community. There is no trust whatsoever for propriatary software that cannot be audited.
Your argument for self-monitoring of software is cringeworthy. Unless you are a competant medical doctor that has undergone 12+ years of advanced training, you have no right to assert weather you are in good health.
>>also I own and operate a cell phone
Says who?
>I do all my online activities on my phone
Seperation of powers, moron
But others audit it, that's the point.
>Your argument for self-monitoring of software is cringeworthy. Unless you are a competant medical doctor that has undergone 12+ years of advanced training, you have no right to assert weather you are in good health.
You don't need 12 years of med school to understand that you are I'll because you are running a fever of 104°F. Just like you don't need a PHD in software engineering to gaze a programs source code and identify a feature which you notice could easily be used against you.
>google knowing that I search for dragon dildos is an invasion of privacy
>signing up for a tracking device that logs every single movement I make is totes fine though, no invasion of privacy at all
never change Sup Forums
99.5% of the population cannot understand code, and are unable to audit software properly. Reading a thermometer is a in a whole other league as understanding code.
And the only ones auditing code are the ones with advanced training nessecary to understand the complexities of software design.
The same as when you go to a doctor with a 104 temp, and he tells you its a cold, not cancer.
Its my choice to operate a cell phone and be tracked. It is also my choice to use a open source OS on my PC that does none of that.
There is no invasion of privacy when I know that my carrier records my phones physical location. I have no idea what propriatary software does with my personal data, who recieves it, who buys, who looks at it. None.
Other people audit it for (Me)
You raise a very good point, OP. One that I can't directly refute.
However, the issue comes down to trust. I trust myself that I have nothing to hide but still prefer privacy. This argument does nothing to dissuade someone who is trying to get me to show them to prove it, for example a fed sympathizer. Just like how he doesn't trust me, I don't trust AnyTech with their closed source software. Unlike the aforementioned stazi, I'm not hounding AnyTech to open their code to me, I instead know there are open source alternatives that respect my freedom, and while I would appreciate if they did release it, the choice shouldn't be made for them. That's where the NSAshills are different. They don't want you to have those freedoms, and surreptitiously try to infringe upon them.
Yes and I will say that 98% of the population does not actively choose to use FOSS software from an ethical standpoint. And that 98% is probably an overshot because that's just the percentage Linux has on the desktop market. So let's say that a mere 1% of the population uses FOSS software by choice for ethical reasons. That still means that 50% of those people can understand code (I get that 50% from your 99.5%). Now that number gets slimmer, we can't safely assume that all people who can code use Linux. So let's cut it by half. 25% of that 1% can read code. But not all of them actively no Igor the development of the FOSS software of their choice. Another slash leaves us with 15% of. FOSS Users actively monitor ing the source code to their programs. That means 85% of FOSS community (who use it by choice) blindly trust it because they're have been no issues reported and or "The devs have nothing to hide". That 15% who still actively audit code, is miniscule at best, because that number is still generous.
What was the point to that text wall? Not everyone is smart enough to be an auditor? Not everyone is smart enough to be a doctor either. I really enjoyed how you layed out how a large percentage of the FOSS/Linux/whatever userbase is capable, willing, and are activly auditing the code I run on my machines. I have none of those assurances when I choose propriatary software.
You can make an educated decision about the safety of software by the listning to and studying what the trained experts have to say on the subject. I have not the training nor the will, or time to audit all the software I choose to run. That does in no way degrade my ability to make an educated decision about which software might be harmfull, malicious, or have potential harmful effects.
It's disingenious at best to make the assumption each and every action a person takes must conform up 100% to an arbitrary ideological stance YOU YOURSELF chooses.
Thanks for the dose of autism, now take it back to Sup Forums
OP doesn't raise a good point, are you people seriously gullible enough to not walk through this "argument" in your head and see that it doesn't follow at all.
Here's a sensible response to the OP:
People value their privacy as an intrinsic good and as a protection against errant blame (that is to say, you may have done nothing wrong and "have nothing to hide" but a violation of your privacy can nonetheless be used against you). Consequently, regardless of whether or not you have "something to hide" there is reason to value privacy. It follows then that you may not want to use software you have good reason to believe violates your privacy.
On the other hand, a piece of software is not a person. There is no entity which is embodied by some code which has an intrinsic interest in its own privacy. People who prefer open source software on the basis of security do so because exposed code is more likely to be audited by a 3rd party than closed code. There isn't a guarantee, it's a simple matter of a marginal improvement.
TL;DR: "You have nothing to hide" doesn't work as an argument for humans giving up their privacy, but does work as an argument for software because humans and software are substantively different things.
Your argument is retarded.
Both User and Developers create voluntary free code under their free will. User doesn't invade the Developers, and vice versa. Software that fingerprints will often want you sacrifice your privacy to use their software.
FOSS is used preferred over proprietary because protect the end user rights. It's not about auditing the code, it's about decentralized power.
But there's an active community of enthusiasts that monitors the open source codes to see if the devs pull off any tricks.
Ok, I won't call you any of those things. Instead I'll just show you pic related.
>your reasoning behind this is because you assume that if a program is open source it has "nothing to hide".
I never said this. This is also a bullshit reason.
Stop thinking that Sup Forums is one person. I use closed source software too, asshole.
>FOSS software
Fucking retard.
"Auditing the code" is an arbitrary standard you have unreasonably applied to this delima. How is it nessecary on any level for the individual to audit each and every line of code? Your standards are arbitrary and capricious at best. You somewhat have an argument, but your horrible, horrible logic undermines any point you might make.
>you cant audit code, thererfore you must use propriatary software
Yeah fuck off, OP
When did I say that you "can't" audit the code. I'm simply pointing out a flaw in your arguments against Windows 10, such as "nothing to hide". I also never said that you "must use proprietary software". My point is that most people who don't use Windows because it spies on them and refute the "nothing to hide" argument don't actually audit the source code for FOSS software and turn a blind eye and assume that FOSS makes software trustworthy because it "obviously has nothing to hide".
>How is it nessecary on any level for the individual to audit each and every line of code?
The only way to be sure.
Of course, how many people do you know with the qualifications and/or the experience to audit code?
So it's just not practical.