Comments

They are visually confusing, to say the least

There’s a lot to be said against how the implementation is suggested at the moment. For starters, in Europe the ‘round red circle’ means ‘forbidden’ in traffic signs. (Forbidden to go harder than 50km/h, forbidden to turn here, …). So the encryption bord would be read as ‘Forbidden to not encrypt.’ (or even - wrongfully ‘forbidden to encrypt’, according to how quickly one scans the icon.) This might make sense for the first three, where keeping to the rules is mandatory to comply with EU law, but not for the encryption, and do not sell/rent, .. .

(A red triangle, signalling ‘be alert’ would be more in line with what they are trying to do here. Notify, not forbid.)

The second issue I have with this is that even companies who do ‘the right thing’, will be displaying six huge red ‘dangerous’ icons on their signup pages. And the green checkmarks do not counteract this enough. The negation in the text, with the ‘negative connotation’ text still highlighted, is not helping either, not that the checkmarks are not directly next to the icons. (For better scanning.)

So, very much not a fan. I see some great design & UX coming from some EU departments. Wish they’d actually ask these guys to have a look at these.

As they stand now, I’ll have a hard time advising anybody to implement these when the GDPR comes into affect. If they are not improved upon, I’d likely suggest they take some of their two years grace period, and see if these have evolved for the better by then.

(I do look forward to seeing these on my credit card contract, loyalty card brochures, etc.. rather than having this information and opt-out conditions hidden in the 20 pages-long small print. Especially the ‘disseminated’ and ‘sell or rent’.. . )

Comment by Ann
Nautilus

To connect using nautilus just add index.php to your dav url ex dav://kolab.your-domain.com/iRony/index.php, that did the trick for me. hope it helps.

Comment by Mohiddeen Mneimne
“Right to be forgotten”: Twitter

On 29 Jul 2014, at 09:00, Hugo Roy <…> wrote:

Dear Hugo

Always interesting to read your thoughts!

Likewise - and it was you that started this! ;)

http://github.com/idno/idno

Thank you; I will take a look.

I tried to get it going on my external-facing Raspberry Pi a couple of nights back, but it had some problems with MongoDB, so I will have to take another look when I get some more time. Thank you for the recommendation though; it is not one which I had seen before, and it looks rather good.

What makes me sad is that is the collateral damage made by this decision, the right of the public to access lawfully published information, which IMHO should be considered a part of freedom of expression because it’s pointless to have the write to express yourself if other do not have the right to access your thoughts.

Absolutely. By setting this out as a “right to object” under data protection law, and failing to provide sufficient shielding for the data controller to permit them to undertake a proper balancing act, freedom of expression is jeopardised, in my view.

It seems quite bold to me for the ECJ to basically say that in the case of personal data being processed, the interests pursued by the public to access lawfully published information is generally not legitimate!

Agreed. I am less concerned that the economic interests of the search engine are deprecated, but, as you say, the much wider, societal, issue of public interest v private interest, and handling the situation in which the two are not the same is critically important. Hence, for example, the limitations on the rights of data subjects within the framework in respect of journalism, recognising the wider, important, role which journalism plays. Perhaps, these days, online search needs a similar recognition, although I suspect that there is a pitfall to avoid here too, that someone indexing a newspaper and someone writing the content of that newspaper are not the same thing.

the right for the respect of private life (which is not the same as a right for privacy)

Spot on — when I teach “privacy” law, this is one of the key points that I make: it is an interpretation to read “private life” as “privacy”.

This decision gives to the data subject an all too important power in the name of better privacy. I don’t think this decision was the best way to start this, and I think it did it in a way that cause more problems than it actually solves.

It sounds like we are very much in the same place on this, especially in terms of (1) the way in which this sets incentives to perhaps over-account for privacy at the expense of wider, social, rights, and (2) the ineffectiveness of the solution, given that others are already indexing changes, to ensure that the full context is available. However, I am not sure that there has ever been a decision which overturns, or relegates to the sidelines, Lindqvist, so I am not sure that data protection and the Internet is particularly well understood anyway!

Agreed, and this suits me; perhaps, when I get idno working, we could post the respective parts of our exchanges there? Else, if you have another plan, do let me know.

All the best,

Neil

Comment by Neil Brown
Re: “Right to be forgotten”: Twitter

Hi Neil,

Always interesting to read your thoughts!

↪ 2014-07-29 mar. 09:23, Neil Brown <…>:

[censored/ personal stuff]

[censored/ personal stuff]

I just wanted to follow up on our conversation on Twitter about “the right to be forgotten” - 160 characters is just not enough some times!

Yes! You need to use some more space and then link that back to Twitter ☺

I use this to get this done and I’m quite happy with it: http://github.com/idno/idno

The point I was attempting to make is that so much of the reporting about this issue is describing it as a “right to be forgotten”, rather than a right to object to processing of personal data.

Yes. I am not happy at all with the characterisation of the judgment the media’s making either. At the same time, the issue is quite complex…

Whilst the CJEU set out some preconditions for the exercise of this right, my point in terms of liability is that this “right to object” is a right granted to data subjects and that, conversely, there is no “right to process” granted to data controllers. Instead, controllers are permitted to process provided that they satisfy certain criteria, including rules around lawfulness and legitimacy.

If a controller does not comply with these requirements, they can be sued; the directive provides that member states must provide for a right of action for a person who has suffered damage as a result of an unlawful processing operation to be entitled to receive compensation.

To my mind, this sets the incentives up incorrectly: - a controller must satisfy certain grounds to be permitted to process personal data - if the controller does not meet these requirements, it can be sued by a data subject - a data subject has a right to object, which entails providing a “justified objection” on “compelling legitimate grounds” - it is left to the data controller to determine whether the complaint meets these criteria - even if the controller decides that the criteria are not met, it may have to defend its decision in court - if the court upholds the claim, it is unlikely to benefit — spending money to defend its position when, arguably, there is unlikely to be much of a business benefit in doing so. Only the biggest, richest companies are likely to be able to afford to litigate on a point of principle like this - if the court says that the subject’s objection was valid, a damages action is available

To me, this is a case of the incentives being set incorrectly; if the aim of the legislation is to ensure a balancing act between the right of privacy and the right to communication, setting up a structure whereby the controller could be liable for damages if it fails to remove something following an objection, only encourages removal.

This is much like the liability protections within the eCommerce directive: an intermediary is shieled from liability, as long as it removes infringing material expeditiously. In theory, it is open to the intermediary to argue that the material is not infringing, and thus it has no liability, but the incentive is set incorrectly: if a hosting provider is liable unless it removes the information, it is more than likely to err on the side of removal.

So, a few more than 160 characters, but that’s what I was trying to say!

We entirely agree on that.

What makes me sad is that is the collateral damage made by this decision, the right of the public to access lawfully published information, which IMHO should be considered a part of freedom of expression because it’s pointless to have the write to express yourself if other do not have the right to access your thoughts.

I have been quite annoyed by the decision, specifically when it says:

The rights to privacy of the data subject override “as a rule,
not only the economic interest of the operator of the search
engine but also the interest of the general public in finding
that information upon a search relating to the data subject’s
name.” (¶ 97)

especially because article 7 provides a basis for giving legitimacy to processing based on the rights of the public:

‘Member States shall provide that personal data may be
processed only if:

…

(f)      processing is necessary for the purposes of the
legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by the
third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed,
except where such interests are overridden by the
interests [or] fundamental rights and freedoms of the data
subject which require protection under Article 1(1).’

It seems quite bold to me for the ECJ to basically say that in the case of personal data being processed, the interests pursued by the public to access lawfully published information is generally not legitimate!

Also it’s quite new to me that fundamental rights and freedoms of individual protected under Article 1(1) do not necessarily need to demonstrate prejudice. From the theory of subjective rights from which the right for the respect of private life (which is not the same as a right for privacy), this is quite interesting.

I’m in favour of better understanding and protection for privacy, in addition to individuals’ rights to the respect of private life. But for me, these are two different things. While privacy is something more social, the right for the respect of private life is an individual’s subjective right and needs to demonstrate prejudice.

This decision gives to the data subject an all too important power in the name of better privacy. I don’t think this decision was the best way to start this, and I think it did it in a way that cause more problems than it actually solves.

Now the French CNIL is not happy with Google noticing the media when they alter search results pointing to their article. But the fact that it’s a problem is evidence for me that this is all badly conceived by the ECJ.

Which is worrisome considered the increasing role this court plays regarding fundamental rights and freedoms…

(By the way, I think this discussion could also be very interesting in public so that other people can correct me when I’m wrong and discuss)

Comment by hugo
“Right to be forgotten”: Twitter

Dear Hugo

[censored/ personal stuff]

I just wanted to follow up on our conversation on Twitter about “the right to be forgotten” - 160 characters is just not enough some times!

The point I was attempting to make is that so much of the reporting about this issue is describing it as a “right to be forgotten”, rather than a right to object to processing of personal data.

Whilst the CJEU set out some preconditions for the exercise of this right, my point in terms of liability is that this “right to object” is a right granted to data subjects and that, conversely, there is no “right to process” granted to data controllers. Instead, controllers are permitted to process provided that they satisfy certain criteria, including rules around lawfulness and legitimacy.

If a controller does not comply with these requirements, they can be sued; the directive provides that member states must provide for a right of action for a person who has suffered damage as a result of an unlawful processing operation to be entitled to receive compensation.

To my mind, this sets the incentives up incorrectly:

  • a controller must satisfy certain grounds to be permitted to process personal data
  • if the controller does not meet these requirements, it can be sued by a data subject
  • a data subject has a right to object, which entails providing a “justified objection” on “compelling legitimate grounds”
  • it is left to the data controller to determine whether the complaint meets these criteria
  • even if the controller decides that the criteria are not met, it may have to defend its decision in court
  • if the court upholds the claim, it is unlikely to benefit — spending money to defend its position when, arguably, there is unlikely to be much of a business benefit in doing so. Only the biggest, richest companies are likely to be able to afford to litigate on a point of principle like this
  • if the court says that the subject’s objection was valid, a damages action is available

To me, this is a case of the incentives being set incorrectly; if the aim of the legislation is to ensure a balancing act between the right of privacy and the right to communication, setting up a structure whereby the controller could be liable for damages if it fails to remove something following an objection, only encourages removal.

This is much like the liability protections within the eCommerce directive: an intermediary is shieled from liability, as long as it removes infringing material expeditiously. In theory, it is open to the intermediary to argue that the material is not infringing, and thus it has no liability, but the incentive is set incorrectly: if a hosting provider is liable unless it removes the information, it is more than likely to err on the side of removal.

So, a few more than 160 characters, but that’s what I was trying to say!

All the best,

Neil

Comment by Neil Brown
comment 2

Hi Trevor. I don’t know what’s causing this: does it happen with the dell-xps-13 kernel patch alone, or is it caused by touchegg?

I have updated my touchegg config, so it’s now changed in the gist as well. Also, xf86-input-synaptics has been updated since I wrote this, and for me it’s not working as smoothly as it should (I’ve opened an issue on github).

I guess the best place to start investigating is https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeShell/Debugging

Comment by hugo
comment 1

Hey Hugo, I tied this on gnome 3.12. I got it to work, but whenever I touch the top of a window (the part that’s blank on the same level as the x) the window and gnome shell crash. Any idea what could be wrong?

Comment by Trevor
More links about Ghostery's hypocrisy
Comment by anonymous
misunderstanding

No, I meant that if the GPL program does not suit you, then write your own program (NOT write your own license!). I agree in all cases it’s a bad idea to write your own license from scratch.

I will modify the sentence to reflect this better.

Done

Comment by hugo
Thanks!
The last line helped me a lot, even though I don’t even use the sidebar yet. open-mutt found the folder with the email needed, but always highlighted the first mail in that folder. Now it works fine! :)
Comment by Guido Arnold
"on"

“on s’est peut-être interdit de pouvoir réfléchir intelligemment en droit sur ce qui constitue réellement le droit des auteurs, quelles sont ses finalités.”

“On” c’est le Conseil constitutionnel, car les auteurs lui ont bien précisé quelle en était le contenu et la finalité”

Comment by Anonymous
comment 1
Comme souvent, on ne peut que rappeler ici combien fut funeste le choix du mot “propriété”, qui ne fut utilisé que pour éviter le mot de “privilège” trop rattaché à l’ancien régime après la révolution (voir le projet de loi de Jean Zay en 1936, qui rappelle ce fait). Et admirer la façon dont les représentants des ayant-droit ont capitalisé depuis sur cette erreur initiale.
Comment by Laurent Chemla
Re: XPS13 Atheros AR9462

I have no problem to connect an open wifi network. But as soon as there is encryption, then instability problems arise. I upgraded to Ubuntu 13.10, and tried the solution mentioned on this website: https://dev.uabgrid.uab.edu/wiki/ExperiencesWithSputnik#WirelessIssues

Yet another website… It’s incredible how little Dell and Canonical are doing in actually trying to solve the issue on the products they’re selling! Thanks for sharing that link, I did not have a look at that website. I did none of what’s described there for my chipset.

Are you using Ubuntu 13.10 ? did you re-enabled DELL Sputnik PPA sources in Ubuntu 13.10 ?

I did not modify the PPA. Here are my APT lists.

Comment by hugo
XPS13 Atheros AR9462

Hi,

I also bought this XPS13 from french DELL website, ran lspci to discover that they didn’t ship the ultrabook with the wireless card advertised on their Website, but the Atheros AR9462 instead.

I have no problem to connect an open wifi network. But as soon as there is encryption, then instability problems arise. I upgraded to Ubuntu 13.10, and tried the solution mentioned on this website: https://dev.uabgrid.uab.edu/wiki/ExperiencesWithSputnik#WirelessIssues

I don’t know yet if it solved the problem (cause actually my sister is using it, in another country -bonjour les emmerdes-) I’ll give your solution a try if she still experiences problems.

Are you using Ubuntu 13.10 ? did you re-enabled DELL Sputnik PPA sources in Ubuntu 13.10 ?

Thank you to let us know about any update!!

PS : according to the most recent post on this thread, an update coming from DELL would have solve the issue : http://en.community.dell.com/techcenter/os-applications/f/4613/t/19515554.aspx?pi22229=3

this is also related : http://forums.opensuse.org/english/get-technical-help-here/wireless/490582-dell-xps-13-ultrabook-wireless-works-kernel-3-7-10-not-kernel-3-10-11-a.html

Comment by sulliwane
as you say !

It is always better to share information : to make them free ^^

About Dell and Canonical, I am in the same state : I really don’t know what they are doing/thinking … I still hope they will see the light soon ;-)

Good luck for all ^^

Comment by Cryptie
Thanks!

Thanks for the info! The debian wiki shows that the touchpad may also need the dell kernel… It’s amazing that an OEM can ship something that requires so much configuration from the user!

If the new wireless chip can be used with free software only, it’s great. But so far my experience was that it’s not working properly… Well, I guess I’ll try to fix the issue myself.

I’m left to wonder why the hell I’m buying a laptop with a GNU Linux distro preinstalled if I’m left having to spend as much time as with any machine to make it work the way it should with GNU Linux. What are Dell and Canonical doing?!

Comment by hugo
your wrong chip may be a good one ?

As the only non free things needed is linked to the intel chip, I just looked whether the atheros has the same problem.

The wrong chip you get seems to work on the libre kernel: http://h-node.org/wifi/view/en/763/Atheros-Communications-Inc—AR9462-Wireless-Network-Adapter—rev-01-

I don’t know what you’ll decide but… you may want to find a solution to make it works instead of changing it ;)

Have a nice day ^^

Comment by Cryptie
Kernel...

Sputnik is based on the classical linux kernel not on the 100% free one…

When I bought my laptop, I looked at the Trisquel forum to search if someone already tried it it and I discovered this post : https://trisquel.info/fr/forum/dell-xps-13

So I searched a bit and it looks like that the intel chips uses a free driver but needs some non free firmware : https://wiki.debian.org/InstallingDebianOn/Dell/Dell%20XPS%2013

So you will be able to install Debian but only with the non free installer. I’m sure you are as disappointed as I was when I discovered it. :/

Each time I think Dell did the right thing, they find a way to deceive me…

Comment by Cryptie
Non-free kernel?

I thought it could run with entirely free software! What about the sputnik kernel? Are you saying there are also issues with the intel wireless chip?

I can’t believe it!

(And yes, I intend to run Debian on it in the future, as soon as there’s GNOME 3.10 support)

Comment by hugo
comment 4

2) some time one of the ctrl/fn/alt key stays stuck and make me do stupid things… (like just now : I wanted to make one post with all and, I don’t know how, my post has been sent before I ended it, grrr) 3) there is a strange managing of audio through accounts. I have two accounts + the invited one on mine. Whenever I have a video waiting or music on one account and I switch to another, the audio do not work in the second one.

All these are not important issues, but it is a bit annoying for a pc sold with ubuntu ^^’

This slowly make me think about switching to Debian on this one but as I have (for the first time of my life!) a warranty also on the OS and that I have always being either on ubuntu or on Trisquel… I just postponed the decision for now, may be if it becomes really unstable… I would have more easily switch to Trisquel but the wifi chip needs the non free kernel :/

tl;dr I’m quite happy but it is not perfect.

I hope everything will end up well for your’s. ^^ Have a nice day

Comment by Cryptie
comment 3

I was afraid that it would be like that. When I first had the wifi issue with the intel chip (which this on is patched) I tried to contact them. I end up on the technical support page where they asked me to run a .exe to pre-check my computer ^^’ As the next update fixed my issue I didn’t think about it until I saw your post.

For your question about whether they still sell the intel version, you may ask on one of our list, you may either find a counter example or find more people to make a join request (?). I feel like we all fell in love in it (or in the idea of no M$ tax ^^’) and end up buying it whenever we need a new laptop ;-)

By the way, my general point of view is that it works quite well and I’m happy.

But a few details disappoint me : 1) since a couple of week, ubuntu is not as stable as on my others devices. All my devices are on the 12.04 as I refuse to switch until they remove their spyware in the dash. But on my others PCs I nearly never have ubuntu error and it begins to happens once a week on this one.

Comment by Cryptie
Dell and client care

Hey Cryptie! Yes, Emma told me that you had the XPS-13. Are you happy with it BTW?

I know it’s not a problem specific to France, friends in Finland reported to me that the recent purchases of XPS-13 also had the same Qualcomm wireless chipset. However, Dell sites (US, France and Finland) still advertise and sell the Intel chip (there are no mentions of the Qualcomm chip anywhere AFAICS).

The whole problem is the complete un-professionalism that Dell has demonstrated in trying to deal with this matter! It’s been more than a week now, and I still haven’t got an answer from them: I still don’t know if they even sell the intel chip any more! It looks like the sales department over there don’t even know what they’re selling!

They’re claiming that I bought the Qualcomm despite evidence to the contrary that the only option on the website is Intel (but maybe they can’t even access their own website…). It’s a complete waste of time and quite frankly this lack of professionalism is baffling. Am I talking to a computer manufacturer here?

Comment by hugo
Thanks!
Had the exact same issues now on a clean Debian Wheezy install (fresh VM). I’ll be watching blog and Paul Boddie’s. No solution yet as I understand it, but oh well, good excuse to give CentOS a try then.
Comment by Anonymous
comment 1

I bought mine in June on the same French Dell shop and I have the intel chip. So it is not a problem of French shop !

I hope you will be able to solve the issue, I would be very interested to get your feed back on how it ends up.

Good Luck !

Comment by Cryptie
Kolab .deb
Working Kolab debian packaging would be a great improvement! Glad that could help ☺! Meanwhile, if you need Kolab, you might want to give CentOS a try. It works smoothly there.
Comment by hugo
LDAP and IMAP
You managed to persuade me to take another look at my Kolab installation from June, and to my surprise it didn’t seem to work any more. I eventually discovered some things that will probably need fixing in the packaging, and I’ve written them up here: http://blogs.fsfe.org/pboddie/?p=446
Comment by Paul Boddie
SMTP Issues
Yes, it needs to be on a fresh debian (in my case, wheezy). But it’s not enough to get it to work it seems. I’m now having issues with SMTP (error 454, authentication problem). Anyway the current documentation is incomplete and I’ve read they’re moving it to another, simpler system. I hope it will improve things!
Comment by hugo
Following you on the topic of the need for a Hacker News

Hello,

You’re right, there is some lack of visibility relative to hacker’s world, their meetings, discussions & debates, subculture.

Till recently, it seemed to me that statusnet, just before it switched to pumpio, was the right tool to stay connected with hacker’s news and culture. At that time i could follow some hackers groups (Chaos Computer Club …) and projects (Tor, freedombox …), and identica/Statusnet was good to me for discovering and digging into hackers news. The groups under statusnet were like ‘virtual communities’, and the switch to pumpio ‘killed’ them, since pumpio simply removed the support of the group functionality …

So it’s more difficult for me now to stay connected with hackers news, and i’m interested with your investigation, and will follow you on your blog.

I feel that microblogging is better than RSS because it offers the ability not only to read, but to write (to comment, to review, to have a feed-back, to be connected with people), and it give the possibility to join ‘virtual communities’.

Bruno PS : if i don’t follow hacker news anymore on identica/statusnet, i now follow FSFE news :)

Comment by Bruno
My experiences

I also had problems with setup-kolab, and the suggestion was made that I should try a completely “fresh” installation of Debian to avoid contention with existing services. When I did that, the setup seemed to more or less work. My conclusion was that setup-kolab could be a bit more fault-tolerant and aware of existing (potentially compatible or incompatible) services.

I wrote about my experiences here:

http://blogs.fsfe.org/pboddie/?p=228

Generally, you have to watch the Kolab logs to see if some component is repeatedly failing. In my case, the IMAP server needed resetting to stop such failures and for things to work.

Comment by Paul Boddie

Comments in the moderation queue: 33