Re: [Council] Nokia response to MyNokia subscription in PR1.2
 

This thread was used for discussion and awareness. There are other, more efficient methods also in use to get Nokia's attention. Don't assume this is the end-all, be-all.

Re: [Council] Nokia response to MyNokia subscription in PR1.2
 

@YoDude

Another one-of-many excellent posts.

I realize things were strangely controversial before the previous election, but I hope you've continued to consider a future leadership role in either or both maemo and meego communities. You're an articulate cool head that's prevailing. Thanks.

Re: [Council] Nokia response to MyNokia subscription in PR1.2
 

I don't think anybody on here posted in order to get a message through to Nokia. This was mainly for raising awareness, talking about the various problems connected to this issue, looking for the ominous contract we "signed" by installing PR1.2, venting, rambling, discussing alternatives, informing others of ways to circumvent the system, and so on.

And I'm not sure how you plan on "making a point". Nokia was already contacted by the Council - and they made it clear that they don't care and sent this to their law department instead.

Do you really think we could come up with something "big and explosive" enough to really stir them? They've lost 2/3 of their stock worth over the last years and all they did was shrug it off as "It's because there's so many competitors".

Just because my banking number is visible every time I pay with my card I still don't want it to be broadcast on our local radio station...

Of course my phone number is not a national security secret, but that doesn't mean I want a company to make it easy to access without even asking me beforehand.

Uproar...? I wasn't aware that I was so important that my voice alone could be considered an uproar... :D

I simply complained about it, because it peeves me that they are constantly adding to the list of things they are doing to me without ever asking. This is MY number, and them using it (and storing it in plain text) without my consent just because their law department found a loop hole is getting me angry.

Heck, had they ASKED for it, I would have given it to them, and had they ASKED for it I would have given my consent to publish it on their website, if for some strange reason they felt the need to do so.

But they didn't ask, and that's the whole point.

Re: [Council] Nokia response to MyNokia subscription in PR1.2
 

That app was installed on your device on day one, along with at least a few other installer apps (facebook, om weather, etc). You may have not noticed it until recently, but it's always been there. And if you re-flash your device, it will again be there, since it's part of the base image. Most of them are simple apps that do nothing but launch the app manager with a command line to install the app it's pointing to. Most of them were on the desktop by default, so a new owner could easily get a few widgets just by clicking them.

I monitor all my installs (and fs usage), and can tell you there are no apps (outside the initial set) that I didn't install myself. I have about 40 apps showing in the app manager uninstall list, and to the one I've asked for each one to be installed. If you're seeing something being installed on your device that you didn't ask for, then something you've put on it is causing this behavior. It's not part of the base image from Nokia or Maemo. If it were, everyone would be seeing it.

Re: [Council] Nokia response to MyNokia subscription in PR1.2
 

It seems like there are a couple of applications in extra-devel that have dependencies to other applications listed, which results in this rumour of Nokia pushing apps to our phones.

I myself have never had this problem, either - though I have never un-installed any of the stock applications, so I cannot tell whether maybe those re-install themselves after a while. I doubt it, though.

Re: [Council] Nokia response to MyNokia subscription in PR1.2
 

And it's this type of false analogy that I find disturbing. They're not "broadcasting" it at all. How is using it as your default login account name "broadcasting" anything?

Most banks, when you first setup your on-line account, ask for the account number, and other identifying information in order to setup your account. How is that any different at all than this? Answer: It's not. In fact, it's not just similar, it's almost identical. And most make this interface public, where you can log in and setup your online account, as can anyone with that information, just like MyNokia.

All of your arguments here are assuming a lot of things: That the database where the information is being stored isn't encrypted or firewalled, that there's no hashing going on, and/or that they're in some way "broadcasting" all their usernames (and thus your phone number) out to the masses. They're probably storing that data just like most other services, behind some type of firewall, using SSL to get the name and password, and comparing it in a safe way.

Yes, it was wrong of them to take the info without asking. But saying that they're "broadcasting" the information, or making it publicly available when they clearly are not is just flame bating, and helps nothing.

Re: [Council] Nokia response to MyNokia subscription in PR1.2
 

If you're so intent on reducing my very existence to the word "broadcasting" (because it's not obvious that "broadcast it on radio" was a hyperbole :rolleyes: ), I'll take it back, fine.

But this is NOT the same as registering for my bank, because my bank didn't kidnap me in my sleep to steal my information without me even realising it. With my bank, I had to GO there, ASK for setting up an account and freely HAND OVER my information. And I've already stated that I would have been okay with doing the same with Nokia, if they at least ASKED instead of sending a paid SMS behind my back (even obfuscating that message from the SMS log).

Re: [Council] Nokia response to MyNokia subscription in PR1.2
 

How about the part where we get to see what's in the source for the operating system so that things like this don't end up in it in the first place? To your point, though, they STILL haven't explained why they felt it was necessary to sneak this in. They simple put a lot of words together to explain that it's a computer. It really doesn't answer the question. In the long run, had the operating system been ACTUAL OPEN-SOURCE, this might never have happened at all--or at the very least, someone would have seen it and provided fixes to make it tolerable and less sleazy and surreptitious.

It's perfect that Groklaw had a follow-up legalese article based on that article I cited earlier:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...00704191126134

I highly recommend checking it out to get my point about open-core and the ruination of boxing it in with closed-source that locks you into a vendor's version of distribution.

Actually, Linux does mean 100% open. Anything that is in Linux is open. You can attach non-open to it, you can run non-open in it but Linux is 100% open and that IS the whole point. Distributions based on Linux, not-so-much. Go read the GPL license that comes with it. Go on.

You're right. It's all about opening said source for code and the disclosure and honesty that comes with it.

Re: [Council] Nokia response to MyNokia subscription in PR1.2
 

All your OT belong to us!

I know the license quite well. You may note that the N900 doesn't run "Linux". It runs Maemo, a distribution based on Linux, which as you yourself noted above does not have to be 100% open source, since it's a derivative work.

So now they're broadcasting your phone number and kidnapping you? I give up. Reading your poor analogies is like being raped by an oil-coated BP capture boat captain dressed as Arthur C. Clarke. :D

Re: [Council] Nokia response to MyNokia subscription in PR1.2
 

Precisely the issue at hand! Thank you.