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.

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

Back in the world of Nokia there saying:
!!all your base are belong to us!! And then they did the robot with some cheeses bass in the background.

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

Easily fixed - add me to your ignore list and you'll never have to be raped by my terrible analogies again.

Can we go back on topic now or are there any other sentences of mine you would like to rip apart in a hair-splitting attempt of defiling my opinion on what I like and what I find to be poor business practices?

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

Well, lemme add to this madness... if we allowed Maemo, an OS derived from Linux and touted to be the "most open" (remember that wording) OS on a phone, using the power of Linux as a selling point.

Now... MeeGo is a definite different turn of events. Hosting by the Linux Foundation. Will MeeGo be as closed - in bits or parts - as Maemo? It shouldn't be. And if it is... then what's the opinion on that? Don't forget that MeeGo has been touted as the "most open" - but not 100% open.

But shouldn't it? I mean, it is under the Linux Foundation. So why would closed bits be in the way or included?

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

Because the mobile hardware industry is how it is, and expecting to ship a usable, 100% open distribution on reasonable hardware isn't currently realistic.

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

Then what is the difference between it and the others? You're just as locked in and you have to basically hack or find a way to get another OS onto that mobile hardware handset; do you not?

To a layman, the difference(s) are starting to get minor and "most open" is now easily relegated to marketing talk.

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

You have made some assumptions about my consciousness that are untrue. I chose the AP Installer because it was the first on the list alphabetically that I noticed creeping back into my apps. I don't think that it happens only when I flash. Maybe it does for AP Installer, but it is only one example.

As to why everyone isn't seeing it -- maybe everyone isn't paying as much attention.

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

By October, it should technically be possible to "roll your own" complete with battery charging and 3D support. The goal, effectively, is to isolate and minimize the closed bits such that the greater OS is not impacted by it. We then pull in vendor support to ensure that the closed bits are available for whatever purposes the licensees (Nokia, you) desire for them.

The layman has always been that way. If we want something to be as open as possible -we- need to push for it. We also need to make sure that we don't trade off usability for openness, and really there is no reason to.

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

I'm totally playing devil's advocate here... so what if by 2011, we do not get "roll your own" options because nobody else - community inclusive - has yet to come to terms and task with the workspace, dev tools, software and whatnot. Then what? It hasn't exactly happened before so my (personal) faith is lacking.

And the closed bits... what if there is no true way to sidestep them and we end up with a SMS per UI replacement or major component change and that part of the telephony persists?

I tend to agree; but in this case, I went to the absolute lowest common denominator while addressing an active group of people that will not fit into that group in the least.

Now with that said; I'm starting to find myself besieged by the marketing terms that are increasingly vague and off-putting explanations for things that do affect users (see the original post and the inability to sidestep that intrusion). I see many other things as the same with the OS. I cannot replace bits of it (quite yet) and I cannot live without those bits (as of yet). Am I doomed to be strapped into a wide open field where the borders are just farther out of sight as opposed to a walled garden?

It's getting dangerously close to where that is what the (now) common denominator of this group will start seeing and the layman already have sussed out with their "limited" understanding.

In simpler terms, the borders are being found, things like this enforce those borders and I fail to see the differences in some terms and ideals other than I have much more room to roam than some other options... I'm still somewhat fenced in.

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

Agreeing with the sentiment: If "that's the way the industry is" is your excuse, you're not really convincing me that MeeGo/Nokia is fundamentally any more open or better.

Also.. Gerbick++

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

Acknowledging the reality of "that's the way the industry is" doesn't make MeeGo as closed as any competitor-- just recognizing that it isn't 100% open due to current needs of industry. It's still expected to be more open than anything else.

So I don't understand the rebuttal...?

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

If you had the source to cherry this wouldn't happen? How is that? Open source confirms malicious SMSs?

This would have happened. It might have taken less than a few days to see what's inside the SMS, but we know nonetheless.

As long as you flash your phone, this will happen. Also, hundreds of thousands flash without ever coming here to check. Even if you compiled your own PR 1.2, you wouldn't have gone through the sources, it's huge. Not in any amount of time we'd be happy to wait.

I'm afraid that, case in point, out only shield is Nokia's honesty.

Also, I'll repeat, as it seems I'm alone in this. Some of us don't really care the percentage of the OS that's open, as the OS has done nothing wrong by me. Closed core apps and lack of documentation did. And Nokia ain't opening Phone, and it ain't writing docs any time soon.

It could be 100 percent open, heck, it could be naked holding its x-ray. Phone would still be closed, still buggy, still no features and no docs. Cherry would still be there, happily sending SMS, as the notmynokia would probably still create the darned file instead of commenting lines and recompiling.

How does OS openness bare on cherry? (as this thread is about the MyNokia subscription)?

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

This part. Apparently the fact that some folks are getting charged, multiple times for a SMS that's nigh unavoidable is the problem right now. Don't you agree?

If it were truly open, people would have seen that, avoided it, and kept going.

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

But cherry is not part of the OS?

Sorry, I have a distinction between OS and apps, as I come from a closed environment. OS, as a moded Linux, is fine. Added closed packages are not OS.

For example, Notepad, even if shipped with Windows, is not the OS, as it's not a needed part, not a developer interface, replaceable, etc.

Shipped with doesn't mean part of. I know that since you have centralised repos and are all or most OSS, distinction is blurred.

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

The telephony stack/SMS portion of Maemo != Notepad.exe on Windows

If so, remove it, no problems, right? Good luck with that.

I've stated it, and you missed it somehow... that's one of the closed bits that has affected people. And instead of being knee deep in a semantics battle about what it is and what it isn't... I'd suggest that folks really spend the time in finding out what else the close bits are doing and how to avoid it.

And if anything, why are people so damn happy to point out one or two words meanwhile people are paying for something they shouldn't have.

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

I have a feeling that if Nokia created an opt-in registration system that was linked to an anti-theft protection system, they would get very high opt-in rates.

I.e. Register your phone number, name and IMEI, and then if one day you report your device stolen, we will help you track your device, and it will be blocked from future updates, etc.


Michael

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

I didn't know Debian didn't have a (OSS) telephony stack, I thought it was just the app that was closed. Oh well.

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

No. That would be Maemo.

Have fun trying to remove that portion fully that basically is explained away nonchalantly in the OP.

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

Gerbick,

You're pretty much on every other post in this thread.

Maybe you need a breather? Sometimes, when discussion doesn't lead to anything, the best tactic is a bit of silence.

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

You're right.

Gerbick, take a breather. I'm taking over the shift now. Thanks for the good work and, as always, I grok your mouth music.

It's as much part of the OS as anything else that comes packaged in the firmware. I think what you MEANT to say is that it's not part of the kernel. If what you mean by 'operating system' is literally just the Linux kernel, you would be right. If what you mean by 'operating system' is literally the entire package handed to you as the system and dependencies that work together to provide the user with a way to work with the kernel (i.e. everything from the UI to the command line to the apps that make the kernel useful) then you're incorrect. Cherry is part of the package and it runs whether you like it or not as part of the operating system along with all the other close-source pieces of crap that Nokia forces down your throat that you can't remove without damaging the actual open-source kernel and applications that Nokia have hooked into their crap. Yes. Crap. it's provable on the maemo bugzilla site that it's crap if bugs are found but won't get fixed or aren't open enough for anybody else to fix them.

How nice for you that the OS hasn't done a single thing you didn't like. I wonder how you even know all of what it's doing, really, if it's not entirely open so that you know what type of behavior it's actually going to have, ala the privacy picking rotten cherry. Methinks Maemo needed to get pitted.

GOOD NEWS, EVERYONE! Nokia has already gathered your information! They've already HALF-IMPLEMENTED your idea! ;)

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

Well, following that explanation, allow me to rephrase. Kernel and some parts of the system did no wrong by me. None that I could see, the phone could have transmitted stuff over WAN, I'm not dumping EVERY packet sent.

I guess you are right. I don't know that other parts did no wrong, they could have uploaded my contacts to Nokia.

I never noticed the kernel do anything wrong. Which, in this form, means squat.

Who would have thought Nokia would ever rank in security and trust below a few companies we'll not name here? Hm.

So, I'll repeat the question I posed here the second day this SMS thing popped on the forums: Did we ever get a response from Nokia on this issue? Because no, the above isn't a response.

I guess the response is "yes we did it", for one, and "no regrets and no promises we won't do it again". So, good news, everyone, indeed.

Last useful news I saw on the subject was in BMO:

Anything in the last 3 weeks?

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

Don't expect anything to happen in July, and since no concrete steps were announced in June, it's August at best for anything. Sad, really, as by then most of the people who upgrade will have done so, so any goodwill gesture or technical change (I'm not saying there will be any) risk being put in the too little too late category.

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

Excellent idea. I completely agree: that would get high opt-in rates and be perceived by most people as a very fair exchange for providing the information.

Personally, I still wouldn't register, even with that incentive, so the opt-out would still be needed but this is still a very good idea.

In fact, if Nokia will open source cherry, and the SMS libraries it depends on, I would be very happy to contribute to a community project to provide this feature. I already mentioned, in my bugzilla request to open source cherry, that the community might be able to help Nokia make the process acceptable and legal while still providing them with high opt-in rates.

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

By the way, slightly off-topic but this paper might be of interest to those discussing the different types of openness. He even includes a section on "communities"!

http://deposit.depot.edina.ac.uk/230/
The Open vs Closed Debate.
pp. 30-47 of Vol 30(3) Journal of Information and Management (ISSN 1882-2614).
Published 2010.
Professor Andrew A Adams
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan

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

(Bringing this here as it's off-topic for the bug report)

What would be the best contact channels to discuss such a change, and would such an effort have any realistic chance of success?

Note that the current terms ("This is an Ovi service device. Registration via SMS required." on the back of some retail boxes) and Ovi privacy policy (written mainly with the website in mind) are clear as mud. We still don't know what information is being transmitted and what it will be used for. Does "registration required" refer to the use of the Ovi service or is it mandatory for using the device and someone is effectively breaking a contract by simply not inserting an SMS-capable SIM in it? How does Ovi also imply MyNokia registration (is someone buying an Ovi service device automatically opting in to any and all other Nokia services)?

I hope I don't sound too antagonistic (speaking as a former, and hopefully future, customer who would love to finally see something worthy of replacing my ageing N8x0s), but these are important questions that do influence purchasing decisions and are still unanswered. Take it or leave may be a valid answer, but It'd be nice to know exactly what "it" is first.