The GNU project accuses Google of producing malware
It is circulating on social media a tough post from the GNU project against Google. The title says it all "Google software is malware"
For the avoidance of doubt, in the second paragraph of the post he gives the definition of malware:
Malware is understood to be software designed to mistreat or harm the user (accidental errors are not included).
Although he recognizes that proprietary software and malware are not synonymous, he still takes the opportunity to criticize it
As the program developer is aware that the user is unable to remedy malicious functionalities, he may be tempted to introduce some.
GNU Project Against Google: The Proofs Of The Prosecution
The GNU Project's allegations against Google include:
- Rear doors.
- Censorship.
- Security flaws.
- Espionage.
Rear doors
Rear doors allow access to a system without knowledge or consent of the users. The GNU project found the following back doors:
Android
Various users of Google Pixel phones and other devices running Android 9 Pie noticed that the battery saver function had been activated, apparently alone. And interestingly, this happened when the phones were almost fully charged, not when the battery was low.
google rmet on Reddit that:
"An internal experiment to test battery-saving features that was mistakenly extended to more users than anticipated."
ChromeOS
According to section 4 of the end user license agreement:
4.1 The Software may automatically download and install updates from Google from time to time. These updates are designed to improve and develop the Software and may take the form of bug fixes, improved functions, new software modules, and entirely new versions. You agree to receive such updates (and allow Google to send them to you) as part of your use of the Software.
The GNU project does not quote section 5, although it could perfectly do so:
5.2 From time to time, Chrome OS may check with remote servers (hosted by Google or third parties) if updates are available for applications and extensions, including but not limited to bug fixes or improved functionality. Such updates will be requested, downloaded and installed automatically without prior notice, and you agree to such installation.
5.3 From time to time, Google may remove or suspend access to applications and extensions when it reasonably suspects that such applications and extensions may be harmful or misleading, violate applicable laws or regulations, or violate the rights of third parties (including, but not limited to, the breach of the intellectual property rights of third parties).
Censorship
I'm not sure this qualifies as censorship. They refer to the Google Family Link application.
The app installs on a tweens smartphone and connects to the parent's phone. PAllows you to control and approve the apps your kids useas well as setting screen time limits and a "bedtime" for the device.
Security Failures
As reported in a security conference, some SDKs developed by Chinese search giant Baidu and an analytics company called Salmonads could pass data from one application to another (and to their servers) by first storing it locally on the phone. The researchers estimate that some applications using the Baidu SDK may be trying to obtain this data silently for their own use. These SDKs are used by very popular applications.
Espionage
For the GNU Project, the Chrome browser is a surveillance tool because:
It allows thousands of trackers to invade users' computers and report the pages they visit to advertising and data companies, and first of all to Google. What's more, if users have a Gmail account, Chrome automatically connects them to it to improve their profiling. On Android, Chrome also informs Google of its location.
Of course they do not deprive themselves of recommending ice cat, a modified version of Firefox, with additional privacy features.
You can see the full list of complaints here. Some seem a bit forced to me, but the small part in which I cook is quite scary.
They clearly say what nobody seems to understand: that they abuse people who use computers, taking advantage of our ignorance. In principle, the acquiescence of a person in the face of violations of the law should render his signature without effect, but these companies constantly make us accept privacy policies that go against our most basic rights and, when we do, we no longer enjoy the protection that the laws grant us instead of being able to claim for having forced us to accept an illegal situation. We lose even Human Rights, which are accepted for the simple fact that we are people.
It seems perfect to me that there are people who say things clearly. If it weren't for the FSF and the GNU Project we would already be seeing all our rights violated without any possible form of claim. Thanks to these institutions we have alternatives.
We must raise awareness and abandon Google, Facebook, Windows ... The only thing that allows these abuses to continue is that they continue to make money at our expense. If we were to abandon their brands, the situation would certainly change. But as long as we continue to be sheep, Google and company will continue to herd us.