Hacker News Reader

Comment by lrvick | Hacker News Reader

ChromeOS is a privacy nightmare I cannot recommend to anyone which is a real shame because it is perhaps the most secure consumer focused workstation operating system out there.

I wish any vendor would offer a privacy-by-default telemetry-disabled ChromiumOS option I could actually recommend.

View on HN

But if we are honest:

1. is it really worse then windows

2. google does has privacy option, partially thanks to the EU forcing them and as far as I can tell they are not randomly "undone" with updates from time to time

3. a lot of more common users do also have instagram and similar, do most things through android/iOS apps and use google search and chrome, or some chrome derivate. How much additional information does using ChromeOs expose?

Don't get me wrong for most people on HN it probably is degrading privacy. But this is not targeting the common HN user.

This is targeting:

- existing ChromeOs users looking for an upgrade

  - this includes devs

  - this includes less tech affine people

  - this includes people which bought that premium Chromebook with a 3:2 Google sold years ago

    - this includes a bunch of google (ex-)employs which might have been the driving factor for bringing out a ChromeOs version

  - this includes junior devs which grew up with a edu focused chrome book

- people which care about the mission of framework, but are not highly tech affine, they might seem rare but they do exist

- presents, Chromebooks can be nice presents to less tech affine users and if they anyway use mainly Chrome and similar it's not necessary "reducing their privacy"

- people feed up by Linux desktop issues but disgusted with Apple Hypocrisy and totally feed up with windows since a while

  - especially if they are not supper sensitive wrt. privacy. And while such devs might sound like a myth on HN I have meet docents of them

Lastly it's the same hardware and probably more or less the same driver support issues, so the cost of shipping such a version is probably not too high while at the same time it can give you a bit more supply chain stability (by removing hardware choices outside of cards).

The main question is if the firmware is in a state where you could just install Linux or Windows if you want.

Giving ChromeOS devices to low tech users that cannot understand the privacy and lock-in risks feels like a tech version of giving kids cigarettes. It is simply unethical. The HN crowd can make informed decisions to give Google control of their entire digital lives but we should not make that choice for others.

I would never recommend Windows or MacOS to anyone for similar reasons so those are not a comparison I care about either. I would certainly recommend a Chromebook over either if someone absolutely has no choice but those three, but there are almost always other choices if you make some time to teach someone.

Most Linux distros are a security shit show so pre-installed linux machines are hard to recommend to anyone that does anything high risk on their machines like financial work or journalism.

Degoogled ChromiumOS feels like a good security/privacy balance for most people but that is not currently a user friendly option for installation and upgrades.

In practice I find myself using and teaching others using their machines for anything remotely privacy or security sensitive to install and use QubesOS. For all the excellent privacy and security design it has a high learning curve and strict hardware requirements making it untenable for low-budget or low-tech users.

>but we should not make that choice for others.

Much of the HN crowd has their finances intertwined with forcing these kinds of choices on consumers. Sometimes I dream of an awful de-anonymized internet where your financial holdings are bound to every post that you make online. I think binding that incentive might change how we ingest opinions.

Already on the internet we can choose to use our real name when we are comfortable having our reputation tied to our words giving them more weight, and we can also be anonymous other times when we are okay with our words holding very little weight, but also very little risk to us.

I think many people, if they find a comment really impactful, will take a look and see if this was said by someone using their real name and if there are obviously relevant major corporate biases they didn't disclose. Or maybe I am weird and am just trying to justify that I personally do this often.

Regardless, both anonymous and identified communication are very valuable depending on the particular goal, and it should always be a switch everyone is empowered to be able flip at any time.

Sometimes when I am testing out ideas to decide how I even feel about something myself, I may choose to be anonymous.

Most of the time, I am fine with most of my posts on HN being under my real name and tied to my reputation and that of the security and privacy consulting company I run.

I still reserve the right to change my mind and be wrong sometimes and trust most of my target customers to give me some room for that :)

low-tech users don't care much for their privacy in my experiences. This may be due partially due to the lack of understanding, but also due to cultural differences different from the average hn user. The time needed to teach them how to use complicated security systems just isn't worth it for them most of the time. People have different priorities. Most people just want to use their computers as a utility or for playing fun games or something.

I'm sure there's some complicated oven i could use that would be way better in the long run but I just wanna make pizza sometimes, not the best pizza in the world at the perfect temperature.

If an oven leaked a lot of pm2.5 or Carbon Monoxide and it happened to still be legal, it would still be an ethical obligation for someone that is aware of these issues to recommend against that oven even if someone just wants the cheap/easy option and does not comprehend the risks.

Those that can comprehend significant technical risks are obligated to recommend a low-risk strategy until people have enough relevant understanding to take informed risks for themselves.

I would for instance never let a minor use apps like TikTok known to granularly monitor and sell their location and behavior to keep them maximally addicted and maximally profitable. If the user is an adult tech worker that understands how such apps work and has the means to actually understand the privacy policy... then I will find their choice stupid but it is their life.

I agree with most of what you said. I think privacy is important and it is important to educate people on these issues. I just think that say a grocery store worker that just wants to get the bills paid for next month and enjoy life a little has a different set of priorities than a tech worker making > 60,000 USD. There are more people like that in the United States than tech workers.

Sire. It is on tech workers to not exploit everyone else that does not understand the dangers.

I agree.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com