Comment 27 for bug 1073114

Here is Jono Bacon (Ubuntu Community Manager) comment about the FSF (RMS) statement: http://www.jonobacon.org/2012/12/07/on-richard-stallman-and-ubuntu/

I know this a bug report is not the place to discuss/argue, but I just want to present what is I think the rationale behind the issue at stake with the current bug report (which also explains I think why there is a massive rejection of the way the Amazon search feature has been implemented and why the few reasons given up to now by Canonical and relatives - like Jono - are not calming things).

Here's what I wrote as a comment on Jono's blog:

Privacy is not just a "deeply personal thing". In law, there is what we* call common and basic "reasonable expectations" in relation to privacy, that may exist in a variety of situations, including when using an operating system. I really doubt that having search data sent to a third party without the user's express authorization could be considered a "reasonable expectation", in the particular context where the search is performed within what is primarily known or viewed by a vast majority of users as a local application/file launcher/searcher (i.e Unity's Dash).

I understand that "the goal of the dash in Ubuntu has always been to provide a central place in which you can search and find things that are interesting and relevant to you". But if Ubuntu/Canonical want to outgrow the usual local
application/file launcher/searcher paradigm, it has to be really clear about it with users (I doubt that the untranslated legal notice at the bottom left of the Dash is sufficient) and request all necessary users express authorizations. Without specific authorization, these external (online) search features should be off.

And the explanation related to the "iterative"nature of the Ubuntu development is not really convincing me. If , really, "privacy is critically important" to Ubuntu/Canonical and is put "forward as a high priority", then privacy should be considered at the root of any project development. It shouldn't be an afterthought, leading to incomplete solutions implemented late in the development cycle. Ubuntu 12.10 is not an alpha or beta version of Ubuntu. It is an official released to my understanding.

Finally, it seems to me that it would be so much more productive for Canonical to just say what they intend to do to fix the problem, either with 12.10 or, at least, with Raring (13.04). Obviously, implementing EFF recommendations is probably the right thing to do here.

*I'm a lawyer, although not specialized in privacy law, but with a bit of knowledge about these issues.