Thank you for your valuable insights! I agree that complaints, legal claims and boycotts are valid approaches to push for accountability.

Online accounts are not part of the primary purpose of acquiring the device. When purchasing a vinyl cutter or printer, users do not initially agree to a software license which is enforced later on with changing terms over time. Additionally, SVG files created with Cricut are expected to contain private information about third parties, such as addresses and messages, since the tool is designed for creating personalized items like cards and invitations. This raises serious data privacy concerns, as those individuals have not consented to their data being processed by Cricut, violating GDPR principles related to consent and purpose limitation.

Under GDPR, consent must be freely given GDPR Article 7 Conditions for consent. Cricut’s requirement to use cloud-connected software to operate a purchased machine restricts users’ freedom of choice, which is problematic because:

• Consent Cannot Be Conditional: Users are forced to accept cloud processing to use the machine for its primary purpose.

• No Real Offline Alternative: Without an opt-out option, Cricut risks violating GDPR’s standard for valid consent.

This also challenges GDPR Article 6 Lawfulness of Processing, which requires an appropriate legal basis for data processing.

Other references: Cricut Terms of Use (June 7, 2024), Cricut Privacy Policy (March 31, 2022)

| Don’t know what that is.

Apologies, I should have provided more context! Cricut is a company that sells vinyl cutter machines with printing features often used to create stylish cards, envelopes, and crafts. For example, you could receive a physical card or letter created with Cricut that contains your personal information (like addresses or messages) even if you don’t use their services. This raises concerns because files with such private data are automatically uploaded to Cricut’s cloud without user control, which. I think. infringe GDPR.

In a capitalist system, finding ethical funding models for free software is challenging but essential. Monetizing user data may seem like a viable solution, but it undermines the very principles of freedom and trust that free software stands for. Instead, we should explore community-driven models, such as donations, grants, or ethical partnerships, to ensure financial sustainability without compromising user rights. Supporting these alternatives is crucial to building a future where free software can thrive ethically.

Ubuntu’s search feature, which sent user queries to Amazon without consent, qualifies as spyware due to its lack of transparency and user control. This was not an accidental oversight but an intentional decision to monetize user data, prioritizing profit over privacy.

Consider the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal, where user data collected under the guise of social engagement was exploited for political manipulation. Similarly, the Lavender study reveals how surveillance data has been weaponized to target individuals in Gaza, with profiling systems feeding military operations and resulting in wrongful deaths.

These cases highlight how data collection practices, even if introduced for financial or operational convenience, can spiral into harmful misuse. While Ubuntu may not directly lead to such outcomes, normalizing these practices lowers the threshold for future abuse. Vigilance and ethical standards are essential to safeguard against such risks.

tiny flaw

Canonical deliberately spied on its users without their consent by forwarding search queries to Amazon via a malicious feature. Users searching their computer locally would not expect their queries to be broadcast externally. Following public backlash, Canonical allowed users to disable this behavior. However, Canonical continues to collect certain types of user data for commercial purposes. These practices present significant issues for those who support free software principles.

Ubuntu Spyware: What to do?

Ubuntu initially positioned itself as a staunch advocate for free software, reflecting its roots in the principles of open-source freedom and collaboration. This ethos is captured in early mission statements and community declarations that emphasized the “freedom to use, share, study, and improve” software.

Today, Ubuntu still mentions its commitment to free software, as noted on the Ubuntu Community Mission page, which emphasizes building tools accessible to all and maintaining an ethos of openness and collaboration. However, its approach has evolved to include a pragmatic balance between free software and proprietary solutions.

In theory, yes, Putin might be immune from arrest in France as long as he is a sitting head of state, due to customary international law on immunities. However, France’s position reveals a potential double standard. While it highlights the immunities of Israeli officials in its communication regarding the ICC, it has not explicitly clarified whether similar protections would apply to Putin or other officials from non-party states accused of crimes by the ICC. This lack of consistency leaves France’s intentions ambiguous and raises questions about whether political or strategic considerations outweigh its commitment to international justice.