Mele20Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:4 | reply to Mike Wolf
Re: Cisco Connect Cloud I'm stunned at the ignorance shown in this thread. What Cisco has done is to violently violate their users privacy with their cloud crap.
I have a BEFSR41 and once my ISP finally gets off it duff and rolls out IPv6, I will need to buy a new router. I had bookmarked an Eseries router to purchase. But now that Cisco has pulled this crap, I have to go look to other brands of routers.
It's a damn shame. At least Cisco has shown their true colors before I bought one of these. My BEFSR41 has been fine all these years (will be nine years old in November) but I will have nothing to do with a company that forces the cloud on router users. That is totally nuts.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson |
|
 lordpufferComfortably NumbPremium
join:2004-09-19
Rio Rancho, NM
kudos:1
 ·CableOne
 ·CenturyLink
 ·Vonage
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·Dish Network
·Time Warner Cable
·AT&T Wireless Br..
| said by Mele20:What Cisco has done is to violently '(emphasis added)' violate their users privacy with their cloud crap.
I don't know about others, but Cisco wasn't 'violent' with me. No physical force was used. This thread has good people debating the issue, with some posters assuring others that the world will not end if they are updated to Cisco Cloud Connect.....At least for most people. There is no need to call them 'ignorant.'
I suggest that, based on your post, you should look for one of the many other brands of Routers to purchase, where you will feel safe. 
--
Obama in 2012 - There's No Tea Left In The Bag. |
|
|
|
Mele20Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:4
1 edit | There's been an update to the Cisco blog. You tell from it that Cisco is rapidly retreating because of the anger from their very badly abused customers.
For your information, ALL router vendors intended to do what Cisco has done but Cisco got there first. Now I think the other vendors will rethink what do as far as the cloud and invading user's privacy with the intent to sell their information.
I don't object to users ignorantly deciding to allow themselves to be sold to highest bidder...heck that is what all the sheeple on Facebook have willingly chosen, what I object to very strenuously is a vendor trying to FORCE this on its users.
You believe that only physical acts can be "violent"? And users who believe that everyone should live in a glass house are not only "ignorant" but dangerous to the continuation of this nation as without privacy we no longer have liberty and freedom. In my mind, there is NO debate about this. You MUST be against Cisco forcing the cloud on its users. Cisco is retreating because of the storm of protest.
»blogs.cisco.com/home/update-answ···cloud-2/
Here's an excellent article about what Cisco was trying to pull...and it is VIOLENT.
»www.extremetech.com/computing/13···retion/2
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson |
|
 PeteC2Got Mouse?Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-20
Bristol, CT
kudos:6
·Comcast
·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to Mele20
said by Mele20:I'm stunned at the ignorance shown in this thread.
It's a damn shame. At least Cisco has shown their true colors before I bought one of these. My BEFSR41 has been fine all these years (will be nine years old in November) but I will have nothing to do with a company that forces the cloud on router users. Sorry, but if anything, it is you showing ignorance in this thread.
Although I heartily agree that Cisco doing this through an auto-update was a poorly thought out move, Cisco has not forced the cloud on router users, and auto update for router firmware is hardly "new". Don't like it? Then install the "classic" firmware and be done with it. Much ado about very, very little.
Again however, unless one is truly ignorant, Cisco promoted these routers from their inception to be planned for cloud usage. It clearly was on the web site, as being touted toward this end.
When I bought my EA4500, I was fully aware of Cisco's intentions towards this line of routers, though I confess not the exact implementaion. I for one, have still not made up my mind if I will continue with the cloud based firmware or revert to the "standard" firmware...but either way, it simply is not the horrific calamity that others here make it out to be.
--
Deeds, not words |
|
 danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA | Well it would seem the internet spoke and Cisco was forced to listen:
»arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/07/···setting/
CCC will no longer be the default setting, from my perspective this is exactly how it should have been from the get go.
Better yet they should have merely added another page of options and allowed you to optionally create a new CCC login that would then allow you to remotely access.
The end user remains in full control, Cisco can still provide cloud access and remote management and you the customer gets to choose. |
|
 newviewEx .. Ex .. ExactlyPremium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1 | quote:
UPDATE:
Cisco has told us that going forward the automatic update process will accomodate people who prefer the local, browser-based management console over the cloud service. That's good news, as customers who don't want to use Connect Cloud won't have to choose between their current management setup and firmware updates that could be important.
"If a customer chooses to use the Embedded Web UI and selects the Auto-Update feature, Cisco will offer them an update," Cisco said. "Currently the only update we have is for the Cisco Connect Cloud feature set, but in future, we plan to provide updates for the embedded Web UI feature set specifically. The core message is that a customer can/will be able to choose an embedded web UI and Update without having to use CCC.”
»arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/07/···setting/ |
|
PeteC2Got Mouse?Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-20
Bristol, CT
kudos:6 Reviews:
·Comcast
·AT&T Yahoo
1 edit | reply to danclan
said by danclan:Well it would seem the internet spoke and Cisco was forced to listen:
»arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/07/···setting/
CCC will no longer be the default setting, from my perspective this is exactly how it should have been from the get go.
Better yet they should have merely added another page of options and allowed you to optionally create a new CCC login that would then allow you to remotely access.
The end user remains in full control, Cisco can still provide cloud access and remote management and you the customer gets to choose.
That I have zero argument with...and yes, they could have avoided much if not all of the hard feelings by setting it up this way in the first place.
I am still using the cloud-based firmware, as I have no serious concerns (so far) with the implementation, but I heartily agree, that this was the approach Cisco should have led off with.
Maybe I am just not as quick as some to suspect a dishonest design behind Cisco's cloud implementation, but of course it would have made much better sense to offer the cloud-based firmware, rather than an auto-update. But, that strikes me more as a lack of fore-thought rather than evil intent.
Then again, keep in mind that I am on Comcast, and they flash firmware to your modem whether you own it or they do...so this doesn't seem as extreme to me as it otherwise might have...
--
Deeds, not words |
|
