the proposal is from a red-hat team member and is proposing addition of “privacy-respecting” telemetry. here’s the link to the hyperkitty thread
the proposal is from a red-hat team member and is proposing addition of “privacy-respecting” telemetry. here’s the link to the hyperkitty thread
Telemetry should not exist in the first place. If it exists, it should completely be opt-in and self-contained in one single package that is not installed by default.
Everything else is hostile.
Agreed; telemetry should always be opt-in because it requires consent.
The problem with opt-in telemetry is that it messes with the scope of the research.
If you want to understand something about most users (and not just the ones that are active enough in the project to participate in opt-in) you need this, otherwise your results only tell the needs of this subset of your userbase and this sometimes can go completely against the needs of the majority of users.
The problem with telemetry isn’t the telemetry itself, is how it is used, and the way the proposal is worded makes me very optimistic. They are trying 200% hard to make sure we understand that it will never be used in violation of the users’ privacy.
Too bad. That does not make it okay to collect data without consent.
Not ever.
In other words, unbiased telemetry is not possible to do ethically. (Or to say it differently, ethical telemetry necessarily has bias.)
And once again, it isn’t “without consent”, it just means that the default state of the checkbox is on. Users will still be presented with a confirm option before any data is sent.
Say that to the opentelemetry and Plausible folks, who have been on the vanguard of doing exactly that for years now.
That’s a very strange thing to mistake for consent.
It’s not mistaken for context, you’re just missing the point. The switch is just part of it, the user would still have to consent to send their data before it is sent and the proposal proposes to have it detailing the data that is going to be sent and explaining the process.
Having it as a default guarantees it doesn’t scare non-power users away from it. It’s not about just having people clicking next and accepting it without consent.
Disagree, no matter the level of detail, having “yes” automatically selected is an assumption. What purpose would it have other than hoping people will just select the defaults and ignore it?
Scare away from what? Data collection? I mean even in that wording you are saying there is something to be scared of. It should be up the user. If you are saying “non-power users won’t fully understand what is being collected and might get scared away if it isn’t the default option” then that is even worse TBH. Preying on people not fully understanding what’s going on.
It’s not mistaken for consent, only if you dont switch it off the data is sent.
Inaction is not consent.
Wrong again, the “switch” only sets the setting itself, but before finishing the setup process the user would be provided with a confirmation detailing the data that would be sent and provided with the option to send it or not. The process would have user consent.
Having the default box being “on” is only for the purpose of hoping people click through without realizing.
There is literally no other argument here. “Consent” is: “Hey do you want this, yes or no?”. Not “We are assuming yes unless you explicitly tell us otherwise”.
a classic paradox-ish thing:
if the average person doesnt consent to fill a questionnaire, or an interview, how do you collect data about the average person. but then again, how do you know the average person doesnt want to fill a questionnaire? did you spread a questionnaire that had the question ‘do you fill questionnaire?’ in it