6 ms·

I knew, and I was prompted. I can understand why this might upset people, but for me I hope it will make brew a better product. I'm sure we all know as develop

I knew, and I was prompted. I can understand why this might upset people, but for me I hope it will make brew a better product. I'm sure we all know as developers how annoying it can be to not know the problems users have, and what they are using your software for -- that's why most websites have analytics. I'm hoping to add something similar to software I work on, with an opt-out of course. I believe it will help me serve my users better.

yoran 10y ago
I agree with this. Also note that GA's terms disallow the sending of personable identifiable information so the data they collect has to be anonymous (see https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/2795983?hl=en https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/2795983?hl=en).
hueving 10y ago
Please make it opt in. If you truly believe people closely read the prompts for having their data harvested, a default to "No" should not impact you at all. If you don't believe they read the prompts closely, you're an asshole for stealing data by default.
- andybak 10y ago
  'Stealing' data? Is that like 'stealing' by downloading a movie?
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    "Exfiltrating" would be a better word here. (Also, downloading a movie is a different thing - there you're not stealing nor exfiltrating anything, you're downloading data as intended by uploader, who may or may not have the copyrights for that data.) (INB4, ripping a DVD and uploading it is not data theft. Exfiltrating a pre-release copy from movie company's servers would be data theft.)
    - rocqua 10y ago
      The ripping would be the 'exfiltration' as would recording a movie in theatre or hacking servers. The sharing or getting something from a shared thing would merely be copyright infringement.
  - wheelerwj 10y ago
    No, it's like stealing personally identifying information and sending it to the world's largest ad company.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - daenney 10y ago
      The information brew collects I would hardly call personally identifiable. Take a look at what they collect: https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/blob/master/docs/Analytics.md https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/blob/master/docs/Analytics....
      - jakobegger 10y ago
        They can call it "anonymous data" as much as they want, but in the end it's still data transmitted to Google's servers. If you are simultaneously logged into your Google account on that computer, the information is not anonymous anymore. Google could with high probability correlate connections.
        daenney 10y ago
        Sure, but then the problem isn't the information they collect but the fact that it goes to Google. Short from them setting up their own analytics service though, to whichever one you send this data it'll be traceable up to some extent. Google just might have a larger trove of data about you, but that's also through your own doing.
        andybak 10y ago
        > They can call it "anonymous data" as much as they want, but in the end it's still data transmitted to Google's servers. You appear to be saying that it's wrong to send any data to Google - which strikes me as an indefensibly extreme position. For example if they were tracking a simple count "number of times anyone anywhere has run brew" and it was stored as a single global integer then it's hard to imagine what issue you could have with it as it's basically no worse than a simple hit counter on a website. So what are you saying? Surely the problem has to relate to what data is collected?
  - hueving 10y ago
    By your definition, there would be no such thing as stealing IP, PII, launch codes or identities. However, those things are well accepted terms in all industries, including tech. You need to reconsider your strange restriction to mutual exclusion if you ever want to engage in meaningful conversations.
    - andybak 10y ago
      > stealing IP This is the usage I'm most firmly resisting. > PII, launch codes or identities All inaccurate to varying degrees - or at the very least metaphorical/rhetorical uses. If you're allowed to push a meaning in one direction then I'm allowed to point it out and attempt to bend it back a little.
      - hueving 10y ago
        >push a meaning in one direction then I'm allowed to point it out and attempt to bend it back a little. I'm not pushing anything. Your argument is about whether or not copying information is 'stealing'. I'm just pointing out that it's a very commonly agreed upon vernacular all over many industries. Call your credit card company and tell them someone stole your credit card number and see if they understand what you are talking about and/or try to correct you by saying it was merely copied. Go ahead and try to change the definition, but don't waste time on HN with that crap when the subject isn't even about whether or not it's "stealing" because it makes for boring conversation.
        andybak 10y ago
        You don't see anything even slightly problematic about referring to opt-out (rather than opt-in) aggregate and presumably anonymous usage statistics as 'stealing'? You don't think that is possibly somewhere towards the further reaches of consensus on what is a reasonable application of the word? You're welcome to disagree with my position but you're going a touch further than that. You're also accusing me of arguing in bad faith and being somehow aware that my argument has no merits. Considering I think I'm stating a fairly reasonable view I find that somewhat disingenuous in return.
- true_religion 10y ago
  Calling it theft feels a bit hyperbolic.
  - tn6o 10y ago
    Agreed.
- iagooar 10y ago
  This. A thousand times this. To me this whole thing feels like the maintainer is trying to justify something that most people won't ever accept as the status quo. Bad times when software this solid is going in a wrong direction. Time for a Homebrew fork?
  - CJefferson 10y ago
    No need for a fork, if someone was willing to put in the time and money to maintain a private anonymous analytics server, the homebrew folks would be happy to use it. Unless of course you are fundamentally opposed to tracking of any kind, then a fork is required. It is a fairly massive infrastructure to recreate however...
- CJefferson 10y ago
  Is it "stealing data" to record that certain options in my program are never used, or used frequently, or whenever a user clicks on options A,B and C in sequence the app crashes? My problem is that I believe that 90% of the users of my app won't care one way or the other if I record these stats. If I default opt-out these people, then I lose all that useful data and in the process, I believe, make my app worse for everyone. I won't deny this is not an obvious choice, but I think personally on balance it's better to opt-in. Especially when the data is anonymised and doesn't contain any private/identifying information. But I understand how others would disagree. If there was some kind of OS-wide "don't record what I do" option I could hook into, I would use it.
  - lorenzfx 10y ago
    How about choosing no default, and instead ask the user on first run? `Do you want to send usage data to the developer? (yes/no)`
    - CJefferson 10y ago
      I imagine it would get REALLY annoying if every command line program started doing that, every time you logged into a new machine. Of course, that suggests we should introduce some kind of standard, then bash (or whatever shell you use) could prompt you once, and every other program could use that setting.
      - jeena 10y ago
        At least this would make the problem with how many commandline tools are tracking you visible, and perhaps would start a discussion on the necessity of tracking for tools like brew, ls, cp, dd and so on.
  - Nursie 10y ago
    Your belief may not match the real world. You can only know that by actually asking them. Look at the outcry when Microsoft put this stuff in Win 10. At the very least you should present a question on install. Hiding a notice amongst licenses and other information, as often happens, is underhanded and scammy.
- Esau 10y ago
  This is the correct answer. Opt-out is a jerk move - used by those who value themselves more than their users/customers/fellow humans.
tomjen3 10y ago
If this is so good, make it out in. Out out is dishonest.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- tehbeard 10y ago
  Opt in may be "more honest", but you're going to see a a lot less useful data as a result of it, because the pool of people who will opt in is less than the pool of people who wouldn't care what the default is.
  - hueving 10y ago
    If you're going to be subversive to your users by playing on their propensity to ignore prompts, why bother with allowing them to opt out at all?
    - mhenr18 10y ago
      Let's assume that 90% of people don't bother to turn off telemetry and 10% do. That also means that in your preferred scenario, 90% of people wouldn't bother to turn it on and the 10% also wouldn't turn it on either. If you can't be bothered to turn something off, why would you be bothered to turn it on? That means that you'll either get something close to 0% telemetry if it's default off, or 90% if it's default on. So, it makes sense to be default on if you want your telemetry dataset to be big enough to be worth it. But then we get to your question - why bother with an opt out? Well, if the decision is either to use the product and send telemetry or not use the product, that 10% of people aren't going to use your product. They care about not sending telemetry that much. At that point, as a dev you just have to ask yourself is it really worth losing 10% of your users to an always-on telemetry policy or is it OK to make the concession of allowing an opt out in order to grow your user base? Personally, I'd rather make the concession and get that 10% of people on board. If they're vocal enough to complain the shortcomings of my product they're probably vocal enough to also talk about the good things and give me free advertising.
iagooar 10y ago
No, it won't make Homebrew a better product. Homebrew was so good without analytics. Now it's worse, because I cannot trust it anymore.
- andrewguenther 10y ago
  What exactly has brew done to breach your trust? Edit: downvoted for asking a question?
  - iagooar 10y ago
    Enabling analytics that send whatever information to Google. Yes, I can opt out, but often times I just don't have the time to verify the privacy policies of each and every piece of software I use.
- drwl 10y ago
  How does your lack of trust for Homebrew make it worse?
  - hueving 10y ago
    You can't use it if you don't trust it.
    - ovao 10y ago
      Again, though, the lack of user's truth or faith in a piece of software does not make the software itself worse. We can argue the merits of distrust and of the user's choice to distrust, but the software itself is the same.
jakobegger 10y ago
I don't think you know what the word "prompt" means. This is a prompt: "Do you want Homebrew to enable anonymous aggregate user behaviour analytics (yes/no):" This is not a prompt: "Homebrew has enabled anonymous aggregate user behaviour analytics."
michaelt 10y ago
People here are talking about opt out vs opt in but there's a third option: Forced choice. This is where you present the two options to the user (without either prechecked / default) and the user has to choose one or the other to continue. This avoids both the problem that the user doesn't consent with opt-out, and the problem that nobody cares to opt-in. The disadvantage is it doesn't work with unattended upgrades.
- CJefferson 10y ago
  Yes, one reason I like linux compared to windows is not having to click through "yes, yes, continue, yes, continue" in every installer. I don't want that bringing back whenever I install a new machine / program.

yoran 10y ago

I agree with this. Also note that GA's terms disallow the sending of personable identifiable information so the data they collect has to be anonymous (see https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/2795983?hl=en https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/2795983?hl=en).

hueving 10y ago

Please make it opt in. If you truly believe people closely read the prompts for having their data harvested, a default to "No" should not impact you at all. If you don't believe they read the prompts closely, you're an asshole for stealing data by default.

andybak 10y ago
'Stealing' data? Is that like 'stealing' by downloading a movie?
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  "Exfiltrating" would be a better word here. (Also, downloading a movie is a different thing - there you're not stealing nor exfiltrating anything, you're downloading data as intended by uploader, who may or may not have the copyrights for that data.) (INB4, ripping a DVD and uploading it is not data theft. Exfiltrating a pre-release copy from movie company's servers would be data theft.)
  - rocqua 10y ago
    The ripping would be the 'exfiltration' as would recording a movie in theatre or hacking servers. The sharing or getting something from a shared thing would merely be copyright infringement.
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  No, it's like stealing personally identifying information and sending it to the world's largest ad company.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - daenney 10y ago
    The information brew collects I would hardly call personally identifiable. Take a look at what they collect: https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/blob/master/docs/Analytics.md https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/blob/master/docs/Analytics....
    - jakobegger 10y ago
      They can call it "anonymous data" as much as they want, but in the end it's still data transmitted to Google's servers. If you are simultaneously logged into your Google account on that computer, the information is not anonymous anymore. Google could with high probability correlate connections.
      - daenney 10y ago
        Sure, but then the problem isn't the information they collect but the fact that it goes to Google. Short from them setting up their own analytics service though, to whichever one you send this data it'll be traceable up to some extent. Google just might have a larger trove of data about you, but that's also through your own doing.
      - andybak 10y ago
        > They can call it "anonymous data" as much as they want, but in the end it's still data transmitted to Google's servers. You appear to be saying that it's wrong to send any data to Google - which strikes me as an indefensibly extreme position. For example if they were tracking a simple count "number of times anyone anywhere has run brew" and it was stored as a single global integer then it's hard to imagine what issue you could have with it as it's basically no worse than a simple hit counter on a website. So what are you saying? Surely the problem has to relate to what data is collected?
- hueving 10y ago
  By your definition, there would be no such thing as stealing IP, PII, launch codes or identities. However, those things are well accepted terms in all industries, including tech. You need to reconsider your strange restriction to mutual exclusion if you ever want to engage in meaningful conversations.
  - andybak 10y ago
    > stealing IP This is the usage I'm most firmly resisting. > PII, launch codes or identities All inaccurate to varying degrees - or at the very least metaphorical/rhetorical uses. If you're allowed to push a meaning in one direction then I'm allowed to point it out and attempt to bend it back a little.
    - hueving 10y ago
      >push a meaning in one direction then I'm allowed to point it out and attempt to bend it back a little. I'm not pushing anything. Your argument is about whether or not copying information is 'stealing'. I'm just pointing out that it's a very commonly agreed upon vernacular all over many industries. Call your credit card company and tell them someone stole your credit card number and see if they understand what you are talking about and/or try to correct you by saying it was merely copied. Go ahead and try to change the definition, but don't waste time on HN with that crap when the subject isn't even about whether or not it's "stealing" because it makes for boring conversation.
      - andybak 10y ago
        You don't see anything even slightly problematic about referring to opt-out (rather than opt-in) aggregate and presumably anonymous usage statistics as 'stealing'? You don't think that is possibly somewhere towards the further reaches of consensus on what is a reasonable application of the word? You're welcome to disagree with my position but you're going a touch further than that. You're also accusing me of arguing in bad faith and being somehow aware that my argument has no merits. Considering I think I'm stating a fairly reasonable view I find that somewhat disingenuous in return.
true_religion 10y ago
Calling it theft feels a bit hyperbolic.
- tn6o 10y ago
  Agreed.
iagooar 10y ago
This. A thousand times this. To me this whole thing feels like the maintainer is trying to justify something that most people won't ever accept as the status quo. Bad times when software this solid is going in a wrong direction. Time for a Homebrew fork?
- CJefferson 10y ago
  No need for a fork, if someone was willing to put in the time and money to maintain a private anonymous analytics server, the homebrew folks would be happy to use it. Unless of course you are fundamentally opposed to tracking of any kind, then a fork is required. It is a fairly massive infrastructure to recreate however...
CJefferson 10y ago
Is it "stealing data" to record that certain options in my program are never used, or used frequently, or whenever a user clicks on options A,B and C in sequence the app crashes? My problem is that I believe that 90% of the users of my app won't care one way or the other if I record these stats. If I default opt-out these people, then I lose all that useful data and in the process, I believe, make my app worse for everyone. I won't deny this is not an obvious choice, but I think personally on balance it's better to opt-in. Especially when the data is anonymised and doesn't contain any private/identifying information. But I understand how others would disagree. If there was some kind of OS-wide "don't record what I do" option I could hook into, I would use it.
- lorenzfx 10y ago
  How about choosing no default, and instead ask the user on first run? `Do you want to send usage data to the developer? (yes/no)`
  - CJefferson 10y ago
    I imagine it would get REALLY annoying if every command line program started doing that, every time you logged into a new machine. Of course, that suggests we should introduce some kind of standard, then bash (or whatever shell you use) could prompt you once, and every other program could use that setting.
    - jeena 10y ago
      At least this would make the problem with how many commandline tools are tracking you visible, and perhaps would start a discussion on the necessity of tracking for tools like brew, ls, cp, dd and so on.
- Nursie 10y ago
  Your belief may not match the real world. You can only know that by actually asking them. Look at the outcry when Microsoft put this stuff in Win 10. At the very least you should present a question on install. Hiding a notice amongst licenses and other information, as often happens, is underhanded and scammy.
Esau 10y ago
This is the correct answer. Opt-out is a jerk move - used by those who value themselves more than their users/customers/fellow humans.

tomjen3 10y ago

If this is so good, make it out in. Out out is dishonest.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tehbeard 10y ago
Opt in may be "more honest", but you're going to see a a lot less useful data as a result of it, because the pool of people who will opt in is less than the pool of people who wouldn't care what the default is.
- hueving 10y ago
  If you're going to be subversive to your users by playing on their propensity to ignore prompts, why bother with allowing them to opt out at all?
  - mhenr18 10y ago
    Let's assume that 90% of people don't bother to turn off telemetry and 10% do. That also means that in your preferred scenario, 90% of people wouldn't bother to turn it on and the 10% also wouldn't turn it on either. If you can't be bothered to turn something off, why would you be bothered to turn it on? That means that you'll either get something close to 0% telemetry if it's default off, or 90% if it's default on. So, it makes sense to be default on if you want your telemetry dataset to be big enough to be worth it. But then we get to your question - why bother with an opt out? Well, if the decision is either to use the product and send telemetry or not use the product, that 10% of people aren't going to use your product. They care about not sending telemetry that much. At that point, as a dev you just have to ask yourself is it really worth losing 10% of your users to an always-on telemetry policy or is it OK to make the concession of allowing an opt out in order to grow your user base? Personally, I'd rather make the concession and get that 10% of people on board. If they're vocal enough to complain the shortcomings of my product they're probably vocal enough to also talk about the good things and give me free advertising.

iagooar 10y ago

No, it won't make Homebrew a better product. Homebrew was so good without analytics. Now it's worse, because I cannot trust it anymore.

andrewguenther 10y ago
What exactly has brew done to breach your trust? Edit: downvoted for asking a question?
- iagooar 10y ago
  Enabling analytics that send whatever information to Google. Yes, I can opt out, but often times I just don't have the time to verify the privacy policies of each and every piece of software I use.
drwl 10y ago
How does your lack of trust for Homebrew make it worse?
- hueving 10y ago
  You can't use it if you don't trust it.
  - ovao 10y ago
    Again, though, the lack of user's truth or faith in a piece of software does not make the software itself worse. We can argue the merits of distrust and of the user's choice to distrust, but the software itself is the same.

jakobegger 10y ago

I don't think you know what the word "prompt" means. This is a prompt: "Do you want Homebrew to enable anonymous aggregate user behaviour analytics (yes/no):" This is not a prompt: "Homebrew has enabled anonymous aggregate user behaviour analytics."

michaelt 10y ago

People here are talking about opt out vs opt in but there's a third option: Forced choice. This is where you present the two options to the user (without either prechecked / default) and the user has to choose one or the other to continue. This avoids both the problem that the user doesn't consent with opt-out, and the problem that nobody cares to opt-in. The disadvantage is it doesn't work with unattended upgrades.

CJefferson 10y ago
Yes, one reason I like linux compared to windows is not having to click through "yes, yes, continue, yes, continue" in every installer. I don't want that bringing back whenever I install a new machine / program.