12 ms·

More diagnostics data from desktop

60 points by Santosh83 9y ago

nabla9 9y ago
Seems sane and reasonable amount of data collection.
joefarish 9y ago
"We would like to add a checkbox to the installer, exact wording TBD, but along the lines of “Send diagnostics information to help improve Ubuntu”. This would be checked by default." That seems like a transparent way of collecting what appears to be not very personal data.
dz0ny 9y ago
I hope they checked this with their lawyers, otherwise they will be sued out of existence when EU GDPR directive comes into effect(only applies to EU citizens). Just check the "Consent" section at https://gdprchecklist.io/ https://gdprchecklist.io/ Opt-out is not legal anymore... I'm not saying they are not allowed to collect, they can, just not by default. And because they are requesting "Location", they fall under GDPR even in lamest terms.
- lloeki 9y ago
  > We would like to add a checkbox to the installer, exact wording TBD, but along the lines of “Send diagnostics information to help improve Ubuntu”. This would be checked by default. This is about a choice presented as a checkbox that is checked by default during installation, not about a feature silently enabled by default you have to then opt out of.
  - dz0ny 9y ago
    Opt-in by GDPR means that you have to specifically click on checkbox, button, url and say "I consent on collection of this data(list of things that will be collected) on behalf Canonical LTD."
    - ryanworl 9y ago
      Consent is just one way to legally process personal data. If their basis for processing it is something other than consent, an opt-out is them going above their responsibility.
      - rbf 9y ago
        True. However, it's hard to argue diagnostics data for Ubuntu would be performance of contract (art 6.1: b). It could be argued legitimate interest (arg 6.1: f), but then the right to object comes into play.
        ryanworl 9y ago
        Yes, it definitely wouldn’t be performance of a contract! I have no insight into their reasoning here, I just wanted to bring this fact up given I see people talking about consent all the time when that is not the only basis allowed under the law.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    I believe GDPR specifically disallows "checked by default" for consent.
  - wjnc 9y ago
    The GPDR asks for a deliberate action to opt-in (“silence, pre-ticked boxes or inactivity” should not constitute consent). So they should make it a very prominent choice to opt-in. No more opt-out in Europe.
    - lloeki 9y ago
      > “silence, pre-ticked boxes or inactivity” should not constitute consent Could you give a reference for that? I found this with a couple of examples[0] but my understanding so far is that as long as it's a separate isolated step dedicated to that question with clearly worded language explaining the collection, followed by a very explicit "I agree" button or checkbox, then it's fine. The step itself (not the checkbox) constitutes wilful agreement, as it requires action for that dedicated step: it's definitely not "inactivity" nor "silent". Here I assume the button to move to the next step is not simply labeled "next step", nor is it actionable by simply pressing the enter or space key, possibly by mistake. [0]: https://dma.org.uk/article/gdpr-in-practice-tick-box-consent-forms https://dma.org.uk/article/gdpr-in-practice-tick-box-consent...
      - wjnc 9y ago
        It's right there in the regulation under (32) [0] I find your workflow reasonable, but it would fall short under 'free'. Negative and positive action are two different things and in this case the wording is quite clear ("clear affirmative act", "pre-ticked box [..] should not"). [0] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=NL http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX...
  - r3bl 9y ago
    That's still tracking by default. A safe bet in this case would be a "double opt-in" approach, in which they have a checkmark during the installer, and then send an interactive notification asking you to verify your decision after the installation. In such a case, tracking would need to be enabled only after the user has clicked "yes" on a notification. The idea here is that the user has to do something explicitly to enable tracking. Clicking "next" on an installer isn't an explicit user action.
- mcintyre1994 9y ago
  I'm unconvinced that what they're collecting is personal information. The closest would probably be location, but that's very coarse and is based on user selection not IP (which isn't stored). I might be wrong though, what data were you thinking could be problematic?
  - dz0ny 9y ago
    I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that anything that identifies consumer or group of consumers falls under GDPR. General Data Protection Regulation, it's not only about personal information, but what data is collected by companies, who has access to it and why/how is it processed.
  - LogicalBorg 9y ago
    I agree that they are not collecting personal information. They are collecting information about your computer system. According to the ICO definition of personal data, it means "any information relating to an identifiable person who can be directly or indirectly identified in particular by reference to an identifier." (https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/key-definitions/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...). Nothing like that is being collected.
- randomsearch 9y ago
  Speaking with an expert on this recently, she is under the impression that individual opt-in boxes for every distinct type of data will be necessary. So a single box will be insufficient.
  - randomsearch 9y ago
    Oh, and it is most definitely opt in. Ubuntu will not get away with that.
- y0ghur7_xxx 9y ago
  They don't collect any personal data. The GDPR defines "personal data" with "‘personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;" Nothing in the collected data is "relating to an identified or identifiable natural person", so the checkbox is not even necessary.
  - Santosh83 9y ago
    What about crash reports that will be send automatically to Canonical? I hope they would take precautions to scrub personal information from the data before sending them.
  - Aaargh20318 9y ago
    > Nothing in the collected data is "relating to an identified or identifiable natural person", so the checkbox is not even necessary. The data collected could be used to identify a single person. How many people have the exact same combination of CPU, amount of RAM, location, disk sizes,GPU vendor/model, disk layout and installed applications ? If the data is unique enough, it's PII.
    - setra 9y ago
      A unique random cookie is not PII automatically. It is only PII if it can be associated with something like a name (not limited to a name). Anonymous data with unique identities is not under the consent requirements of the GDPR.
    - y0ghur7_xxx 9y ago
      > The data collected could be used to identify a single person. > How many people have the exact same combination of CPU, amount of RAM, location, disk sizes,GPU vendor/model, disk layout and installed applications ? > If the data is unique enough, it's PII. You can not connect a unique combination of cpu, gpu, disk size, with me, y0ghur7_xxx, if you don't collect my ip address or my name in any other way, so no, it's not "personal data" as per GDPR.
- setra 9y ago
  The data collected is probably not fit to be classified as personal data. GDPR does not automatically forbid collection of anything involved with a user otherwise things like page popularity ranking would not be possible. There was a court ruling stating that IP addresses could be considered personal data because an ISP would have a log that associated the IP with a person. As long as the are only collecting things like "what packages are installed", "how powerful is the system", "when did it last update", and anonymize the last section of the IP they should be fine.
__warlord__ 9y ago
Welcome to Microsoft's world :) I don't mind sharing data for software that I use for free but this kinds of bothers me a lot: > This would be checked by default Lol no, I know where are you going on this but please do NOT enable this by default.
- Faaak 9y ago
  Why not ? Some people just don't care, and these who don't care don't care to check the option. So to me it's more logical (in order to have more data) to check the box by default.
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    GDPR expressly forbids default checked boxes or "silent acceptance", setups which require opt-out to prevent tracking/data collection. Data collection is OK, but it must be opt-in only. You're only looking at it from a "more data = better" perspective, instead of a privacy perspective, which is a lot more important.
    - simosx 9y ago
      It has been mentioned already above. We are talking here about anonymized diagnostic data, not private indentifiable information.
      - mrob 9y ago
        Crash reports can contain any data that happens to be in memory, including private identifiable information. Additionally, "anonymized" data frequently turns out to be identifiable when enough of it is collected.
  - __warlord__ 9y ago
    Same as KozmoNau7 reply, you should opt-in to send data rather than opt-out, which is the same case as the Windows and .NET telemetry in which people took a very strong stance against it, now, if Canonical wants to do the same we should at least view them with the same eyes we see Microsoft's movements.
koolba 9y ago
I see nothing in wrong with this as long as the checkbox is prominently presented, preferably on it's own "page" of the installer, it can be easily updated post-installation, and the scope of agreed upon data collection isn't increased for a given installation after agreement. > Any user can simply opt out by unchecking the box, which triggers one simple POST stating, “diagnostics=false”. There will be a corresponding checkbox in the Privacy panel of GNOME Settings to toggle the state of this. By POST do they mean a POST to the same web endpoint? Why would opting out requiring notifying them of your installation. I get that they'd want to track installation counts but would expect opting out to be entirely silent. Or do they mean that opting out once you've opted in would notify them of such? > And to reiterate, the service which stores this data would never store IP addresses. Any idea what country / jurisdiction they plan to host this data and service?
- Faaak 9y ago
  I suppose it to have a "total number of installs" statistic.
  - jstanley 9y ago
    But the point is that's none of their business.
  - mrob 9y ago
    They can already get an approximate number by counting downloads of package updates. It's deceptive to send any information if the user opted out.
    - lovelearning 9y ago
      I doubt it's possible since many systems update from closest mirrors, most of which are not Canonical's servers.
- lloeki 9y ago
  The only potentially dangerous step I see is: > Apport would be configured to automatically send anonymous crash reports without user interruption. I'm unfamiliar with apport, but crash reports may contain partial memory dumps with information you don't want collected. Also, > Popcon would be installed. This will allow us to spot trends in package usage and help us to focus on the packages which are of most value to our users. Far less worrying, but I can see some people cringing on that one. Barring those two this is the kind of checkbox presented on install I'd definitely encourage people to leave checked.
admg 9y ago
Seems like can opt out easily, and the information given appears reasonable so will quite happily check this box.
- Santosh83 9y ago
  It will also enable a program called Popcorn that will track and report the relative frequency of your app usage. That is somewhat personal according to some people at least. And this option toggles Apport to send back crash reports without asking permission each time, which means it could(?) leak sensitive data in memory?
  - smhenderson 9y ago
    I think you mean popcon? Short for popularity contest[1]. It's been part of Debian forever, not sure when it first showed up but it was part of Woody at least. With Debian you could configure it to use PGP and encrypt the reports you send in. I generally disabled it on work computers but left it on at home. That probably didn't help them as much but I just couldn't see leaving this type of feature on for servers and computers that weren't mine. [1]https://popcon.debian.org/ https://popcon.debian.org/
    - mrob 9y ago
      Debian's installer requires explicit opt-in consent to install popcon. It's not enabled by default.
      - smhenderson 9y ago
        Yes, that's true. I do think that that's the better way to do it. I understand Canonical is trying to make a user oriented system that "Just Works" and collecting this data can certainly help with that but I do think that this should be Opt In, not Out. If nothing else to support the precedent that, in general, Opt In is better for privacy that Opt Out.
  - admg 9y ago
TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
Well, Apple and Microsoft already have that data about my systems, so jump on board. And if you don't want Canonical having this data you're probably savvy enough to uncheck the box, or you're already some other flavour.
cs702 9y ago
Please use the original, less inflammatory title: "more diagnostics data from desktop." Understandably, Canonical wants to collect diagnostic data useful for software development and bug fixing. Other major OS providers like Google, Microsoft, and Apple do this. I like the fact that Canonical is doing it in an open manner: anyone can opt out by unchecking a box at installation or afterwards on the privacy panel; and they will make aggregate diagnostic data available to the public.
- OnlyRepliesToBS 9y ago
  It's User snooping. Telemetry. Spyware. "Oh look, everyone else is doing it" Dark patterns make them join the dark side.
- pferde 9y ago
  > So you ask the user during install. Then the data is sent on first > boot. At what point can the user inspect the data, given that some of > it can't be collected until after installation is finished? It seems > like the first opportunity will be after it has been sent, unless you > ask the user a second time. So why not just ask them on first boot, > when you have already gathered all the data? That way user can inspect > the data there and then before deciding how to answer. Yes, I think the first opportunity would be after it has been sent. I'm generally against asking more questions on login though, I think it would be clunky. Do I understand it correctly that they want to send the data the first time unconditionally after installation, and only then present the user with the opt-out choice? I really hope I understood it wrong.
elaus 9y ago
This generally sounds resonable, but I'm somewhat concerned about that part: > Apport would be configured to automatically send anonymous crash reports without user interruption. Crash reports could easily contain sensible and private data (e.g. file names/paths or usernames) and I wouldn't be comfortable sending them to an unknown group of people by default. Canonical would have to convince the user that anonymization is working really reliable for me to activate that feature. Right now I'm always drawn between fear of private data leaking and my will to support them in fixing annoying crashes (nemo crashes almost daily for me).
- calcifer 9y ago
  > private data (e.g. file names/paths or usernames) Can you give an example of a path, file or user name that would cause problems to you (or anyone else) if Ubuntu engineers see it when fixing bugs?
  - mrob 9y ago
    ~/Pictures/Gay_porn/
    - calcifer 9y ago
      How is an Ubuntu engineer seeing that some random computer somewhere has a gay porn folder a problem for you specifically?
      - mrob 9y ago
        I never claimed it was. But you seem to be claiming that literally nobody would have a problem with being outed this way.
      - JorgeGT 9y ago
        Would you mind printing your output of "tree /" so we can take a look?
  - r3bl 9y ago
owenwil 9y ago
Honestly fine with this, mostly given how bad 17.10 is. These folks are basically flying blind — a mess of a release.
gargravarr 9y ago
One thing in Ubuntu's favour, they are upfront and clear about their intentions. So long as switching the data collection off actually does switch it off, I am fine with them going ahead with this. Other OSes have much to learn...
- endemic 9y ago
  Agreed; telemetry is valuable, and I have no problem with it... provided there is an option to turn it off.
owaislone 9y ago
I'm surprised they didn't do this already. This is crucial data for them to actually improve the product. Only thing I'm a bit concerned about is automatically sending crash reports. This highly depends on the programming language the crashing program was written in. It is very much possible for a program to include sensitive or personally identifying information in the stack traces right?
calcifer 9y ago
Title is editorialized and should be changed. They are not saying they will do it, they would like to do it and they are asking for feedback.
simosx 9y ago
The article actually asks for input of the collection of diagnostic data. The title by Santosh83 says instead "Ubuntu will collect data about your system by default, starting with 18.04".
throwme_1980 9y ago
what ?? why
maximexx 9y ago
This is almost nothing compared to what Microsoft with Windows 10 collects. And beyond that, Canonical is honest and presents an opt out, while Microsoft does waaaay more without even telling, and hides all the many opt-out's in loads of hidden setting dialogs. Still, it's good to keep a sharp eye on Canonical. I have not forgotten about the "lens" sending your local query to 3d parties like amazon by default..
- malikNF 9y ago
  Canonical is no saint, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/privacy-ubuntu-1210-amazon-ads-and-data-leaks https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/privacy-ubuntu-1210-am... (Amazon Ads and Data Leaks in ubuntu 12.10) https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/12/richard-stallman-calls-ubuntu-spyware-because-it-tracks-searches/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/12/richa... (Richard Stallman calls Ubuntu “spyware” ) https://www.wired.com/2013/11/fixubuntu/ https://www.wired.com/2013/11/fixubuntu/ (Linux Outfit Canonical Launches Campaign to Silence Privacy Critic)
  - falcolas 9y ago
    Nobody is a saint; not even the saints. But making an effort to do the right thing, no matter their history, should be respected.
  - opencl 9y ago
    That was shitty but they stopped doing it years ago (in 16.04 specifically), and it was easily disabled when it was there. Meanwhile Windows 10 just keeps getting more and more invasive, and make it more and more difficult to turn off. Disabling web search in the start menu requires using either the registry editor or group policy now! And when you search for how to disable things everything you find is out of date because they keep changing it every 6 months. The trend has been going from actual option in settings menu -> require registry edit or group policy -> system ignores the registry and it becomes completely impossible to disable. I was pretty mad when they did this to the lock screen and it continues to be a mild annoyance to me every day.
get 9y ago
"Any user can simply opt out by unchecking the box" They should at least do it the other way round and have people opt in instead of opt out. Still I would prefer a distro that does not have such functionality in the first place. Since Ubuntu did their first "phone home" experiments in 2015, I stayed away from it. And I will keep it that way. It was just too much of a user hostile action. Shuttleworth even defended it. Showed me that his values are not compatible with mine. Linux Mint has been a very user friendly replacement so far.
brador 9y ago
I wish GDPR allowed citizens to personally sue companies and take a cut of the winnings like the disability regs here. It would give the regulation teeth fron day 1 and send a strong message.
lwyr 9y ago
In addition to the GDPR concerns mentioned in sibling posts, this type of collection is likely covered by Article 5.3 of the EU ePrivacy Directive, which requires consent for storing or reading information from end-users' devices (also known as the "cookie rule").[0] The Dutch Data Protection Authority recently applied this rule to Microsoft's collection of telemetry data through Windows 10.[1] Notably, this rule is not limited to personal data; it applies to all "information." [0] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02002L0058-20091219 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:020... [1] https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/sites/default/files/atoms/files/public_version_dutch_dpa_informal_translation_summary_of_investigation_report.pdf https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/sites/default/file...
coinerone 9y ago
It should really be Opt-In. It just tastes like Microsoft-Behavior.

60 points by Santosh83 9y ago

Seems sane and reasonable amount of data collection.

"We would like to add a checkbox to the installer, exact wording TBD, but along the lines of “Send diagnostics information to help improve Ubuntu”. This would be checked by default." That seems like a transparent way of collecting what appears to be not very personal data.

dz0ny 9y ago

I hope they checked this with their lawyers, otherwise they will be sued out of existence when EU GDPR directive comes into effect(only applies to EU citizens). Just check the "Consent" section at https://gdprchecklist.io/ https://gdprchecklist.io/ Opt-out is not legal anymore... I'm not saying they are not allowed to collect, they can, just not by default. And because they are requesting "Location", they fall under GDPR even in lamest terms.

lloeki 9y ago
> We would like to add a checkbox to the installer, exact wording TBD, but along the lines of “Send diagnostics information to help improve Ubuntu”. This would be checked by default. This is about a choice presented as a checkbox that is checked by default during installation, not about a feature silently enabled by default you have to then opt out of.
- dz0ny 9y ago
  Opt-in by GDPR means that you have to specifically click on checkbox, button, url and say "I consent on collection of this data(list of things that will be collected) on behalf Canonical LTD."
  - ryanworl 9y ago
    Consent is just one way to legally process personal data. If their basis for processing it is something other than consent, an opt-out is them going above their responsibility.
    - rbf 9y ago
      True. However, it's hard to argue diagnostics data for Ubuntu would be performance of contract (art 6.1: b). It could be argued legitimate interest (arg 6.1: f), but then the right to object comes into play.
      - ryanworl 9y ago
        Yes, it definitely wouldn’t be performance of a contract! I have no insight into their reasoning here, I just wanted to bring this fact up given I see people talking about consent all the time when that is not the only basis allowed under the law.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  I believe GDPR specifically disallows "checked by default" for consent.
- wjnc 9y ago
  The GPDR asks for a deliberate action to opt-in (“silence, pre-ticked boxes or inactivity” should not constitute consent). So they should make it a very prominent choice to opt-in. No more opt-out in Europe.
  - lloeki 9y ago
    > “silence, pre-ticked boxes or inactivity” should not constitute consent Could you give a reference for that? I found this with a couple of examples[0] but my understanding so far is that as long as it's a separate isolated step dedicated to that question with clearly worded language explaining the collection, followed by a very explicit "I agree" button or checkbox, then it's fine. The step itself (not the checkbox) constitutes wilful agreement, as it requires action for that dedicated step: it's definitely not "inactivity" nor "silent". Here I assume the button to move to the next step is not simply labeled "next step", nor is it actionable by simply pressing the enter or space key, possibly by mistake. [0]: https://dma.org.uk/article/gdpr-in-practice-tick-box-consent-forms https://dma.org.uk/article/gdpr-in-practice-tick-box-consent...
    - wjnc 9y ago
      It's right there in the regulation under (32) [0] I find your workflow reasonable, but it would fall short under 'free'. Negative and positive action are two different things and in this case the wording is quite clear ("clear affirmative act", "pre-ticked box [..] should not"). [0] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=NL http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX...
- r3bl 9y ago
  That's still tracking by default. A safe bet in this case would be a "double opt-in" approach, in which they have a checkmark during the installer, and then send an interactive notification asking you to verify your decision after the installation. In such a case, tracking would need to be enabled only after the user has clicked "yes" on a notification. The idea here is that the user has to do something explicitly to enable tracking. Clicking "next" on an installer isn't an explicit user action.
mcintyre1994 9y ago
I'm unconvinced that what they're collecting is personal information. The closest would probably be location, but that's very coarse and is based on user selection not IP (which isn't stored). I might be wrong though, what data were you thinking could be problematic?
- dz0ny 9y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that anything that identifies consumer or group of consumers falls under GDPR. General Data Protection Regulation, it's not only about personal information, but what data is collected by companies, who has access to it and why/how is it processed.
- LogicalBorg 9y ago
  I agree that they are not collecting personal information. They are collecting information about your computer system. According to the ICO definition of personal data, it means "any information relating to an identifiable person who can be directly or indirectly identified in particular by reference to an identifier." (https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/key-definitions/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...). Nothing like that is being collected.
randomsearch 9y ago
Speaking with an expert on this recently, she is under the impression that individual opt-in boxes for every distinct type of data will be necessary. So a single box will be insufficient.
- randomsearch 9y ago
  Oh, and it is most definitely opt in. Ubuntu will not get away with that.
y0ghur7_xxx 9y ago
They don't collect any personal data. The GDPR defines "personal data" with "‘personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;" Nothing in the collected data is "relating to an identified or identifiable natural person", so the checkbox is not even necessary.
- Santosh83 9y ago
  What about crash reports that will be send automatically to Canonical? I hope they would take precautions to scrub personal information from the data before sending them.
- Aaargh20318 9y ago
  > Nothing in the collected data is "relating to an identified or identifiable natural person", so the checkbox is not even necessary. The data collected could be used to identify a single person. How many people have the exact same combination of CPU, amount of RAM, location, disk sizes,GPU vendor/model, disk layout and installed applications ? If the data is unique enough, it's PII.
  - setra 9y ago
    A unique random cookie is not PII automatically. It is only PII if it can be associated with something like a name (not limited to a name). Anonymous data with unique identities is not under the consent requirements of the GDPR.
  - y0ghur7_xxx 9y ago
    > The data collected could be used to identify a single person. > How many people have the exact same combination of CPU, amount of RAM, location, disk sizes,GPU vendor/model, disk layout and installed applications ? > If the data is unique enough, it's PII. You can not connect a unique combination of cpu, gpu, disk size, with me, y0ghur7_xxx, if you don't collect my ip address or my name in any other way, so no, it's not "personal data" as per GDPR.
setra 9y ago
The data collected is probably not fit to be classified as personal data. GDPR does not automatically forbid collection of anything involved with a user otherwise things like page popularity ranking would not be possible. There was a court ruling stating that IP addresses could be considered personal data because an ISP would have a log that associated the IP with a person. As long as the are only collecting things like "what packages are installed", "how powerful is the system", "when did it last update", and anonymize the last section of the IP they should be fine.

__warlord__ 9y ago

Welcome to Microsoft's world :) I don't mind sharing data for software that I use for free but this kinds of bothers me a lot: > This would be checked by default Lol no, I know where are you going on this but please do NOT enable this by default.

Faaak 9y ago
Why not ? Some people just don't care, and these who don't care don't care to check the option. So to me it's more logical (in order to have more data) to check the box by default.
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  GDPR expressly forbids default checked boxes or "silent acceptance", setups which require opt-out to prevent tracking/data collection. Data collection is OK, but it must be opt-in only. You're only looking at it from a "more data = better" perspective, instead of a privacy perspective, which is a lot more important.
  - simosx 9y ago
    It has been mentioned already above. We are talking here about anonymized diagnostic data, not private indentifiable information.
    - mrob 9y ago
      Crash reports can contain any data that happens to be in memory, including private identifiable information. Additionally, "anonymized" data frequently turns out to be identifiable when enough of it is collected.
- __warlord__ 9y ago
  Same as KozmoNau7 reply, you should opt-in to send data rather than opt-out, which is the same case as the Windows and .NET telemetry in which people took a very strong stance against it, now, if Canonical wants to do the same we should at least view them with the same eyes we see Microsoft's movements.

koolba 9y ago

I see nothing in wrong with this as long as the checkbox is prominently presented, preferably on it's own "page" of the installer, it can be easily updated post-installation, and the scope of agreed upon data collection isn't increased for a given installation after agreement. > Any user can simply opt out by unchecking the box, which triggers one simple POST stating, “diagnostics=false”. There will be a corresponding checkbox in the Privacy panel of GNOME Settings to toggle the state of this. By POST do they mean a POST to the same web endpoint? Why would opting out requiring notifying them of your installation. I get that they'd want to track installation counts but would expect opting out to be entirely silent. Or do they mean that opting out once you've opted in would notify them of such? > And to reiterate, the service which stores this data would never store IP addresses. Any idea what country / jurisdiction they plan to host this data and service?

Faaak 9y ago
I suppose it to have a "total number of installs" statistic.
- jstanley 9y ago
  But the point is that's none of their business.
- mrob 9y ago
  They can already get an approximate number by counting downloads of package updates. It's deceptive to send any information if the user opted out.
  - lovelearning 9y ago
    I doubt it's possible since many systems update from closest mirrors, most of which are not Canonical's servers.
lloeki 9y ago
The only potentially dangerous step I see is: > Apport would be configured to automatically send anonymous crash reports without user interruption. I'm unfamiliar with apport, but crash reports may contain partial memory dumps with information you don't want collected. Also, > Popcon would be installed. This will allow us to spot trends in package usage and help us to focus on the packages which are of most value to our users. Far less worrying, but I can see some people cringing on that one. Barring those two this is the kind of checkbox presented on install I'd definitely encourage people to leave checked.

admg 9y ago

Seems like can opt out easily, and the information given appears reasonable so will quite happily check this box.

Santosh83 9y ago
It will also enable a program called Popcorn that will track and report the relative frequency of your app usage. That is somewhat personal according to some people at least. And this option toggles Apport to send back crash reports without asking permission each time, which means it could(?) leak sensitive data in memory?
- smhenderson 9y ago
  I think you mean popcon? Short for popularity contest[1]. It's been part of Debian forever, not sure when it first showed up but it was part of Woody at least. With Debian you could configure it to use PGP and encrypt the reports you send in. I generally disabled it on work computers but left it on at home. That probably didn't help them as much but I just couldn't see leaving this type of feature on for servers and computers that weren't mine. [1]https://popcon.debian.org/ https://popcon.debian.org/
  - mrob 9y ago
    Debian's installer requires explicit opt-in consent to install popcon. It's not enabled by default.
    - smhenderson 9y ago
      Yes, that's true. I do think that that's the better way to do it. I understand Canonical is trying to make a user oriented system that "Just Works" and collecting this data can certainly help with that but I do think that this should be Opt In, not Out. If nothing else to support the precedent that, in general, Opt In is better for privacy that Opt Out.
- admg 9y ago

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago

Well, Apple and Microsoft already have that data about my systems, so jump on board. And if you don't want Canonical having this data you're probably savvy enough to uncheck the box, or you're already some other flavour.

cs702 9y ago

Please use the original, less inflammatory title: "more diagnostics data from desktop." Understandably, Canonical wants to collect diagnostic data useful for software development and bug fixing. Other major OS providers like Google, Microsoft, and Apple do this. I like the fact that Canonical is doing it in an open manner: anyone can opt out by unchecking a box at installation or afterwards on the privacy panel; and they will make aggregate diagnostic data available to the public.

OnlyRepliesToBS 9y ago
It's User snooping. Telemetry. Spyware. "Oh look, everyone else is doing it" Dark patterns make them join the dark side.
pferde 9y ago
> So you ask the user during install. Then the data is sent on first > boot. At what point can the user inspect the data, given that some of > it can't be collected until after installation is finished? It seems > like the first opportunity will be after it has been sent, unless you > ask the user a second time. So why not just ask them on first boot, > when you have already gathered all the data? That way user can inspect > the data there and then before deciding how to answer. Yes, I think the first opportunity would be after it has been sent. I'm generally against asking more questions on login though, I think it would be clunky. Do I understand it correctly that they want to send the data the first time unconditionally after installation, and only then present the user with the opt-out choice? I really hope I understood it wrong.

elaus 9y ago

This generally sounds resonable, but I'm somewhat concerned about that part: > Apport would be configured to automatically send anonymous crash reports without user interruption. Crash reports could easily contain sensible and private data (e.g. file names/paths or usernames) and I wouldn't be comfortable sending them to an unknown group of people by default. Canonical would have to convince the user that anonymization is working really reliable for me to activate that feature. Right now I'm always drawn between fear of private data leaking and my will to support them in fixing annoying crashes (nemo crashes almost daily for me).

calcifer 9y ago
> private data (e.g. file names/paths or usernames) Can you give an example of a path, file or user name that would cause problems to you (or anyone else) if Ubuntu engineers see it when fixing bugs?
- mrob 9y ago
  ~/Pictures/Gay_porn/
  - calcifer 9y ago
    How is an Ubuntu engineer seeing that some random computer somewhere has a gay porn folder a problem for you specifically?
    - mrob 9y ago
      I never claimed it was. But you seem to be claiming that literally nobody would have a problem with being outed this way.
    - JorgeGT 9y ago
      Would you mind printing your output of "tree /" so we can take a look?
- r3bl 9y ago

owenwil 9y ago

Honestly fine with this, mostly given how bad 17.10 is. These folks are basically flying blind — a mess of a release.

gargravarr 9y ago

One thing in Ubuntu's favour, they are upfront and clear about their intentions. So long as switching the data collection off actually does switch it off, I am fine with them going ahead with this. Other OSes have much to learn...

endemic 9y ago
Agreed; telemetry is valuable, and I have no problem with it... provided there is an option to turn it off.

owaislone 9y ago

I'm surprised they didn't do this already. This is crucial data for them to actually improve the product. Only thing I'm a bit concerned about is automatically sending crash reports. This highly depends on the programming language the crashing program was written in. It is very much possible for a program to include sensitive or personally identifying information in the stack traces right?

calcifer 9y ago

Title is editorialized and should be changed. They are not saying they will do it, they would like to do it and they are asking for feedback.

simosx 9y ago

The article actually asks for input of the collection of diagnostic data. The title by Santosh83 says instead "Ubuntu will collect data about your system by default, starting with 18.04".

throwme_1980 9y ago

what ?? why

maximexx 9y ago

This is almost nothing compared to what Microsoft with Windows 10 collects. And beyond that, Canonical is honest and presents an opt out, while Microsoft does waaaay more without even telling, and hides all the many opt-out's in loads of hidden setting dialogs. Still, it's good to keep a sharp eye on Canonical. I have not forgotten about the "lens" sending your local query to 3d parties like amazon by default..

malikNF 9y ago
Canonical is no saint, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/privacy-ubuntu-1210-amazon-ads-and-data-leaks https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/privacy-ubuntu-1210-am... (Amazon Ads and Data Leaks in ubuntu 12.10) https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/12/richard-stallman-calls-ubuntu-spyware-because-it-tracks-searches/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/12/richa... (Richard Stallman calls Ubuntu “spyware” ) https://www.wired.com/2013/11/fixubuntu/ https://www.wired.com/2013/11/fixubuntu/ (Linux Outfit Canonical Launches Campaign to Silence Privacy Critic)
- falcolas 9y ago
  Nobody is a saint; not even the saints. But making an effort to do the right thing, no matter their history, should be respected.
- opencl 9y ago
  That was shitty but they stopped doing it years ago (in 16.04 specifically), and it was easily disabled when it was there. Meanwhile Windows 10 just keeps getting more and more invasive, and make it more and more difficult to turn off. Disabling web search in the start menu requires using either the registry editor or group policy now! And when you search for how to disable things everything you find is out of date because they keep changing it every 6 months. The trend has been going from actual option in settings menu -> require registry edit or group policy -> system ignores the registry and it becomes completely impossible to disable. I was pretty mad when they did this to the lock screen and it continues to be a mild annoyance to me every day.

get 9y ago

"Any user can simply opt out by unchecking the box" They should at least do it the other way round and have people opt in instead of opt out. Still I would prefer a distro that does not have such functionality in the first place. Since Ubuntu did their first "phone home" experiments in 2015, I stayed away from it. And I will keep it that way. It was just too much of a user hostile action. Shuttleworth even defended it. Showed me that his values are not compatible with mine. Linux Mint has been a very user friendly replacement so far.

brador 9y ago

I wish GDPR allowed citizens to personally sue companies and take a cut of the winnings like the disability regs here. It would give the regulation teeth fron day 1 and send a strong message.

lwyr 9y ago

In addition to the GDPR concerns mentioned in sibling posts, this type of collection is likely covered by Article 5.3 of the EU ePrivacy Directive, which requires consent for storing or reading information from end-users' devices (also known as the "cookie rule").[0] The Dutch Data Protection Authority recently applied this rule to Microsoft's collection of telemetry data through Windows 10.[1] Notably, this rule is not limited to personal data; it applies to all "information." [0] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02002L0058-20091219 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:020... [1] https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/sites/default/files/atoms/files/public_version_dutch_dpa_informal_translation_summary_of_investigation_report.pdf https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/sites/default/file...

coinerone 9y ago

It should really be Opt-In. It just tastes like Microsoft-Behavior.