4 ms·

> The only reason that makes any sense is because doing so is a core aspect of their business model. No, it's not the only reason to collect analytics. They ar

> The only reason that makes any sense is because doing so is a core aspect of their business model. No, it's not the only reason to collect analytics. They are often used to QA, product improvement, and knowing where to invest your time and effort in your product. Microsoft Word, for example, has become a super-bloated featuritis packed product. If Word tracked how many times people used each feature for example, they'd have a pretty good map of what they could deprecate or prune to create a streamlined version for example. Game companies use analytics often to figure out what game mechanics were fun or interesting for people, and what features were wasted. Imagine you put a lot of effort into a 'mini-game' mechanism inside of a game, and found that people spent one minute in it and never touched it again. Now, you could argue they could collect this data with differential privacy techniques, and they should, but there's a difference between using data as part of your business model, by selling a service that leverages said data (e.g. ads), and using data to make better decisions. Prior to "tech", companies still collected information on their customers as much as they could to improve their business, they just did it the old fashion way with annoying surveys that no one likes to fill out and which are inaccurate.

JohnFen 7y ago
> They are often used to QA, product improvement, and knowing where to invest your time and effort in your product. Ah, I see where our disconnect is happening: all of those uses count as being part of the business model to me. In any case, I fully understand why telemetry is used. My objection is when it's not possible to opt out of telemetry (having to opt in would be much better, of course). If someone is gathering data about me or my use of my machines without my informed consent, that counts as spying. What purpose the data is being put to is irrelevant (although it would be relevant to my decision about whether or not I'm going to consent).
- cromwellian 7y ago
  Most apps these days will say something like "collect anonymous usage statistics to improve product quality" with an opt-in. Does that satisfy you? Both Apple and Google are using differential privacy in different products to do this, Chrome for example, collects telemetry via provable differential privacy.
  - pacala 7y ago
    You can't make someone half-pregnant. You can't preserve privacy in "some products". You've got to do it across the board. For example, Google is in the business of tracking your location to sub-meter accuracy. Then corroborate that information with everybody else to create a shadow social graph. They don't need to ask users for their friend list, a la Facebook 2005, and that is a reason why they gave up on building an explicit social network after Google Plus faltered: they've got the data through a different channel. Whenever Google pays lip service to privacy, it is because they have alternate, possibly higher accuracy, privacy violating channels in place. In the specific case of Chrome, it's likely they are concerned about the legal fallout from Microsoft / Internet Explorer antitrust hearings.

JohnFen 7y ago

> They are often used to QA, product improvement, and knowing where to invest your time and effort in your product. Ah, I see where our disconnect is happening: all of those uses count as being part of the business model to me. In any case, I fully understand why telemetry is used. My objection is when it's not possible to opt out of telemetry (having to opt in would be much better, of course). If someone is gathering data about me or my use of my machines without my informed consent, that counts as spying. What purpose the data is being put to is irrelevant (although it would be relevant to my decision about whether or not I'm going to consent).

cromwellian 7y ago
Most apps these days will say something like "collect anonymous usage statistics to improve product quality" with an opt-in. Does that satisfy you? Both Apple and Google are using differential privacy in different products to do this, Chrome for example, collects telemetry via provable differential privacy.
- pacala 7y ago
  You can't make someone half-pregnant. You can't preserve privacy in "some products". You've got to do it across the board. For example, Google is in the business of tracking your location to sub-meter accuracy. Then corroborate that information with everybody else to create a shadow social graph. They don't need to ask users for their friend list, a la Facebook 2005, and that is a reason why they gave up on building an explicit social network after Google Plus faltered: they've got the data through a different channel. Whenever Google pays lip service to privacy, it is because they have alternate, possibly higher accuracy, privacy violating channels in place. In the specific case of Chrome, it's likely they are concerned about the legal fallout from Microsoft / Internet Explorer antitrust hearings.