14 ms·

Still not enough. Needs to be opt in. As others have stated, crash dumps are pretty much data leaks. By pulling stunts like this you force all operators to rev

Still not enough. Needs to be opt in. As others have stated, crash dumps are pretty much data leaks. By pulling stunts like this you force all operators to review the contents of every update. You actually reduce security across the ecosystem because you reduce the likelihood individuals will update. > For any further questions related to this, please review our EULA, Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. May as well be: "For more information, please re-read." Come on.

eddyg 7y ago
They say the data is GDPR compliant. If the data is anonymous (and the linked page specifically says "completely anonymized"), the GDPR does not apply, as far as I know. See Recital 26. [0] > This Regulation does not therefore concern the processing of such anonymous information, including for statistical or research purposes. Crash data does not mean it contains memory dumps; it could just be assertions and stack traces. [0] https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-26/ https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-26/
- tinus_hn 7y ago
  The data includes the users IP address which is personal information. It is not anonymous.
  - eddyg 7y ago
    Where does it say the IP address is stored with the data? Recital 26 says: > The principles of data protection should therefore not apply to anonymous information, namely information which does not relate to an identified or identifiable natural person or to personal data rendered anonymous in such a manner that the data subject is not OR NO LONGER identifiable. [emphasis mine] So as long as the data becomes no longer identifiable, recital 26 seems to apply.
    - simpss 7y ago
      in their privacy policy. Section 1b. The Usage Data that we collect may include information such as ...... Internet Protocol address ...... https://www.ui.com/legal/privacypolicy/ https://www.ui.com/legal/privacypolicy/
      - eddyg 7y ago
        Fair enough. It does say "may". :) It's still possible for other data to be "anonymous" if it's stored independently of an IP address, device identifier, etc. since recital 26 allows for data that is "no longer identifiable".
        netik 7y ago
        The moment the device connects to Unifi, without your permission, they have your IP. Then again, they had it when you downloaded the update, and when your devices check for auto update, so, you’re not getting away from this data collection with an opt out button.
        organsnyder 7y ago
        "May" is synonymous with "will", as far as complying with privacy regulations is concerned.
        simpss 7y ago
        in such case, it might be pseudonymous, but to make it pseudonymous specific effort is required. I'll copy an old comment which explains the terms. ID in this case could be the IP address, device identifier etc... -------------------------- A person is identified, if the ID references only one user in the whole dataset[1]. This also makes any information linked to the ID PII. the ID would be pseudo-anonymous if one would need some extra data, to which they don't have access to, for linking the ID to one specific user in the whole dataset[2]. So to answer your question, RTB ID is not pseudo-anonymous as it only references a single user out of all of them. [1] It's also important to understand the definition of PII in GDPR context. Which is any data that relates to an identified or identifiable person. Identifiable is the same as distinguishable. Knowing this helps to understand where the line is. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/identifiable https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/identifiable [2] Definition of pseudonymisation, 5'th bullet-point: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-4-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-4-gdpr/ sheds some light on this.
- esotericn 7y ago
  I didn't mention anything about GDPR. I don't want any data to be sent to Ubiquiti. This forces me to now treat my network hardware as an untrusted device.
Silhouette 7y ago
For any further questions related to this, please review our EULA, Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. As someone who was literally about to order a whole set of Ubiquiti gear for his business this month, having never been a customer before: no, I don't think I will. Ubiquiti, you blew it once by trying to push this out in the first place. Now you've blown it again, by thinking some token opt-out button was enough to fix the problem, instead of realising that what you're dealing with here is a major trust issue and you're fundamentally on the wrong side of it. You don't get a third shot. I need to protect the security of my business data, and I need to be confident that the professional gear we're buying isn't going to actively undermine that.
- tw04 7y ago
  While I totally get wanting the option to opt-out of phone home, literally every enterprise hardware vendor has phone home and expects you to have it enabled if you want proactive support. Claiming they need to dump the feature entirely is more than a bit overly dramatic. The option to disable it was absolutely the right move for them to make and it should’ve been there from the start. Everyone claiming they should not have any phone home at all hasn’t spent much time in the enterprise hardware world...
  - esotericn 7y ago
    They need it to be opt-in, such that the hardware I have already bought does not begin sending data arbitrarily upon an update.
  - Silhouette 7y ago
    While I totally get wanting the option to opt-out of phone home, literally every enterprise hardware vendor has phone home and expects you to have it enabled if you want proactive support. No, they don't. We work with some clients who are in a very similar area, on the development side. Anyone who thought this was a good idea would get bounced out of the room so fast their feet wouldn't touch the floor until they were in the corridor. It is absolutely not the norm to upload data from within the customer's network without their knowledge or consent.
isatty 7y ago
> By pulling stunts like this you force all operators to review the contents of every update. Shouldn't you be doing that anyway?

eddyg 7y ago

They say the data is GDPR compliant. If the data is anonymous (and the linked page specifically says "completely anonymized"), the GDPR does not apply, as far as I know. See Recital 26. [0] > This Regulation does not therefore concern the processing of such anonymous information, including for statistical or research purposes. Crash data does not mean it contains memory dumps; it could just be assertions and stack traces. [0] https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-26/ https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-26/

tinus_hn 7y ago
The data includes the users IP address which is personal information. It is not anonymous.
- eddyg 7y ago
  Where does it say the IP address is stored with the data? Recital 26 says: > The principles of data protection should therefore not apply to anonymous information, namely information which does not relate to an identified or identifiable natural person or to personal data rendered anonymous in such a manner that the data subject is not OR NO LONGER identifiable. [emphasis mine] So as long as the data becomes no longer identifiable, recital 26 seems to apply.
  - simpss 7y ago
    in their privacy policy. Section 1b. The Usage Data that we collect may include information such as ...... Internet Protocol address ...... https://www.ui.com/legal/privacypolicy/ https://www.ui.com/legal/privacypolicy/
    - eddyg 7y ago
      Fair enough. It does say "may". :) It's still possible for other data to be "anonymous" if it's stored independently of an IP address, device identifier, etc. since recital 26 allows for data that is "no longer identifiable".
      - netik 7y ago
        The moment the device connects to Unifi, without your permission, they have your IP. Then again, they had it when you downloaded the update, and when your devices check for auto update, so, you’re not getting away from this data collection with an opt out button.
      - organsnyder 7y ago
        "May" is synonymous with "will", as far as complying with privacy regulations is concerned.
      - simpss 7y ago
        in such case, it might be pseudonymous, but to make it pseudonymous specific effort is required. I'll copy an old comment which explains the terms. ID in this case could be the IP address, device identifier etc... -------------------------- A person is identified, if the ID references only one user in the whole dataset[1]. This also makes any information linked to the ID PII. the ID would be pseudo-anonymous if one would need some extra data, to which they don't have access to, for linking the ID to one specific user in the whole dataset[2]. So to answer your question, RTB ID is not pseudo-anonymous as it only references a single user out of all of them. [1] It's also important to understand the definition of PII in GDPR context. Which is any data that relates to an identified or identifiable person. Identifiable is the same as distinguishable. Knowing this helps to understand where the line is. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/identifiable https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/identifiable [2] Definition of pseudonymisation, 5'th bullet-point: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-4-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-4-gdpr/ sheds some light on this.
esotericn 7y ago
I didn't mention anything about GDPR. I don't want any data to be sent to Ubiquiti. This forces me to now treat my network hardware as an untrusted device.

Silhouette 7y ago

For any further questions related to this, please review our EULA, Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. As someone who was literally about to order a whole set of Ubiquiti gear for his business this month, having never been a customer before: no, I don't think I will. Ubiquiti, you blew it once by trying to push this out in the first place. Now you've blown it again, by thinking some token opt-out button was enough to fix the problem, instead of realising that what you're dealing with here is a major trust issue and you're fundamentally on the wrong side of it. You don't get a third shot. I need to protect the security of my business data, and I need to be confident that the professional gear we're buying isn't going to actively undermine that.

tw04 7y ago
While I totally get wanting the option to opt-out of phone home, literally every enterprise hardware vendor has phone home and expects you to have it enabled if you want proactive support. Claiming they need to dump the feature entirely is more than a bit overly dramatic. The option to disable it was absolutely the right move for them to make and it should’ve been there from the start. Everyone claiming they should not have any phone home at all hasn’t spent much time in the enterprise hardware world...
- esotericn 7y ago
  They need it to be opt-in, such that the hardware I have already bought does not begin sending data arbitrarily upon an update.
- Silhouette 7y ago
  While I totally get wanting the option to opt-out of phone home, literally every enterprise hardware vendor has phone home and expects you to have it enabled if you want proactive support. No, they don't. We work with some clients who are in a very similar area, on the development side. Anyone who thought this was a good idea would get bounced out of the room so fast their feet wouldn't touch the floor until they were in the corridor. It is absolutely not the norm to upload data from within the customer's network without their knowledge or consent.

isatty 7y ago

> By pulling stunts like this you force all operators to review the contents of every update. Shouldn't you be doing that anyway?