4 ms·
Since the data is not being made public, presumably it is judged to be sensitive to some extent? So if follows then that users are right to be concerned and wo
by ptx 6y ago
Since the data is not being made public, presumably it is judged to be sensitive to some extent?
So if follows then that users are right to be concerned and would have every reason to not opt in if they were presented with the choice.
- KenoFischer 6y agoWhat's sensitive or not depends very much on what other information the entity doing the analysis has available. Of course raw log records are more sensitive than aggregate data. For example, if somebody is wiretapping your internet connection, then even if the connection is encrypted raw logs would let them draw conclusions from timing. To some extent you're trusting the Julia project (or at least the people who have access) to not clandestinely be in the wiretapping business, but then again you're already trusting it with arbitrary code execution on your machine, so if it were in that business, you'd have bigger problems ;). In any case that's why it's important to be transparent about what is sent, and for what purpose and who has access, so people can make informed decisions. Ironically, I think people are jumping on the authors of this particular piece of functionality precisely because they tried to be very transparent.
- ptx 6y agoYes, they are transparent about deciding not to offer the user the choice in a straight-forward upfront way (i.e. opt in) because "the vast majority of users will not opt-in". In other words, deciding that what the users want is not as important as the marketing stats. And, as you say, users trust the developers with access to their systems and data. Deciding unilaterally to sacrifice user privacy to benefit other interests might be seen as a breach of that trust.
- orf 6y agoIt’s actually more that “the vast majority of users do not care” and so go with the defaults. An opt-out is the way that makes sense.