6 ms·

I disagree that telemetry is inherently bad. As product engineers, telemetry is often our only visibility into whether or not a system is functioning healthily.

I disagree that telemetry is inherently bad. As product engineers, telemetry is often our only visibility into whether or not a system is functioning healthily. How else can you detect difficult-to-spot bugs in production?

mlindner 6y ago
Once upon a time fixing bugs in production didn't happen because the product got all the bugs out before production. If it had bugs in production, the product failed.
- shard 6y ago
  You used the phrase "once upon a time", a common opening for fairy tales, which seems apropos for describing a magical land where products achieved a 100% bug detection rate before release. I suppose this might have been true 50 years ago, at the dawn of the electronic calculator, but that is now an age of legend...
- tracker1 6y ago
  When that was true, several decades ago, products generally had upwards of 2 years of design/architecture/engineering effort and definitions prior to another 3-5 years of development. It still (sometimes) happens for medical, aerospace and other transportation software that interfaces with hardware where safety is a concern.
- Gene_Parmesan 6y ago
  I've often wondered about this commonly repeated belief that software of ~30 years ago was less buggy than software today, because it doesn't really line up with my memories. There's definitely part of it that comes from a standard "back in my day", rose-tinted glasses sort of thing. But I actually think a lot of it comes from the fact that modern software can be easily patched, whereas older software couldn't. It is easy to believe that software today is buggier because of just how many patches we get for it. But back in the day, any bugs that existed in the product were not as visible, because we weren't getting weekly updates where the patch notes say "Bug fixes." How many massive vulnerabilities existed in major products of the day, and continued to persist unnoticed by all of us because of the relative impossibility of patching them out? On top of that, modern software is simply more complex -- often times an order of magnitude more complex. (Whether this increased complexity is always needed/appropriate is a separate question.) I'm not sure what metric you would use to be able to do a "bugs per complexity unit" sort of comparison between then and now, something that attempts to control for increased complexity, but my intuition is that it would be pretty flat.
totaldex 6y ago
+1 to this. As long as proper privacy concerns are addressed and the data gathering is imperceptible to the product experience, telemetry signals are immensely valuable for improving the product in a variety of ways.
- kuratkull 6y ago
  Many users care more about their privacy than your product.
  - totaldex 6y ago
    Certainly true, but it doesn't counter the original claim: Anonymized telemetry collection with proper privacy considerations can have a net positive impact on the product.
    - fsflover 6y ago
      I would agree to the telemetry if all code was FLOSS and everyone could see what exactly was being transferred.
dtx1 6y ago
So why does $product need to send telemetry data via google? Why can highly complex software that runs most of the worlds internet infrastructure (linux) work without telemetry? Why is telemetry not opt-in or relies on reports in situation where a bug causes an issue like firefox crash reports? I'd rather have privacy and buggy software then bug free software in exchange for no privacy at all
- oarsinsync 6y ago
  > I'd rather have privacy and buggy software then bug free software in exchange for no privacy at all Unfortunately, nobody offers bug free software in exchange for no privacy. It’s still buggy.
- slg 6y ago
  >So why does $product need to send telemetry data via google? Because Google is responsible for most of the software on said product. Who would be receiving that telemetry data if it wasn't Google? >Why can highly complex software that runs most of the worlds internet infrastructure (linux) work without telemetry? First, this is a false premise because it ignores the potential that telemetry could help improve this software but most Linux distros have decided against it for other reasons. Secondly, it ignores that some distros do in fact include telemetry. >Why is telemetry not opt-in It probably should be when it comes to something that has potential to invade privacy, but we have to be realistic that practically no one will actively turn on telemetry if it is initially set to off. That drastically decreases the value of the collected data and it basically turns into nothing more than something customer service can tell someone to turn on while trying to troubleshoot a specific issue. >or relies on reports in situation where a bug causes an issue like firefox crash reports? Telemetry isn't just about bugs. It is also about guiding future development, knowing what features are used, knowing the workflow for users, etc. It can provide value beyond crash reports. >I'd rather have privacy and buggy software then bug free software in exchange for no privacy at all This is completely fair. I would generally agree with you and bet that most HN readers would too. However this is not a binary choice. Not all telemetry is inherently bad. Not all loss of privacy is inherently damaging. This is a complicated issue that will involve compromises and anyone sticking to a complete extreme of it being all bad or all good isn't going to offer anything productive to this conversation.
tobr 6y ago
We’re increasing the risk exposure for every user for our own trivial convenience. It is inherently bad, just like other forms of widespread surveillance that is often motivated by some seemingly good cause, like catching terrorists.
kuratkull 6y ago
As a software engineer I disagree. You are saying that you want to collect my personal information so you can fix your bugs. I don't see it being a valuable trade. I'll just find someone who can fix their bugs without tracking me.
- babypuncher 6y ago
  Personal information is a bit nebulous. Do we consider the list of function calls in a stack trace "personal information"?
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    If I sent the stack trace to you, no. Otherwise, yes. It's my stack trace after all. (Perhaps "private" not "personal" is a better term here, but stack traces can expose personal information too, if they include details about function arguments.)
- slg 6y ago
  >You are saying that you want to collect my personal information so you can fix your bugs. How do you define personal information? Let's use Chrome as an example. Recording what website I visit is clearly personal information. What about recording how many tabs I have open, how much RAM each tab is using, and when each tab was last viewed? Is that personal information to you? I personally don't value keeping that private and it is probably a valuable piece of information that could help the developers improve what has been one of the biggest user complaints about Chrome since almost its release. I think that is generally OP's point. Each piece of data exists on a spectrum in value for both the user and the developer. Data should be kept private when it has value to the user. There is little harm in sharing the data with the developer when the user would deem it low value and the developer would deem it high value.
  - kuratkull 6y ago
    It's pretty easy to understand what information is technically static and could be used to track you. Number of tabs: low possible range and pretty variable, even for tab hoarders, so it's low entropy information. Amount of RAM used in each open tab: that should be statistically significant and I'm pretty sure could be used to identify people if there are enough tabs open for a long enough period. When each tab was viewed: every (not-)clicked tab is a bit of information, you don't need much to narrow down a person. Interesting reading on de-anonymizing people on seemingly anonymized data: https://www.wired.com/2007/12/why-anonymous-data-sometimes-isnt/ https://www.wired.com/2007/12/why-anonymous-data-sometimes-i...
jstanley 6y ago
> our only visibility into whether or not a system is functioning healthily. Your problem here is viewing the end user's setup as part of your system. It's the user's private system -- why should you have any visibility into how it is functioning?
- minsc__and__boo 6y ago
  They said a system, not their system. Car computers report telemetry to mechanics, and given that digitization allows for economies of scale, this isn't that different.
  - jstanley 6y ago
    > Car computers report telemetry to mechanics Yes -- and they shouldn't.
    - minsc__and__boo 6y ago
      Yes, they should. It assists with repairs, increases safety, leads to recalls, and in cars with GPS units, even reports road emergencies and saves lives. You can feel uncomfortable that this is happening, which is an entirely okay opinion to have, but when it comes to forcing that opinions on others, please don't. Imagine if we were debating the qualities of buttons because the Amish were uncomfortable using them.
      - martimarkov 6y ago
        Sure but Amish have the right to choose to use the button or not. You should have the option to opt-out. Or at least have that option until society says “well given how many life’s are save we need to collect this data from everyone”. But you’d get a say in that conversation as well.
        minsc__and__boo 6y ago
        You can opt out, the exact same way. Don't buy a car that uses telemetry, just like you don't buy clothes that uses buttons.
sneak 6y ago
Telemetry is inherently bad if it's not done with the informed, opt-in consent of the end user whose data it's (mis)appropriating, oftentimes silently. There's no issue with opt-in telemetry, where the user says "yes, it's okay to track me". Invisible, silent, always-on telemetry is actually just spyware that's been mislabeled. Ultimately it's not the telemetry that's at issue: it's the unethical and selfish behavior of the software/device manufacturer. No sane or reasonable person thinks that an EULA is informed consent.
Lio 6y ago
For me, the point is really about control. These companies know people don’t actively want to be surveilled which is why they sneak this shit in instead of being upfront about it. If it was so great for consumers it would be an opt in not an opt out hidden behind a series of dark patterns. Even Apple switches Siri back on after every OS upgrade.

mlindner 6y ago

Once upon a time fixing bugs in production didn't happen because the product got all the bugs out before production. If it had bugs in production, the product failed.

shard 6y ago
You used the phrase "once upon a time", a common opening for fairy tales, which seems apropos for describing a magical land where products achieved a 100% bug detection rate before release. I suppose this might have been true 50 years ago, at the dawn of the electronic calculator, but that is now an age of legend...
tracker1 6y ago
When that was true, several decades ago, products generally had upwards of 2 years of design/architecture/engineering effort and definitions prior to another 3-5 years of development. It still (sometimes) happens for medical, aerospace and other transportation software that interfaces with hardware where safety is a concern.
Gene_Parmesan 6y ago
I've often wondered about this commonly repeated belief that software of ~30 years ago was less buggy than software today, because it doesn't really line up with my memories. There's definitely part of it that comes from a standard "back in my day", rose-tinted glasses sort of thing. But I actually think a lot of it comes from the fact that modern software can be easily patched, whereas older software couldn't. It is easy to believe that software today is buggier because of just how many patches we get for it. But back in the day, any bugs that existed in the product were not as visible, because we weren't getting weekly updates where the patch notes say "Bug fixes." How many massive vulnerabilities existed in major products of the day, and continued to persist unnoticed by all of us because of the relative impossibility of patching them out? On top of that, modern software is simply more complex -- often times an order of magnitude more complex. (Whether this increased complexity is always needed/appropriate is a separate question.) I'm not sure what metric you would use to be able to do a "bugs per complexity unit" sort of comparison between then and now, something that attempts to control for increased complexity, but my intuition is that it would be pretty flat.

totaldex 6y ago

+1 to this. As long as proper privacy concerns are addressed and the data gathering is imperceptible to the product experience, telemetry signals are immensely valuable for improving the product in a variety of ways.

kuratkull 6y ago
Many users care more about their privacy than your product.
- totaldex 6y ago
  Certainly true, but it doesn't counter the original claim: Anonymized telemetry collection with proper privacy considerations can have a net positive impact on the product.
  - fsflover 6y ago
    I would agree to the telemetry if all code was FLOSS and everyone could see what exactly was being transferred.

dtx1 6y ago

So why does $product need to send telemetry data via google? Why can highly complex software that runs most of the worlds internet infrastructure (linux) work without telemetry? Why is telemetry not opt-in or relies on reports in situation where a bug causes an issue like firefox crash reports? I'd rather have privacy and buggy software then bug free software in exchange for no privacy at all

oarsinsync 6y ago
> I'd rather have privacy and buggy software then bug free software in exchange for no privacy at all Unfortunately, nobody offers bug free software in exchange for no privacy. It’s still buggy.
slg 6y ago
>So why does $product need to send telemetry data via google? Because Google is responsible for most of the software on said product. Who would be receiving that telemetry data if it wasn't Google? >Why can highly complex software that runs most of the worlds internet infrastructure (linux) work without telemetry? First, this is a false premise because it ignores the potential that telemetry could help improve this software but most Linux distros have decided against it for other reasons. Secondly, it ignores that some distros do in fact include telemetry. >Why is telemetry not opt-in It probably should be when it comes to something that has potential to invade privacy, but we have to be realistic that practically no one will actively turn on telemetry if it is initially set to off. That drastically decreases the value of the collected data and it basically turns into nothing more than something customer service can tell someone to turn on while trying to troubleshoot a specific issue. >or relies on reports in situation where a bug causes an issue like firefox crash reports? Telemetry isn't just about bugs. It is also about guiding future development, knowing what features are used, knowing the workflow for users, etc. It can provide value beyond crash reports. >I'd rather have privacy and buggy software then bug free software in exchange for no privacy at all This is completely fair. I would generally agree with you and bet that most HN readers would too. However this is not a binary choice. Not all telemetry is inherently bad. Not all loss of privacy is inherently damaging. This is a complicated issue that will involve compromises and anyone sticking to a complete extreme of it being all bad or all good isn't going to offer anything productive to this conversation.

tobr 6y ago

We’re increasing the risk exposure for every user for our own trivial convenience. It is inherently bad, just like other forms of widespread surveillance that is often motivated by some seemingly good cause, like catching terrorists.

kuratkull 6y ago

As a software engineer I disagree. You are saying that you want to collect my personal information so you can fix your bugs. I don't see it being a valuable trade. I'll just find someone who can fix their bugs without tracking me.

babypuncher 6y ago
Personal information is a bit nebulous. Do we consider the list of function calls in a stack trace "personal information"?
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  If I sent the stack trace to you, no. Otherwise, yes. It's my stack trace after all. (Perhaps "private" not "personal" is a better term here, but stack traces can expose personal information too, if they include details about function arguments.)
slg 6y ago
>You are saying that you want to collect my personal information so you can fix your bugs. How do you define personal information? Let's use Chrome as an example. Recording what website I visit is clearly personal information. What about recording how many tabs I have open, how much RAM each tab is using, and when each tab was last viewed? Is that personal information to you? I personally don't value keeping that private and it is probably a valuable piece of information that could help the developers improve what has been one of the biggest user complaints about Chrome since almost its release. I think that is generally OP's point. Each piece of data exists on a spectrum in value for both the user and the developer. Data should be kept private when it has value to the user. There is little harm in sharing the data with the developer when the user would deem it low value and the developer would deem it high value.
- kuratkull 6y ago
  It's pretty easy to understand what information is technically static and could be used to track you. Number of tabs: low possible range and pretty variable, even for tab hoarders, so it's low entropy information. Amount of RAM used in each open tab: that should be statistically significant and I'm pretty sure could be used to identify people if there are enough tabs open for a long enough period. When each tab was viewed: every (not-)clicked tab is a bit of information, you don't need much to narrow down a person. Interesting reading on de-anonymizing people on seemingly anonymized data: https://www.wired.com/2007/12/why-anonymous-data-sometimes-isnt/ https://www.wired.com/2007/12/why-anonymous-data-sometimes-i...

jstanley 6y ago

> our only visibility into whether or not a system is functioning healthily. Your problem here is viewing the end user's setup as part of your system. It's the user's private system -- why should you have any visibility into how it is functioning?

minsc__and__boo 6y ago
They said a system, not their system. Car computers report telemetry to mechanics, and given that digitization allows for economies of scale, this isn't that different.
- jstanley 6y ago
  > Car computers report telemetry to mechanics Yes -- and they shouldn't.
  - minsc__and__boo 6y ago
    Yes, they should. It assists with repairs, increases safety, leads to recalls, and in cars with GPS units, even reports road emergencies and saves lives. You can feel uncomfortable that this is happening, which is an entirely okay opinion to have, but when it comes to forcing that opinions on others, please don't. Imagine if we were debating the qualities of buttons because the Amish were uncomfortable using them.
    - martimarkov 6y ago
      Sure but Amish have the right to choose to use the button or not. You should have the option to opt-out. Or at least have that option until society says “well given how many life’s are save we need to collect this data from everyone”. But you’d get a say in that conversation as well.
      - minsc__and__boo 6y ago
        You can opt out, the exact same way. Don't buy a car that uses telemetry, just like you don't buy clothes that uses buttons.

sneak 6y ago

Telemetry is inherently bad if it's not done with the informed, opt-in consent of the end user whose data it's (mis)appropriating, oftentimes silently. There's no issue with opt-in telemetry, where the user says "yes, it's okay to track me". Invisible, silent, always-on telemetry is actually just spyware that's been mislabeled. Ultimately it's not the telemetry that's at issue: it's the unethical and selfish behavior of the software/device manufacturer. No sane or reasonable person thinks that an EULA is informed consent.

Lio 6y ago

For me, the point is really about control. These companies know people don’t actively want to be surveilled which is why they sneak this shit in instead of being upfront about it. If it was so great for consumers it would be an opt in not an opt out hidden behind a series of dark patterns. Even Apple switches Siri back on after every OS upgrade.