I am not. Please re-read. While privacy is always an issue, notice I even directly said I'd willingly enable telemetry for some software (as a means of disambig

I am not. Please re-read. While privacy is always an issue, notice I even directly said I'd willingly enable telemetry for some software (as a means of disambiguation and explanation of my stance), amongst other caveats. However, what I do not stand for is auto-updates without my explicit knowledge and explicit consent, because it regularly messes up my... well, my "anything and everything". (Insert specific xkcd instance about breaking-workflow here.) Therefore, due to personally-experienced and ever-widening common abuse of the mechanic (and ever-encroaching march on my privacy and rights on & from all fronts), I am less and less willing to even consider giving the pieces of software I actually enjoy the benefit of the doubt (aka useful telemetry). Please notice - my original reply was (exclusively) addressing the specific portion of one of the preceeding user's comments "pushing" for the auto-update mechanism as mandatory (and not to the Audacity's issues/attempt/approach specifically). From my perspective, it seems that you and the previous commenter are addressing my replies as a full and all-encompassing description of the whole of my approach and practices (and I have specifically said that isn't the case in the comment above this one). Additionally, there is an assuming of the non-use of any (or a combination, or all) of the myriad of the additional layers of protection available to any semi-advanced user [e.g. Tor, purpose-configured browser, proxy, VPN, etc.] while obtaining the software in the first place (and/or subsequent instances), and that the software in question could be "gotten" from alternative and directly unrelated locations if need be. If true, that assumption would be in error.