5 ms·

No software should look over your shoulder on your computer without explicitly asking to do so. This was flatly unacceptable, not all that long ago. I hate that

No software should look over your shoulder on your computer without explicitly asking to do so. This was flatly unacceptable, not all that long ago. I hate that the Overton window on this topic has shifted so far toward spying's side.

fouric 5y ago
Telemetry is not "looking over your shoulder", because that statement means that private data is being leaked, which is excluded by the definition of telemetry. Your statement is misleading and emotionally manipulative at best. You appear to be setting up a straw-man argument of what "telemetry" is, and then knocking it down again. Let me state it explicitly: "telemetry" does not include any personal data. Programs that collect "telemetry" that includes personal data are lying - and that has nothing to do with an actual argument about telemetry.
- inetknght 5y ago
  > which is excluded by the definition of telemetry Most users are simply incapable of understanding how the data can be used. They cannot agree to something they do not understand. What users do and how is being stolen and used for purposes that they do not agree to. The definition of private information is anything and everything that the user does. It's not a "data leak". It's straight up theft. Telemetry, by definition, is a theft of private information.
  - fouric 5y ago
    > The definition of private information is anything and everything that the user does. This is absolutely absurd and completely false. It is not private information that I am running a copy of Audacity or Firefox or Emacs (quite the opposite, I want people to know that I use the superior text editor), and neither does the same statement apply in real life - "anything and everything a human does IRL is private" is a similarly obviously false statement. > Telemetry, by definition, is a theft of private information. Again, false, because telemetry is defined as non-private data. Neither, in fact, does "telemetry" imply non-consent - you can have opt-out or opt-in telemetry, and either one can have a prompt that is shown to the user on program start-up.
    - inetknght 5y ago
      > This is absolutely absurd and completely false. No, it is neither absurd nor false. > It is not private information that I am running a copy of Audacity or Firefox or Emacs (quite the opposite, I want people to know that I use the superior text editor) That's your choice. But your choice should not be imposed upon others. Not everyone wants others to know what software they use. I don't want others to know whether I use Audacity or WinAmp or Clementine or VLC or Firefox or Chrome or Vivaldi or Opera or Emacs or vi or vim or TextEdit unless I specifically choose to tell them so. > and neither does the same statement apply in real life - "anything and everything a human does IRL is private" is a similarly obviously false statement. I didn't say anything and everything IRL. If you're in your own home then everything you do in your home should be private. Likewise when I'm using my own computer then everything I do in that computer should also be private.
      - fouric 5y ago
        > No, it is neither absurd nor false. Alright, because you don't seem interested in making an argument about this, and merely responding with a "no": provide a commonly-accepted definition for "private information" that fully substantiates your claim. > That's your choice. But your choice should not be imposed upon others. Nobody's choice is being imposed upon anybody? I never said that people shouldn't be able to opt-out, and I don't believe that, either. > I don't want others to know whether I use Audacity or WinAmp or Clementine or VLC or Firefox or Chrome or Vivaldi or Opera or Emacs or vi or vim or TextEdit unless I specifically choose to tell them so. This is a fallacy - not all of these programs have telemetry. > I didn't say anything and everything IRL. That's the real-life equivalent to your unfounded claim about the digital world. > If you're in your own home then everything you do in your home should be private. Likewise when I'm using my own computer then everything I do in that computer should also be private. I reject both your analogy, and your claim that things that you do on your computer are always "private" without further qualification. Instead, I ask you to tell me: what is the possible harm that can come from the Audacity developers (not the world in general) knowing that someone, somewhere is using Audacity, and what buttons they're clicking?
        5y ago

fouric 5y ago

Telemetry is not "looking over your shoulder", because that statement means that private data is being leaked, which is excluded by the definition of telemetry. Your statement is misleading and emotionally manipulative at best. You appear to be setting up a straw-man argument of what "telemetry" is, and then knocking it down again. Let me state it explicitly: "telemetry" does not include any personal data. Programs that collect "telemetry" that includes personal data are lying - and that has nothing to do with an actual argument about telemetry.

inetknght 5y ago
> which is excluded by the definition of telemetry Most users are simply incapable of understanding how the data can be used. They cannot agree to something they do not understand. What users do and how is being stolen and used for purposes that they do not agree to. The definition of private information is anything and everything that the user does. It's not a "data leak". It's straight up theft. Telemetry, by definition, is a theft of private information.
- fouric 5y ago
  > The definition of private information is anything and everything that the user does. This is absolutely absurd and completely false. It is not private information that I am running a copy of Audacity or Firefox or Emacs (quite the opposite, I want people to know that I use the superior text editor), and neither does the same statement apply in real life - "anything and everything a human does IRL is private" is a similarly obviously false statement. > Telemetry, by definition, is a theft of private information. Again, false, because telemetry is defined as non-private data. Neither, in fact, does "telemetry" imply non-consent - you can have opt-out or opt-in telemetry, and either one can have a prompt that is shown to the user on program start-up.
  - inetknght 5y ago
    > This is absolutely absurd and completely false. No, it is neither absurd nor false. > It is not private information that I am running a copy of Audacity or Firefox or Emacs (quite the opposite, I want people to know that I use the superior text editor) That's your choice. But your choice should not be imposed upon others. Not everyone wants others to know what software they use. I don't want others to know whether I use Audacity or WinAmp or Clementine or VLC or Firefox or Chrome or Vivaldi or Opera or Emacs or vi or vim or TextEdit unless I specifically choose to tell them so. > and neither does the same statement apply in real life - "anything and everything a human does IRL is private" is a similarly obviously false statement. I didn't say anything and everything IRL. If you're in your own home then everything you do in your home should be private. Likewise when I'm using my own computer then everything I do in that computer should also be private.
    - fouric 5y ago
      > No, it is neither absurd nor false. Alright, because you don't seem interested in making an argument about this, and merely responding with a "no": provide a commonly-accepted definition for "private information" that fully substantiates your claim. > That's your choice. But your choice should not be imposed upon others. Nobody's choice is being imposed upon anybody? I never said that people shouldn't be able to opt-out, and I don't believe that, either. > I don't want others to know whether I use Audacity or WinAmp or Clementine or VLC or Firefox or Chrome or Vivaldi or Opera or Emacs or vi or vim or TextEdit unless I specifically choose to tell them so. This is a fallacy - not all of these programs have telemetry. > I didn't say anything and everything IRL. That's the real-life equivalent to your unfounded claim about the digital world. > If you're in your own home then everything you do in your home should be private. Likewise when I'm using my own computer then everything I do in that computer should also be private. I reject both your analogy, and your claim that things that you do on your computer are always "private" without further qualification. Instead, I ask you to tell me: what is the possible harm that can come from the Audacity developers (not the world in general) knowing that someone, somewhere is using Audacity, and what buttons they're clicking?
      - 5y ago