3 ms·

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.

• 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?
        • inetknght 5y ago
          > merely responding with a "no" You need to improve your reading comprehension. > provide a commonly-accepted definition for "private information" that fully substantiates your claim I've already provided a definition of private information. You're rejecting it. > I never said that people shouldn't be able to opt-out, and I don't believe that, either. People shouldn't need to opt-out. People should need to opt-in if they want it. Opted-out should be the default state. > This is a fallacy - not all of these programs have telemetry. No of course not because some programs actually respect users' privacy. > 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? What buttons do you press? There's no harm in telling me. Do you use my music app? If I change the EULA on the app and then send an update to you, what data can I steal from your computer? Can I steal your bank account information? When are you asleep? Can I find out when the best time would be to port your phone number? When are you most likely to be at work and nowhere near home so that I can muck around your home computer without you bothering? What possible harm can come from Audacity developers holding private information? Clearly nothing at all. NO harm could ever ever come from knowing what software people use, or how they use it. Nope. Notta. Zip. Zilch. It's not harmful in any way. Speaking of which, what buttons do you press to unlock your phone?