> merely responding with a "no" You need to improve your reading comprehension. > provide a commonly-accepted definition for "private information" that fully

> 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?