3 ms·

I really like the other thread on the front page right now [1] that's very relevant but not quite the same thing, because it makes the more important point here

I really like the other thread on the front page right now [1] that's very relevant but not quite the same thing, because it makes the more important point here: this Privacy Policy change (aside from the provision barring children from using it) wasn't a big deal if you actually sat down and thought about it for a second, but the reputation of the Muse Group, and through them, Audacity, has fallen due to everything they've done, and I think it'll be very very hard to fix that now. Sure, they've "fixed" the privacy policy, but others on this thread have already brought up that one of their members is threatening an expat with deportation, and let's not forget the new CLA they made for Audacity. When people started forking Audacity over the privacy policy change I was surprised (in the "is this what it take for people to fork?" sense), but I sure hope those forks stick around and improve because I don't trust Audacity to not do stupid things again. 1: https://lwn.net/Articles/862073/ https://lwn.net/Articles/862073/, HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27926611 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27926611 E: A couple of edits to space stuff out and add links.

bscphil 5y ago
As someone accustomed to reading privacy policies, it was immediately obvious to me that this was the case. After the Audacity team got bought out (aquihired?), some lawyers from Muse had a look over the privacy policy and pointed out the obvious: that if a court ordered them to, they would have to turn over any information they had. So they added that to the policy. Perfectly boring stuff. Indeed, despite the massive amount of fearmongering I saw about it on Twitter, that appears to be what happened: > The most unclear and damaging part of the original document stated that we collect personal information “…necessary for law enforcement, litigation and authorities' requests (if any)”. This was interpreted to mean that we intended to collect and store unspecified additional information on top of the basic system information mentioned elsewhere in the privacy policy. This is not true, as could be seen through inspection of the source code and network analysis of the release binaries. However, we agree that the wording used in the old privacy policy made it sound like it might be true. We have now changed the wording to remove this source of confusion. To be clear, any organisation, if ordered by the court, is required to cooperate with an investigation, and doing otherwise is considered to be an obstruction of justice. These are not the rules we create, these are the requirements we must follow. However, we would only be able to provide the specific information mentioned in the privacy policy (outlined below) and nothing more. On the other hand, I 100% agree with everything else you've said about Muse: they appear to be deeply untrustworthy and have a deservedly bad reputation for some of the stuff they've done. Likewise, I hope a community fork takes off and succeeds. Sometimes an issue like this is the straw that breaks the camel's back. Similarly, resentment stewed among contributors toward OpenOffice before it was forked, and that turned out to be a massive success.
- tommiegannert 5y ago
  From the apology, it sounds like the privacy policy was updated by lawyers, for lawyers. I think Muse group just learned that the readers are not (and should not have to be) lawyers, so having a copywriter sit in the middle would be useful.
  - teknopaul 5y ago
    New terms still say we reserve the right to use Audacity (which is a sound wave editor) to collect information. No one wants Adacity to phone home any more than they want grep to phone home. For whatever reason. You cannot polish a turd.

bscphil 5y ago

As someone accustomed to reading privacy policies, it was immediately obvious to me that this was the case. After the Audacity team got bought out (aquihired?), some lawyers from Muse had a look over the privacy policy and pointed out the obvious: that if a court ordered them to, they would have to turn over any information they had. So they added that to the policy. Perfectly boring stuff. Indeed, despite the massive amount of fearmongering I saw about it on Twitter, that appears to be what happened: > The most unclear and damaging part of the original document stated that we collect personal information “…necessary for law enforcement, litigation and authorities' requests (if any)”. This was interpreted to mean that we intended to collect and store unspecified additional information on top of the basic system information mentioned elsewhere in the privacy policy. This is not true, as could be seen through inspection of the source code and network analysis of the release binaries. However, we agree that the wording used in the old privacy policy made it sound like it might be true. We have now changed the wording to remove this source of confusion. To be clear, any organisation, if ordered by the court, is required to cooperate with an investigation, and doing otherwise is considered to be an obstruction of justice. These are not the rules we create, these are the requirements we must follow. However, we would only be able to provide the specific information mentioned in the privacy policy (outlined below) and nothing more. On the other hand, I 100% agree with everything else you've said about Muse: they appear to be deeply untrustworthy and have a deservedly bad reputation for some of the stuff they've done. Likewise, I hope a community fork takes off and succeeds. Sometimes an issue like this is the straw that breaks the camel's back. Similarly, resentment stewed among contributors toward OpenOffice before it was forked, and that turned out to be a massive success.

tommiegannert 5y ago
From the apology, it sounds like the privacy policy was updated by lawyers, for lawyers. I think Muse group just learned that the readers are not (and should not have to be) lawyers, so having a copywriter sit in the middle would be useful.
- teknopaul 5y ago
  New terms still say we reserve the right to use Audacity (which is a sound wave editor) to collect information. No one wants Adacity to phone home any more than they want grep to phone home. For whatever reason. You cannot polish a turd.