8 ms·

This is nice: https://github.com/M66B/FairEmail/blob/master/PRIVACY.md#summary-of-shared-data https://github.com/M66B/FairEmail/blob/master/PRIVACY.md#sum...

This is nice: https://github.com/M66B/FairEmail/blob/master/PRIVACY.md#summary-of-shared-data https://github.com/M66B/FairEmail/blob/master/PRIVACY.md#sum... Albeit I am undecided whether we should really force every FLOSS developer to create a table like this, apparently Google has decided that yes, we do.

duskwuff 4y ago
> Albeit I am undecided whether we should really force every FLOSS developer to create a table like this I don't see any reason why open-source software should get a free pass on privacy issues.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  I think it depends more on the business model. If an open source project is really just somebody releasing their own code, they don't have any obligation at all to the end user. If a business is releasing open source code and has some business model that ultimately turns that into profit (even indirectly, for example via selling your private info), then they have an moral obligation to be clear on how they are making money. On the other hand, the app stores have no obligation to host projects generally.
  - usr1106 4y ago
    The Google app store has an interest to publish all kind of apps, FOSS or not. It supports their "the customer is the product" business model. Apple has an interest to publish the same apps. It supports their "keep the users in the walled garden" business model. Both form an unhealty duopoly from both app developers and end users point of view. Saying they have no obligation to host an app might be correct, but it's a very limited perspective of the whole situation.
  - pmontra 4y ago
    If they release the source and I'm building the app, maybe you're right but it would be nice to know how they it handles privacy without having to read every single line. If they distribute the app there is little difference from a closed source install. Again, "read the code and learn what we do about privacy" would be pretty hostile.
  - ggeorgovassilis 4y ago
    > I think it depends more on the business model. In this case it doesn't. I also can't give away meth for free. Distribution of an app that processes personal data without a valid data privacy statement is illegal in the EU and could get the author and/or github into trouble unless they implement an export restriction (eg. EULA that prohibits distribution in the EU).
    - jhgb 4y ago
      > Distribution of an app that processes personal data without a valid data privacy statement is illegal in the EU Is that really true? For example data processors are bound by GDPR but I don't see how the author of this application is a data processor (or a data controller). In fact I'm not sure that legally "app that processes personal data" is the correct description here, considering the very specific meaning of "to process" in this context. If an email client run by a user on his own machine with no involvement of the vendor of that software requires "a valid data privacy statement", then so does probably the user's keyboard driver. And the text formatting engine. And the networking stack. Etc. etc.
      - ggeorgovassilis 4y ago
        > Is that really true? Best I can do is offer my interpretation. GDPR applies to "[...] the processing of personal data wholly or partly by automated means" [1]. I take "automated means" to include this app. So when this app runs and processes EU citizens' data, the law applies. But to what or whom... > I don't see how the author of this application is a data processor (or a data controller) ... I understand as follows: things are generally not responsible under the law, their owners and creators are. If I install and use a software, the GDPR entitles me to knowledge of its personal data processing capabilities if it processes personal data, which this app seems to do. As the GDPR evolved from consumer protection law, I'll employ an analogy: if I win a free vacuum cleaner in a raffle, the product still needs to include a safety guide - the manufacturer or distributor can't delegate safety responsibility to me. GDPR is about personal data safety. > If an email client run by a user on his own machine with no involvement of the vendor of that software requires "a valid data privacy statement" Conversely, at least one mainstream email client comes with a data privacy statement [2]. Which doesn't prove my point, it might be just ass-covering. > then so does probably the user's keyboard driver. Maybe the operating system's data privacy statement covers this? Otherwise that reasoning appears sound. [1] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-2-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-2-gdpr/ [2] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/thunderbird/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/thunderbird/
- freedomben 4y ago
  "open source" isn't a very helpful label/designation IMHO with regards to this. "Open source" can describe somebody's hacked together personal project or AOSP, which are wildly different.
0des 4y ago
I dont think anybody should be forced to do anything, but dang I sure would love to have this for basically any net or storage facing program I run.
jasonjayr 4y ago
If every app had a clear table like that, that'd actually would be the bee's knees. Especially if it was front-and-center. Imagine if every code library came with a structure that documented that too (ie, for 3rd party libraries that link to 3rd party services), so the table could be someone automatically generated. It's akin go a standard privacy "Nutritional Label" that only exists due to forced regulation, and not industry agreement.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  This is what Apple has/is moving toward and yet they get ripped to shreds here and on reddit. As an iOS user, I want even stronger privacy control and disclosures; the current Apple disclosure requirement is still pretty vague. However, it is really nice seeing apps that say "this developer does not collect any user information."
  - onphonenow 4y ago
    yeah, there is a big split happening I think between what users want and what other businesses / developers want here.
  - lukeschlather 4y ago
    F-Droid is set up better than Apple or Google but it's illegal for me to install F-Droid on an iPhone and while it's legal to install F-Droid on Android Google has intentionally made it unusable without rooting your phone.
    - benoliver999 4y ago
      I've always used it on phones without root. Does it not work any more?
      - mccorrinall 4y ago
        It works, but you have to install each app update manually I think.
Animats 4y ago
I want to see similar tables for Google products.
- minsc_and_boo 4y ago
  Play data safety [1] should technically do that to a degree, but it's far too generic IMO. [1] https://blog.google/products/google-play/data-safety/ https://blog.google/products/google-play/data-safety/
- dheatov 4y ago
  Me too. But it will be 397 pages long and most of us still can't stop using it because we live in a society.
  - thayne 4y ago
    The point is that Google is holding this open source app up to a higher standard than its own email app.
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      Is it? Google would have been fine if FairEmail presented the same data privacy disclosures that its apps and all other apps on the Play Store present. The problem seems to be that the standard data privacy disclosures are too vague (just what data is collected and not what the data is used for), which presents FairEmail in a bad light because it looks no better than alternatives. FairEmail went beyond the standard disclosures in order to explain why it is not so bad.
  - quantum_magpie 4y ago
    And also if you stop using it you need to [buy an apple product/root your phone(and then your bank apps don't work)/stop using phones altogether(which doesn't go well pretty much anywhere[•])]. So there's really only the option to give up your privacy to either google or apple. [•] I personally lasted two months without a phone once (2016 Japan), since 80% of services would outright refuse you if you didn't have one, while the rest would pester and harrass you extensively before finally giving in.
richardfey 4y ago
Yes. Everyone should. Even the author has become more conscious about PIIs after this incident.
g_p 4y ago
I think transparency is always good, although one worry I do have is that forcing benign declarations (i.e. what amounts to disclosing that when you turn on X, it does X), creates something similar to "alert fatigue". People don't read privacy policies. A privacy preserving app that has to put a long-winded policy, despite not leeching your data, becomes even harder to distinguish from a cloud-based email app that scans all your emails, and holds your email usernames and passwords, and harvests contact-name pairings and sells email signature contact info and job titles to lead-harvesting data brokers. I don't know if that's the best outcome for users, as it might make every policy look the same (long, complex, and wordy, with scary legal language they are forced to add by the platform gatekeeper).
- brewdad 4y ago
  >I think transparency is always good, although one worry I do have is that forcing benign declarations (i.e. what amounts to disclosing that when you turn on X, it does X), creates something similar to "alert fatigue". My favorite unnecessary warning label is the one on the bag of frozen shrimp I bought at Costco. There's a government mandated "Warning: Contains shellfish (shrimp)" Thanks.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- jacksnipe 4y ago
  I don’t think this is about alerting users where data is going proactively; I think this is about having an accounting of where data is being sent, so that we can answer questions about data flows after the fact.
bee_rider 4y ago
Lots of open source code is released without any profit motive. This sort of code is probably not a huge vector for privacy violations, but we should be clear that the authors are just doing a nice favor to society and owe us nothing. Should the authors of wget have to describe the fact that communicating on the internet requires talking to servers, and if you use domain names, you'll also have to leak information to DNS servers?
jacksnipe 4y ago
Privacy is so fucking hard. At the end of the day, one of the hardest and most subtle things about it is that expectations (in the form of regulations or just how users think things work) can change in the future, and it means once-mundane decisions that you made are now sending data somewhere it doesn’t belong. Ultimately, I think that the only solution is going to be a table like this for every product, everywhere: we need to know EVERYTHING that is sent over the wire, WHERE we are sending it, and WHY/WHEN we are sending it. At least then we have all the info we need to look backwards and understand what happened to the data when the landscape inevitably changes.
jedahan 4y ago
Let's start with Google holding their own software and services accountable to this level of readability and detail.
shapefrog 4y ago
What I dont understand in all this is that the developer knew this was the issue - and was adamant that they would not update their disclosures. Then google contacted them directly and they un-quit disclosed the workflow of users data and is back in business.
1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
"The services of all sub-processors are disabled by default. The data subject's data is sent to and processed by sub-processors if and only if explicitly enabled or requested by the data subject." Let's be honest. This author is going much further than Google in protecting user privacy.
Vladimof 4y ago
They do share a lot of data....

duskwuff 4y ago

> Albeit I am undecided whether we should really force every FLOSS developer to create a table like this I don't see any reason why open-source software should get a free pass on privacy issues.

bee_rider 4y ago
I think it depends more on the business model. If an open source project is really just somebody releasing their own code, they don't have any obligation at all to the end user. If a business is releasing open source code and has some business model that ultimately turns that into profit (even indirectly, for example via selling your private info), then they have an moral obligation to be clear on how they are making money. On the other hand, the app stores have no obligation to host projects generally.
- usr1106 4y ago
  The Google app store has an interest to publish all kind of apps, FOSS or not. It supports their "the customer is the product" business model. Apple has an interest to publish the same apps. It supports their "keep the users in the walled garden" business model. Both form an unhealty duopoly from both app developers and end users point of view. Saying they have no obligation to host an app might be correct, but it's a very limited perspective of the whole situation.
- pmontra 4y ago
  If they release the source and I'm building the app, maybe you're right but it would be nice to know how they it handles privacy without having to read every single line. If they distribute the app there is little difference from a closed source install. Again, "read the code and learn what we do about privacy" would be pretty hostile.
- ggeorgovassilis 4y ago
  > I think it depends more on the business model. In this case it doesn't. I also can't give away meth for free. Distribution of an app that processes personal data without a valid data privacy statement is illegal in the EU and could get the author and/or github into trouble unless they implement an export restriction (eg. EULA that prohibits distribution in the EU).
  - jhgb 4y ago
    > Distribution of an app that processes personal data without a valid data privacy statement is illegal in the EU Is that really true? For example data processors are bound by GDPR but I don't see how the author of this application is a data processor (or a data controller). In fact I'm not sure that legally "app that processes personal data" is the correct description here, considering the very specific meaning of "to process" in this context. If an email client run by a user on his own machine with no involvement of the vendor of that software requires "a valid data privacy statement", then so does probably the user's keyboard driver. And the text formatting engine. And the networking stack. Etc. etc.
    - ggeorgovassilis 4y ago
      > Is that really true? Best I can do is offer my interpretation. GDPR applies to "[...] the processing of personal data wholly or partly by automated means" [1]. I take "automated means" to include this app. So when this app runs and processes EU citizens' data, the law applies. But to what or whom... > I don't see how the author of this application is a data processor (or a data controller) ... I understand as follows: things are generally not responsible under the law, their owners and creators are. If I install and use a software, the GDPR entitles me to knowledge of its personal data processing capabilities if it processes personal data, which this app seems to do. As the GDPR evolved from consumer protection law, I'll employ an analogy: if I win a free vacuum cleaner in a raffle, the product still needs to include a safety guide - the manufacturer or distributor can't delegate safety responsibility to me. GDPR is about personal data safety. > If an email client run by a user on his own machine with no involvement of the vendor of that software requires "a valid data privacy statement" Conversely, at least one mainstream email client comes with a data privacy statement [2]. Which doesn't prove my point, it might be just ass-covering. > then so does probably the user's keyboard driver. Maybe the operating system's data privacy statement covers this? Otherwise that reasoning appears sound. [1] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-2-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-2-gdpr/ [2] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/thunderbird/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/thunderbird/
freedomben 4y ago
"open source" isn't a very helpful label/designation IMHO with regards to this. "Open source" can describe somebody's hacked together personal project or AOSP, which are wildly different.

0des 4y ago

I dont think anybody should be forced to do anything, but dang I sure would love to have this for basically any net or storage facing program I run.

jasonjayr 4y ago

If every app had a clear table like that, that'd actually would be the bee's knees. Especially if it was front-and-center. Imagine if every code library came with a structure that documented that too (ie, for 3rd party libraries that link to 3rd party services), so the table could be someone automatically generated. It's akin go a standard privacy "Nutritional Label" that only exists due to forced regulation, and not industry agreement.

KennyBlanken 4y ago
This is what Apple has/is moving toward and yet they get ripped to shreds here and on reddit. As an iOS user, I want even stronger privacy control and disclosures; the current Apple disclosure requirement is still pretty vague. However, it is really nice seeing apps that say "this developer does not collect any user information."
- onphonenow 4y ago
  yeah, there is a big split happening I think between what users want and what other businesses / developers want here.
- lukeschlather 4y ago
  F-Droid is set up better than Apple or Google but it's illegal for me to install F-Droid on an iPhone and while it's legal to install F-Droid on Android Google has intentionally made it unusable without rooting your phone.
  - benoliver999 4y ago
    I've always used it on phones without root. Does it not work any more?
    - mccorrinall 4y ago
      It works, but you have to install each app update manually I think.

Animats 4y ago

I want to see similar tables for Google products.

minsc_and_boo 4y ago
Play data safety [1] should technically do that to a degree, but it's far too generic IMO. [1] https://blog.google/products/google-play/data-safety/ https://blog.google/products/google-play/data-safety/
dheatov 4y ago
Me too. But it will be 397 pages long and most of us still can't stop using it because we live in a society.
- thayne 4y ago
  The point is that Google is holding this open source app up to a higher standard than its own email app.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    Is it? Google would have been fine if FairEmail presented the same data privacy disclosures that its apps and all other apps on the Play Store present. The problem seems to be that the standard data privacy disclosures are too vague (just what data is collected and not what the data is used for), which presents FairEmail in a bad light because it looks no better than alternatives. FairEmail went beyond the standard disclosures in order to explain why it is not so bad.
- quantum_magpie 4y ago
  And also if you stop using it you need to [buy an apple product/root your phone(and then your bank apps don't work)/stop using phones altogether(which doesn't go well pretty much anywhere[•])]. So there's really only the option to give up your privacy to either google or apple. [•] I personally lasted two months without a phone once (2016 Japan), since 80% of services would outright refuse you if you didn't have one, while the rest would pester and harrass you extensively before finally giving in.

richardfey 4y ago

Yes. Everyone should. Even the author has become more conscious about PIIs after this incident.

g_p 4y ago

I think transparency is always good, although one worry I do have is that forcing benign declarations (i.e. what amounts to disclosing that when you turn on X, it does X), creates something similar to "alert fatigue". People don't read privacy policies. A privacy preserving app that has to put a long-winded policy, despite not leeching your data, becomes even harder to distinguish from a cloud-based email app that scans all your emails, and holds your email usernames and passwords, and harvests contact-name pairings and sells email signature contact info and job titles to lead-harvesting data brokers. I don't know if that's the best outcome for users, as it might make every policy look the same (long, complex, and wordy, with scary legal language they are forced to add by the platform gatekeeper).

brewdad 4y ago
>I think transparency is always good, although one worry I do have is that forcing benign declarations (i.e. what amounts to disclosing that when you turn on X, it does X), creates something similar to "alert fatigue". My favorite unnecessary warning label is the one on the bag of frozen shrimp I bought at Costco. There's a government mandated "Warning: Contains shellfish (shrimp)" Thanks.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jacksnipe 4y ago
I don’t think this is about alerting users where data is going proactively; I think this is about having an accounting of where data is being sent, so that we can answer questions about data flows after the fact.

bee_rider 4y ago

Lots of open source code is released without any profit motive. This sort of code is probably not a huge vector for privacy violations, but we should be clear that the authors are just doing a nice favor to society and owe us nothing. Should the authors of wget have to describe the fact that communicating on the internet requires talking to servers, and if you use domain names, you'll also have to leak information to DNS servers?

jacksnipe 4y ago

Privacy is so fucking hard. At the end of the day, one of the hardest and most subtle things about it is that expectations (in the form of regulations or just how users think things work) can change in the future, and it means once-mundane decisions that you made are now sending data somewhere it doesn’t belong. Ultimately, I think that the only solution is going to be a table like this for every product, everywhere: we need to know EVERYTHING that is sent over the wire, WHERE we are sending it, and WHY/WHEN we are sending it. At least then we have all the info we need to look backwards and understand what happened to the data when the landscape inevitably changes.

jedahan 4y ago

Let's start with Google holding their own software and services accountable to this level of readability and detail.

shapefrog 4y ago

What I dont understand in all this is that the developer knew this was the issue - and was adamant that they would not update their disclosures. Then google contacted them directly and they un-quit disclosed the workflow of users data and is back in business.

1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago

"The services of all sub-processors are disabled by default. The data subject's data is sent to and processed by sub-processors if and only if explicitly enabled or requested by the data subject." Let's be honest. This author is going much further than Google in protecting user privacy.

Vladimof 4y ago

They do share a lot of data....