8 ms·

You're framing this as though the "ethical" choice were obvious, or that there was a person who "knew this was the ethical thing to do, but turned a blind eye".

You're framing this as though the "ethical" choice were obvious, or that there was a person who "knew this was the ethical thing to do, but turned a blind eye". I disagree, I think it's a very contested topic, with lots of discussion whenever it's raised here, with either side possibly being a vocal minority.

atahanacar 4y ago
[flagged]
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  This is a very extreme position. It's hard to take you seriously when your comment doesn't have any nuance.
  - atahanacar 4y ago
    Finding the collection of a person's data without consent unethical is not an "extreme position". Since when "consent" or more correctly "autonomy of individual" is called "extreme"? If you did the same thing in my field (medicine), you would lose your license.
    - philosopher1234 4y ago
      I agree, that's not what I think was extreme about your position. I think you've invented straw men in this comment and your previous comment.
      - atahanacar 4y ago
        Reading your comment again, I can see it now. I misinterpreted "knew this was the ethical thing to do, but turned a blind eye" as "knew there was an ethical problem, but turned a blind eye". Turns out, my straw man can't read.
        philosopher1234 4y ago
        Props to you for saying so publicly! I'm not sure if you're unusually open or if I just found the right words to persuade you, but this is a first for me :)
- JohnFen 4y ago
  I agree that opt-out is a Bad Thing, but I disagree with this stance. And I think lots of people in the pro-telemetry camp see that there's an ethical issue to be discussed, but they reach a different conclusion. They shouldn't be dismissed so glibly.
  - atahanacar 4y ago
    Reaching a different conclusion is one thing, but not seeing a dilemma is another. One can always argue that invading a person's autonomy might be necessary given the benefits but seeing no issue is just turning a blind eye.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      In the Golang announcements, it's clear that they completely see and understand the dilemma, and have provided a lengthy explanation of why they decided for opt-out anyway. I respect that. I don't agree with the decision, but it was made with understanding and thought.
      - atahanacar 4y ago
        I made my original comment misunderstanding what the parent comment meant as "not knowing an ethical problem exists". I also am not talking about this specific decision, but criticizing ethical decision making in the tech industry in general. In ethics, there is no right or wrong answers (mostly), just right and wrong methodologies. If you go the pragmatic way, you'd argue that the benefits of telemetry are greater than the downsides and implement it. If you go Kant's way, you would already have a maxim (either "never invade privacy" or "prioritize technical benefits regardless of the users" in this case) and act according to that maxim regardless of the situation. If you go the intent way, all that matters is whether your intent for the action is good or bad, in contrast if you go the outcome way, all that matters is the outcome regardless of the intent or the methods. These are all "valid" ways to discuss an ethical dilemma. However, one must always acknowledge the dilemma. This industry, especially big tech, seems to ignore this quite often, mostly because it's very easy to see people as "just numbers" when you don't see them directly. Don't even get me started on lawmakers who are also ignoring this whole issue. Many standard practices in this industry would be straight up illegal in lots of other areas, especially where there is face-to-face contact.
mort96 4y ago
Spying on people without their consent is not ethical.
- 0x6c6f6c 4y ago
  Is it not consent if you tell the user that it's on, how to turn it off, and the user confirms the prompt having decided to not disable telemetry? Because that's how OP framed it. There is an ethical way to track how your app is used, with user consent.
  - mort96 4y ago
    Putting text on the screen which would inform the user if the user was to read and comprehend it is not consent, no. (I mean, try to apply that logic to any other situation. You put a post-it note somewhere noticeable which says that you will silently mix some medication into your coworker's lunch unless they write some text on another post-it note placed on the kitchen fridge. When you then notice the absence of that second post-it note, and mix in some medication into their food, is that "consent"?) Furthermore, looking at the asciinema from OctoSQL, users apparently have to edit their profile files on every single machine they intend to use Go on, then remember to verify that the profile applies and has no typos, make sure to never ever accidentally run the program in a context where environment variables aren't respected (would you remember to always use `sudo -E` if you need to use the tool as another user for example?). The danger seems extremely high that the user would, at some point, accidentally run the command without the env var set, even if they were technically proficient and did their best to opt out. This is not how consent works.
  - ragall 4y ago
    No because consent is required for it to be on in the first place.
- badrequest 4y ago
  How would you use compiler telemetry to spy on people?
  - 4y ago
ergonaught 4y ago
The ethical choice is obvious. The distinction is between "What I do with my computer is none of your business unless I choose to make it your business" versus "What I do with my computer is your business unless I choose to not make it your business". It's insane that we are still having to justify privacy as a default, or that people continue to rationalize away the concerns. Yeah, maybe if it's opt-in they won't have much telemetry data. Perhaps, in fact, it would not be much better than having no data at all. That will make some things harder. Major bummer. If it was easy to do the right thing, more companies would do it.
- eps 4y ago
  > It's insane that we are still having to justify privacy as a default Half of the HN is in love with Chrome and nearly all are on Gmail. The relentless drive towards the erosion of privacy powered by free carrots worked. There is now a whole generation of people that sees all this as a norm.
- Faark 4y ago
  Any program is opt-in, so you just don't have to use it. Mayor bummer. Assuming data collection is properly disclosed, ofc, but i don't see anyone here arguing against that. The "there shouldn't be any" argument just seems so entitled with there being such demand / reasons to do so. I applaud everyone trying to find ways to satisfy both sides, as done by the original article.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    You can't satisfy both sides by completely ignoring one side. "What I do on my machine is none of your business, unless I decide it's your business" is a strong argument, presented multiple times in multiple places, and I haven't seen any rebuttal by any Go representative. You can ignore the community and do whatever is good for business, but it's hypocritical to pretend you're a "community-driven" project if you do that.

atahanacar 4y ago

[flagged]

philosopher1234 4y ago
This is a very extreme position. It's hard to take you seriously when your comment doesn't have any nuance.
- atahanacar 4y ago
  Finding the collection of a person's data without consent unethical is not an "extreme position". Since when "consent" or more correctly "autonomy of individual" is called "extreme"? If you did the same thing in my field (medicine), you would lose your license.
  - philosopher1234 4y ago
    I agree, that's not what I think was extreme about your position. I think you've invented straw men in this comment and your previous comment.
    - atahanacar 4y ago
      Reading your comment again, I can see it now. I misinterpreted "knew this was the ethical thing to do, but turned a blind eye" as "knew there was an ethical problem, but turned a blind eye". Turns out, my straw man can't read.
      - philosopher1234 4y ago
        Props to you for saying so publicly! I'm not sure if you're unusually open or if I just found the right words to persuade you, but this is a first for me :)
JohnFen 4y ago
I agree that opt-out is a Bad Thing, but I disagree with this stance. And I think lots of people in the pro-telemetry camp see that there's an ethical issue to be discussed, but they reach a different conclusion. They shouldn't be dismissed so glibly.
- atahanacar 4y ago
  Reaching a different conclusion is one thing, but not seeing a dilemma is another. One can always argue that invading a person's autonomy might be necessary given the benefits but seeing no issue is just turning a blind eye.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    In the Golang announcements, it's clear that they completely see and understand the dilemma, and have provided a lengthy explanation of why they decided for opt-out anyway. I respect that. I don't agree with the decision, but it was made with understanding and thought.
    - atahanacar 4y ago
      I made my original comment misunderstanding what the parent comment meant as "not knowing an ethical problem exists". I also am not talking about this specific decision, but criticizing ethical decision making in the tech industry in general. In ethics, there is no right or wrong answers (mostly), just right and wrong methodologies. If you go the pragmatic way, you'd argue that the benefits of telemetry are greater than the downsides and implement it. If you go Kant's way, you would already have a maxim (either "never invade privacy" or "prioritize technical benefits regardless of the users" in this case) and act according to that maxim regardless of the situation. If you go the intent way, all that matters is whether your intent for the action is good or bad, in contrast if you go the outcome way, all that matters is the outcome regardless of the intent or the methods. These are all "valid" ways to discuss an ethical dilemma. However, one must always acknowledge the dilemma. This industry, especially big tech, seems to ignore this quite often, mostly because it's very easy to see people as "just numbers" when you don't see them directly. Don't even get me started on lawmakers who are also ignoring this whole issue. Many standard practices in this industry would be straight up illegal in lots of other areas, especially where there is face-to-face contact.

mort96 4y ago

Spying on people without their consent is not ethical.

0x6c6f6c 4y ago
Is it not consent if you tell the user that it's on, how to turn it off, and the user confirms the prompt having decided to not disable telemetry? Because that's how OP framed it. There is an ethical way to track how your app is used, with user consent.
- mort96 4y ago
  Putting text on the screen which would inform the user if the user was to read and comprehend it is not consent, no. (I mean, try to apply that logic to any other situation. You put a post-it note somewhere noticeable which says that you will silently mix some medication into your coworker's lunch unless they write some text on another post-it note placed on the kitchen fridge. When you then notice the absence of that second post-it note, and mix in some medication into their food, is that "consent"?) Furthermore, looking at the asciinema from OctoSQL, users apparently have to edit their profile files on every single machine they intend to use Go on, then remember to verify that the profile applies and has no typos, make sure to never ever accidentally run the program in a context where environment variables aren't respected (would you remember to always use `sudo -E` if you need to use the tool as another user for example?). The danger seems extremely high that the user would, at some point, accidentally run the command without the env var set, even if they were technically proficient and did their best to opt out. This is not how consent works.
- ragall 4y ago
  No because consent is required for it to be on in the first place.
badrequest 4y ago
How would you use compiler telemetry to spy on people?
- 4y ago

ergonaught 4y ago

The ethical choice is obvious. The distinction is between "What I do with my computer is none of your business unless I choose to make it your business" versus "What I do with my computer is your business unless I choose to not make it your business". It's insane that we are still having to justify privacy as a default, or that people continue to rationalize away the concerns. Yeah, maybe if it's opt-in they won't have much telemetry data. Perhaps, in fact, it would not be much better than having no data at all. That will make some things harder. Major bummer. If it was easy to do the right thing, more companies would do it.

eps 4y ago
> It's insane that we are still having to justify privacy as a default Half of the HN is in love with Chrome and nearly all are on Gmail. The relentless drive towards the erosion of privacy powered by free carrots worked. There is now a whole generation of people that sees all this as a norm.
Faark 4y ago
Any program is opt-in, so you just don't have to use it. Mayor bummer. Assuming data collection is properly disclosed, ofc, but i don't see anyone here arguing against that. The "there shouldn't be any" argument just seems so entitled with there being such demand / reasons to do so. I applaud everyone trying to find ways to satisfy both sides, as done by the original article.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  You can't satisfy both sides by completely ignoring one side. "What I do on my machine is none of your business, unless I decide it's your business" is a strong argument, presented multiple times in multiple places, and I haven't seen any rebuttal by any Go representative. You can ignore the community and do whatever is good for business, but it's hypocritical to pretend you're a "community-driven" project if you do that.