5 ms·
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
by 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 agoAny 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 agoYou 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.