3 ms·

This is not spying. The purpose of spying is to gain advantage over e.g enemies. There is no good faith. The purpose of telemetry is to collect some data abou

This is not spying. The purpose of spying is to gain advantage over e.g enemies. There is no good faith. The purpose of telemetry is to collect some data about how my product is used in order to make it better. Also telemetry is documented, so it is no secret, but it is just that users dont give a shit. Meanwhile spy tries to be undisclosed as long as possible. Intention makes difference

JohnFen 3y ago
> There is no good faith. We in the software industry have already burned that bridge. There's been so much abuse for so long that there can be no reasonable assumption of good faith. Trust now has to be proactively earned. > Intention makes difference I disagree. If some guy decided to follow you around and write down every place you go and when you go there, wouldn't you say he's spying on you? Even if he has no ill intent, you can clearly see him doing it, and he literally does nothing with the data he records? "Spying" is when you're collecting personal data without consent. What that data specifically is and what purpose it's to be put to don't enter into it. > Also telemetry is documented, so it is no secret An activity doesn't have to be secret to be spying. And sometimes telemetry is documented, but certainly not always. And often, even when it is, that "documentation" is buried and is hard to find. But regardless, simply documenting a thing is not equivalent to getting consent for the thing. Think of it this way... why is there so much resistance to getting consent to collect telemetry data? The most common answer I've seen to that question (from the pro-telemetry camp) is "because if we give people a choice, too many will decline to provide telemetry". Which means that they know that lots people don't want this data collected, but want it so badly that they don't care. How in the world is that not spying on people?

JohnFen 3y ago

> There is no good faith. We in the software industry have already burned that bridge. There's been so much abuse for so long that there can be no reasonable assumption of good faith. Trust now has to be proactively earned. > Intention makes difference I disagree. If some guy decided to follow you around and write down every place you go and when you go there, wouldn't you say he's spying on you? Even if he has no ill intent, you can clearly see him doing it, and he literally does nothing with the data he records? "Spying" is when you're collecting personal data without consent. What that data specifically is and what purpose it's to be put to don't enter into it. > Also telemetry is documented, so it is no secret An activity doesn't have to be secret to be spying. And sometimes telemetry is documented, but certainly not always. And often, even when it is, that "documentation" is buried and is hard to find. But regardless, simply documenting a thing is not equivalent to getting consent for the thing. Think of it this way... why is there so much resistance to getting consent to collect telemetry data? The most common answer I've seen to that question (from the pro-telemetry camp) is "because if we give people a choice, too many will decline to provide telemetry". Which means that they know that lots people don't want this data collected, but want it so badly that they don't care. How in the world is that not spying on people?