4 ms·

> There is a big difference between tracking to try to understand how users are using a software or getting information on bugs and crashes, and tracking with t

by sneak 3y ago

> There is a big difference between tracking to try to understand how users are using a software or getting information on bugs and crashes, and tracking with the aim of monetizing personal data. I don't see the difference. In one case you are trying to improve your product using stolen data (which presumably results in your user sat scores and/or userbase going up and you continuing to receive a paycheck, ie monetization), and in the other case you are just selling the stolen data directly. In both cases you are taking private data without consent and using it to get money, or money-equivalent things (like a better product or more users). Technically and philosophically there is absolutely no distinguishing feature between opt-out "telemetry" and spyware. Both are using private user activity information, exfiltrated silently and without affirmative consent.

maccard 3y ago
Like the argument with copyright, it's not theft. It's only theft if the user is deprived of something. > In both cases you are taking private data without consent and using it to get money, or money-equivalent things (like a better product or more users) This is just word salad. Opting in is consent. You are absolutely free to opt out, by following the clear instructions on the website [0], and you can continue to use the software. Your rights are being deprived here. Secondly, "money equivalent things" is a reductionist argument. Not everything fits neatly into a black and white "right" and "wrong" bucket, and arguing it does is forgetting about the fact that technology doesn't exist in a vacuum any more than any other product or industry. > Technically and philosophically there is absolutely no distinguishing feature between opt-out "telemetry" and spyware. Technically there's no difference between me sending any kind of data to a remote service. Using rote logic to infer behaviour is a fallacy, and when I read comments like this I end up (unfortunately) coming away thinking "this person has no critical thinking skills". I'm aware it's an ad-hominem, but logically there's no other explanation other than you can't possibly understand anything other than your narrow world view. [0] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/telemetry-clientid https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/telemetry-clientid
taway1237 3y ago
Spyware exists primarily to steal data, firefox also has "some" other uses. Calling firefox "spyware" dilutes the meaning by implying it's somehow similar to actual spyware.
kaba0 3y ago
It is human psychology 101 that the default option is chosen in order of magnitudes more cases -- people are lazy. Should they really just let all that usability statistics be lost, even though their owner would more than likely be fine with its usage in most cases? Are countries with opt-out organ donation also evil? Doesn't the litany of saved lives worth more than a post-death "inconvenience"?
- sneak 3y ago
  > Should they really just let all that usability statistics be lost, even though their owner would more than likely be fine with its usage in most cases? Yes, 100%. They should not exfiltrate data without consent. If the owner is fine with it, they can just ask! (I'll let you in on a secret: they don't ask because most users, when asked, do not want to be placed under surveillance!) > Are countries with opt-out organ donation also evil? Doesn't the litany of saved lives worth more than a post-death "inconvenience"? You don't need your organs when you are dead. You do need your privacy when you are alive.

by sneak 3y ago

maccard 3y ago

Like the argument with copyright, it's not theft. It's only theft if the user is deprived of something. > In both cases you are taking private data without consent and using it to get money, or money-equivalent things (like a better product or more users) This is just word salad. Opting in is consent. You are absolutely free to opt out, by following the clear instructions on the website [0], and you can continue to use the software. Your rights are being deprived here. Secondly, "money equivalent things" is a reductionist argument. Not everything fits neatly into a black and white "right" and "wrong" bucket, and arguing it does is forgetting about the fact that technology doesn't exist in a vacuum any more than any other product or industry. > Technically and philosophically there is absolutely no distinguishing feature between opt-out "telemetry" and spyware. Technically there's no difference between me sending any kind of data to a remote service. Using rote logic to infer behaviour is a fallacy, and when I read comments like this I end up (unfortunately) coming away thinking "this person has no critical thinking skills". I'm aware it's an ad-hominem, but logically there's no other explanation other than you can't possibly understand anything other than your narrow world view. [0] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/telemetry-clientid https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/telemetry-clientid

taway1237 3y ago

Spyware exists primarily to steal data, firefox also has "some" other uses. Calling firefox "spyware" dilutes the meaning by implying it's somehow similar to actual spyware.

kaba0 3y ago

It is human psychology 101 that the default option is chosen in order of magnitudes more cases -- people are lazy. Should they really just let all that usability statistics be lost, even though their owner would more than likely be fine with its usage in most cases? Are countries with opt-out organ donation also evil? Doesn't the litany of saved lives worth more than a post-death "inconvenience"?

sneak 3y ago
> Should they really just let all that usability statistics be lost, even though their owner would more than likely be fine with its usage in most cases? Yes, 100%. They should not exfiltrate data without consent. If the owner is fine with it, they can just ask! (I'll let you in on a secret: they don't ask because most users, when asked, do not want to be placed under surveillance!) > Are countries with opt-out organ donation also evil? Doesn't the litany of saved lives worth more than a post-death "inconvenience"? You don't need your organs when you are dead. You do need your privacy when you are alive.