3 ms·
Sentry customer here, I understand that you don't want to be in the business of sharing your customer's IP, but it's hard to not see using your customer's inte
by drfuzzyness 3y ago
Sentry customer here,
I understand that you don't want to be in the business of sharing your customer's IP, but it's hard to not see using your customer's internal diagnostic data for training as exactly that.
A universal opt-out of sharing data for training would go a long way in assuring me that I'm not about to find out that another customer is getting a snippet of quasi-private information (not sensitive to be PII, but not public enough to share). I can imagine that this'll be fine for a lot of customers but it makes me very uneasy.
Heck, you could probably incentive some users into sharing their data by gating "AI" features behind not opting-out.
- zeeg 3y agoAgreed! There's some things we think customers won't care about, that we'd like to leverage in general (latency benchmarking for example), but not everything is that. Our current thought process is to support two additional consent mechanisms: 1) An opt-out for sharing data which has no risk of exposure to customers (e.g. think about our fingerprinting algo - we can train better heuristics for that without giving away any of your data). 2) An opt-in mechanism for sharing data, in exchange for access to the functionality, for anything that goes beyond the above. This is less well defined, and internally would be our default stance. Our big TODO at this point is to clearly define those, build the consent mechanisms, and determine what, if any, updates we need/want to make to the ToS before enforcing it.