3 ms·

I don't think they originally changed what data they collect, they only changed whether you could opt out. After the small hubbub I think some people claimed th

I don't think they originally changed what data they collect, they only changed whether you could opt out. After the small hubbub I think some people claimed that you could brute force an IMEI from the hash so they decided to use a more anonymous ID which I think gets regenerated on device wipe so it's actually less useful for tracking total installs... I think the whole thing is a brouhaha over nothing, the information is in no way trackable to an individual user and it gives them the clout to go to manufacturers and say "look, X people are using CyanogenMod, you should consider what we have to say." By using Google services you leak way more information so caring about this is just a little bit silly.

Zikes 14y ago
Saying that other companies collect more information doesn't make it right in this situation, as the people most opposed to anonymized data collection likely do not use those services or have them set up in such a way as to obscure as much of their personal information as possible.
jen_h 14y ago
Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with a UUID and the occasional "phone home" - if UUID X hasn't phoned home in Y days, it's no longer part of the install base. Given that more CM users tend to be obsessive device-wipers, it may make sense to phone home more often; given the limited data points they're collecting, it's a negligible hit to users' data plans (though given some Android users' network misconfigurations, may be more of a hit to CM's servers than they'd expect). Transmitting and storing md5 hashes of device IMEIs and MAC addresses, though? No bueno. That the project owners don't see a problem with this (and that they believe cracking these hashes is non-trivial, especially given the restricted address space of these two data points) worries me far more than the data collection itself.

Zikes 14y ago

Saying that other companies collect more information doesn't make it right in this situation, as the people most opposed to anonymized data collection likely do not use those services or have them set up in such a way as to obscure as much of their personal information as possible.

jen_h 14y ago

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with a UUID and the occasional "phone home" - if UUID X hasn't phoned home in Y days, it's no longer part of the install base. Given that more CM users tend to be obsessive device-wipers, it may make sense to phone home more often; given the limited data points they're collecting, it's a negligible hit to users' data plans (though given some Android users' network misconfigurations, may be more of a hit to CM's servers than they'd expect). Transmitting and storing md5 hashes of device IMEIs and MAC addresses, though? No bueno. That the project owners don't see a problem with this (and that they believe cracking these hashes is non-trivial, especially given the restricted address space of these two data points) worries me far more than the data collection itself.