4 ms·

Are you suggesting that it's OK for a private company to collect any data they wish? Do you feel this collection must be disclosed to be proper, or is it OK to

Are you suggesting that it's OK for a private company to collect any data they wish? Do you feel this collection must be disclosed to be proper, or is it OK to just do it? Would "OK" data collection include keyboard logging, password and account info collection, video (camera) and audio collection? If you do draw a line somewhere -- anywhere, really -- then I'd suggest you're just like everyone else who thinks that privacy is a right and it can be violated. You just draw the line in a different place. If you really do think that any kind of data collection whatsoever is fine, then I'd just say I don't think many people would feel comfortable with that, not even serious law-and-order types. You're entitled to give away your own rights, but not mine.

victorhooi 13y ago
Lol, strawman argument much? This is Github collecting usage metrics for their text editor. It should be fairly obvious to any programmer why they're collecting this information - it's to improve the product (which they will probably then sell). The other thing is, Github is doing this in aggregate, and de-personalised. But can you think of a single reason why a company like Github would want to collect, as you say, my password information, or webcam shots of me? Apart from the stupid amount of bandwidth and storage they'd need to transmit and store webcam footage from all their users - what exactly could they gain from this? What's the business case? How exactly would it make more people pony up money for Github subscription? Since that's sort of their goal - to make money. People seem to think there's some grand Illumati global conspiracy going on. There really isn't. It's actually a lot simpler - this is capitalism, and companies exist to make money (within the bounds of the law). If it makes them money, they'll probably do it. If it doesn't, and it's "evil" they won't just do it for kicks of being evil. There needs to be a business case. Somebody has to justify to their manager, who will then justify to their manager, why something will add value. Surely you've experienced this? Now, I draw the line at the law, really - so if companies are fraudulently charging things to my credit card, or threatening to shoot me if I don't buy their product - yeah, that's illegal and I don't like that. But if they're operating within the bounds of the law, or even if they're just being annoying and shoving ads in my face, I'll either put up with it, to use the service, or just use a different service. As I said in a parent comment - the government is a completely different kettle of fish. However, companies are pretty easy to see through - their motives are, at least on a general level, pretty well defined.
- shittyanalogy 13y ago
  "It should be fairly obvious to any programmer why they're collecting this information" - It's also fairly obvious to any programmer how this can be abused. "The other thing is, Github is doing this in aggregate, and de-personalised." - THEY SAY. "What's the business case? How exactly would it make more people pony up money for Github subscription?" - Companies can and do use any information gained about you to build a profile about you. They use this profile to do things like target you ads as well as sell your profile to other companies. "People seem to think there's some grand Illumati global conspiracy going on." - No we don't, this is about basic privacy best practices. "If it makes them money, they'll probably do it." - Exactly. "There needs to be a business case." - There is always a business case. "Business Case" is an abstract concept. "Now, I draw the line at the law" - The law is an enormous grey area. Essentially you haven't drawn a line. What you've argued is against identity theft and violent threats, not privacy protection. "But if they're operating within the bounds of the law" - In a democratic society, these things are for us - the society - to decide and change. If you don't agree with the bounds of the law then it is your duty to act accordingly. Arguments like, "as long as it's not breaking the law" have very little use in a democracy. "government is a completely different kettle of fish" - The government can secretly subpoena these companies for any information. "companies are pretty easy to see through" - That makes no sense. I get what you're saying, they're trying to make money. There is no one size fits all strategy for making money and businesses do what some people consider "the wrong thing" all the time in effort to just make money. ----------------------------------------------- People here are concerned about basic privacy best practices, not companies making money or governments spying. No one here is worried about some grand conspiracy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not wanting software that is running on your own personal machine to send statistics about you to a third party whether they are purported to be anonymous or not. It's unfortunate that the societal norm is to turn a blind eye to these basic best practices, but it doesn't mean that those of us that still respect them should too. The concept is this: Trusting closed source software is not something I want to do. Not: Github is going to fuck me in the ass if I let them see my usage statistics.

victorhooi 13y ago

Lol, strawman argument much? This is Github collecting usage metrics for their text editor. It should be fairly obvious to any programmer why they're collecting this information - it's to improve the product (which they will probably then sell). The other thing is, Github is doing this in aggregate, and de-personalised. But can you think of a single reason why a company like Github would want to collect, as you say, my password information, or webcam shots of me? Apart from the stupid amount of bandwidth and storage they'd need to transmit and store webcam footage from all their users - what exactly could they gain from this? What's the business case? How exactly would it make more people pony up money for Github subscription? Since that's sort of their goal - to make money. People seem to think there's some grand Illumati global conspiracy going on. There really isn't. It's actually a lot simpler - this is capitalism, and companies exist to make money (within the bounds of the law). If it makes them money, they'll probably do it. If it doesn't, and it's "evil" they won't just do it for kicks of being evil. There needs to be a business case. Somebody has to justify to their manager, who will then justify to their manager, why something will add value. Surely you've experienced this? Now, I draw the line at the law, really - so if companies are fraudulently charging things to my credit card, or threatening to shoot me if I don't buy their product - yeah, that's illegal and I don't like that. But if they're operating within the bounds of the law, or even if they're just being annoying and shoving ads in my face, I'll either put up with it, to use the service, or just use a different service. As I said in a parent comment - the government is a completely different kettle of fish. However, companies are pretty easy to see through - their motives are, at least on a general level, pretty well defined.

shittyanalogy 13y ago
"It should be fairly obvious to any programmer why they're collecting this information" - It's also fairly obvious to any programmer how this can be abused. "The other thing is, Github is doing this in aggregate, and de-personalised." - THEY SAY. "What's the business case? How exactly would it make more people pony up money for Github subscription?" - Companies can and do use any information gained about you to build a profile about you. They use this profile to do things like target you ads as well as sell your profile to other companies. "People seem to think there's some grand Illumati global conspiracy going on." - No we don't, this is about basic privacy best practices. "If it makes them money, they'll probably do it." - Exactly. "There needs to be a business case." - There is always a business case. "Business Case" is an abstract concept. "Now, I draw the line at the law" - The law is an enormous grey area. Essentially you haven't drawn a line. What you've argued is against identity theft and violent threats, not privacy protection. "But if they're operating within the bounds of the law" - In a democratic society, these things are for us - the society - to decide and change. If you don't agree with the bounds of the law then it is your duty to act accordingly. Arguments like, "as long as it's not breaking the law" have very little use in a democracy. "government is a completely different kettle of fish" - The government can secretly subpoena these companies for any information. "companies are pretty easy to see through" - That makes no sense. I get what you're saying, they're trying to make money. There is no one size fits all strategy for making money and businesses do what some people consider "the wrong thing" all the time in effort to just make money. ----------------------------------------------- People here are concerned about basic privacy best practices, not companies making money or governments spying. No one here is worried about some grand conspiracy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not wanting software that is running on your own personal machine to send statistics about you to a third party whether they are purported to be anonymous or not. It's unfortunate that the societal norm is to turn a blind eye to these basic best practices, but it doesn't mean that those of us that still respect them should too. The concept is this: Trusting closed source software is not something I want to do. Not: Github is going to fuck me in the ass if I let them see my usage statistics.