the proposal is from a red-hat team member and is proposing addition of “privacy-respecting” telemetry. here’s the link to the hyperkitty thread

  • navordar@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    A pop-up with a message "This website uses cookies to function. The compliance people asked us to tell you."

    Really? How am I supposed to trust these guys with my data, when they show me a pop-up like that? I guess that this data is anonymous only because otherwise the telemetry would need to be opt-out… oh wait, they explicitly said that:

    That said, Fedora Legal has determined that if we collect any personally-identifiable data, the entire metrics system must be opt-in. Since we are only interested in opt-out metrics due to the low value of opt-in metrics, we must accordingly never collect any personally-identifiable data.

      • Something Burger 🍔@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s completely useless. If they don’t collect personal data, then they don’t have to show a banner. Bad faith compliance with GDPR (including “the GDPR made us show this banner”) should be punished more heavily.

  • joojmachine@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Jesus bellydancing Christ people, read beyond the title of the post for once. This is good.

    This will enable results that aren’t biased by the few users who find the option to opt-in (when it’s not presented front and center) or actively answer to surveys.

    They are taking as much care as possible with their words to make it clear that THEY DO NOT WANT TO TRACK YOU OR ABUSE YOUR DATA, it’s just what’s necessary for studies to better understand the users’ needs.

    • You will have the chance to disable it front and center during the setup process;
    • No data will be sent before an active confirmation from the user during the setup process;
    • You will be able to fetch the data at any point to check what’s being collected
    • They are reaching out to the community for guidance on what type of data we find acceptable or not
    • You can have an active participation on the building of this tool

    And specially this, for the OH GOD, ITS THE END OF THE LINOX DESKTOP among you:

    IT’S A PROPOSAL, IT’S NOT BEING ACTIVELY DEVELOPED YET!

    Not only there’s no reason to overreact, this could be the start of something beautiful for the Linux desktop, where the users not only actively participate but actively control their data

    • joe@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      i thought the whole idea was to be the only one who is using your computer. it doesnt matter if they are taking data that cant be used to identify you personally, the road to hell is made with good intentions. and also, i agree that by using telemetry, great insights can help the devs develop a better Linux desktop, but linux is more about the freedom to be let alone if you want to be left alone.

      • joojmachine@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        and how exactly does having telemetry (that can be easily turned off at any time) impedes your freedom to be left alone?

        • joe@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          easy for who? why not use it in the sense of ‘easily turned on.’ and then make it as easy as possible for people to turn it on because it is in the devs and sponsors’ best interest, but making an easy-to-turn-off telemetry is a conflict of interest for them.

    • SafetyGoggles@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And they say Lemmy will not become Reddit. Pfft. The culture of reading only the headline and immediately take the rage bait is already seeping in.

  • Monologue@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    why? just don’t ruin my beloved fedora please, if telemetry exists it should be opt in, not opt out

  • placatedmayhem@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    If this gets implemented, I’ll certainly be switching distros. That opt-out telemetry is even a serious proposal is potentially enough for me to switch, as it indicates where the Fedora team’s heads are. I’ve been using and recommending Fedora for over a decade, but this is crosses a line.

    • joojmachine@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Please read the thing properly. It is nothing more than a proposal currently, which is being actively discussed with the community to make sure that users (including you) are satisfied with the result if it is implemented, or to make sure it is not implemented at all.

      • SymbolicLink@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Reading through the post it looks like the project leads (Fedora council members) are arguing in favour of “opt-out” and the larger community is arguing in favour or either opt-in or a middle ground where the user has to select an option with no default.

        Honestly it seems like the Fedora team is arguing that there are only two options: opt-out, or nothing at all. This isn’t true and people are commenting with more reasonable alternatives.

        I know its not in development yet, but if the Fedora council members are saying “opt-out or nothing”, not a good look TBH given this initial community response.

  • 𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘬@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Telemetry should not exist in the first place. If it exists, it should completely be opt-in and self-contained in one single package that is not installed by default.

    Everything else is hostile.

      • joojmachine@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The problem with opt-in telemetry is that it messes with the scope of the research.

        If you want to understand something about most users (and not just the ones that are active enough in the project to participate in opt-in) you need this, otherwise your results only tell the needs of this subset of your userbase and this sometimes can go completely against the needs of the majority of users.

        The problem with telemetry isn’t the telemetry itself, is how it is used, and the way the proposal is worded makes me very optimistic. They are trying 200% hard to make sure we understand that it will never be used in violation of the users’ privacy.

        • ono@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The problem with opt-in telemetry is that it messes with the scope of the research.

          Too bad. That does not make it okay to collect data without consent.

          Not ever.

          In other words, unbiased telemetry is not possible to do ethically. (Or to say it differently, ethical telemetry necessarily has bias.)

          • joojmachine@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            And once again, it isn’t “without consent”, it just means that the default state of the checkbox is on. Users will still be presented with a confirm option before any data is sent.

            In other words, unbiased telemetry is not possible to do ethically.

            Say that to the opentelemetry and Plausible folks, who have been on the vanguard of doing exactly that for years now.

            • ono@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              the default state of the checkbox is on.

              That’s a very strange thing to mistake for consent.

              • joojmachine@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s not mistaken for context, you’re just missing the point. The switch is just part of it, the user would still have to consent to send their data before it is sent and the proposal proposes to have it detailing the data that is going to be sent and explaining the process.

                Having it as a default guarantees it doesn’t scare non-power users away from it. It’s not about just having people clicking next and accepting it without consent.

        • joe@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          a classic paradox-ish thing:

          if the average person doesnt consent to fill a questionnaire, or an interview, how do you collect data about the average person. but then again, how do you know the average person doesnt want to fill a questionnaire? did you spread a questionnaire that had the question ‘do you fill questionnaire?’ in it