21–30 of 33 posts
Since this software in question is open source, if you don't allow the disabling of telemetry I guarantee a fork will appear in the near future where it has been disabled altogether.
Ask yourself if this is a hill you wish for your project to die on?
I've [argued]( https://benconrad.net/posts/230717_fundingOpenSource/ ) that oss developers need to have real world use information in order to ship good software. Contra some here, I think oss developers that don't understand how users use their software can't maintain or improve it.
> I think oss developers that don't understand how users use their software can't maintain or improve it.
For trivial improvements, that's definitely not the case.
For example, if someone files a GitHub issue saying "please add new menu shortcut XYZ". That's the kind of thing which doesn't directly need in depth understanding of how users are using the software.
More major features though will indeed benefit from understanding how users use it. That's not really a case for telemetry though, rather it's a case of having a wide enough user base that users ask for changes/features/fixes themselves.
Sometimes the users asking for changes/features/fixes is us ourselves. ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks! I'm glad we asked. Felt uneasy either way. Also would appreciate any pointers, perhaps someone you know has written on ethics of it?
YVW. I'll have a think about some other sources, especially plain speaking non-academic takes on the ethics that help developers see the issues. For now this one is a good general overview [0]. The big one with telemetry, is unintended side effects due to correlation and deanonymisation - which is actually dead hard to anticipate - very easy to get wrong like rolling your own cryptography :) The other, around consent…
This level of incompetence borders on malice, regardless of intent.
All software should, regardless of it being open-source or not. It should also be opt-in.
Not even anonymizing the data is also a MASSIVE red flag
"We feel like it’s a fair ask" - exactly - it's a fair ask , so the user should decide. Nobody can force you to change your mind, but if you don't, prepare for forks with the option disabled. Also, the issue is not really about that - it's about the submitted data not being anonymised. That's the bare minimum you should be doing regardless of the information being opt-in/out.
The user can decide, by not using the software.
Unquestionably.
What I do with your software is quite frankly none of your business. You do not have the right to know what I do with my hardware. Your metrics are not my concern.
FOSS is a very personal thing. Try framing it as a conversation between you and your users:
"Hey, we work hard on this and would really appreciate it if you share telemetry so we can focus our efforts better"
Vs
"This application now collects telemetry. You cannot turn it off. You want privacy? Too bad."
The difference is asking your users to share data and demanding they give up their privacy on your whim.
> Give people the “more privacy” button and most are going to press it.
You should have a good long think about what this means and why removing privacy options is making your users upset.
When I implement telemetry in a FOSS project, I go well out of my way to do it in the most respectful way I can. This usually takes the form of a detailed list of what is and is not being collected, along with why I need it. During first run, there is either a very prominent notification or a full on blocking step where the user must choose whether to enable telemetry. This includes text explaining why I want telemetry and a link to the documents.
My philosophy is that users are not idiots and they are not children that need coddling. I make my request, give them the information, and let them make their choice. That's it, end of transaction. The user made a choice and the matter is totally out of my control.
Anything less is not respecting your users.
A medium? Ask people. FOSS is different. There is a level of expected transparency and trust along with it that you can’t get back when broken. Changes like this are a very easy way to break that trust. Trust is everything here.
I expect to be tracked by commercial tools for the most part, but I still try to control how.
How would you feel if a trusted tool changed something you deem important without telling you? Generally a response is feeling betrayed.
The fact that someone skilled enough took time out of their lives to make this PR means that it matters enough to seriously reconsider.
"We feel like it’s a fair ask" - exactly - it's a fair ask , so the user should decide. Nobody can force you to change your mind, but if you don't, prepare for forks with the option disabled. Also, the issue is not really about that - it's about the submitted data not being anonymised. That's the bare minimum you should be doing regardless of the information being opt-in/out.
The user can decide, by not using the software.