Transparent telemetry for open-source projects

I’ve taught probability theory using randomized response[1] as an exercise problem, and while people can understand it given time and motivation, it’s not immediately obvious. So I’m not exactly hopeful that a prospective Audacity, Blender, or even Free Pascal user (to take an arbitrary set of examples) would get what I mean if I say “I’m collecting no more than 10 bits of information about you using RAPPOR”[2], and I’m not willing to engage in comforting bullshit such as “all collected data is anonymous”, as I’ve been all too close to situations where the difference between the two might be one between freedom and prison.

> Is the non-technical nature of the user the problem or is it just that when you have an opt-in option most people make the choice to opt-out?

Both, because confirmation dialogs, especially privacy-related ones, have been thoroughly poisoned in users’ minds. But confirmation of obscure actions, however beneficial their consequences, is problematic in general—if I go on the street and ask people if they’d like caffeine in their tea or ascorbic acid in their apples, I expect (but have not checked) that the majority will say no, nevermind that both are normally there and intrinsic to the experience.

(The possibility of meaningful consent from a non-specialist is the subject of much discussion and few good answers in med school, or so I’ve heard.)

Whether the ultimate answer is to grant or deny permission, I’m not sure I can present the question in a way that will actually have it made on the basis of merit and not on “scary permission dialog, better say no” or “yes, yes, just let me through to my dancing bunnies[3]” or “yes, if I say no the installer will just tell me to GTFO”.

(In that respect the “Send crash report to vendor” button is unexpectedly good, because you’re not actually interposing yourself between the user and any prospective bunnies. But personally I don’t like to spend time and effort in order to send “feedback” into an unmarked hole where I’ve no idea if anybody will ever look at it. From that point of view, it is background data collection that’s unexpectedly good.)

And even if, for the purposes of this question, it would be best if people took the time to learn the necessary maths, computing, and operational security to make an informed choice, in reality I’m not sure that’s the best thing they can spend their life on.

So it may be the answer is that you simply can’t do telemetry well for the social reason that users won’t ever end up making an informed choice, or that the well has been poisoned so thoroughly that the rational choice is to reject everything. It’s just that I know that it’s basically possible in a technical sense, so I don’t want to give up that easily.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_response

[2] https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2016/06/15/what-is-...

[3] https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-dancing-bunnies-problem/

"If we ask everyone is going to say no, so we will steal it unless someone tells us not to"

> [Y]ou lean towards not giving them the choice rather than respecting their wishes.

> Is my interpretation correct?

I don’t think it is, no :) Rather, I’m not sure how to sell, to put it crassly, users on a choice when properly investigating or even being confronted with that choice would delay them seeing the dancing bunnies[1], but that would also, if I have any say about it, improve the bunnies in the future.

Does that mean there’s a shade of “I know better” in my problem statement? Of course it does, if I didn’t know better than the average user I’d have no business designing such choices. I don’t think there’s anything wrong about that, better than the average at an activity few practice is not a terribly high bar. Not giving the users a choice or manipulating them into making the one I think is right would absolutely be wrong, though.

Basically, how do I make the user think, how do I give them the appropriate data to do so, and how do I deal with the obvious contradiction of that goal with principles of good design[2]? The potential benefits to the software and (thereby) the users are too much to give up without even asking those questions.

(See nearby comment for extended discussion.)

[1] https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-dancing-bunnies-problem/

[2] https://sensible.com/dont-make-me-think/

> Not giving the users a choice or manipulating them into making the one I think is right would absolutely be wrong, though.

I'll pull out just this point, though, to perhaps illustrate how different our worldviews are. I consider opt-out to be a manipulative approach.

So do I, which is why I wrote I’m unwilling to implement it :) The original (and, to be clear, purely theoretical) point was, opt-out is too manipulative while opt-in is likely useless.

Ah shoot. Did you take that to mean that I’m unwilling to implement an off switch at all? That wasn’t it, sorry for the confusion.