Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Do_not_track

donottrack.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 179 posts

Re: Do_not_track

#151

Post by mceachen »

Einenlum wrote: post #147

I doubt any vendor would apply this. It's not in their interest. Maybe a better solution would be to have a package that's always updated and provides a list of injected env vars for each vendor. One line in zshrc or bash and you're covered (at least for those who offer a way to disable the telemetry through an env var).

I applied it to PhotoStructure more than a year ago—I think it was when I first saw this on HN?

My point is that there *is* such a thing as software that tries to respect their users. I'm not the only one.

Re: Do_not_track

#152

Post by deanishe »

andybak wrote: post #136

My projects could genuinely benefit from telemetry as I have no idea about usage patterns and my community (mainly artists) is not famous for maintaining a close dialogue with software developers. I haven't bothered because a) opt-out risks a backlash and b) opt-in affects the data so much it becomes useless (much smaller sample and probably self-selecting a certain type of user) Skimming the comments here, it seems…

> I get the distrust of large corporations and other obvious bad actors […]

> the blanket cynicism for all telemetry here is kinda surprising

Who's providing the telemetry/analytics if not one of same large corporations?

Many devs say they care about user privacy, but very few seem to care enough not to farm surveillance out to a 3rd-party they have no control over.

Re: Do_not_track

#153

Post by marshray »

croes wrote: post #131
charles_f wrote: post #60

It's interesting that we're so used to be tracked at this point that no one balks at being opted-in by default. A flag called DO_NOT_TRACK sounds like a good idea, but also suggests the default is CONSENT_TO_TRACK=1, and I find that creepy.

Nitpicking: There is no being opted-in by default, that‘s opt-out

Hmm. I read a semantic difference between "opt-out" and "being opted-in by default".

The first denotes an abstract policy, the second an action that has been done to you in which you were a passive participant. And this is all about our lack of agency.

You may prefer that we speak of abstract policies. But to say "there is no" about an otherwise sensible phrase implies that you think that we have agreed to stay within some fixed set of terminology. I didn't think that we had.

Re: Do_not_track

#154

Post by ragall »

andybak wrote: post #136

My projects could genuinely benefit from telemetry as I have no idea about usage patterns and my community (mainly artists) is not famous for maintaining a close dialogue with software developers. I haven't bothered because a) opt-out risks a backlash and b) opt-in affects the data so much it becomes useless (much smaller sample and probably self-selecting a certain type of user) Skimming the comments here, it seems…

Telemetry only tells you what users do, not why and doesn't explain their mental models. Try asking directly: open a discussion board (for example Github's Discussions) and encourage them to post about aspects of the software they found puzzling/annoying/inefficient. Take 15 minutes a week to go through the posts to see if anything attracts your attention.

Re: Do_not_track

#155

Post by croes »

marshray wrote: post #153
croes wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nitpicking: There is no being opted-in by default, that‘s opt-out

Hmm. I read a semantic difference between "opt-out" and "being opted-in by default". The first denotes an abstract policy, the second an action that has been done to you in which you were a passive participant. And this is all about our lack of agency. You may prefer that we speak of abstract policies. But to say "there is no" about an otherwise sensible phrase implies that you think that we have agreed to stay withi…

If you hadn’t the option to go in it is not opt-in.

If so put you in by default but you have the option to go out it’s opt-put

So this is either opt-out or not a option at all

Re: Do_not_track

#157

Post by marshray »

croes wrote: post #155
marshray wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm. I read a semantic difference between "opt-out" and "being opted-in by default". The first denotes an abstract policy, the second an action that has been done to you in which you were a passive participant. And this is all about our lack of agency. You may prefer that we speak of abstract policies. But to say "there is no" about an otherwise sensible phrase implies that you think that we have agreed to stay withi…

If you hadn’t the option to go in it is not opt-in. If so put you in by default but you have the option to go out it’s opt-put So this is either opt-out or not a option at all

The law of the excluded middle does not create semantic problems for the phrase "being opted-in by default".

Human language does not work like that.

Re: Do_not_track

#158

Post by rapidaneurism »

d2p wrote: post #123
charles_f wrote: post #60

It's interesting that we're so used to be tracked at this point that no one balks at being opted-in by default. A flag called DO_NOT_TRACK sounds like a good idea, but also suggests the default is CONSENT_TO_TRACK=1, and I find that creepy.

> A flag called DO_NOT_TRACK sounds like a good idea, but also suggests the default is CONSENT_TO_TRACK=1, and I find that creepy. It could also be used to prevent showing an opt-in notification at all even in software that requires opt-in.

It is a bit sad that in privacy enthusiastic consent is understood as failing to shout 'NO' in the right way.

Re: Do_not_track

#159

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

andybak wrote: post #136

My projects could genuinely benefit from telemetry as I have no idea about usage patterns and my community (mainly artists) is not famous for maintaining a close dialogue with software developers. I haven't bothered because a) opt-out risks a backlash and b) opt-in affects the data so much it becomes useless (much smaller sample and probably self-selecting a certain type of user) Skimming the comments here, it seems…

Opt-in data is "useless"

That's one I have not heard before

Useless for what

Targeting a certain "type of user" perhaps

"I get the distrust of large corporations and other obvious bad actors - but the blanket cycnicism for all telemetry here is kind surprising"

There is effectively no way for a user to determine whether an actor is "bad" or "good" and that definition may vary depending on the user

The user cannot verify how the data might be used or where it might be transferred. As such, there is almost zero incentive for the data collector not to engage in malfeasance (as the user defines that term); deterrents are lacking

Perhaps there is irony in criticising "blanket" cynicism whilst arguing for "default" telemetry. Both suffer from the same "one size fits all" error

Post reply on HN