101–110 of 129 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This rediculous false dichotomy of "if not for excessive telemetry it would be crashy" is so beyond reason. If it crashes just pop up the crash reporter and prompt the user with a button to send the crash report in. Done. No ethical issues there. But no apparantly you think microsoft needs a constant faucet if your information to prevent crashes. Golly i wonder how developers managed before said faucets.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no such thing as truly anonymous. in order to send any data you need to connect to a server. at that moment you are in violatation of GDPR because you are exposing the users's IP which is protected by GDPR. See the case where even linking to a CDN requires GDPR consent. https://www.cpomagazine.com/data-protection/leak-of-ip-addre... And before the army of those who don't understand GDPR comes up with "but th…
> There is no such thing as truly anonymous. in order to send any data you need to connect to a server. at that moment you are in violatation of GDPR because you are exposing the users's IP which is protected by GDPR. This is misinformed. There is nothing in the GDPR that relates to "exposing" or "transmitting" anything (other than transmitting further from a processor to a third party). GDPR relates to how data is s…
The GDPR deals with "processing" and this is the definition of processing:
" ‘processing’ means any operation or set of operations which is performed on personal data or on sets of personal data, whether or not by automated means, such as collection, recording, organisation, structuring, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, restriction, erasure or destruction; "
Note the "transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>How is this the users fault? If a user asks for the software to nag people and then the developers make the software start nagging proper then it is the fault of the user for suggesting that behaviour be implemented. >It could be opt-in under settings, like just about anything else. Or there could be an opt out in settings like how it already works.
Disingenous take IMO > If a user asks for the software to nag people and then the developers make the software start nagging proper then it is the fault of the user for suggesting that behaviour be implemented. People are not asking for software to nag. They're asking for the software to NOT send telemetry at all unless the user agrees to it. As it stands now, vscode sends out telemetry before the user has a chance t…
This issue literally is and describes what the popup should include.
>hostile behavior
Telemetry is not hostile. It is a standard feature for understanding how a product operations or is being used.
No answer is forthcoming from the VS Code team, because they know you won't like the answer. Microsoft trawls their[1] endpoints mercilessly for every bit of telemetry that they possibly can, and they go out of their way to prevent customers from disabling this. Windows 10 or 11 with Office requires something like 200+ individual forms of Microsoft telemetry to be disabled! Notably: - They keep changing the name of t…
Microsoft’s own telemetry solutions (AppInsights/LogAnalytics) seem perfectly capable of handing async/buffering/backoff etc. I agree there should be a single place, at least in Windows to control Microsoft telemetry on a per app basis. It should be very easy to accomplish. On other platforms less so. In a desktop product I do for work we had the dilemma of opt in/out and showing the query clearly and hiding it in se…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
G.D.P.R., it says so in the thread. And Europe is not a litigious environment, we start with complaints first.
The complaint should come from some authority or a legal backing. The poster assumes that they are breaking GDPR and seeking explanation with some shit talk to make it sound legalese. Companies as a policy and by logic don't reply to such comments/post because the response becomes a legal document. So any expectation of answer is futile.
A user should be able to configure a program (or all programs) such that outgoing communication is not possible, logged or both. It really shouldn't be up to the program to decide what it wants to send as it could easily scan the entire hard drive on the users behalf.
When the owner of a device is using it, they should have the right to inspect all data on that machine in plain language and to inspect all communications to and from that machine (again in plain language.) They should have the right to stop any communications at any level they choose using plain language menus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Have you noticed that MS mostly stopped using EEE, No, I haven't. Notice that MS now loves Linux... provided you run it on Azure or as a component of Windows (WSL). They adopted Chrome...'s rendering engine and then abused their desktop OS market share to shove the result down people's throats. They don't have the leverage they once enjoyed, but the approach didn't change, at least not in general.
Hardly any different from FAANG so beloved by FOSS folks....
- Facebook honestly mostly seems orthogonal to open source concerns
- Apple most certainly does get criticized for the incompatibility of their App Store with copyleft licenses, and the way they deliberately avoid GPLv3
- Amazon is the poster child for bad interactions with the open source ecosystem
- Netflix... honestly I don't know of any problems aside from DRM (and I'm pretty sure that's imposed on them, not really their choice)
- Google is absolutely criticized on a regular basis for how they interact with the wider community
Though of course even if your claim were correct, it wouldn't really matter; whataboutism is a bad argument because two bad actors isn't zero bad actors