This poll is a bit hard to understand but essentially you could vote for multiple options, the highest opt-out option is at 26%, meaning 74% of people oppose this idea.
The original proposal is at 16%, for a jarring 84% disapproval rate.
Despite overwhelming negative feedback, Red Hat is currently drafting a revised proposal.
But what about Red Hat?
This is the link to the proposal: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Telemetry#Privacy-preserving_Telemetry_for_Fedora_Workstation
These parts are all interesting and contradict some people who argue Red Hat has no hand in this issue:
Name: Michael Catanzaro Email: <mcatanzaro@redhat.com>
and
The Red Hat Display Systems Team (which develops the desktop) proposes to enable limited data collection of anonymous Fedora Workstation usage metrics.
and
It is Fedora Legal’s obligation to ensure our data collection complies with legal requirements in the jurisdictions in which Red Hat operates
and
Occasionally, Red Hat might need to collect specific metrics to justify additional time spent on contributing to Fedora or additional investment in Fedora.
The quotes above were handpicked. There are 7 matches for “Red Hat” in the link above, not counting the email address.
IMO it’s a bad thing if this doesn’t get added. FOSS in general has very limited resources, knowing what to work on most urgently will help massively to tackle the most urgent issues
Opt out is not acceptable under any circumstances. It’s not your data. It’s your users’.
Sending a single bit back without an explicit, uncoerced opt in should be illegal.
And it is in the EU.
The problem with opt-in is that it isn’t a good way to get a good sample size. It’s very self-selecting. There are ways of collecting telemetry while being privacy-respecting, but whether RedHat is properly anonymizing this user data is a different matter.
It doesn’t matter what the tradeoffs are. The data does not and cannot belong to you.
There is no way of collecting telemetry while respecting privacy*. The pure fact that you’re collecting anything the user didn’t explicitly consent to is an unacceptable violation. Anonymization doesn’t mean you aren’t taking data that isn’t yours.
*edit: without opt in. The acceptable way to do it is to make your ask, make the user make one choice or the other, and respect it.
You can, anonymization and gathering data in aggregate, if implemented well, can ensure data can’t be attributed to any one person. Who owns the data is a separate issue that you’re conflating into privacy.
I get your perspective, but opt-in really isn’t a great solution in terms of dataset. That’s just the reality of it. Opt-in is super self-selecting and you get data that’s basically an echo chamber of people who actually care enough about your product to contribute data. Being in an echo chamber doesn’t make a great product.
No, you cannot. Every single bit of data collected, completely unconnected to your identify, is a violation of the privacy of the user. Connecting it to a user is worse, but that’s irrelevant. Literally zero data created by the user can ever be acceptable to collect without their explicit decision to give it to you.
It does not and cannot matter how much less useful it makes the data. Taking it completely unconnected to anyone is a breach of privacy in every case.
I think you’re expanding the concept of privacy beyond what most people are concerned about. I think its great that you have such a hard line stance on privacy, but to be honest from a practical standpoint, it’s total overkill.
That’s what privacy is. It’s not getting spied on by programs on your computer phoning home.
If you collect any data whatsoever that isn’t strictly opt in, you do not respect the privacy of your users. That’s a tautology. There’s no way around it. You have a right to nothing.
If that is your stance, then there is literally zero privacy anymore. Zilch.
If I’m walking down the street and somebody marks that one person walked down the street, does that invade my privacy?
In that case, how does the concept of privacy even matter anymore? There is none, and there never will be.
I mean sure, you can be dramatic and compare it to spying programs, or you can consider it like your average government census that prioritizes government programs to your benefit, except in this case its collecting WAY less data and it isn’t even attributed to you in any way.
Honestly, I think its fine you think that way, but you have to realize its a bit like living in a cave, completely disconnected from everybody. Not everyone thinks that Linux should go that route.
I don’t care. We don’t do deceptive dark patterns in FOSS.
deleted by creator
That is already a biased group. I am sorry, but you can’t just cater your product to those who are super passionate about it. That’s a great way to enter into an echo chamber where valid criticisms are hidden behind enthusiasm. I mean, think about it, how many weird quirks of Linux are we, as enthusiasts, willing to put up with or don’t even recognize are issues for others?
You should not surround yourself with yes-men if you want to get constructive feedback.
To be honest, I feel like you’re letting the controversy of the past few weeks cloud your perspective. FOSS projects do need feedback regardless of whether they’re owned by a company or not.
deleted by creator
Which means you’re only listening to the people who are technically inclined. That’s a lot more siloed than you realize and leads to UX that really isn’t suitable for anything beyond the IT department. Maybe that’s your thing, but frankly, I’d like to see Linux expand beyond the datacenter and beyond the 2% of gamers.
Again, that’s siloed thinking. It’s perfectly fine…for the Linux space, but frankly I think every single distro genuinely needs more usability data because the UX really isn’t great in a lot of ways, and I say this as a Linux enthusiast of 15 years and a software dev myself. Doing fine is the status quo.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Terry Davis didn’t need telemetry to make HolyC or TempleOS. Skill issue.