My problem is that I believe that 90% of the users of my app won't care one way or the other if I record these stats. If I default opt-out these people, then I lose all that useful data and in the process, I believe, make my app worse for everyone.
I won't deny this is not an obvious choice, but I think personally on balance it's better to opt-in. Especially when the data is anonymised and doesn't contain any private/identifying information. But I understand how others would disagree. If there was some kind of OS-wide "don't record what I do" option I could hook into, I would use it.
Look at the outcry when Microsoft put this stuff in Win 10.
At the very least you should present a question on install. Hiding a notice amongst licenses and other information, as often happens, is underhanded and scammy.
If those people wouldn't volunteer to opt-in, it's just as likely that the reason they are not opting-out is because they missed the notification that someone is collecting data about them.
It's a UX anti-pattern to default behavior to something the users may not want. If you're worried they'll accept whatever default there is, just explicitly ask them if they want to relay usage stats and you'll be surprised how much of the 90% you claim don't care will start caring.
Look at the comments on this thread, there are multiple accounts of people surprised by this. The very fact that this article is on the front page is proof that Brew tricked users.
>Especially when the data is anonymised and doesn't contain any private/identifying information.
You've either made massive breakthroughs in the field of information security or this is a bogus statement. If the user's computer even connects to an analytics service, they've already got an IP address, frequency of connections from that IP, etc and all of the correlation that comes with enabled by their other data sets. Just because it's anonymized by the time it comes out of Google in Brew usage reports doesn't mean it hasn't given Google additional information to profile people.
I think, based on the conversation here, I'm going to make it very clear there is analytics, but not allow turning them off. This is (I think, you are welcome to disagree of course) the best situation:
* Everyone knows there is analytics going on, no hiding. * I get good quality analytics from my actual users, as no-one can opt out (well, you could start port blocking, I'm not going to make the program stop working in that situation).
Of course, that suggests we should introduce some kind of standard, then bash (or whatever shell you use) could prompt you once, and every other program could use that setting.
Unless of course you are fundamentally opposed to tracking of any kind, then a fork is required. It is a fairly massive infrastructure to recreate however...
You appear to be saying that it's wrong to send any data to Google - which strikes me as an indefensibly extreme position. For example if they were tracking a simple count "number of times anyone anywhere has run brew" and it was stored as a single global integer then it's hard to imagine what issue you could have with it as it's basically no worse than a simple hit counter on a website.
So what are you saying? Surely the problem has to relate to what data is collected?
And after all the Snowden revelations it's very naive to assume that Google (or any other company) will protect your data.
What is the threat model here?
(Also, downloading a movie is a different thing - there you're not stealing nor exfiltrating anything, you're downloading data as intended by uploader, who may or may not have the copyrights for that data.)
(INB4, ripping a DVD and uploading it is not data theft. Exfiltrating a pre-release copy from movie company's servers would be data theft.)
The sharing or getting something from a shared thing would merely be copyright infringement.
This is the usage I'm most firmly resisting.
> PII, launch codes or identities
All inaccurate to varying degrees - or at the very least metaphorical/rhetorical uses. If you're allowed to push a meaning in one direction then I'm allowed to point it out and attempt to bend it back a little.
I'm not pushing anything. Your argument is about whether or not copying information is 'stealing'. I'm just pointing out that it's a very commonly agreed upon vernacular all over many industries. Call your credit card company and tell them someone stole your credit card number and see if they understand what you are talking about and/or try to correct you by saying it was merely copied.
Go ahead and try to change the definition, but don't waste time on HN with that crap when the subject isn't even about whether or not it's "stealing" because it makes for boring conversation.
You don't think that is possibly somewhere towards the further reaches of consensus on what is a reasonable application of the word?
You're welcome to disagree with my position but you're going a touch further than that. You're also accusing me of arguing in bad faith and being somehow aware that my argument has no merits. Considering I think I'm stating a fairly reasonable view I find that somewhat disingenuous in return.
If you don't believe they read the prompts closely, you're an asshole for stealing data by default.