No, it's like stealing personally identifying information and sending it to the world's largest ad company.

The information brew collects I would hardly call personally identifiable. Take a look at what they collect: https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/blob/master/docs/Analytics....

They can call it "anonymous data" as much as they want, but in the end it's still data transmitted to Google's servers. If you are simultaneously logged into your Google account on that computer, the information is not anonymous anymore. Google could with high probability correlate connections.

> They can call it "anonymous data" as much as they want, but in the end it's still data transmitted to Google's servers.

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?

I'm saying that if you make your software talk to Google, don't say that it collects "anonymous aggregate data". The data it sends could easily be traced back to you (by Google).

And after all the Snowden revelations it's very naive to assume that Google (or any other company) will protect your data.

Doesn't that depend on what's being sent? Either it's personally identifiable (or at least de-anonalysable) or it's not. Within reason some things are not of any real interest to anyone.

What is the threat model here?

Sure, but then the problem isn't the information they collect but the fact that it goes to Google. Short from them setting up their own analytics service though, to whichever one you send this data it'll be traceable up to some extent. Google just might have a larger trove of data about you, but that's also through your own doing.

"Exfiltrating" would be a better word 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 ripping would be the 'exfiltration' as would recording a movie in theatre or hacking servers.

The sharing or getting something from a shared thing would merely be copyright infringement.

By your definition, there would be no such thing as stealing IP, PII, launch codes or identities. However, those things are well accepted terms in all industries, including tech. You need to reconsider your strange restriction to mutual exclusion if you ever want to engage in meaningful conversations.

> stealing IP

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.

>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 see anything even slightly problematic about referring to opt-out (rather than opt-in) aggregate and presumably anonymous usage statistics as 'stealing'?

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.

I think you've tired of me but I want to finish with one last thought: "Choose your battles wisely" - this might not be the best place to make our last stand. There's a danger of tiring out potential allies before the point things really matter.