Some people with lives "not that interesting" don't want to give up their privacy. Some of us even understand that there is no such thing as "anonymous statistics".
It's not about a big government spying conspiracy. It's about basic privacy and not giving out data about yourself that you don't want to give out.
Hmm - but let's take your idea and think it through to it's completion.
It's fine to say, oh but the privacy! But that in itself isn't an argument. It's just an appeal to emotion, with no facts.
What do you think will happen if Github has usage data on how you use their text editor?
Or what do you think will happen if Google knows what websites you search for?
These aren't rhetorical questions - I'm actually curious what scenarios people actually think will play out.
I find it unlikely that Google/Github would publicly publish that information on their websites. I also find it unlikely that an individual person would ever view your data.
What other scenarios do you believe will happen?
Now, if the government were involved, that's a completely different kettle of fish.
I don't think you honestly want to know "what scenarios people actually think will play out" and that you question this way solely for the sake of argument. I think you have your mind made up and would rather snark at people that have an opposing opinion.
That being said, it's no stretch to understand that some people just don't want to volunteer personal information especially originating from software.
There are enormous trust implications with any sort of software that phones home for any reason. And if the software source code isn't publicly auditable it can be impossible to actually verify what information is being sent from your machine. I personally don't think it's possible to actually trust closed source software. I don't care that it's socially normal to ignore your personal computing privacy. I care about mine.
Well, no - you assuming it's rhetorical when I clearly stated it's not is snarky....
As I said, there were two scenarios that I outlined which were unlikely - Google/Github posting my text editor usage publicly on their website, linked to my name, and employees of those companies individually trawling through.
The scenario of them mining for trends in the data, in order to improve the software, I'm perfectly fine with.
The scenario of the government being involved - I agree that's bad - however, we haven't seen any indications that is true for the wide public.
Can you actually come up with any other scenarios that are both 1. probably and 2. worrying?
You don't understand, it's not about "probably" it's about absolute. Just because a 3rd party probably won't do anything that could harm me doesn't mean that I should trust them for any reason. This is one of the main points of the free in free software.
It's not about tin-foil hats or being uptight, it's about my-personal-data-privacy and network-user-best-privacy-practices.
At this point, you either don't get it, or you don't think I should have the right to absolute data privacy if and purely because I want it.
Are you suggesting that it's OK for a private company to collect any data they wish? Do you feel this collection must be disclosed to be proper, or is it OK to just do it? Would "OK" data collection include keyboard logging, password and account info collection, video (camera) and audio collection?
If you do draw a line somewhere -- anywhere, really -- then I'd suggest you're just like everyone else who thinks that privacy is a right and it can be violated. You just draw the line in a different place.
If you really do think that any kind of data collection whatsoever is fine, then I'd just say I don't think many people would feel comfortable with that, not even serious law-and-order types. You're entitled to give away your own rights, but not mine.
This is Github collecting usage metrics for their text editor. It should be fairly obvious to any programmer why they're collecting this information - it's to improve the product (which they will probably then sell).
The other thing is, Github is doing this in aggregate, and de-personalised.
But can you think of a single reason why a company like Github would want to collect, as you say, my password information, or webcam shots of me?
Apart from the stupid amount of bandwidth and storage they'd need to transmit and store webcam footage from all their users - what exactly could they gain from this?
What's the business case? How exactly would it make more people pony up money for Github subscription?
Since that's sort of their goal - to make money.
People seem to think there's some grand Illumati global conspiracy going on. There really isn't.
It's actually a lot simpler - this is capitalism, and companies exist to make money (within the bounds of the law).
If it makes them money, they'll probably do it.
If it doesn't, and it's "evil" they won't just do it for kicks of being evil. There needs to be a business case.
Somebody has to justify to their manager, who will then justify to their manager, why something will add value. Surely you've experienced this?
Now, I draw the line at the law, really - so if companies are fraudulently charging things to my credit card, or threatening to shoot me if I don't buy their product - yeah, that's illegal and I don't like that.
But if they're operating within the bounds of the law, or even if they're just being annoying and shoving ads in my face, I'll either put up with it, to use the service, or just use a different service.
As I said in a parent comment - the government is a completely different kettle of fish. However, companies are pretty easy to see through - their motives are, at least on a general level, pretty well defined.
"It should be fairly obvious to any programmer why they're collecting this information" - It's also fairly obvious to any programmer how this can be abused.
"The other thing is, Github is doing this in aggregate, and de-personalised." - THEY SAY.
"What's the business case? How exactly would it make more people pony up money for Github subscription?" - Companies can and do use any information gained about you to build a profile about you. They use this profile to do things like target you ads as well as sell your profile to other companies.
"People seem to think there's some grand Illumati global conspiracy going on." - No we don't, this is about basic privacy best practices.
"If it makes them money, they'll probably do it." - Exactly.
"There needs to be a business case." - There is always a business case. "Business Case" is an abstract concept.
"Now, I draw the line at the law" - The law is an enormous grey area. Essentially you haven't drawn a line. What you've argued is against identity theft and violent threats, not privacy protection.
"But if they're operating within the bounds of the law" - In a democratic society, these things are for us - the society - to decide and change. If you don't agree with the bounds of the law then it is your duty to act accordingly. Arguments like, "as long as it's not breaking the law" have very little use in a democracy.
"government is a completely different kettle of fish" - The government can secretly subpoena these companies for any information.
"companies are pretty easy to see through" - That makes no sense. I get what you're saying, they're trying to make money. There is no one size fits all strategy for making money and businesses do what some people consider "the wrong thing" all the time in effort to just make money.
-----------------------------------------------
People here are concerned about basic privacy best practices, not companies making money or governments spying. No one here is worried about some grand conspiracy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not wanting software that is running on your own personal machine to send statistics about you to a third party whether they are purported to be anonymous or not. It's unfortunate that the societal norm is to turn a blind eye to these basic best practices, but it doesn't mean that those of us that still respect them should too.
The concept is this: Trusting closed source software is not something I want to do.
Not: Github is going to fuck me in the ass if I let them see my usage statistics.
Do you actually think somebody at Github/Google is individually watching you?
As individual data points, I doubt we're that interesting.
It's like NetFlix knowing what movies I watch.
I doubt any single NetFlix employee could give two cents that Victor in Australia likes watching Once Upon A Time. (Awesome show, btw).
However, if I watch Once Upon A Time, and I also watch XYZ, and then other people do the same, maybe they get to improve their algorithm. Woot to them.
Maybe Github want to know what features get used. Or what performance issues people are experiencing.
Maybe it's definitions, but I don't consider this watching - they want to know what we do as an aggregate, but it's not like there's a little imp beside me watching me as I type.
(Although I get how some people might feel that way, if it's just a black box to them).
Also, you do realize that no one is worried about whether "somebody at Github/Google is individually watching you." Unless of course they have an ex-lover at Github/Google.
These organizations, and those capable of secretly subpoenaing them, have software and very fast computers that do the watching. And it's not watching, it's profile building.
I'm not saying that this editor's phoning home of usage statistics is resulting in you being on the no-fly list, but you're argument is missing the point.
Well, let's take your argument, and think it through to it's completion.
What do you think they will do when they have built a profile of you?
Actually, I don't think it's even a huge secret that companies have profiles of customers/users.
Google has a profile of you - and they build targeted ads. I don't see that as particularly evil - Gmail is ad-supported, and I'd rather those ads were relevant to me, rather than endless adds for Cialis (I have no idea what that even is), or for formal dresses or hair extensions.
Github probably has a profile of me - they use it to recommend repos they think I'll be interested in, and keep me coming back to the site.
Microsoft undoubtedly has a profile of me, Yahoo has a profile of me.
Even my supermarket, if I bothered to sign up to their rewards scheme, would have a profile of me.
My credit card company has a profile of me.
All of this is public knowledge - in fact, I think it's better that this stuff is out there, companies acknowledge it and people are aware of it.
Anyhow - to the point - what will happen when these companies, who sell products and services, have profiles of you?
To me - the likely outcome is - they will try to target you better, and get you to buy more products/services.
It's not about a big government spying conspiracy. It's about basic privacy and not giving out data about yourself that you don't want to give out.
There are also enormous trust implications.