It's interesting that we're so used to be tracked at this point that no one balks at being opted-in by default. A flag called DO_NOT_TRACK sounds like a good idea, but also suggests the default is CONSENT_TO_TRACK=1, and I find that creepy.
This flag is sent by my browser when I connect to SOMEONE ELSE’s SERVER.
The internet only took off because the primary business model which ran on ads and derivative information that servers do to their users.
It’s not fun. It’s not private or secure. It’s not illegal (in most jurisdictions for most industries). The flag exists as a response to the de facto and de jure state of the world, not some fairytale scenario.
> The internet only took off because the primary business model which ran on ads
No? It took off before advertising was widespread as a primary or sole funding business model? Also there's literally nothing about advertising that requires data collection about users. Sure they love to do it, and they might even believe that it helps their profits in some way. But it's not inherent, they got along just fine with billboards and newspaper classifieds. TV ads never required personal information. Not did pre roll cinema ads, or radio adverts. Nobody was bemoaning in the streets that they couldn't possibly find anything to buy
Article quite literally talks about tracking of cli tools you run on your own computer, half of which are to pilot products that you pay with your own money.
I actually consider such a flag to be problematic. I don't want to give out any information - of course I never want to be tracked, but marking this via an ENV variable alone, already makes zero sense to me. I don't understand people who like that while claiming they do not want to be tracked; if they give that information, then this means they are marked.
I always choose to go with positive terms with variables etc, so this would then be ALLOW_TRACKING=0. It brings in some consistence and makes it easier to reason, as you get to avoid double negation.
Perhaps the "DO NOT TRACK" name is somewhat of an established term, though.
One could also implement ALLOW_TRACKING as comma separated list for applications I choose to allow it. Say I would like to share telemetry with go and brew, but not aws and the rest ALLOW_TRACKING=go,brew
This is set up for the same fate as DNT in browsers. Collecting all the "do not track" env vars into a single "do_not_track.env" file, however, may not be a bad idea...
Advertisers chose to ignore DNT because they claimed Microsoft making DNT enabled by default took agency away from the user. In reality, they probably weren't going to honor it anyway.
There's an inherent conflict. No one _wants_ to be tracked, there is no direct benefit to being tracked and only downsides. And advertisers want to track you. So there was no way to respect the flag other than making it obscure so only a few dedicated people turned it on.
Microsoft is too sophisticated to plead ignorance; they are responsible for that outcome and I think we can assume they knowningly chose it. (Though now Microsoft browsers are such a small portion of the market that it doesn't matter.)
The biggest failure of DNT was browser makers - including Mozilla - removing it. It has zero performance impact (1 bit?) or development cost. As long as it was out there, when there was momentum against tracking, advocates had evidence of both demand for privacy and of trackers ignoring user wishes.
Love it. This is an annoying problem and likely the actual solution than asking folks to use a universal one. I'll put something together as a starting point.
I was surprised how hard it was to stop the Python transformers library from phoning home to Hugging Face. I set HF_HUB_DISABLE_TELEMETRY=1, and when I called Wav2Vec2CTCTokenizer.from_pretrained I explicitly passed local_files_only=True, but still I got got a warning about not having a valid HF_TOKEN. It wasn't until I stumbled upon HF_HUB_OFFLINE=1 that I'm somewhat confident that I'm not making outgoing connections to HF every time I load a wav2vec2 model from disk.
I wouldn't have realized this was happening at all if it weren't for the obnoxious HF_TOKEN warning.
HF is notorious for making it difficult to work offline (or at least not waste time trying to connect when everything needed is offline) and is constantly changing how it is being handled. Previously, there was TRANSFORMERS_OFFLINE, HF_DATASETS_OFFLINE, etc.
While we wait for companies to very very slowly implement that proposal, is there a place that collects in one place all the opt out methods for most common tools in one place? Perhaps even a shell module that sets them and regularly updates its list?
Looks like a helpful honeypot! Any tool that will public announce support for this spec is a tool I know to avoid because it collects telemetry without explicit opt-in in the first place.
DO_NOT_TRACK support doesn't mean tracking is not an explicit opt-in.
Example: the software crashes, and there is a crash handler that asks you if you want to send a crash dump. With DO_NOT_TRACK, the crash handler is disabled entirely, no question, no dump.
If it gets some adoption, that's probably how it will work. Those who have an financial interest in using tracking (ex: ads) probably won't support such an option.
It's probably easier to run your own DNS and blacklist the offending domains. There are good blacklists with millions of telemetry domains, e.g. https://github.com/hagezi/dns-blocklists.
A GLOBAL do not track on the browsers works largely cause the target is all the websites being browsed and the tracking associated with it for advertising purposes. However telemetry is altogether a different thing, blocking it by default can be one idea, however using one standard variable to express the intent for all the tools is not practically viable
> Many CLI tools, SDKs, and frameworks collect telemetry data by default.
Any of those are using a dark pattern and before exploring new ways to opt out you should look for and spend your energy on an alternative which respects your freedoms upfront.
The reason the DNT header failed is because there is no way to enforce it. The browser can set the flag, but there's no way to ensure it's actually respected. There are no protocol police.
I don't think there is any way to stop people from tracking you. Technically speaking, you can pretty much always be tracked. Even if you eliminated all third party requests you could still be tracked. Downloads, logins, queries, etc all can be tracked. Virtually all software now has the "continuously upgrade to the latest version" bullshit so you are tracked every time you open the app. Even if you turn it off, they stop the app from working until you upgrade, so they force you to be tracked.
I think the only solution is to make it law that you can't track anyone for any reason without their consent, and can't sell consensual tracking data without an additional consent agreement. It would be a huge blow to the advertising industry, so it will never be made law, but it's the only thing that would work.
Also every time you install a program Microsoft, Apple and Google knows depending on the device. For your safety of course. The tracking is so pervasive and the majority of people do not care.
The issue is that it is not enforced. My version of My IP will tell you if 'Do Not track' and 'Global Privacy Control' are set by your browser but it is up to the website to honour your requests. Check if your browser is sending them by visiting: https://fshot.org/utils/myip.php
This is just sad. Luckily I do not use any of the listed programs. I threw out Homebrew many years ago when they started this nonsense.
The only tool I have installed currently that does %/"($& like this is Deno (required for yt-dlp now). It phones happily home even if you wrap it into a wrapper script that forces the env variable (in no way I'll pollute my default environment with stuff like this):
I wish bad dreams to whoever puts such crap into their software! Thankfully I have Little Snitch to catch most of those kind of invasions of my privacy.
Domain blocking is my preference but I would imagine that trackers probably also try to weed out data that contains racism, sexism, lewdness or some combination thereof. People can get very creative with ASCII art. AI surely does not accept such things.
And setting that env var should require a notarized consent to track contract that has an expiration of at most 60 days and has penalties of jail time for any data related to that telemetry, anonymized or not that is shared with a third party, for any reason, including but not limited to fulfilling the service the business purports to be providing.
It should be much more difficult to collect data than to opt out of collection.
I have some issue with how some of these are represented. For example, syncthing has an explicit opt-in request for telemetry / analytics. The suggested setting change is something entirely different - a call to ask what the latest version is. Granted, that server could log your IP address but that's no different to how it uses the relay and discovery servers that are also run by the same people - those could log the same way.
.. which is entirely different to the telemetry system where usage stats are reported. You can see that on data.syncthing.net. But again, thats a separate opt-in. The suggested env variable on the site won't turn that off.
Could you provide more details? Many applications use multiple processes, and use some intermittently. It seems like quite a bit of work to enumerate every process used and then to keep the white/blacklist updated as usage and software changes - every new application or command you use, every update, every OS change that affects networking or system calls etc ...
Yes, with security comes inconvenience, this is inevitable.
I'm not a daily user of network namespaces, and would probably write a script to do the configuration within a shell (it works a bit like containers). The configuration is inherited by child processes, so you only have to do it once. Basically whitelist the urls you typically use, and maybe let the script popup a dialog asking you to allow access when the firewall catches a domain that is not in the whitelist yet.
I'd be interested in,
1. a SOME-TRUST model: a list of opt-outs for the known software that collect telemetry; so that I can just paste that into an env file and be done with it.
2. a ZERO-TRUST model [preferable]: where I control if an application can send any telemetry data; instead of depending on a flag that the distributor may or may not respect.
I’m morally opposed to the notion of optimizing the opt-out mechanism. I want a standardized opt-in mechanism, like:
export ALLOW_TRACKING=telemetry,crash_dumps
and the absence of such a setting means “fuck off, don’t spy on me”. It’s not my responsibility to turn off apps wanting to track me. It’s their responsibility to get me to authorize their specific flavor of tracking.
Default opt-in tracking should be illegal and enforced with such fines and prison sentences, that companies wouldn't even dare to have anything remotely capable of tracking in the runtime.
Unfortunately big corporations can always find away to make regulators see no problem.
I'm sure this will be about as effective as putting yourself on the do not call list for domestic phone telemarketers, which has absolutely no effect whatsoever on overseas scam call centers.
This does not make sense to support. Businesses that have proper privacy controls and security do not want to be lumped together with random shady apps and want users to explicitly opt out. Another issue with this header is that users could set it and then accidentally opt out of other sharing that they don't realize since this header is being set somewhere random. Standardizing on a per app basis way to revoke consent, along with showing privacy polices and measures the apps have put in place for guarding security would be a more sensible alternative that could gain traction.
Honest question, what's the problem with crash dumps that include no personal info? They just help make the software less buggy. I also don't see an issue with anonymized usage patterns (this feature was used X times this month, this one Y times, etc).
Can someone expound on what they see as a problem?
> Honest question, what's the problem with crash dumps that include no personal info?
In addition to the other response: crash dumps are difficult to anonymize, both because useful crash dumps include something like a minidump (or some other small alternative to a core file), and because even without that, any random information from a backtrace may be sensitive (e.g. a URL).
There's nothing wrong with saving a crash dump and giving the user control of whether to submit a bug report.
Anyone on the path potentially learns something about your system and your software use.
Your IP during connection exposes your rough location.
Crash logs rarely are completely anonymized so both together can additionally serve as a way to re-identify the user.
The only way to properly transmit telemetry data would be Tor. And no, even then I don’t want my tools to report back my use. It’s simply not required, and data minimization is part of my set of ethics, and I’m happy that EU/GDPR sees it the same way. Not all data that you think is worth something to you is morally right to collect. You send data somewhere, even just to check for updates - ask me first. I do not want my hammer to report back how many nails I hammered in. I don’t want my software to reach out to the world without my consent.
I would suggest that the default to enrolling people in supplying such information is the issue. In a world driven by surveillance capitalism, even "anonymous" data can be used for much broader purposes (think, for example, of when and where people are using tools geographically and at what times: you can start to track the behaviour of people in this way).
Users should never be opted in through usage alone of free or paid-for tooling to supply information that isn't part of the function of the tool. Where that is required for a service or product, you should opt-in explicitly, not implicitly.
I personally do not use this. The reason is quite simple: I do not want to give out ANY information to external sites. Meaning, they could want to group me into "wants to be tracked" and "does not want to be tracked". I expect a general content blocker, which ublock origin is, to protect me from any malicious external actor, including horrible UI, such as nowadays google search has. I mean, just make a regular google search and then ask yourself why google places so many ads. Yes, ALL links to videos on youtube are also google ads - they self-promote themselves here.
We kind of need ublock origin on the operating system level - even more so as the new laws mandate age sniffing of everyone, tied to usage and access to the www (see the concomitant fight against VPN; that is the long road here, the "but but but the children!" is the lie, the cake, the carrot on the stick).
Ultimately one could ask "but the do not track thing is harmless" - the issue still is that I don't agree that my browser should betray me. Naturally since Google controls most browsers, can we trust Google? But, even aside from Google, can we trust other browsers? We need more diversity here again, but also more quality on every level. I consider the do_not_track as actually a you_will_be_marked and thus tracked.
It's interesting that we're so used to be tracked at this point that no one balks at being opted-in by default. A flag called DO_NOT_TRACK sounds like a good idea, but also suggests the default is CONSENT_TO_TRACK=1, and I find that creepy.
Do not track WHEN?
This flag is sent by my browser when I connect to SOMEONE ELSE’s SERVER.
The internet only took off because the primary business model which ran on ads and derivative information that servers do to their users.
It’s not fun. It’s not private or secure. It’s not illegal (in most jurisdictions for most industries). The flag exists as a response to the de facto and de jure state of the world, not some fairytale scenario.
> The internet only took off because the primary business model which ran on ads and derivative information that servers do to their users.
quite the opposite I would argue:
https://nickyreinert.de/2020/2020-10-24-marketing-killed-the...
> The internet only took off because the primary business model which ran on ads
No? It took off before advertising was widespread as a primary or sole funding business model? Also there's literally nothing about advertising that requires data collection about users. Sure they love to do it, and they might even believe that it helps their profits in some way. But it's not inherent, they got along just fine with billboards and newspaper classifieds. TV ads never required personal information. Not did pre roll cinema ads, or radio adverts. Nobody was bemoaning in the streets that they couldn't possibly find anything to buy
You can have ads without tracking.
You’re confusing the Internet with Google.
Article quite literally talks about tracking of cli tools you run on your own computer, half of which are to pilot products that you pay with your own money.
Get off your high horse.
2 replies →
> The internet only took off because the primary business model which ran on ads and derivative information that servers do to their users.
Arguable, on the other hand it did kill the internet. (or, almost so far, we'll see whether we rebound after decades of enshittification)
I actually consider such a flag to be problematic. I don't want to give out any information - of course I never want to be tracked, but marking this via an ENV variable alone, already makes zero sense to me. I don't understand people who like that while claiming they do not want to be tracked; if they give that information, then this means they are marked.
I always choose to go with positive terms with variables etc, so this would then be ALLOW_TRACKING=0. It brings in some consistence and makes it easier to reason, as you get to avoid double negation.
Perhaps the "DO NOT TRACK" name is somewhat of an established term, though.
One could also implement ALLOW_TRACKING as comma separated list for applications I choose to allow it. Say I would like to share telemetry with go and brew, but not aws and the rest ALLOW_TRACKING=go,brew
..and what kind of tracking, e.g. anonymous usage statistics vs update checks, e.g.
The specification could go on and on!
This is set up for the same fate as DNT in browsers. Collecting all the "do not track" env vars into a single "do_not_track.env" file, however, may not be a bad idea...
https://toptout.me - exists and handles a lot of these problems, if not looking to create a new wheel.
Though if you just want a simple ENV var that handles this WHILE honoring the specification on this page: https://github.com/alloydwhitlock/do-not-track-cli
Advertisers chose to ignore DNT because they claimed Microsoft making DNT enabled by default took agency away from the user. In reality, they probably weren't going to honor it anyway.
There's an inherent conflict. No one _wants_ to be tracked, there is no direct benefit to being tracked and only downsides. And advertisers want to track you. So there was no way to respect the flag other than making it obscure so only a few dedicated people turned it on.
5 replies →
Microsoft is too sophisticated to plead ignorance; they are responsible for that outcome and I think we can assume they knowningly chose it. (Though now Microsoft browsers are such a small portion of the market that it doesn't matter.)
The biggest failure of DNT was browser makers - including Mozilla - removing it. It has zero performance impact (1 bit?) or development cost. As long as it was out there, when there was momentum against tracking, advocates had evidence of both demand for privacy and of trackers ignoring user wishes.
5 replies →
Love it. This is an annoying problem and likely the actual solution than asking folks to use a universal one. I'll put something together as a starting point.
For the record, Go’s telemetry is local by default (not uploaded): https://go.dev/doc/telemetry
I was surprised how hard it was to stop the Python transformers library from phoning home to Hugging Face. I set HF_HUB_DISABLE_TELEMETRY=1, and when I called Wav2Vec2CTCTokenizer.from_pretrained I explicitly passed local_files_only=True, but still I got got a warning about not having a valid HF_TOKEN. It wasn't until I stumbled upon HF_HUB_OFFLINE=1 that I'm somewhat confident that I'm not making outgoing connections to HF every time I load a wav2vec2 model from disk.
I wouldn't have realized this was happening at all if it weren't for the obnoxious HF_TOKEN warning.
HF is notorious for making it difficult to work offline (or at least not waste time trying to connect when everything needed is offline) and is constantly changing how it is being handled. Previously, there was TRANSFORMERS_OFFLINE, HF_DATASETS_OFFLINE, etc.
Does something like Little Snitch catch these to help find the things doing hidden shenanigans?
While we wait for companies to very very slowly implement that proposal, is there a place that collects in one place all the opt out methods for most common tools in one place? Perhaps even a shell module that sets them and regularly updates its list?
Looks like a helpful honeypot! Any tool that will public announce support for this spec is a tool I know to avoid because it collects telemetry without explicit opt-in in the first place.
DO_NOT_TRACK support doesn't mean tracking is not an explicit opt-in.
Example: the software crashes, and there is a crash handler that asks you if you want to send a crash dump. With DO_NOT_TRACK, the crash handler is disabled entirely, no question, no dump.
If it gets some adoption, that's probably how it will work. Those who have an financial interest in using tracking (ex: ads) probably won't support such an option.
i can't think of a single CLI that is possibly collecting analytics for ads
Most services are already collecting telemetry, them announcing support for it won't change that.
Well, don't look too deep else you won't be using many modern tools.
Hey, it's a list of services to feed fake data to!
It's probably easier to run your own DNS and blacklist the offending domains. There are good blacklists with millions of telemetry domains, e.g. https://github.com/hagezi/dns-blocklists.
Better yet, don't allow such spyware crap on your computer.
pfft, just don't have a computer and you'll be good
1 reply →
That is the correct way of handling this.
Everyone proclaiming a "standard" is just adding to the long list of (unofficial) alternatives.
obligatory: https://xkcd.com/927/
1 reply →
A GLOBAL do not track on the browsers works largely cause the target is all the websites being browsed and the tracking associated with it for advertising purposes. However telemetry is altogether a different thing, blocking it by default can be one idea, however using one standard variable to express the intent for all the tools is not practically viable
Same thing has been suggested a few years ago and it went nowhere.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200613155957/https://consoledo...
> Many CLI tools, SDKs, and frameworks collect telemetry data by default.
Any of those are using a dark pattern and before exploring new ways to opt out you should look for and spend your energy on an alternative which respects your freedoms upfront.
Exactly, new “standard” won’t fix it
The most useful part of this page is the list of optout commands to stick in my shellrc.
Is anyone maintaining a more complete list of those?
an LLM would do a fine job for most common things, doesn't really matter if a few of them get hallucinated
The reason browser's DNT header failed is that they don't want to user to turn off tracking by default
The reason they will not adopt common env is that because they do not want it to be easy to turn off
The reason the DNT header failed is because there is no way to enforce it. The browser can set the flag, but there's no way to ensure it's actually respected. There are no protocol police.
just sinkhole the domains
https://dpaste.com/E7RZ34MVD
https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts
I thought it would be a sh script to automatically set the flags for all known do not track env vars.
It worked so well on the browser already
This goes against user experience, doesn't it?
Why?
Given the URL and list of different opt-outs I thought this was going to be a shell script to set all these for you. In fact, I've just had an idea...
Exactly what I was thinking.
I don't think there is any way to stop people from tracking you. Technically speaking, you can pretty much always be tracked. Even if you eliminated all third party requests you could still be tracked. Downloads, logins, queries, etc all can be tracked. Virtually all software now has the "continuously upgrade to the latest version" bullshit so you are tracked every time you open the app. Even if you turn it off, they stop the app from working until you upgrade, so they force you to be tracked.
I think the only solution is to make it law that you can't track anyone for any reason without their consent, and can't sell consensual tracking data without an additional consent agreement. It would be a huge blow to the advertising industry, so it will never be made law, but it's the only thing that would work.
Also every time you install a program Microsoft, Apple and Google knows depending on the device. For your safety of course. The tracking is so pervasive and the majority of people do not care.
It’s already a law in Europe. GDPR and ePrivacy. You have to get consent from the user. Having worked for European companies, they take it seriously.
The assumption that telemetry is not allowed by GDPR is flawed
https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-26/
2 replies →
> We just want local software.
You just want local software to...send commands to your Cloud providers?
The issue is that it is not enforced. My version of My IP will tell you if 'Do Not track' and 'Global Privacy Control' are set by your browser but it is up to the website to honour your requests. Check if your browser is sending them by visiting: https://fshot.org/utils/myip.php
That's great, but isn't DNT deprecated?
Was wondering if there was a list of known opt outs as we are looking at a default opt out in Renovate[0] - we'll also look to set `DO_NOT_TRACK`
[0]: https://github.com/renovatebot/renovate/discussions/42932
Here is a non comprehensive list of mine: https://makandracards.com/makandra/624560-disable-telemetry-...
Ooh thanks!
This is just sad. Luckily I do not use any of the listed programs. I threw out Homebrew many years ago when they started this nonsense.
The only tool I have installed currently that does %/"($& like this is Deno (required for yt-dlp now). It phones happily home even if you wrap it into a wrapper script that forces the env variable (in no way I'll pollute my default environment with stuff like this):
I wish bad dreams to whoever puts such crap into their software! Thankfully I have Little Snitch to catch most of those kind of invasions of my privacy.
Domain blocking is my preference but I would imagine that trackers probably also try to weed out data that contains racism, sexism, lewdness or some combination thereof. People can get very creative with ASCII art. AI surely does not accept such things.
No, it should be a required (by law) opt-in TRACK_ME_I_DO_NOT_CARE_OR_AM_A_TEAPOT=418.
The proposed way just normalizes tracking.
And setting that env var should require a notarized consent to track contract that has an expiration of at most 60 days and has penalties of jail time for any data related to that telemetry, anonymized or not that is shared with a third party, for any reason, including but not limited to fulfilling the service the business purports to be providing.
It should be much more difficult to collect data than to opt out of collection.
Also this, we disable it when building or deploying apps in DollarDeploy
export SEMGREP_SEND_METRICS=off export COLLECT_LEARNINGS_OPT_OUT=true export STORYBOOK_DISABLE_TELEMETRY=1 export NEXT_TELEMETRY_DISABLED=1 export SLS_TELEMETRY_DISABLED=1 export SLS_NOTIFICATIONS_MODE=off export DISABLE_OPENCOLLECTIVE=true export NPM_CONFIG_UPDATE_NOTIFIER=false
I have some issue with how some of these are represented. For example, syncthing has an explicit opt-in request for telemetry / analytics. The suggested setting change is something entirely different - a call to ask what the latest version is. Granted, that server could log your IP address but that's no different to how it uses the relay and discovery servers that are also run by the same people - those could log the same way.
.. which is entirely different to the telemetry system where usage stats are reported. You can see that on data.syncthing.net. But again, thats a separate opt-in. The suggested env variable on the site won't turn that off.
If solution was real, it would be DO_TRACK=1, not the inverse.
I'm old enough to remember Nancy Reagan just say no!I think this has the same effect.
Love the idea but is an env var enough. Are there some sessions (docker?) that may not get it.
I'd prefer TRACK_ME as an opt in.
You can also use network namespaces to simply block internet access for certain processes. It can even be finetuned with whitelists or blacklists.
Could you provide more details? Many applications use multiple processes, and use some intermittently. It seems like quite a bit of work to enumerate every process used and then to keep the white/blacklist updated as usage and software changes - every new application or command you use, every update, every OS change that affects networking or system calls etc ...
Yes, with security comes inconvenience, this is inevitable.
I'm not a daily user of network namespaces, and would probably write a script to do the configuration within a shell (it works a bit like containers). The configuration is inherited by child processes, so you only have to do it once. Basically whitelist the urls you typically use, and maybe let the script popup a dialog asking you to allow access when the firewall catches a domain that is not in the whitelist yet.
I'd be interested in, 1. a SOME-TRUST model: a list of opt-outs for the known software that collect telemetry; so that I can just paste that into an env file and be done with it. 2. a ZERO-TRUST model [preferable]: where I control if an application can send any telemetry data; instead of depending on a flag that the distributor may or may not respect.
It feels like this should be no_track, for consistency with no_color
Privacy should be treated as a right, not something that can be abused for money. Love the idea of this
I’m morally opposed to the notion of optimizing the opt-out mechanism. I want a standardized opt-in mechanism, like:
and the absence of such a setting means “fuck off, don’t spy on me”. It’s not my responsibility to turn off apps wanting to track me. It’s their responsibility to get me to authorize their specific flavor of tracking.
> It’s their responsibility to get me to authorize their specific flavor of tracking.
And they do by burying it in the user agreement you probably agreed to.
Like it or not, it is your responsibility. I agree it shouldn’t be, but let’s be realistic.
Then it's my responsibility to feed them fake data.
They didn't opt out of my data, after all.
https://xkcd.com/927/
Default opt-in tracking should be illegal and enforced with such fines and prison sentences, that companies wouldn't even dare to have anything remotely capable of tracking in the runtime.
Unfortunately big corporations can always find away to make regulators see no problem.
> Default opt-in
This is called opt out.
I'm sure this will be about as effective as putting yourself on the do not call list for domestic phone telemarketers, which has absolutely no effect whatsoever on overseas scam call centers.
This does not make sense to support. Businesses that have proper privacy controls and security do not want to be lumped together with random shady apps and want users to explicitly opt out. Another issue with this header is that users could set it and then accidentally opt out of other sharing that they don't realize since this header is being set somewhere random. Standardizing on a per app basis way to revoke consent, along with showing privacy polices and measures the apps have put in place for guarding security would be a more sensible alternative that could gain traction.
Gathering information without real consent is shady.
Honest question, what's the problem with crash dumps that include no personal info? They just help make the software less buggy. I also don't see an issue with anonymized usage patterns (this feature was used X times this month, this one Y times, etc).
Can someone expound on what they see as a problem?
> Honest question, what's the problem with crash dumps that include no personal info?
In addition to the other response: crash dumps are difficult to anonymize, both because useful crash dumps include something like a minidump (or some other small alternative to a core file), and because even without that, any random information from a backtrace may be sensitive (e.g. a URL).
There's nothing wrong with saving a crash dump and giving the user control of whether to submit a bug report.
I'm more thinking Python crashes, where you just get the lines that executed, and ~zero identifiable data.
Anyone on the path potentially learns something about your system and your software use.
Your IP during connection exposes your rough location.
Crash logs rarely are completely anonymized so both together can additionally serve as a way to re-identify the user.
The only way to properly transmit telemetry data would be Tor. And no, even then I don’t want my tools to report back my use. It’s simply not required, and data minimization is part of my set of ethics, and I’m happy that EU/GDPR sees it the same way. Not all data that you think is worth something to you is morally right to collect. You send data somewhere, even just to check for updates - ask me first. I do not want my hammer to report back how many nails I hammered in. I don’t want my software to reach out to the world without my consent.
I would suggest that the default to enrolling people in supplying such information is the issue. In a world driven by surveillance capitalism, even "anonymous" data can be used for much broader purposes (think, for example, of when and where people are using tools geographically and at what times: you can start to track the behaviour of people in this way).
Users should never be opted in through usage alone of free or paid-for tooling to supply information that isn't part of the function of the tool. Where that is required for a service or product, you should opt-in explicitly, not implicitly.
That's fair, thanks.
He’s better off vibecoding an include.sh that sets all the known do not track env vars for you.
Am I the only one who also finds it comical that rejecting cookies requires a cookie.
I personally do not use this. The reason is quite simple: I do not want to give out ANY information to external sites. Meaning, they could want to group me into "wants to be tracked" and "does not want to be tracked". I expect a general content blocker, which ublock origin is, to protect me from any malicious external actor, including horrible UI, such as nowadays google search has. I mean, just make a regular google search and then ask yourself why google places so many ads. Yes, ALL links to videos on youtube are also google ads - they self-promote themselves here.
We kind of need ublock origin on the operating system level - even more so as the new laws mandate age sniffing of everyone, tied to usage and access to the www (see the concomitant fight against VPN; that is the long road here, the "but but but the children!" is the lie, the cake, the carrot on the stick).
Ultimately one could ask "but the do not track thing is harmless" - the issue still is that I don't agree that my browser should betray me. Naturally since Google controls most browsers, can we trust Google? But, even aside from Google, can we trust other browsers? We need more diversity here again, but also more quality on every level. I consider the do_not_track as actually a you_will_be_marked and thus tracked.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]