On Fri, Apr 19 2024 at 11:11:33 AM -07:00:00, Kevin Fenzi
wrote:
There are none. This proposal was withdrawn.
It may be adjusted and submitted for consideration again, but that has
not yet happened.
Well, yes, but I'm planning to do this soonish.
--
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 09:37:38AM GMT, Igor Kerstges wrote:
> Those questions regarding privacy are asked and answered to my satisfaction.
> I'd like to understand more implications about this change..
There are none. This proposal was withdrawn.
It may be adjusted and submitted for
On Thu, Apr 18 2024 at 05:53:14 PM +00:00:00, Igor Kerstges
wrote:
How much data is to be expected to be sent over my dataplan on
monthly basis? When using Fedora Workstations as a graphics
workstation (including regular office applications) during office
hours and extensive internet research
Those questions regarding privacy are asked and answered to my satisfaction.
I'd like to understand more implications about this change..
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
I'm worried about seeing someone here on this discussion list lowering the
importance of privacy.
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 2:53 PM Igor Kerstges wrote:
> Privacy is not too much of my concern.
>
> How much data is to be expected to be sent over my dataplan on monthly
> basis? When using Fedora
Privacy is not too much of my concern.
How much data is to be expected to be sent over my dataplan on monthly basis?
When using Fedora Workstations as a graphics workstation (including regular
office applications) during office hours and extensive internet research and
entertainment during
On Sat, Jul 22 2023 at 02:44:30 AM +, "Smith, Stewart via devel"
wrote:
I’d almost prefer we work out a policy where anything of the sort
is disabled by default, and with a distro-wide standard bcond to not
even compile it in as an option. (No, I don’t quite know how that
could be worded
> On Jul 7, 2023, at 7:09 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 6 2023 at 09:27:47 PM +0200, Florian Weimer
> wrote:
>> What about packages which already collect metrics and report them
>> somewhere (not necessarily to Red Hat)? Would these packages need to
>> change under this
ct.org/t/f40-change-request-privacy-preserving-telemetry-for-fedora-workstation-system-wide/85320/669
and
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/opt-in-opt-out-a-breakout-topic-for-the-f40-change-request-on-privacy-preserving-telemetry-for-fedora-workstation/85395/425
.
--
Adam Williamson
"we know that opt-in metrics are not very useful because few users would opt in
… We are not interested in opt-in metrics."
Any metrics collected *must* be opt-in. If the quote above is still reflects
your thinking on telemetry collection then this is not a viable scheme, and
should be
On Mon, 2023-07-17 at 16:26 -0400, przemek klosowski via devel wrote:
> I seems to me that there are two slightly different understanding of
> 'opt-in':
>
> 1. data collection is happening automatically, but there is a way to
> 'opt-out' and turn it off.
> 2. the user is asked for
On 7/12/23 19:21, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
1. The GDPR and similar regulations are 100% clear that consent must
be opt-*in*. Opt-*out*, as is proposed here, is not consent.
Therefore, this change is proposing collecting telemetry *without
user’s consent*.
I seems to me that
On Sat, 2023-07-15 at 12:16 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2023-07-15 at 15:01 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:25:48PM -0400, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote:
> > > One missing piece might be for Fedora organization to commit to a
> > > policy of protecting
On Sat, 2023-07-15 at 15:01 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:25:48PM -0400, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote:
> > One missing piece might be for Fedora organization to commit to a
> > policy of protecting such data collections, by publishing a legally
> > sound
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:25:48PM -0400, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote:
> One missing piece might be for Fedora organization to commit to a
> policy of protecting such data collections, by publishing a legally
> sound declaration about its intentions and practices. Currently, we
> have this
>
On 7/12/23 16:34, Jeremy Newton wrote:
I know that I would personally always opt out on principle, and would vote for
opt-in or dropping the proposal. I am under the impression that most Fedora
users are in the same boat as me.
For the record, my personal opinion is that an opt-out is an
Hello,
On 7/7/23 04:16, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Thu, Jul 6 2023 at 09:40:59 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour
wrote:
It needs to be off by default. See KDE’s telemetry policy
Again, if it's off by default then the data will be garbage. There is no
point in doing opt-in telemetry. I would
On Friday, 07 July 2023 at 04:16, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 6 2023 at 09:40:59 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour
> wrote:
> > It needs to be off by default. See KDE’s telemetry policy
>
> Again, if it's off by default then the data will be garbage. There is
> no point in doing opt-in
sation about each change
> will take place on Fedora Discussion at
> https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f40-change-request-privacy-preserving-telemetry-for-fedora-workstation-system-wide/85320
>
>
> This will follow the same process as before, just with discussion in a
On 7/6/23 21:17, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 6 2023 at 07:42:47 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour
> wrote:
>> Then make the metrics be neither opt-in nor opt-out. Have
>> “Enable telemetry (y/n)?” be a mandatory question in the
>> installer,
>> which the user must answer.
>
> The
+1
Yes this has been mentioned many times on the thread. You can't say the user
has consented but also have it opt-out.
Saying that opt-in data isn't useful because most users won't opt-in is
implying the desire of a dark pattern to encourage more data collection.
Agreed 100%. Dark patterning or similar isn't the way to go.
If telemetry is included, it should be opt-in with very clear explanation of
why opt-ing in is important and beneficial.
Opt-out and "by consent" are mutually exclusive in most circumstances.
Unfortunately this might just be what happens.
I know that I would personally always opt out on principle, and would vote for
opt-in or dropping the proposal. I am under the impression that most Fedora
users are in the same boat as me.
___
devel
Matt has started a poll with regards to the community's preferences
about the topic:
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/straw-poll-on-your-preferences-about-opt-in-opt-out-for-possible-data-collection/85675/2
On 7/12/23 12:37, Eike Rathke wrote:
Hi,
On Tuesday, 2023-07-11 08:17:07
Matt has started a poll with regards to the community's preferences
about the topic:
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/straw-poll-on-your-preferences-about-opt-in-opt-out-for-possible-data-collection/85675/2
On 7/12/23 12:37, Eike Rathke wrote:
Hi,
On Tuesday, 2023-07-11 08:17:07 -0500,
Hi,
On Tuesday, 2023-07-11 08:17:07 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> I think what happens is: somebody (anybody) can report a post, if it gets
> enough reports it gets proactively hidden before a moderator can review it.
> Do our moderators eventually review such posts to ensure they're truly
>
On Tue, Jul 11 2023 at 02:19:31 PM -0500, Jeremy Linton
wrote:
Having finally had a chance to look at the list of collected metrics
i'm
a bit worried about just how much information is being/can be gathered
by the project, as well as the frequency it is being gathered.
Personally, I think
On 7/11/23 15:45, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> On 7/10/23 13:16, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
>> On 7/10/23 02:30, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
>>> On 10/07/2023 02:49, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
QtWebEngine (used by Falkon) was a
month or more behind upstream Chromium last I checked.
>>>
>>>
On 7/10/23 13:16, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
On 7/10/23 02:30, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 10/07/2023 02:49, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
QtWebEngine (used by Falkon) was a
month or more behind upstream Chromium last I checked.
Qt5QtWebEngine is an extremely vulnerable thing. It still
Hi,
On 7/6/23 11:10, Aoife Moloney wrote:
Important process note: we are experimenting with using Fedora
(trimming stuff because this proposal is huge)
We intend to deploy the Endless OS metrics system.
[https://blogs.gnome.org/wjjt/2023/07/05/endless-oss-privacy-preserving-metrics-system/
I think what happens is: somebody (anybody) can report a post, if it
gets enough reports it gets proactively hidden before a moderator can
review it. Do our moderators eventually review such posts to ensure
they're truly inappropriate? Seems clear that the post is question
should not have
Hi,
On Thursday, 2023-07-06 17:10:24 +0100, Aoife Moloney wrote:
> https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f40-change-request-privacy-preserving-telemetry-for-fedora-workstation-system-wide/85320
So this is how a bit harsher criticism on Discourse is handled? By
flagging and hiding?
ht
On 10/07/2023 20:16, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
In that case it should be removed from the distribution. Can KDE
mail clients be built without QtWebEngine? This would disable
HTML email support, but plain text mail might still work.
I doubt. But last year I disabled QtWebEngine in Psi and
On 7/10/23 02:30, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 10/07/2023 02:49, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
>> QtWebEngine (used by Falkon) was a
>> month or more behind upstream Chromium last I checked.
>
> Qt5QtWebEngine is an extremely vulnerable thing. It still uses Chromium
> 87.0[1].
>
> Current
While I understand the goals are not to track individual users, the
linked blog post about the Endless OS system really doesn't inspire
confidence considering it can track and report rough user location
along with machine model and apps used, which _could_ be combined with
other telemetry data and
On Friday, 07 July 2023 at 23:15, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
[...]
> The local collection is a bit of a hole, but I like your suggestion to
> put a short time limit on that. Perhaps we can collect for something
> like one hour locally, then delete if the user has not consented to
> upload before
On 10/07/2023 02:49, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
QtWebEngine (used by Falkon) was a
month or more behind upstream Chromium last I checked.
Qt5QtWebEngine is an extremely vulnerable thing. It still uses Chromium
87.0[1].
Current Chromium version: 105.0.
[1]:
> >>>>>> will take place on Fedora Discussion at
> >>>>>> https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f40-change-request-privacy-preserving-telemetry-for-fedora-workstation-system-wide/85320
> >>>>> It looks like they've started moving replies they don't
Il 08/07/23 13:06, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel ha scritto:
>>>>> On 06/07/2023 18:10, Aoife Moloney wrote:
>>>>>> but the conversation about each change
>>>>>> will take place on Fedora Discussion at
>>>>>> https://discussion.fedoraproject
In hindsight, both of my comments were hastily posted to this discussion. It
wasn't very constructive and I apologize for this.
I do believe that this proposed change is being considered with the best
intentions for both the user and Fedora. Could we see an example of the
text/telemetry
; On 06/07/2023 18:10, Aoife Moloney wrote:
> >>>> but the conversation about each change
> >>>> will take place on Fedora Discussion at
> >>>> https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f40-change-request-privacy-preserving-telemetry-for-fedora-workstati
hange
>>>> will take place on Fedora Discussion at
>>>> https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f40-change-request-privacy-preserving-telemetry-for-fedora-workstation-system-wide/85320
>>> It looks like they've started moving replies they don't like to
>>> oth
ra Discussion at
> >> https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f40-change-request-privacy-preserving-telemetry-for-fedora-workstation-system-wide/85320
> > It looks like they've started moving replies they don't like to
> > other threads to cover up the flow of resentment that comes
> > naturally to t
> Assuming the goal is to improve fedora, that would be pointless as
> telemetry rarely produces useful results as opt-in. It makes sense to have
> it opt-out, but I'd expect the telemetry output and inputs to be open and
> available for fedora developers.
>
> Regards,
> Nikos
>
>
> On Thu, Jul
> Remember, for avoidance of doubt, we will NEVER enable telemetry upload
> without the user's consent, which is indicated by either (a) not
> flipping the telemetry switch in gnome-initial-setup to the off
> position, or (b) flipping the telemetry switch in gnome-control-center
> to the on
> On Thu, Jul 6 2023 at 07:42:47 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour
>
> The problem is if users are expected to answer, they are going to
> probably answer No and it's effectively the same as an opt-in. But if
> we have a default value, users will be inclined to leave the default
> value.
>
> My
On Sun, Jul 09, 2023 at 09:59:08AM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 09/07/2023 08:59, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
> > BTW in the spirit of openness, I've set up a poll (UNOFFICIAL) to
> > clearly state community sentiment about enabling OPT-OUT metrics to FESCO:
> >
On 09/07/2023 08:59, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
BTW in the spirit of openness, I've set up a poll (UNOFFICIAL) to
clearly state community sentiment about enabling OPT-OUT metrics to FESCO:
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/unofficial-poll-about-opt-out-metrics-proposal/85494
Just a
On 09/07/2023 08:59, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
Can we please stop implying malevolence every time we don't agree with
something?
What malevolence? All 4 of my replies are gone from the main thread. I
can treat this as a censoring attempt by the RH staff. This is
absolutely unacceptable
Il 08/07/23 13:06, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel ha scritto:
> On 06/07/2023 18:10, Aoife Moloney wrote:
>> but the conversation about each change
>> will take place on Fedora Discussion at
>> https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f40-change-request-privacy-preserving-telemetry-f
On 7/8/23 19:48, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Saturday, 08 July 2023 at 19:39, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sat, Jul 08, 2023 at 01:06:01PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 06/07/2023 18:10, Aoife Moloney wrote:
but the conversation about each change
will take place on Fedora
a Discussion at
> > > https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f40-change-request-privacy-preserving-telemetry-for-fedora-workstation-system-wide/85320
> >
> > It looks like they've started moving replies they don't like to
> > other threads to cover up the flow of resentment that come
On Sat, Jul 08, 2023 at 01:06:01PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 06/07/2023 18:10, Aoife Moloney wrote:
> > but the conversation about each change
> > will take place on Fedora Discussion at
> > https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f40-change-request-privacy
On Friday, 07 July 2023 at 23:45, Björn Persson wrote:
> Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > The problem is if users are expected to answer, they are going to
> > probably answer No and it's effectively the same as an opt-in. But if
> > we have a default value, users will be inclined to leave the
On 7/8/23 06:19, Michal Domonkos wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 05:10:24PM +0100, Aoife Moloney wrote:
>> == Summary ==
>>
>> The Red Hat Display Systems Team (which develops the desktop) proposes
>> to enable limited data collection of anonymous Fedora Workstation
>> usage metrics.
>
> One
On Fri, Jul 7 2023 at 09:21:15 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour
wrote:
For metrics to not be personally identifiable, it is necessary that
the
set of metrics collected have sufficiently low entropy that on
average,
_many_ users will send _the exact same metrics_. It is very hard for
me
to see
On Sat, Jul 8 2023 at 12:08:09 AM +, Randy Barlow via devel
wrote:
I agree.
I think it is important to make it possible for a user to ask for the
data collected from their machine to be deleted in the event they
mistakenly submitted data, or changed their mind.
To be able to delete your
On 06/07/2023 18:10, Aoife Moloney wrote:
but the conversation about each change
will take place on Fedora Discussion at
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f40-change-request-privacy-preserving-telemetry-for-fedora-workstation-system-wide/85320
It looks like they've started moving replies
On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 05:10:24PM +0100, Aoife Moloney wrote:
> == Summary ==
>
> The Red Hat Display Systems Team (which develops the desktop) proposes
> to enable limited data collection of anonymous Fedora Workstation
> usage metrics.
One thing to realize here is that, no matter what
On Sat, Jul 8, 2023, at 03:21, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> If Fedora has 2 million users (possibly an overestimate) then the
> metrics would need to have entropy much less than 2^21, which means
> that the entire metrics set would need to be able to be represented
> as a 20-bit integer. In
On 7/6/23 12:10, Aoife Moloney wrote:
> That said, Fedora Legal has determined that if we collect any
> personally-identifiable data, the entire metrics system must be
> opt-in. Since we are only interested in opt-out metrics due to the low
> value of opt-in metrics, we must accordingly never
On 7/7/23 21:14, Naheem Zaffar wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023, 01:08 Randy Barlow via devel, <
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
>> On 7/7/23 19:59, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
>>> That is not consent. The GDPR explicitly states that consent must
>>> be opt-IN.
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> I think it
On Sat, 8 Jul 2023, 01:08 Randy Barlow via devel, <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On 7/7/23 19:59, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> > That is not consent. The GDPR explicitly states that consent must
> > be opt-IN.
>
> I agree.
>
> I think it is important to make it possible for a user to
On 7/7/23 19:59, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
That is not consent. The GDPR explicitly states that consent must
be opt-IN.
I agree.
I think it is important to make it possible for a user to ask for the
data collected from their machine to be deleted in the event they
mistakenly submitted
On 7/6/23 21:17, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 6 2023 at 07:42:47 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour
> wrote:
>> Then make the metrics be neither opt-in nor opt-out. Have
>> “Enable telemetry (y/n)?” be a mandatory question in the
>> installer,
>> which the user must answer.
>
> The
On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 08:08:05PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> ... that would be sad since it would mean more work for me, but
> we're still at the point where that's possible. (I'd *much* rather make
> changes to the existing system to adapt it to our needs, though. :)
Oh, and I didn't
On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 16:15:14 -0500,
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
The local collection is a bit of a hole, but I like your suggestion to
put a short time limit on that. Perhaps we can collect for something
like one hour locally, then delete if the user has not consented to
upload before
On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 08:08:05PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> But remember we do not want to keep information about individuals in the
> data set in the first place. It's easier to dodge privacy concerns if we
> just don't store such associations at all.
Sure, but the data still needs to
Looking at the screenshot, I wonder what percentage of users will read
"Privacy", see that all the switches are on, and click "Next" in the
belief that all the privacy features are on.
Björn Persson
pgp2ZQzLUmMNa.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> The problem is if users are expected to answer, they are going to
> probably answer No and it's effectively the same as an opt-in. But if
> we have a default value, users will be inclined to leave the default
> value.
[...]
> Remember, for avoidance of doubt, we will
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> I would envision installing
> eos-event-recorder-daemon via a Recommends: from the
> gnome-control-center and gnome-initial-setup packages (and probably
> also by adding it to the workstation-product comps group), so if you
> don't have gnome-initial-setup or
On Fri, Jul 7 2023 at 12:25:12 PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III
wrote:
Is there going to be a recommended way to not accidentally install
this stuff? I'm guessing the least work (for Fedora) would be to
black list the key packages in the repo files. Making available a
package that conflicts with
On Fri, Jul 7 2023 at 12:03:14 PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III
wrote:
Note that collecting the data by default increases the harm if
someone accidentally enables telemetry and then notices the issue
after data is reported.
Is there going to be some time limit on the data that is stored and
not
On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 08:17:27PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Thu, Jul 6 2023 at 07:42:47 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour
wrote:
Then make the metrics be neither opt-in nor opt-out. Have
“Enable telemetry (y/n)?” be a mandatory question in the installer,
which the user must answer.
The
>From what I read, the metrics accumulation has an option to turn off the
>collection, as well as the transmission
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 8:53 p.m., Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 6 2023 at 11:08:15 PM +0200, Björn Persson
wrote:
> As a non-user
On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 19:53:12 -0500,
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
Well this change proposal is for Fedora Workstation specifically.
That's in the title. :) I would envision installing
eos-event-recorder-daemon via a Recommends: from the
gnome-control-center and gnome-initial-setup packages
On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 14:32:04 -0500,
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Thu, Jul 6 2023 at 08:19:07 PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
All telemetry collection MUST be an opt-in feature (disabled by
default). I'm strongly against enabling it by default.
As explained in the proposal
On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 20:17:27 -0500,
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
Remember, for avoidance of doubt, we will NEVER enable telemetry
upload without the user's consent, which is indicated by either (a)
not flipping the telemetry switch in gnome-initial-setup to the off
position, or (b)
+1
Am 07.07.23 um 13:05 schrieb Kevin Kofler via devel:
"Privacy-preserving Telemetry" is an oxymoron. No such thing exists.
Telemetry is always an invasion of privacy, and as such, completely
unacceptable in a Free Software operating system. All the more if it is
mandatory or opt-out rather
On Thu, Jul 6 2023 at 09:27:47 PM +0200, Florian Weimer
wrote:
What about packages which already collect metrics and report them
somewhere (not necessarily to Red Hat)? Would these packages need to
change under this proposal? If not, how do we explain this to our
users?
No, packages that
"Privacy-preserving Telemetry" is an oxymoron. No such thing exists.
Telemetry is always an invasion of privacy, and as such, completely
unacceptable in a Free Software operating system. All the more if it is
mandatory or opt-out rather than opt-in (but I also consider all those
obnoxious
tps://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f40-change-request-privacy-preserving-telemetry-for-fedora-workstation-system-wide/85320
> >
> > Why? This was discussed a while back and the number problems with
> > discourse were covered, and to my knowledge none of them have been
> &g
be sent to the
devel-announce mailing list, but the conversation about each change
will take place on Fedora Discussion at
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f40-change-request-privacy-preserving-telemetry-for-fedora-workstation-system-wide/85320
Why? This was discussed a while back
On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 10:26:17PM +0200, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 9:58 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> On 06/07/2023 21:32, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > As explained in the proposal document, we know that opt-in
mailing list, but the conversation about each change
> will take place on Fedora Discussion at
> https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f40-change-request-privacy-preserving-telemetry-for-fedora-workstation-system-wide/85320
Why? This was discussed a while back and the number problems with
disc
Assuming the goal is to improve fedora, that would be pointless as
telemetry rarely produces useful results as opt-in. It makes sense to have
it opt-out, but I'd expect the telemetry output and inputs to be open and
available for fedora developers.
Regards,
Nikos
On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 8:19 PM
* Aoife Moloney:
> == Dependencies ==
>
> Any package that wishes to collect a metric would need to depend on
> eos-metrics. For example, if we were to collect statistics on which
> system settings panels are used most frequently, then the
> gnome-control-center package would need to depend on
On Thu, Jul 6 2023 at 09:40:59 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour
wrote:
It needs to be off by default. See KDE’s telemetry policy
Again, if it's off by default then the data will be garbage. There is
no point in doing opt-in telemetry. I would withdraw the proposal
entirely if we cannot do it
On Fri, Jul 7 2023 at 01:39:24 AM +, Maxwell G
wrote:
I don't see an attachment.
Trying again.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 8:53 PM Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 6 2023 at 11:08:15 PM +0200, Björn Persson
> wrote:
> > As a non-user of Gnome 3 who normally never runs any Gnome 3 settings
> > programs, I get the impression that Fedora 40 will begin accumulating
> > unused metrics
On 7/6/23 21:17, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 6 2023 at 07:42:47 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour
> wrote:
>> Then make the metrics be neither opt-in nor opt-out. Have
>> “Enable telemetry (y/n)?” be a mandatory question in the
>> installer,
>> which the user must answer.
>
> The
On Thu Jul 6, 2023 at 20:17 CDT, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> I'm attaching a screenshot to give an idea of what this would look like
> in gnome-initial-setup. I don't have a gnome-control-center screenshot
> handy, but it would be similar, except there it would default to off.
I don't see an
On Thu, Jul 6 2023 at 07:42:47 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour
wrote:
Then make the metrics be neither opt-in nor opt-out. Have
“Enable telemetry (y/n)?” be a mandatory question in the
installer,
which the user must answer.
The problem is if users are expected to answer, they are going to
On Thu, Jul 6 2023 at 11:33:03 PM +0200, Michal Domonkos
wrote:
Given the detailed proposal, it's probably too late now for any
fundamental
changes, but there's a formal research area called Differential
Privacy [1]
that deals with the collection of user data in such a way that it
On Thu, Jul 6 2023 at 11:08:15 PM +0200, Björn Persson
wrote:
As a non-user of Gnome 3 who normally never runs any Gnome 3 settings
programs, I get the impression that Fedora 40 will begin accumulating
unused metrics somewhere in the filesystem. To prevent a constantly
growing waste of
On 7/6/23 15:32, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 6 2023 at 08:19:07 PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> wrote:
>> All telemetry collection MUST be an opt-in feature (disabled by
>> default). I'm strongly against enabling it by default.
>
> As explained in the proposal document, we
So this change is for workstation iso only?, the other spins wont have this
unwanted change.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 11:33:03PM +0200, Michal Domonkos wrote:
> changes, but there's a formal research area called Differential Privacy [1]
Oops, forgot the link:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy
--
Michal Domonkos / RPM dev team / Red Hat, Inc.
On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 05:10:24PM +0100, Aoife Moloney wrote:
> == Summary ==
>
> The Red Hat Display Systems Team (which develops the desktop) proposes
> to enable limited data collection of anonymous Fedora Workstation
> usage metrics.
Given the detailed proposal, it's probably too late now
As a non-user of Gnome 3 who normally never runs any Gnome 3 settings
programs, I get the impression that Fedora 40 will begin accumulating
unused metrics somewhere in the filesystem. To prevent a constantly
growing waste of storage space, I'll have to run one of two Gnome 3
settings programs –
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
