Am Mittwoch, 16. August 2017, 00:33:02 CEST schrieb Valorie Zimmerman: > I think the entire page might be enlightening to this discussion. I > believe our analysis of needs should be more fine-grained, and that > some parts of what we need can be "default on" especially for > pre-release testing. For releases, we can provide an opt-out.
I'm afraid that at the very moment KDE starts transmitting my data, no matter what data, as opt-out, I'll opt out of supporting and using KDE products, and I assume a lot of people will do the same. This is, in my opinion, the exact opposites of our very principles and manifesto, and I would not jeapardize our reputation just to gather some data, to be honest. It would create reputational damage that is hard to fix (people still remember the Unity amazon thing) I do admit that I have very strong views when it comes to privacy and data usage though. > Other more sensitive data will need to be opt-in. I think it's a > mistake to treat all the data we might want all in the same way. > > Valorie Kind regards, Christian > On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Christian Loosli > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > thank you very much for this work, sounds great! > > > > Only point I have: maybe make sure that the opt-in / default settings are > > not only mandatory for application developers, but also for packagers / > > distributions. > > > > Some distributions have rather questionable views on privacy and by > > default > > sent information to third parties, so I would feel much more safe if they > > weren't allowed (in theory) to flick the switch in their package by > > default to "on" either. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Christian
