https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=128255
Y <libreoffic...@sfina.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|MOVED |---
--- Comment #2 from Y <libreoffic...@sfina.com> ---
That was quick. Forgive me for being insistent, you, Mr Foote, are wrong on
two counts, and while I respect your opinion, I find it to be the opposite of
humble.
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #1)
> User is prompted on Crash recovery if they explicitly want to submit the
> Breakpad generated minidump crash report.
I never saw the Crash Report Dialog.
To compare, I fired up a Windows VM, installed LO's from the LO website
(6.3.2.2) and triggered the bug. No such dialog there either.
> No personally identifiable details
> are included beyond the cURL post details of the originating IP.
(_1_) Too narrow definition of data collection.
The starting point to any discussion about data collection is: the user owns
the data. You are not at liberty to collect it. Whether it contains
personally identifiable details or not is irrelevant.
Even if personally identifiable details were the issue:
(_2_) Too narrow consideration of what are "personally identifiable details"
and where they are found.
Real life examples:
(a) LO crash while I write a letter to police requiring disclosure of an
accident report that implicates my client
(b) LO crash while I am editing a standard template with no client information.
I want to contribute to LO. In (b) I am happy to file a bug report (see Bug
128232) and contribute forensic/statistic data while in (a) I do not want to
see a single bit leaving my LAN, or even my PC.
I understand the importance of crash reports and of usage statistics. I am all
in favour of contributing them. The key words is *contributing*. KNOWINGLY
and VOLUNTARILY.
> User has explicit control over "Collect usage data and send it to The
> Document Foundation"--it is disabled by default on installation. It is only
> enabled by user action in the Tools -> Options -> LibreOffice General panel,
> or by setting an environment variable "LO_COLLECT_USAGE" true.
Sensible defaults. However, this control is as "explicit" as putting a green
and a red pill in front of the user and telling them that one is "good for
them." This is a disenfranchising approach, typical of the bitten fruit.
Please make an effort to explain the control, and while it may be "visual
noise" for you personally like the pill's information sheets are "visual noise"
for a trained chemist, please understand that not all users are as smart and
knowledgeable and enlightened as the rocket scientist you seem to be.
> just tallys of command/control usage per document per session.
Not what was told to me in the case of a crash report.
> IMHO the user is sufficiently advised, abd providing more complex user
> notification in the GUI is _visual noise_. IMHO => WF
Even without knowing what WF stands for. There is a lot of visual noise.
Providing the user with a reasonable explanation of what a control does is not
visual noise. Popping up a request for a donation on startup of a version
update is visual noise. Showing off that a developer can program a computer to
write Today and "Yesterday instead of 2019-10-20 and 2019-10-19 is visual
noise.
In Bug 128232 Michael Meeks expressed the opinion that "contributing crash
reports is extremely helpful for the project." In this bug, I am showing the
project that there is at least one shortcoming in how crash reports are
collected that disenfranchises the user. The questions to the project is:
* do you want to elicit more user feedback? or less?
* And do you want the project to be better than the proprietary competition
that buries consent to data collection in the general licensing terms? Or do
you want user to consider the project as adversarial as any modern day
proprietary piece of software and run it sandbox and cut off the internet to
prevent leaks?
Last but not least: a call for symmetry on the bug tracker. When a user enters
a bug, it stays UNCONFIRMED until a second user CONFIRMS it. Why is it that a
developer, arguably just another user as well, can close a bug without a second
user confirming the closing?
Happy Monday!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug._______________________________________________
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs
