zlacker

>>gorman+(OP)
" Modern cars regularly send basic data about vehicle components, their safety status and service schedules to car manufacturers, and mobile phones work in very similar ways." -Google

This is a beautiful quote because it is an example of one industry's bad behavior leading to another industry's bad behavior, upon which the first industry then users the second's similarity to justify themselves. Cars only started doing this because phones made it normal. It's wrong in both cases.

It's similar to when Apple defended it's 30% store cut by claiming it's an "industry standard"... specifically, an industry standard that Apple established.

>>ocdtre+e3
I disagree that telemetry is inherently bad. As product engineers, telemetry is often our only visibility into whether or not a system is functioning healthily. How else can you detect difficult-to-spot bugs in production?

>>wmiche+Jn
So why does $product need to send telemetry data via google? Why can highly complex software that runs most of the worlds internet infrastructure (linux) work without telemetry? Why is telemetry not opt-in or relies on reports in situation where a bug causes an issue like firefox crash reports? I'd rather have privacy and buggy software then bug free software in exchange for no privacy at all

>>dtx1+Ro
>So why does $product need to send telemetry data via google?

Because Google is responsible for most of the software on said product. Who would be receiving that telemetry data if it wasn't Google?

>Why can highly complex software that runs most of the worlds internet infrastructure (linux) work without telemetry?

First, this is a false premise because it ignores the potential that telemetry could help improve this software but most Linux distros have decided against it for other reasons. Secondly, it ignores that some distros do in fact include telemetry.

>Why is telemetry not opt-in

It probably should be when it comes to something that has potential to invade privacy, but we have to be realistic that practically no one will actively turn on telemetry if it is initially set to off. That drastically decreases the value of the collected data and it basically turns into nothing more than something customer service can tell someone to turn on while trying to troubleshoot a specific issue.

>or relies on reports in situation where a bug causes an issue like firefox crash reports?

Telemetry isn't just about bugs. It is also about guiding future development, knowing what features are used, knowing the workflow for users, etc. It can provide value beyond crash reports.

>I'd rather have privacy and buggy software then bug free software in exchange for no privacy at all

This is completely fair. I would generally agree with you and bet that most HN readers would too. However this is not a binary choice. Not all telemetry is inherently bad. Not all loss of privacy is inherently damaging. This is a complicated issue that will involve compromises and anyone sticking to a complete extreme of it being all bad or all good isn't going to offer anything productive to this conversation.

>>slg+At
This argument does not hold because you can compare Google to Apple (in this case and based on the article) and say that if this was the case, then Apple which gathers less data would have inferior (more bugs, slow feature development, etc.) than Google. I see the competition, which is Apple in this case, doing relatively fair without (presumably) gathering as much data, therefore I absolutely don’t buy this claim.

>>gerane+UE
Funny enough you are saying my argument doesn't hold but your reasoning actually falls perfectly in line with my comment.

The argument isn't that all telemetry is good or that we should accept any level of it.

The argument is that all telemetry is not inherently bad.

As the article states, Apple does telemetry too. If you are ok with Apple and not Google, you are agreeing with me that this is a nuanced issue and the specific level of telemetry needs to be debated. If you are taking the stance that all telemetry is bad. You need to find another company to champion besides Apple.

>>slg+DG
I agree with you that not all telemetry is bad and as a software engineer I understand the value of it. What I am trying to say is this kind of argument has been used by the likes of Google, Apple, Facebook, etc. as an excuse to collect an excessive amount of data (even sometimes illegally) and that’s the reason I pushed back against it. As you correctly mentioned, this is a complex issue. For example, there is no way for most users to differentiate between what could be useful and what is unnecessary violation, what privacy breach is severe and what is not. Until we have a practical solution to these problems, I won’t trust those companies to play ethical and only use my data in good harmless ways. As for Google, it’s worth keeping in mind that we are talking about a company that intentionally misleads users in occasions to collect their data.