zlacker

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+(OP)
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.