We should change the thread topic to “statements about opt-in telemetry” 
2 Likes
Amusingly, this kind of argument can easily be reverted, but this is not the place for that 
…didn’t I (prospectively) ?
1 Like
While I agree that being convinced takes place in your own head and there are people you can tell whatever you want and still do not believe you, keep in mind that discussions like these actually provided enough headwind for the decision makers, that the once opt-out telemetry had now become an opt-in one, and that is a good sign.
I am not fully following every thread and thread post on this topic, but from what I gather of what I did read is that the majority (including myself) is not necessarily against telemetry in general, but did not like something potentially privacy-breaching being pushed onto them, forcing them to become vigilant of even using open-source products.
To my understanding open-source was always about being (reasonably) in control of what you run on your computer and how, and you should not need to take extra actions to make sure that it remains that way.
This seems a misunderstanding to me.
Open source has always been about the right and ability to obtain the source code for the software. The user then has the ability to view the code and verify that it does exactly as the developer claims.
Having the source remain open so that everyone can view it and evaluate the function means it is less likely that something nefarious is embedded into the code; but does not and never has prevented designing it for whatever purpose the developers choose.
Fedora is very open about the need to collect data that reflects actual usage so that software design can be tailored to users needs. This is why telemetry is used, and it is a very fine line between functional data and personal data when related to telemetry.
I want to know exactly the types of data being collected before I will opt-in. The alternative of opt-out as previously considered was abhorent to my sensibilities. Visions of Orwells ‘1984’ and “Big Brother” come to mind. I get to choose what I share instead of having a totally hidden telemetry as done by the proprietary software companies.
This is a red herring. Just because a person does or does not disable/enable Firefox telemetry does not mean they should or should not enable or address Fedora telemetry.
One argument has no bearing on the other, in this case.
And, as users of Fedora, their opinions are not valid if they don’t post on more than one topic?
This is exactly why Fedora’s approach to telemetry might not prove useful.
Yes, which is a type of control you have.
I think everyone running any distribution of Linux agrees that the general consensus is that of the developers doing an extraordinary good job creating and maintaining an entire operating system, asking very little if anything in return.
And we are back at wanting to be (reasonably) in control. In essence you agree with me after all. 
My entire point there was that I can review what is being shared before opting in.
My earlier input was that the knee-jerk reaction of many, early on, seemed to be “Oh NO” and to think it was too intrusive without even reading the specs, suggestions, and waiting for final results. Paranoia about what might be instead of waiting to see what the actual results were.
I followed the original threads fairly closely, and that’s not an accurate representation. The proposal explicitly rejected opt-in as “useless”, so the technical details didn’t matter. Also any critical feedback was being dismissed by the author with a fair amount of disdain. This isn’t how a community decides things.
That said, I don’t know why this thread is continuing. It has been decided it’s going to be opt-in, and no hard dependencies (as in, you can choose to uninstall the telemetry packages altogether). So it seems to me all concerns have been addressed.
2 Likes
Indeed, opt-in is pretty useless when it comes to the reliability of statistics. In the same way that these threads are pretty useless if you require them to be a reliable representation of the wishes of the community at large.
The greater Fedora community is more than likely fine with the gathering of anonymous statistics. Threads like these are overrepresented by:
- A vocal minority that is strongly against any change they perceive as a potential encroachment on ill-defined concepts of privacy and freedom.
- The developers and official Fedora representatives that are actually moving the project forward, and who are trying to implement plans from a neutral ideological standpoint of progress.
Both represent maybe 1% of the total Fedora community, however one of those groups is paramount to keeping Fedora running and moving it technologically forward.
The vocal minority is given much more influence on the Fedora project than most or any of the other large linux (or open source in general) projects will.
1 Like
You are talking about gathering data, and yet somehow making up numbers in your post. You conveniently chose to quote the first part of my paragraph, but not the end. Don’t do bad-faith arguments.
Community feedback means accepting all kinds of feedback, not only the kind you agree with. This is what Fedora stands for.
A moderator should lock this thread.
1 Like
Yes when you don’t like what is being said you want things to be locked, i know how this works. Freedom of speech for me but not for thee.
Ok fine let’s lock it up.
Don’t lock it. Just change ‘watching’ to ‘muted’. Making statements is important.
Though I do prefer statements that are referenced.
I will put it on slow mode. This way we do have time to read in between of commenting here.
The original topic has been so big that we had to split it in several subtopics. There is enough to read before to repeat everything again we discussed already.
The consents has been to accept it as opt-in while having the control of it, even if this is not the Ideal for all of us, we said lets go on and do it so.
To sign up just to use the “free speak” in such topics is not really a behavior of community thinking. Nor it is honoring the hard work of “active” members which keep fedora as good as it is.
3 Likes
I don’t think that this was the background of the request to lock this thread.
The reality is that the OP already marked this thread as solved quite early on and this discussion is getting a bit out of hand for a good number of posts following it.
No one here wants to ebb off or silence a healthy discussion. However, the “healthy” part is currently debatable including needless baits, among others.
This is a misrepresentation in its own right as it can be assumed that the less active and/or vocal members are likely oblivious about this upcoming change as they spend their time elsewhere than on forums like these. In other words, they simply consume like others installing/using Windows or macOS.
I am no statistician, but I guess that one could likely take the slice of active members and extrapolate the pro-, con- and “I-don’t-care”-voices to the more silent members and get a fairly accurate result.
1 Like
No bias in this answer.
We already know that it will be implemented. Now, it remains to discuss on how telemetry is implemented and to continue to hold Fedora accountable. That is, for those of us who remain after telemetry is implemented.
Like it or not, personal information has been used for unethical and even nefarious purposes. Before the Internet, I had my identity stolen and it took years to clear up, with the FBI, my state DMV, et al. And you are belittling that experience. The absolute chaos it caused on my family, both immediate and extended (since I had, at that time a Secret+ clearance in the US military) was, to put it mildly, horrific. And you think that this is somehow not worthy of concern, or that any concern is overblown… at least, that’s my take away from your response.
But, let’s not appeal to experience, let’s take this as it’s presented.
Will Fedora receive personally-identifiable information? Absolutely (IP address, at the very least). Will it be transferred in open text, binary or encrypted SSL (or similar)?
If the information is transmitted by encrypted communication lines, how am I to know that the information I see locally is what is being received? Trust?
If you would like at least two threads entitled something similar to “Questions about opt-in telemetry”, then I would be happy to open my own so I can discuss questions about this opt-in telemetry. This is an open-ended subject, as there will probably be endless questions about the opt-in telemetry. But, if you want to close it due to the OP marking it solved (how does one “solve” an open-ended statement/question?), then fine, I will open one.
However, to consolidate conversations, may I humbly suggest that you keep one thread open and, in good faith and without bias, allow people to discuss concerns, strategies and thoughts to help Fedora implement their telemetry morally and ethically?
Further reading (receipts as it were):
- 5 Damaging Consequences Of Data Breach | MetaCompliance
- 7 Real-Life Data Breaches Caused by Insider Threats | Syteca
- The 18 biggest data breaches of the 21st century | CSO Online
- The biggest data breach fines, penalties, and settlements so far | CSO Online
- Red Hat Exec: Linux Supply Chain Hack Was Caught Quickly
- Fast-acting cyber gangs increasingly disabling telemetry logs | Computer Weekly
- Uh, even Red Hat is concerned with safeguarding information: Security Bulletins | Red Hat Customer Portal
There are so many reasons to protect information and to question who is collecting it and why. The fact that Fedora has, so far, been willing to engage the community is commendable; however, this is a second-by-second statement, meaning that the moment they stop engaging their community about “Questions about opt-in telemetry” is the precise moment that their community should stop trusting them.
1 Like
I have, on the basis that they probably have the telemetry that I had it on for a few mins and then turned it off likely as a privacy concern 
I’m not sure if the metrics are sent immediately that the option was turned off, or if it’s like “user had telemetry on, hasn’t reported back in days, so they probably turned it off”. I’m not sure how the people in-charge of telemetry view that; do I not like providing feedback? Do I not trust Mozilla with telemetry? Do I want to lower bandwidth? Basically, am I disabling telemetry on good-will, or mistrust?
Does Firefox double-down on more telemetry to find out? Or do they take a hint that as a privacy-respecting browser, they should probably know what’s up? If they don’t know what’s up, what’s telemetry doing in that regard?
Firefox or Fedora turning on the AI chat option by-default is raising questions though (I know it was unchecked on fresh setups/sync on Windows about a week ago, but I saw it enabled with fresh F41 installs)
Fedora chose opt-in telemitry because many people complained…
I am not gonna argue on the “freeloader” point here. In FOSS this always depends.
I feel the obligation to give something back because I didnt only receive months or years of software development for free, but also got help in forums like these, when I was a real noob.
But this is not an obligation