Telemetry Policy

[Volker Krause]

On Wednesday, 16 August 2017 20:35:59 CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> On 16 August 2017 at 18:56, Volker Krause <vkrause at kde.org> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 16 August 2017 15:23:07 CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > > On 16 August 2017 at 14:13, Volker Krause <vkrause at kde.org> wrote:
[...]
> > > In addition maybe distributors can sometimes make the decision based on 
> > > opinions from given subprojects.
> > > For example the option would be pre-set to ON in KEXI's installer for 
> > > Mac and  Windows itself and for Linux AppImages, not in the source code.
> > > Just saying, KEXI has not yet switched to the new framework :)
> > 
> > The policy we are discussing here is (and is supposed to be) independent
> > of the implementation. And that's not just theoretical, Kexi is one 
> > prominent case for an alternative implementation, and the Krita GSoC also 
> > seems to contain some alternative server code for example. So input in 
> > particular from those teams matters a lot for me, as this policy in its 
> > current form would affect them too.
> > 
> > And a policy we only adhere in code and work around in the end by putting
> > on a distributor hat (which we can in many places, as your examples show) 
> > isn't really helping, I'd much rather have it reflect what we actually do 
> > :)
> > 
> > From having read the code of both, I think the only possible points of
> > conflict with the policy draft might be:
> > - opt-in
> 
> Source code has 100% of opt-in (grep for
> 'areas(KexiUserFeedbackAgent::NoAreas)'). Anyone is free to change this
> default and create distribution under his name and I understand this will
> not be a "distribution by KDE".

Great, so I just misread both Krita's and Kexi's requirements here and we 
don't have a problem :)

> > - hosted on KDE infrastructure
> 
> My assumption: As KEXI is an open-core+whatever-license-for-plugins
> architecture, ultimately the telemetry information from KEXI users would be
> better hosted by KDE. Any extra information retrieved by plugins (if that
> even exists) can be hosted elsewhere but and this is a responsibility of
> plugin developers.

Yep, I'd say 3rd party addons are encouraged to follow the same policy, just 
like distributors, but we have no way of actually enforcing it.

> > - Kexi seems to (optionally?) contain a unique identifier
> 
> This is mostly related to cases when any kind of cloud storage is used.
> These cases involve unique accounts already so users can be identified very
> well even without having telemetry functionality.
> 
> KEXI installations limited to open-core, used away from a cloud, do not
> need identifiers.
> However I understand that identifiers, independent of network or host ID
> (basically a random-generated QUuids) are useful for even basic telemetry
> needs. Without them it's easy to abuse the system using any kind of bots to
> trick us that e.g. 99% of sessions happen on KDE 1.0 or that given Linux
> distro has 90% of the global market :)

Vandalism is a potential problem indeed (did you actually have issues with 
that on Kexi btw? if so, what counter-measures did you apply?). However I 
don't see how a UUID is helping here, the bot could just as well generate 
UUIDs for each submission?

> Similarly app projects may need the IDs to answer question about most and
> least used features. Most used as in "most users found it, understood it
> and use it", not "most usage reports has been delivered for it (maybe
> coming from a single user -- maybe even my very own co-developer). There
> are many other examples probably already discussed.

Sure this gets easier with unique ids, but it's not impossible without them. 
After all the goal here isn't to make our lives easier, but to agree on 
something that is acceptable for our users. And yes, that might imply more 
work and/or less accurate data.

> Thus I would see the Anonymity is covered by KEXI's approach except that it
> offers opt-in tracking of unique user for unique installations. KEXI
> currently does not track unique installations at all until the user agrees
> for any telemetry (the KexiUserFeedbackAgent::AnonymousIdentificationArea
> value). This is required by nature of stats computed (and abuses mentioned
> above are the reason).
> 
> Is this a big deal? We're close to philosophy area here. 

Correct, this is about the philosophy behind our products :) And one very core 
part of that happens to be privacy.

That basically leaves the question: do we want to additionally allow the opt-
in use of unique identifiers?

> Before designing the stats engine I guessed: not more than installing an 
> email app or buying a SIM card and starting to use them; they allow me to 
> send email or make a call using protocols that disclose quite a bit about 
> me. 

Sure, but that is also where we can differentiate. Just because other 
applications weren't designed with privacy in mind doesn't mean we should 
follow their example IMHO.

Regards,
Volker

> I would respect
> users that disagree with that but they are unlikely to become KEXI users.
> For in my book anonymous users less likely receive support from me in the
> MLs or forums.
> 
> > Regards,
> > Volker
> > 
> > > > Seeing yesterday's blog from the Krita team (
> > 
> > https://akapust1n.github.io/
> > 
> > > > 2017-08-15-sixth-blog-gsoc-2017/), I'd particularly be interested in
> > 
> > their
> > 
> > > > view on this.
> > > > 
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Volker
> > > > 
> > > > > On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Christian Loosli
> > > > > 
> > > > > <christian.loosli at fuchsnet.ch> 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


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/attachments/20170817/b8af5992/attachment.sig>