Telemetry Policy - Remaining Questions

[Albert Astals Cid]

El dilluns, 30 d’octubre de 2017, a les 9:56:52 CET, Volker Krause va 
escriure:
> Let's try to finally get this finished :)
> 
> The only remaining blocker is the unique identification used by Kexi. There
> was some discussion about this around QtWS, and it seemed like there was
> consensus on having a strong policy on this topic would be a good thing for
> KDE, as opposed to e.g. turning this into just recommendations, or opening
> it up to unique identification. The suggested solution for Kexi was to add
> a special exception for it to the "These rules apply to all products
> released by KDE." statement of the policy.

I'm confused, is that a workaround so that it doesn't apply to Kexi by 
implying Kexi isn't released by KDE? 

Cheers,
  Albert

> 
> That would still leave us with a strong policy on this subject, while
> solving the conflict with Kexi's current way of collecting telemetry. Would
> that work for everyone?
> 
> Regards,
> Volker
> 
> On Thursday, 14 September 2017 00:20:57 CET Volker Krause wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > as not everyone follows long threads, let's start again for the remaining
> > issues.
> > 
> > https://community.kde.org/Policies/Telemetry_Policy
> > 
> > The following questions were left unanswered in the previous thread (see
> > there for the full arguments if needed):
> > 
> > (1) Should we allow opt-in tracking of unique identifiers?
> > 
> > This was requested by Jaroslaw, as Kexi has this right now and the policy
> > as written right now would thus conflict with it.
> > 
> > (2) Should we require/allow/forbid publication of the raw data?
> > 
> > Publication was suggested by Martin F. Practically, this would have to
> > allow for a certain delay, we can't have public access to live data.
> > Suitable licensing options of the data would probably be CC0 or CC-BY-SA.
> > 
> > (3) Should we require a revocation feature?
> > 
> > That is, allow the user to "delete" the data they submitted from the
> > server. This was also suggested by Martin F, and is technically possible
> > without compromising anonymity.
> > 
> > (4) Should we define limits on how long we store the raw data?
> > 
> > Brought up by Bhushan.
> > 
> > (5) Should we require an "audit log" feature?
> > 
> > Thas is, allow the user to see a detailed record of what has been
> > submitted
> > so far? Martin S suggested this (and it has been meanwhile implemented in
> > KUserFeedback).
> > 
> > Not from the previous thread, but from a discussion in Randa:
> > (6) What is the "lower bound" of where we consider this policy to apply?
> > 
> > That is, does checking for application updates/news (and possibly tracking
> > that on the server) already count as "telemetry" in this context? See e.g.
> > the current practice in Akregator or KDevelop.
> > 
> > 
> > Allowing (1) might conflict with (2) allowing publication, unique
> > identification brings us in personal data territory. Publication might
> > also
> > conflict with (3) and (4).
> > 
> > So, what's your view on those issues? :)
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > Volker