Regarding KDE Privacy policy

[Paul Brown]

On martes, 25 de febrero de 2020 19:06:27 (CET) Christoph Cullmann wrote:
> On 2020-02-25 18:47, Nate Graham wrote:
> > I find myself in agreement.
> > 
> > I have access to the kuserfeedback data and to be honest I'm rather
> > dissatisfied with its actionability. There's nothing detailed like "x
> > percentage of users change the default wallpaper" or "y percentage of
> > users switch to double-click" that we could actually use to inform our
> > UI design--let alone anything that could be used to personally
> > identify anyone. The actual data set is so tame and uninteresting that
> > I agree that we could change our policy and release the stats just to
> > show everyone that we have nothing to hide.
> 
> +1 from me. (e.g. for the Kate stats)

+1 from Promo, even if it is only used to give us a vague idea of how the size 
of the userbase changes over time.

Cheers

Paul

> 
> Greetings
> Christoph
> 
> > Nate
> > 
> > On 2/25/20 5:44 AM, Veggero Nylo wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >> Currently, data transmitted by KUserFeedback is available only by
> >> opening a sysadmin ticked explaining why you need access in the
> >> first place. I can see the reasoning behind this, but I do not think
> >> this is a good idea for developers and users. I think that releasing
> >> the aggregated data under CC0 license would be better, as also
> >> proposed by Martin here:
> >> https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/2017q3/003808.html. I
> >> think this would benefit user trust, as right now they have to trust
> >> what the KUserFeedback KCM without really being able to see what data
> >> KDE developers are actually able to see (as most users won't be able
> >> to look into the code); on the other hand, if the data was publicly
> >> released, they would be able to see the data themselves and know
> >> exactly what developers are going to see. I also think this would
> >> benefit developers, as there might be a significant number of
> >> developers who could be interested in looking to the data, maybe just
> >> a single value, without being able to fully justify access to all the
> >> data (the fact that you have to write a justification becomes a
> >> negative factor that makes looking at the data less interesting);
> >> furthermore, even if they get access to the data, they would be unable
> >> to discuss it in KDE communication channels as those are public, nor
> >> on phabricator tasks to support their patches, effectively making the
> >> data much less useful. Also, the current policy might result in a
> >> privacy problem, e.g.: I once needed data from stats.kde.org
> >> <http://stats.kde.org> regarding website views over time. I was
> >> granted access to it, and I now can see every singe website viewer,
> >> with their country, OS, browser, etc - much more than I actually
> >> needed. If the aggregated data was to be released publicly, I would no
> >> longer need for stats.kde.org <http://stats.kde.org> access, and I
> >> would no longer be able to access private data that I did not actually
> >> need. Finally, I do not fully understand why the data needs to be kept
> >> private in the first place, since it is supposed to be anonymous and
> >> contain no user content.
> >> What's your opinion on this?
> >> ~ Niccolò Venerandi (aka veggero/niccolove)


-- 
Promotion & Communication

www: http://kde.org
Mastodon: https://mastodon.technology/@kde
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/kde/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/kdecommunity
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/kde