Why should a user ignore when a developer has the means to spy? Telemetry is used as a false metric for a lot of bad decisions that make sense for the numbers but don't improve the product itself.
Even A/B testing could be considered an ethical hazard because it disrupts the user's understanding of the software for the sole purpose of decisions that, frankly, devs should have made before telemetry.
Users should be able to trust that their software won't be blabbing over the network about what you're doing. In an age where privacy is attacked from all angles, it's the least a developer could do.
I’m not advocating that users ignore the possibility of spying. All software has the potential to spy on you. But that does not mean you can publicly accuse a developer who wants to add telemetry of spying.
> Users should be able to trust that their software won't be blabbing over the network about what you're doing.
Says who? That’s just your opinion. My opinion is that if an exception happens in my software that makes it harder for me to use, the developer should be aware of the issue and fix it so that the software works correctly in the future. There isn’t anything wrong with your opinion, but there is something wrong of accusing the developer of some type of impropriety just because they want to use telemetry.
Says responsible developers. Good software doesn't need to phone home or report to the dev that they clicked widget X instead of Y.
Telemetry is what happens when lazy or complacent devs move forward in their software but decide to be 'data driven'.
What's wrong with accusing someone of having the ability to spy of maybe spying? The point with technology and humans is, if the ability is there, it's not 'if' it will be abused; it's when.
Software that doesn't phone home or have telemetry never has to worry about that moral hazard. User data doesn't belong to developers, and that includes behavioral data.
“Says responsible developers”. That’s called rationalizing friend.
This conversation can go nowhere because you believe you’re right and others are wrong. You really should accept that you have a specific preference and other people have other preferences. It’s not a question of right or wrong.
I disagree, I consider it a matter of ethics when I'm deciding whether or not to add telemetry to a piece of software. Passing it off as a preference is equating them, when the software with telemetry is less trustworthy and has a broader attack surface due to network connectivity. Maybe doing all that is worth treating your users like a science project, but it's not just a preference to me.
There is too much behind-the-scenes telemetry, analytics, and other intel-gathering happening on websites and in software. The gains are held solely by developers who either cannot figure out how to build their software, or whose management is so incompetent that there's no real connection to the users of the software, so making meaningful and helpful change to the software is less accessible.
I strongly hold that the practice creates less durable software that also primes a user to expect their software to study their behavior and change accordingly. That is supremely creepy, and users deserve better treatment than that. It's our job as developers to respect the resources our software is using on the user's machine, and for them to be 100% informed of anything they may be sharing over the wire.
Maybe that viewpoint isn't in line with VC-backed startups or enterprise, but I also don't expect them to act ethically wrt software, either... Analytics and telemetry created the data brokerage industry. Programmers are responsible for allowing that behemoth to invade and shape lives.
Even A/B testing could be considered an ethical hazard because it disrupts the user's understanding of the software for the sole purpose of decisions that, frankly, devs should have made before telemetry.
Users should be able to trust that their software won't be blabbing over the network about what you're doing. In an age where privacy is attacked from all angles, it's the least a developer could do.