Posted by
Gabriel Landini on
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/ImageJ-2-0-0-rc-11-released-tp5009074p5009109.html
On Monday 11 Aug 2014 14:18:11 Mark Hiner wrote:
> > SCIFIO was opt in, but usage tracking is opt out? It does not make sense.
>
> To be clear, SCIFIO is enabled by default.. you have to uncheck a box to
> disable SCIFIO, so it is opt out.
Right, but it was impossible to miss as I had to answer the SCIFIO dialog when
the update came.
What is the problem in showing a similar dialog and let people know what will
be going on?
> I think there is a difference in the questions "what do you do with the
> software" and "what do users do with the software". I don't believe we will
> ever ask the former question.
Mark, what you or me personally *believe* somebody will ask in the future does
not matter. It is the process of getting informed consent on the data
collection; IJ2 is assuming and makes it less obvious than it could be.
> we can ask:
> "How many times was Bio-Formats used with Java 7"?
> we *can not* ask:
> "how many times did Gabriel Landini run Bio-Formats?"
Even with my poor knowledge of network traffic I can imagine that it might
trivial to script something using time stamps and ip addresses of the
uploading machine as well as plenty of emails also ip addresses from users.
Not that I remotely think that the devel team would have the time or
inclination to do this, but if we are talking about what is impossible, I
suspect it is not. So whether that is potentially identifiable information is
probably debatable. If there is then you would be effectively logging in a
database their location every hour (!) IJ2 runs. Doesn't that sound a bit
creepy?
My issue was (and remains) that data collection needs to be fully informed
before it takes place, not to be On by default.
> >If this happens to be something people want to adhere to, then there is
> > nothing to worry about as there will be lots of users opting in when given
> > the chance.
> I believe this is actually hard to predict.
Ask the users in a similar way SCIFIO was done and you will have the answer.
Then we would not be having this conversation.
> If usage statistics were presented similarly - with a pop up on launch and
> an options menu - my expectations for opt-in numbers would be very low. Not
> because people don't want to contribute but because we created a barrier to
> the process.
The issue that does not seem to stick after all this typing is that IJ2 should
not make that decision for the users. IJ2 is not the owner of the processes
happening in a user's computer. You need to ask, not assume, that people will
be happy for their computers to contact a database every hour and letting it
know they are there and doing this or that.
> A more successful alternative might be, when statistics are actually being
> uploaded, to display a dialog asking to proceed or not - with yes/no/don't
> ask me again options. That sounds promising, but also potentially annoying
> or confusing to get that pop up, and we can still expect statistics
> reporting to drop.
But if the reporting statistics drop, that would have to do. Make estimates
instead of collecting all possible data.
> So since we are not sending or storing use-specific data, and provided and
> publicized the opt-out mechanism, we decided to go with the option that was
> un-disruptive at the workflow level and maximized data collection.
Yes, you said that before, and I am sure I am not alone thinking it is not the
desirable way of doing it.
> Especially given, as you mentioned, that users ultimately need to agree to
> communicate with an external server to download these applications and
> updates.
But there is an obvious difference between the two situations. One is
requesting an update. The other is broadcasting to a database.
> I hope it's clear that I am not saying we are unwilling to change how
> permissions are exposed.. but if we can circumvent that need via discussion
> it would certainly be my preference. And if we do end up making any
> changes, I would like them to be as minimally damaging to the quality of
> the data gathering as possible.
I sounds like it is preferable not to ask people about the data collection.
That is in my view an error of judgement that can be resolved easily.
> To me, there has to be actual user data being exposed to be a matter of
> privacy. Can you clarify what you believe to be the concern here?
Sure: that the process of collecting usage data is not made clear from the
beginning and it should have informed consent before the collection starts.
If there are no privacy issues, why is the function to switch it Off called
"Privacy"?
Regards
Gabriel
--
ImageJ mailing list:
http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html