On 2 December 2014 at 10:29, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/12/14 16:45, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 09:42:24AM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
>>> So, a revised/enhanced/even worse set of questions:
Some of those questions go too far imo and expose too much about the
> individual machines and users.
While I think the privacy concerns are a core issue, wouldn't it make
sense to leave this aside initially, trying to understand what kind of
useful information we might need without any restraints?
We will later on face many limitations, privacy and trust is certainly
some of those. But as a starter, why not try to think free?
Mainly because if you do that you sound like the NSA to most people these
Privacy is like security. If you don't think about it at the startup trying
to implement it later is much more expensive or impossible. It also has
various legal implications which have to be worked through. Skipping that
and "being free" gets you a ton of "wouldn't it be great if..."
up being bikeshedding because it can't be done.
Everything an organization collects has to deal with these two 'facts'.
There is no way to easily anonymize data that a set of high-school students
with a starter book in statistics can't undo in a week.
There is no way to easily remove data from gathered statistics any more
than it is possible to make the internet forget an email.
From that you have to figure out if collecting that information is
for a volunteer organization to later manage.
Stephen J Smoogen.