If you're using this, you should be aware that the Homebrew package manager also includes the kind of nonconsensual surveillance features that this software patches out of Firefox.
For this reason I switched from Homebrew to Nixpkgs.
Nonconsensual? Homebrew lets you know upfront before they send anything to their (non-US) analytics server, and running `brew analytics off` turns off analytics permanently. Sure, opt-in in preferable, but this is as good as it gets for opt-out.
That sign example is exactly what the film industry does to notify people of filming activity inside an establishment. It’s perfectly reasonable.
Using the example of sexual assault just makes the issue look more extreme than it is.
You might as well say “By entering this building you consent to be murdered,” but we all know that’s taking the slippery slope too far.
Usage statistics and bug telemetry isn’t the same as getting groped. Homebrew is up front about exactly what is collected: https://docs.brew.sh/Analytics
You don't need consent to film
someone in a public space. It's done as a courtesy, not a legal requirement.
My computer is not a public space and the software that is installed on it, and when, and the IP address used to do so, are private information. Exfiltrating that data without consent is a violation of my right to privacy, full stop. Nothing that is said, no notice that is provided, can change that.
You could just as well say "by entering this building you consent to be murdered". It illustrates the point similarly: a lack of objection is not affirmative consent.
The need to gain consent is highly dependent on what is being consented to.
If you invite me over for dinner I don’t need to get your consent to wash my hands or use your bathroom. That is implied by inviting me over to dinner.
That’s why I think the “consent to be murdered” argument is such a bad analogy. It assumes the slippery slope goes all the way.
Just because I think (e.g.) Homebrew’s analytics doesn’t need opt-in consent doesn’t mean I believe that all forms of analytics and data collection shouldn’t need opt-in consent.
I think that an application having a default that collects non-personal crash and bug analytics is acceptable, while an application that collects more detailed personal information isn’t.
Haha, man, I wish more people than literally just you and I still thought this way
Every fucking piece of software out there is packed with shady spyware and BS, and everyone thinks he's entitled to treat users as cattle and do whatever he wants to them.
It's probably going to keep getting worse at this rate too. It'll become illegal to do anything privately or anonymously in the name of preventing misinformation and spam/click fraud
Well, no. To amend your example, let’s go with the sign saying “This is a gropy sort of party. Please use one of these convenient ‘I don’t want to be groped’ stickers before coming in if that’s not your thing.’”
As I was falling asleep last night I had another realization about this naming scheme that made me laugh pretty hard. I always wondered why Debian unstable was named Sid. https://pixar.fandom.com/wiki/Sid
The thing you pay for with cloud servers is not having to do the up-keep of the host machine. They tend to have many more drives than you’d get with a bare metal server.
I have many OVH and Hetzner servers (cloud and dedicated) but not sure I’d find a use for this.
But the reason you go with private cloud is because you want to give developers in your organization the ease of use and velocity of their peers using the public cloud, while footing the bill to pay far far more than you would have paid to any public cloud.
Essentially, private cloud is for deep pocket organizations (some Fortune 500, governments, militaries, etc). No one is running a private cloud for a small startup. The closest you'd get to a "private cloud" is a bunch of servers running a kubernetes (or swarm) cluster.
If I can open an app, spin up some VMs, pipeline a deployment to them and extend my operational footprint in 10 minutes, I'm not sure I care whether you want to call that cloud or not. I've seen that in some pretty small environments.
Yeah honestly some ipmi, cloudinit and (insert config management flavor of the week here) has been spinning up “private clouds” for decades with ease in large shops and in single server shops. We’ve had private clouds since the first person ran ssh commands against someone else’s dedicated metal in some dc.
The cloud is just “someone else’s computer”, not “someone else’s commercially available aws compatible api suite of service offerings that is operating against someone else’s computer”
> But the reason you go with private cloud is because you want to give developers in your organization the ease of use and velocity of their peers using the public cloud, while footing the bill to pay far far more than you would have paid to any public cloud.
Not really. "Far more" would be extremely dependent on each specific scenario. Managing your own hardware, if you have the skills and upfront capital for it, can be drastically cheaper, especially if you need lots of storage/compute/networking/GPUs.
Isn’t that the case now because setting up a private cloud is complicated and expensive?
If setting up a private cloud was as easy as running a couple of scripts making it easily accessible to a small business without a large dedicated IT dept why wouldn’t small businesses not want to save money with that private cloud?
Ahh I thought there might be some auxiliary services you need to run — do you run anything like prometheus instances or analytics or anything like that?
