But here's the thing: They don't disclose that they'll check for updates before asking for permission.

So how would a user, who hadn't seen this discussion, know that their "we'll ask" reassurance was bullshit?

OK, are there any standard Debian packages that do this?

As I recall, it was a huge upset when Ubuntu app search hit Amazon by default.

And when you install Debian, it asks whether you want to participate in the packages survey. And the default is "no".

Edit: And just to be clear, this isn't about me. I assume that stuff will leak my IP address without warning, so I only connect via nested VPN chains. Or when I really care, that plus Tor.

This is about people who trust stuff that they use.

i use Little Snitch and DNS blackholing of tracking services, so these issues don't really affect me.

today i decided i care more about strangers than i thought i did

people brand new to our industry should be able to download a nice gui editor and not get their consent trampled and get spied on even after they click the "dont spy on me" button

it's easy to laugh and be like "oh lol it's software from microsoft what did they expect, noobs" like someone else did in this thread

but that's bullshit and you and i both know it

the software simply shouldn't do that when you say "don't send my data away pls"

i don't want everyone to have to say "oh use homebrew it's great but also add this weird line about analytics to your .bashrc before you install it oh wait you don't know what a bashrc is huh" when they talk to some teenager who just got a $15 rtlsdr and wants to install gnuradio on their mac

that's not a good first-10-minutes-at-the-command-line experience.

i don't think that's fair or good or optimal.

i want the world to be different, and i want these maintainers to realize that they made a mistake, and revert it. i don't think they're bad people, i think they're just misguided, and they're optimizing for vanity metrics like user count, which will effectively go away entirely if i succeed and they only get telemetry from users who said "yes it's ok i don't mind". that's a lot fewer users, and they know it, which is why so many of them are refusing to engage with the ethical argument about silently using a user's own hardware to spy on them without their knowledge or consent.

it shouldn't be a controversial position that our tools should not spy on us.

Thanks for defending your points.

I don’t understand why some here take your reports on GH personally. The fact that your reports aren’t taken seriously by the Atom team worries me. Your battle is right and presented in the right tones.

Whereas my point is that the developers of Atom have shown their true moral colours—and their honesty isn't sufficiently instructive to you? Unless you can get the developers to change their principles, getting them to change their source code today seems to be a rather temporary fix.

Meanwhile, isn't it strange that the default behaviour (on nearly all major consumer computer platforms) that we implicitly trust all applications with near-unfettered access to the internet. And we merely hope they don't betray us.

The issue here is that there is no way of knowing what'll spy on you without using it and running these services.

> " This person has been saying 'no one forces you to use atom, just don't use it'"

That is a flat wrong summation of sneak's arguments in this discussion. I think you must have misread usernames, because sneak is saying quite the opposite of what you think he's saying.

Note that sneak is not sjwright (the other person in this thread you've responded to and who's argument you seem to have misattributed to sneak.)

This is about not lying to your users