Obviously there are different kinds of trust. I trust restaurant employees not to poison my food, but that doesn't mean I trust them with my SS number, bank account, and the details of my personal life. Pre 12.04, if Canonical wanted access to the personal information of their users, it would have involved putting in a backdoor that would be 1)detectable by all Ubuntu users 2)illegal under most spyware laws and 3)cause an extremely large backlash and wide mistrust of Canonical. So I 'trusted' Canonical not to engage in widespread criminal hacking which would have severe legal and social consequences. These consequences now seem removed: 1)There's no way to know if they are misusing the information that is now passed through their servers, barring someone on their end leaking something. 2)They don't appear to have made a legally binding promise about what they are actually doing with the data. Even if they did, the legal consequence of breaking it may be ambiguous. Just because I _did_ trust Canonical doesn't mean I trust them forever. Canonical's method of dumping an obviously intrusive function on users and then issuing a smarmy response that downplays genuine concerns shows that they are missing the social intelligence that would be required to even properly understand issues of privacy invasion, and I'm certainly looking to migrate elsewhere.