It seems strange to say that you do not consent to people gathering data about you when you are providing it to them yourself.
If you don’t want me to see your baby pictures, the easy approach is for you to not send them to me. Instead, the more common approach seems to be to send me your baby pictures, then claim that you ‘do not consent’ to me looking at them.
If that refers to people uploading their baby pictures on Facebook, okay.
But e.g. telemetry in operating systems is more like: “by living in a house I built (in a country where 90% of houses are built by me) you automatically consent to streaming videos from your shower”.
Your analogy seems pretty inflammatory and greatly exaggerated.
I certainly sympathize with the practical constraints involved in, e.g. not using Windows or macOS, but there are practical alternatives available, many of them free, and operating systems, or even software more generally, are very recent economic goods and thus, to me, it seems pretty understandable why there aren’t ‘perfect’ conventions/rules/regulations regarding how they should work.
And, if anything, some of the existing ‘folk’ conventions, e.g. that a company/organization that provides an operating system ‘should’ continue to support it indefinitely, makes your analogy (or a more sensible version of it) a lot more reasonable.
I get that the relevant tradeoffs feel painful to navigate, but you seem to be claiming that they’re so onerous that they’re effectively coercive, and I think it’s important to point out that that’s not true.
It seems strange to say that you do not consent to people gathering data about you when you are providing it to them yourself.
If you don’t want me to see your baby pictures, the easy approach is for you to not send them to me. Instead, the more common approach seems to be to send me your baby pictures, then claim that you ‘do not consent’ to me looking at them.
If that refers to people uploading their baby pictures on Facebook, okay.
But e.g. telemetry in operating systems is more like: “by living in a house I built (in a country where 90% of houses are built by me) you automatically consent to streaming videos from your shower”.
Your analogy seems pretty inflammatory and greatly exaggerated.
I certainly sympathize with the practical constraints involved in, e.g. not using Windows or macOS, but there are practical alternatives available, many of them free, and operating systems, or even software more generally, are very recent economic goods and thus, to me, it seems pretty understandable why there aren’t ‘perfect’ conventions/rules/regulations regarding how they should work.
And, if anything, some of the existing ‘folk’ conventions, e.g. that a company/organization that provides an operating system ‘should’ continue to support it indefinitely, makes your analogy (or a more sensible version of it) a lot more reasonable.
I get that the relevant tradeoffs feel painful to navigate, but you seem to be claiming that they’re so onerous that they’re effectively coercive, and I think it’s important to point out that that’s not true.