Thanks, I get where you're coming from (that: privacy absolutists tend to throw the baby out with the bath water) but you misunderstand the point I was making. My gripe is with their claim that they protect privacy. If you're going to store user-data as-is for 7 days even if anonymized later and stored forever (for some definition of "anonymization", which is not a trivial thing to do), it doesn't come close to "protecting" anything.
I don't have a horse in this fight, but I do build FOSS anti-surveillance / anti-censorship apps, and take offense at such misleading messaging.
> It's very important to remember the legal and liability requirements associated with privacy policies.
Why isn't it important to not mislead with headlines and FAQs?
> Therefor, the default is to over-report.
Wouldn't have to if one really took measures to "protect privacy" but when one can't / don't / won't ... then one may at least have the courtesy to be upfront about it.
> Nor does it mean they do not take privacy very seriously.
They claim to "protect your privacy". Their words, not mine. But the fine-print doesn't inspire confidence, even if written in CMA-style (though, that's a lame excuse). Or as they say, why not put money where your mouth is.
> That's why it's highly unfair to Ecosia for OP to so strongly imply they lie (or are, at best, misleading and hypocritical) and use your data nefariously, simply by excerpting a few lines of the Privacy Policy.
Thanks but it is not I that's hypocritical. You have it the other way around, I am afraid.
> italicized "may"s,
Here's the clause: "The anonymised data is saved for as long as is necessary for the evaluation. The data is not transferred to any third party. We will not access your data located outside of the app, such as your calendar, photos, messages or such like unless you have permitted us to do so."
> Suggesting that any product that collects data to run the business...
You're extrapolating the critique to the entire world, which you can, but you then don't get to dismiss it for one entity just because "the rest of the world can't survive without data collection". Ecosia may not need personal data to be running a viable tech business (which at its core is a wrapper on top of Bing with ad revenue going to afforestation efforts).
> ...good people do to craft a viable balance in today's difficult tech ecosystem.
Like someone else suggested in this thread: Just because you plant trees, you don't suddenly have a claim to being an "angel". Ecosia may have good people behind them or not, but I do care about honesty and earnestness.
Also, I write FOSS software full-time, do I qualify for your "good people" list? :D
I don't have a horse in this fight, but I do build FOSS anti-surveillance / anti-censorship apps, and take offense at such misleading messaging.
> It's very important to remember the legal and liability requirements associated with privacy policies.
Why isn't it important to not mislead with headlines and FAQs?
> Therefor, the default is to over-report.
Wouldn't have to if one really took measures to "protect privacy" but when one can't / don't / won't ... then one may at least have the courtesy to be upfront about it.
> Nor does it mean they do not take privacy very seriously.
They claim to "protect your privacy". Their words, not mine. But the fine-print doesn't inspire confidence, even if written in CMA-style (though, that's a lame excuse). Or as they say, why not put money where your mouth is.
> That's why it's highly unfair to Ecosia for OP to so strongly imply they lie (or are, at best, misleading and hypocritical) and use your data nefariously, simply by excerpting a few lines of the Privacy Policy.
Thanks but it is not I that's hypocritical. You have it the other way around, I am afraid.
> italicized "may"s,
Here's the clause: "The anonymised data is saved for as long as is necessary for the evaluation. The data is not transferred to any third party. We will not access your data located outside of the app, such as your calendar, photos, messages or such like unless you have permitted us to do so."
> Suggesting that any product that collects data to run the business...
You're extrapolating the critique to the entire world, which you can, but you then don't get to dismiss it for one entity just because "the rest of the world can't survive without data collection". Ecosia may not need personal data to be running a viable tech business (which at its core is a wrapper on top of Bing with ad revenue going to afforestation efforts).
> ...good people do to craft a viable balance in today's difficult tech ecosystem.
Like someone else suggested in this thread: Just because you plant trees, you don't suddenly have a claim to being an "angel". Ecosia may have good people behind them or not, but I do care about honesty and earnestness.
Also, I write FOSS software full-time, do I qualify for your "good people" list? :D