Ian,
you are right in your assumption that all this won't change my opinion in any way, in fact, the opposite is true.
The implementation of AERI (the error reporter) and the former EPP Usage Data Collector are both opt-in implementations. Both have been carefully designed to be as transparent as possible, no user is forced to send any data, there is no hidden feature or side-channel, the data is anonymised, and the mail address that you were referring to in your response is only optional. AERI has been implemented in an open way as it is appropriate for an Open Source community, integrated early enough in the release cycle, and based on feedback by and with review from the community.
This is clearly a major difference to the way the Eclipse Foundation introduced the implementation of the UUID and its use in Platform, p2, MPC, and as a last minute change in AERI. (I just want to point out that I am thankful that the AERI team pushed on making the UUID introduction public, otherwise some doubts are admissible that it would have been communicated at all.)
Yes, you are right, I could live with it if it was an opt-in instead of this hidden opt-out. I called it a 'theoretical' opt-out for a number of reasons:
- There is no user interface within Eclipse, no preference page.... it's just nothing. A void.
- The user isn't told about the existence or about the creation of the UUID.
- The user needs to leave the program ("Eclipse") that he or she is using to edit an external file.
- And it is an after-the-fact thing. Under normal circumstances the file can only be edited after its creation by Eclipse. Kind of a short-circuit.
Rethinking, no, that is not even something that can be called opt-out.
The introduction of such IDs is often justified by possible future improvements, but so far I have not seen any plan what to learn from this additional information. What is the concrete question that we hope to answer by introducing the UUID? If most (closed source) organisations are moving into the data-driven decision direction, this is no reason that the (open source) Eclipse organisation should move into the same direction. I think we can do better!
In Europe (I cannot speak for other areas), there are regulations in place regarding e.g. cookies ('devices') and IMO this per-user UUID is no different. The European Legislation is very clear about the usage of those IDs - you may read (24), (25) of [1]. I have serious doubts that the usage of the UUID which is bound to a single user is in accordance with European law, and I guess that there is no question that it has to be an opt-in. I hope that Eclipse Legal has been involved in its development, and that it did a thorough background check, but so far I haven't seen any indication that this has been done.
I strongly believe that this UUID is the worst thing that can happen in
an Open Source community like Eclipse, and that the Eclipse Foundation
looses a lot of trust and reputation with this.
Eclipse Neon cannot be released with the current implementations in Platform, p2, MPC, and AERI in Neon, there are too many open issues that need to be solved before introducing anything like that.
Markus