It maybe starts with simple statistics. But then you want to know what features the user use, then you want to know what other programs they have installed. Then you want to know what the users search for on the web. etc. It's a slippery slope.
There really isn't such a thing, in the way you've used that phrase.
Capturing telemetry on how I use a tool from within that tool is perfectly fine, to me. Collecting telemetry on my search history in the browser by that same tool isn't. THERE ARE NO INTERIM STEPS that makes the second of those ok. There is no slope. If there is, it isn't slippery. There is a series of discreet decisions and at some point (which is different for everyone) a line is crossed. There was no slope or slip that brought you there, only a series of mostly unrelated decisions.
To think that Microsoft's long-term goal is to install a keystroke logger via a multi-decade and multi-phase plan that begins with application usage telemetry in a free developer tool thanks to "a slippery slope" is just simply not realistic.
No, that still falls into fallacious usage.
The user doesn't justify why the steps of their assertion follow after the other. Just that they... do.
Over the course of the last 20 years, we've seen that once a data collection and digital surveillance framework is put in place, the surveillance tends to expand.
Slippery slope arguments, sans good reasoning, tend to be fallacies. However, don't fall into the trap of thinking that an argument backed by historical record is a slippery slope just because it's predicting an outcome. We might call that the "history is all slippery slopes" fallacy. Stating "this has happened before multiple times before, and each time has lead to x" is a very different argument to stating "this has happened, so the logical extrapolation is x".
For example, I slept in 'til 8:30 today. OMG, a slippery slope. Next thing you know, I'll be sleeping until 3PM. Til midnight! I will never wake up again. But as it happens, sleeping in isn't a slippery slope. I don't think there's any solid evidence that telemetry is either.
“... and that was me before we had children.”
By itself no, but it is often used fallaciously. Such as in this case, when someone is opposing some good thing on the basis that that good thing might, some day, lead to bad things.
Our entire legal system is predicated on common law precedent. So it is very valid in many cases to argue that allowing something good now, might set us up for something very bad later.
You think people elect for bad things? Bad governments, bad software or privacy violations? They chose things that are full of rhetoric and promises of good things then those bad things get snuck in off the back off relaxed regulation, or existing software adoption, etc.
Take Facebook as an example, people didn’t sign up to it thinking “I wanted to be tracked around the internet so I can have personalised adverts” nor dis Zuckerburg think “Wouldn’t it be good to create a platform that could latter be used for rigging elections”. No, instead we got there because of a serious of good ideas that slowly got abused.
There is a saying that goes “The path to hell is paved by good intentions.” I’m not a religious man but I think that beautifully illustrates how slippery slopes are not a logical fallacy.
> Lol, probably just an oversight because they made the search a lot better.
> So I think it only does this on the settings file and not on other files ;)
> https://code.visualstudio.com/blogs/2018/04/25/bing-settings...
"workbench.settings.enableNaturalLanguageSearch": false
That's unacceptable.
>> it only does this on the (VSCode) settings file and not on other files ;)
The "page" in settings consists of just two options, and the complete descriptions of the types of information they collect are "crash reports" and "usage data and errors". That seems the opposite of transparent and granular. Am I missing something?
There is an application in the Microsoft store you can install that lets you view all telemetry collected by Microsoft, and the actual data is encrypted. The metadata (which tells you WHAT is being collected) is not. Knowing the people I have worked with in the past, this is to securely prevent modification by users before the data is actually sent. I've worked with lots of people who would modify that data to attempt to get a feature added that they wanted or just to screw with MS.
That tool also gives you the option to delete all telemetry sent from that machine in Microsoft's possession.
Setting that to "Trace" will show the telemetry being sent in the Output pane of the interface, amongst a bunch of other stuff, I am sure.
The data could be accidentally broadcast or left in a vulnerable place. Even the payroll data for the national security establishment was once reported to be compromised. Everything is vulnerable. Computer science is in such an abysmal state.
Even with properly configured servers, OSes, and databases that are up to date, they are still vulnerable to zero-day attacks because they are not formally verified and have enormous and largely unnecessary complexity. Then throw in the crazy complexity of processor instruction sets, creative side-channel attacks, and stuff which exploits the physical properties of the hardware (rowhammer).
It is reasons like these why we should never really trust transmission of sensitive data over the internet. The concept of secure voting systems, for instance, is literally a joke. insert obligatory xkcd here
"Logic and critical thinking textbooks typically discuss slippery slope arguments as a form of fallacy but usually acknowledge that "slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur. The strength of the argument depends on two factors. The first is the strength of each link in the causal chain; the argument cannot be stronger than its weakest link. The second is the number of links; the more links there are, the more likely it is that other factors could alter the consequences.""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Non-fallacious_...
I can also see them collecting code searches done within the app as a way to check if their search system is working well for real use-cases.
Neither is outside the realm of possibility - you just have to put yourself in the mindset of a dev who is assigned to track down a rare crash or to “improve the search experience” who might want a little more data to work with.
Not saying I agree with any of this collection - it’s terrible and definitely falls under “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. Companies should be extremely clear about what they will and won’t collect - and never cross the line even if it would be useful.