IMO the more simple explanation is they want this data to sell to data aggregators, who can in turn enrich the profile they have on you. There's a similar thing going on with smart TVs, right?
Also I don't know all the details here - I know that Vizio TVs where collecting data and explicitly kept the IP and other personal data with it. I don't know if wacom is doing that.
Now that said - I don't like that they're handing this data to Google through Google Analytics. I also think they should be far more up front about what they collect, what they use it for, etc.
What happened to actually communicating with users to learn more about how they use the product?
It's not challenging to see why someone might choose a one-time cost in software engineering over an ongoing cost in communication.
It's not hard to see how to do it right.
I was attempting to illustrate the decision-making processes that may have led to this juncture and what happened to communicating with customers. Please accept my apologies, as I have plainly failed to be clear that this was not an argument as to the moral or ethical questions concerned.
Again, you're completely right. It's not at all difficult to see the morally and ethically correct way to go about this.
1) Pop up and ask for permission to scan the machine.
2) Show the data collected that will be sent back and give a second chance to decline.
3) Allow everyone to see the aggregate results.
Being mostly automated, it's lower friction than a manual Q&A survey. But it also feels way more respectful that trying to snoop around and then clandestinely exfiltrate the data. It's one of the few cases where I'm willing to opt-in to data collection.
From a game developer perspective, looking at it right now tells me that (simplified):
* Most gamers have at least a GTX 1050 and 8GB of ram or higher. Perfect now we know where to aim our medium settings.
* 74% use Nvidia GPUs, 15% use AMD - now we know where to focus driver optimizations
* English, Simplified Chinese, and Russian are the top languages (where to focus translations)
* 72% play on 1080p, 14% on 1440p, etc. Tells us what resolutions to make sure our UI works on.
(and yes, the obverse inference is also true. If you see one person complaining, there are probably 99 more who have had the same issue and have said nothing)
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/first-rule-of-usability-don...
"watch users as they attempt to perform tasks"
If you want to put resources into "hey folks like to use this product with ours" you need accurate information.
I work on a product, and we include some telemetry. I'm also a strong privacy advocate, and I believe I've done my best within the corporate realm to ensure that the data we're collecting is extremely scoped AND useful for decision making and prioritization. In my experience, there aren't that many of me, but I implore folks to realize that as PMs and engineers, we absolutely do have a say in making sure that blanket data exfiltration and aggregation doesn't happen in our products.
Communicating with your customers proactively about what you're collecting and why is important too. And not buried in some privacy policy legalese: publish a blog post, explain what you're gathering, give examples of how it's driven decision-making for you in the past, and what you're hoping to learn in the future. It goes a long way.
Because I will only say "Yes" if I'm being paid or otherwise compensated specifically for that input.
I think it's important companies pay for usage testing so that they value that information and are more likely to hold it closely since it represents an investment and is perceived as competitive advantage.
Transparency, consent, and control.
If every company addressed these three issues, we wouldn’t be having this conversation about privacy and data collection over and over and over.
What I'm addressing is that I feel many people see a company tracking data, and assume this data is valuable enough to sell, and that the data is for sure being sold.
My point was that the data isn't just valuable to sell (maybe), but is legitimately valuable in making a better product/service.
Maybe if it were only used for that it wouldn't be so bad. But I don't trust a company not to take another bite at the apple by selling customer data if they think they can get away with it. Matter of fact, refusing to do so is leaving money on the table and could get a CEO fired for not making the company as profitable as it could have been. Once companies have the data, they are almost certainly obligated to use it in ways to their benefit and your expense.
I don't think anybody is disputing that. But that its very valuable to devs does not excuse collecting it without getting the user's informed consent first.
> In section 3.1 of their privacy policy, Wacom wondered if it would be OK if they sent a few bits and bobs of data from my computer to Google Analytics, “[including] aggregate usage data, technical session information and information about [my] hardware device.”
What wasn't upfront about this? That they didn't add more details about what the session information was? Legally why would they? The post includes an image the section where they legally disclosed it. People not reading the privacy policy before using a product is not Wacom's legal problem.
Can you ask them to put this section on a separate screen? Sure. Will they do it? Who knows. I'm sure they'd want to know if you are a customer giving ideas than a low priority non customer as would any person.
How many blogs or websites disclose the use of Google Analytics in their privacy policy?
You could talk to many customers and this is the least thing they have on their minds. Paranoia displayed by commenters here is amazing.
As the post concludes, if you are a (prospective) customer who does not like what they collect then there are other brands. I might add who probably have a hidden, more intrusive way to track you because they are smaller, have smaller volume/margin and have the incentive to build and sell your profile like other small companies not in the field.
That's not what they are saying at all, and suggesting it's for nothing proves you don't understand the value of using the data for internal decision making. Simply put: the main use of this data is for that reason: internal decision making. Answering questions like:
* How are our customers using our products? * What errors are they experiencing? * What features are they using? * Where are they confused? * What features cause the most problems? * What feature should we work on next?
These are all regular questions that are answered by collecting these types of metrics, including the one described in this post. Selling the data to third parties isn't easy. The data is generally gathered to inform product decisions, not to sell, so it's not in any easy format that makes it easy to sell. One has to go out of their way to sell this data, and the cost to put together this data in a way that's useful to sell would almost certainly cost more to setup and manage than they would get from such a small number of relative users.
The simple fact is, everyone sends data back to their servers for collecting and parsing, including Apple, the company everyone puts on a pedestal for privacy.
Simply put: show me the evidence they are selling the data to third parties for profit. Anything less is speculation.
But trusting companies to do the right thing is untenable. That trust has been broken far too often, by far too many companies. The only rational position a concerned user can take is to assume that anybody collecting such sensitive information (particularly in a sneaky way) intends to monetize it or use it for purposes other than product improvement.
And even if the data really will only be used for product development, getting the user's informed consent -- and refraining from data collection without it -- is critical.
Further, using GA automatically means that the data is being used for Google's purposes as well as the application creator's.
For small/mid-size datasets (which is what we're talking about), yes, that's exactly what I'm implying. It's not actually easy for most companies to sell user data for a quick buck like is being claimed.
I believe wanting it for product development is just as simple.
My tablet behaves differently per application. If I typically have one app open only on one screen I can limit the tablets "workspace".
Context-specific buttons based on app.
And if you're doing that _and have build sufficient app infrastructure around it_ as Wacom has to support fairly custom per-app behavior, the more realistic conclusion is that they're trying to get more info on that - now you can argue about opt in on the "share experience data" privacy setting - and I would agree, absolutely.
But "more simple to say that they're just selling data for money" is a pretty reductionist argument that jumps solely to the most negative possible motivation. "What's the worst they could be doing with it? Selling it? That's probably what they're doing, not making their tool more useful."
For me Occam's Razor points towards internal analytics.
Seems the obvious answer, yep.