> Homebrew gathers anonymous aggregate user behaviour analytics using Google Analytics (until our in-progress migration to our own InfluxDB). You will be notified the first time you run brew update or install Homebrew. Analytics are not enabled until after this notice is shown, to ensure that you can opt out without ever sending analytics data.
First, it only applies if you collect PII - depending on what they collect, they might not be subject to the GDPR at all.
Second, informed consent is only one of the options that allows collection and storage of PII. There are various other reason that allow collection and storage of PII, among them "Legitimate interest". For example, it is considered legitimate to store webserver logs containing PII (IP Addresses) for purposes of fraud analysis, unauthorized system access etc. Whether a specific collection of data is legitimate under those clauses depends on the specifics of a case (who has access, what's the exact purpose, how long you store, ...) - ask a lawyer if you need an assessment.
Depending on what they log and how they log, they may be either in the clear or in a bad place, but it's definitely not as simple as "the law requires no logging".
Had they not submitted unique user tokens I think you mag be right. However, that's not how the analytics seem to work.
The law does allow logging for a variety of things but in this case I'd say they're in the wrong. They assume that it's okay because they don't track you across websites and that's good to know, but that's not the point.
If you want to log fully anonymized data, without persistent tracking ids and without leaking personal data to 3rd parties en route (so no "send it to Google and they promise to anonymize the IP afterwards") then you're all good (but IANAL!).
The only reason you see all those cookie notices and GDPR consent requests is because so few companies are willing to accept even the tiniest tradeoff in their metrics to protect their users' privacy.
To be clear to anyone reading: using Google Analytics without a non-Google-hosted anonymisation step breaks GDPR. This _has_ been litigated in court in several countries. There's no "ifs" or "buts" about it.
The German DPA has ruled that the usage of Google Fonts on a website broke GDPR because it forced the user's browser to reveal their IP to Google.
I'm fairly sure that an open-source piece of code that you download and install yourself isn't in scope.
I think it’s not cool when orgs track telemetry with opt out. But it’s not cool like when you’re at a party and you go off and fart in the corner as no one’s there and then a few seconds later someone walks by and smells it.
Continuing the analogy, telemetry with no opt out is like farting silently amongst a group of people. And tracking identified user requests while selling data is like slapping each person at the party while farting in their face.
And I guess opt in telemetry is like holding in your fart and people notice and might feel some discomfort at your discomfort.
I tend and prefer to assume good-will WRT telemetry in well-known and independent opensource projects.