[TeMPOraL]

I mean it the other way: I see the problems routinely downplayed with excuses like "it's not collecting personal data".

See e.g. this, elsewhere in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33784919. What does the linked Microsoft page say? Quoting:

> The telemetry feature doesn't collect personal data, such as usernames or email addresses. It doesn't scan your code and doesn't extract project-level data, such as name, repository, or author. The data is sent securely to Microsoft servers using Azure Monitor technology, held under restricted access, and published under strict security controls from secure Azure Storage systems.

I.e. "we're not collecting personal data, so you have nothing to worry about". Plus the classic "the data is sent securely to our servers", as if that was supposed to be reassuring. It's one of the most common types of distraction I see: focusing on how the data in-flight won't leak to third parties, and ignoring the fact that it's the first party that shouldn't be getting this data in the first place.

[simplotek]

> I mean it the other way: I see the problems routinely downplayed with excuses like "it's not collecting personal data".

You claimed that personal data was a red herring. It is not. Shipping personal data is the worst possible scenario. It's unthinkable to try to make the case that a data leak is not serious because it's just personal data.

[TeMPOraL]

> You claimed that personal data was a red herring. It is not. Shipping personal data is the worst possible scenario.

Which is exactly what makes it the red herring. Shipping personal data is one of the worst possible scenarios (I'd argue that, in corporate context, shipping data that's subject to export controls is worse, as it could easily get you fired, the company fined, and potentially land someone in jail) - which makes it a perfect distraction from all the other data that's being exfiltrated. "We're not collecting personal data" is the equivalent of putting a "doesn't contain asbestos" label on food packaging.

[simplotek]

Either you do not know what's the meaning of "red herring" or you're failing to understand the problem. Personal data is the reddest of data, even and specially in a corporate context.

You can also have more data that is red, but if your infosec policies fail to prevent or stop personal information being sent, which is the lowest of low-hanging fruits to spot, then you will assuredly be leaking more red data that is harder to spot.

It makes no sense to try to downplay the problem if leaking personal data. It's the most serious offense in any context, not only for the data but specially for what it says about the security policies in place.

[TeMPOraL]

> Either you do not know what's the meaning of "red herring" or you're failing to understand the problem.

Merriam-Webster: "red herring [noun] (...) 2. [from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs] : something that distracts attention from the real issue"

English Wikipedia: "A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion. A red herring may be used intentionally, as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g., in politics), or may be used in argumentation inadvertently."

This is exactly the meaning I'm using, so I think I know it just fine. To reiterate once again: leaking personal data isn't the only way telemetry can be problematic - it's not even the major issue in practice, thanks to associated risk of fines and bad PR (GDPR was quite helpful here). Saying that your telemetry is fine because it's not collecting personal data is just a way to distract the reader. It's the equivalent of advertising your heavily processed food product as safe "because it doesn't contain asbestos".