[sneak]

You don't need consent to film someone in a public space. It's done as a courtesy, not a legal requirement.

My computer is not a public space and the software that is installed on it, and when, and the IP address used to do so, are private information. Exfiltrating that data without consent is a violation of my right to privacy, full stop. Nothing that is said, no notice that is provided, can change that.

You could just as well say "by entering this building you consent to be murdered". It illustrates the point similarly: a lack of objection is not affirmative consent.

[dangus]

The need to gain consent is highly dependent on what is being consented to.

If you invite me over for dinner I don’t need to get your consent to wash my hands or use your bathroom. That is implied by inviting me over to dinner.

That’s why I think the “consent to be murdered” argument is such a bad analogy. It assumes the slippery slope goes all the way.

Just because I think (e.g.) Homebrew’s analytics doesn’t need opt-in consent doesn’t mean I believe that all forms of analytics and data collection shouldn’t need opt-in consent.

I think that an application having a default that collects non-personal crash and bug analytics is acceptable, while an application that collects more detailed personal information isn’t.

[Firmwarrior]

Haha, man, I wish more people than literally just you and I still thought this way

Every fucking piece of software out there is packed with shady spyware and BS, and everyone thinks he's entitled to treat users as cattle and do whatever he wants to them.

It's probably going to keep getting worse at this rate too. It'll become illegal to do anything privately or anonymously in the name of preventing misinformation and spam/click fraud