[dylan604]

> - A web site logs traffic in a sort of defacto way, but no one actually reviews the traffic, and it's not sent to 3rd parties.

Even if this sounds innocent, these must be turned over if you are provided a warrant or subpoena (which ever would be appropriate, IANAL).

[Brian_K_White]

But it's not malicious. It's not ideal, and it should be addressed, but it's not bad faith or intentional spying or even gross negligence or incompetence.

[dylan604]

When you claim you keep no logs yet find out you are keeping logs, what is that if not incompetence or negligence?

[Brian_K_White]

Human. And what was their reaction upon having this crime brought to their attention? It was exactly all anyone could ask for.

Shitting on well-intentioned people who merely failed to be perfect is not a great way to get the most of what you ultimately want.

If you think intent doesn't matter then what happens when well-intentioned people decide it's not worth trying because no matter what they will be crucified as murderers even if all they did wrong was fail to clean the break room coffee pot. The actual baddies are still there and have no inhibitions and now not even any competition.

[dylan604]

Calling a strike a strike does not blame the batter. It’s simply calling it for what it is. Even if the person corrects the wrong does not mean that incompetence or negligence was not the correct description. This entire being offended for the correct words used to describe things is tiresome. It’s like people being offended at being told they are ignorant. Ignorant does not mean stupid. Just because ignorant people are ignorant of the word does not make people using words correctly mean or bad or full of ill will.

[godelski]

  > it should be addressed, but it's not bad faith

I think this is the part that annoys me about the privacy community. There's nicer ways to deal with these issues and get them resolved rather than just leaping to the pitchforks. Raise the concern and observe the response. That is far more informative of how much one should trust. Because let's be honest, at the end of the day there is still trust. You have to trust that they have no logs. You have to trust any third party auditor. Trustless is a difficult paradigm to build, so what's critical is the little things.

But jumping to pitchforks just teaches companies to ignore the privacy crowd. Why cater to them when every action is interpreted as malicious? If you can do no right then realistically you can do no wrong either. If every action is "wrong" then none are. In this way I think the privacy community just shoots themselves in the foot, impeding us from getting what we want.