On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 21:35 -0500, Yaakov Nemoy wrote: > On Nov 9, 2007 8:53 PM, Andrew Bartlett <abartlet samba org> wrote: > > The more we move into tracking software, the more I'm concerned about > > smolt. I've chosen to participate so far, because I would like my > > hardware supported better, but for software you risk disclosing things > > people perhaps didn't want public like: > > > > - Do I run patented codecs? > > - Do I run a proprietary kernel module? > > - Do I run software I would rather not let others know I run? > > The client isn't set up to do so yet, but if you wanted, it's possible > to exclude a certain hardware item, because you don't want it revealed > that you use a proprietary driver. We don't record the other bits of > information. This has also been heavily discussed. I hate to think > that every time I ask honest questions about privacy, people suddenly > think smolt is some evil thing because it has inherent privacy > questions. This is why I post questions all the time. Thankyou for taking so much time and effort to consider the issues, and for your thoughtful reply. > This I think is the number one concern. Smolt does not store any IP > related information in it's database. The source code is available as > it is open source. The server that accepts the incoming data does > receive an IP address, and that is infact unavoidable. > So when you don't mention any objections to storage of filesystem type > used, that means I have your +0 vote on that issue? ;-P It seems harmless enough, but most things do :-) Perhaps just list it if the filesystems are in the standard set supplied with Fedora? Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part