On 4/30/12 8:24 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
> I just have one related point of info here: this server collects less
> data than we already collect at crash-stats, and the set of data it
> collects is less than the set of data we already expose publicly at
> crash-stats. (Stack addresses and memory mapping info.) None of this
> info seems particularly sensitive.
This is what I was thinking too, Ted, but we have to be careful here;
"we already do X" doesn't mean it will always be the right thing to do.
In this case I think the proposed system is totally reasonable, but we
shouldn't rely on precedent alone to make decisions. If we do, we will
only end up with more relaxed data controls and not the more
privacy-preserving tighter data controls.
-Sid