Canonical Begins Tracking Ubuntu Installations

suraj.sun passes along this excerpt from Phoronix: "Just uploaded to the Ubuntu Lucid repository for Ubuntu 10.04 LTS (and we imagine it will appear shortly in Maverick too for Ubuntu 10.10) is a new package called canonical-census, which marks its initial release. Curious about what this package provides, we did some digging and found it's for tracking Ubuntu installations by sending an 'I am alive' ping to Canonical on a daily basis. When the canonical-census package is installed, the program is to be added to the daily Cron jobs to be executed so that each day it will report to Canonical over HTTP the number of times this system previously sent to Canonical (this counter is stored locally and with it running on a daily basis it's thereby indicating how many days the Ubuntu installation has been active), the Ubuntu distributor channel, the product name as acquired by the system's DMI information, and which Ubuntu release is being used. That's all that canonical-census does, at least for now. Previously there haven't been such Ubuntu tracking measures attempted by Canonical."

Comments

Phone home?

[Zumbs]

While I fully understand that Canonical would like some reliable statistical information on users, I seriously hope that it will be easy to see what information is sent and opt out ... or even better ... opt in (ie. default is off).

Re:Phone home?

[JustOK]

no, you could do less.

Re:Phone home?

[Zumbs]

As such, I don't mind either. I would probably let the feature stay enabled. But I do want easy access (no code digging) to see what information is being collected, who gets access to it and an easy way of turning the feature off. And I would consider it a courtesy if Canonical actually asked me.

Re:Phone home?

[natehoy]

Canonical could have done a better disclosure job.

It hasn't happened yet, so it's tough to assess whether they "could have done" a better disclosure job until, you know, there is a need for disclosure.

They've put a package in the repos that you have to go out and install (if it's even on all the mirrors yet). If you go and install it yourself, then obviously it's been disclosed to you, and you want to stand up and be counted. If you don't want to be counted (or you are unaware that the package exists), you won't be installing it and you don't need to be informed of anything.

Once they start putting this on OEM installs, or in the default distro, then we can talk about how much disclosure was done, and whether they "should have done" more.

We aren't there yet. I don't know what Canonical intends for a communication before, or even if, they ever decide to make this a default install. Maybe it'll be an option on the installer or a first-run question on OEM installs. Maybe it'll be disabled by default and they'll mention it on the distro home page and ask you to enable it. Or maybe they'll sneak it in and turn it on and they'll then be subject to a valid and reasonable accusation of insufficient disclosure.

But that's all stuff that hasn't happened yet. Let's wait until it does, and keep an eye on Canonical and this package, so we're ready for our nerdragegasm when one is appropriate.

Re:Phone home?

[gorzek]

Mod parent up!

I can't believe how many people are already jumping to conclusions and deciding that Canonical is as evil as Microsoft. Come on, people!

When it comes with the default installation and is enabled automatically without any input from the user, then it would be fair to trash Canonical for invading the privacy of its users. For now, they haven't actually done anything, and frankly I get tired of the reactionary nonsense hurled by Linux users on stories like these.

I find it very difficult to get worked up about a counter that pings a remote server once a day just to count up how many active installations there are and how long they've been running. Some "privacy invasion." As long as Canonical is up front about what the package does and they do not enable it without your permission I don't see a problem here.

Re:Dear god I hope this stops the impending wave

[Richard_at_work]

Why should the details of the article negate the fact that this is a privacy issue, and there should be an outcry about it? Does the fact that its only happening against a subset of installs matter? Not really. Does the fact that there is an *opt-out* option? Again, not really, as its tracking usage - this should be opt-in for definite.

Re:Why?

[zippthorne]

Yeah. It probably is something they can bargain with. Namely, it can be used to counter the claim that the people buying the machines are just wiping them to put pirated windows on.

It's no worse than Update Manager

[tepples]

My reaction to your postulated microsoft-census: "Doesn't Automatic Updates already do this?"

Re:It's about time

[John Hasler]

> They'll look at the numbers and think "hm, just as low as I thought"...

Regardless of what the numbers actually are.