Squad, please clarify your official stance on the ModStatistics controvery.

[chrt]

As you may have noticed, ModStatistics is a module included in many KSP mods that records data on its users and sends it to a third party server, without providing an opt-in mechanism. Are you OK with this being done in your game?

[Starglider]

Quoted from the FAQ: If the file GameData/ModStatistics/settings.cfg contains a line with "disabled = true" the plugin will cease all recording and reporting functions. This file is created on start-up, and it also contains instructions on how to opt out. Note: You may remove all the ModStatistics DLLs, but do not remove the settings.cfg file if you wish to stay opted out.

[chrt]

Yeah, that's the real issue here - it's opt-out, when it should be opt-in, with an in-game gui dialog presented on first install.

[Dodgey]

I'm not seeing the issue with opt out. It comes down to an individuals responsibility of reading what they are downloading.

[Roastduck]

The opt-in option is when you download the mod. I fail to see any real controversy here.

[r4pt0r]

I'm not seeing the issue with opt out. It comes down to an individuals responsibility of reading what they are downloading.

thats just as bad as EA sneaking in that they can use origin to snoop through your pc in their EULA. its still not cool imo.

[Roastduck]

thats just as bad as EA sneaking in that they can use origin to snoop through your pc in their EULA. its still not cool imo.

No, it's not. With EA, you basically have to use Origin to download their games, and part of their EULA includes the snooping.

With ModStatistics, you are voluntarily downloading a third-party mod to a game. It is the player's responsibility to do their due diligence. If you download a mod, then get angry because there's an included mod like ModStatistics, it is your fault because you didn't check the file you downloaded before extracting it to your directory

[allmhuran]

And you voluntarily choose to buy an EA game as well, so...?

That's what people are expecting to have to do when they're playing a game... due diligence! Yeah! Sounds awesome.

OK, if there's a giant message on every mod download page that says, in big bold caps, this mod will collect data from your computer and upload it, then OK. If not, why not?

Edited July 20, 2014 by allmhuran

[Jouni]

It should definitely be opt-in. Opt-out information gathering, unless done with explicit user consent, is immoral, disgusting, and under some circumstances in some countries a crime.

[Dodgey]

And you voluntarily choose to buy an EA game as well, so...?

That's what people are expecting to have to do when they're playing a game... due diligence! Yeah! Sounds awesome.

OK, if there's a giant message on every mod download page that says, in big bold caps, this mod will collect data from your computer and upload it, then OK. If not, why not?

You voluntarily downloaded a mod which is designed to collect data, if you did not know that then it is your fault.

If you were unaware that said mod was included in the download with another mod than you have a legitimate complaint about the transparency of the mod author who included it within said download, but only if the author did not display that they were distributing the mod.

As you said it should be clearly displayed that the mod is being used, the responsibility of which falls to the mod author who included it in their download.

[kujuman]

Yeah, that's the real issue here - it's opt-out, when it should be opt-in, with an in-game gui dialog presented on first install.

Just to clarify, being opt-out and presenting a gui dialog are not only not mutually exclusive, they have nothing to do with one another.

Opt-out just means that the default setting (without any further action by the user) is to perform the action.

Opt-in just means that the default setting (without any further action by the user) is to not perform the action.

The tracking that KSP itself does is opt-out as the user must uncheck the checkbox presented in the first-start dialog.

My personal belief is that opt-in vs opt-out doesn't really matter, but that opt-out should be as visible and simple to the user as is feasible weighted by the magnitude of privacy concerns. Toolbar is a great example, its updater doesn't even have an opt-out mechanism but since all it's doing is reading http://blizzy.de/toolbar/version.txt privacy concerns are essentially nil.

When the mod gets updated to be more like the KSP dialog in being visible and simple, I think/hope that all of these concerns would go away, even if the checkbox is pre-clicked.

[xcorps]

NOTE: This plugin sends information to the server at stats.majiir.net. There is an opt-out mechanism (see the FAQ below) which disables all logging and reporting functions. No personal information is collected, and the plugin does not access any information outside of KSP.

Too much empty rhetoric in this thread.

There's nothing wrong with this.

Edited July 20, 2014 by xcorps

[Sky_walker]

Yeah, that's the real issue here - it's opt-out, when it should be opt-in, with an in-game gui dialog presented on first install.

This.

I refuse to install any mod that got anything to deal with ModStatistics.

What they are doing is outrageous.

[chrt]

Too much empty rhetoric in this thread.

There's nothing wrong with this.

Nothing wrong as far as you're concerned.

Why is it so difficult for people to acknowledge that different people have different standards for demanding respect of their privacy, and refuse to accept stuff like this?

[Dodgey]

Nothing wrong as far as you're concerned.

Why is it so difficult for people to acknowledge that different people have different standards for demanding respect of their privacy, and refuse to accept stuff like this?

Which is why there is an opt out option clearly explained on the thread for the mod. If you didn't know that there was then either you didn't read the page for said mod or another mod author didn't disclose that they were bundling with this mod in their download. Either way it's either your fault or the fault of the other mod author.

And if I may ask what information specifically that this mod collects that people find objection with? I just can t figure it out.

Edit,

What is it specifically that is outrageous about this mod?

[GusTurbo]

It should definitely be opt-in. Opt-out information gathering, unless done with explicit user consent, is immoral, disgusting, and under some circumstances in some countries a crime.

Honest question: what about it is immoral? Why is it immoral?

[Woopert]

I honestly think this whole ModStatistics argument is somewhat tearing apart the friendly fanbase of our forums here. The thread has been closed like, three times now, due to a flame war? That flame war is never going to die when it's such a sensitive topic like this. Majiir is a valuable asset to our community and it's a shame that everyone's tearing him up for making this plug-in. (not that I support ModStatistics myself, I have it installed due to it being a dependency but I opted out in the configuration file)

[Dunbaratu]

Honest question: what about it is immoral? Why is it immoral?

Because assuming consent from those who don't know what's happening is dishonest. Going with opt-in instead of opt-out makes it so that you have no choice but to be clear to the user that a thing is being enabled because if you don't make it clear nobody knows to opt in.

Imagine running an election where every eligible voter who stayed home and didn't vote was presumed to have their vote counted the way you like because they didn't explicitly say they didn't.

It wouldn't be like that if ModStatistics were installed explicitly as a separate download, because then the act of choosing to download and install it would constitute informed consent. The problem happens only when it gets bundled with other mods you didn't know were going to include it.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Steven Mading

[Random Tank]

I don't think Squad care... and neither do I. ModStatistics is a simple program to help development of mods and find when mods are crashing and what for; its there to help the mod developers, and you in the long run. If you don't like the idea of it, turn it off, no-one is stopping you. If it wasn't enabled by default, very few people would turn it on and it would be nearly useless...

[Boomerang]

I don't really have a dog in the nasty fights going on about this, although I'm not totally at ease about how this is opt-out, rather than opt-in, and that I've had to go through several different folders in order to delete all the copies of that damned thing so it quit reproducing itself. So I suppose that's an option, if you want to run mods that come bundled with ModStatistics and you don't want to dl StillBetterThanSpyware. Just cut it out entirely, rather than have two competing plugins.

[Boomerang]

Because assuming consent from those who don't know what's happening is dishonest. Going with opt-in instead of opt-out makes it so that you have no choice but to be clear to the user that a thing is being enabled because if you don't make it clear nobody knows to opt in.

Imagine running an election where every eligible voter who stayed home and didn't vote was presumed to have their vote counted the way you like because they didn't explicitly say they didn't.

It wouldn't be like that if ModStatistics were installed explicitly as a separate download, because then the act of choosing to download and install it would constitute informed consent. The problem happens only when it gets bundled with other mods you didn't know were going to include it.

And honestly, given this community, I think a fair number of people would have downloaded and allowed this mod if it came as a separate release. Not as many people as it might with the current system, but at least it would feel more honest doing it that way and people who wanted to help by having automatic feedback sent could do it.

Just don't feel in the spirit of the modding community to have something bundled like this. It's not like Firespitter or Toolbar or something that comes bundled with some mods because they're required for in-game functionality, you know?

[Sandworm]

I've spent the last hour or so looking at Modstatistics' traffic via wireshark. It does look innocuous from a data-privacy perspective, other than the fact you are playing KSP at a particular time/place. Nevertheless, it does transmit device information in the clear. That's a security red flag in my biz.

The disabled=true seems to work atm. I see no traffic when set, but that may change with future updates. I may spend some time this week actually attacking the service (replying malformed packets etc) to look for holes.

[xcorps]

Because assuming consent from those who don't know what's happening is dishonest. Going with opt-in instead of opt-out makes it so that you have no choice but to be clear to the user that a thing is being enabled because if you don't make it clear nobody knows to opt in.

It isn't dishonest. It isn't misleading. It isn't underhanded, or sneaky. This data collection is anonymous. It is not harmful. It doesn't expose you to any risk.

Imagine running an election where every eligible voter who stayed home and didn't vote was presumed to have their vote counted the way you like because they didn't explicitly say they didn't.

Imagine making an argument without a strawman.

Why is it so difficult for people to acknowledge that different people have different standards for demanding respect of their privacy

Because nothing about this data disrespects your privacy. It doesn't identify you.

You are making something out of nothing.

[Jouni]

Honest question: what about it is immoral? Why is it immoral?

Basically it's a violation of trust.

When I install software written by somebody else from a reputable source, I expect two things:

1. The software does what it's supposed to do.
   
2. The software doesn't do things it's not supposed to do.
   

While sending usage statistics back to the developer is certainly useful for the developer, it's not necessary for the software to function. Therefore there are two responsible default behaviors. Either the program doesn't send usage statistics back by default, but he user can opt in if he/she wishes so. Alternatively, the program may send the statistics back by default, but it must inform the user about it explicitly in advance. And while burying the information in an EULA or some similar document may satisfy the courts, I personally expect something that institutional review boards would qualify as informed consent for participating in a scientific experiment.

[Temeter]

I don't see an issue in the standalone mod, people won't just download something without knowing it's function. The mod page is imo pretty clear.

Including it in your own mod is a bigger question. Most users probably don't know what this kind of plugin means and just dump it into gamedata. Should be ok if the modders are clearly pointing out the function and implementation of that tracker. And with clear i mean big bold letters on top of the page, not the fine print on the end of the changelog. I'd be a bit worried some modders will do the latter and just defend themselves with 'but i wrote it in the description, it's their fault'. There are a lot of children and even casual players playing KSP.

I'd rather see an opt-in for mod-inclusion function, or an ingame message asking your for anonymous info's, like KSP itself does. You should never send data without being asked before. Basically this:

Downloading the standalone is a statement that you want to send data. Downloading a mod with it included is not.

Personally, i really don't like this part:

Why is this opt-out instead of opt-in?

Opt-in schemes tend to result in low participation rates. I have taken care to not collect any personal or identifiable information, and there is an easy opt-out system in place for those who still wish to not participate.

This is basically relying on people ignoring the plugin. I find this very dishonest, there is a reason people don't like to share data, and this kind of method is one of the reasons.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Temeter