And there’s a massive difference between what the Manjaro devs need and what the likes of Scroogle™ gather on a minute-by-minute basis with few people even batting an eyelid.¹
Often with their Bugging Devices left on all the time, even during (expected by me) PRIVATE conversations.
¹ Permanently glazed, no doubt, by all the brain-washing. Fortunately, I don’t apparently have a brain to wash.
Perhaps it’s best to not draw attention to that. 
I’m after a Wacom tablet for that, but the surgeons decided to leave the mouldy sandwich in place when I had a meeting with a road-hump many years ago; seems OK so far. 
I do appreciate the openness we have here (maybe unlike Fedora, with their project? I am not familiar with their way of doing things). We are at least being ASKED first.
That’s what I thought, bur @Olli statement “is a fingerprint that even low-brained intruders can and will hack” made me think about what can do a hacker with this data. 
Very little, as I understand it; at least, not by itself.
Fingerprinting refers to identifying or tracking a user (or device) based on a set of characteristics that, when combined, can form a uniquely identifiable “fingerprint”, of sorts.
Whereas cookies rely on information stored on a device (in a browser, for example), fingerprinting collects data that is generated or revealed by a device with or without User consent.
By combining several data points, an unique identifier can be extrapolated, allowing advertisers (or websites) to track activity across sites and sessions.
This is happening. Most websites will let you know the types of data collected, and seek your permission to allow it, or not. However, there can be bad players that don’t.
Now, I should point out that most Internet Users are at risk simply by visiting a favourite website. It’s nothing new that fingerprinting is possible; it’s only a question of what information is requested and how it might be matched with data from other websites you might visit.
I dare say, fingerprinting is a favoured tool used by advertisers.
The main privacy concern is that this is difficult to detect or control, in general terms. Fingerprinting raises significant privacy and security concerns, as it can enable covert surveillance and can lead to an erosion of user anonymity.
With MDD, the types of information specified clearly do not include anything that is personally identifiable.
To the extent that fingerprinting is possible with any given subset(s) of information, I think we’re more at risk from Search engines, or Social Media, than MDD.
Personal opinions only.
@philm posted a YouTube video very recently in another thread.
I feel this portrays balanced and unbiased opinions regarding MDD; it’s worth the time spent to watch; enjoy:
Sure the state administration knows once they query the ISP’s, because of my MDD submitting IP.
It has been quite an effort in the recent years to keep my electronic goodies (fairly) silent especially smart phone (s).
Opt-in is clear for me based on my desire for a good future.
What I suggest to Manjaro devs is to develop a communication platform app with communication content sent to users similar Matray (announcements) and communication content sent to Manjaro similar MDD (opt-in checkbox enabled with preview of data submission). Run it a tray icon app. That would add value for all users. And with this value added you will get the desired data collection.
Data by appreciation.
Which isn’t stored by Manjaro… and why are you not using a VPN?
Hello everyone, all this telemetry always starts “friendly”, and I want to believe in Manjaro that it will continue to be so. For me, understanding the purpose of such actions (the benefit) would be to correct locally (in the distribution itself), those difficulties that circulate throughout Linux and remain unaddressed for years. I have been providing data to KDE for a long time, openly, in the hope that the situation with many bugs and freezes will be corrected. Now there is only one difficulty left: it freezes on Wayland due to the Intel i915 driver, there are fewer of them, but they continue to exist. And yes, if the participants and users of Manjaro will CALMLY look in one direction, the direction of the comfortable use of the system, its development and the joy of using it, I am ready to provide “a cell of my DNA” so that this happens right now). If anything is translated by Google
They already said they need this for counting user’s, will ping Manjaro vanished after this? I guess not… but who knows.
I don’t see absolute nothing that will improve in relation to MDD around Manjaro at the end of the day, even when 100% all user’s would have activate it.
What exactly do we gain from it? Nothing… but Manjaro devs can see how many devices are using Manjaro and in which country… WOOOW total big improvement 
At least there was no explanation from the devs, besides user counting (I just read the whole last Topic, btw.)
I dont get it why (exactly you) staying behind this Telemetry, who is so much against Microsoft (like i do, i thought…), everything starting small at first, to test waves in the water.
There was no Telemetry around Win3.11 and Win95 has firstly introduced the pre-selected Telemetry button in their installation from Visual C++ Redistributables (at least this was the first time i remember where i saw Telemetry around Windows).
For sure, we all can downplay this here right now… and in future we face the same as on Windows.
But as long there is one company make it worse, its okay?
Because so many (nothing to hide) people using Spying Smartphones , so its okay that Windows does it now too.
At least that’s exactly what Microsoft user’s are talking right now, to defend their ■■■■■■ up situation with Win10 (8 year’s ago) and with Win11 it gets even worse.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I guess you are referring to the NetworkManager connectivity check ping?
If so - you can put another server to ping - or disable the check
… at the “cost” of convenience and functionality (portal detection - public hotspots, for example)
not even this - the IP isn’t part of what is planned - and even that is unreliable (VPN, for example)
Location is inferred from the time zone and locale a user has set - which can be anything.
It’s always better to look at the facts and know than it is to assume the absolute worst that “they” could sneakily do to you in the future.
… that’s just my opinion …
While this is almost always true - it doesn’t quite fit the situation.
I’ll propose another quip - it’s hard to translate into english but I guess you won’t need the translation:
Alle Vergleiche hinken, aber nicht alles was hinkt ist ein Vergleich.
What you’re describing is opt in with different defaults. If the user is prompted before any data is sent then it’s a form of opt in.
Opt in = no data sent before the user chooses.
Opt out = data sent before the user chooses.
If data is sent before the user chooses then you’ve prevented them from choosing at all (even if they choose not to send data, it’s already been sent). At that point their only choice is continue sending the data or not.
For me this Streamer looks total biased pro telemetry… not worth to look at all.
And he said he was working for shady advertising company (@12min till 12:20… i can’t see how that is unbiased) and heavily hyped this because of his experience with other company deals.
How does this helps Linux or Manjaro? Besides money, he didnt explained his point future…
Well if Manjaro want to rely so heavily on Telemetry, to make this awesome company deals to show others, how many people are using Manjaro.
Well if this is the true (unbiased) reason for this telemetry, then Manjaro should stop asking for Donation after every stable release in our Forum.
The real question for me after reading this 2 MDD Topics:
Is the donation support not enough or is there some greed behind all this?
Well, my opinion is that any telemetry should always be turned off by default and the user should be notified. I am glad that the majority of the votes agree with me.
The rejection of telemetry was one of the reasons for my migration to Linux and I plan to keep getting rid of it at the maximum.
I have already suggested following KDE in the design
You’re over thinking this. The rather simplistic representation was with purpose – to illustrate the basic concept of opt-in vs opt-out in a way that would be easily understood by most.
Practical application would of course differ according to how it’s implemented. For example (if we assume the choice is to be made during initial install);
In an opt-in scenario MDD is already disabled (No is pre-selected) and choosing Yes will enable it.
In an opt-out scenario MDD is disabled until a User chooses Yes (Yes is the default, or pre-selected setting if User does not choose No).
Ideally no data is sent prior to a User making a choice – until that time, the setting (perhaps governed by a simple toggle) is in an indeterminate state.
This is a description of how I presume the choice will be implemented. When you evaluate this against the basic concept, it’s still accurate for the purpose.
In practice, though, both opt-in and opt-out scenarios may only need a simple Yes/No toggle, dependent on how it’s actually worded, and presented to the User.
Personal opinions only; based on simple logic.
This is referring to:
Map location is based on submitting IP not on locales. Change your locales to something unique and run mdd and check…
Not at all.
Correct.
Again you’re describing opt in, but with a prompt (otherwise it’s pointless and confusing to pre-select yes). That’s the whole point of opt out, it’s enabled until you opt out.
Agreed, but that’s opt in.
I’ll quote the vote at the top of this page:
I want data sharing to be enabled by default, but I can easily disable it (opt-out)
I want to manually enable data sharing via some checkbox in a UI app (opt-in)
No. I’m describing opt-out as it must be to prevent the very scenario you’re attempting to impose.
Let’s try this another way:
Assume opt-in and opt-out are moot points until the User is presented with the choice. The setting is not activated – neither Yes or No – until a User makes a choice.
Until that time, the setting remains indeterminate.
I don’t know how to explain this more plainly.
With me so far?
It of course depends on just how its finally implemented, but this description is sound as far as how I think it should be done.
This may remind us a little of Schrödinger’s cat, in principle, but it is certainly achievable in this context.
No, you’re describing opt-in done via a prompt, with different defaults. Which prevents opt-out. If your definitions were correct then this whole thread is moot.
No one really cares if they have to change a toggle in a prompt. They care about data being sent without their express consent (at least some of us do).
I won’t assume they’re moot points, because I know for a fact that they’re definitely not:
Then you think it should be opt-in.
Did I miss something in the original post.If I choose to opt in how often is it going to send data.Is it on a new install or anytime I start the computer or on any updates or at any new release.
This started with you misinterpreting what was clearly described as a basic concept; my initial representation of opt-in vs opt-out.
From that point I have tried to explain how the choice; the selection; might be made in practice – a rather practical concept.
If you would stop reaching for absolutes and understand the concept as presented subsequent to your objections, it makes perfect sense as already described.
And yet, this would be a prerequisite of the concept described in response to your challenges. I honestly don’t know if you’re simply arguing for the sake of it, or you legitimately fail to understand it.
In any case, whatever the method used, choice is important. I have no interest in continuing this further. Adios.