<div>(For the record, "PII" means personally identifiable information, whether computer-identifiable or otherwise)</div> <div> </div> <div>As Andrea said, there is *tons* of other PII in reports, and having that information can sometimes make a more complete bug report. It is part of the duties of those who analyze the private bugs which contain PII to identify and remove such things before making a report public.</div> <div> </div> <div>There's no way to remove every individual piece of PII automatically, there's too many variations of what it would look like. This is why people who understand what *is* PII go through these reports.</div> <div> </div> <div>Argue what you want, but I think you're beating a dead horse at this point. It's not likely this'll be implemented, in my opinion (nor do I support automatic removal).</div> <div> </div> <div><br><br> </div> <div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Fred . <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eldmannen@gmail.com" target="_blank">eldmannen@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote">Okay, but I still argue for at least automatically replace all<br> <div class="im HOEnZb">occurrences of $USER and $HOSTNAME with a dummy string prior to<br>sending the data to Launchpad.<br><br></div> <div class="HOEnZb"> <div class="h5">On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Andrea Corbellini<br><<a href="mailto:corbellini.andrea@gmail.com">corbellini.andrea@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> Hi Fred,<br>><br>> On 27/07/12 17:56, Fred . wrote:<br> >><br>>> [...]<br>>> Disclosing the username is not much of a threat, but it was not<br>>> apparent to the user reporting the bug that hes username would be<br>>> announced.<br>><br>><br> > Apport actually gives you chances to check the information you submit. Also,<br>> for some special packages, you will be explicitly asked to attach some<br>> optional files. For example, if you try to file a bug against compiz you<br> > will be asked this question:<br>><br>> Your display manager log files may help developers diagnose the bug,<br>> but may contain sensitive information such as your hostname. Do you<br>> want to include these logs in your bug report?<br> ><br>>> [...]<br>>> The user have a expectation that he reports a bug, not sending<br>>> personal identifiable information. This may trigger spyware<br>>> allegations.<br>><br>><br>> I do not agree: whenever you file a bug you are forced to publish personal<br> > information about you. Just the fact that you have filed a bug against a<br>> package means that you have installed and used it.<br>><br>> Also, the information that is attached to bug reports is not meant to spy<br> > you, but to help triagers and developers debug and fix the issue. In many<br>> cases a simple list of steps to reproduce the bug isn't enough to reproduce<br>> it.<br>><br>>> Imagine if Microsoft did this, "Microsoft's bug report software<br> >> includes spyware that secretly collects personal identifiable<br>>> information!" and there would be a huge backlash.<br>><br>><br>> Every bug reporting tool must collect some information about what happened<br> > and in which circumstances. A report containing just the phrase "application<br>> does not work" cannot help anybody fixing the issue.<br>><br>>> If Apport detects any personally identifiable information, it should<br> >> scrub it before sending it to Launchpad.<br>><br>><br>> The problem here is that 1. it's not that easy to know whether an<br>> information is private; and 2. sometimes the key of the issue is contained<br> > in such private information.<br>><br>> Again, think for example of compiz: many times knowing which graphics card<br>> is mounted on your computer is *essential* to debug the issue.<br>><br>>> A prerequisite for being a good Ubuntu user who reports bugs is that<br> >> it is trusted to not collect any personally identifiable information.<br>>> Many users disable bug reporting for these reasons. As well does many<br>>> companies as a company-wide policy.<br>><br>><br> > This is something we know and accept. However, one complete bug report is<br>> much much better that thousands vague reports. Nobody forces you to report<br>> bugs; if it is not obvious, then it means that the wording of apport & co.<br> > is not clear enough.<br>><br>>> Please automatically replace all occurrences of $USER and $HOSTNAME<br>>> with a dummy string prior to sending the data to Launchpad.<br>><br>><br>> The username and the hostname are just two small examples of private<br> > information. There are many other information that might be uploaded;<br>> detecting and replacing them is not that easy and sometimes it is not even<br>> possible.<br>><br>><br>> In short: the information collected by Apport is essential (to be honest,<br> > sometimes it is not enough).<br>> If it's not clear that your bug reports may contain sensible information,<br>> than Apport should be improved to tell you that.<br>> If it's not clear how to review and remove sensible information from bug<br> > reports, than the UI of Launchpad should be improved to make it more<br>> obvious.<br>><br>><br>> I hope to have resolved all your concerns. By the way, thanks: suggestions<br>> and feedback -- in any form -- are always appreciated.<br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br>