Issue 29347210: Issue 2220 - [Collect filter hit statistics] Update Privacy Policy in adblockplus.org (Closed)
|
Created:
July 1, 2016, 6:10 p.m. by juliandoucette Modified:
April 6, 2017, 10:18 a.m. Visibility:
Public. |
DescriptionIssue 2220 - [Collect filter hit statistics] Update Privacy Policy in adblockplus.org
Repository: hg.adblockplus.org/web.adblockplus.org/
Patch Set 1 : #
Total comments: 4
Patch Set 2 : Removed whitespace #Patch Set 3 : Re-implemented to avoid changing strings, added <fix>es #MessagesTotal messages: 16
Just to double check: Hope you noticed the Note in the issue about the changes to be pushed in sync with the actual Filter Hit statistics implementation, It's still under review, so we need to wait the review to be ready, so we can be able to push this changes as well. https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29347210/diff/29347213/pages/privacy.html File pages/privacy.html (right): https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29347210/diff/29347213/pages/privacy.html#... pages/privacy.html:182: {{abp-send-reports Users can choose to help us improve Adblock Plus by sending anonymized For some reason in this file we were using new lines for the whole strings, I think that it's some kind of leftover from the migration, I do understand that you did it because of consistency reasons, but apparently in the crowdin the strings are shown with new line, which is not correct, make sense to correct for other strings as well, the problem is if we will correct that with this codereview for other strings the translations will be gone, but we should correct that for new strings. https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29347210/diff/29347213/pages/privacy.html#... pages/privacy.html:195: on your computer.}} {{abp-data-sent Adblock Plus will only transmit parts of this data to its As mentioned above - please keep the strings on same line, not to have new line characters in crowdin, also I think we can use <fix> for Adblock Plus. https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29347210/diff/29347213/pages/privacy.html#... pages/privacy.html:200: {{s70 Most of the data (your preferences, filter subscriptions and custom filters) is unobjectionable Feels like here you corrected the new lines, but if we will make change on existing strings we will lose translations, so I'll suggest to keep this as before and the changes to the strings below, not to lose translations.
On 2016/07/05 08:27:30, saroyanm wrote: > Just to double check: Hope you noticed the Note in the issue about the changes > to be pushed in sync with the actual Filter Hit statistics implementation, It's > still under review, so we need to wait the review to be ready, so we can be able > to push this changes as well. I noticed. I'm confused. Which newline characters should we remove/not remove?
On 2016/07/05 14:36:08, juliandoucette wrote: > On 2016/07/05 08:27:30, saroyanm wrote: > > Just to double check: Hope you noticed the Note in the issue about the changes > > to be pushed in sync with the actual Filter Hit statistics implementation, > It's > > still under review, so we need to wait the review to be ready, so we can be > able > > to push this changes as well. > > I noticed. > > I'm confused. Which newline characters should we remove/not remove? If you are referring to this comment -> https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29347210/diff/29347213/pages/privacy.html#... I just noticed some changes in the Rietveld generated diff I think it's not a new lines - my bad, seems to be some spaces in the end of the string removed, maybe some auto-correction of the editor. This will change the "s70", "s71", "s72" strings as well I guess. Please just be sure that this strings are not changed.
https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29347210/diff/29347213/pages/privacy.html File pages/privacy.html (right): https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29347210/diff/29347213/pages/privacy.html#... pages/privacy.html:200: {{s70 Most of the data (your preferences, filter subscriptions and custom filters) is unobjectionable On 2016/07/05 08:27:30, saroyanm wrote: > Feels like here you corrected the new lines, but if we will make change on > existing strings we will lose translations, so I'll suggest to keep this as > before and the changes to the strings below, not to lose translations. Done.
It's outrageous to think that Adblock Plus will start collecting user data and violate their privacy. Will they start selling the data as well?
Done.
On 2016/08/12 21:26:56, routehero wrote: > It's outrageous to think that Adblock Plus will start collecting user data and > violate their privacy. > > Will they start selling the data as well? It will be an opt-in feature not opt-out, we definitely are not going to harm user privacy and user privacy was and it always will be highest priority for us. Feel free to check the original ticket related to this topic: https://issues.adblockplus.org/ticket/495 and comment under the related ticket itself, not the codereview if you do not have comment related to the codereview itself.
On 2016/08/15 13:23:59, saroyanm wrote: > On 2016/08/12 21:26:56, routehero wrote: > > It's outrageous to think that Adblock Plus will start collecting user data > and > > violate their privacy. > > > > Will they start selling the data as well? > > It will be an opt-in feature not opt-out, we definitely are not going to harm > user privacy and user privacy was and it always will be highest priority for us. > Feel free to check the original ticket related to this topic: > https://issues.adblockplus.org/ticket/495 and comment under the related ticket > itself, not the codereview if you do not have comment related to the codereview > itself. Also no, we will not sell any data, it's about optimization.
This is ready for review.
LGTM, but this should only be pushed after 394
On 2016/11/08 18:29:47, saroyanm wrote: > LGTM, but this should only be pushed after 394 Has this / will this be incorporated into the new privacy policy in the same way?
On 2017/01/04 20:18:20, juliandoucette wrote: > On 2016/11/08 18:29:47, saroyanm wrote: > > LGTM, but this should only be pushed after 394 > > Has this / will this be incorporated into the new privacy policy in the same > way? Yes, that is already implemented in the new privacy policy in "Issue repoter". Thus, this issue can be closed IMHO.
On 2017/01/09 07:54:55, j.nink wrote: > On 2017/01/04 20:18:20, juliandoucette wrote: > > On 2016/11/08 18:29:47, saroyanm wrote: > > > LGTM, but this should only be pushed after 394 > > > > Has this / will this be incorporated into the new privacy policy in the same > > way? > > Yes, that is already implemented in the new privacy policy in "Issue repoter". > Thus, this issue can be closed IMHO. I think, it's a new topic, It's a part of the data collection by the extension, when user opt-in to help us collecting some data. I do have strong believe that we didn't implement it yet in Privacy Policy. Anyway this review will still wait until the implementation of the functionality. I'll suggest to close the review and wait until the functionality itself is implemented, maybe after the implemeentation will be in place we will rephrase this wordings. @Judith you can find information about the implementation itself in #495.
> I'll suggest to close the review and wait until the functionality itself is implemented, maybe after the implemeentation will be in place we will rephrase this wordings. Agreed. Closing... 
|
