That's just a small extra step in the QA pipeline.

Also: analytics and telemetry code doesn't just appear out of the blue. Someone makes an explicit decision to scoop error logs from users, or track clicks, or spy on system configuration. That someone is usually higher up the management or technical chain, and should know enough to recognize that sending anything collected on user's machine that is not crucial (in the most strict, technical sense) to performing the action user activated has privacy implications.

I'm actually pretty sympathetic to Wacom in this instance, more sympathetic than the blogpost author at least. But unethical actions are unethical regardless of whether acting ethically is "a real challenge" for some companies.

Tough. If a company can't do it the right way, they shouldn't do it at all.

> in the current state of the industry there's a good reason we have vague agreements

Well, I guess that depends on your point of view. I see no good reason for this, but I have no doubt that the various companies do see a good reason by their definitions.

You're right about the current state of the industry, but the current state of the industry is a travesty.