Comment 12 for bug 423856

> Just because I trust my data to Amazon does not mean that I'm comfortable
> sharing my data with the rest of the world. That's the "trust" part.

This is a pretty misleading statement.

The mechanism does not send *your data* anywhere, and the query is a read-only query made against an API in Canonical's data center specifically, including just the image version to see if it's out-of-date or not, and this image version is the same for all users of the same image. This is very different from "sharing my data with the rest of the world".

The comparison with EC2 was made specifically because it sounds silly to be worried about such a mechanism when Amazon knows so much about exactly what is being done and by whom.

>> I believe you are already exercising this chance. What else would you suggest?
> I'm sure I don't understand what you're suggesting here. Are you suggesting
> that this is uncontroversial enough that this bug (which /extremely/ few of the
> target users will ever see) is enough exposure, and also that now that Eric has
> seen it, there couldn't possibly be more to be said?

I'm merely suggesting you two could help me a little bit, so that we can actually get something done together.

If you want do publish this elsewhere and ask for opinions, please do so. If you want to suggest a different approach that would enable people to know there are new images (customized or not) in EC2 and Eucalyptus which might be realistically put in place, please do so as well. If you think this is a terrible idea and that it should be shot down and replaced by nothing because no one cares about image upgrades, speak up.