Look forward to reading the same criticism in say two months time?
I agree, this one looks like it will run and run. It's hard to see the two opposing viewpoints being reconciled, but perhaps I might suggest a compromise that would bring the factions at least a bit closer together ?
Nobody disputes that sharing data is definitely illegal in some countries, indeed AirNav explicitly acknowledge that with a warning message in the Preferences dialog.
Equally, anyone being prosecuted for doing so who argued that the software defaulted to switching sharing on at startup and he/she forgot to untick the box, wouldn't have much of a legal leg to stand on.
And clearly AirNav would not want themselves to be seen as profiting from its users' illegal activity, that's not good for business.
However we all know that potentially giving every user the choice to opt-out of sharing permanently as a default would destroy their business model.
So, how about the following:
On startup, RadarBox reads the user's home location (which it does at the moment anyway).
If that location is in a country where the sharing flight data is suspected to be illegal, then sharing defaults to off, although the user has the option to switch it on, at their own risk, subject to the current warning message.
On the other hand, if the home location is in a country which allows flight data sharing, then RadarBox behaves as at present, with sharing on by default.
OK, so it's not perfect, but it absolves AirNav from any complicity in illegal activity, or accusations that they are profiting from such, and gives the user an assurance that they aren't going to end up in jail simply as a result of forgetfulness.
That would seems to me to be a suitable compromise between AirNav's commercial interests and the legitimate concerns of users about staying on the right side of the law.
