I would trust Ubuntu not to push down damaging updates that it would be impossible for them to do without it being discoverable.

I would not trust them to hold on to my personal data with no way of knowing what they are going to do with it.

"You do trust us" is a classic false dichotomy fallacy.

I think that comment did more harm than good. The problem appears to be that Ubuntu users trusted them to not do things like the shopping lens, and the statement that "you implicitly trust us anyway, so it's okay for us to get your data in this way" seems to be ignoring what their users are complaining about.

Now that many users are rethinking if it is appropriate to allow Canonical to have root on their boxes, that comment may provoke a reaction for some; "you may have root, sir, but I have physical access."

That response doesn't answer the question but it does contain a lot of diversionary handwaving.

Short version, yes we do tell Amazon, we just claim to preserve your anonymity. Given the deceit implicit in this obfuscation, there is not reason to believe anything Shuttleworth has to say on this subject.

Fair point on the quote, but I still stand by my point. Just because I do download updates from you does not mean you can make a fundamental change in where my data goes without my explicit permission. That's how you lose the trust I have given you.

Well, that's the whole point, isn't ? We do not trust them anymore.

Only my laptop was running on ubuntu, the whole affair made me realize a month ago it was the good time to give mint a try.