Either you do not know what's the meaning of "red herring" or you're failing to understand the problem. Personal data is the reddest of data, even and specially in a corporate context.

You can also have more data that is red, but if your infosec policies fail to prevent or stop personal information being sent, which is the lowest of low-hanging fruits to spot, then you will assuredly be leaking more red data that is harder to spot.

It makes no sense to try to downplay the problem if leaking personal data. It's the most serious offense in any context, not only for the data but specially for what it says about the security policies in place.

> Either you do not know what's the meaning of "red herring" or you're failing to understand the problem.

Merriam-Webster: "red herring [noun] (...) 2. [from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs] : something that distracts attention from the real issue"

English Wikipedia: "A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion. A red herring may be used intentionally, as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g., in politics), or may be used in argumentation inadvertently."

This is exactly the meaning I'm using, so I think I know it just fine. To reiterate once again: leaking personal data isn't the only way telemetry can be problematic - it's not even the major issue in practice, thanks to associated risk of fines and bad PR (GDPR was quite helpful here). Saying that your telemetry is fine because it's not collecting personal data is just a way to distract the reader. It's the equivalent of advertising your heavily processed food product as safe "because it doesn't contain asbestos".