Using Windows 10? Microsoft is watching(newsweek.com)
newsweek.com
Using Windows 10? Microsoft is watching
http://www.newsweek.com/windows-10-recording-users-every-move-358952
14 comments
> it gets old
and yet it still is an urgent issue that we should not silently accept because it's "getting old" and "nothing will change".
and yet it still is an urgent issue that we should not silently accept because it's "getting old" and "nothing will change".
Except when the same information is posted by 6 websites and all 6 of those articles have made the front page, you start to alienate people in the middle who understand all of the current information and are now unhappy with the one sided coverage and angry internet mob of people who already weren't using Windows.
Those are different articles. Your comment is analogous to linking to old Docker article discussions when a new article is posted in order to try to discourage discussion of Docker in general.
They are different articles about the same issue and I'm not trying to discourage discussion about it. It just gets old seeing the same thing on the front page but that's just my opinion and you don't have to agree with it.
My criticism isn't about your opinion. It's about your abuse of the "Previous discussion" convention.
Non paywalled: https://archive.is/xlu7p
Thanks. It was insisting I had 'used up' free articles despite having not visited the site in months.
Did the same for me. Incognito mode in Chrome fixed that though.
The line is crossed. When we don't stop it now, this will be the end of privacy for every computer user -- at least of commercial OSs.
Even with the possibility to deactivate all this, the user consented to the "privacy terms" -- so the OS can even collect data "by error" -- and they will come away with it.
To trust such a company again, there would be a second set of privacy terms needed, that would be used for everybody that rejects the data collection. But I don't think, that there will be a second set of terms at all (for that to happen, a majority of people must start to think about their privacy).
Even with the possibility to deactivate all this, the user consented to the "privacy terms" -- so the OS can even collect data "by error" -- and they will come away with it.
To trust such a company again, there would be a second set of privacy terms needed, that would be used for everybody that rejects the data collection. But I don't think, that there will be a second set of terms at all (for that to happen, a majority of people must start to think about their privacy).
A lot of this can be disabled.
For example, using a local account and not a Microsoft account. I'm guessing that's where the author got his notion of "contact details, passwords, demographic data and credit card specifics".
Also, if you go to the Privacy settings, you can disable things like Cortana and other services.
For example, using a local account and not a Microsoft account. I'm guessing that's where the author got his notion of "contact details, passwords, demographic data and credit card specifics".
Also, if you go to the Privacy settings, you can disable things like Cortana and other services.
Exactly. I challenge anyone who complains about the "new"[1] data logging in Windows 10 to take a hard look at Google's policies as well. They record just as much, sometimes more, when you use their services. Their email service in particular is 100% invasive: They literally read every word of your email and any email you receive, whether the person who sent it to you consents or not.
But it's Google, so of course they get a pass in the media.
[1] If you turn off all the privacy invading options when setting up Windows 10 (choose "Customize" instead of "Express"), there is no more logging than Windows 7 does by default. Somehow that is never mentioned in these articles though.
But it's Google, so of course they get a pass in the media.
[1] If you turn off all the privacy invading options when setting up Windows 10 (choose "Customize" instead of "Express"), there is no more logging than Windows 7 does by default. Somehow that is never mentioned in these articles though.
"Other people are data-thieves too!" and "We've been stealing data from for a long time" are not justifications for MS's current bad behavior. This isn't about Google, even though they are worse in many ways.
A big part of the problem is the creeping-normalization of these practices, where bad behavior is excused simply because it is common. This is how "big lie" propaganda works, and the apparatchik can always be relied upon to find some excuse for why we should just ignore any problems.
A big part of the problem is the creeping-normalization of these practices, where bad behavior is excused simply because it is common. This is how "big lie" propaganda works, and the apparatchik can always be relied upon to find some excuse for why we should just ignore any problems.
> "Other people are data-thieves too!" and "We've been stealing data from for a long time" are not justifications for MS's current bad behavior.
I never said it was, I was simply pointing out that this week it's Microsoft in the media crosshairs over practices that are not unique to them. Next week it may indeed be Google under the microscope, though they tend to be media darlings most of the time. My point is, this is nothing new so why are we acting like it is?
> A big part of the problem is the creeping-normalization of these practices
I agree 100% with this; see Gmail again as a great example of privacy erosion being pushed upon us a little bit at a time, until we don't notice or care anymore.
I never said it was, I was simply pointing out that this week it's Microsoft in the media crosshairs over practices that are not unique to them. Next week it may indeed be Google under the microscope, though they tend to be media darlings most of the time. My point is, this is nothing new so why are we acting like it is?
> A big part of the problem is the creeping-normalization of these practices
I agree 100% with this; see Gmail again as a great example of privacy erosion being pushed upon us a little bit at a time, until we don't notice or care anymore.
> "Other people are data-thieves too!" and "We've been stealing data from for a long time" are not justifications for MS's current bad behavior. This isn't about Google, even though they are worse in many ways.
I think the issue is really this: how many people complaining about these issues are using an Android or iOS device? How many are using OSX or search using Google? How many use Gmail?
So you say it's not justification? Actions speak louder than words. I've seen people posting about this on Facebook.
This doesn't excuse the behavior, but the reality is, the people complaining don't really care to change. They just want to pretend to be upset. Take the article this is linked to. The website on which it sits. The amount of tracking that occurs. The uproar is huge, no doubt. But I wonder how much of the uproar is sincere. And how much is just aiming for cheap internet points and likes.
I think the issue is really this: how many people complaining about these issues are using an Android or iOS device? How many are using OSX or search using Google? How many use Gmail?
So you say it's not justification? Actions speak louder than words. I've seen people posting about this on Facebook.
This doesn't excuse the behavior, but the reality is, the people complaining don't really care to change. They just want to pretend to be upset. Take the article this is linked to. The website on which it sits. The amount of tracking that occurs. The uproar is huge, no doubt. But I wonder how much of the uproar is sincere. And how much is just aiming for cheap internet points and likes.
I don't have an Android or iOS device, nor do I use Gmail. I certainly don't have a Facebook account. I use Free Software and pay fastmail.fm for my email services.
It is never a good idea to project your own hypocrisy onto everybody else.
As for people caring to change - you're assuming people even understand that this is happening and what the consequences are. Even in the case where someone does understand, the common attitude that I've seen is feeling trapped without any non-spyware options. How many people "don't really care", and how many are unable to move because of vendor lock-in?
It is never a good idea to project your own hypocrisy onto everybody else.
As for people caring to change - you're assuming people even understand that this is happening and what the consequences are. Even in the case where someone does understand, the common attitude that I've seen is feeling trapped without any non-spyware options. How many people "don't really care", and how many are unable to move because of vendor lock-in?
> It is never a good idea to project your own hypocrisy onto everybody else.
I didn't. I was speaking generally. I don't call you out specifically. In fact, I explicitly make mention that there are probably people who are sincere about this. What I wonder is how much of the uproar is from people that do use an Android or iOS device. That do use Gmail. That use Facebook or Google+. Or support companies that share data.
Simply put: next time, don't be so antagonistic. I wasn't projecting anything onto anyone else, including you. Rereading my comment, I can only assume that you misread what I wrote, and assumed I said things I did not.
I didn't. I was speaking generally. I don't call you out specifically. In fact, I explicitly make mention that there are probably people who are sincere about this. What I wonder is how much of the uproar is from people that do use an Android or iOS device. That do use Gmail. That use Facebook or Google+. Or support companies that share data.
Simply put: next time, don't be so antagonistic. I wasn't projecting anything onto anyone else, including you. Rereading my comment, I can only assume that you misread what I wrote, and assumed I said things I did not.
I am using gmail account and I am a part of this 'uproar'. There is no contradiction here, despite you may think so. I just used 'normal' services as (almost) everyone and at some point I found Stallman's articles and they opened me the whole new world.
It is however not easy at all to switch to free software right from the first day. You have to change quite a few workflows. I have a job and I cannot just spend a month to reinstall everything and to get used to free software alternatives. I switch to these alternatives slowly but constantly.
Simply put: "how many people complaining about these issues are using an Android or iOS device?" is irrelevant. What relevant is how many people know about it and will be happy to change it, but not necessarily for these high costs as I pay.
It is however not easy at all to switch to free software right from the first day. You have to change quite a few workflows. I have a job and I cannot just spend a month to reinstall everything and to get used to free software alternatives. I switch to these alternatives slowly but constantly.
Simply put: "how many people complaining about these issues are using an Android or iOS device?" is irrelevant. What relevant is how many people know about it and will be happy to change it, but not necessarily for these high costs as I pay.
May I ask what you use for a cellphone? It blows me away sometimes how much information I give to Google via my Android phone (I turn off location services and use fastmail, otherwise I just use the phone and services as-is).
I have tried to get my friends and family interested in using private systems that I have set up like Apache Wave and Diaspora but there aren't many takers.
I have tried to get my friends and family interested in using private systems that I have set up like Apache Wave and Diaspora but there aren't many takers.
I don't. I use POTS.
I'm not entirely against the idea of a cellphone, but they are rarely needed. In the past, I have used several traditional "dumb" cellphones. These days, I'm rarely that far from a POTS line. Even without the data-collection problems and cost differences, I prefer the quality of a waveguide to the intermittent reception problems of radio.
Wave is cool - I really wish it was more popular. I actually use XMPP+OTR for a lot of stuff, which used to be very interoperable. sigh
If I needed to be on-call, I would follow Dan Geer's lead and use a pager.
I'm not entirely against the idea of a cellphone, but they are rarely needed. In the past, I have used several traditional "dumb" cellphones. These days, I'm rarely that far from a POTS line. Even without the data-collection problems and cost differences, I prefer the quality of a waveguide to the intermittent reception problems of radio.
Wave is cool - I really wish it was more popular. I actually use XMPP+OTR for a lot of stuff, which used to be very interoperable. sigh
If I needed to be on-call, I would follow Dan Geer's lead and use a pager.
> If I needed to be on-call, I would follow Dan Geer's lead and use a pager.
And if you can't find a paging service you like, trust, or can afford, you can always (assuming you have an amateur radio license and don't intend to run a business using it) set up your own:
http://www.n5dux.com/ham/files/pdf/Ham%20Radio%20Paging-Putt...
http://aprs.org/aprs-messaging.html
http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/pager/plan.html
And if you can't find a paging service you like, trust, or can afford, you can always (assuming you have an amateur radio license and don't intend to run a business using it) set up your own:
http://www.n5dux.com/ham/files/pdf/Ham%20Radio%20Paging-Putt...
http://aprs.org/aprs-messaging.html
http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/pager/plan.html
a) Can you be sure they really stop collecting that data when you flip some switch?
b) Judging from past experience I fear that some features will randomly "auto-enable" themselves when some future updates are installed.
b) Judging from past experience I fear that some features will randomly "auto-enable" themselves when some future updates are installed.
If you disable all those features (Cortana, not logging in with MS account disables the Windows Store, etc.) then why even run Windows 10?
DirectX 10, HTTP/2, kernel improvements, etc.
I thought, HTTP/2 is something that the browser must support. Did you recognize, that there are some different browsers out there?
Do you recognize that someone needs to develop the sites that you consume?
The web server that comes with Windows 10 - IIS 10 is the first version of IIS to support HTTP/2.
The web server that comes with Windows 10 - IIS 10 is the first version of IIS to support HTTP/2.
Yes, I do. But most people just do not use the IIS. Also there are some other WebServers out there in existence.
Have you tried this with a non-"enterprise" edition? Reports are suggesting it requires quite a bit more than the "Privacy settings" to disable this crap, and is only possible in the "enterprise" variant.
Not that it matters - remember that you are using an OS that MS can unilaterally update at any time.
Not that it matters - remember that you are using an OS that MS can unilaterally update at any time.
Maybe we could IP block microsoft DNS and server in order to be sure nothing leaks out even when set off through user space configuration ?
Even when you disable it, you never can be sure, because it is in the Privacy Terms you have accepted. So you can never be sure, that your data is collected even with different settings, even because of error or because somehow the switch was reverted e.g. by an update.
But it's too vague on what is still allowed when you disable what you can, and even opt-out there are certain things that should not be tolerated.
We can't even be sure what they're really doing because we cannot audit the software nor can we audit the encrypted communications.
It's not difficult to intercept this type of encrypted communication, since it's coming from your computer you can just hook the functions responsible for sending the data, or for encrypting it in the first place. Many times it's as simple as adding your own CA to the trusted certificate store.
That works now, but one the Intel SGX instructions are commonplace it is going to be next to impossible to modify "secured" code or read their RAM.
Interesting idea!
Did someone actually do such a thing for the older versions of Windows? Was it possible to meaningfully decode all of the outgoing data?
Did someone actually do such a thing for the older versions of Windows? Was it possible to meaningfully decode all of the outgoing data?
They announced some cool security technologies for Windows 10, but in my eyes their recent privacy invasions not only cancel all that out (I actually believe some of them are to make NSA/FBI's jobs easier, even as they "strengthen" the security of the OS), but makes everything worse in the end.
I thought Microsoft provided clear information on this and options to turn it all off when installing.
That's largely meaningless when the default settings are abusive. They know that most users won't be aware of the issues, and will choose "Express Install" rather than looking at the "advanced" options, so MS can still exploit them without their knowledge.
Microsoft is a business. Why would it serve their interests to make all this opt-out by default?
Are you saying that it's hopeless to expect businesses not to be jerks, or that it's morally acceptable to be a jerk as long as the shareholders see a return on it?
It's more that a business can't be a jerk because it's not a person. It doesn't matter if it's morally acceptable as long as it's legal. Morality is something you make up to tell other people that what you believe in is right.
They did, and they do. It's the usual scaremongering that happens when any large software company has a new release.
I was excited for the new Windows at first. Given that I haven't heard about a single groundbreaking improvement Win 10 brings but only privacy violations, I'll no longer be supporting Microsoft. I removed my bootcamp partition Win 8.1(that I wanted to upgrade to Win 10) last night. Only using Mac version of excel. I'll make sure we never(or hold off for as long as possible) move on to Win 10 at the office, just like we did for Win 8.
As a consumer, the only power I have is that I'll put my money where my mouth is. And it is no longer Microsoft.
Yes, Apple has it's issues. But I clearly see where they want to be and they have 100% of my support. Microsoft, no longer.
edit: grammar
As a consumer, the only power I have is that I'll put my money where my mouth is. And it is no longer Microsoft.
Yes, Apple has it's issues. But I clearly see where they want to be and they have 100% of my support. Microsoft, no longer.
edit: grammar
> Yes, Apple has it's issues.
What's interesting is the ease of which I can replace Microsoft with Apple here.
"From the moment an account is created, Apple begins watching. The company saves customers’ basic information—name, contact details, passwords, demographic data and credit card specifics —but it also digs a bit deeper.
Other information Apple saves includes search queries and conversations with the new digital personal assistant Siri; contents of private communications such as email; websites and apps visited (including features accessed and length of time used); and contents of private folders."
The article makes it clear this isn't just Microsoft:
"“Both Siri and Google Now require access to the user’s personal information to personalise responses, while both Apple and Google offer developers the ability to deliver personalised ads to users based on information such as app installs.”
I guess what this means is if you are earnest in your concern for privacy and security, neither Apple nor Microsoft are in any way possible solutions for you.
What's interesting is the ease of which I can replace Microsoft with Apple here.
"From the moment an account is created, Apple begins watching. The company saves customers’ basic information—name, contact details, passwords, demographic data and credit card specifics —but it also digs a bit deeper.
Other information Apple saves includes search queries and conversations with the new digital personal assistant Siri; contents of private communications such as email; websites and apps visited (including features accessed and length of time used); and contents of private folders."
The article makes it clear this isn't just Microsoft:
"“Both Siri and Google Now require access to the user’s personal information to personalise responses, while both Apple and Google offer developers the ability to deliver personalised ads to users based on information such as app installs.”
I guess what this means is if you are earnest in your concern for privacy and security, neither Apple nor Microsoft are in any way possible solutions for you.
Thanks for the infomercial.
When did downvoting actually prevent you from seeing or reading "unfavorable" or "heretic" comments here?
Your downvoting won't stop me or any other dissident here from speaking our mind and exposing the hypocrisy or ridiculousness of this type of cheap advertorials here.
Keep downvoting me, it's a badge of honor to wear on my chest :)
Your downvoting won't stop me or any other dissident here from speaking our mind and exposing the hypocrisy or ridiculousness of this type of cheap advertorials here.
Keep downvoting me, it's a badge of honor to wear on my chest :)
From the guidelines[0]:
In Comments
...
Please don't bait other users by
inviting them to downvote you.
I agree with you, but I still down voted your infomercial comment because I felt it was childish and added nothing of value. It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree, but the whether the comment adds to the conversation.
Granted, most HN users these days don't follow that rule. They'll down vote purely based on whether they think you are right or wrong. But in this case, your comment didn't contribute anything meaningful. Maybe you thought it did, but as someone who agrees with your sentiment, I felt it didn't and down voted accordingly.
Granted, most HN users these days don't follow that rule. They'll down vote purely based on whether they think you are right or wrong. But in this case, your comment didn't contribute anything meaningful. Maybe you thought it did, but as someone who agrees with your sentiment, I felt it didn't and down voted accordingly.
Snarking on the internet doesn't make you a dissident.
Maybe Windows 10 is the best thing that ever happened to Linux...
On a tangental remark, data is an enormous asset in a company these days. What if they released Windows 10 for free because the data is already worth enough compared to the typical cost of the operating system ($100)?
I guess, you mean "price" of the operating system. The amount that a customer pays to Microsoft in order to legally install a copy. The cost per installation is pretty low for Microsoft. The cost to make an operating system on the other hand is in the billions.
It makes sense to get money from those who are willing to pay and to get data (worth money) from those who are not willing to pay (but willing to pirate).
It wouldn't create much positive publicity, but the most honest way would be a "pay for privacy" option where you have to pay a monthly sum in order to disable the data collection, profiling, data selling and targeted advertising.
It makes sense to get money from those who are willing to pay and to get data (worth money) from those who are not willing to pay (but willing to pirate).
It wouldn't create much positive publicity, but the most honest way would be a "pay for privacy" option where you have to pay a monthly sum in order to disable the data collection, profiling, data selling and targeted advertising.
I thought it was Office, not Windows, which brought the money in. So they could have done this regardless of the price of the data they are collecting.
Think about how many people use Windows. Now think about all of those users multiplied by all of their activity. Now hook up to the stream of all that data (because you know that the majority of those users won't go through the technical hassles of updating their settings). Now think about what you can do with that data. You can keep it internal and start to make really, really accurate predictions based directly off of users actions. And you get all that data for free.
If you are not paying for the product... you are the product
You pay for windows when you buy a computer. One free update does not invite that stupid cliche.
Hint: a lot of companies treat you equally terribly even though you're paying
Hint: a lot of companies treat you equally terribly even though you're paying
Even when other companies are doing it also, does it make it better?
At least until now, you could use a computer and OS without being sold (just don't use some free services and avoid paid products where your data is also sold). But when the OS is also selling your data, you just have no hiding place any more!
At least until now, you could use a computer and OS without being sold (just don't use some free services and avoid paid products where your data is also sold). But when the OS is also selling your data, you just have no hiding place any more!
I'm not defending Microsoft with that, I'm just attacking the cliche. "Being a product" is mostly unrelated to whether you're paying. Companies are jerks.
Ok, thanks for the clarification!
> Companies are jerks
I fully agree with that!
Also with your assertion, that using paid services will automatically help is totally correct, of course.
> Companies are jerks
I fully agree with that!
Also with your assertion, that using paid services will automatically help is totally correct, of course.
There is nothing cheaper than data.
It seems like a lot of journalists have jumped on the 'bash Microsoft for privacy' bandwagon this week. Seems lazy. Can't they think of something else to write about?
I am a 'privacy nut' to some small degree. I use 3 Linux laptops that are locked down privacy-wise. But I also use Google, Microsoft, and Apple services. I set my privacy setting for Windows 10 to not report back much data to Cortana.
The thing is, when I talk with non-tech friends and family, most of them don't seem to care about privacy. They put lots of personal information on Facebook and generally want the best user experience for the devices they buy.
For most people, the default Windows 10 settings are probably what they want. If a non-tech friend wants a secure system I point them to a Chromebook and if they want privacy I point them to an iPad (with the best privacy settings like not using permanent cookies, even if they need to login to web sites they use).
I am a 'privacy nut' to some small degree. I use 3 Linux laptops that are locked down privacy-wise. But I also use Google, Microsoft, and Apple services. I set my privacy setting for Windows 10 to not report back much data to Cortana.
The thing is, when I talk with non-tech friends and family, most of them don't seem to care about privacy. They put lots of personal information on Facebook and generally want the best user experience for the devices they buy.
For most people, the default Windows 10 settings are probably what they want. If a non-tech friend wants a secure system I point them to a Chromebook and if they want privacy I point them to an iPad (with the best privacy settings like not using permanent cookies, even if they need to login to web sites they use).
The "new" Microsoft seems to have changed its tune from the "Gmail man" and "Scroogle" days.
Because those ads didn't work. All they did was prove that the vast majority of people don't care about digital privacy.
Honestly, this is getting a bit tiresome.
The world has displayed a lack of interest in privacy with regards to digital systems. Therefore Microsoft has chosen to enable features required for making the computer more personalized by default, but still allow users to opt-out.
Most other vendors don't even give this oppertunity when installing, but can only be done later via some deep-down config change.
If you are paranoid about your data privacy, please just use one of the many privacy focused OS's. In the end you will always be forced to trust something, or you might as well go off the grid in a third world country. Because thats really the only place complete privacy is realistic.
The world has displayed a lack of interest in privacy with regards to digital systems. Therefore Microsoft has chosen to enable features required for making the computer more personalized by default, but still allow users to opt-out.
Most other vendors don't even give this oppertunity when installing, but can only be done later via some deep-down config change.
If you are paranoid about your data privacy, please just use one of the many privacy focused OS's. In the end you will always be forced to trust something, or you might as well go off the grid in a third world country. Because thats really the only place complete privacy is realistic.
> displayed a lack of interest in privacy
The tech industry really needs to stop confusing "lack of interest" with "total ignorance". Very few people have any idea that this kind of data collection happens at all (because the tech industry hides a lot of it), and even fewer understand the consequences of permanent retention of data and what machine learning can do to it.
> If you are paranoid about your data privacy
http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-ame...
The tech industry really needs to stop confusing "lack of interest" with "total ignorance". Very few people have any idea that this kind of data collection happens at all (because the tech industry hides a lot of it), and even fewer understand the consequences of permanent retention of data and what machine learning can do to it.
> If you are paranoid about your data privacy
http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-ame...
are we gonna run one of these every day?
If it helps to improve the situation someday I'm all for it.
In order to make Windows 10 upgrades free, the customer is now the product. Most AI stuff collects data like that anyway.
Anything you say to Siri in iOS goes to Apple.
Ubuntu has Amazon adware in it.
Most operating systems these days have some way to collect data on the user and monetize it or whatever.
This is the only way to get your privacy back: https://prism-break.org/
Anything you say to Siri in iOS goes to Apple.
Ubuntu has Amazon adware in it.
Most operating systems these days have some way to collect data on the user and monetize it or whatever.
This is the only way to get your privacy back: https://prism-break.org/
This is a terrible article, it only repeats and speculates on articles that appeared previous days, with some random tweets as further "evidence".
Also, it feels rather disingenuous to accuse Microsoft of spying on a webpage fully loaded with 3rd party trackers and ads. Unlike Microsoft, Newsweek did not ask me for permission to spy on me when I was reading this article. And I certainly could not turn it off.
Also, it feels rather disingenuous to accuse Microsoft of spying on a webpage fully loaded with 3rd party trackers and ads. Unlike Microsoft, Newsweek did not ask me for permission to spy on me when I was reading this article. And I certainly could not turn it off.
Ghostery...
How is the largest worldwide software roll-out, that happens to be the most important (debatable) operating system, not interesting on a daily basis?
[deleted]
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9976298
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9978497
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9989189
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9983071
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9975695
And these are just the ones about privacy... it get old, especially since nothing has changed since the release yet.