New Windows 10 privacy controls: Just a little snooping – or the max

[Energycore]

On 1/12/2017 at 3:19 PM, djdwosk97 said:

NO ONE is forcing you to go to school and take a course that requires IE.

Yeah, fuck going to school, it's not like you need it anyway.

[Delicieuxz]

Microsoft has become the world's foremost software pirate.

 

Nobody has agreed to grant Microsoft rights to their personal data by purchasing or installing Windows - and all data that is personally generated by a person's hardware, their owned software-licenses, their time, and their electricity costs, is their personally-owned data, and represents work that a person's property created, through their owner's personal expense, time, and action. Further, I believe it would not be legally-defensible for Microsoft to imply anywhere in their EULA that they do have such rights to people's personal data - noting that EULAs are not laws, but are subject to laws, and noting that there are legal protections against unfair contract terms, which I believe any clause claiming a person's personally-created-and-owned data becomes Microsoft's would be a perfect example of (and without such a claim, Microsoft cannot legally claim a right to take people's data).

 

I would say that this applies to the taking of data at any level, but Windows 10 doesn't allow for complete shut-off of all data-stealing, so let's just go with the most basic level of data-taking for this point, which will also be the least-disputable:

 

When Microsoft unilaterally takes peoples data, it's stealing what doesn't belong to it, what was generated by someone else's work and property,  and what the person that data belongs to is not being compensated for. It's piracy, and it's the very same piracy as a gamer downloading games they didn't pay for, and deriving benefit from them, such as entertainment - or productivity and money, if it's a productivity application, or maybe an OS. It's the taking of data which a person does not own, for benefit.

 

 

How can Microsoft claim to be anti-piracy, when they are the biggest committers and condoners (by example) of piracy in the world?

 

And, if Microsoft unilaterally decides that it is entitled to pirate everyone's data form them, so that they can make profit off of that data, then why should everyone else not pirate Microsoft's software? What justification exists that would support a double-standard, where software developers base their business-model upon piracy, yet individuals should be expected to pay for software from people and companies who are stealing their personal data, and profiting off of it?

 

Something to think about, which I think the answer is obvious in being that Microsoft's data-collection is a major issue, and is criminal, and sets the example that it's OK for people to take whatever data they want, without paying for it, and without permission - which is software piracy. I don't think that should be the case, and I don't think that's what's right, but that's what Microsoft's conduct is saying is right, in their view, and is setting the example for other people to follow.

 

And the same also applies regarding the conduct of other companies that do the same thing, such as Nvidia.

[79wjd]

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Nobody has agreed to grant Microsoft rights to their personal data by purchasing or installing Windows - and all data that is personally generated by a person's hardware, their owned software-licenses, their time, and their electricity costs, is their personally-owned data, and represents work that a person's property created, through their owner's personal expense, time, and action.

Yes. They have. When you install Windows you agree to the Windows EULA and Microsoft's Privacy Statement. 

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Further, I believe it would not be legally-defensible for Microsoft to imply anywhere in their EULA that they do have such rights to people's personal data - noting that EULAs are not laws, but are subject to laws, and noting that there are legal protections against unfair contract terms, which I believe any clause claiming a person's personally-created-and-owned data becomes Microsoft's would be a perfect example of (and without such a claim, Microsoft cannot legally claim a right to take people's data).

You're right in that there are limitations as to what can be put into a EULA -- i.e. you can't agree to forfeit yourself to Microsoft if they decide they want to do testing on you (like in South Park: Human centiPad). However, I wouldn't consider Microsoft forcing telemetry as crossing a line. There is literally nothing wrong with a private company harvesting data from its users (if it is explicitly said in the TOS, which it is).

 

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

When Microsoft unilaterally takes peoples data, it's stealing what doesn't belong to it, what was generated by someone else's work and property,  and what the person that data belongs to is not being compensated for. It's piracy, and it's the very same piracy as a gamer downloading games they didn't pay for, and deriving benefit from them, such as entertainment - or productivity and money, if it's a productivity application, or maybe an OS. It's the taking of data which a person does not own, for benefit.

In no way is it the same as piracy. When you install Windows you agree to forfeit data to Microsoft. Game developers don't agree to forfeit their games to anyone who decides they want to pirate them. 

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Something to think about, which I think the answer is obvious in being that Microsoft's data-collection is a major issue, and is criminal, and sets the example that it's OK for people to take whatever data they want, without paying for it, and without permission - which is software piracy. I don't think that should be the case, and I don't think that's what's right, but that's what Microsoft's conduct is saying is right, in their view, and is setting the example for other people to follow.

Except Microsoft isn't taking the data without permission. You literally MUST agree to send Microsoft your data if you want to use Windows. So no, they're not taking it against your will -- you agreed to let them have it. 

 

 

Quote

By accepting this agreement or using the software, you agree to all of these terms, and consent to the transmission of certain information during activation and during your use of the software as per the privacy statement described in Section 3. If you do not accept and comply with these terms, you may not use the software or its features.

Quote

 Privacy; Consent to Use of Data. Your privacy is important to us. Some of the software features send or receive information when using those features. Many of these features can be switched off in the user interface, or you can choose not to use them. By accepting this agreement and using the software you agree that Microsoft may collect, use, and disclose the information as described in the Microsoft Privacy Statement (aka.ms/privacy), and as may be described in the user interface associated with the software features.

Quote

Microsoft collects data to operate effectively and provide you the best experiences with our products. You provide some of this data directly, such as when you create a Microsoft account, submit a search query to Bing, speak a voice command to Cortana, upload a document to OneDrive, purchase an MSDN subscription, sign up for Office 365, or contact us for support. We get some of it by recording how you interact with our products by, for example, using technologies like cookies, and receiving error reports or usage data from software running on your device. We also obtain data from third parties.

Quote

Bing services include search and mapping services, as well as the Bing Toolbar and Bing Desktop apps. Bing services are also included within other Microsoft services, such as MSN Apps and Cortana, and Windows (which we refer to as Bing-powered experiences). When you use Bing services, we collect your search queries, location and other information about your interaction with our services.

.....

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/UseTerms_Retail_Windows_10_English.htm

https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-US/privacystatement
 

[Hawx]

 

Quote

which I believe any clause claiming a person's personally-created-and-owned data becomes Microsoft's would be a perfect example of (and without such a claim, Microsoft cannot legally claim a right to take people's data).

 

The problem with your entire argument is that you redefined the term "personal data" before using it. Personal data is items that can identify you. Microsoft does not care about your files/photos/emails etc, so most of this data would just be what you voluntarily give them (ie account sign-up). Crash dumps, system information and usage patterns are all items generated by the system and therefore do not directly constitute as personal data (however you agreed to let MS collect them). If telemetry data happens to include items that could potentially identify you (eg IP addresses, sometimes random document snippets in crash dumps), then MS agrees to handle that data via its privacy policy (that you also agreed to).

 

If Microsoft were to breach its privacy policy, then the FTC/EU etc could absolutely sue them. However since that has not happened, there is no legal ground to stand on.

 

The Windows EULA does not contain a clause indicating that actual personal data sent to microsoft becomes the property of microsoft, in fact it just says that data collected is covered under the Microsoft privacy policy. 

 

If telemetry data was being used for advertising purposes, then that would also be a breach of privacy policy, and so far there is no evidence of that happening.

 

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

And, if Microsoft unilaterally decides that it is entitled to pirate everyone's data form them, so that they can make profit off of that data, then why should everyone else not pirate Microsoft's software? What justification exists that would support a double-standard, where software developers base their business-model upon piracy, yet individuals should be expected to pay for software from people and companies who are stealing their personal data, and profiting off of it?

Do you watch Alex Jones? Because jesus christ that's an absolutely insane leap in logic.

 

The single component of Windows 10 data collection that directly involves Microsoft making money is Advertising ID, which only hooks into cortana searches and store activity & is one of the easiest components to disable, with opportunities given during installation.

 

If you want to apply your argument to literally every other system component including telemetry, then youtube should stop tracking view counts as that counter is clearly DATA PIRACY and increases by STEALING MOUSE CLICKS. 

 

Why should I be expected to pay for anything if PayPal is tracking my page clicks in a blatant attempt of DATA PIRACY and is clearly trying to make a profit by improving the user experience? Why should I go to the supermarket and buy food when they're just going to commit DATA PIRACY by tracking my shopping habits and stocking what customers want? 

 

Why should I be on this website if the admins are going to collect usage data and setup the forums so the most used subforums are easier to access? That's clearly another form of P I R A C Y without my direct approval. 

 

In your perfect world, Microsoft has a 1 million person QA team and my grandma should be expected to ring microsoft each time a driver crashes. 

[Delicieuxz]

42 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Yes. They have. When you install Windows you agree to the Windows EULA and Microsoft's Privacy Statement. 

No, there is no condition that a person agrees to surrender their data to Microsoft in the Windows 10 EULA. The Microsoft's Privacy Statement is not a contract or terms that a license-owner agrees to, but is a pledge from Microsoft concerning what data they take, and how they use it. A license-owner has no obligations, and agrees to nothing concerning the Privacy Statement.

 

 

25 minutes ago, Hawx said:

The problem with your entire argument is that you redefined the term "personal data" before using it.

I identified personally-owned-and-created data as the subject, not personally-identifying data, and it really doesn't affect the argument.

 

Quote

Do you watch Alex Jones? Because jesus christ that's an absolutely insane leap in logic.

 

The single component of Windows 10 data collection that directly involves Microsoft making money is Advertising ID, which only hooks into cortana searches and store activity & is one of the easiest components to disable, with opportunities given during installation.

 

If you want to apply your argument to literally every other system component including telemetry, then youtube should stop tracking view counts as that counter is clearly DATA PIRACY and increases by STEALING MOUSE CLICKS. 

 

Why should I be expected to pay for anything if PayPal is tracking my page clicks in a blatant attempt of DATA PIRACY and is clearly trying to make a profit by improving the user experience? Why should I go to the supermarket and buy food when they're just going to commit DATA PIRACY by tracking my shopping habits and stocking what customers want? 

 

Why should I be on this website if the admins are going to collect usage data and setup the forums so the most used subforums are easier to access? That's clearly another form of P I R A C Y without my direct approval. 

 

In your perfect world, Microsoft has a 1 million person QA team and my grandma should be expected to ring microsoft each time a driver crashes. 

Talking about leaps in logic, you made that post without understanding the message in the post you were replying to.

 

Quote

The single component of Windows 10 data collection that directly involves Microsoft making money is Advertising ID

No. The bulk-data that Microsoft gathers from Windows systems is compiled into aggregated business reports, which Microsoft sells for profit. Additionally, Microsoft saves money by using telemetry to trouble-shoot products.

 

I can save money by taking things that don't belong to me from other people, too, but I don't, because that's stealing from people. I could, in the very same manner, save money by not buying PC games, and just downloading them, just like Microsoft is saving (making) money on their business expenditures by unilaterally taking people's data to short-cut their responsibility of trouble-shooting their product.

 

Quote

Why should I be expected to pay for anything if PayPal is tracking my page clicks in a blatant attempt of DATA PIRACY and is clearly trying to make a profit...

My point was not that everyone shouldn't have to pay for anything, but that people shouldn't be able to take what isn't theirs without permission, and compensation. Your response has missed that recognition, and runs with things in the opposite direction, as if I was arguing that people shouldn't have to pay for things. You can't argue 'Microsoft is making their product better with this data,' because that's a business expenditure that Microsoft is responsible for, to take care of from their own resources, not from the resources of license-owners.

 

But, while you're making the sarcastic argument "Why should I be expected to pay for anything?," you're actually completely agreeing with my post, that Microsoft's same attitude as the one you're mocking is illegitimate.

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

No, there is no condition that a person agrees to surrender their data to Microsoft in the Windows 10 EULA. The Microsoft's Privacy Statement is not a contract or terms that a license-owner agrees to, but is a pledge from Microsoft concerning what data they take, and how they use it. A license-owner has no obligations, and agrees to nothing concerning the Privacy Statement.

 

 

Directly from the EULA: 

Quote

By accepting this agreement or using the software, you agree to all of these terms, and consent to the transmission of certain information during activation and during your use of the software as per the privacy statement described in Section 3. If you do not accept and comply with these terms, you may not use the software or its features.

Quote

Privacy; Consent to Use of Data. Your privacy is important to us. Some of the software features send or receive information when using those features. Many of these features can be switched off in the user interface, or you can choose not to use them. By accepting this agreement and using the software you agree that Microsoft may collect, use, and disclose the information as described in the Microsoft Privacy Statement (aka.ms/privacy), and as may be described in the user interface associated with the software features.

 

[Guest Darth Revan]

Can't they just put a fucking button that just says "OFF"?

And that turns everything spyware they embedded in the OS off.

Oh wait it can't since Windows 10 is not actually an Operating System, it's one giant spyware.

[jagdtigger]

@Delicieuxz

Just let him be. Its always easier to pretend nothing is wrong and join the sheep herd...

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

@Delicieuxz

Just let him be. Its always easier to pretend nothing is wrong and join the sheep herd...

It's even easier to just dismiss valid arguments rather than admit to the possibility of being wrong.

[Nowak]

8 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

Yes. They have. When you install Windows you agree to the Windows EULA and Microsoft's Privacy Statement. 

You're right in that there are limitations as to what can be put into a EULA -- i.e. you can't agree to forfeit yourself to Microsoft if they decide they want to do testing on you (like in South Park: Human centiPad). However, I wouldn't consider Microsoft forcing telemetry as crossing a line. There is literally nothing wrong with a private company harvesting data from its users (if it is explicitly said in the TOS, which it is).

 

In no way is it the same as piracy. When you install Windows you agree to forfeit data to Microsoft. Game developers don't agree to forfeit their games to anyone who decides they want to pirate them. 

Except Microsoft isn't taking the data without permission. You literally MUST agree to send Microsoft your data if you want to use Windows. So no, they're not taking it against your will -- you agreed to let them have it. 

 

  Hide contents

.....

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/UseTerms_Retail_Windows_10_English.htm

https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-US/privacystatement
 

Your argument works under the assumption that people read the EULA. I'm sure you know as well as anyone else that nobody reads the EULA.

[LAwLz]

4 minutes ago, Daring said:

Your argument works under the assumption that people read the EULA. I'm sure you know as well as anyone else that nobody reads the EULA.

Fun fact, we would need to spend about 244 hours a year if we were to read all the privacy policies we "agree" to. That's just the privacy policy too, not the entire EULA.

 

That was in 2008, and I am sure it has just gotten worse since then.

[TheKDub]

On 1/12/2017 at 2:35 PM, Daring said:

Check the Group Policy Editor under Computer Configuration > Administrative Templates > System > Internet Communication Management > Internet Communication settings. There's a policy that disables the Windows Customer Experience Improvement Program, which is where a lot of privacy issues stem from. The requirements haven't changed since Vista, either, which is nice. What isn't nice though, is that it's hidden in the Group Policy Editor rather than an easy toggle in the Control Panel like under Windows Vista, 7 and 8.x.

 

Thanks, didn't know that they hid that in there.

Might want to note in there to mark it as 'Enabled'. That way turning off the windows customer experience improvement program is enabled.
If you were to mark it as disabled, you'd be telling it to disable turning off the wceip.
Kinda confusing, wish they just put it as "Windows Customer Experience Improvement Program", then left the enable/disable options. Much easier to understand than what it is now.

[Misanthrope]

Also, EULA is basically a license between private parties. Such licenses cannot overwrite Law and consumer rights. 

 

Saying "you have no right to privacy cause you agreed on the EULA" it's in principle the same as saying "You have no right to be a citizen with human rights cause you signed a contact to give them up" 

 

Some rights are unalienable. 

 

[79wjd]

33 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Also, EULA is basically a license between private parties. Such licenses cannot overwrite Law and consumer rights. 

 

Saying "you have no right to privacy cause you agreed on the EULA" it's in principle the same as saying "You have no right to be a citizen with human rights cause you signed a contact to give them up" 

 

Some rights are unalienable. 

 

There is a lot of ambiguity when it comes to internet privacy. There is there idea of "expectation of privacy". Any email you receive on Gmail is basically accessible to anyone who wants it after going untouched for six months. The idea is that if the data is so unimportant that you're willing to trust a third party to host and store it, then you shouldn't expect it to remain private.

 

Furthermore, you can sign your rights of privacy away. That's not contradicting any laws. Go to a doctor and you can sign a piece of paper that allows them to talk about you to other people who they would otherwise be unable to legally talk to.

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

There is a lot of ambiguity when it comes to internet privacy. There is there idea of "expectation of privacy". Any email you receive on Gmail is basically accessible to anyone who wants it after going untouched for six months. The idea is that if the data is so unimportant that you're willing to trust a third party to host and store it, then you shouldn't expect it to remain private.

 

Furthermore, you can sign your rights of privacy away. That's not contradicting any laws. Go to a doctor and you can sign a piece of paper that allows them to talk about you to other people.

I expect legislation to vary on this, however the discussion should be whenever privacy rights should be unalienable, so I hope that clarifies my stand.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

I expect legislation to vary on this, however the discussion should be whenever privacy rights should be unalienable, so I hope that clarifies my stand.

I personally believe that I have a right to privacy unless I give permission to someone to access/use that private information. So I don't have an issue (legally) with Microsoft harvesting data since I agreed to that by agreeing to use Windows. 

 

But you're right there is a lot of grey areas. Take my above Gmail example. What if you use another third party email service that is based on the idea of keeping your data private that you have to pay a monthly fee for. Should law enforcement only require a simple subpoena to get access to those emails? You're willing to trust a random third party with the data, so it shouldn't be any different than Gmail, but you're also going out of your way to use and pay for a "secure/private" host. 

[bobhays]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

No. You have no right. Period. End of discussion. We can want it and we can demand it, but at the end of the day you CHOOSE to use Microsoft's operating system and therefore you CHOOSE to deal with whatever Microsoft wants to do.

 

Those are both reasons you CHOOSE to use Windows. But again, no one is forcing you to play games. No one is forcing you to study something that specifically requires IE or even a computer for that matter. It is 100% your CHOICE.

I agree that we have no inherent right I still think it's wrong for them to do so. I also disagree that it is 100% our choice because nothing is 100% our choice when the choices themselves are pre-determined, but then of course we can't have everything we want.

 

Not trying to get into a long argument, but essentially i'm just saying regardless of the right to choice, I think Microsoft is in the wrong. Not legally or logically but morally. (So are many many other companies)

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, bobhays said:

I agree that we have no inherent right I still think it's wrong for them to do so. I also disagree that it is 100% our choice because nothing is 100% our choice when the choices themselves are pre-determined, but then of course we can't have everything we want.

 

Not trying to get into a long argument, but essentially i'm just saying regardless of the right to choice, I think Microsoft is in the wrong. Not legally or logically but morally. (So are many many other companies)

I have no legal issue with it but that doesn't mean I'm happy with it either. But at the end of the day o also don't care enough to block all of Microsoft's servers.

 

But it is always your choice. You may not have a choice if you want to keep your job or play games or pass certain classes, but none of those are really required things.

[Trixanity]

I honestly don't understand why Microsoft doesn't add an option disable everything. They can even hide it from the average user but allow concerned individuals to go in there and disable all the crap. They will gain a lot of goodwill from their users from such a move. They're dragging themselves through the mud time and time again. It's like they're masochists. 

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

5 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

I honestly don't understand why Microsoft doesn't add an option disable everything.

After all the sh!t they've been doing for the past year and a half, the vast majority of privacy-concerned people won't trust that option.  They messed up so badly that we don't even believe their "on/off" switches anymore.

[vorticalbox]

until the lowest setting is "off" and not "basic" I will be avoiding windows on my pc.

[79wjd]

7 hours ago, Trixanity said:

I honestly don't understand why Microsoft doesn't add an option disable everything. They can even hide it from the average user but allow concerned individuals to go in there and disable all the crap. They will gain a lot of goodwill from their users from such a move. They're dragging themselves through the mud time and time again. It's like they're masochists. 

Because at the end of the day what they're doing gives them more control/money and most people who are using Windows won't switch and Microsoft knows that. I'm pissed at the fact that Windows will decide to restart my computer to finish an update even while I'm in the middle of transcoding something and my CPU is pinned at 100%. Yet I'm still too lazy to set up a GP to block updates. 

[You Scrub....The Floor]

On 1/13/2017 at 6:40 AM, Sniperfox47 said:

It was fixed in the insider previews after the Anniversary update, so it will be wiped one more time moving to the Creative update, but will be maintained properly after that.

 

And on a personal note I'd like to see them offer a no telemetry option to pro users if nothing else. It's not a big thing for me personally, even if I have the option to turn it off I'll turn telemetry on for the same reason I'm in the Insider program, but it would help ease the tensions while offering another differentiator for the pro version.

THIS IS A GENIUS IDEA. (im not being sarcastic, I believe in this idea as it would create a general sale increase in pro sales for the advanced users while still leaving a whole lot of OEM devices with enough data to work off.)