7-times Microsoft MVP finds Windows 10 Enterprise collects too much data at minimum, calls for legal action

[Delicieuxz]

 

Windows, Spying, and a Twitter Rant (bold emphasis added)

 

Quote

 

... I have been using Windows exclusively on my desktop for more than twenty-five years. In the early 90’s I did Windows tech support for a major computer company. In the late 90’s I worked for a software company as Director of Microsoft-Based Development. I wrote a column for SecurityFocus.com on Windows security. I have written for Windows IT Pro Magazine, Redmond Magazine, Windows Web Solutions, Windows Secrets and others. I also wrote a book on ASP.NET security. Microsoft awarded me with the Most Valuable Professional (MVP) award seven times. Windows is kinda my thing.

But that thing changed with Windows 10. A shift in Microsoft’s philosophy has lead to a massive collection of data from Windows computers. For me, it’s not only a privacy issue but a security issue. — it’s hard to control what is happening on your computer when you aren’t in control.

But back to my tests. As I mentioned before there were too many variables I had in my more casual tests and I was a bit sloppy with some settings so I started with a clean build. This is what I did:

...

To save you all the suspense, yes this test resulted in much less activity than my initial test (put away the pitchforks). Less, but still too much (get out the pitchforks).

What was the difference? The main difference is that the baseline sets many more settings than I did in my test. Another part of it surely was the fact that I did not set all of the settings I thought I had set. For example, I only set two settings for disabling SmartScreen, instead of considering all of these:

...

As you can see, even the recommended method for eliminating data collection isn’t completely effective and causes a number of problems. Therefore, if you have a volume license to buy Windows Enterprise (no, you can’t buy just one), apply the Windows Restricted Traffic Limited Functionality Baseline before bringing it online, don’t install anything, and don’t use your computer, the data sent to Microsoft is quite minimal.

If you don’t have the Enterprise edition, the best you get is basic telemetry (see what they collect), that is if you know to change it from the default enhanced levels (see what more they collect!). For many users the telemetry and other tracking is set a the maximum default levels.

The point of this article isn’t to bash Microsoft or ditch Windows. We face the same thing with Apple, Google, and so many others. What we need to do is fix this, even if that means getting lawmakers involved. It can only get worse from here.

...

You are opted-in to just about everything by default and have to set hundreds of settings to opt out, even on an Enterprise Windows system. Sometimes multiple settings for the same feature. Most Microsoft documentation discourages opting out and warns of a less optimal experience. It’s almost like they don’t want you to opt-out.
 

 

What Microsoft is doing is making self-profiting and corporate usage of Windows owners' personally-owned hardware, their software licenses, their electricity supply, their processing power, their time, their data, and their personal activity.

 

Everyone should be aware that what Microsoft is doing is already fully illegal, and that it is called Unjust Enrichment. It is no different than if a person hooks up their digital currency-mining systems to their neighbours electricity, or if a politician steals millions of taxpayer dollars, which amounts to only a few cents from each person. It is no different than if a stockbroker skims 0.2% off all the trades they do and keeps it for themselves. It is theft, and it is unjust enrichment.

 

Also, people who think Google and Facebook do the same thing are wrong in thinking so. When you visit an online website, you're entering another person's owned space, and using their owned hardware, software, bandwidth, in exchange for an interaction to occur between your system and it. It is a choice to transmit relevant data - and if those places choose compute valuable information from the result of those interactions with their own space, hardware, and software, that's for them to do.

 

But what Microsoft is doing is entering into your private, non-public spaces, which belong only to you, and generating data using your space, hardware, software, and electricity, that they send to their servers and use to profit their corporation's shareholders. It is no different than someone spreading a virus that uses everybody's CPU and GPU processing power to mine digital coins, that are then deposited into the digital coin wallet of the person who made the virus. It is incomparable to what Google and Facebook do. It is the difference of a bank having security cameras within their bank, which record people who visit their bank, and that same bank having their security cameras in people's private homes, recording their activity in their own homes. The former is an entitlement of the bank, whereas the latter is illegal, and is a violation of people's private spaces and the concept of sovereignty of the individual.

 

Every aspect about what Microsoft is doing is already established in law as being illegal everywhere else in society. But, for some reason, people are taking a long time to have it seep in and be understood that it's entirely the same thing when done via software, and from a well-known corporation. It's an example of the masses being blind to what they haven't yet given full thought to. And those brushing it off are no different than an African-American slave justifying their enslavement by a white slave-owner by saying "everybody is doing it", as if that would somehow justify it. Such people are irresponsible with their own lives, and are the enemy of every person who does not want to be a slave, and who wants their personal life to be theirs. When you allow a corporation to choose what to do with your own stuff, you surrender those aspects of yourself to the corporation, and the corporation becomes the judge of you.

 

Remember, when a politician steals millions of tax dollars, which is only a few cents from each person, they go to jail. The laws and the situation are certainly no different when it comes to corporations like Microsoft.

[SCHISCHKA]

use linux. use tails. TOR might have been defeated by the US government but I think its still good for web surfing. I just happen to have a combo deal on pitch forks and torches. I can do family discounts.

[Delicieuxz]

1 minute ago, SCHISCHKA said:

use linux. use tails. TOR might have been defeated by the US government but I think its still good for web surfing. I just happen to have a combo deal on pitch forks and torches. I can do family discounts.

Got anything with a lot of barbs on it?

[BuckGup]

Does Apple do this for MacOS?

[LAwLz]

Former Microsoft MVP*

MSTF MVP is only valid for one year, and then you have to "retake" it.

 

26 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Everyone should be aware that what Microsoft is doing is already fully illegal, and that it is called Unjust Enrichment. It is no different than if a person hooks up their digital currency-mining systems to their neighbours electricity, or if a politician steals millions of taxpayer dollars, which amounts to only a few cents from each person. It is no different than if a stockbroker skims 0.2% off all the trades they do and keeps it for themselves. It is theft, and it is unjust enrichment.

I don't think we should focus too much on whether or not it is illegal, because Microsoft has probably written their terms of service and done their due diligence carefully enough to protect themselves. What Microsoft is doing is however unethical and evil.

 

 

I know what you are trying to do and say Delicieuxz, but it won't work. I was thinking of posting this thread as well but decided not to because of the overwhelming work it would be to write a proper news post about this. Your post comes off as a rant that's just about how bad Microsoft are (which they truly are), but you won't change anyone's opinion with posts like these. What would have been better would be a breakdown of what Burnett found, explained in terms that the average LinusTechTips reader could understand. That way they would understand for themselves why what Microsoft are doing is wrong, instead of just being told that they should hate them.

 

 

12 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

Does Apple do this for MacOS?

The things described in the article? No they do not.

[Taswell]

The TriForce of Data collecting fuckboys Microsoft,Google, and Facebook. They will do anything to collect as much info ass possible from anyone, even if its fucking useless and Screams "Fuck you all, Ima Do what makes me Money" at the user.

[Delicieuxz]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Former Microsoft MVP*

MSTF MVP is only vlaid for one year, and then you have to "retake" it.

I modified the title now.

 

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I don't think we should focus too much on whether or not it is illegal, because Microsoft has probably written their terms of service and done their due diligence carefully enough to protect themselves. What Microsoft is doing is however unethical and evil.

That's an assumption, though, and I fully believe it to not be the case. EULAs don't trump laws, and nothing Microsoft is capable of writing in their EULAs would trump the Reasonable Person test and negate all the legal, including constitutional precedence involved. If, in hypothesis, Microsoft somehow legitimized this behaviour, it would make statements upon likewise situations throughout law that would means very bad things for everybody.

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

-snip-

Very well said. I also personally believe that the news post themselves should be as 'news reporter' as possible and then flesh out your personal opinions more in a follow up post. I know the guidelines say give your own opinion etc but it can be hard to actually read the post and quickly discern what is the news and what is the opinion which I find annoying.

[leadeater]

Just now, Delicieuxz said:

That's an assumption, though, and I fully believe it to not be the case. EULAs don't trump laws, and nothing Microsoft is capable of writing in their EULAs would trump the Reasonable Person test and negate all the legal, including constitutional precedence involved. If, in hypothesis, Microsoft somehow legitimized this behaviour, it would make statements upon likewise situations throughout law that would means very bad things for everybody.

It's not just the EULAs, Microsoft will be checking other laws and regulations to make sure they are in the clear. They know EULAs aren't impenetrable walls of defense, nobody solely relies on those.

 

On another note I wonder if the Windows 10 China Gov edition is actually the Windows 10 everyone wants, pretty sure all of the telemetry (to Microsoft) is taken out of that edition.

[Grinners]

I really enjoyed this post. The news part is clearly delineated from the opinion part by quotations and images. It has informed my opinion and i concur with your argument. 

 

You have convinced at least one person then. 

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Grinners said:

I really enjoyed this post. The news part is clearly delineated from the opinion part by quotations and images. It has informed my opinion and i concur with your argument. 

Yea my above comment wasn't actually targeted at this thread, more just a general whinge at some of the badly put together ones when people are rushing to claim posting rights. Generally only a problem around times like this i.e. Computex.

[Nineshadow]

While the article itself is informative and makes a really good point, the part in which you present your own opinion just comes off as a hostile rant against Microsoft. Comparing what Microsoft is doing to slavery is a bit too much. I thought it was worth noting.

[Delicieuxz]

41 minutes ago, Nineshadow said:

While the article itself is informative and makes a really good point, the part in which you present your own opinion just comes off as a hostile rant against Microsoft. Comparing what Microsoft is doing to slavery is a bit too much. I thought it was worth noting.

So what do you figure your own opinion on the opinion is worth, since it's down a layer of relevance to the subject?

 

The examples I gave are there to assist people with reasoning an understanding through pre-existing understanding. If you choose to not consider the the examples, that's a statement on your willingness, and not a statement of their potential value - which you wouldn't come to know apart from considering them.

[Urishima]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I don't think we should focus too much on whether or not it is illegal, because Microsoft has probably written their terms of service and done their due diligence carefully enough to protect themselves. What Microsoft is doing is however unethical and evil.

No. If it is illegal it's illegal, full stop. In this case it would make the ToS null and void, at least in the EU.

[yian88]

The real talk is about what are WE going to do about, since there is no alternative for desktop PC's.

MS even made sure new CPU's wont be usable on old windows, and soon they will do the same with GPU's.

So in present and future if you want a modern desktop PC = windows PC, especially if you use professional apps and games.

Linux is not an options because drivers suck ass or dont exist at all, and the rest of the platform GNU/LInux is developed by randoms without any consistency or colaboration hence things break all over the place and there is no bigger plans for linux because of that, too many essential components being developed in parralel.

[Doobeedoo]

Bah. Why am I not surprised, really sucks to not have full control. I have W10 Enterprise edition on my main machine, did disable all the shit I could in various ways, but still.. lame.

[laminutederire]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

It's not just the EULAs, Microsoft will be checking other laws and regulations to make sure they are in the clear. They know EULAs aren't impenetrable walls of defense, nobody solely relies on those.

 

On another note I wonder if the Windows 10 China Gov edition is actually the Windows 10 everyone wants, pretty sure all of the telemetry (to Microsoft) is taken out of that edition.

Or the telemetry is just sent to China's government ? 

[laminutederire]

2 hours ago, Urishima said:

No. If it is illegal it's illegal, full stop. In this case it would make the ToS null and void, at least in the EU.

What he meant was that legality is a more subjective notion. Look at how the US handles net neutrality, they can make unethical things legal if they want.

[Delicieuxz]

I've made a blog post that more clearly, and in greater detail explains what I wanted to express as my view in the OP.

Here's a paste of it:

 

Windows, Spying, and a Twitter Rant

Screenshots showing high levels of contact with Microsoft servers after employing all efforts to stop data-transmission

Additional screenshots of further Microsoft server activity, discovered later

 

 

I would like to give some personal commentary to the subject that those links are about.

 

 

If a politician steals millions of taxpayer dollars, which is only a few cents from each person, they go to jail. So what about when Microsoft is continuously piggy-backing on everybody's PC systems to enrich themselves? Microsoft is using people's own hardware, software licenses, electricity, computing power, data, time, and private activity for non-sanctioned business use, and the profit of Microsoft's executives.

 

Microsoft's data-mining is no different than a virus that is distributed to people's PCs to min mines digital coins using their CPU and CPU power, with the earnings being deposited in the e-wallet of the virus' creator. You could also look at it like someone setting up a mining farm, but connecting all their systems to their neighbour's electricity supply - except that in the case of Microsoft's data-mining, they are not using their own hardware, software licenses, and everything else, but those of the people whose systems are sending data to Microsoft... and so the coin-mining virus is a more suitable analogy.

 

Every aspect of Microsoft collecting data from people's PC systems and personally-owned Windows licenses is already established in law as being illegal. But some people are taking a bit of time to work through the understanding that leads to that recognition, because software-license owners are traditionally just not on the lookout for stuff like this and usually just focus on using their software, and not technical legal aspects or ethical implications behind its operation. Also, Microsoft being a well-known company whose products people have used for years throws a lot of people for a loop, I think, because they are used to just assuming that whatever they're doing must check out, somehow. Well, this doesn't. It's illegal from head to toe.

 

It's theft, but it's also Unjust Enrichment - which is the situation where one party is making profit for itself at the unjust expense of others. A current UE case involves ZeniMax targeting Samsung for Unjust Enrichment over VR technology that ZeniMax claims belongs to them but is profiting Samsung.

 

If you unilaterally utilize somebody property, or copyrights to make yourself money, who is legally entitled to the proceeds? Legal entitlement goes to whom the required property and rights that the profit is dependent upon belong to. 

 

A person who argues that by using Windows 10 a person agrees to send Microsoft their data would be wrong, because sending Microsoft data is not essential to making use of the software functionality that was paid for when buying a Windows license, and so conditioning usage of the paid-for functionality on unrelated and Microsoft-profiting access to personal and private data would not pass the Reasonable Person test.

 

Also, such an argument would be in ignorance that the data sent to Microsoft doesn't come from only the owned software license, but also a person's personally-owned  hardware, electricity, computational time, uniquely-generated data, and personal / private activity - things for which there can be no entitlement for Microsoft to use any more than a car salesperson can claim that if you buy a vehicle from them, that they then have a right to access and use your garage and everything in it, including the power source hooked up to it.

Additionally, the idea that Microsoft could exert any authority over an instance of the Windows OS after they've sold the license that represents the OS instance to somebody is a violation of the first-sale doctrine, which makes clear that such authorities and privileges pass to the owner of the property, in this case, the owner of the software license and the instance of the OS it represents, once it is sold. And the SCOTUS has just made a unanimous, 8 - 0 in favour, re-affirmation that decision-making rights leave from the seller to the buyer at the first-sale of an item.

 

I fully believe that seven-times Microsoft Most Valuable Professional award recipient Mark Burnett is right when he says "What we need to do is fix this, even if that means getting lawmakers involved. It can only get worse from here". Though, I believe it is important for big reasons beyond simple control and security of the OS.

 

Microsoft is stealing digital property, computational power, and electrical resources from everybody, and is making non-licensed usage of people's hardware property, the housing of that hardware, and are exploiting people's personal behaviours while those people are staying within their personal and private spaces (non-online activities). And in the process of violating Windows license-owners' rights over their property, resources, time, and behaviour, Microsoft is unjustly enriching its company and executives.

 

If action is not taken against those who commit these violations, then all established societal and legal notions of what property is, who possesses decision-making rights over it, how much a person can use their position to unfairly exploit others against their natural desire... then all existing understanding of those things becomes argued against, and a precedent is established where a person's property is anyone's to use by unilateral decision, and a seller of goods can enslave and overrule aspects of people's own private lives and property as part of their conditions for their sale. Effectively, a sale becomes not a transaction of goods for money, but a mechanism for enslavement and subjugation, with the seller behaving as if they possess a commercial license over a plethora of the buyer's possessions and entitlements.
 
A person whose personal and private PC system environment (non-online spaces) is sending data to Microsoft through telemetry, data-collection, and analytics of their behaviour is an employee of Microsoft who does not get paid, or receive any company benefits.

[suicidalfranco]

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

I've made a blog post that more clearly, and in greater detail explains what I wanted to express as my view in the OP.

Here's a paste of it:

 

Windows, Spying, and a Twitter Rant

Screenshots showing high levels of contact with Microsoft servers after employing all efforts to stop data-transmission

Additional screenshots of further Microsoft server activity, discovered later

 

 

I would like to give some personal commentary to the subject that those links are about.

 

 

If a politician steals millions of taxpayer dollars, which is only a few cents from each person, they go to jail. So what about when Microsoft is continuously piggy-backing on everybody's PC systems to enrich themselves? Microsoft is using people's own hardware, software licenses, electricity, computing power, data, time, and private activity for non-sanctioned business use, and the profit of Microsoft's executives.

 

Microsoft's data-mining is no different than a virus that is distributed to people's PCs to min mines digital coins using their CPU and CPU power, with the earnings being deposited in the e-wallet of the virus' creator. You could also look at it like someone setting up a mining farm, but connecting all their systems to their neighbours electricity supply - except that in the case of Microsoft's data-mining, they are not using their own hardware, software licenses, and everything else... and so the coin-mining virus is a more suitable analogy.

 

Every aspect of Microsoft collecting data from people's PC systems and personally-owned Windows licenses is already established in law as being illegal. But some people are taking a bit of time to work through the understanding that leads to that recognition, because software-license owners are traditionally just not on the lookout for stuff like this and usually just focus on using their software, and not technical legal aspects or ethical implications behind its operation. Also, Microsoft being a well-known company whose products people have used for years throws a lot of people for a loop, I think, because they are used to just assuming that whatever they're doing must check out, somehow. Well, this doesn't. It's illegal from head to toe.

 

It's theft, but it's also Unjust Enrichment - which is the situation where one party is making profit for itself at the unjust expense of others. A current UE case involves ZeniMax targeting Samsung for Unjust Enrichment over VR technology that ZeniMax claims belongs to them but is profiting Samsung.

 

If you unilaterally utilize somebody property, or copyrights to make yourself money, who is legally entitled to the proceeds? Legal entitlement goes to whom the required property and rights that the profit is dependent upon belong to. 

 

A person who argues that by using Windows 10 a person agrees to send Microsoft their data would be wrong, because sending Microsoft data is not essential to making use of the software functionality that was paid for when buying a Windows license, and so conditioning usage of the paid-for functionality on unrelated and Microsoft-profiting access to personal and private data would not pass the Reasonable Person test.

 

Also, such an argument would be in ignorance that the data sent to Microsoft doesn't come from only the owned software license, but also a person's personally-owned  hardware, electricity, computational time, uniquely-generated data, and personal / private activity - things for which there can be no entitlement for Microsoft to use any more than a car salesperson can claim that if you buy a vehicle from them, that they then have a right to access and use your garage and everything in it, including the power source hooked up to it.

Additionally, the idea that Microsoft could exert any authority over an instance of the Windows OS after they've sold the license that represents the OS instance to somebody is a violation of the first-sale doctrine, which makes clear that such authorities and privileges pass to the owner of the property, in this case, the owner of the software license and the instance of the OS it represents, once it is sold. And the SCOTUS has just made a unanimous, 8 - 0 in favour, re-affirmation that decision-making rights leave from the seller to the buyer at the first-sale of an item.

 

I fully believe that seven-times Microsoft Most Valuable Professional award recipient Mark Burnett is right when he says "What we need to do is fix this, even if that means getting lawmakers involved. It can only get worse from here". Though, I believe it is important for big reasons beyond simple control and security of the OS.

 

Microsoft is stealing digital property, computational power, and electrical resources from everybody, and is making non-licensed usage of people's hardware property, the housing of that hardware, and are exploiting people's personal behaviours while those people are staying within their personal and private spaces (non-online activities). And in the process of violating Windows license-owners' rights over their property, resources, time, and behaviour, Microsoft is unjustly enriching its company and executives.

 

If action is not taken against those who commit these violations, then all established societal and legal notions of what property is, who possesses decision-making rights over it, how much a person can use their position to unfairly exploit others against their natural desire... then all existing understanding of those things becomes argued against, and a precedent is established where a person's property is anyone's to use by unilateral decision, and a seller of goods can enslave and overrule aspects of people's own private lives and property as part of their conditions for their sale. Effectively, a sale becomes not a transaction of goods for money, but a mechanism for enslavement and subjugation, with the seller behaving as if they possess a commercial license over a plethora of the buyer's possessions and entitlements.
 
A person whose personal and private PC system environment (non-online spaces) is sending data to Microsoft through telemetry, data-collection, and analytics of their behaviour is an employee of Microsoft who does not get paid, or receive any company benefits.

please fix for night theme users, hovering "quote this" box on highlighted paragraph makes it really annoying to read

[Delicieuxz]

3 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

please fix for night theme users, hovering "quote this" box on highlighted paragraph makes it really annoying to read

It should be fixed now.

[suicidalfranco]

Just now, Delicieuxz said:

It should be fixed now.

Thanks!