Windows 10X - Microsoft New OS - Preview

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Do you use the internet, Google has data on you. Microsoft on the other hand may or may not. Simple exercise, block all Microsoft owned and operated services and browse the internet, you'll be fine. Now block Google, not such a great experience is it?

I think this is a bad exercise for a few reasons.

1) It has very black and white thinking. You don't have to block all services from a single company to gain better privacy. Privacy is not a binary game where you either is completely private or not private at all. It's a spectrum where you should strive to be as protective of your privacy as possible. Note that these companies have designed their services in ways where the more privacy you get, the worse experience you'll have. So everyone need to draw their lines somewhere. Some think losing privacy is worth it if they gain some features. Other people might not. Privacy should not be seen as black or white.

 

2) I don't think it's a "simple" exercise to block neither Google nor Microsoft from your life. Personally I am more dependent on Microsoft than Google. My job highly revolves around Microsoft features and services (one of the drawbacks of working at a company that has 13 gold partnership awards from Microsoft). Cutting out Google would result in some inconveniences and I would miss out on services I find lots of enjoyment in, but overall my life could go on like normal. Cutting out Microsoft would mean losing out a lot of services I enjoy, in addition to needing a new job and possibly having to move.

 

3) What is and isn't a "great experience" is subjective and hard to measure.

 

Overall, I think your example is bad and adds nothing of value because it deals with some absolutes, for a subjective result.

 

 

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

I don't know why you even tried to argue that point about Google vs Microsoft data collection, I know you know Google is to a far greater degree intertwined with internet access so the only situation Google would be less is if you are not an internet user but have internet (you know so MS can collect the data). Avoiding select Google services may be simple but actually try an absolute zero Google internet experience, and stick with it forever.

But why have you narrowed it down to "Internet access"? Why aren't we talking about access to programs such as games? In that case, Microsoft is to a far greater degree intertwined.

And once again you're dealing with absolutes for a subjective result. Nobody has to avoid 100% of all Google to gain better privacy. Nobody has to avoid 100% of all Microsoft services either. Like you said in your post, avoiding select Google services is simpler than avoiding Microsoft's services.

 

If you ask me, I think the best way of looking at this is to look at all the services from Microsoft and Google you use, then assign a "privacy score" to each. Higher data collection = higher score = worse privacy. Then you try to get that score as low as possible without crossing the line where you think the user experience suffers too much (for you) to be worth the extra privacy.

For me, I think the result would be a pretty equal score for Microsoft and Google. Of course that score will vary from person to person. You could argue that since a lot of people have abandoned Windows in favor of Android that Google scores higher for the mass market, but when we look at this forum where people run adblockers, tweak privacy settings, run Windows 10 and so on, I think the results would be fairly close.

 

 

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

It's literally at the point source evidence is not needed, some things are well known logical truths, you know like water being wet.

Maybe in your very specific example, but I think that example is poor.

Also, I was asking for sources for some specific claims which I am still waiting for. If they are are obvious as "water being wet" then shouldn't they be easy to provide sources for and prove to be true?

 

 

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Well it was never a question of if it could be done, and then you have to also avoid indirect Google data collection that you have no ability to see or control but that's honestly a sideline issue. The problem point here was who collects more, which is larger a truck or a train? Both can carry a lot of freight, one is clearly larger.

Can you prove that Google collects more than Microsoft? What metric are you using to measure that? If it's so clear that Google is collecting more data than Microsoft, then prove it, because I honestly don't think it is that way. And I base that on the privacy policies (which I have tried to read but they both have so extremely long ones with difficult language and they are all spread out over several documents so it's very hard) as well as the info you can request under GDPR.

When you say Google collects more, do you base that on default settings or with "privacy optimized" settings? What are the results when you look at it from the other side?

Which services are you comparing exactly? Are you for example comparing the information collected when someone use Bing as compared to when someone uses Google Search? Are you comparing the information collected when someone uses Windows 10 against the information collected when someone uses Android? What services are you measuring exactly?

 

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Maybe I'm just too much of a realist, I cannot take idealism seriously when you have an understanding of the situation. If you can completely avoid Google consistently for even as little as a year while using computers and the internet then you're a super hero and I'll tip my hat to that feat (proving it might be hard).

I don't think your examples paints you as a realist at all because you constantly bring up absolutes and black and white way of thinking. Isn't the way I described earlier the far more realistic approach? Where you try to limit the data collection to a reasonable degree based on what you think is important?

 

But if we're being realistic, I think comparing Google vs Microsoft is comparing different diseases. Preferably, we should try to avoid both of them as much as possible, for the sake of our privacy (in addition to more ideological reasons such as avoiding monopolies or giving a few select companies too much power and control over our everyday lives).

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It has very black and white thinking. You don't have to block all services from a single company to gain better privacy.

This is where you went wrong, the statement who collects more data, Google. Privacy is not a direct indicator of how much data a company collects and the scale to which they do.

 

Google could have the best privacy ever, complete transparency, online automated form to delete all data collected about you but can at the same time be collecting the most data about you until you ask for it to be deleted.

 

A statement about who collects more isn't actually a point about privacy, related topic not the same point being made. That's where your entire post fell over so that is why I'm not addressing it, Google (the company) collects more and you know it.

[LAwLz]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

This is where you went wrong, the statement who collects more data, Google. Privacy is not a direct indicator of how much data a company collects and the scale to which they do.

 

Google could have the best privacy ever, complete transparency, online automated form to delete all data collected about you but can at the same time be collecting the most data about you until you ask for it to be deleted.

 

A statement about who collects more isn't actually a point about privacy, related topic not the same point being made. That's where your entire post fell over so that is why I'm not addressing it, Google (the company) collects more and you know it.

I don't understand what you are saying here. I think we have different definitions of words/terms.

 

What do you mean when you say "who collects more data"? When I say "collect more data" I mean "the amount of information about me and my computer usage".

 

What do you mean when you say "privacy"? When I say "more private" it means less information about me and my usage is known by some particular third party, such as Google or Microsoft.

 

With those definitions, privacy and "collects more information" are very tightly tied together.

 

Personally, I don't trust delete buttons (because we have a long history and a mountain of evidence that delete buttons in the past have not actually deleted data). So delete buttons are not even part of the equation in my eyes. If a company allows me to delete information they have gathered about me then in my eyes that information can't be important to them and they shouldn't have collected it to begin with.

[leadeater]

9 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I don't understand what you are saying here. I think we have different definitions of words/terms.

 

What do you mean when you say "who collects more data"? When I say "collect more data" I mean "the amount of information about me and my computer usage".

 

What do you mean when you say "privacy"? When I say "more private" it means less information about me and my usage is known by some particular third party, such as Google or Microsoft.

 

With those definitions, privacy and "collects more information" are very tightly tied together.

 

Personally, I don't trust delete buttons (because we have a long history and a mountain of evidence that delete buttons in the past have not actually deleted data). So delete buttons are not even part of the equation in my eyes. If a company allows me to delete information they have gathered about me then in my eyes that information can't be important to them and they shouldn't have collected it to begin with.

In the words of every reviewer ever, "We test in default configurations that the typical user will experience". So think about a typical person using the internet, who collects more, Microsoft or Google? No need to over complicate it, there is a very obvious answer.

 

Amount of data definition is the same for both of us, all I can think of is you're being, well to put it bluntly, purposefully ignorant to how dependent the average person is on Google services and how many websites and service use Google services as part of them. I'm not going to have an argument over the colour of a standard, classic, coke can. It's Red. With that I'm out. 

Spoiler

And yes I am aware Microsoft collects a lot, Google is still far bigger.

 

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

In the words of every reviewer ever, "We test in default configurations that the typical user will experience". So think about a typical person using the internet, who collects more, Microsoft or Google? No need to over complicate it, there is a very obvious answer.

I am not sure the answer is that obvious. I think people dramatically underestimate how much data Microsoft collects. It's a truckload, especially at default settings. It was a metric ton more if you go back 3-4 years as well (in windows 10 at least). Google collects a ton of info, but so does Microsoft. I think it's a big assumption with little evidence to assume that Google collects far more on the average person. 

 

I also think the answer becomes very different once you start factoring in "privacy optimizations" such as adblocking and changing OS settings as well. 

 

And the answer becomes even more different if we start comparing "what if you replaced services from company X with services from company Y". For example Google search is a massive data harvesting tool for Google where they collect a ton of info from users, and pretty much everyone uses it. But would people really gain any additional privacy if everyone moved from Google search to Bing? 

If Microsoft has less data on people (that's an assumption for the sake of argument) because their services are not used as much, can you really say Microsoft is better than Google for privacy? 

 

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

Amount of data definition is the same for both of us, all I can think of is you're being, well to put it bluntly, purposefully ignorant to how dependent the average person is on Google services and how many websites and service use Google services as part of them. I'm not going to have an argument over the colour of a standard, classic, coke can. It's Red. With that I'm out. 

  Reveal hidden contents

And yes I am aware Microsoft collects a lot, Google is still far bigger.

 

No I am not. I completely understand that the average person relies heavily on Google services. But I also understand that the average person heavily relies on Microsoft services. 

 

 

Like Mr moose said earlier, this thread will just devolve into a bunch of accusations and no sources or evidence. So I'd appreciate if you start posting evidence and sources to go along with your accusations from now on. 

[leadeater]

52 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Like Mr moose said earlier, this thread will just devolve into a bunch of accusations and no sources or evidence. So I'd appreciate if you start posting evidence and sources to go along with your accusations from now on. 

Why, do you honestly think Microsoft data collection in say Windows is more than all the data points collected by Google across all the services that you interact with? I've actually got multiple articles up right now from this year that goes through all the data Google collects and those don't even cover everything, in fact it doesn't even touch on some pretty big ones like Google Search Indexing service for websites which we used to use before moving to Solr. Side note with the new privacy controls Google offers that requires you to have an account and be logged in is a huge issue in itself.

 

Google is constantly crawling the internet sucking up and index every bit of data they can find. Google is tracking information about every service you use of theirs. Embedded or subscribed Google services that are used by 3rd parties is also collecting data for Google. Does the average person do anything to mitigate this? No. For a very large population of this earth Google knows what your favorite food item is, how often you buy it, when you typically purchase it, where you typically purchase it, what route you take to that store etc.

 

It's not even a question of how many or what data points Google collects, they are near as much "Full text indexing" everything from everywhere they can about all things, Microsoft isn't even close to that level. Sure they probably want to be but Google has decade head start on them.

 

The reason I'm not bothering to post these is two fold, it's such a nonsensical notion that Microsoft is anywhere near Google I just feel it's a waste of time to bother and secondly it's irrelevant to the topic. You can have what ever opinion you want, mine is unless you are comparing to Facebook then who collects more is different leagues compared to those two.

 

I equally don't address flat earth arguments either, yea this is that to me. That is why I basically said I wouldn't address this more, I very much won't after this point, this has derailed more than it should have already.

 

52 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If Microsoft has less data on people (that's an assumption for the sake of argument) because their services are not used as much, can you really say Microsoft is better than Google for privacy? 

As I said irrelevant to the point made, Google collects more. Also it's not even a point about who's service is used more, Google has more services collecting large amounts of data about people than Microsoft does, on a per person basis Google is collecting more data than Microsoft by a long way. If for what ever reason you do not interact with Google services regularly and in large part use Microsoft Windows and other Microsoft services like Office 365 then sure the scale could be tipped, but is this actually the average person?

 

You've got privacy so mixed up with data collection you can't even see that these are in fact different, not unrelated things. Simple example, my doctor knows a lot of private information about me, does the doctor having this information breach my privacy? Data collection is a factor in privacy discussions, it is not in itself privacy.

 

A simple statement "Google collects more data" doesn't say if they are better or worse when it comes to privacy compared to anyone else.

[mr moose]

12 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Source?

 

You sure about that?

Microsoft for example were found to inject, undocumented and unannounced, telemetry collection into programs compiled with Visual Studio. It might be possible that their PP include something like "we may collect information we deem important to us" which is kind of a "catch all" term and a rather weak defense if the argument is that "Microsoft are honest about what they collect".

 

 

To me, those are the same things.

Having a ~100 page long privacy policy, spread out over something like 15 different links, using vague and broad terms which can include basically everything, and are written in such advanced English that something like 90% of the US population are unable to understand what is actually says, is not what I would call good.

Microsoft could essentially replace their entire privacy policy with "we can collect any info we want on you, at any time, and for any purpose" and it would serve pretty much the same purpose as it does today, and your defense that "they do technically don't lie and technically outline everything they do collect" would hold equally true.

 

And I think you misunderstood the dutch investigation and what they found. It wasn't just that "users weren't informed at install". It was that users literally did not have any way of knowing what was actually collected, even if they went and read the privacy policy and other documentation from Microsoft.

 

It's also important to note that Windows 10 and Microsoft in general has gotten a lot better with privacy, but you can't ignore all the fuck-ups that happened years ago. Things like Microsoft going "oops, we're collecting twice as much data as we actually need". Since the release of Windows 10, Microsoft has updated their privacy policies several times, given users more information, more options to turn things off (remember when turning things off in Windows 10 didn't actually turn them off? Oh wait, that was just over a year ago...), changed what settings do (like make it so that certain GPOs stop working) and so on and so forth.

Even if you were to make the argument that Microsoft today are good when it comes to privacy (which I don't think they are, I would rate them maybe a 3 out of 10 with Google being a 2 out of 10), you can't ignore that they have had to make a lot of improvements over the years to get to this point. Even if you argue that Windows 10 is good today, its track record is horrible.

 

 

Don't worry, I have sources and evidence for all my claims.

Your post however seem pretty loaded to the brim with accusations and so far 0 links to back those things up with so it seems like the thread is already heading towards "a shit show of accusations and zero evidence". I'll try to prevent that from happening though by asking for sources whenever you make claims.

The DPA did not claim users couldn't get to the PP and could not know what data was being collected. MS's PP has been availiable since long before that DPA investigation and todate no one has found MS collecting datat that is not stipulated in it.  The problem was solely not making it clear where to fin the PP.

 

I can't believe you want to try and argue MS is as bad as google. 

 

But like I said, it is going to be a shit show without evidence.  Posting a handful of ill researched media articles that don't actual evidence MS collecting more data than google, let alone intentionally continuing to after consumers asked them not to is in my book a lack of evidence.

 

Not only do government and their agencies have access to the full source code for windows but MS has released the telemetry data viewer which to date no one has (and I am sure there are plenty of people looking for evidence) found evidence that MS has been collecting more than they claim in the PP.  Let alone more than google.

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

Why, do you honestly think Microsoft data collection in say Windows is more than all the data points collected by Google across all the services that you interact with?

I am not. Don't put words in my mouth.

Comparing a single Microsoft service against all of Google's services are a bit unfair don't you think? I am thinking of all the Microsoft services, vs all the Google services that people might use. Obviously that varies from person to person but I think we can quite easily determine which services are the popular and common ones. Things like Windows, Office, Xbox, Azure, Visual Studio, Internet Explorer/Edge for Microsoft. For Google it would be things like search, Android, Chrome, Gmail, Adsense and AMP. Just to mention a few.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

I've actually got multiple articles up right now from this year that goes through all the data Google collects and those don't even cover everything, in fact it doesn't even touch on some pretty big ones like Google Search Indexing service for websites which we used to use before moving to Solr. Side note with the new privacy controls Google offers that requires you to have an account and be logged in is a huge issue in itself.

Well it doesn't really matter if you claim to have sources up if you don't post them, right?

I can pull up a lot of articles that goes through all the data Microsoft collects too and they don't include everything either, so what's your point? You can't just say "I got sources which proves I am right" and then not post them. But even more so, just posting that Google collects a lot of info doesn't prove the points you have made (that Google collects more than Microsoft).

 

 

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

Google is constantly crawling the internet sucking up and index every bit of data they can find.

Yes, and so does Microsoft.

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

Google is tracking information about every service you use of theirs.

Yes, and so does Microsoft.

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

Embedded or subscribed Google services that are used by 3rd parties is also collecting data for Google.

Yes, and so does Microsoft.

 

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

Does the average person do anything to mitigate this? No. For a very large population of this earth Google knows what your favorite food item is, how often you buy it, when you typically purchase it, where you typically purchase it, what route you take to that store etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft knows this too. Although, luckily for us Microsoft's platforms which has GPS haven't been as successful so for those specific data points Google probably has more knowledge than Microsoft. It's not because Microsoft are the good guys and don't collect that info, but rather because Microsoft's platforms which would harvest that data were failures.

 

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

It's not even a question of how many or what data points Google collects, they are near as much "Full text indexing" everything from everywhere they can about all things

And Microsoft does this too, so what's your point?

 

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

Microsoft isn't even close to that level. Sure they probably want to be but Google has decade head start on them.

How do you know that? Seems like a very big assumption to make without any evidence. Remember what mr moose said?

19 hours ago, mr moose said:

Now watch this thread become a shit show of accusations and zero evidence.

I'd appreciate it if you could stop with the accusations and start posting some evidence. I have posted evidence for all my claims and so far you have posted absolutely 0 evidence for all the claims you have made. You can't just go "it's obvious so therefore I am right". If that's a valid argument then I might as well say it's obvious Microsoft collects more and therefore you're wrong.

 

 

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

The reason I'm not bothering to post these is two fold, it's such a nonsensical notion that Microsoft is anywhere near Google I just feel it's a waste of time to bother and secondly it's irrelevant to the topic. You can have what ever opinion you want, mine is unless you are comparing to Facebook then who collects more is different leagues compared to those two.

"I am right and you're wrong but I won't post any evidence that proves this". Okay buddy. I'd still appreciate if you could post some evidence to support your claims but I feel like it's a lost cause. For some reason you refuse to back any claims up and want people to just believe you.

 

 

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

Google has more services collecting large amounts of data about people than Microsoft does

Source?

In before no source...

 

 

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

You've got privacy so mixed up with data collection you can't even see that these are in fact different, not unrelated things. Simple example, my doctor knows a lot of private information about me, does the doctor having this information breach my privacy? Data collection is a factor in privacy discussions, it is not in itself privacy.

I have asked you for your definitions but you just keep saying "you're wrong and I am right". Can you please for the love of God just answer my simple questions instead of just constantly telling me how wrong I am and how right you are?

 

 

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

You've got privacy so mixed up with data collection you can't even see that these are in fact different, not unrelated things. Simple example, my doctor knows a lot of private information about me, does the doctor having this information breach my privacy? Data collection is a factor in privacy discussions, it is not in itself privacy.

Again, can you please give me your definitions of the words so that I might be able to understand your arguments better? I have already given my definitions of the words and your response to that was basically "no you're wrong and I am right" which doesn't really help the discussion.

 

 

 

And yes I would say that your doctor were breaching your privacy if they were in the same situation as Google or Microsoft. To make this situation a bit more comparable imagine this:

In order for your doctor to threat a deadly disease you got, you must give him a copy of the keys to your door. You must also allow him to listen in on any conversation you have in your home, and record you whenever he feels like it. He may also use any information he collects for any purposes.

You're free to pick a different doctor if you want, but they all do the same thing. Your only option is to allow this violation of your privacy, or die from the deadly disease. Does that sound fair? I think that's the situation we are at with Google and Microsoft.

 

They both constantly do these massive collections of personal information that people can't avoid without going to extreme lengths (like you said, it's basically impossible to avoid Google or Microsoft's services, and if you do you won't have a good time, at all). So people are entirely dependent on these companies, and they use this dependency to collect a ton of info about people and use that for pretty much whatever they feel like. That is totally what I would say is a violation of privacy, but people have no choice but to allow it.

 

 

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

A simple statement "Google collects more data" doesn't say if they are better or worse when it comes to privacy compared to anyone else.

In my eyes it does, because I equate "more data about me" to "less privacy".

I want companies and people who use my personal information for monetary gains to know as little about me as possible. I see every data point collected about me as a breach of my privacy because I want them to have as close to 0 info about me as possible.

Them knowing 10 things about me is worse for my privacy than if they know 5 things about me (obviously depending on what they know but I'm talking in general here) because I want them to know as little about me as possible.

I really don't understand your definition of the word "privacy" if you think a company which has let's say 1000 unique data points about you can be more private than a company that has let's say 50. Can you please define the word "privacy" to me and give some examples?

 

Also, I should probably add that the comment which started this conversation literally was talking about the amount of data collected. It said:

"MS do not take any where near the data google do".

[divito]

Google needed to collect information to gain their competitive advantage in providing better search results. As they grew and offered services tailored to users, their data points expanded immensely. They also created the advertising regime that exists today and your data was/is their business model. 

Microsoft, while offering lots of services and applications, never had that scope or business model. Their applications and services (well, most of them) were never dependent on internet access, limiting a lot of the information other web services tracked and collected. 

While they have altered their model somewhat overtime, post-Android and iOS, and they have acquired/created new businesses and services, they do not have the history or resources to match Google in data collection terms and probably never will.

Even Facebook probably collects more than Microsoft.

[LAwLz]

38 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The DPA did not claim users couldn't get to the PP and could not know what data was being collected.

That's not what I said. Here is what I said:

41 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And I think you misunderstood the dutch investigation and what they found. It wasn't just that "users weren't informed at install". It was that users literally did not have any way of knowing what was actually collected, even if they went and read the privacy policy and other documentation from Microsoft.

 

The problem the dutch investigation found was that Microsoft does not describe what data was collected when telemetry was set to full (the default setting). They had descriptions for what was collected when telemetry was set to limited, but not for when it was set to full.

Here is the official quote from the investigation if you don't believe me:

Quote

Microsoft offers users an overview of the categories of data that it collects through basic telemetry, but only informs people in a general way, with examples, about the categories of personal data it collects through full telemetry.

The investigation also found several other things such as:

Quote

Microsoft does not clearly inform users about the type of data it uses, and for which purpose.

So you can keep repeat that "Microsoft's PP outlines all the data they take" all you want, but investigations concluded that they don't (or at least didn't).

I mean, why do you think Microsoft had to update their privacy policies, change how much data they collect and change the out-of-the-box setup screens? Maybe because multiple investigations all found them, guilty of breaking privacy laws?

 

 

49 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The problem was solely not making it clear where to fin the PP.

Like you can read in the quote above, this statement is false. It is (or at least was) impossible to actually find what data was collected with full telemetry, even if you read the PP.

 

 

51 minutes ago, mr moose said:

But like I said, it is going to be a shit show without evidence.  Posting a handful of ill researched media articles that don't actual evidence MS collecting more data than google, let alone intentionally continuing to after consumers asked them not to is in my book a lack of evidence.

The only side not posting evidence here are the ones defending Microsoft.

[leadeater]

9 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The only side not posting evidence here are the ones defending Microsoft.

No one is defending Microsoft, it's just that compared to Google no they are not on the same level. Like I said no I will not and will never post a source for something so darn obvious. "Google collects vastly more information" != defending Microsoft. But if you say we are defending Microsoft, sure that must be true, I mean I haven't provided evidence either so what does it matter. See/hear one thing, act likes it's another thing.

[mr moose]

24 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I'd appreciate it if you could stop with the accusations and start posting some evidence. I have posted evidence for all my claims and so far you have posted absolutely 0 evidence for all the claims you have made. You can't just go "it's obvious so therefore I am right". If that's a valid argument then I might as well say it's obvious Microsoft collects more and therefore you're wrong.

 

 

 

BS,  you have posted zero evidence that MS collects more data than google, you haven't even posted any evidence that MS collects half the amount of data google does,  in fact you haven't posted evidence to any of the discussion.  Just some side tidbits that you think are relevant but really aren't.

 

11 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That's not what I said. Here is what I said:

 

The problem the dutch investigation found was that Microsoft does not describe what data was collected when telemetry was set to full (the default setting). They had descriptions for what was collected when telemetry was set to limited, but not for when it was set to full.

Here is the official quote from the investigation if you don't believe me:

The investigation also found several other things such as:

So you can keep repeat that "Microsoft's PP outlines all the data they take" all you want, but investigations concluded that they don't (or at least didn't).

I mean, why do you think Microsoft had to update their privacy policies, change how much data they collect and change the out-of-the-box setup screens? Maybe because multiple investigations all found them, guilty of breaking privacy laws?

 

 

Like you can read in the quote above, this statement is false. It is (or at least was) impossible to actually find what data was collected with full telemetry, even if you read the PP.

 

 

The only side not posting evidence here are the ones defending Microsoft.

And again, you take one snippet form that investigation and try to apply it out of context and time.  The DPA concluded users did not have enough information on install.  In other words there was nothing pointing users to the PP or explaining the data on install.  It does not say MS never posted a PP nor collected data that wasn't in that PP.

 

[mr moose]

For reference this is where the discussion started:

On 2/27/2020 at 7:40 AM, mr moose said:

Doesn't change what I said, Every company/person that creates an OS or UEFI or anti virus or even VM software has direct access to everything on your device.  MS do not take any where near the data google do and their PP outlines all the data they take. 

 

The bit in bold was the only bit that was quoted (ignoring the the rest of the post and the context).  If someone is going to argue that MS take more data than what they outline in their PP then I want to see evidence, otherwise there is no point in posting.  As for taking more data than google, well that is a lost argument to begin with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[divito]

It's not about defending Microsoft; they had to change their business model in the face of the way internet and connected devices were changing. I don't think any of us are saying they don't collect or sell information, or that they're extremely honest about it. There are bound to be things we don't fully know about or understand. 

Like, the biggest reason I think we're "claiming" Google collects more than Microsoft is simply because so much of what Microsoft could collect couldn't be monetized.

While Microsoft had an intimate level of your computer usage, it's business was never built around that information. How many times you opened an app or where your mouse cursor went while you used it, or your MS Office habits, also had/has very little monetary value. People abandoned Internet Explorer/Edge long ago, as well as other services because other alternatives arrived in a more web-usage world.

Google was built as an internet service with a tailored experience in mind; what you searched turned into ad priority, relevance and sponsored searches. They own Android, Youtube, Maps, Gmail, Google Play, Google Pay, Photos, Calendar. The amount of things that can be gleaned and stored from even a modicum of Google service usage is immense. If someone is a heavy user and has made no privacy changes to their account (which probably doesn't do a whole lot honestly), the amount of information, trends, and relationships that can stored, calculated, and sold or utilized in other pipelines borders on unfathomable. 

While Microsoft still owns/runs similar services in some of these instances, none of them were or are on the scale of Google and never will be.

[Chiyawa]

On 2/12/2020 at 12:56 PM, williamcll said:

Could it be the return of windows mobile? I certainly hope so, I liked my HTC HD2

I sure hope. Windows Mobile (and Windows Phone in general), was the most streamline OS back when Android still sucking milk. It has virtually 0 bloatware like Android has (I mean, who needs a Youtube app when your web browser can view it just fine?). And beside, 1GB RAM is more than enough to keep it running smoothly.

 

Had to retire it because F**king WHATSAPP OUTRIGHT DISABLE THE SERVICES! Going to TenCent WeChat, I'm not using Whatsapp. Screw them.

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, Chiyawa said:

I sure hope. Windows Mobile (and Windows Phone in general), was the most streamline OS back when Android still sucking milk.

I still use my Windows Phone, I really like the mail client and it just works so nicely with Skype for Business. Work gives me an S10E, I use my Windows phone instead. Android office apps just aren't quite as nice, well the problem is they are trying to be too 'nice' and I just like extremely basic interfaces.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, Chiyawa said:

I sure hope. Windows Mobile (and Windows Phone in general), was the most streamline OS back when Android still sucking milk. It has virtually 0 bloatware like Android has (I mean, who needs a Youtube app when your web browser can view it just fine?). And beside, 1GB RAM is more than enough to keep it running smoothly.

 

Had to retire it because F**king WHATSAPP OUTRIGHT DISABLE THE SERVICES! Going to TenCent WeChat, I'm not using Whatsapp. Screw them.

 

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

I still use my Windows Phone, I really like the mail client and it just works so nicely with Skype for Business. Work gives me an S10E, I use my Windows phone instead. Android office apps just aren't quite as nice, well the problem is they are trying to be too 'nice' and I just like extremely basic interfaces.

 

I miss my WP, I don't miss the lack of app support, but I do miss having a phone that did what it should do without forking out a fortune.

[LAwLz]

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

No one is defending Microsoft, it's just that compared to Google no they are not on the same level. Like I said no I will not and will never post a source for something so darn obvious. "Google collects vastly more information" != defending Microsoft. But if you say we are defending Microsoft, sure that must be true, I mean I haven't provided evidence either so what does it matter. See/hear one thing, act likes it's another thing.

I honestly don't get you right now. You say my definitions of words are wrong but you refuse to define them, even when I am begging you to do so because I want to understand your POV. 

 

You refuse to post any evidence despite claiming to have it. I have genuinely tried to look up evidence but I can't find any. 

 

What do you want exactly? Are you just responding to troll? I'd appreciate it if you stopped if that's the case. You're clearly not interested in furthering the conversation since you just keep saying "you're wrong and I'm right". 

 

 

I also think it's hilariously hypocritical of @mr moose to click agree on this post proudly saying "I refuse to post evidence" when just a few pages ago he was the one going "look now when the thread devolves into accusations and no evidence", which is exactly what I try to avoid by asking for sources. But I guess you don't need facts or evidence when it's about something you believe is true. 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

I also think it's hilariously hypocritical of @mr moose to click agree on this post proudly saying "I refuse to post evidence" when just a few pages ago he was the one going "look now when the thread devolves into accusations and no evidence", which is exactly what I try to avoid by asking for sources. But I guess you don't need facts or evidence when it's about something you believe is true. 

Of course you think that,  You are the only one posing a condition that requires evidence and is failing to present it.  To everyone else it is beyond doubt that google collects more data than MS.   The idea that you need to provide evidence to claim google is collecting more data than MS is like expecting someone to provide evidence that the world is round or eating pancakes don't cause you to become gay.

[LAwLz]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

For reference this is where the discussion started:

 

The bit in bold was the only bit that was quoted (ignoring the the rest of the post and the context).  If someone is going to argue that MS take more data than what they outline in their PP then I want to see evidence, otherwise there is no point in posting.  As for taking more data than google, well that is a lost argument to begin with.

So we both agree thst this conversation started because you made the claim that Microsoft do not collect anywhere near the same amount of info as Google does. Good. 

 

You're the one who made the claim so the burden of proof is on you. 

 

You can't make a claim and then go "I am right until someone proves the opposite", even if you very strongly believe that you're correct. That's not how logic and reasoning works. 

 

Isn't that correct @dalekphalm? (tagging you since I've seen you lurking around here and up voting replies to my posts). Maybe @leadeatercan chip in on that too. 

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

So we both agree thst this conversation started because you made the claim that Microsoft do not collect anywhere near the same amount of info as Google does. Good. 

 

You're the one who made the claim so the burden of proof is on you. 

 

You can't make a claim and then go "I am right until someone proves the opposite", even if you very strongly believe that you're correct. That's not how logic and reasoning works. 

 

Isn't that correct @dalekphalm? (tagging you since I've seen you lurking around here and up voting replies to my posts). Maybe @leadeatercan chip in on that too. 

Good luck with all future intentions if you just want to stick your head in the sand.   My claim also included the important qualifier that all the data they collect is detailed in their PP,  You can't claim they are doing something then expect me to prove they are not (pancakes cause people to become gay, prove it wrong).  I can claim google collect more data (and sell it) than MS because not only is it fairly self evident,  but MS does not sell data.

 

Hell, their core business strategy shows this clearly, google pays for virtually it's entire business from user data in one form or another, while MS and apple make their money from software licenses and hardware.

 

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/111015/apple-vs-microsoft-vs-google-how-their-business-models-compare.asp

 

 

 

 

[dalekphalm]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

So we both agree thst this conversation started because you made the claim that Microsoft do not collect anywhere near the same amount of info as Google does. Good. 

 

You're the one who made the claim so the burden of proof is on you. 

 

You can't make a claim and then go "I am right until someone proves the opposite", even if you very strongly believe that you're correct. That's not how logic and reasoning works. 

 

Isn't that correct @dalekphalm? (tagging you since I've seen you lurking around here and up voting replies to my posts). Maybe @leadeatercan chip in on that too. 

I'm only going to lightly touch on this subject, because it's already getting out of hand, and frankly I don't wish to be dragged into it.

 

Yes, I do believe that both @leadeater and @mr moose are correct - my suspicion is that Google (or rather, Alphabet Inc) collects far more data than Microsoft, simply due to the nature of their various businesses (Google, and other Alphabet companies, largely earn income based on user data and how they can use or sell that data).

 

Finding concrete information on it, is not simple though.

 

For example, the first hit in a Google (lol) search result for "does google collect more data than microsoft?" was this:

https://www.quora.com/Does-Microsoft-track-user-data-as-much-as-Google

 

In which, all of the responses were variations of "yes, Google tracks more data than Microsoft" - none of them could back it up with a peer reviewed journal or anything though - they're using largely the same inference logic as @leadeater and @mr moose.

 

Since I don't have hard proof, I can't say for certain that Microsoft collects less data. All I can go off of, is what I see, and how I know that each company works.

 

So, my suspicion is that Google is far worse than Microsoft, due to Google's larger reach (Google Search + YouTube alone being big ones - Gmail actively reading the text of your emails is another big one (and Gmail is probably the largest email provider at the moment).

https://www.quora.com/Can-Google-read-my-mails

 

However, here's a source that says Google stopped the email scanning practice in 2017:

https://www.maketecheasier.com/which-email-providers-scanning-emails/

(Note: it also says Outlook doesn't read your emails either)

 

There's also the massive reach of Google AdSense, and their entire interconnected ad network (which connects to Google Search and YouTube and likely Google Services/Docs as well).

 

Yes, Microsoft has Bing, which probably does similar things, but we know Google is the predominant search engine (over 90% marketshare):

https://www.webfx.com/blog/seo/2019-search-market-share/

 

I think it's clear that because of these things, EVEN if Microsoft and Google were both collecting the same data, Google would "win" due to their larger marketshare in the relevant categories.

 

So, I don't know if these sources, which aren't concrete, and aren't peer reviewed, are going to be sufficient for your barrier of proof - in fact, I doubt they will. But they are sufficient for me, in my belief, that Microsoft - while still "evil" (or rather, still looking out for THEIR best interests, instead of mine) - are the lesser evil compared to Google. I stand by that position.

 

This will be my only rely.

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

-snip-

Thank you. That's far better response than anything I have gotten so far, which has basically boiled down to "you're wrong and I am right, and I won't even bother explaining why".

 

 

One of the problems I have with all the links you provided is that, just like a lot of people in this thread, it's mostly speculation with little to no evidence. And since I think people dramatically underestimate how much information Microsoft collects, I think it's natural to jump to the conclusion that Google collects more, even if that conclusion is wrong.

 

But take Windows 10 as an example. I am not even sure if people are aware how much info it collects. Wanna know how many unique telemetry data entries Windows 10 sends to Microsoft at the lowest settings (basic)? In version 1903 it's 4143 unique data points (probably even more because that's just the different fields for various events. If a telemetry event only has 1 field it's not counted). And that's only for the telemetry portion. That does not include things like data gathered from any of the preinstalled apps, the anti-virus, the browser, Outlook/Hotmail, any of the Office programs etc, none of the telemetry gathered from third parties, none of the data gathered from features (like the timeline feature which sends reports of all programs you open to Microsoft, and what you do in the programs).

 

In those 4143 unique data points are things such as, how many times you have run a specific program since your computer booted. What programs you are running on your computer. What you do inside the programs to a certain degree, and so on.

 

I mean, if you were to print out a list of all the telemetry data (just telemetry, nothing else) that Windows 10 collects on the basic level, the list would be 61,77 meters long (208 A4 pages). If you printed out the list of telemetry info collected at the basic level, went up to the leaning tower in Pisa and unrolled it, it would hit the ground and continue another 4-5 meters.

 

With Google, you stop being tracked as soon as you stop using their services (which are mostly limited to websites and can fairly easily be blocked with addons, at least if you're using a Windows PC). With your OS, like Microsoft, you're constantly tracked.

[mr moose]

42 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Thank you. That's far better response than anything I have gotten so far, which has basically boiled down to "you're wrong and I am right, and I won't even bother explaining why".

 

 

One of the problems I have with all the links you provided is that, just like a lot of people in this thread, it's mostly speculation with little to no evidence. And since I think people dramatically underestimate how much information Microsoft collects, I think it's natural to jump to the conclusion that Google collects more, even if that conclusion is wrong.

 

But take Windows 10 as an example. I am not even sure if people are aware how much info it collects. Wanna know how many unique telemetry data entries Windows 10 sends to Microsoft at the lowest settings (basic)? In version 1903 it's 4143 unique data points (probably even more because that's just the different fields for various events. If a telemetry event only has 1 field it's not counted). And that's only for the telemetry portion. That does not include things like data gathered from any of the preinstalled apps, the anti-virus, the browser, Outlook/Hotmail, any of the Office programs etc, none of the telemetry gathered from third parties, none of the data gathered from features (like the timeline feature which sends reports of all programs you open to Microsoft, and what you do in the programs).

 

In those 4143 unique data points are things such as, how many times you have run a specific program since your computer booted. What programs you are running on your computer. What you do inside the programs to a certain degree, and so on.

 

I mean, if you were to print out a list of all the telemetry data (just telemetry, nothing else) that Windows 10 collects on the basic level, the list would be 61,77 meters long (208 A4 pages). If you printed out the list of telemetry info collected at the basic level, went up to the leaning tower in Pisa and unrolled it, it would hit the ground and continue another 4-5 meters.

 

With Google, you stop being tracked as soon as you stop using their services (which are mostly limited to websites and can fairly easily be blocked with addons, at least if you're using a Windows PC). With your OS, like Microsoft, you're constantly tracked.

So basically what you are saying here is, yeah I was wrong, Google does in all honesty collect and sell more data than MS (because MS don't sell data), But let me try and make it look like MS still collects a lot more.

 

Why didn't you balance your posts using the same metrics for the data that google collects form each user? How long would that be?

 

Or better yet, instead of trying to make the data look big by talking about pages in Metres, why don't you just tell people to use the telemetry reader and read the PP?

https://www.anoopcnair.com/analyse-telemetry-data-using-windows/

 

then people can look to see exactly what their computer is sending to MS rather than what someone else's might be under who knows what conditions and time frames.

 

 

 

[LAwLz]

17 hours ago, mr moose said:

So basically what you are saying here is, yeah I was wrong

Not sure which one of us the "I" refers to here.

That you were wrong? I am not sure.

That I were wrong? No that's not what I am saying.

 

17 hours ago, mr moose said:

Google does in all honesty collect and sell more data than MS (because MS don't sell data), But let me try and make it look like MS still collects a lot more.

That's never what I said or did though.

You said that Google collects more data. I said I wasn't so sure that was true. Then you threw in some other arguments that I refused to replied to such as Microsoft's privacy policy containing everything they collect (which might technically be true, but it's extremely vague and broad so in my eyes it's bad) and that the Dutch investigation only had issues with the initial setup screens (which it didn't, it also had issues with there being no actual outline for what information Microsoft collected with full telemetry enabled, and as far as I know there still isn't any way to know that).

 

I never said Google collects more data than Microsoft. What I said was that I think people are too quick to assume that without proper evidence, and I think it depends on a lot of variables such as which products you use, how you actually measure it and what steps you have taken to increase privacy (such as tweak settings in Windows, or block Google's data mining scripts on the web).

 

I am also not trying to make it seem like Microsoft are collecting more than Google. What I am doing is questioning the massive assumption people have (which I don't think anyone in this thread actually has any solid evidence whatsoever to base that assumption on) that Google collects more data than Microsoft, and that nothing else should be questioned.

Microsoft are totally in the business of data harvesting, just like Google. There is a major overlap in their competitive fields and business models. Both of them stand to benefit massively from collecting as much information about their users as possible.

 

Also, Google does not sell your data. It's in their privacy policy that they do not do it. I don't think Microsoft sells your data either. In fact, it doesn't make any sense for these data harvesting companies to sell your data. A core part of their business (including Microsoft's) is that they have information that others might not have. They want to keep your private data to themselves because that gives them a competitive advantage over others.

 

18 hours ago, mr moose said:

Why didn't you balance your posts using the same metrics for the data that google collects form each user? How long would that be?

Sadly I can't do that because I don't even know what service I should compare against Windows 10's telemetry, and even if I did it seems like Google doesn't have a neat list of things collected unlike Microsoft which has it (for basic telemetry at least, nothing else from what I can tell though).

 

 

18 hours ago, mr moose said:

Or better yet, instead of trying to make the data look big by talking about pages in Metres, why don't you just tell people to use the telemetry reader and read the PP?

https://www.anoopcnair.com/analyse-telemetry-data-using-windows/

People could do that if they want, but it's in a rather cryptic format and I don't think most people will understand what they are reading.

It's also important to note that the diagnostic data viewer only shows telemetry data and nothing else. So it leaves out a lot of other information Microsoft collects. It also only shows the data collected in the last 30 days, only 1GB of space, and only the data from the specific device the app is stilled on (so if you have two computers, you can only see the data collected from one). So I think there is a risk that the diagnostics app gives a flawed viewed of what Microsoft collects. It's a really nice feature though.