Windows 10 proven to spy on users, regardless of settings or system tweaks.

[Blade of Grass]

Unsupported claims from untrustworthy news sources do not constitute news.

 

Moved to Operating Systems and Software.

[pjm0925]

Privacy was gone long before Win10.

[patrick3027]

http://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2015/08/even-when-told-not-to-windows-10-just-cant-stop-talking-to-microsoft/

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/13/windows-10-sends-identifiable-data-microsoft-despite-privacy-settings

http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-sends-data-to-microsoft-despite-privacy-settings/

But I guess those are all "untrustworthy news sources"

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

http://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2015/08/even-when-told-not-to-windows-10-just-cant-stop-talking-to-microsoft/

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/13/windows-10-sends-identifiable-data-microsoft-despite-privacy-settings

http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-sends-data-to-microsoft-despite-privacy-settings/

But I guess those are all "untrustworthy news sources"

 

It criticizes MS and ruins their name! Of course its untrustworthy news sources!

[LAwLz]

Unsupported claims from untrustworthy news sources do not constitute news.

Moved to Operating Systems and Software.

Did you miss the arstechnica article where they tested it themselves and also found suspicious behaviour?

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

http://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2015/08/even-when-told-not-to-windows-10-just-cant-stop-talking-to-microsoft/

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/13/windows-10-sends-identifiable-data-microsoft-despite-privacy-settings

http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-sends-data-to-microsoft-despite-privacy-settings/

But I guess those are all "untrustworthy news sources"

Did you miss the arstechnica article where they tested it themselves and also found suspicious behaviour?

 

One question for the both of you: Why could the OP not provide these sources instead of throwing snarky remarks at this imaginary "Microsoft Defence Force"?

[Trik'Stari]

One question for the both of you: Why could the OP not provide these sources instead of throwing snarky remarks at this imaginary "Microsoft Defence Force"?

Doesn't mean that people should continue to deny the obvious truth in front of them. Especially doesn't mean that it should be considered "not news" and moved to another section.

 

It should be quite obvious to anyone who looks, that windows 10 is spyware. Even if you try to turn the features off, it throws off fake errors and pretends that data isn't being sent, despite the fact that packets are still being sent. People really need to stop giving MS the benefit of a doubt.

 

Also, combine those facts with the fact that their EULA says they "WILL access personal data and information" not "we will access personal data and information, unless you don't want us to".

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

Doesn't mean that people should continue to deny the obvious truth in front of them. Especially doesn't mean that it should be considered "not news" and moved to another section.

 

It should be quite obvious to anyone who looks, that windows 10 is spyware. Even if you try to turn the features off, it throws off fake errors and pretends that data isn't being sent, despite the fact that packets are still being sent. People really need to stop giving MS the benefit of a doubt.

 

Also, combine those facts with the fact that their EULA says they "WILL access personal data and information" not "we will access personal data and information, unless you don't want us to".

 

"Obvious truth" on it's own is incredibly subjective. Here is how this works; regardless of how much the information confirms your personal bias (read: confirmation bias), the source of the information still needs to be verified. Up to now, All the OP has been doing is throwing slander and shoving open source down everybody else's throats. 

 

There is very big difference between concrete data and data that says what you want it to say. For an off-topic example, do you remember Andrew Wakefield and his scientifically faulty claims that vaccinations somehow cause autism? Look at what happened in the social context.

[LAwLz]

One question for the both of you: Why could the OP not provide these sources instead of throwing snarky remarks at this imaginary "Microsoft Defence Force"?

It wasn't OP that made the snarky remake about the Microsoft Defence Force. I did that, and I think it's painfully obvious that it's not imaginary.

 

But yeah the OP should have included some better sources. Maybe someone should create a new thread in the news section with Arstechnica, The Guardian and ZDNet as sources instead.

Because Ars did their own tests and it is 100% confirmed that Microsoft collets information which is tied to your specific computer despite you pressing opt-out of everything you possibly can.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

One question for the both of you: Why could the OP not provide these sources instead of throwing snarky remarks at this imaginary "Microsoft Defence Force"?

 

Because OP isn't online... 

[Trik'Stari]

"Obvious truth" on it's own is incredibly subjective. Here is how this works; regardless of how much the information confirms your personal bias (read: confirmation bias), the source of the information still needs to be verified. Up to now, All the OP has been doing is throwing slander and shoving open source down everybody else's throats. 

 

There is very big difference between concrete data and data that says what you want it to say. For an off-topic example, do you remember Andrew Wakefield and his scientifically faulty claims that vaccinations somehow cause autism? Look at what happened in the social context.

I know what confirmation bias is. I also know that arstechnica isn't an unverified or untrustworthy source.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

It wasn't OP that made the snarky remake about the Microsoft Defence Force. I did that, and I think it's painfully obvious that it's not imaginary.

 

But yeah the OP should have included some better sources. Maybe someone should create a new thread in the news section with Arstechnica, The Guardian and ZDNet as sources instead.

Because Ars did their own tests and it is 100% confirmed that Microsoft collets information which is tied to your specific computer despite you pressing opt-out of everything you possibly can.

 

It very much is imaginary, considering the position it's "members" were actually taking compared to what you are claiming they take. In other words; you took their stance out of context and skewed it to your favour.

 

Unfortunately, this thread already exists, and so did it's earlier counterpart, made by the same OP. That thread was locked down for not complying with the CoC.

 

I know what confirmation bias is. I also know that arstechnica isn't an unverified or untrustworthy source.

 

Then the OP should have put that as his original source, and kept the discussion civil and constructive. He failed miserably on both accounts.

[IdortMasterRace]

Yes, it has.

 

No, you're wrong. Stop using shit words to describe basic actions. I actively use words like 'internet search' to avoid the use of 'Google', a service that actively is against your basic privacy.

 

Same with using words like 'Photoshop' to describe image editing that might have nothing to do with Photoshop.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

Because OP isn't online... 

 

He was online when he posted the original topic, so he could still have used a better source at the time; speculation does not count as news. If there wasn't, he could have simply waited.

[GoodBytes]

Then the OP should have put that as his original source, and kept the discussion civil and constructive. He failed miserably on both accounts.

Correct. It is important, especially on the news section, for the OP to maintain the discussion to be civil, on topic, and update his original post as more details comes in, or corrections.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

He was online when he posted the original topic, so he could still have used a better source at the time; speculation does not count as news. If there wasn't, he could have simply waited.

 

OP wasn't online when the first arstechica link was provided. Why does anyone need to wait to share a piece of news?  

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

OP wasn't online when the first arstechica link was provided. Why does anyone need to wait to share a piece of news?  

 

Read above what @GoodBytes have said about this. It is more important to share news that is based on sound analysis, than it is to post news for the sake of posting news. The Andrew Wakefield example props up here again.

[Trik'Stari]

Read above what @GoodBytes have said about this. It is more important to share news that is based on sound analysis, than it is to post news for the sake of posting news. The Andrew Wakefield example props up here again.

Actually a better analogy for that principle would be modern large news organizations like CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News. Who go with a story based on how many "views" it will get them rather than whether or not it is true.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

Actually a better analogy for that principle would be modern large news organizations like CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News. Who go with a story based on how many "views" it will get them rather than whether or not it is true.

 

Which is exactly what is happening here. It goes beyond the true-or-false factor; the information behind the conclusion has to be sound and coherent.

[LAwLz]

It very much is imaginary, considering the position it's "members" were actually taking compared to what you are claiming they take. In other words; you took their stance out of context and skewed it to your favour.

 

Unfortunately, this thread already exists, and so did it's earlier counterpart, made by the same OP. That thread was locked down for not complying with the CoC.

What position am I claiming they are taking? I didn't include any names and I made the post without reading any replies in this thread. I didn't take anything anyone said and skewed it. If the 3 points I made fits some people in this thread then it fits because YOU interpret their posts that way. Not because I interpret them that way.

It seems like you are projecting right now.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Read above what @GoodBytes have said about this. It is more important to share news that is based on sound analysis, than it is to post news for the sake of posting news. The Andrew Wakefield example props up here again.

 

Not really a great point to put up here. Many threads with rubbish sources managed to go up in the past. If you're gonna be saying this here, I hope this tells me that the mods will be changing their practises for the better. 

[Trik'Stari]

Which is exactly what is happening here. It goes beyond the true-or-false factor; the information behind the conclusion has to be sound and coherent.

Which, as we have pointed out, it is. The same thing is being said by multiple different sources, with supporting evidence (the images provided)

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

Which, as we have pointed out, it is. The same thing is being said by multiple different sources, with supporting evidence (the images provided)

 

Yes, there are multiple sources provided, but they were provided very late in the discussion. The OP source, on it's own, is objectively useless for a citation. If you want the information to count as news, you need those sound evidence to be posted first, to start off the discussion.

[iwasaperson]

Correct. It is important, especially on the news section, for the OP to maintain the discussion to be civil, on topic, and update his original post as more details comes in, or corrections.

I've just completely redone the article using ars as a source.

 

Now that I'm using a trustworthy source, can you (or another mod) move this back to news?

[Trik'Stari]

Yes, there are multiple sources provided, but they were provided very late in the discussion. The OP source, on it's own, is objectively useless for a citation. If you want the information to count as news, you need those sound evidence to be posted first, to start off the discussion.

At this point I don't think that would matter, as I feel the mods would just move it, lock it, or merge it. As they have done with every windows 10 spying thread I've seen.