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

[mr moose]

Tell me, how or why, the original claim is false. Considering that evidence has been provided that it is true. That no matter what personal settings you choose, windows 10 is still sending, or attempting to send, data to the Microsoft servers.

 

 

Stop right there:

 

I did not say it was false, I said the original source does not contain enough evidence to make the claims it is,  knowing a packet is being sent to MS is not the same as knowing the contents of that packet.  The claim is that personal information is being sent to MS,  I can ask for more evidence of that without outright claiming it is wrong.  This is the burden of proof that you seem to be having issues with, the original source still hasn't provided that proof.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

Tell me, how or why, the original claim is false. Considering that evidence has been provided that it is true. That no matter what personal settings you choose, windows 10 is still sending, or attempting to send, data to the Microsoft servers.

And that's the point I am making. You continue to claim falsehood, based upon nothing, despite being provided evidence by 1 source that people are claiming is untrustworthy, and 1 that is.

Which is my point. Proof has been provided, counter evidence has not. What has been provided by the "opposition" is:

1. Personal Bias

2. innuendo

And that's about it. Evidence has been provided, by a reliable source, ars technica, that network traffic to windows servers, has been observed and documented, despite personal settings.

The only thing we don't know, is the exact contents of said network traffic. The fact is, the traffic still remains despite your own personal choices and desires.

I am increasingly doubtful you even understand the words coming out of your own mouth.

You cannot prove something is false when the counter-hypothesis was that it could not be so easily proven. You have made a logical contradiction by your own hands.

Want me to repeat Hempel's Paradox to you, or do you get the point here?

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

There is a big difference between asking for evidence to support the one source that all this is founded on and saying it's outright wrong.  And even if someone was to claim it is outright wrong the burden of proof still rests on the original claimant primarily.  To claim it is true, factual and that everyone who questions it should provide evidence that it is wrong is not how burden of proof works and is why you are getting "sick of this thread",  the original claim can't be proven and the same lack of evidence is why counter claims cannot also be presented to your satisfaction.  You simply cannot claim one to be true while nothing exists substantiate that.  

 

But wouldn't the opposing party(the ones against OP) have to prove a negative?

 

Proving a negative:

A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmed claim that conjects the non-existence or exclusion of something; when disputed, proof of impossibility or evidence of absence are typical methods to fulfil the burden of proof. Such a claim may exist as a counter point to a previous claim. 

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

But wouldn't the opposing party(the ones against OP) have to prove a negative?

Wait... How is stating the lack of sound evidence a negative that has to be proven? As I said to the other person, this is a contradiction.

[mr moose]

But wouldn't the opposing party(the ones against OP) have to prove a negative?

 

burden of proof rests on the original claim,  if that cannot be satisfied then the counter claim (unless proposing an alternative) does not need to be evidenced becasue the original claim is actually speculation only.  If the original claim can be evidenced then the burden of proof moves to the counter claim.

 

When you start claiming something is true becasue you can't prove it isn't,  you get into a religious debates because, after all, you can't prove God doesn't exist.

[Stuff_]

The sole issue is PACKETS of data are being sent to MS sservers. What they contain, who knows. But you can't make the assumption it is extremely sensitive data. That is ridiculous.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

burden of proof rests on the original claim,  if that cannot be satisfied then the counter claim (unless proposing an alternative) does not need to be evidenced becasue the original claim is actually speculation only.  If the original claim can be evidenced then the burden of proof moves to the counter claim.

 

When you start claiming something is true becasue you can't prove it isn't,  you get into a religious debates because, after all, you can't prove God doesn't exist.

 

Now that the arstechnica source/proof/evidence has been provided, wouldn't the opposing team have to counter claim with proof or evidence? 

[mr moose]

Now that the arstechnica source/proof/evidence has been provided, wouldn't the opposing team have to counter claim with proof or evidence? 

 

The Ars technica article ads nothing to what was already said.  In fact this is what ars technica had to say about the data they had been observing:

 

We've asked Microsoft if there is any way to disable this additional communication or information about what its purpose is. We were told "As part of delivering Windows 10 as a service, updates may be delivered to provide ongoing new features to Bing search, such as new visual layouts, styles and search code. No query or search usage data is sent to Microsoft, in accordance with the customer's chosen privacy settings. This also applies to searching offline for items such as apps, files and settings on the device." This is consistent with what we saw (there is no query or search data transmitted)

 

 

What it is effectively saying is that while there is data going back to MS, we don't know what it is and MS say it isn't personal (which they can confirm to a degree). 

 

The counter claims are simply that you cannot claim it to be personal data when no one has been able to show that it is.   If I was to claim the data being sent back is specifically XXX data, then sure, the burden of proof would be on me to evidence said claim.  But I am not making any claims, I am only asking people to evidence their claims.

[Trik'Stari]

Stop right there:

 

I did not say it was false, I said the original source does not contain enough evidence to make the claims it is,  knowing a packet is being sent to MS is not the same as knowing the contents of that packet.  The claim is that personal information is being sent to MS,  I can ask for more evidence of that without outright claiming it is wrong.  This is the burden of proof that you seem to be having issues with, the original source still hasn't provided that proof.

You are correct in that statement. I cannot prove that it is personal information being sent to MS, what I can prove, and what has been proven, is that information of some kind has been sent. If you are not denying that claim, then we are in agreement on that claim specifically.

 

I am increasingly doubtful you even understand the words coming out of your own mouth.

You cannot prove something is false when the counter-hypothesis was that it could not be so easily proven. You have made a logical contradiction by your own hands.

Want me to repeat Hempel's Paradox to you, or do you get the point here?

Same as above.

 

What is in dispute here, from what I can tell, is the claim that personal information is being sent. And since NONE of us can prove, or disprove it, then it's a moot freaking point. Those of us assuming that personal information is being sent, and those of us assuming that only "meta data" is being sent, are both equally correct and incorrect.

 

Basically, what we have is Shrodingers cat. No one can prove anything, just speculate.

 

My speculation, or assertion, is that because Windows 10 is still sending data to Microsoft, regardless of the settings chosen by the user, including generating false errors, it must be personal data. I cannot prove this however.

 

ONE THING, that could, or probably SHOULD, be done is this:

 

Someone needs to compare the data being sent, or the volume of data being sent, in a Windows 10 installation with privacy settings turned "on", and in another one with the same settings turned "off". While this wouldn't prove anything, I feel that it would lend credence to the statement that "only meta data is being sent". IT would be a "benchmark" if you will.

 

Agreed?

[Stuff_]

Now that the arstechnica source/proof/evidence has been provided, wouldn't the opposing team have to counter claim with proof or evidence? 

Well they proved that it's happening. Microsoft has said that it's all tied into their services. So, unless you can prove otherwise, you have to take Microsoft's word; like it or not.

[mr moose]

Well they proved that it's happening. Microsoft has said that it's all tied into their services. So, unless you can prove otherwise, you have to take Microsoft's word; like it or not.

 

Or we wait until ITC god with corporate resources and bee in their bonnet decides to go to town on MS and the US government.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

The Ars technica article ads nothing to what was already said.  In fact this is what ars technica had to say about the data they had been observing:

 

What it is effectively saying is that while there is data going back to MS, we don't know what it is and MS say it isn't personal (which they can confirm to a degree). 

 

The counter claims are simply that you cannot claim it to be personal data when no one has been able to show that it is.   If I was to claim the data being sent back is specifically XXX data, then sure, the burden of proof would be on me to evidence said claim.  But I am not making any claims, I am only asking people to evidence their claims.

 

This reminds me, what is the original claim? If we were to go by the the arstechnica article, the claim was that Win 10 will ignore some user settings and continue sending data to MS for certain functions. Wouldn't the counter argument of personal data would be pretty irrelevant?

 

I ain't here to make any claims as well but this whole thread seemed fairly one sided if all everyone does is question the sources provided without providing anything...

[Michael McAllister]

Now that the arstechnica source/proof/evidence has been provided, wouldn't the opposing team have to counter claim with proof or evidence? 

 

The evidence that has been presented has only proven that packets are being sent to certain Microsoft servers regardless of the settings chosen.  It has not proven that the data being sent is in any way personally identifiable information.  Further inquiry is necessary to verify these concerns.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

The evidence that has been presented has only proven that packets are being sent to certain Microsoft servers regardless of the settings chosen.  It has not proven that the data being sent is in any way personally identifiable information.  Further inquiry is necessary to verify these concerns.

 

Can I ask what's the original claim? 

[Michael McAllister]

Can I ask what's the original claim? 

 

The original claim was that Microsoft is spying on users regardless of the settings they have chosen.  This claim has not met the burden of proof considering that it is not known what information, if anything, is being sent back to them.  If anything is being sent, it seems to be fairly innocuous thus far.

[swifty7]

so what do you guys think of this app called 'donotspy10'

 

http://bgr.com/2015/08/05/window-10-privacy-settings-how-to-stop-spying/

 

is this legit? or is it a virus in disguise?

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

The original claim was that Microsoft is spying on users regardless of the settings they have chosen.  This claim has not met the burden of proof considering that it is not known what information, if anything, is being sent back to them.  If anything is being sent, it seems to be fairly innocuous thus far.

 

And where can I find that in this thread?

[Michael McAllister]

And where can I find that in this thread?

 

I'm not sure what you mean.  That claim is made in the title of this thread.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

I'm not sure what you mean.  That claim is made in the title of this thread.

 

I just wanted to clarify since the title made no mention of collecting user data. To spy on someone can mean knowing information about or the activities of a person to which 

the arstechinca shows that when a user performs some specific activity, data is sent to MS. 

[mr moose]

This reminds me, what is the original claim? If we were to go by the the arstechnica article, the claim was that Win 10 will ignore some user settings and continue sending data to MS for certain functions. Wouldn't the counter argument of personal data would be pretty irrelevant?

 

I ain't here to make any claims as well but this whole thread seemed fairly one sided if all everyone does is question the sources provided without providing anything...

 

The thread title is the original claim.    Most times the source doesn't need to be questioned, because most times the source is multiple and evidenced when it makes direct claims.  The ars technica article is an addition to the original source but doesn't make the same claims.  The problem is people are taking the original source as gospel truth even after it was explained that the original source is only speculation.    I would much rather discuss the Ars technica article.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

The thread title is the original claim.    Most times the source doesn't need to be questioned, because most times the source is multiple and evidenced when it makes direct claims.  The ars technica article is an addition to the original source but doesn't make the same claims.  The problem is people are taking the original source as gospel truth even after it was explained that the original source is only speculation.    I would much rather discuss the Ars technica article.

 

Since OP has edited the source to the arstechnica article and the title mentioned nothing about collecting personal data. What would the counter claim be at this point? 

[mr moose]

Since OP has edited the source to the arstechnica article and the title mentioned nothing about collecting personal data. What would the counter claim be at this point? 

 

editing the OP and removing links to the fundamental catalyst of this discussion doesn't change the legitimacy of the discussion, That original source is still what started this entire debate and the thread title still reflects the original source and not the Ars technica source.     In fact the Ars technica article doesn't even have the words spy or spying in it.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

editing the OP and removing links to the fundamental catalyst of this discussion doesn't change the legitimacy of the discussion, That original source is still what started this entire debate and the thread title still reflects the original source and not the Ars technica source.     In fact the Ars technica article doesn't even have the words spy or spying in it.

 

So... are you suggesting that the debate shouldn't move on? 

[mr moose]

So... are you suggesting that the debate shouldn't move on? 

no, I am saying that changing the source article doesn't suddenly make the discussion irrelevant.  People where questioning the original source (the one deleted), not the ars technica article.  Thus this discussion is about claims that MS is spying because that is what the titles claims and what the original source claimed. 

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

no, I am saying that changing the source article doesn't suddenly make the discussion irrelevant.  People where questioning the original source (the one deleted), not the ars technica article.  Thus this discussion is about claims that MS is spying because that is what the titles claims and what the original source claimed. 

 

Reading the ars technica article again, it also suggests that MS might have been "spying" on its users. Although a ctrl + F wouldn't return the word spying, to spy on someone can mean to know about or to know about the activities of the person without consent. Which the ars technica article has shown that data is sent to (presumably)MS whenever a user performs certain activities while ignoring the user settings.