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

[Nowak]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

That might just mean that it only disables whatever info they could collect in Vista, but leaves all the new Windows 10-exclusive data harvesting enabled even with the GPO turned on.

Good point.

[79wjd]

@LAwLz I'm sure someone has modified GPO and then checked where traffic was being sent to in order to see what difference the change made. I'm pretty sure someone on the forums did that, but I don't remember who or what the results were. Ultimately I think they just block all communication with Microsoft servers from their router.

[jagdtigger]

2 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

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

 

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

Wrong, im forced to use it because it has a monopoly! Big difference. If not for that 2 reason i would dump windows without thinking. My laptops for instance have linux as main OS, windows only started when i want to play something. I already have a "bad rep" for sending everything in ODF .

Edited January 12, 2017 by jagdtigger

[79wjd]

27 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Wrong, im forced to use it because it has a monopoly! Big difference. If not for that 2 reason i would dump windows without thinking. My laptops for instance have linux as main OS, windows only started when i want to play something. I already have a "bad rep" for sending everything in ODF .

Firstly, it doesn't have a monopoly, it's just a question of what developers tend to put effort into. Secondly, NO ONE is forcing you to play games. NO ONE is forcing you to go to school and take a course that requires IE. Both of those are 100% YOU'RE DECISION. You CHOOSE to use Windows because it is the only thing that does what you're doing, but you don't HAVE to do those things. 

 

Using windows is entirely your choice. End of story. There is literally nothing that forces you to use windows. 

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

True, you could give up that job that requires you to run proprietary software.  You could look for a bank that allows you to do online banking in a different browser than IE.  But those options are frankly ridiculous. 

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, Captain Chaos said:

True, you could give up that job that requires you to run proprietary software.  You could look for a bank that allows you to do online banking in a different browser than IE.  But those options are frankly ridiculous. 

I'm not saying otherwise. All I'm saying is that you have no "right" to privacy when using a private company's software. If you choose to use windows, then you also choose to deal with whatever bullshit Microsoft pulls.

[Delicieuxz]

15 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

I'm not saying otherwise. All I'm saying is that you have no "right" to privacy when using a private company's software. If you choose to use windows, then you also choose to deal with whatever bullshit Microsoft pulls.

That's an arbitrary personal viewpoint, which is, frankly, complete nonsense. I have a right to privacy when using offline software on my personal machine. A software company doesn't have the right to unilaterally give itself liberties to my machine on the basis that I paid for certain software functionality.

 

To use the same argument, if Microsoft is chooses to accept my money in exchange for its software, then it also chooses to allow whatever I decide to do with that software, such as printing unlimited copies of it, and selling it. You can't just decide one party has power to give itself any additional power that it chooses. Data-collection is not what people are buying Windows for.

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

That's an arbitrary personal viewpoint, which is, frankly, complete nonsense. I have a right to privacy when using offline software on my personal machine.

You have a right to go out of your way to give yourself privacy (blocking it from reporting, setting up GPOs, etc...), but Microsoft doesn't have any obligation to give you privacy when you're using private software that they developed. 

 

It's like freedom of speech. Any private establishment can throw you out for basically any reason they want (racism and the like aside) with no legal repercussions. 

[Delicieuxz]

4 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

You have a right to go out of your way to give yourself privacy (blocking it from reporting, setting up GPOs, etc...), but Microsoft doesn't have any obligation to give you privacy when you're using private software that they developed. 

 

It's like freedom of speech. Any private establishment can throw you out for basically any reason they want (racism and the like aside) with no legal repercussions. 

A private establishment implies private or licensed space, which the owner or licenser of the space possesses rights over - which is what makes it private. In the case of Windows, it is installed on a private machine, which does not belong to Microsoft, and the licensed instance of the software is owned by the person who bought the license, and therefore that instance is legally the license-holder's private space - not Microsoft's. Microsoft has no decision-making authority or rights over an instance of software which they've sold to someone else - those things transferred along with the ownership of the license.

[jagdtigger]

9 minutes ago, Captain Chaos said:

True, you could give up that job that requires you to run proprietary software.  You could look for a bank that allows you to do online banking in a different browser than IE.  But those options are frankly ridiculous. 

Well actually my bank allows it .

 

@djdwosk97

It has an effective monopoly both in office environment and on the consumer market. They made sure that no other office suite could handle properly their stuff. They made sure schools teaching on windows. Then they came with DX. Then Secure boot. Now with the crappy deal with intel and the media mafia to integrate some crappy DRM at the HW level. Sorry to break it to you but its time to wake up...

 

And because of this many thing developed windows only. So at the end of the day you are still forced to use their crap. Entertainment and education shouldn't be allowed to be tied to one platform!

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Microsoft has no decision-making authority over an instance of software which they've sold to someone else.

You're right, they can't stop you from blocking the IP addresses where telemetry gets sent to. But they also have no obligation to give you an easy way to turn those settings off. 

 

3 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Sorry to break it to you but its time to wake up...

 

And because of this many thing developed windows only. So at the end of the day you are still forced to use their crap. Entertainment and education shouldn't be allowed to be tied to one platform!

Tell that to my Mac which I use 90% of the time or the Linux machines/VMs I do a bunch of my school work on.

 

And Microsoft Office isn't limited to Windows and there are plenty of companies that don't use Office. The fact that some software is Windows only isn't Microsoft's fault but rather developers only spending time developing for what is more commonly used. Again, nothing is forcing you to use any of that software. 

[Doobeedoo]

Hmm, well maybe if they were more transparent about it and offer detailed ticks on everything and explained each, maybe some people would actually choose to so called help them collect certain data.

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

Hmm, well maybe if they were more transparent about it and offer detailed ticks on everything and explained each, maybe some people would actually choose to so called help them collect certain data.

Agreed. 

 

When I finally stop being lazy I'm going to block Windows update with a GPO, not because I don't want the updates -- I usually keep my system updated anyway. No, the reason I want to block them is because I'm fucking sick of Windows deciding to restart my computer while the CPU is pinned at 99% transcoding something and then having to restart a 10 hour transcode and/or losing a day/week worth of transcoding whatever was in the queue. 

[LAwLz]

28 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

You have a right to go out of your way to give yourself privacy (blocking it from reporting, setting up GPOs, etc...), but Microsoft doesn't have any obligation to give you privacy when you're using private software that they developed. 

 

It's like freedom of speech. Any private establishment can throw you out for basically any reason they want (racism and the like aside) with no legal repercussions. 

That's like saying the person who built your house/apartment building should have the right to break in at any time and go though your things, or spy on you through your windows.

What, you don't like that the person who build your house is looking though your daughter's bedroom window at 2 AM? Then you should have built your own house!

 

I know that Microsoft are (somewhat) allowed to do what they are doing (although they have been investigated by several governments because of privacy concerns in Windows 10), but I think it is a completely wrong approach to just go "well you bought it and they are a private company, so they are allowed to do whatever they want".

[79wjd]

13 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That's like saying the person who built your house/apartment building should have the right to break in at any time and go though your things, or spy on you through your windows.

What, you don't like that the person who build your house is looking though your daughter's bedroom window at 2 AM? Then you should have built your own house!

 

I know that Microsoft are (somewhat) allowed to do what they are doing (although they have been investigated by several governments because of privacy concerns in Windows 10), but I think it is a completely wrong approach to just go "well you bought it and they are a private company, so they are allowed to do whatever they want".

If you agreed to allow the builder to break into your house when you accepted the builder then he has every right to break into your house -- now you can still put up walls and moats to try and stop him, but he does still have every right to break into your house. 

 

Again, I'm not saying it's a good thing or that I'm okay with it. I'm simply saying that Microsoft has no legal obligation to provide you with privacy from them.

[Kamina]

Don't know about you guys, but I see zero ads on W10.

Must be the anti-beacon I use from spybot or something I disabled a long time ago from the system files.

[Trik'Stari]

Quote

"Basic" is the lowest those two editions can go. Right now, it includes the state of your hardware and its specifications, your internet connection quality, records of crashes and hangs by software, any compatibility problems, driver usage data, which apps you've installed and how you use them, and other bits and pieces. According to Redmond, the new "basic" level of snooping will cover:

Yeah...... No. That's still more than I wish to give. Either turn it off completely, or your IP addresses will be blocked with third party hardware (not to mention me not "upgrading" at all until I absolutely have to).

 

This is a fucking joke right? Just fuck off Microsoft. We are not your beta testers., nor are we a commodity to be sold. "Which apps you've installed and how you use them" qualifies as marketing data.

[Trik'Stari]

2 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

If you agreed to allow the builder to break into your house when you accepted the builder then he has every right to break into your house -- now you can still put up walls and moats to try and stop him, but he does still have every right to break into your house. 

 

Again, I'm not saying it's a good thing or that I'm okay with it. I'm simply saying that Microsoft has no legal obligation to provide you with privacy from them.

True, but morality and legality do not always align. This is still wrong from a moral standpoint. I would also argue that they are legally responsible when my system(s) get ransomwared through their bullshit, or when my information gets stolen because someone used their update services to redirect the telemetry and steal my information.

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

True, but morality and legality do not always align. This is still wrong from a moral standpoint. I would also argue that they are legally responsible when my system(s) get ransomwared through their bullshit, or when my information gets stolen because someone used their update services to redirect the telemetry and steal my information.

Very true. Although I don't know if I'd personally consider it a moral issue..... It's not something I'm happy with (although I'm honestly too lazy to block the IPs and set up GPOs).

 

If you have an issue because of a hole they left open then yes, they would (or should) be responsible. But is that the case here? As for telemetry being redirected, if someone gains enough access to redirect telemetry then they're probably also in a position to just set up the sending of data in the first place (regardless of what Microsoft had put in place).

[Trik'Stari]

49 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Very true. Although I don't know if I'd personally consider it a moral issue..... It's not something I'm happy with (although I'm honestly too lazy to block the IPs and set up GPOs).

 

If you have an issue because of a hole they left open then yes, they would (or should) be responsible. But is that the case here? As for telemetry being redirected, if someone gains enough access to redirect telemetry then they're probably also in a position to just set up the sending of data in the first place (regardless of what Microsoft had put in place).

It's more efficient to go after the update systems. Why? Because you spread a wider net, and are more likely to get more information by going after a system that allows you access to potentially millions of devices and users.

 

I swear, M$ is just taking the cyber security rule book and breaking every single rule they can, in the name of attaining profit for themselves. They just keep making themselves a bigger target.

 

Imagine how much financial information you could steal, by uploading a single piece of malware to an update server (or an update server that controls other update servers) and having it filter down to the end user to redirect telemetry information (including a key-logger) to a system you control.

 

OR, sending out ransomware to extort said users instead of simply trying to steal their information.

 

I'm arguing a shotgun instead of a sniper rifle. If you want a bird to eat, you use a shotgun against a flock, not a sniper rifle.

[79wjd]

19 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

-snip-

But what you're describing could happen with any update system -- even if Microsoft didn't force it. Or are you focusing on the fact that W10 does P2P updates....to which I would argue that P2P is a much more scalable system (I mean, there is a reason why P2P was invented in the firstplace). Although, in fairness, P2P was good because it kept infrastructure costs low -- something Microsoft doesn't really need to worry about (other than for profit maximization reasons).

[Dabombinable]

No, the pricks can't have my typing and inking data when MS Office or Libre office crash due to a several thousand page document.

[Trik'Stari]

6 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

But what you're describing could happen with any update system -- even if Microsoft didn't force it. Or are you focusing on the fact that W10 does P2P updates....to which I would argue that P2P is a much more scalable system (I mean, there is a reason why P2P was invented in the firstplace). Although, in fairness, P2P was good because it kept infrastructure costs low -- something Microsoft doesn't really need to worry about (other than for profit maximization reasons).

Yes, it could. The problem comes when you force the updates.

 

A good rule of thumb for security, is to always wait to update if you can help it. Let someone else go first and if they don't get burned, you can go ahead and update, relatively confident that the update is fine. But with Windows 10, you don't have that option. You can delay, but not prevent the updates without doing things that your average user would struggle to do even with clearly written instructions. (You know, the average users that you read about in Tales from Tech Support, etc.)

 

You know. These kinds of people: 

 

 https://www.reddit.com/r/talesfromtechsupport/comments/5nmgmo/overheard_from_the_sales_floor_we_dont_make_that/

 

[Void Reaper]

Dunno if i'm just a downer here, but this is just purely cosmetical. Before that update, back when i upgraded from W7 to W10 in the free period, disabling things in the Settings still left every single thing enabled in Services, so you have to disabled it over there aswell. Some things even got "locked" after some Updates so you can't manually disabled them anymore. Even then i had to disable some things in the registry.. and now my Calculator, Edge (even though i'm using Waterfox anyways), Image Viewer and the Search in the Start Menu don't work anymore.

[Nowak]

8 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

"Which apps you've installed and how you use them" qualifies as marketing data.

Well, of course. They have a store they want to push.