US senator's proposed data privacy law could fine company execs $5 million and send them to prison for 20 years

[Amazonsucks]

27 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

Seems the American Academy of Opthamology disagrees...

https://www.aao.org/eye-health/news/smartphone-blue-light-is-not-blinding-you

 

I never said it makes you go blind first off so that article doesnt "disagree with me". It doesnt address anything i spoke about so your use of the article is very misleading or you simply dont care to research what i actually said. I have read it and others like it before. They said "no, blue light doesnt make you go blind". Yes thats true that you will not immediately go blind from looking at a monitor or phone like an arc welder or nuke. No shit Sherlock, no one ever claimed you would though.

 

They dont even address the well established scientific fact that short wavelength visible blue light causes increased ROS production, and not just in the retinal pigment epithelium. Blue light is literally used to kill skin bacteria in acne treatment for the exact reason that creates ROS in the skin as well!

 

There is also no mention of rhodopsin mediated photo reversal caused by blue light. Not sure why theyd gloss over that fact too. 

 

But the issue is increasing damage to the retina over time as a result of the spectral power distribution of the light through increased ROS and rhodopsin mediated photo reversal. You know, two things that article makes no mention of at all...

 

At least they did mention the circadian rythm disruption, but didnt bother to mention how it works(via the intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells suppressing melatonin secretion).

 

But dude feel free to sit in a room full of blue LEDs as your light source or stare at a blue screen all day. Its not my eyes that will suffer. Be a living test subject and try it if you want to. Let me know how your vision is in a few months!

 

 

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, 2FA said:

Yes, you are. Show me the legal code stating theft is determinate by threat to life.

I never said it was. I said that the need to refuse to be considered theft depends on if your life is threatened
If someone asks for your money and you give them it, its not theft
If someone asks for your money with a gun pointed at you, and you give them it, it is theft.

 

51 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

They take it by stealing it without asking about whether you give them permission to have any of it. 

You give them the permission by continuing to use windows. If you want them to stop, stop using microsoft products. If you know it is happening and do nothing about it and your life isn't being threatened, then its not theft.

[Delicieuxz]

11 minutes ago, poochyena said:

If someone asks for your money and you give them it, its not theft

That is not in any way at all relatable to Microsoft taking people's data through Windows 10, which Microsoft is doing without asking for it, and without it being given by the data's owners. Hence, Microsoft is literally, in every actual and truthful meaning of the word, stealing people's data - and lying about people being able to prevent it.

 

 

11 minutes ago, poochyena said:

You give them the permission by continuing to use windows. If you want them to stop, stop using microsoft products. If you know it is happening and do nothing about it and your life isn't being threatened, then its not theft.

You're making up crazy nonsense. Stop it. Using a companies product is obviously not giving them your data when the activities you do with that product are not related to sending data. There is nothing in the Microsoft EULA that entitles Microsoft to the vast amounts of data they are stealing. Whether a person's life is threatened or not has nothing to do with the meaning of 'steal' and 'theft'.

 

You're either deliberately lying because you're on the payroll of some software developer or you have your own published software that siphons people's data without permission, or, you talked yourself into a hole and now you don't know how to get yourself out of it. Either way, you're entirely wrong and the things you've been claiming are absurd.

[mr moose]

40 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

That is not in any way at all relatable to Microsoft taking people's data through Windows 10, which Microsoft is doing without asking for it, and without it being given by the data's owners. Hence, Microsoft is literally, in every actual and truthful meaning of the word, stealing people's data - and lying about people being able to prevent it.

 

 

You're making up crazy nonsense. Stop it. Using a companies product is obviously not giving them your data when the activities you do with that product are not related to sending data. There is nothing in the Microsoft EULA that entitles Microsoft to the vast amounts of data they are stealing. Whether a person's life is threatened or not has nothing to do with the meaning of 'steal' and 'theft'.

 

You're either deliberately lying because you're on the payroll of some software developer or you have your own published software that siphons people's data without permission, or, you talked yourself into a hole and now you don't know how to get yourself out of it. Either way, you're entirely wrong and the things you've been claiming are absurd.

I think Poochyena just means that it can only be theft it it is taken from you against your will.   One of the ways to do that is by threatening you with physical harm, it is by no means the only way.  If you know MS uses a certain amount of data from your PC and you continue to use windows then it is not theft because you agree to it. 

 

If they tell you what data they are taking (and so far there is no evidence they are taking more than what they claim) and you continue to use the product it isn't theft.   If (and that is a big IF), they are taking data that you are not being told about (and you also consider piracy by the same standard too be theft), then it can be called theft.

 

 

[Amazonsucks]

The Windows 10 terms of service were initially only fully viewable if you installed it. Idk if that changed because i never used that POS OS. I installed it over Win 8.1 on a laptop and quickly uninstalled it when i realized its just a shitty spyware/M$ too cheap to use their bandwidth so lets torrent updates reskin of 8.

[Delicieuxz]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I think Poochyena just means that it can only be theft it it is taken from you against your will.   One of the ways to do that is by threatening you with physical harm, it is by no means the only way.  If you know MS uses a certain amount of data from your PC and you continue to use windows then it is not theft because you agree to it. 

 

If they tell you what data they are taking (and so far there is no evidence they are taking more than what they claim) and you continue to use the product it isn't theft.   If (and that is a big IF), they are taking data that you are not being told about (and you also consider piracy by the same standard too be theft), then it can be called theft.

So, if somebody is syphoning gas from your vehicle and you know about it yet continue to use your vehicle because it's your vehicle that you need to use and you are entitled to use it regardless, that makes the syphoning of your gas from it not theft? It is certainly theft.

 

If people have the option to stop something and don't stop it, it can still potentially be theft, depending on the circumstances. But, in Windows 10, which Windows owners are entitled to use, there is no option to stop the extreme amount of data-harvesting and so it cannot be said that it is a person's choice to let that data go to Microsoft.

 

If there was an option to stop the data-harvesting in Windows 10 (which Windows owners are entitled to use) but people chose to not use that option, then it wouldn't be theft.

 

Since Microsoft is unilaterally taking people's data without permission and with there being no option to stop it, it is theft.

[mr moose]

11 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

So, if somebody is syphoning gas from your vehicle and you know about it yet continue to use your vehicle because it's your vehicle that you need to use and you are entitled to use it regardless, that makes the syphoning of your gas from it not theft? It is certainly theft.

That makes no sense.  Seriously, that is not even an analogy to anything being discussed here. 

 

11 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

If people have the option to stop something and don't stop it, it can still potentially be theft, depending on the circumstances.

If they knowingly allow it to happen with an option to ask for it to stop but don't then it is not theft.

 

11 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

But, in Windows 10, which Windows owners are entitled to use, there is no option to stop the extreme amount of data-harvesting and so it cannot be said that it is a person's choice to let that data go to Microsoft.

It is a sales condition of windows ten that some data is harvested, it is not a condition for all data.  Therefore if you decide to use windows knowing the base amount of data is being taken then you are giving it permission to do so.  This is not theft, as much as you want it to be, it isn't.

 

11 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

If there was an option to stop the data-harvesting in Windows 10 (which Windows owners are entitled to use) but people chose to not use that option, then it wouldn't be theft.

This is correct, but you have to remember not paying for or using windows is still an option. 

11 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Since Microsoft is unilaterally taking people's data without permission and with there being no option to stop it, it is theft.

You are told about it when you install it.  There is no way you can install windows without being told what data is being collected.  That is what the DPA issue with windows was and that is why it has changed.  Not only do they tell exactly what data they are taking but you can opt out of some of it. 

 

And please don't try and tell me they are taking more data than they tell you about,  there is no evidence for that I am not about to entertain conspiracy theories.

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And please don't try and tell me they are taking more data than they tell you about,  there is no evidence for that I am not about to entertain conspiracy theories.

There's no option to opt out, only to opt in at two different, albeit vague, levels. 

Spoiler

Or custom options, but those still aren't on or off as they still collect data even if everything is set to "no".

 

[Delicieuxz]

18 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That makes no sense.  Seriously, that is not even an analogy to anything being discussed here.

You just said if people continue to use their Windows 10 knowing that Microsoft is taking their data then it's not theft. So, somebody continuing to use their car knowing that somebody is syphoning their gas is an analogy.

 

Quote

If they knowingly allow it to happen with an option to ask for it to stop but don't then it is not theft.

If there was an option to stop it I would agree with you. But, that doesn't relate to what we've been discussing, which is the situation of people not allowing it to happen but having no option to stop it - making the taking of their data theft.

 

Quote

It is a sales condition of windows ten that some data is harvested, it is not a condition for all data.  Therefore if you decide to use windows knowing the base amount of data is being taken then you are giving it permission to do so.  This is not theft, as much as you want it to be, it isn't.

The only data mentioned in the Windows 10 EULA (which to a large extent isn't even binding in the world) is data necessary for engaging and using the requested functions of online services. Microsoft is harvesting mounds of personal activity data not related to any online services at the "Basic" setting in Windows 10.

 

Quote

This is correct, but you have to remember not paying for or using windows is still an option.

People are entitled to use their owned copies of Windows 10. And many people have to use their copies of Windows 10. Not using it is not an option for many people, and regardless of it being an option people are entitled to use their property.

 

Quote

You are told about it when you install it.  There is no way you can install windows without being told what data is being collected.  That is what the DPA issue with windows was and that is why it has changed.  Not only do they tell exactly what data they are taking but you can opt out of some of it. 

 

And please don't try and tell me they are taking more data than they tell you about,  there is no evidence for that I am not about to entertain conspiracy theories.

Microsoft's installation process does not inform people of the data they collect - not even close.

 

Microsoft's own documentation and their Diagnostic Data Viewer tool both prove that Microsoft is harvest oceans more data than what is mentioned during the installation process of Windows 10 and what is mentioned in the OS after installation is completed and the various settings panels are reviewed.

 

This is the Windows 10 installation data-harvesting overview:

 

 

 

Rather than inform people, Microsoft's post-GDPR descriptions try to intimidate and coerce people into enabling the maximum amount of data-harvesting, and connive people about the actual effects and benefits of toning down data-harvesting.

 

And now this is Microsoft's own incomplete documentation of what data Microsoft is harvesting at the minimum setting in Windows 10, which contains over 3,500 unique data fields that record every parameter of every single smallest offline action you make in your Windows 10 OS:

 

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/configuration/basic-level-windows-diagnostic-events-and-fields

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

There's no option to opt out, only to opt in at two different, albeit vague, levels. 

  Hide contents

Or custom options, but those still aren't on or off as they still collect data even if everything is set to "no".

 

I'd like to see the evidence they are collecting data they say they aren't.  Otherwise I am not entertaining conspiracies.

Just now, Delicieuxz said:

You just said if people continue to use their Windows 10 knowing that Microsoft is taking their data then it's not theft.

Correct, because you use the product under the conditions of the sale.  If you don't agree to the data being taken then don't use it.

Just now, Delicieuxz said:

So, somebody continuing to use their car knowing that somebody is syphoning their gas is an analogy.

Which is in no way relatable to our discussion.   How is someone siphoning gas anywhere near related to selling a product with conditions?

 

IF the siphoner was also the person who sold you the car on the condition that he can siphon the gas then sure, that's not actually theft because you agreed to the condition of sale.

Just now, Delicieuxz said:

If there was an option to stop it I would agree with you. But, that doesn't relate to what we've been discussing, which is the situation of people not allowing it to happen but having no option to stop it - making the taking of their data theft.

You do have the option, stop using it.   I didn't use it for almost 4 years, and that was back when Linux wasn't even a fart on windows for comparable software.

 

Just now, Delicieuxz said:

The only data mentioned in the Windows 10 EULA (which to a large extent isn't even binding in the world) is data necessary for engaging online services. Microsoft is harvesting mounds of data not related to online services at the "Basic" setting in Windows 10.

And?

Just now, Delicieuxz said:

People are entitled to use their owned copies of Windows 10. And many people have to use their copies of Windows 10. Not using it is not an option for many people, and regardless of it being an option people are entitled to use their property.

They are entitled to use it under the conditions it is sold.   You keep forgetting that bit,  I nor you can demand that any company change their product for us, either we buy what they have to offer or I don't.  Regardless of whether you feel there is an option or not, your circumstances nor consumer rights change that. So long as they tell you what data they are collecting you can't demand that change, you can only seek an alternative.

Just now, Delicieuxz said:

Microsoft's installation process does not inform people of the data they collect - not even close.

Yes it does. not only does it tell that but there are links the policies. That all changed after the DPA investigation.

Just now, Delicieuxz said:

Microsoft's own documentation and their Diagnostic Data Viewer tool both prove that Microsoft is harvest oceans more data than what is mentioned during the installation process of Windows 10 and what is mentioned in the OS after installation is completed and the various settings panels are reviewed.

Ah, so they do tell you. you know you can access the documentation during the install process. 

 

https://www.avg.com/en/signal/windows-10-privacy-everything-you-need-to-know-to-keep-windows-10-from-spying-on-you

 

 

[Canada EH]

1 hour ago, poochyena said:

If someone asks for your money and you give them it, its not theft

Well, yes a gun or a knife or any aggressive action even if it is non contact would be considered theft. Each state/prov is different.

[Delicieuxz]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

I'd like to see the evidence they are collecting data they say they aren't.  Otherwise I am not entertaining conspiracies.

Look at the Windows 10 data-harvesting configuration panel mentions as being harvested and then look at what's actually being harvested.

 

Quote

Correct, because you use the product under the conditions of the sale.  If you don't agree to the data being taken then don't use it.

There literally are no conditions related to the data that Microsoft is harvesting in Windows 10 tied to the purchase of Windows 10.

 

Also, Windows 10 is not sold conditionally, but as a packaged product. The offer is Windows 10 [edition name] for X amount of money. And an entity doesn't retain ownership over what they've sold to dictate extra conditions after the fact. Nor is there any claim made by Microsoft in the Windows 10 EULA to try to entitle Microsoft to the data they harvest without permission.

 

Quote

Which is in no way relatable to our discussion.   How is someone siphoning gas anywhere near related to selling a product with conditions?

Siphoning gas is interchangeable with siphoning data. Windows 10 is not sold as conditions, but as a packaged product for a set amount of money. The EULA starts by affirming this fact by saying that the license grants the right to use Windows 10 - with no shaping the definition of 'Windows 10'.

 

The Windows 10 EULA also only refers to collecting data normal for using online services, and mentions nothing regarding offline activity.

 

Quote

IF the siphoner was also the person who sold you the car on the condition that he can siphon the gas then sure, that's not actually theft because you agreed to the condition of sale.

Which isn't relevant to Windows 10, where no such agreement is made before or at the time of a sale, and where no such claim is made in the Windows 10 EULA regarding the overwhelming majority of data that Microsoft harvests at a minimum in Windows 10 Home and Pro.

 

Quote

You do have the option, stop using it.   I didn't use it for almost 4 years, and that was back when Linux wasn't even a fart on windows for comparable software.

More relevant, people have the right to use their property without the theft of other of their property (their data) that Microsoft is committing.

 

Quote

And?

They are entitled to use it under the conditions it is sold.

It is a false assertion to say there are any conditions tied to purchasing Windows 10 that entitle Microsoft to any data. I've pointed this out to you many times already but you choose to ignore it.

 

Quote

Ah, so they do tell you. you know you can access the documentation during the install process. 

No, Microsoft do not inform a person installing Windows of which data is being harvested. If a person seeks that information elsewhere, it can be found - but to find all that information a person has to first have Windows 10 installed so that they can use the Diagnostic Data Viewer to see which data Microsoft is harvesting from them. And that is a very long and involved process and requires a lot of personal time and effort, skill and informedness, all while having already installed Windows 10.

[Trik'Stari]

Thought: This rule should apply to the government.

 

If they are going to illegally collect EVERYONE's information and store it, they should be fiscally and criminally liable for keeping it secure.

 

 

Although doing that does legitimize their illegal collection of every bit of information on every single American (and many, many non-americans I am sure)

[mr moose]

59 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Look at the Windows 10 data-harvesting configuration panel mentions as being harvested and then look at what's actually being harvested.

I said give me evidence, I'm not entertaining accusations without evidence.

59 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

There literally are no conditions related to the data that Microsoft is harvesting in Windows 10 tied to the purchase of Windows 10.

Yes their are.  Windows collects the data, they tell you upon first setup.  You either click agree or stop the installation. 

59 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Also, Windows 10 is not sold conditionally, but as a packaged product. The offer is Windows 10 [edition name] for X amount of money. And an entity doesn't retain ownership over what they've sold to dictate extra conditions after the fact. Nor is there any claim made by Microsoft in the Windows 10 EULA to try to entitle Microsoft to the data they harvest without permission.

Your arguing the same thing as before.   The product tells you what it does, if you don't like it don't buy.  

59 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Siphoning gas is interchangeable with siphoning data. Windows 10 is not sold as conditions, but as a packaged product for a set amount of money. The EULA starts by affirming this fact by saying that the license grants the right to use Windows 10 - with no shaping the definition of 'Windows 10'.

  Like it or not windows does come with conditions of use and no amount of saying it doesn't will change that.

 

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/UseTerms_Retail_Windows_10_English.htm

 

Quote

The software is licensed, not sold. Under this agreement, we grant you the right to install and run one instance of the software on your device (the licensed device), for use by one person at a time, so long as you comply with all the terms of this agreement.

 

Quote

By accepting this agreement and using the software you agree that Microsoft may collect, use, and disclose the information as described in the Microsoft Privacy Statement (aka.ms/privacy), and as may be described in the user interface associated with the software features.

 

 

 

It's right there in black and white.   It doesn;t matter if it comes pre installed or on a disc/USB or you download it from MS.

 

 

59 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

The Windows 10 EULA also only refers to collecting data normal for using online services, and mentions nothing regarding offline activity.

It also points to the privacy policy which is part of the agreement.

59 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Which isn't relevant to Windows 10, where no such agreement is made before or at the time of a sale, and where no such claim is made in the Windows 10 EULA regarding the overwhelming majority of data that Microsoft harvests at a minimum in Windows 10 Home and Pro.

If you are lucky enough to live in Australia and you get your pc or brand new copy of windows home and discover the EULA and privacy settings can;t be turned off, then you are entitled to a refund because the product contains conditions you were not made aware of at the time of purchase.  But you must stop using windows in order to return it. 

59 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

More relevant, people have the right to use their property without the theft of other of their property (their data) that Microsoft is committing.

Yes people have that right, that is why windows tells you what data they are collecting and you have the option not to agree to it..

59 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

That is a false assertion. One which I've pointed out to you many times already but you choose to ignore.

again, and this time I have linked the appropriate documents. 

59 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

No, Microsoft do not inform a person installing Windows of which data is being harvested. If a person seeks that information elsewhere, it can be found - but to find all that information a person has to first have Windows 10 installed so that they can use the Diagnostic Data Viewer to see which data Microsoft is harvesting from them. And that is a very long and involved process and requires a lot of personal time and effort, skill and informedness, all while having already installed Windows 10.

 

I managed to read through the data collection policy before I installed it.  Maybe I am super human and can read things.  

 

 

[Syntaxvgm]

"You can talk about it, just keep it off topic. "

[Delicieuxz]

50 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I said give me evidence, I'm not entertaining accusations without evidence.

You're asking somebody else to be your eyes and brain, to process the information for you yet somehow leave you with the conclusion.

 

The fact that you have the resources placed in front of you and yet you find it too daunting to take the next step that only you can shows that Microsoft does not have a process that informs people of the data they are harvesting during the installation.

 

Quote

Yes their are.  Windows collects the data, they tell you upon first setup.  You either click agree or stop the installation. 

Your arguing the same thing as before.   The product tells you what it does, if you don't like it don't buy.  

  Like it or not windows does come with conditions of use and no amount of saying it doesn't will change that.

 

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/UseTerms_Retail_Windows_10_English.htm

This is backtracking, as it has already been addressed:

 

21 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Also, nobody volunteered to such by purchasing and using Windows. The Windows 10 EULA doesn't contain such a claim, nor do the Windows 7 and 8 EULAs that many people received their 'free upgrade' of Windows 10 from.

 

This part from the Windows 10 EULA (which I think doesn't exist in the Windows 7 and 8 EULAs - and one party cannot unilaterally change the terms of a contract once it's accepted) :

 

Quote

3.      Privacy; Consent to Use of Data. Your privacy is important to us. Some of the software features send or receive information when using those features. Many of these features can be switched off in the user interface, or you can choose not to use them. By accepting this agreement and using the software you agree that Microsoft may collect, use, and disclose the information as described in the Microsoft Privacy Statement (aka.ms/privacy), and as may be described in the user interface associated with the software features.

 

... defers to Microsoft's Privacy Statement, which itself, from what I recall from the last time I thoroughly read it, only specifies data transmission in the course of utilizing online services that require that data - yet, in observable practice, Windows 10 transmits far more data than simply what's needed for those services. Nowhere does the Microsoft Privacy Statement entitle Microsoft to any data that is not relevant to the functioning of online services.

 

From Microsoft's "privacy statement":

 

 

 

"You have choices when it comes to the technology you use and the data you share. When we ask you to provide personal data, you can decline."

 

However, that line is a lie, because there is no option to decline - yet Microsoft takes the data they haven't received permission to have anyway, which is theft.

 

And from the Dutch DPA:

 

"In our full report (only available in Dutch unfortunately), we deal extensively with the points of forced install. We also explain why all the telemetry data collected by Microsoft are indeed personal data, and certainly not anonymous, regardless of the view of MS that they would only relate to the system/be 'mere' technical data."

 

 

Further, Microsoft's privacy statement is not an agreement and is extraneous to the EULA and is not presented during the installation process of Windows 10. Microsoft's privacy statement also receives frequent updates and changes. It is therefore impossible to agree to it, and any changes to it after a person installs Windows 10 would be null and void.

 

In short, Microsoft's privacy statement (which doesn't entitle Microsoft to any data that is non-essential-to-request-function, anyway) is completely irrelevant.

 

And EULAs themselves are not legally-sound documents, and aren't accepted as valid in much of the world. Also, nowhere in the Windows 10 EULA does Microsoft even attempt to try to claim entitlement to commercialize and make business usage of people's resources like their computer, hardware, electricity, etc. No such thing has been agreed to by anyone, and so there is no permission for Microsoft to take any data that is squarely dependent on those things.

 

50 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It also points to the privacy policy which is part of the agreement.

It is not, regardless of what you or Microsoft might claim. And, as said, Microsoft's "privacy statement" doesn't entitle Microsoft to any data that you are claiming people have agreed to allow Microsoft to harvest - which, in reality, they haven't.

 

Quote

again, and this time I have linked the appropriate documents. 

You linked to the appropriate documents, while making an argument that isn't supported by those documents. Microsoft's EULA and privacy statement doesn't entitle Microsoft to any non-essential-to-requested-action data. 

 

Quote

I managed to read through the data collection policy before I installed it.  Maybe I am super human and can read things.  

Yet, you haven't been able to compare the Windows 10 installation data-harvesting configuration panel to Microsoft's own incomplete documentation of what data is harvesting at the most minimal setting in Windows 10 Home and Pro.

[Donut417]

Here is my two cents. The personal data Im most concerned with is things like my Name, Phone Number, SSN and such. Equifax the ass hats they are leaked 50% of the countries SSN numbers. That there in lies the second thing, the US needs a national ID system that can verify a persons ID while having security features built in like a pin number or password, this way we can get rid of SSN use for IDing. Which is technically not the purpose of an SSN number to begin with. 

 

I feel that people should have the right to opt out or in on any data collecting and be able to dictate what data a company can collect. The Government needs to be very clear on what data can be sold. So for instance I can say I dont want my phone number sold so I can stop these fucking ass hole telemarketer scam fucks from calling. Ive had one call 5 times in a row. Its so bad, if you need to reach me, you have to leave a voice mail message or I wont call you back. Another example is I wouldn't mind Amazon/Facebook using my purchase history to give me suggestion for products to buy. Amazon already does this with my Kindle with Special features and Facebook has been pushing ads for mattresses and I have been thinking of buying a new mattress. 

[Okjoek]

"Crunch Dragon

Reminder to keep this non-political"

 

...

 

"US senator's proposed data privacy law"

 

 

[Delicieuxz]

Here is another major reason why Microsoft's "privacy statement" is incapable of legally entitling Microsoft to anything regarding people's data. And this is also a good reminder that EULAs are generally garbage that don't count for anything and can mostly, and in many cases entirely be ignored.

 

There used to be a lot of authoritative-sounding EULA clauses were ubiquitous in EULAs but which aren't seen in many large publisher EULAs anymore, anymore (though they still can be found in amateur monkey-see / monkey-do EULAs). That's because EULA clauses are made-up fantasies that get knocked down like bowling pins when tried in a court - and then larger and more experienced publishers often stop using them.

 

Some bogus mostly-passe EULA clauses have included:

 

- This license is non-transferable

- These terms are subject to change

- You may not reverse-engineer this software

- By using this software you waive all rights to sue the publisher or developer (not enforceable anywhere other than possibly in the US)

 

 

None of these EULA claims were ever really true. They were just corporate propaganda that publishers fantasized up and added to their meaningless EULAs to manipulate and dominate their naive customers.

 

 

Now, the reason why Microsoft long ago stopped including an EULA claim that they retain a right to change or modify their software license terms at any time (which generally isn't lawful in a contract, anyway) is because claiming such a thing would void any effort to defer lawsuits to arbitration - something that Microsoft (along with other large publishers) claims to do for US citizens in its Windows 10 EULA.

 

Microsoft decided they'd bank on the EULA clause that might be enforceable in the USA, and ditched using 'these terms are subject to change' phrases in their EULAs.

 

 

Here's an example of how claiming a right to change license terms along with a right to defer lawsuits to arbitration plays out in the US court-system:

 

How Zappos' User Agreement Failed In Court and Left Zappos Legally Naked

Quote

 

Zappos Reserved the Right to Amend the Contract Whenever It Wanted

 

 As you can see from the screenshot snippet on the right, Zappos' terms of use says "We reserve the right to change...these terms and conditions at any time."  Zappos isn't the only website using language like this; it's ubiquitous on the Internet.  Unfortunately, despite its widespread usage, this language is toxic to a contract.

 

The court takes this amendment power to its logical conclusion.  If Zappos can change the terms at any time, then it can change the arbitration clause at any time.  Thus, citing to a long list of cases, the court says that such unilateral power to change the arbitration clause makes the clause "illusory"--and thus unenforceable.

 

 

So, the Windows 10 EULA currently defers to Microsoft's "privacy statement", which is an extraneous document from the Windows 10 EULA. Microsoft's "privacy statement" has been revised around once every 2 - 3 months since 2015: https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-gb/updates

 

The only way the Microsoft "privacy statement" could be a valid part of the EULA (and, it isn't, even besides this point) is if Microsoft was claiming for itself a right to modify license terms - which would void Microsoft's claim to defer lawsuits in the US to arbitration.

 

Therefore, either Microsoft's deference to their ever-changing "privacy statement" or Microsoft's claim to defer lawsuits in the US to arbitration is invalid, because the presence of both in an EULA is contradictory and they neutralize each other, as historical precedence in US court has established.

 

 

So, Microsoft's Windows 10 EULA is self-cancelling, and neither the deference to Microsoft's "privacy statement" or Microsoft's deference of lawsuits to arbitration are legally enforceable:

 

- If you're wanting to sue Microsoft in the US, just show Microsoft unilaterally constant revising of their license terms, which invalidates any right of a licenser to defer lawsuits to arbitration.

 

- If you don't agree to any part of Microsoft's "privacy statement", take note that Microsoft doesn't reserve a right to change their license terms, and that the existence of a claim of a right to defer lawsuits to arbitration invalidates any right of Microsoft to modify its license terms (and Microsoft's "privacy statement" did not exist in a familiar form when most people became owner of their Windows 10)

 

 

In all, this is yet another proof that EULAs are just nonsense garbage and nobody should be basing any argument off of what an EULA says (though, in this case, the EULA and its referred to "privacy statement" don't entitle Microsoft to any offline-OS-activity data, anyway).

[Delicieuxz]

As Microsoft's Windows 10 EULA is in the very same predicament as Zappos' was, having made the same EULA-invalidating claims to contradictory and irreconcilable publisher rights, the same consequence for the Zappos EULA can be inferred upon the Windows 10 EULA:

 

How Zappos' User Agreement Failed In Court and Left Zappos Legally Naked

Quote

Zappos can hardly be surprised by this adverse judicial ruling.  We have known for years that browsewraps are unenforceable (see some of the cases discussed here) and judges clearly dislike unilateral amendment clauses (see, e.g., the uncited Ninth Circuit's Douglas ruling  from 2007 and the cited 2009 ruling in the Blockbuster/Facebook Beacon case).

 

Still, the ruling leaves Zappos in a bad position.  Its contract is legally irrelevant, meaning that all of the risk management provisions in its contract are ineffective--its disclaimer of warranties, its waiver of consequential damages, its reduced statute of limitations, its clause restricting class actions in arbitration...all of these are gone, leaving Zappos governed by the default legal rules, which aren't nearly as favorable to it.  Losing its contract provisions meant Zappos is legally naked.

 

Avoiding this outcome is surprisingly easy.  Use clickthrough agreements, not browsewraps, and remove any clauses that say you can unilaterally amend the contract.

 

In other words, the Windows 10 EULA is basically null and void - it's worthless, being legally invalid. And that's actually a typical status for EULA terms from publishers of all sizes.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Side note. Arguing the difference between theft, robbery, and burglary is pedantic on ludicrous levels. We understand what is meant by each other, and all are criminal acts.

 

In any event, the US obviously disagrees with Dutch laws on what constitutes personally identifying information, and this law stands no chance of passing under any circumstance whatsoever. It's a statement piece worded explicitly to be a statement piece right before an election. Intentionally provocative.

 

I can think that this idea is better than the current laws on record, but it has no better chance of passing than a law forcing evolution to be taught in schools to the exception of creationism. Sorry to disappoint anyone.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

You're asking somebody else to be your eyes and brain, to process the information for you yet somehow leave you with the conclusion.

No I'm not, I'm asking you to back up your claims. I am not going to waste time arguing someone who won't provide any evidence for their claims

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

The fact that you have the resources placed in front of you and yet you find it too daunting to take the next step that only you can shows that Microsoft does not have a process that informs people of the data they are harvesting during the installation.

AS I have linked to Privacy statement from MS that supports what I said I am not sure what you are talking about here.

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

This is backtracking, as it has already been addressed:

 

 

From Microsoft's "privacy statement":

 

 

 

"You have choices when it comes to the technology you use and the data you share. When we ask you to provide personal data, you can decline."

 

However, that line is a lie, because there is no option to decline - yet Microsoft takes the data they haven't received permission to have anyway, which is theft.

 

And from the Dutch DPA:

 

"In our full report (only available in Dutch unfortunately), we deal extensively with the points of forced install. We also explain why all the telemetry data collected by Microsoft are indeed personal data, and certainly not anonymous, regardless of the view of MS that they would only relate to the system/be 'mere' technical data."

 

That doesn't say MS collect more data thant hey claim to, it just says they can work out who you are from the data they do collect.  Seeing as I haven;t argued that I am not sure why you would bring it up.  Remember that after that invwestigation MS chagneed the install/setup process so it no longer breaks those regulations.

 

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Further, Microsoft's privacy statement is not an agreement and is extraneous to the EULA and is not presented during the installation process of Windows 10. Microsoft's privacy statement also receives frequent updates and changes. It is therefore impossible to agree to it, and any changes to it after a person installs Windows 10 would be null and void.

You can pretend it to be whatever you want, but that doesn't change what it is.

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

In short, Microsoft's privacy statement (which doesn't entitle Microsoft to any data that is non-essential-to-request-function, anyway) is completely irrelevant.

It entitles them to whatever data  they tell you they are collecting.  You are confusing an idealistic desire with reality.

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

And EULAs themselves are not legally-sound documents, and aren't accepted as valid in much of the world. Also, nowhere in the Windows 10 EULA does Microsoft even attempt to try to claim entitlement to commercialize and make business usage of people's resources like their computer, hardware, electricity, etc. No such thing has been agreed to by anyone, and so there is no permission for Microsoft to take any data that is squarely dependent on those things.

Have you got evidence they commercialize said data? have you got proof they sell it on? 

 

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

It is not, regardless of what you or Microsoft might claim. And, as said, Microsoft's "privacy statement" doesn't entitle Microsoft to any data that you are claiming people have agreed to allow Microsoft to harvest - which, in reality, they haven't.

 

You linked to the appropriate documents, while making an argument that isn't supported by those documents. Microsoft's EULA and privacy statement doesn't entitle Microsoft to any non-essential-to-requested-action data. 

 

Yet, you haven't been able to compare the Windows 10 installation data-harvesting configuration panel to Microsoft's own incomplete documentation of what data is harvesting at the most minimal setting in Windows 10 Home and Pro.

I'm, not sure logic is your best strength here.    You claimed MS don't have such conditions on Windows and yet I linked to their documents where they claim those exact conditions.  Whether you think they are legal or ethical or real is moot.  They are there, they exist and haven't been challenged legally yet, also no evidence has been put forward to any of your other claims.

 

 

 

 

[Delicieuxz]

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No I'm not, I'm asking you to back up your claims. I am not going to waste time arguing someone who won't provide any evidence for their claims

Providing you the list of data Microsoft harvests at the Basic setting to compare with the installation data-harvesting configuration panel is the evidence that the installation panel doesn't inform a person what data is being harvested.

 

If you don't want to spend the time reading through the list as I have to gain realization that the Windows 10 installation data-harvesting configuration panel doesn't reasonably describe what's actually going on, then that's on you. It's not a case of me not providing evidence, but of you not wanted to reach the conclusion or not wanting to make the required effort to get there.

 

Quote

AS I have linked to Privacy statement from MS that supports what I said I am not sure what you are talking about here.

 

That doesn't say MS collect more data thant hey claim to, it just says they can work out who you are from the data they do collect.  Seeing as I haven;t argued that I am not sure why you would bring it up.  Remember that after that invwestigation MS chagneed the install/setup process so it no longer breaks those regulations.

You've mixed up two separate points. What you quoted from me between those two paragraphs isn't a comment about the volume of data that Microsoft collects, but shows that Microsoft's "privacy statement" doesn't entitle Microsoft to harvest offline activity data (so, no, the MPS doesn't support what you said) but instead says that people can decline from having that data collected - which, in practice, they can't.

 

So, by agreeing to the Windows 10 EULA (which the MPS isn't legally a part of, anyway), people are agreeing to have the right to decline having their data collected. OK.

 

And since people are never offered a choice to not have that data collected yet Microsoft takes it regardless, Microsoft is stealing that data.

 

And I can tell you, being a Windows 10 owner, that I don't authorize Microsoft to harvest any of my data, and that I certainly do not give my data to Microsoft. If Microsoft has any offline activity data from me, it was acquired through illicit means.

 

Quote

You can pretend it to be whatever you want, but that doesn't change what it is.

It entitles them to whatever data  they tell you they are collecting.  You are confusing an idealistic desire with reality.

I'm not pretending - you and Microsoft are if you think anything about that MPS entitles Microsoft to anybody's data.

 

The MPS is also definitively not a valid part of the EULA in the eyes of US law, as I just proved in the last 2 posts on the previous page:

 

 

Quote

Have you got evidence they commercialize said data? have you got proof they sell it on? 

That's the business, whether it's stated openly or not - and companies prefer to not state it openly if they can help it.

 

 

Microsoft says they use it to target advertisements towards you and that they share it with 3rd parties - including advertisers.

 

Microsoft describes Windows 10 as an advertisement platform: https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/ad-monetization-platform

 

Microsoft is disgustingly sneaky: Windows 10 isn't an operating system, it's an advertising platform

 

 

Quote

I'm, not sure logic is your best strength here.    You claimed MS don't have such conditions on Windows and yet I linked to their documents where they claim those exact conditions.  Whether you think they are legal or ethical or real is moot.  They are there, they exist and haven't been challenged legally yet, also no evidence has been put forward to any of your other claims.

I think you say that because you didn't understand the documents you linked to, and you interpreted what you read with a predisposition towards a biased conclusion. If they are not legal, then they obviously do not entitle Microsoft to anything, one way or another. They aren't legal, and they also don't claim what you've suggested they do.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

snip

Sorry, I am just not that invested in this discussion. I have said what I needed to, provided the supporting documents.  Everything else is just illogical banter.

 

FTR:

I support this politicians bill, I do not support data harvesting that isn't made know to the user up front.

I don't really like that windows is the only option for some software,  meaning you effectively need one computer for work and another for private life, but then again that is not a bad idea in this day and age anyway. 

[Delicieuxz]

By the way, if entitling your data to Microsoft was a sale condition of Windows 10, then people would be breaking that sale condition by blocking Microsoft IPs in their firewall or router and by disconnecting Microsoft's telemetry endpoints as Microsoft has given instruction on how to do here:

 

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/privacy/manage-windows-endpoints

 

Quote

 

Diagnostic Data

The following endpoint is used by the Connected User Experiences and Telemetry component and connects to the Microsoft Data Management service. If you turn off traffic for this endpoint, diagnostic and usage information, which helps Microsoft find and fix problems and improve our products and services, will not be sent back to Microsoft.

 

Source process      Protocol      Destination                                                                 Applies from Windows 10 version

svchost                                         cy2.vortex.data.microsoft.com.akadns.net                  1709

The following endpoint is used by the Connected User Experiences and Telemetry component and connects to the Microsoft Data Management service. If you turn off traffic for this endpoint, diagnostic and usage information, which helps Microsoft find and fix problems and improve our products and services, will not be sent back to Microsoft.

 

Source process      Protocol     Destination                                                                  Applies from Windows 10 version
svchost                                         v10.vortex-win.data.microsoft.com/collect/v1              1709

The following endpoints are used by Windows Error Reporting. To turn off traffic for these endpoints, enable the following Group Policy: Administrative Templates > Windows Components > Windows Error Reporting > Disable Windows Error Reporting. This means error reporting information will not be sent back to Microsoft.

 

Source process     Protocol     Destination                                                                    Applies from Windows 10 version
wermgr                                        watson.telemetry.microsoft.com                                     1709
                                TLS v1.2      modern.watson.data.microsoft.com.akadns.net            1709

 

 

Microsoft's own document would be paramount to Microsoft supplying a means to crack their own proprietary software in that it would be stealing ("your" data) from Microsoft.

 

But, Microsoft have repeatedly stated that people own their data and are in control of their data (though, they aren't in significant control of it in Windows 10, despite owning it). If a person owns it then they hold all entitlements to it, and then Microsoft doesn't own it and isn't entitled to any of it.

 

 

 

Also, while I don't see Microsoft's "privacy statement" as including any wording that claims to entitle Microsoft to any non-essential-to-function data from people, the fact that Microsoft changes its "privacy statement" on a regular basis and has since 2015 makes it legally ineligible to be a component of the Windows 10 EULA, as Microsoft linking to an ever-changing "privacy statement" and claiming it is a part of what people must agree to in accepting the Windows 10 EULA is Microsoft making a claim that they may unilaterally modify contract terms whenever they wish to - and, that doesn't pass 'Go' in contracts (notice how claims of a right to modify EULA terms used to be ubiquitous in all EULAs but generally hasn't been seen in EULAs since ages ago?):

 

Stop Saying “We Can Amend This Agreement Whenever We Want”!–Harris v. Blockbuster

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Contract Amendment Without Notice–Douglas v. Talk America

 

In practice, the Microsoft "privacy statement" is not an enforceable or legal part of the Windows 10 EULA - even in the odd country where an EULA actually counts for something. Further, a statement is not an agreement (a self-made statement doesn't receive consent from an outside party), and so anything declared in a statement is fully irrelevant to what a person agrees to.

 

 

And, as I've already pointed out, Microsoft screwed up their Windows 10 EULA even further by mixing a necessary right-to-modify the EULA (for the "privacy statement" to be claimed a part of it, the invalidity of the "privacy statement" aside) with a claim of entitlement to defer lawsuits to arbitration:

 

How Zappos' User Agreement Failed In Court and Left Zappos Legally Naked

 

Meaning, that if the right argument is made, then it's fully open-season on suing Microsoft in the USA, in spite of Microsoft's EULA claim that US lawsuits must go to arbitration.

 

 

In conclusion, the Windows 10 EULA is basically void, Microsoft's "privacy statement" is not a legal, enforceable, or agreed-to component of the Windows 10 EULA, and Microsoft attests that people (not Microsoft) fully own their post-installing-Windows-10 data and therefore Microsoft possesses no entitlements over any of it.

 

And, as always, the rule applies: EULAs generally don't count for shit.