3 ms·

You agreed to the privacy terms, so you are at the mercy of whatsoever Microsoft implemented. Windows 10 even could totally ignore your settings. I say this, n

You agreed to the privacy terms, so you are at the mercy of whatsoever Microsoft implemented. Windows 10 even could totally ignore your settings. I say this, not because I think that this is OK, but to reflect, that even the change of the settings do not save you from the harm, that was done from the privacy terms! Why downvoted? When you disagree, than give arguments, not gutless clicks!

thescrewdriver 11y ago
Very few people will read the privacy terms. Just because they have a document people clicked 'agree' below without reading doesn't mean that MS should not be held to account for what Windows 10 is leaking. For many users not using Windows isn't an option.
- tomswartz07 11y ago
  The other thing to note is that they've changed the terms during an automatic update. The terms that they changed had several opt-out (as opposed to off-by-default opt-in) features that are mentioned in OP's article.
  - drdaeman 11y ago
    So, Microsoft did unethical but legal move. That's almost exactly what he said - Legally, user is at MS' mercy, ethically that's not OK.
- PythonicAlpha 11y ago
  With such an argumentation, you could just trash any terms. As long as they are not against any law, they are valid, as long as they do not contain something that is totally unexpected (for example that you must pay Microsoft additional fees above the normal price). I also think, that Microsoft should be held accountable -- but it starts with those terms! I think, many people just rushed into Windows 10, because it was free. But free, seldom means free in deed. A clever trick of Microsoft to trick people into this. As long the privacy terms are not effectively changed and the OS stops to send coded data to servers, this OS can not be trusted.
  - thescrewdriver 11y ago
    I've currently got a system with the Windows 10 downloaded, but I am hesitant to actually proceed with the (up?)grade. Like many people I assumed that it was just the same old Windows with more enhancements, not something with batshit crazy privacy defaults, that even when disabled still leak data.
    - PythonicAlpha 11y ago
      That is the point. People are tricked into this and most of them did not read the terms or just ignored them. But Microsoft is on the secure side, because you confirmed the terms -- and not many judges in the world will blame Microsoft in this situation, even when you argue, that you haven't read the terms. When you sign an other contract, you also can not argue, you haven't read the terms (even when they are in very small letters).
      - Silhouette 11y ago
        When you sign an other contract, you also can not argue, you haven't read the terms (even when they are in very small letters). Sure you can. And if it's a contract of adhesion between a business and a consumer where the terms are unreasonably loaded in favour of the business, you might actually win, too. (I am not a lawyer, your jurisdiction may vary, etc. I have however worked with real lawyers on real terms and conditions documents, and have been consistently advised that it's preferable to avoid surprising terms and that if any do need to go in then they should be early and prominent to maximise the chance of them standing up if anything ever got to court.)
        PythonicAlpha 11y ago
        Sure, you can try with any contract -- and go to trial. But I have seen worse contracts and the companies are coming threw with it most of the time, but maybe in your country the juristic system is better and not the size of the company or the number of lawyers are important. I for my side, would not bet on winning a trial against Microsoft in such a case.
- drdaeman 11y ago
  Yet, I believe he has a point, and he had pointed to the very core problem. If you hadn't read the EULA/ToS/Privacy Policy/etc, but had consented to those (by clicked "agree" in case of click-wrap packaging thingy), the fact is Microsoft is very unlikely to be held accountable if their actions are perfectly conforming to the agreement you had agreed without even reading. Something is surely not right with this whole situation.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    EULA, ToS, etc do not apply in Europe if they contain terms that the user can not reasonably expect. An OS sharing all your data even with snooping disabled falls under this regulation, and multiple EU data privacy officials are already investigating and preparing a case.
    - PythonicAlpha 11y ago
      Could be, but also could not. Microsoft once already was under EU investigation and the whole thing was settled with minimal efforts for Microsoft (the only thing I remember was, that they had to provide a browser selection screen). When the OS sends encrypted data to their servers, who will prove, that their is an offense made? Even when the terms are troublesome in the EU, they will just make some cosmetic changes to the terms for Europe. There are other terms, that are not valid in the EU, but Microsoft did even not change them yet (as much I know), even when it gets problems to enforce them on the courts. Privacy might be a issue in Europe, more than in the US, but don't forget: the privacy officers in Germany have nearly no power, and are laughed at or ignored by most politicians. Microsoft has nearly nothing to fear, IMHO from the EU, so long the US jurisdiction is also holding its peace. In Germany/the EU, nobody has the guts to fence to hard against a large US corporation -- but that is my opinion. It would be nice, when the EU would act on it, but I don't trust it!
      - kuschku 11y ago
        Look up Thilo Weichert, or, his replacement and long-years assistant Marit Hansen (Dipl.-Inf.) They fought many battles, especially against Facebook, which led to court rulings in the manner of "Instant change of terms, instant destruction of data, or 6 months jail for the CEO". Internationally, many might laugh about the ULD, but you do not risk a fight with them. And now, with them starting to look at Microsoft, I would not want to be in Microsofts place.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  We need a complete rework of our entire legal system in regards to consent to contracts. The problem is that it'll never happen because there is so much of an advantage given to the capital owners by having it so the rest of the population doesn't really understand what they are signing up for.
- malka 11y ago
  Even if people were to read it, how many are able to understand legalese ? Am I supposed to consult a lawyer each time I want to install a software ?
k3d3 11y ago
That doesn't make it okay
- PythonicAlpha 11y ago
  I did not say that, but I wanted to make clear, how people are tricked into this situation, where they can not trust even the OS.
a3n 11y ago
If what a vendor is allowed to do is buried in a EULA that the world knows is never read, then that vendor is hiding something. There's a difference between the letter of the law and truth. Obfuscation is not truth.

thescrewdriver 11y ago

Very few people will read the privacy terms. Just because they have a document people clicked 'agree' below without reading doesn't mean that MS should not be held to account for what Windows 10 is leaking. For many users not using Windows isn't an option.

tomswartz07 11y ago
The other thing to note is that they've changed the terms during an automatic update. The terms that they changed had several opt-out (as opposed to off-by-default opt-in) features that are mentioned in OP's article.
- drdaeman 11y ago
  So, Microsoft did unethical but legal move. That's almost exactly what he said - Legally, user is at MS' mercy, ethically that's not OK.
PythonicAlpha 11y ago
With such an argumentation, you could just trash any terms. As long as they are not against any law, they are valid, as long as they do not contain something that is totally unexpected (for example that you must pay Microsoft additional fees above the normal price). I also think, that Microsoft should be held accountable -- but it starts with those terms! I think, many people just rushed into Windows 10, because it was free. But free, seldom means free in deed. A clever trick of Microsoft to trick people into this. As long the privacy terms are not effectively changed and the OS stops to send coded data to servers, this OS can not be trusted.
- thescrewdriver 11y ago
  I've currently got a system with the Windows 10 downloaded, but I am hesitant to actually proceed with the (up?)grade. Like many people I assumed that it was just the same old Windows with more enhancements, not something with batshit crazy privacy defaults, that even when disabled still leak data.
  - PythonicAlpha 11y ago
    That is the point. People are tricked into this and most of them did not read the terms or just ignored them. But Microsoft is on the secure side, because you confirmed the terms -- and not many judges in the world will blame Microsoft in this situation, even when you argue, that you haven't read the terms. When you sign an other contract, you also can not argue, you haven't read the terms (even when they are in very small letters).
    - Silhouette 11y ago
      When you sign an other contract, you also can not argue, you haven't read the terms (even when they are in very small letters). Sure you can. And if it's a contract of adhesion between a business and a consumer where the terms are unreasonably loaded in favour of the business, you might actually win, too. (I am not a lawyer, your jurisdiction may vary, etc. I have however worked with real lawyers on real terms and conditions documents, and have been consistently advised that it's preferable to avoid surprising terms and that if any do need to go in then they should be early and prominent to maximise the chance of them standing up if anything ever got to court.)
      - PythonicAlpha 11y ago
        Sure, you can try with any contract -- and go to trial. But I have seen worse contracts and the companies are coming threw with it most of the time, but maybe in your country the juristic system is better and not the size of the company or the number of lawyers are important. I for my side, would not bet on winning a trial against Microsoft in such a case.
drdaeman 11y ago
Yet, I believe he has a point, and he had pointed to the very core problem. If you hadn't read the EULA/ToS/Privacy Policy/etc, but had consented to those (by clicked "agree" in case of click-wrap packaging thingy), the fact is Microsoft is very unlikely to be held accountable if their actions are perfectly conforming to the agreement you had agreed without even reading. Something is surely not right with this whole situation.
- kuschku 11y ago
  EULA, ToS, etc do not apply in Europe if they contain terms that the user can not reasonably expect. An OS sharing all your data even with snooping disabled falls under this regulation, and multiple EU data privacy officials are already investigating and preparing a case.
  - PythonicAlpha 11y ago
    Could be, but also could not. Microsoft once already was under EU investigation and the whole thing was settled with minimal efforts for Microsoft (the only thing I remember was, that they had to provide a browser selection screen). When the OS sends encrypted data to their servers, who will prove, that their is an offense made? Even when the terms are troublesome in the EU, they will just make some cosmetic changes to the terms for Europe. There are other terms, that are not valid in the EU, but Microsoft did even not change them yet (as much I know), even when it gets problems to enforce them on the courts. Privacy might be a issue in Europe, more than in the US, but don't forget: the privacy officers in Germany have nearly no power, and are laughed at or ignored by most politicians. Microsoft has nearly nothing to fear, IMHO from the EU, so long the US jurisdiction is also holding its peace. In Germany/the EU, nobody has the guts to fence to hard against a large US corporation -- but that is my opinion. It would be nice, when the EU would act on it, but I don't trust it!
    - kuschku 11y ago
      Look up Thilo Weichert, or, his replacement and long-years assistant Marit Hansen (Dipl.-Inf.) They fought many battles, especially against Facebook, which led to court rulings in the manner of "Instant change of terms, instant destruction of data, or 6 months jail for the CEO". Internationally, many might laugh about the ULD, but you do not risk a fight with them. And now, with them starting to look at Microsoft, I would not want to be in Microsofts place.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
We need a complete rework of our entire legal system in regards to consent to contracts. The problem is that it'll never happen because there is so much of an advantage given to the capital owners by having it so the rest of the population doesn't really understand what they are signing up for.
malka 11y ago
Even if people were to read it, how many are able to understand legalese ? Am I supposed to consult a lawyer each time I want to install a software ?

k3d3 11y ago

That doesn't make it okay

PythonicAlpha 11y ago
I did not say that, but I wanted to make clear, how people are tricked into this situation, where they can not trust even the OS.

a3n 11y ago

If what a vendor is allowed to do is buried in a EULA that the world knows is never read, then that vendor is hiding something. There's a difference between the letter of the law and truth. Obfuscation is not truth.