I think it's time that we don't ask of users to protect themselves by reading hundreds of pages of EULAs, and then ostracising themselves from mainstream electr

I think it's time that we don't ask of users to protect themselves by reading hundreds of pages of EULAs, and then ostracising themselves from mainstream electronics use (both at home, as well as at work) because they refuse to use software that's loaded with insane levels of spyware (record and transfer all voice and every keystroke). That's a large burden. It's perhaps time this becomes a legal matter rather than purely a user-choice matter. In society we have all kinds of protections for people that make a lot of sense, that take away individual responsibility. For example, even if a person wanted, you're not allowed to become a slave, it's simply not allowed. Even if a person wanted in most of the developed world, you're not allowed to work for less than minimum wage, or in a toxic environment. Similarly even if a person says 'I don't mind if people are misogynistic towards me at work, or discriminatory, I just want this job no matter what because I need the money', that's not allowed, either. Similarly, I think it's time we start to think of legal protections again this level of spyware. We shouldn't put the burden of acceptance on individuals when you'll have millions of people who'd prefer to live in a world where they don't have to use this software at home or at work, but have no choice (particularly at work), and thus accept spyware because the loss of their job works as a blackmailing force, just like in the above examples. That doesn't mean I'm saying there is no legal place for software like this under any conditions. But the notion that it can't be turned off is insane. Even 'on by default' is a step too far, but now Windows is saying whether you use windows 7, 8 or 10, we're spying on you, and you can't turn it off, and if you tamper with our software manually you'll fail because we've hardcoded it. That's not acceptable and my point is, it shouldn't fall upon users to boycott such harmful parts of software they paid for (in the case of Windows 7, half a decade ago). It should fall upon the rule of law to prevent this and allow at least an opt-in, a choice, a choice that isn't 'use any Windows product, or use no Windows product' If OSs were more free like say, the automotive industry, I wouldn't mind as much. Like if Toyota one day decided to record audio in cars, that's one thing. You can switch to more than a dozen top-quality car manufacturers who don't do this, and it wouldn't affect your jobs or anything like that. But we're talking about a desktop/laptop market where <2% of marketshare is Linux and OS X is ~10%, the remainder is virtually all windows and its got hardcoded spyware features.