3 ms·

Why do you think ordinary users should try to disable all the cloud based features of their OS? Surely a lot of the features they want (e.g. Google Now, Siri,

Why do you think ordinary users should try to disable all the cloud based features of their OS? Surely a lot of the features they want (e.g. Google Now, Siri, Cortana) are based on the OS provider knowing about the users and having information about them. If your threat model is that the OS provider is hostile, no amount of changing of settings will protect you from their actions...

sroerick 11y ago
"Our research shows that users WANT these features that require us to constantly monitor microphones for certain phrases." Maybe the OS provider should stop being hostile.
- serge2k 11y ago
  Was that said by the people doing Siri, Google Now, or Cortana?
- raesene9 11y ago
  I don't think they're being hostile, I think they're providing features they think people want. Personally I hate this kind of feature and try to actively avoid products which have it, however I feel I am in a minority of general consumers in that feeling.
hueving 11y ago
>If your threat model is that the OS provider is hostile, no amount of changing of settings will protect you from their actions... No, the threat model is that centrally collected data will be pilfered by the government or the company itself. If it's just not collected in the first place the temptation won't be there to abuse it. It's like saying, "if your threat model is that the government is hostile, there is nothing you can do to prevent them from getting information from you." There are lines the government won't cross (e.g. US govt torturing your family members in front of you) and there are lines Microsoft won't cross (e.g. secret exfiltration of your files).
- raesene9 11y ago
  And on that basis all modern consumer focused OS' are about as bad as each other, they all rely on cloud features which gather data about the user and hold it centrally. It's why I'm so puzzled that people jump on MS specifically for this, Google have been doing all the same stuff for years and no-one seems to care. That said on your lines that people wouldn't cross, I'm afraid I have not confidence in either of your examples. The US gov. has totured people for years, I see no reason to believe they wouldn't do it to family members if they thought it would meet their goals, and MS would exfiltrate data if provided an appropriately authorised requirement by the US government...
  - Silhouette 11y ago
    It's why I'm so puzzled that people jump on MS specifically for this, Google have been doing all the same stuff for years and no-one seems to care. Probably because until recently, Microsoft software is what you used if you didn't want to use those cloud-everything services from organisations like Google.
magicalist 11y ago
> If your threat model is that the OS provider is hostile, no amount of changing of settings will protect you from their actions... I'm not sure what this even means in this context. It's not about protecting against a threat model that may someday manifest, it's actual, specific actions that are known to be occurring currently and that can't be opted out of (let alone opted in to) that are being objected to. And certainly nothing to do with "cloud based features" of Windows 10.
jlarocco 11y ago
Your phrasing is a little odd. Personally, I don't think users should necessarily turn those features off, but if they don't want to use the feature, I don't think they should be forced to keep it on, either. I don't see why it can't be opt-in. > If your threat model is that the OS provider is hostile, no amount of changing of settings will protect you from their actions... IMO, it has less to do with the OS provider being hostile and more to do with eating up resources and increasing available malware attack vectors.
- raesene9 11y ago
  I don't think that users are forced to keep the features on are they (definitely I had no problems disabling them when installin Win10) On defaults I would prefer it to be opt-in but I know exactly why it isn't. Software vendors want you to use the features they develop so that you'll be more involved in their ecosystem, if they're off by default chances are you won't turn them on, which defeats the purpose. Gotta say I don't see your resource point, do you have any evidence that these features have an appreciable impact on the average system?
Silhouette 11y ago
Why do you think ordinary users should try to disable all the cloud based features of their OS? Surely a lot of the features they want (e.g. Google Now, Siri, Cortana) The thing is, almost every piece of research I've seen from independent sources suggests that most users don't really want or care about these digital personal assistant gimmicks. Once you got past the hype, this was a point a few different articles made around the time Win11/Cortana became available. That certainly seems more credible to me than the story the OS vendors' marketing teams would like us to believe. After all, I know plenty of people who use Android and iOS devices, but in my entire life I don't think I have heard the words "OK Google" spoken non-ironically outside of a tech presentation, and I have also literally never seen (heard?) anyone using Siri other than to show how badly it got something wrong and laugh at it. I mean, anecdotes and data and all that, but if almost everyone I know has a smartphone and literally no-one I know seems to be using these features that we're told users want, that's an astonishingly unrepresentative sample.
- raesene9 11y ago
  I hope that you're correct, as then you would expect the market to correct the mistake and drop the features, as they don't get used
  - Silhouette 11y ago
    I expect that, in time, that is exactly what will happen. Realistically, some of these features will probably evolve into something that is more useful for more people. Unfortunately, for the immediate future there is a lot of momentum behind these features, because so many corporate heavyweights have spent a fortune on promoting them. It would be borderline career suicide for any senior executive in a relevant position to hold their hands up and say they made a mistake on this one so soon.

sroerick 11y ago

"Our research shows that users WANT these features that require us to constantly monitor microphones for certain phrases." Maybe the OS provider should stop being hostile.

serge2k 11y ago
Was that said by the people doing Siri, Google Now, or Cortana?
raesene9 11y ago
I don't think they're being hostile, I think they're providing features they think people want. Personally I hate this kind of feature and try to actively avoid products which have it, however I feel I am in a minority of general consumers in that feeling.

hueving 11y ago

>If your threat model is that the OS provider is hostile, no amount of changing of settings will protect you from their actions... No, the threat model is that centrally collected data will be pilfered by the government or the company itself. If it's just not collected in the first place the temptation won't be there to abuse it. It's like saying, "if your threat model is that the government is hostile, there is nothing you can do to prevent them from getting information from you." There are lines the government won't cross (e.g. US govt torturing your family members in front of you) and there are lines Microsoft won't cross (e.g. secret exfiltration of your files).

raesene9 11y ago
And on that basis all modern consumer focused OS' are about as bad as each other, they all rely on cloud features which gather data about the user and hold it centrally. It's why I'm so puzzled that people jump on MS specifically for this, Google have been doing all the same stuff for years and no-one seems to care. That said on your lines that people wouldn't cross, I'm afraid I have not confidence in either of your examples. The US gov. has totured people for years, I see no reason to believe they wouldn't do it to family members if they thought it would meet their goals, and MS would exfiltrate data if provided an appropriately authorised requirement by the US government...
- Silhouette 11y ago
  It's why I'm so puzzled that people jump on MS specifically for this, Google have been doing all the same stuff for years and no-one seems to care. Probably because until recently, Microsoft software is what you used if you didn't want to use those cloud-everything services from organisations like Google.

magicalist 11y ago

> If your threat model is that the OS provider is hostile, no amount of changing of settings will protect you from their actions... I'm not sure what this even means in this context. It's not about protecting against a threat model that may someday manifest, it's actual, specific actions that are known to be occurring currently and that can't be opted out of (let alone opted in to) that are being objected to. And certainly nothing to do with "cloud based features" of Windows 10.

jlarocco 11y ago

Your phrasing is a little odd. Personally, I don't think users should necessarily turn those features off, but if they don't want to use the feature, I don't think they should be forced to keep it on, either. I don't see why it can't be opt-in. > If your threat model is that the OS provider is hostile, no amount of changing of settings will protect you from their actions... IMO, it has less to do with the OS provider being hostile and more to do with eating up resources and increasing available malware attack vectors.

raesene9 11y ago
I don't think that users are forced to keep the features on are they (definitely I had no problems disabling them when installin Win10) On defaults I would prefer it to be opt-in but I know exactly why it isn't. Software vendors want you to use the features they develop so that you'll be more involved in their ecosystem, if they're off by default chances are you won't turn them on, which defeats the purpose. Gotta say I don't see your resource point, do you have any evidence that these features have an appreciable impact on the average system?

Silhouette 11y ago

Why do you think ordinary users should try to disable all the cloud based features of their OS? Surely a lot of the features they want (e.g. Google Now, Siri, Cortana) The thing is, almost every piece of research I've seen from independent sources suggests that most users don't really want or care about these digital personal assistant gimmicks. Once you got past the hype, this was a point a few different articles made around the time Win11/Cortana became available. That certainly seems more credible to me than the story the OS vendors' marketing teams would like us to believe. After all, I know plenty of people who use Android and iOS devices, but in my entire life I don't think I have heard the words "OK Google" spoken non-ironically outside of a tech presentation, and I have also literally never seen (heard?) anyone using Siri other than to show how badly it got something wrong and laugh at it. I mean, anecdotes and data and all that, but if almost everyone I know has a smartphone and literally no-one I know seems to be using these features that we're told users want, that's an astonishingly unrepresentative sample.

raesene9 11y ago
I hope that you're correct, as then you would expect the market to correct the mistake and drop the features, as they don't get used
- Silhouette 11y ago
  I expect that, in time, that is exactly what will happen. Realistically, some of these features will probably evolve into something that is more useful for more people. Unfortunately, for the immediate future there is a lot of momentum behind these features, because so many corporate heavyweights have spent a fortune on promoting them. It would be borderline career suicide for any senior executive in a relevant position to hold their hands up and say they made a mistake on this one so soon.