6 ms·

So my question is: did Microsoft do this on purpose, or was it simply a failure in software design? I'd like to think the latter, but the fact that Win 10 has

So my question is: did Microsoft do this on purpose, or was it simply a failure in software design? I'd like to think the latter, but the fact that Win 10 has had well documented privacy issues already, and the fact Microsoft is probably the most experienced and among the most well funded browser development companies in the world, I get a bit skeptical. A private mode that still writes history WebCache. Did they really overlook that?

jevgeni 11y ago
The article says Microsoft accepts it as a bug and is working to resolve it.
- gotchange 11y ago
  How does this exonerate them? This could be interpreted or viewed as just inadequately covering their tracks.
  - jevgeni 11y ago
    I didn't say it exonerated them. I said it was a bug in Microsoft's view and they are allegedly fixing it. I'm not sure what you mean by the "covering their tracks" bit.
    - alexcroox 11y ago
      He means they were doing it on purpose and used the "bug" excuse when they were caught.
      - jevgeni 11y ago
        What's the reason for Microsoft to be doing it on purpose?
        JBReefer 11y ago
        Their massive stock in tinfoil companies
        jevgeni 11y ago
        Yes! :D But wouldn't it be awesome, if all conspiracy theories were produced by a conspiracy of the tinfoil industrial complex?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
akerro 11y ago
Would company that has highest standards about software testing, design and security, cooperates with NSA and GCHQ, spreads FUD about Linux/UNIX and uses EEE tactics to destroy other projects/standards like PDF, email clients, Java and makes money on collecting user data do it by accident? I think so.
HappyTypist 11y ago
Windows is the most used desktop OS and Microsoft has a history of conspiring with nation state adversaries. It's not implausible that the NSA and GCHQ would ask Microsoft to slip in a few bugs here and there that makes surveillance much easier. Remember: This is the company that took an end-to-end-encrypted communications platform (Skype) and completely turn it around into a mass surveillance platform by being the first to join PRISM. It's the same company that builds a full disk encryption system (BitLocker) that sends your encryption keys back to Microsoft's servers. And finally, it's the same company that pushed for an "always on" HD webcam and microphone bundled with an "always online" video game console.
- Ntrails 11y ago
  >It's the same company that builds a full disk encryption system (BitLocker) that sends your encryption keys back to Microsoft's servers Every time someone says that as though it's not the absolute correct thing for MS to do given it's standard home-user technical level/expectation I'm super confused. I would expect it to be possible to turn that off, but you can be damned sure that swathes of their users expect to be able to ring MS when they forgot their bitlocker key. >it's the same company that pushed for an "always on" HD webcam and microphone bundled with an "always online" video game console. They want you to always be able to use voice and gesture controls with your console - because if you have to stand up and press a button to turn the damned thing on then what's the value in half the functionality? I'm confident MS are actually more interested in their profit margins than they are by any conspiratorial opportunities with the security services. Casting the latter as their primary motivation all the time is disingenuous.
  - babuskov 11y ago
    As long as convenience trumps security in people's minds, there won't be real security anywhere. I have to admit I'm lazy and still allow some stuff too. Making security both functional and comfortable is a really hard (impossible?) thing to do.
  - EGreg 11y ago
    It's not either or.
joosters 11y ago
If they did it on purpose, who exactly did they do it for? The NSA/GCHQ already record all internet traffic, so they don't care whether or not you are using a 'private' mode to browse the web, it makes no difference to them.
- sarciszewski 11y ago
  Probably FBI or lower-level law enforcement, who need useful forensic records in their "crime" dragnet to score a higher conviction rate. Source: A wild guess, but fuck those pricks anyway.
static_noise 11y ago
I'd like to give them the benefit of doubt. But then I couldn't trust them when it comes to other security related features of Windows. When evil and incompentent seem like your only options, it's time to search for an alternative.
ionised 11y ago
Microsoft have exhibited too many of these privacy/user-control related 'blunders' over the last few months for it to be accidental. I'll never buy anything from them again.

jevgeni 11y ago

The article says Microsoft accepts it as a bug and is working to resolve it.

gotchange 11y ago
How does this exonerate them? This could be interpreted or viewed as just inadequately covering their tracks.
- jevgeni 11y ago
  I didn't say it exonerated them. I said it was a bug in Microsoft's view and they are allegedly fixing it. I'm not sure what you mean by the "covering their tracks" bit.
  - alexcroox 11y ago
    He means they were doing it on purpose and used the "bug" excuse when they were caught.
    - jevgeni 11y ago
      What's the reason for Microsoft to be doing it on purpose?
      - JBReefer 11y ago
        Their massive stock in tinfoil companies
        jevgeni 11y ago
        Yes! :D But wouldn't it be awesome, if all conspiracy theories were produced by a conspiracy of the tinfoil industrial complex?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

akerro 11y ago

Would company that has highest standards about software testing, design and security, cooperates with NSA and GCHQ, spreads FUD about Linux/UNIX and uses EEE tactics to destroy other projects/standards like PDF, email clients, Java and makes money on collecting user data do it by accident? I think so.

HappyTypist 11y ago

Windows is the most used desktop OS and Microsoft has a history of conspiring with nation state adversaries. It's not implausible that the NSA and GCHQ would ask Microsoft to slip in a few bugs here and there that makes surveillance much easier. Remember: This is the company that took an end-to-end-encrypted communications platform (Skype) and completely turn it around into a mass surveillance platform by being the first to join PRISM. It's the same company that builds a full disk encryption system (BitLocker) that sends your encryption keys back to Microsoft's servers. And finally, it's the same company that pushed for an "always on" HD webcam and microphone bundled with an "always online" video game console.

Ntrails 11y ago
>It's the same company that builds a full disk encryption system (BitLocker) that sends your encryption keys back to Microsoft's servers Every time someone says that as though it's not the absolute correct thing for MS to do given it's standard home-user technical level/expectation I'm super confused. I would expect it to be possible to turn that off, but you can be damned sure that swathes of their users expect to be able to ring MS when they forgot their bitlocker key. >it's the same company that pushed for an "always on" HD webcam and microphone bundled with an "always online" video game console. They want you to always be able to use voice and gesture controls with your console - because if you have to stand up and press a button to turn the damned thing on then what's the value in half the functionality? I'm confident MS are actually more interested in their profit margins than they are by any conspiratorial opportunities with the security services. Casting the latter as their primary motivation all the time is disingenuous.
- babuskov 11y ago
  As long as convenience trumps security in people's minds, there won't be real security anywhere. I have to admit I'm lazy and still allow some stuff too. Making security both functional and comfortable is a really hard (impossible?) thing to do.
- EGreg 11y ago
  It's not either or.

joosters 11y ago

If they did it on purpose, who exactly did they do it for? The NSA/GCHQ already record all internet traffic, so they don't care whether or not you are using a 'private' mode to browse the web, it makes no difference to them.

sarciszewski 11y ago
Probably FBI or lower-level law enforcement, who need useful forensic records in their "crime" dragnet to score a higher conviction rate. Source: A wild guess, but fuck those pricks anyway.

static_noise 11y ago

I'd like to give them the benefit of doubt. But then I couldn't trust them when it comes to other security related features of Windows. When evil and incompentent seem like your only options, it's time to search for an alternative.

ionised 11y ago

Microsoft have exhibited too many of these privacy/user-control related 'blunders' over the last few months for it to be accidental. I'll never buy anything from them again.