I got what this is, my point is, that it is not what they advertised. Maybe I should have made this more clear. I myself would be thankful to be able to instal

I got what this is, my point is, that it is not what they advertised. Maybe I should have made this more clear. I myself would be thankful to be able to install Linux if I had a device like that. Nevertheless some (enterprise) users would maybe like it otherwise and were screwed by Microsoft claiming something is secured, when they in fact knew, that it was not. A scenario I can think of is when the machine is not owned by the one using it and the owner wants to sandbox the user as much as possible. In this in the view of the owner it really is a backdoor. I would love to see companies getting punished for things like that. This case does not seem severe, still, what I want is that you are accountable for stuff you say. You cannot have a backdoor - being remote or not remote - if you say that the thing is secure. You knew it was not, you have committed fraud.