3 ms·

> "Don't use deceptive language, don't force updates on users who didn't request them or specifically declined them, never reboot a running computer without ex

> "Don't use deceptive language, don't force updates on users who didn't request them or specifically declined them, never reboot a running computer without explicit permission for any reason short of a total system freeze." See, even these are not so cut and dry. Sure, "Deceptive" is a thing we want to avoid. But if a user is deceived by what others called clear language, was your language deceptive? I had no real issues understanding, "They want to give me an upgrade. If I click that, I'll get the upgrade." > don't force updates on users who didn't request them or specifically declined them, never reboot a running computer without explicit permission for any reason short of a total system freeze. We can argue about specifics all day, but if a user isn't going to reboot their computer periodically for critical security updates then doing it for them is a public service and it should be done. We're still very busy as a society pretending that computers aren't a public utility, but in fact they are and they have very real consequences for their use. > Then why are they being deceptive about it? See, this is what I don't get. Where are they being "deceptive" about telemetry? They don't act like it's a secret. They talk about it in public. > why do we keep hearing about new telemetry that people weren't aware of or thought they'd already disabled? Good question! This is not a new story. Go read the article carefully! This is all basically clickbaiting off an original very popular clickbait that said the EULA technically could be read to allow keylogging in some situations here: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2373838/microsofts-windows-10-preview-has-permission-to-watch-your-every-move http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2373838/microsofts-... (btw, it can't, there's US and EU law at play that protects consumers). No seriously. That's what started this all. An insinuation that a tech preview might have telemetry. And so we continue to roll over this calling Cortana a "keylogger". They printed a followup which basically said, "No, they didn't use a keylogger" and gave it a surreal headline: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2421234/microsoft-plays-down-playing-fast-and-loose-with-windows-10-privacy http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2421234/microsoft-p... From a technical and not-total-uninformed-bs perspective, it all comes back to, "Cortana's typeahead search mixes desktop search items with Bing search results, which are sent key-by-key for latency reasons, which is a trace of keystrokes" coupled with, "Cortana uses cloud computation for "hey cortana" voice analysis (not the wakeup cue, the the part after). And in Microsoft's defense, no one minded when Google did this, after Apple did it, after Firefox did it.

unholythree 10y ago
>We're still very busy as a society pretending that computers aren't a public utility. Fuck that noise. No my computers in my home are not a public utility. I will run or not run the software I choose on my machines. You can call me Typhoid Mary all you want, but if an Nigerian prince somehow compromises one of my machines and tries to sell you Viagra you can report it to my ISP or domain registrar.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  > I will run or not run the software I choose on my machines. You can call me Typhoid Mary all you want, but if an Nigerian prince somehow compromises one of my machines and tries to sell you Viagra you can report it to my ISP or domain registrar. I understand that this is a difficult thing to understand and accept, as it is happening in fast forward in our lifetime. People had similar sentiments initially about other things that end up using public shared utilities (e.g., automobiles and phones). It's unfair to expect most users to be able to protect themselves. Even professionals with experience struggle to protect their hardware and computers. Only doing post-incident triage is not going to work here in the same way that we require traffic laws and automobile regulation to make sure that we don't spend even more time and money scraping people-goo off the road. Therefore, as a matter of public safety, we're going to have to put safety and security rules on publicly networked computers. Consider funding and hosting a private network if you find that onerous, perhaps?
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    This offensive, paternalistic attitude towards users needs to stop. You do not get to decide these things for end users. > It's unfair to expect most users to be able to protect themselves. Correct. Problems in this area are the fault of the vendor, not the user, for producing shoddy software, not caring enough about security, and/or not going far enough to educate the user about important thins they do need to understand. None of this requires stealing user data (or "telemetry"), nor does it require taking agency away from the user. Your "solution" is to take away the General Purpose Computer from the user. I realize that General Purpose Computers are frightening when in the hands of people who might make a mistake* or run some software you don't like, but that is what we call "freedom"[1]. Instead of supporting freedom, you seem determined to force centralized control on people. Do you not see how this is a major shift in power? > Therefore, as a matter of public safety, we're going to have to put safety and security rules on publicly networked computers. This is a cheap excuse to not address actual security. The negligent security practices of most businesses over the last few decades are becoming a serious problem, and as usual the guilty are trying to deflect the blame onto the people least responsible: the users. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI

unholythree 10y ago

>We're still very busy as a society pretending that computers aren't a public utility. Fuck that noise. No my computers in my home are not a public utility. I will run or not run the software I choose on my machines. You can call me Typhoid Mary all you want, but if an Nigerian prince somehow compromises one of my machines and tries to sell you Viagra you can report it to my ISP or domain registrar.

KirinDave 10y ago
> I will run or not run the software I choose on my machines. You can call me Typhoid Mary all you want, but if an Nigerian prince somehow compromises one of my machines and tries to sell you Viagra you can report it to my ISP or domain registrar. I understand that this is a difficult thing to understand and accept, as it is happening in fast forward in our lifetime. People had similar sentiments initially about other things that end up using public shared utilities (e.g., automobiles and phones). It's unfair to expect most users to be able to protect themselves. Even professionals with experience struggle to protect their hardware and computers. Only doing post-incident triage is not going to work here in the same way that we require traffic laws and automobile regulation to make sure that we don't spend even more time and money scraping people-goo off the road. Therefore, as a matter of public safety, we're going to have to put safety and security rules on publicly networked computers. Consider funding and hosting a private network if you find that onerous, perhaps?
- pdkl95 10y ago
  This offensive, paternalistic attitude towards users needs to stop. You do not get to decide these things for end users. > It's unfair to expect most users to be able to protect themselves. Correct. Problems in this area are the fault of the vendor, not the user, for producing shoddy software, not caring enough about security, and/or not going far enough to educate the user about important thins they do need to understand. None of this requires stealing user data (or "telemetry"), nor does it require taking agency away from the user. Your "solution" is to take away the General Purpose Computer from the user. I realize that General Purpose Computers are frightening when in the hands of people who might make a mistake* or run some software you don't like, but that is what we call "freedom"[1]. Instead of supporting freedom, you seem determined to force centralized control on people. Do you not see how this is a major shift in power? > Therefore, as a matter of public safety, we're going to have to put safety and security rules on publicly networked computers. This is a cheap excuse to not address actual security. The negligent security practices of most businesses over the last few decades are becoming a serious problem, and as usual the guilty are trying to deflect the blame onto the people least responsible: the users. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI