14 ms·

> All of the reports I’ve seen so far emphasize the point that HP (or Microsoft?) has installed this "telemetry" program without advising customers or requestin

> All of the reports I’ve seen so far emphasize the point that HP (or Microsoft?) has installed this "telemetry" program without advising customers or requesting permission to install. It is now well established that if you choose to run Windows you're going to be playing this game of cat and mouse until the end of time. You simply are not in full control of the OS.

jhugg 9y ago
So Windows has this problem more than other platforms because of OEMs and drivers and such are 3rd party by default, rather than as the exception. Still, there isn't really sufficient protection to avoid telemetry and data collection on most of the platforms I use. Mac App Store apps are somewhat sandboxed, but many common apps aren't. And running "little snitch" is great, but it's not for typical users.
- mtgx 9y ago
  Microsoft itself does it, too, possibly more than OEMs do. Even if you block some of the telemetry with your firewall, they now seem to be opening new channels to send the data to Microsoft's servers. Their behavior is quite malware-like.
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    Well, everyone using web apps don't seem to mind having their life exposed to the whole internet.
    - pecg 9y ago
      And this is one of the things that worries me the most. The careless people that embrace confidently their lack of privacy, such group can quickly become the majority of a given population and follow a trend that can lead to social disaster in an Orwellian-Huxleyian way, without appearing as such in the surface.
    - jenscow 9y ago
      Web apps are running on another computer. Windows and OEM software/drivers are on the local machine. In a restaurant, I expect other people to see what I eat. In my own house, I don't.
      - ksk 9y ago
        You're sidestepping the argument. To stay consistent, you'd have to run a local mailbox service, DNS service, redundant data backup/storage service, audit your browser code, etc. Not exactly "most people". In any case, IMHO the stronger argument is that just because webapps spy on you doesn't give Windows any right to do the same. Unfortunately, a lot of web companies have shown that people will throw money at you if you attract enough users, and sell their eyeballs or habits.
Koshkin 9y ago
It's not just the OS. Any closed-source, non-free software - drivers, productivity tools, games - all pose the same danger. And it's not just software - binary firmware blobs (including ones found in most ARM-based SBC, such as Raspberry Pi) should be seen as potentially dangerous. Not to mention Intel's Management Engine and such.
- ivraatiems 9y ago
  True - but I'd argue that the dangers aren't equal, and they are also not constant. Windows 7 wasn't nearly as invasive as Windows 10, for example. While the argument often seen from the FSF - that all non-free software is dangerous - is technically true, it's about the same level of true as "all software is dangerous if you can't read the source code," in which case, all software is dangerous to everyone who isn't a software engineer. Even though all non-free software has this issue, we should still be vigilant about fighting and curtailing it where we can. Proprietary software isn't going away, and the harm is real, so we need to encourage its lessening.
  - macintux 9y ago
    > all software is dangerous to everyone who isn't a software engineer And even everyone who is, unless that engineer understands every language and hardware component in play, and is able to spot subtle vulnerabilities at a glance.
  - epicide 9y ago
    Exactly this. You have to have some level of trust. That trust should have a pretty high barrier, though. FOR ME, one of the biggest things I look at is motivation. This often means looking at business models. We've seen where the race to the bottom for laptop prices gets us. I'd rather buy a laptop from a company that makes money off of selling the hardware, itself.
- pc86 9y ago
  They all pose the same danger the same way any car on the road can veer into your lane and kill you. It doesn't mean that's likely or even probable. Yes, by definition closed source software can be changed to do something you don't like without telling you. But specifically Windows has the track record that it will do this, and when you attempt to stop it, it will attempt to go around you and keep doing it. Random drivers and Raspberry Pi firmware do not have this track record, and so saying they "all pose the same danger" is technically accurate, it's disingenuous to the point of being borderline untrue.
pjmlp 9y ago
Just like on all Apple and Google OSes, not to mention hardware. Either you control everything, including hardware, or need to compromise at some level.
- pecg 9y ago
  I agree. If a company prevents users from having control over their hardware, then it can be trivial for such company to control whatever software the user chooses to install on the computer.
  - umanwizard 9y ago
    macOS does not in any way prevent you from controlling your hardware, or control what software you install on it.
- rbanffy 9y ago
  I don't remember when Apple (or Google) installed something on my machine without my permission.
  - lwansbrough 9y ago
    Isn’t Apple forcing High Sierra upgrades? And my phone prompts me to update every day.
    - feliix42 9y ago
      No, I'm still stalling on the update as a few friends had some problems with it. Every other week or so it reminds me of the update but I simply ignore that.
    - wlll 9y ago
      Is it? I've got High Sierra available for my machine and i've been ignoring it because Iv'e got stuff to finish. I'll upgrade when I'm ready in a few days or so.
  - 9y ago
soziawa 9y ago
With the Intel Management Engine does that even matter?
dforrestwilson 9y ago
Recently switched to Ubuntu for this reason. So far I've been very impressed with the strides they've made with the GUI and overall usability.
- tmikaeld 9y ago
  Same here, been using Windows since 3.11 and MacOS the past 6 years. But when i installed Ubuntu 17.04 on my new HP laptop, i was really impressed and haven't needed to switch yet.
  - SubiculumCode 9y ago
    When the recovery partition got corrupted on my teenage niece's nonfunctional Win10 laptop, I fixed her computer by installing Ubuntu Mate. She's been using it for over a year now and loves it. If a teen girl likes her Linux desktop, then things are doing pretty well.
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  Ubuntu has a bunch of telemetry stuff. And non-removable Amazon ad/apps that you've got to copy and paste commands into the system prompt to fix. Let's not pretend that if Linux ever got to the desktop in any meaningful way that these boxes wouldn't ship with everything including kernel modules to do "value added" nonsense.
  - BeefySwain 9y ago
    Can I recompile Windows without any telemetry? Can I build my own Windows OS from scratch or install a pre-built one from a person or organization I trust? You are correct, that pre-built machines are almost never trustworthy. That is not really important though, in that the very nature of GPLed Linux makes a huge difference to the user in terms of control of their machine. This false-equivalence FUD is not compelling.
  - Operyl 9y ago
    That’s the major difference, you can uninstall a package and it’s fixed. Big whoop compared to Microsoft.
ryanlol 9y ago
>You simply are not in full control of the OS. A great thing for 99% of the users.
- adrianN 9y ago
  Not having the possibility to control things and not having to control things are two very different things.
  - ryanlol 9y ago
    Users are extraordinarily stupid. Not having the possibility to control things is a Good Thing.
    - ekianjo 9y ago
      No, they are uneducated about the complexity of what they are dealing with, big difference. Not stupid and unable to learn.
      - ryanlol 9y ago
        Do you think it’s a Good Thing when users lose all of their data to WannaCry or have their bank accounts emptied? I do not. The vast majority of users simply do not benefit from being exposed to such complexity, it certainly shouldn’t be the default.
        BeefySwain 9y ago
        You can both lock down the UI to minimize user error, and allow informed users to have complete control of the system. Think safety locks on pill bottles or cabinets.
        macintux 9y ago
        There are plenty of people who can't be trusted not to make poor decisions about technology they don't understand. Safety locks aren't enough.
ladzoppelin 9y ago
Just buy the computer from the Microsoft store to bypass any OEM software.
- netsharc 9y ago
  And you just have Windows 10's telemetry to deal with!
  - josteink 9y ago
    So what if your OS calls its maker with anonymized data telling them what parts are being used and what parts are causing issues? Name one big, successful project which doesn’t do this.
    - jraph 9y ago
      The Linux kernel. edit: VLC.
_jal 9y ago
Yep. I don't know why people fail to understand this. As one comparison, Debian supports their user base; Microsoft supports their business model[1]. I also don't understand why anyone who cares about these issues would buy HP - they're establishing a great track record as a company that really wants to spy on their customers[2]. Almost worse than that is how incompetent they've been about it - a couple years ago it was FinFisher, and I believe they somewhat recently shipped a key logger in a driver by apparent accident. For my part, my machines save one run OSes that expose full control of the machine[3]. OSes that don't, like other untrusted software, run in VMs so that I can still control them. Windows instances don't get network access anymore. I only use it for a couple apps that do what they need to do, so the bottled demon doesn't need updates until underlying needs change. It makes life much easier when a whole class of problems can't happen. [1] Which is as it is 'supposed to be', as the rules are currently written. [2] Not to mention board members... [3] Yes, cellphones; not a novel observation. That's a different discussion that I've had several times here.
- zamber 9y ago
  Explains why I don't see any HP laptops in the wild no more. Pretty much Apples and Dells everywhere with an odd Lenovo here and there.
  - cbcoutinho 9y ago
    HP is abundant in the world of cheap enterprise laptops for employees. I would never buy one, but I don't care much about what the business I work for wants to buy its newcomers. After about a year, I made it clear to my boss that I was much more valuable to the company running in a Linux system. They 'found' some extra budget and made it happen, and I'm very pleased with that, but I don't disagree with their first decision to just get a simple HP.
  - jaxondu 9y ago
    HP is number 1 in worldwide notebook market https://www.idropnews.com/news/macbook-sales-push-apple-no-4-worldwide-laptop-marketshare/55841/ https://www.idropnews.com/news/macbook-sales-push-apple-no-4...
sova 9y ago
Advertisements in the Start Bar is a new low
cm2187 9y ago
I'd argue I have way less control on my OS on an iphone or an ipad than on a Windows machine. Not that I think it's ok to lock us out of our own hardware, but Windows is not the worst offender, by a huge margin.
- smichel17 9y ago
  There is some merit, however, to the argument that iThings have always been locked down (or intended to be, at least), whereas the Windows changes are a regression.
  - ksk 9y ago
    Could you state what the merit is?
    - mattnewton 9y ago
      Not GP, but one is a breaking change from customer expectations and the other is WAI
      - ksk 9y ago
        Given the success of Apple, that sounds like Windows is attempting to meet customer expectations. In any case, It seemed to me that the OP was arguing for a pro-lockeddown position, which is why I asked what the merits are.
        mattnewton 9y ago
        I think gp’s position is that customer expectations of apple and windows platforms are different- that locked-down-ness was something that, when people could deal with it and preferred it, already were not the core windows customers.
- zitterbewegung 9y ago
  Actually you can choose not to install the latest iOS. When Flappy Bird shut down they didn’t delete the app from phones . I’m pretty sure that android has the same thing.But Android can have preinstalled apps that can’t be installed unless you flash a new rom.
tdb7893 9y ago
This isn't unique at all to Windows. Android had similar problems and if Linux desktop ever caught on the same thing would happen to people.
- clort 9y ago
  This theory only works if you consider that there is only a single distribution of Linux, which there is not. If Canonical start this stuff with Ubuntu then somebody else can (and will) set up an alternative. The problem with Windows is that Microsoft control it totally. There is no way out. Although Google control android, they only do so with the permission of the userbase. I run LineageOS on my phone (no gapps) and although Google are the gatekeepers of what goes into AOSP if they become problematic then the opportunity is there for somebody to take what we already have and carry on in a different direction.
  - tdb7893 9y ago
    It wouldn't be Canonical adding this, it would be whoever is selling you the actual computer adding telemetry. There's nothing stopping HP from adding telemetry any Linux distro if they were selling it.
davisdude 9y ago
Automatic updates aren't always a bad thing. Sometimes they can be very beneficial. I just finished reading a book [0] about the Conficker worm, which infected people's computers by causing a buffer overflow in an unprotected port. Windows published the security patch to prevent the buffer overflow as soon as they found it, but they couldn't force users to update. As a result, the Conficker worm continued to spread, despite the company fixing the problem, because people couldn't or wouldn't install the new patch. While the botnet created by the worm never did anything too malicious, it had the potential to be catastrophic [1]. Experts even talked about it potentially creating enough traffic to shutdown the root servers of the internet. All that to say, automatic updates aren't always a bad thing. I, too, hate having updates forced down my throat. Security updates, however, are in a bit of a gray area when it comes to that, IMO. [0]: Worm: The First Digital World War - Mark Bowden, 2011 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conficker#End_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conficker#End_action
- revmoo 9y ago
  This is a really bad argument. Auto updates open computers worldwide to more risk than they protect, seeing as it just takes one hacker to compromise Microsoft's update service to takeover every Windows PC on Earth. This is not a better situation to be in.
- pritambaral 9y ago
  Does Windows Update allow one to disable non-security updates being applied automatically?
II2II 9y ago
Realistically speaking, how much control do people have regardless of the OS that they are using? We are talking about incredibly complex pieces of software here that relatively few people have the ability to monitor and very few people have the skills to correct. Open source is not really a remedy here for the same reasons. We have seen how developers incorporate telemetry into projects, especially projects with mass appeal. Sometimes there is some pushback (e.g. Ubuntu). Other times it is mostly seen as a fact of life (e.g. Firefox). The only time that you have a reasonable degree of protection is when you're far enough into the fringes that you're a part of a collective that is working proactively to protect a common interest.
- pritambaral 9y ago
  1. Even if you cannot constantly vet every single piece of software, no matter how tiny, that is no excuse to simply let some software vendor do as they please, and to tolerate them as their abuses become more and more egregious. 2. Even in the case of Firefox, there was pushback. It may or may not have been sufficient, but there was. Ultimately, the disabling of that telemetry, whether by toggling a setting or by forking the browser, is still doable. The same cannot be said of some closed source software, particularly of the OS-level spyware that Microsoft has been peddling.
cptskippy 9y ago
Where did that quote come from? It isn't from the article or any of the comments. The article doesn't implicate Microsoft in this at all.
pwdisswordfish2 9y ago
Wow. Surpised (and pleased) to see this comment has not been downvoted. Usually this simple truth is not ackowledged in HN votes and comments as a valuable viewpoint. Instead HN voters and commenters often prefer comments about how Microsoft security has improved over time. The other issue that is never discussed is whether a user can have "security" without having full control of the OS. For example, can Apple, Microsoft, Google, Intel, etc. give users "security" while withholding from them full control over the OS and the computer they purchased.
incompatible 9y ago
It's an issue with proprietary software in general, not just Windows. If they do that with Windows, I wouldn't trust them with a pre-installed version of Linux either: who knows what they would hide in a proprietary device driver.
laythea 9y ago
yes but what is the point of cutting the telemetry out of the OS, when you cant be sure of what is running in your firmware?

jhugg 9y ago

So Windows has this problem more than other platforms because of OEMs and drivers and such are 3rd party by default, rather than as the exception. Still, there isn't really sufficient protection to avoid telemetry and data collection on most of the platforms I use. Mac App Store apps are somewhat sandboxed, but many common apps aren't. And running "little snitch" is great, but it's not for typical users.

mtgx 9y ago
Microsoft itself does it, too, possibly more than OEMs do. Even if you block some of the telemetry with your firewall, they now seem to be opening new channels to send the data to Microsoft's servers. Their behavior is quite malware-like.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  Well, everyone using web apps don't seem to mind having their life exposed to the whole internet.
  - pecg 9y ago
    And this is one of the things that worries me the most. The careless people that embrace confidently their lack of privacy, such group can quickly become the majority of a given population and follow a trend that can lead to social disaster in an Orwellian-Huxleyian way, without appearing as such in the surface.
  - jenscow 9y ago
    Web apps are running on another computer. Windows and OEM software/drivers are on the local machine. In a restaurant, I expect other people to see what I eat. In my own house, I don't.
    - ksk 9y ago
      You're sidestepping the argument. To stay consistent, you'd have to run a local mailbox service, DNS service, redundant data backup/storage service, audit your browser code, etc. Not exactly "most people". In any case, IMHO the stronger argument is that just because webapps spy on you doesn't give Windows any right to do the same. Unfortunately, a lot of web companies have shown that people will throw money at you if you attract enough users, and sell their eyeballs or habits.

Koshkin 9y ago

It's not just the OS. Any closed-source, non-free software - drivers, productivity tools, games - all pose the same danger. And it's not just software - binary firmware blobs (including ones found in most ARM-based SBC, such as Raspberry Pi) should be seen as potentially dangerous. Not to mention Intel's Management Engine and such.

ivraatiems 9y ago
True - but I'd argue that the dangers aren't equal, and they are also not constant. Windows 7 wasn't nearly as invasive as Windows 10, for example. While the argument often seen from the FSF - that all non-free software is dangerous - is technically true, it's about the same level of true as "all software is dangerous if you can't read the source code," in which case, all software is dangerous to everyone who isn't a software engineer. Even though all non-free software has this issue, we should still be vigilant about fighting and curtailing it where we can. Proprietary software isn't going away, and the harm is real, so we need to encourage its lessening.
- macintux 9y ago
  > all software is dangerous to everyone who isn't a software engineer And even everyone who is, unless that engineer understands every language and hardware component in play, and is able to spot subtle vulnerabilities at a glance.
- epicide 9y ago
  Exactly this. You have to have some level of trust. That trust should have a pretty high barrier, though. FOR ME, one of the biggest things I look at is motivation. This often means looking at business models. We've seen where the race to the bottom for laptop prices gets us. I'd rather buy a laptop from a company that makes money off of selling the hardware, itself.
pc86 9y ago
They all pose the same danger the same way any car on the road can veer into your lane and kill you. It doesn't mean that's likely or even probable. Yes, by definition closed source software can be changed to do something you don't like without telling you. But specifically Windows has the track record that it will do this, and when you attempt to stop it, it will attempt to go around you and keep doing it. Random drivers and Raspberry Pi firmware do not have this track record, and so saying they "all pose the same danger" is technically accurate, it's disingenuous to the point of being borderline untrue.

pjmlp 9y ago

Just like on all Apple and Google OSes, not to mention hardware. Either you control everything, including hardware, or need to compromise at some level.

pecg 9y ago
I agree. If a company prevents users from having control over their hardware, then it can be trivial for such company to control whatever software the user chooses to install on the computer.
- umanwizard 9y ago
  macOS does not in any way prevent you from controlling your hardware, or control what software you install on it.
rbanffy 9y ago
I don't remember when Apple (or Google) installed something on my machine without my permission.
- lwansbrough 9y ago
  Isn’t Apple forcing High Sierra upgrades? And my phone prompts me to update every day.
  - feliix42 9y ago
    No, I'm still stalling on the update as a few friends had some problems with it. Every other week or so it reminds me of the update but I simply ignore that.
  - wlll 9y ago
    Is it? I've got High Sierra available for my machine and i've been ignoring it because Iv'e got stuff to finish. I'll upgrade when I'm ready in a few days or so.
- 9y ago

soziawa 9y ago

With the Intel Management Engine does that even matter?

dforrestwilson 9y ago

Recently switched to Ubuntu for this reason. So far I've been very impressed with the strides they've made with the GUI and overall usability.

tmikaeld 9y ago
Same here, been using Windows since 3.11 and MacOS the past 6 years. But when i installed Ubuntu 17.04 on my new HP laptop, i was really impressed and haven't needed to switch yet.
- SubiculumCode 9y ago
  When the recovery partition got corrupted on my teenage niece's nonfunctional Win10 laptop, I fixed her computer by installing Ubuntu Mate. She's been using it for over a year now and loves it. If a teen girl likes her Linux desktop, then things are doing pretty well.
MichaelGG 9y ago
Ubuntu has a bunch of telemetry stuff. And non-removable Amazon ad/apps that you've got to copy and paste commands into the system prompt to fix. Let's not pretend that if Linux ever got to the desktop in any meaningful way that these boxes wouldn't ship with everything including kernel modules to do "value added" nonsense.
- BeefySwain 9y ago
  Can I recompile Windows without any telemetry? Can I build my own Windows OS from scratch or install a pre-built one from a person or organization I trust? You are correct, that pre-built machines are almost never trustworthy. That is not really important though, in that the very nature of GPLed Linux makes a huge difference to the user in terms of control of their machine. This false-equivalence FUD is not compelling.
- Operyl 9y ago
  That’s the major difference, you can uninstall a package and it’s fixed. Big whoop compared to Microsoft.

ryanlol 9y ago

>You simply are not in full control of the OS. A great thing for 99% of the users.

adrianN 9y ago
Not having the possibility to control things and not having to control things are two very different things.
- ryanlol 9y ago
  Users are extraordinarily stupid. Not having the possibility to control things is a Good Thing.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    No, they are uneducated about the complexity of what they are dealing with, big difference. Not stupid and unable to learn.
    - ryanlol 9y ago
      Do you think it’s a Good Thing when users lose all of their data to WannaCry or have their bank accounts emptied? I do not. The vast majority of users simply do not benefit from being exposed to such complexity, it certainly shouldn’t be the default.
      - BeefySwain 9y ago
        You can both lock down the UI to minimize user error, and allow informed users to have complete control of the system. Think safety locks on pill bottles or cabinets.
        macintux 9y ago
        There are plenty of people who can't be trusted not to make poor decisions about technology they don't understand. Safety locks aren't enough.

ladzoppelin 9y ago

Just buy the computer from the Microsoft store to bypass any OEM software.

netsharc 9y ago
And you just have Windows 10's telemetry to deal with!
- josteink 9y ago
  So what if your OS calls its maker with anonymized data telling them what parts are being used and what parts are causing issues? Name one big, successful project which doesn’t do this.
  - jraph 9y ago
    The Linux kernel. edit: VLC.

_jal 9y ago

Yep. I don't know why people fail to understand this. As one comparison, Debian supports their user base; Microsoft supports their business model[1]. I also don't understand why anyone who cares about these issues would buy HP - they're establishing a great track record as a company that really wants to spy on their customers[2]. Almost worse than that is how incompetent they've been about it - a couple years ago it was FinFisher, and I believe they somewhat recently shipped a key logger in a driver by apparent accident. For my part, my machines save one run OSes that expose full control of the machine[3]. OSes that don't, like other untrusted software, run in VMs so that I can still control them. Windows instances don't get network access anymore. I only use it for a couple apps that do what they need to do, so the bottled demon doesn't need updates until underlying needs change. It makes life much easier when a whole class of problems can't happen. [1] Which is as it is 'supposed to be', as the rules are currently written. [2] Not to mention board members... [3] Yes, cellphones; not a novel observation. That's a different discussion that I've had several times here.

zamber 9y ago
Explains why I don't see any HP laptops in the wild no more. Pretty much Apples and Dells everywhere with an odd Lenovo here and there.
- cbcoutinho 9y ago
  HP is abundant in the world of cheap enterprise laptops for employees. I would never buy one, but I don't care much about what the business I work for wants to buy its newcomers. After about a year, I made it clear to my boss that I was much more valuable to the company running in a Linux system. They 'found' some extra budget and made it happen, and I'm very pleased with that, but I don't disagree with their first decision to just get a simple HP.
- jaxondu 9y ago
  HP is number 1 in worldwide notebook market https://www.idropnews.com/news/macbook-sales-push-apple-no-4-worldwide-laptop-marketshare/55841/ https://www.idropnews.com/news/macbook-sales-push-apple-no-4...

sova 9y ago

Advertisements in the Start Bar is a new low

cm2187 9y ago

I'd argue I have way less control on my OS on an iphone or an ipad than on a Windows machine. Not that I think it's ok to lock us out of our own hardware, but Windows is not the worst offender, by a huge margin.

smichel17 9y ago
There is some merit, however, to the argument that iThings have always been locked down (or intended to be, at least), whereas the Windows changes are a regression.
- ksk 9y ago
  Could you state what the merit is?
  - mattnewton 9y ago
    Not GP, but one is a breaking change from customer expectations and the other is WAI
    - ksk 9y ago
      Given the success of Apple, that sounds like Windows is attempting to meet customer expectations. In any case, It seemed to me that the OP was arguing for a pro-lockeddown position, which is why I asked what the merits are.
      - mattnewton 9y ago
        I think gp’s position is that customer expectations of apple and windows platforms are different- that locked-down-ness was something that, when people could deal with it and preferred it, already were not the core windows customers.
zitterbewegung 9y ago
Actually you can choose not to install the latest iOS. When Flappy Bird shut down they didn’t delete the app from phones . I’m pretty sure that android has the same thing.But Android can have preinstalled apps that can’t be installed unless you flash a new rom.

tdb7893 9y ago

This isn't unique at all to Windows. Android had similar problems and if Linux desktop ever caught on the same thing would happen to people.

clort 9y ago
This theory only works if you consider that there is only a single distribution of Linux, which there is not. If Canonical start this stuff with Ubuntu then somebody else can (and will) set up an alternative. The problem with Windows is that Microsoft control it totally. There is no way out. Although Google control android, they only do so with the permission of the userbase. I run LineageOS on my phone (no gapps) and although Google are the gatekeepers of what goes into AOSP if they become problematic then the opportunity is there for somebody to take what we already have and carry on in a different direction.
- tdb7893 9y ago
  It wouldn't be Canonical adding this, it would be whoever is selling you the actual computer adding telemetry. There's nothing stopping HP from adding telemetry any Linux distro if they were selling it.

davisdude 9y ago

Automatic updates aren't always a bad thing. Sometimes they can be very beneficial. I just finished reading a book [0] about the Conficker worm, which infected people's computers by causing a buffer overflow in an unprotected port. Windows published the security patch to prevent the buffer overflow as soon as they found it, but they couldn't force users to update. As a result, the Conficker worm continued to spread, despite the company fixing the problem, because people couldn't or wouldn't install the new patch. While the botnet created by the worm never did anything too malicious, it had the potential to be catastrophic [1]. Experts even talked about it potentially creating enough traffic to shutdown the root servers of the internet. All that to say, automatic updates aren't always a bad thing. I, too, hate having updates forced down my throat. Security updates, however, are in a bit of a gray area when it comes to that, IMO. [0]: Worm: The First Digital World War - Mark Bowden, 2011 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conficker#End_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conficker#End_action

revmoo 9y ago
This is a really bad argument. Auto updates open computers worldwide to more risk than they protect, seeing as it just takes one hacker to compromise Microsoft's update service to takeover every Windows PC on Earth. This is not a better situation to be in.
pritambaral 9y ago
Does Windows Update allow one to disable non-security updates being applied automatically?

II2II 9y ago

Realistically speaking, how much control do people have regardless of the OS that they are using? We are talking about incredibly complex pieces of software here that relatively few people have the ability to monitor and very few people have the skills to correct. Open source is not really a remedy here for the same reasons. We have seen how developers incorporate telemetry into projects, especially projects with mass appeal. Sometimes there is some pushback (e.g. Ubuntu). Other times it is mostly seen as a fact of life (e.g. Firefox). The only time that you have a reasonable degree of protection is when you're far enough into the fringes that you're a part of a collective that is working proactively to protect a common interest.

pritambaral 9y ago
1. Even if you cannot constantly vet every single piece of software, no matter how tiny, that is no excuse to simply let some software vendor do as they please, and to tolerate them as their abuses become more and more egregious. 2. Even in the case of Firefox, there was pushback. It may or may not have been sufficient, but there was. Ultimately, the disabling of that telemetry, whether by toggling a setting or by forking the browser, is still doable. The same cannot be said of some closed source software, particularly of the OS-level spyware that Microsoft has been peddling.

cptskippy 9y ago

Where did that quote come from? It isn't from the article or any of the comments. The article doesn't implicate Microsoft in this at all.

pwdisswordfish2 9y ago

Wow. Surpised (and pleased) to see this comment has not been downvoted. Usually this simple truth is not ackowledged in HN votes and comments as a valuable viewpoint. Instead HN voters and commenters often prefer comments about how Microsoft security has improved over time. The other issue that is never discussed is whether a user can have "security" without having full control of the OS. For example, can Apple, Microsoft, Google, Intel, etc. give users "security" while withholding from them full control over the OS and the computer they purchased.

incompatible 9y ago

It's an issue with proprietary software in general, not just Windows. If they do that with Windows, I wouldn't trust them with a pre-installed version of Linux either: who knows what they would hide in a proprietary device driver.

laythea 9y ago

yes but what is the point of cutting the telemetry out of the OS, when you cant be sure of what is running in your firmware?