5 ms·

...and for 14 years no ordinary user has understood what those default settings do, instead assuming “their software provider wouldn’t do that...”

arijun 7y ago
I think you're making a big assumption that ordinary users care if Microsoft knows what URLs they visit--how many of them use blockers or another technology to opt out of e.g. Facebook tracking?
- Elpomm 7y ago
  Agreed, the average user simply does not care about privacy to that degree. FaceApp is yet another example. On the bright side, most of the tools we need to "cover up" are available to us. You can't ask for more than freedom of choice, I suppose.
- amelius 7y ago
  That doesn't make it any better, though. Most people don't care what's in their food exactly, but that doesn't mean the producer has no responsibility.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  Ordinary users don't know what a URL even is. But they do assume every site they visit isn't being logged by Microsoft, much like they assume their car's manufacturer isn't recording the places they drive to using GPS. "Users don't care" is such an intellectually dishonest argument when users aren't technical enough to understand the subject.
  - dgzl 7y ago
    Maybe we should differentiate "users understand and don't care" against "users don't understand and don't care". On one hand, a TOS usually describes privacy implications. On the other hand, there's no accountability that a user has understood or even read the TOS. Is it unreasonable to assume people will read the fine print?
    - elliekelly 7y ago
      > Is it unreasonable to assume people will read the fine print? Unequivocally, yes. Even if someone hypothetically had enough time to read every TOS they've agreed to I would venture to guess the average user wouldn't be able to comprehend most of the terms[1] anyway. Disclosure documents are written by lawyers (corporate CYA) for lawyers (regulators, plaintiff's counsel, judges). The law, however, disagrees with me entirely. [1] Edit to clarify I mean "terms" as in the terms of the agreement
      - dgzl 7y ago
        Delegating privacy rights feels like delegating monetary rights. As in, negotiating contracts for payments. This is coming from the perspective of a simple person trying to understand this complexity. Anytime I sign complex and impactful contracts, it's usually done in person with physical paper and a general understanding between both parties. An online agreement feels like scam artist's work, only after we've realized the value of our personal data. Maybe we're giving too much away at the notice of typed words? We're essentially giving away resource because we didn't realize the importance of it.
    - craftinator 7y ago
      This needs to include the class of users who'd don't care because they don't understand. If they knew, they'd be upset too.
  - DannyBee 7y ago
    [citation needed] Most users probably don't assume anything, it doesn't even enter the lists of concerns or cares they have or ever would. It's not that they don't understand the subject, they simply do not give a crap one way or the other. Random family in the US or elsewhere simply does not give a crap about things like this, no matter how much you want them to. It's not ignorance, and the most intellectually dishonest arguments are really the argument here - "If people knew more about the subject or could know more, they'd care!". If they knew as much as you did, they still wouldn't care.
    - badrabbit 7y ago
      I disagree in many ways. If someone knew exactly what type of information can be infered based on the information collected and all the many ways it can be used against them they would care. Let's say they knew Microsoft can share this information with third parties which might affect their credit worthiness,employability and other very real and immediate aspects of their lives? Let us say the quality and availability of goods and services might change if MS or a third party used this information against them? What if MS can use ML to infer very personal and private aspects of their lives? By your logic 4th amendment search and seizure restrictions don't matter either because most people assume the government can search them anyways. There is a reason you have the right to legal representation when accused before the law, you don't understand the law well enough to answer questions and argue on your own. Tech isn't that different, people don't understand it well enough without relying on factual opinions of professionals in the field.
    - bandushrew 7y ago
      You are completely wrong, in my experience. I just recently had a chat with my 80 year old mum, and SHE was shocked and unhappy to find that google tracks her search history, let alone everything else. I found myself in the unexpected position of trying to explain why (IMO) it was ok and not a big deal that they did that. I dont know whether I convinced her. People assume they have privacy when they are alone. Its that simple. IMO its not ok for any company to change that basic private-when-alone without a very simple, very clear explanation.
- tareqak 7y ago
  Let’s take a step back here, and ask a few questions. 1) Is it possible to care about something that you don’t understand? 2) Is it possible to care about something whose existence you aren’t aware of? I personally don’t think anyone can have a meaningful discussion about this issue without answering and agreeing on the answers to at least those two questions I ask above.
janbporterb 7y ago
I am all for bashing bad privacy options, but from the linked tweet at least, this IS off by default. I can certainly see enterprise scenarios where this feature is very useful for security reasons. Did I miss some context? Edit: oh, this is in addition to the Mirror stuff. Yea this should never be a thing.

arijun 7y ago

I think you're making a big assumption that ordinary users care if Microsoft knows what URLs they visit--how many of them use blockers or another technology to opt out of e.g. Facebook tracking?

Elpomm 7y ago
Agreed, the average user simply does not care about privacy to that degree. FaceApp is yet another example. On the bright side, most of the tools we need to "cover up" are available to us. You can't ask for more than freedom of choice, I suppose.
amelius 7y ago
That doesn't make it any better, though. Most people don't care what's in their food exactly, but that doesn't mean the producer has no responsibility.
badrabbit 7y ago
Ordinary users don't know what a URL even is. But they do assume every site they visit isn't being logged by Microsoft, much like they assume their car's manufacturer isn't recording the places they drive to using GPS. "Users don't care" is such an intellectually dishonest argument when users aren't technical enough to understand the subject.
- dgzl 7y ago
  Maybe we should differentiate "users understand and don't care" against "users don't understand and don't care". On one hand, a TOS usually describes privacy implications. On the other hand, there's no accountability that a user has understood or even read the TOS. Is it unreasonable to assume people will read the fine print?
  - elliekelly 7y ago
    > Is it unreasonable to assume people will read the fine print? Unequivocally, yes. Even if someone hypothetically had enough time to read every TOS they've agreed to I would venture to guess the average user wouldn't be able to comprehend most of the terms[1] anyway. Disclosure documents are written by lawyers (corporate CYA) for lawyers (regulators, plaintiff's counsel, judges). The law, however, disagrees with me entirely. [1] Edit to clarify I mean "terms" as in the terms of the agreement
    - dgzl 7y ago
      Delegating privacy rights feels like delegating monetary rights. As in, negotiating contracts for payments. This is coming from the perspective of a simple person trying to understand this complexity. Anytime I sign complex and impactful contracts, it's usually done in person with physical paper and a general understanding between both parties. An online agreement feels like scam artist's work, only after we've realized the value of our personal data. Maybe we're giving too much away at the notice of typed words? We're essentially giving away resource because we didn't realize the importance of it.
  - craftinator 7y ago
    This needs to include the class of users who'd don't care because they don't understand. If they knew, they'd be upset too.
- DannyBee 7y ago
  [citation needed] Most users probably don't assume anything, it doesn't even enter the lists of concerns or cares they have or ever would. It's not that they don't understand the subject, they simply do not give a crap one way or the other. Random family in the US or elsewhere simply does not give a crap about things like this, no matter how much you want them to. It's not ignorance, and the most intellectually dishonest arguments are really the argument here - "If people knew more about the subject or could know more, they'd care!". If they knew as much as you did, they still wouldn't care.
  - badrabbit 7y ago
    I disagree in many ways. If someone knew exactly what type of information can be infered based on the information collected and all the many ways it can be used against them they would care. Let's say they knew Microsoft can share this information with third parties which might affect their credit worthiness,employability and other very real and immediate aspects of their lives? Let us say the quality and availability of goods and services might change if MS or a third party used this information against them? What if MS can use ML to infer very personal and private aspects of their lives? By your logic 4th amendment search and seizure restrictions don't matter either because most people assume the government can search them anyways. There is a reason you have the right to legal representation when accused before the law, you don't understand the law well enough to answer questions and argue on your own. Tech isn't that different, people don't understand it well enough without relying on factual opinions of professionals in the field.
  - bandushrew 7y ago
    You are completely wrong, in my experience. I just recently had a chat with my 80 year old mum, and SHE was shocked and unhappy to find that google tracks her search history, let alone everything else. I found myself in the unexpected position of trying to explain why (IMO) it was ok and not a big deal that they did that. I dont know whether I convinced her. People assume they have privacy when they are alone. Its that simple. IMO its not ok for any company to change that basic private-when-alone without a very simple, very clear explanation.
tareqak 7y ago
Let’s take a step back here, and ask a few questions. 1) Is it possible to care about something that you don’t understand? 2) Is it possible to care about something whose existence you aren’t aware of? I personally don’t think anyone can have a meaningful discussion about this issue without answering and agreeing on the answers to at least those two questions I ask above.

janbporterb 7y ago

I am all for bashing bad privacy options, but from the linked tweet at least, this IS off by default. I can certainly see enterprise scenarios where this feature is very useful for security reasons. Did I miss some context? Edit: oh, this is in addition to the Mirror stuff. Yea this should never be a thing.