7 ms·

> Also Windows Defender is fairly non-intrusive Microsoft and antivirus vendors have very different goals. Microsoft wants to quietly protect your computer wit

> Also Windows Defender is fairly non-intrusive Microsoft and antivirus vendors have very different goals. Microsoft wants to quietly protect your computer without making a big deal out of viruses, while antivirus vendors always want to let you know that they're hard at work protecting you and that the world is a dangerous place so keep giving them money(or in the case of free versions, keep it installed so they can keep vacuuming that data).

Brave-Steak 7y ago
I think one of the worst parts of this kind of stuff is that paying for the product doesn't mean they stop selling all your data. It just means they make even more money off of you.
- simias 7y ago
  That's the standard these days unfortunately. Why turn these options off when most users won't even notice and you get more money in the end? I wish that my various "premium" subscriptions to services like Spotify or various other apps meant that my privacy will be respected but I have absolutely no illusions about it. That's why I'll never ever consent to turning off u-block, I want the freemium/ad-driven model to die, it's the original evil that makes all these practices worthwhile.
  - reaperducer 7y ago
    Why turn these options off when most users won't even notice and you get more money in the end? Because it's the right thing to do? Why is it so hard for people in technology to simply do what's right? I don't buy the hackneyed HN arguments about "A company is required to maximize profits for the shareholder!" or high school thought exercises like, "Who gets to decide what is right?" It's simply not that hard. I wonder if software engineers had to pass ethics classes like other types of engineers if the world would be a different place today.
    - simias 7y ago
      To be clear I wasn't condoning this behavior at all, it was just a statement of fact. I also wish people valued ethics over short term profits but here we are. Like my grandmother used to say, there is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism.
    - salawat 7y ago
      They do in some universities. Even when I was going. Most just treat it as a "Yup, okay fine" course, and many instructors are really bad about making it clear just the kind of heinous things to watch out for. Example: What is an acceptable use case: A) Utilizing photo manipulation to place an individual somewhere they haven't been before. B) The same except for them to enter in a contest. C) The same, for some one who just wants the picture to flesh out a personal scrapbook with a picture of them and their SO having done something they wanted to do, but the SOwasno longer alive for somehow. They don't do a great job at preparing you to understand how industry gets you to actually do unethical things, or how to react when they do. I.e. It's rarely, in my experience, "Hey, do blatantly unethical thing." Though that happens. I've had some snuck by my filters in the form of >Hey welcome aboard! <Several months of innocuous work later>. Okay guys, time for <skeevy thing>. Business really needs this, so it's pretty high visibility. Generally it escapes your notice because for once you're just happy to have clear requirements, and to not be getting jerked around, so you do it. Minimal complaint is encouraged, or will at least be pretended to be entertained, relying on the cushy salary and in-house benefits to carry you through to job completion. But the ball keeps rolling regardless. You can decide to not work on certain stuff, but that generally gets shluffed off to another team that doesn't share your ethical proclivities. The sad thing is, you almost need a labor or professional organization like structure to be capable of keeping major divergence from the ethical straight and narrow in check, because otherwise you can pay lip service to higher ethical and moral standards, but when it comes paycheck time, most are going to go with that phat paycheck. I'm working on considering my next link in the career chain, and ethical implications are strongly influencing my choice. I'm sick and tired of being someone else's money vacuum mechanic. I'd like to work on software that actually helps people. And I'll stop anyone who suggests "but those systems are capital pumps, and help people because the free market." No they don't not in any but the most indirect of ways. If people overall weren't having all their siphoned off them, I'dwager there would be a much higher degree of actualization or entrepreneurial development in the hands of less capital starved people. I know a positive feedback loop when I see one, and you can damn well bet that's why every tech company is scrambling to become a fintech in one way or another.
  - acdha 7y ago
    There’s an argument that growing awareness will lead to backlash, some of which will carry legal weight. I’m not sure how compelling long-term brand reputation is to most CEOs, however — Apple has been doing well but that’s a single data point with lots of confounds.
JohnTHaller 7y ago
In the case of free versions, keep updating it so they can sneak Google Chrome onto your system using dark patterns (which Google pays them to do).
blablabla123 7y ago
> the world is a dangerous place True, as long as keeping outdated software/practices is facilitated. The attack surface is relatively small if someone installs only apps from an App Store - no matter which one that is - and from well-known vendors. That said, Microsoft has created a nice breeding ground for viruses by keeping all the software backwards compatible but accepting that users might need to get new hardware for every major update. At least the major updates have become quite cheap...
- BlueTemplar 7y ago
  Using software from official app stores comes with even worse issues... (and didn't prevent like a quarter of top-100 Android apps from sending data to Facebook!)

Brave-Steak 7y ago

I think one of the worst parts of this kind of stuff is that paying for the product doesn't mean they stop selling all your data. It just means they make even more money off of you.

simias 7y ago
That's the standard these days unfortunately. Why turn these options off when most users won't even notice and you get more money in the end? I wish that my various "premium" subscriptions to services like Spotify or various other apps meant that my privacy will be respected but I have absolutely no illusions about it. That's why I'll never ever consent to turning off u-block, I want the freemium/ad-driven model to die, it's the original evil that makes all these practices worthwhile.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  Why turn these options off when most users won't even notice and you get more money in the end? Because it's the right thing to do? Why is it so hard for people in technology to simply do what's right? I don't buy the hackneyed HN arguments about "A company is required to maximize profits for the shareholder!" or high school thought exercises like, "Who gets to decide what is right?" It's simply not that hard. I wonder if software engineers had to pass ethics classes like other types of engineers if the world would be a different place today.
  - simias 7y ago
    To be clear I wasn't condoning this behavior at all, it was just a statement of fact. I also wish people valued ethics over short term profits but here we are. Like my grandmother used to say, there is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism.
  - salawat 7y ago
    They do in some universities. Even when I was going. Most just treat it as a "Yup, okay fine" course, and many instructors are really bad about making it clear just the kind of heinous things to watch out for. Example: What is an acceptable use case: A) Utilizing photo manipulation to place an individual somewhere they haven't been before. B) The same except for them to enter in a contest. C) The same, for some one who just wants the picture to flesh out a personal scrapbook with a picture of them and their SO having done something they wanted to do, but the SOwasno longer alive for somehow. They don't do a great job at preparing you to understand how industry gets you to actually do unethical things, or how to react when they do. I.e. It's rarely, in my experience, "Hey, do blatantly unethical thing." Though that happens. I've had some snuck by my filters in the form of >Hey welcome aboard! <Several months of innocuous work later>. Okay guys, time for <skeevy thing>. Business really needs this, so it's pretty high visibility. Generally it escapes your notice because for once you're just happy to have clear requirements, and to not be getting jerked around, so you do it. Minimal complaint is encouraged, or will at least be pretended to be entertained, relying on the cushy salary and in-house benefits to carry you through to job completion. But the ball keeps rolling regardless. You can decide to not work on certain stuff, but that generally gets shluffed off to another team that doesn't share your ethical proclivities. The sad thing is, you almost need a labor or professional organization like structure to be capable of keeping major divergence from the ethical straight and narrow in check, because otherwise you can pay lip service to higher ethical and moral standards, but when it comes paycheck time, most are going to go with that phat paycheck. I'm working on considering my next link in the career chain, and ethical implications are strongly influencing my choice. I'm sick and tired of being someone else's money vacuum mechanic. I'd like to work on software that actually helps people. And I'll stop anyone who suggests "but those systems are capital pumps, and help people because the free market." No they don't not in any but the most indirect of ways. If people overall weren't having all their siphoned off them, I'dwager there would be a much higher degree of actualization or entrepreneurial development in the hands of less capital starved people. I know a positive feedback loop when I see one, and you can damn well bet that's why every tech company is scrambling to become a fintech in one way or another.
- acdha 7y ago
  There’s an argument that growing awareness will lead to backlash, some of which will carry legal weight. I’m not sure how compelling long-term brand reputation is to most CEOs, however — Apple has been doing well but that’s a single data point with lots of confounds.

JohnTHaller 7y ago

In the case of free versions, keep updating it so they can sneak Google Chrome onto your system using dark patterns (which Google pays them to do).

blablabla123 7y ago

> the world is a dangerous place True, as long as keeping outdated software/practices is facilitated. The attack surface is relatively small if someone installs only apps from an App Store - no matter which one that is - and from well-known vendors. That said, Microsoft has created a nice breeding ground for viruses by keeping all the software backwards compatible but accepting that users might need to get new hardware for every major update. At least the major updates have become quite cheap...

BlueTemplar 7y ago
Using software from official app stores comes with even worse issues... (and didn't prevent like a quarter of top-100 Android apps from sending data to Facebook!)