3 ms·

It means that Microsoft is providing information that they shouldn't.

• detaro 6y ago
  And Canonical decided to take that data, search him on Linkedin and contact him. Seems reasonable to see that as a reason to loose respect for Canonical over.
  • inetknght 6y ago
    Don't get me wrong, what Canonical has done here also isn't good. But what they've done shouldn't have been possible because Microsoft shouldn't have given Canonical the information in the first place.
    • bigbizisverywyz 6y ago
      The question I have is what's in it for Microsoft, why did they even bother to do this in the first place? I can't believe there would be that big of a cash incentive.
      • foolmeonce 6y ago
        If this were Windows, I would expect Microsoft to pass it to an internal department that sells higher service contracts and then off to 3rd parties that provide the same for up to a week after you find the "don't share my data" checkbox. That (enterprise support) is a very important side business. Whether they got cash from other OSes or just set it up the same to fight an eventual Anti-Trust Case is anyone's guess.
  • hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    Again, the user's relationship was with Microsoft, not Canonical. Microsoft is the one who the user entrusted to protect their data, and they didn't.
    • detaro 6y ago
      how makes that Canonicals side of things better?
      • inetknght 6y ago
        It doesn't.
    • bregma 6y ago
      The user chose Microsoft's Azure product to run Canonical's Ubuntu product. The user has relationships with both vendors.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]