5 ms·

> It seems our completely untethered tumble into the world of 1984 led by Big Brother and every all-seeing eye on the planet, with Microsoft pushing us through

> It seems our completely untethered tumble into the world of 1984 led by Big Brother and every all-seeing eye on the planet, with Microsoft pushing us through a new window and into a new era with Windows 11. What a load of hyperbolic junk this is. Microsoft is trying to ensure consistency for people that buy Windows laptops. We can debate whether that is a smart move or not, but descending into 1984 fear-baiting is just nonsense.

simonh 5y ago
Indeed, fortunately duct tape exists.
- dmix 5y ago
  Or plastic camera sliders that stick perfectly within the black part of a macbook pro screen (or similar I'm guessing). Only a few dollars on Amazon. Putting tape on camera's leaves residue and we all get stuck in Zoom calls these days.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > residue Put a small piece of clean paper over the lens to protect it, then tape over that.
    - davesmylie 5y ago
      blue or green masking tape works great - dirt cheap and designed to pull off cleanly. I've had some on my macbook camera for going on 8 years now - pulls off for zoom calls and then goes straight back on.
- bigpeopleareold 5y ago
  Or if you can, physically removing the camera - but then, will Windows complain? :)
- phkahler 5y ago
  Until they require face-ID. Then another percentage of people will not bother to block the camera. For those calling the 1984 references over the top fear mongering, I'd just ask one question: Why does Microsoft even care about users having a camera? When you answer that, I'd probably respond with "Nope, not a strong enough reason to be a requirement for Windows, try again." Rinse and and repeat. It's happening in China, it's happening at Amazon...
  - itsme-alan 5y ago
    Face ID won't be a requirement. It's impossible
  - lp0_on_fire 5y ago
    > Until they require face-ID. That's the next logical step, for "security", of course.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- dzhiurgis 5y ago
  Can't a laptop identify themselves as desktop?
daxuak 5y ago
I agree it's a hyperbolic piece, but at the same time Windows11 as an OS demanding an auxiliary hardware isn't looking very good.
- jsnell 5y ago
  It is very unlikely to be W11 as an OS demanding that. It will be the OEM licensing agreement for pre-installing a cheap license on a laptop. This kind of thing is absolutely mandatory in this day and age. If you don't let commodity OS makers set any limits on the hardware to ensure a consistent experience, it will be very hard for them to compete with integrated solutions. If there was some kind of a suggestion of MS self-dealing here, then maybe the concerns would make sense. E.g. requiring the laptop to have a MS-manufactured camera. But there isn't. It is clearly just an attempt to set a consistent minimum bar on the UX.
  - daxuak 5y ago
    My concern is that as other comments mentioned in this post, the majority of recent laptops already have webcams without OEM licensing pressure. Webcam is also a piece of hardware that doesn't require one to be tech literate to figure out - someone getting a laptop without a webcam very likely knows what they will get, unlike the slightly comfusing intel CPU namings etc. Additionally, the differentiation factor between W11 PCs and mac at the moment doesn't seem to be the prescence of webcams; a bunch of mac iterations actually had awful webcams, and I've never heard of anyone ditching mac just because of them. Combining these three factors, the direction W11 is heading to does not look as genuine as they describe it. And if so, the descend from OEM requirement to OS requirement could happen sooner or later. I wholeheartedly hope they do not though.
    - jsnell 5y ago
      Majority but not all is kind of the worst case. If 95% of laptops have a webcam, people will not think to look at whether the laptop has one. I certainly haven't checked the webcam / microphone specs of any laptop I've bought in the last 10 years, but just assumed they would be there.
lp0_on_fire 5y ago
> What a load of hyperbolic junk this is. Microsoft is trying to ensure consistency for people that buy Windows laptops. We can debate whether that is a smart move or not, but descending into 1984 fear-baiting is just nonsense. Over the past few years we've seen Microsoft adopt increasingly user-hostile practices when it comes to privacy. It's not unreasonable to be concerned that this initiative will morph into something nefarious. We went from "you need to have a network interface so you can activate the OS" to "Track all the things and phone home" in less than a decade.
- mfer 5y ago
  How does Windows track all the things? What of the information they do collect doesn't have an opt-in/out? The opt-in/out is part of the setup process (in the cases I've seen) so it's not hidden away. I'm not a Windows fan or anything like that. Don't even use Windows as one of my main systems. I'm just dealing with it so I've seen some of these things.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    It has a really bad habit of resetting the opt-outs on updates, so about every six months.
  - lp0_on_fire 5y ago
    https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/data-collection-windows https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/data-collection-windows Goes into more detail as to what they collect. Browsing data, devices connected to the system, what you type, or transcribe via text or ink (speech to text, handwriting to text etc), what applications you're running and for how long. > The opt-in/out is part of the setup process (in the cases I've seen) so it's not hidden away. It gets reset _literally_ every time they push out a larger update. They prompt you with a modal form that defaults to tracking turned on (even though I had it turned off to begin with). Guess someone at Microsoft figured out that the tech-literate among us were turning that setting off as soon as our non-tech-literate family/friends took their PCs out of the box around the Christmas tree.
- afavour 5y ago
ykat7 5y ago
I'm still unsure where exactly Microsoft documented the requirement for OEMs to add a front-facing camera from 2023. Did they publish a system requirements doc or something? IMO the author overindexed on making vague allusions to telescreens ("1984-style future [...] laptops, desktop PCs, TVs") and criticising Microsoft for its "Productivity Score" (a different discussion entirely).
- layer8 5y ago
  https://download.microsoft.com/download/7/8/8/788bf5ab-0751-4928-a22c-dffdc23c27f2/Minimum%20Hardware%20Requirements%20for%20Windows%2011.pdf https://download.microsoft.com/download/7/8/8/788bf5ab-0751-...
015a 5y ago
Yeah seriously. Try and find a Windows laptop with no front-facing camera nowadays; they don't exist. Maybe some OEM white-box bargain bin hardware. Even System76, the ultra-privacy respecting Linux laptop vendor, sells precisely zero laptops w/o front-facing cameras. Even the argument for consistency is tenuous; its already consistent. Microsoft says that all laptops must have DDR memory, at least 4gb. Its the same thing; you don't need memory, technically, to run an OS. Its just better that its there, and operating systems can be more sophisticated knowing that you've got it.
- Hamcha 5y ago
  Probably because it would be an unpopular move. I have a friend who had the Zephyrus GA502, a quite successful gaming laptop, and he hated not having a front facing camera. Hardware shutters is what people should push for imo
swiley 5y ago
I don't know about you but after what happened with smartphones I'm pretty much done giving OS vendors the benefit of the doubt.
Black101 5y ago
We are way past 1984 with cellphones... that is just icing on the cake. If I was on a different forum, I would think that you were working for MS.

simonh 5y ago

Indeed, fortunately duct tape exists.

dmix 5y ago
Or plastic camera sliders that stick perfectly within the black part of a macbook pro screen (or similar I'm guessing). Only a few dollars on Amazon. Putting tape on camera's leaves residue and we all get stuck in Zoom calls these days.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > residue Put a small piece of clean paper over the lens to protect it, then tape over that.
  - davesmylie 5y ago
    blue or green masking tape works great - dirt cheap and designed to pull off cleanly. I've had some on my macbook camera for going on 8 years now - pulls off for zoom calls and then goes straight back on.
bigpeopleareold 5y ago
Or if you can, physically removing the camera - but then, will Windows complain? :)
phkahler 5y ago
Until they require face-ID. Then another percentage of people will not bother to block the camera. For those calling the 1984 references over the top fear mongering, I'd just ask one question: Why does Microsoft even care about users having a camera? When you answer that, I'd probably respond with "Nope, not a strong enough reason to be a requirement for Windows, try again." Rinse and and repeat. It's happening in China, it's happening at Amazon...
- itsme-alan 5y ago
  Face ID won't be a requirement. It's impossible
- lp0_on_fire 5y ago
  > Until they require face-ID. That's the next logical step, for "security", of course.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dzhiurgis 5y ago
Can't a laptop identify themselves as desktop?

daxuak 5y ago

I agree it's a hyperbolic piece, but at the same time Windows11 as an OS demanding an auxiliary hardware isn't looking very good.

jsnell 5y ago
It is very unlikely to be W11 as an OS demanding that. It will be the OEM licensing agreement for pre-installing a cheap license on a laptop. This kind of thing is absolutely mandatory in this day and age. If you don't let commodity OS makers set any limits on the hardware to ensure a consistent experience, it will be very hard for them to compete with integrated solutions. If there was some kind of a suggestion of MS self-dealing here, then maybe the concerns would make sense. E.g. requiring the laptop to have a MS-manufactured camera. But there isn't. It is clearly just an attempt to set a consistent minimum bar on the UX.
- daxuak 5y ago
  My concern is that as other comments mentioned in this post, the majority of recent laptops already have webcams without OEM licensing pressure. Webcam is also a piece of hardware that doesn't require one to be tech literate to figure out - someone getting a laptop without a webcam very likely knows what they will get, unlike the slightly comfusing intel CPU namings etc. Additionally, the differentiation factor between W11 PCs and mac at the moment doesn't seem to be the prescence of webcams; a bunch of mac iterations actually had awful webcams, and I've never heard of anyone ditching mac just because of them. Combining these three factors, the direction W11 is heading to does not look as genuine as they describe it. And if so, the descend from OEM requirement to OS requirement could happen sooner or later. I wholeheartedly hope they do not though.
  - jsnell 5y ago
    Majority but not all is kind of the worst case. If 95% of laptops have a webcam, people will not think to look at whether the laptop has one. I certainly haven't checked the webcam / microphone specs of any laptop I've bought in the last 10 years, but just assumed they would be there.

lp0_on_fire 5y ago

> What a load of hyperbolic junk this is. Microsoft is trying to ensure consistency for people that buy Windows laptops. We can debate whether that is a smart move or not, but descending into 1984 fear-baiting is just nonsense. Over the past few years we've seen Microsoft adopt increasingly user-hostile practices when it comes to privacy. It's not unreasonable to be concerned that this initiative will morph into something nefarious. We went from "you need to have a network interface so you can activate the OS" to "Track all the things and phone home" in less than a decade.

mfer 5y ago
How does Windows track all the things? What of the information they do collect doesn't have an opt-in/out? The opt-in/out is part of the setup process (in the cases I've seen) so it's not hidden away. I'm not a Windows fan or anything like that. Don't even use Windows as one of my main systems. I'm just dealing with it so I've seen some of these things.
- monocasa 5y ago
  It has a really bad habit of resetting the opt-outs on updates, so about every six months.
- lp0_on_fire 5y ago
  https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/data-collection-windows https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/data-collection-windows Goes into more detail as to what they collect. Browsing data, devices connected to the system, what you type, or transcribe via text or ink (speech to text, handwriting to text etc), what applications you're running and for how long. > The opt-in/out is part of the setup process (in the cases I've seen) so it's not hidden away. It gets reset _literally_ every time they push out a larger update. They prompt you with a modal form that defaults to tracking turned on (even though I had it turned off to begin with). Guess someone at Microsoft figured out that the tech-literate among us were turning that setting off as soon as our non-tech-literate family/friends took their PCs out of the box around the Christmas tree.
afavour 5y ago

ykat7 5y ago

I'm still unsure where exactly Microsoft documented the requirement for OEMs to add a front-facing camera from 2023. Did they publish a system requirements doc or something? IMO the author overindexed on making vague allusions to telescreens ("1984-style future [...] laptops, desktop PCs, TVs") and criticising Microsoft for its "Productivity Score" (a different discussion entirely).

layer8 5y ago
https://download.microsoft.com/download/7/8/8/788bf5ab-0751-4928-a22c-dffdc23c27f2/Minimum%20Hardware%20Requirements%20for%20Windows%2011.pdf https://download.microsoft.com/download/7/8/8/788bf5ab-0751-...

015a 5y ago

Yeah seriously. Try and find a Windows laptop with no front-facing camera nowadays; they don't exist. Maybe some OEM white-box bargain bin hardware. Even System76, the ultra-privacy respecting Linux laptop vendor, sells precisely zero laptops w/o front-facing cameras. Even the argument for consistency is tenuous; its already consistent. Microsoft says that all laptops must have DDR memory, at least 4gb. Its the same thing; you don't need memory, technically, to run an OS. Its just better that its there, and operating systems can be more sophisticated knowing that you've got it.

Hamcha 5y ago
Probably because it would be an unpopular move. I have a friend who had the Zephyrus GA502, a quite successful gaming laptop, and he hated not having a front facing camera. Hardware shutters is what people should push for imo

swiley 5y ago

I don't know about you but after what happened with smartphones I'm pretty much done giving OS vendors the benefit of the doubt.

Black101 5y ago

We are way past 1984 with cellphones... that is just icing on the cake. If I was on a different forum, I would think that you were working for MS.