3 ms·

>> If you looked at a specific folder in explorer, that can be proven in court, executed a specific program?... You'll find most if not all of these in `.bash_

>> If you looked at a specific folder in explorer, that can be proven in court, executed a specific program?... You'll find most if not all of these in `.bash_history`, wouldn't you? Probably, it's possible to setup an install of Linux in such a way, that the user won't leave any traces in the system, but this is definitely not the default behavior. And the system setup in this way is likely a pain to use. But if you have a specific need, by all means, go for it. After all, with Linux you're in control. But saying Windows is spyware because it logs your activity locally is stretching it.

_8j50 5y ago
The OP called it spyware, not I. I pointed those out as examples of what artifacts windows logs. Bash_history much like your browing history you can clear it and be done with it. But due to the seemingly endless subsystems (new ones get discovered all the time, see my other replies) if you clear security.evtx and your browsing history there are still many reliable (as in court tested) artifacts that can prove you browsed specific sites and ran specific programs. I don't know how much of this MS collects and anyone who says they do, I would challenge them for evidence because there are many plausibly deniable and benign reasons to extract this information from the host. I would say at best windows is spyware-friendly. If I workes for the CCP and was instructed to get a list of people that used Signal so they can be sent for re-education, I would not even look to see if Signal.exe is installed in windows, I would just check prefetch and srum.