5 ms·

Recall can't be disabled during the Windows setup. It has to be disabled manually in Windows settings. https://x.com/tomwarren/status/1796681578984182066 https

by fh9302 2y ago

Recall can't be disabled during the Windows setup. It has to be disabled manually in Windows settings. https://x.com/tomwarren/status/1796681578984182066 https://x.com/tomwarren/status/1796681578984182066

autoexec 2y ago
Eventually they can just re-enable it as part of an "important update". They can even stop you from being able to disable it entirely. If you're using Windows, it's not really your computer. At least you aren't the administrator of that device. Microsoft can access any file, install any software, change any setting, or remove any access at any time for any reason with no notice or indication to you that it happened. They can even shutdown your computer. Any device which works like that is not one that's under your control. Every internet connected windows computer is insecure by design and cannot be trusted to protect your privacy or security.
- wilsonnb3 2y ago
  > Microsoft can access any file, install any software, change any setting, or remove any access at any time for any reason with no notice or indication to you that it happened. They can even just shutdown your device. Any device which works like that is not one under your control. Having this power is inherent in making the OS. Whoever is the vendor of your particular Linux distribution has the same powers, it is just that you trust them not to use them (or, in a very small theoretical minority of cases, you’ve audited the code and binaries yourself). So yes, you shouldn’t use an OS from a vendor you don’t trust, I agree completely. I don’t understand why people are acting like this is earth shattering news though, this has always been the case since people started using software they didn’t write themselves.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    > Having this power is inherent in making the OS. No, it really isn't. For decades I owned computers with operating systems which didn't have that capability. Once installed and configured, the OS was consistent and (reasonably) stable. Someone would literally have to break into my house or office to modify my settings or install software against my wishes. Even after I started connecting my devices to the internet the OS itself had no ability to do these things and couldn't gain that ability unless I explicitly chose to install updates that enabled that behavior. That's entirely different from the situation today where MS forces updates and restarts, installs unwanted software on our computers, and has files and folders that we (even using administrator accounts) don't have access to. Linux too is very different. Linux is transparent about what it does, adds, or changes. You have the power to choose which updates to apply or not. You have the power to modify any part of your OS so that it does what you want. I can't speak to all distros out there, but I've never seen a linux system force a restart in the middle of the day, or reinstall applications users removed without notice. Can't say the same for Windows. Unlike Windows, linux typically respects its users and their wishes. You really don't have to write your own software in order to have software that respects you and leaves you in control of your own devices. It's kind of crazy that you'd think there could be no other way.
    - wilsonnb3 2y ago
      > I can't speak to all distros out there, but I've never seen a linux system force a restart in the middle of the day. My point is that there isn’t a technical reason that prevents Linus distros, or any other OS, from restarting your computer whenever it feels like it. By definition the OS has control of the hardware and software and thus whoever writes the OS inherits that control. I completely agree that there are good reasons to not trust Microsoft and people who don’t should not be using Windows. I just dislike the framing of this issue as a recent development rather than an inherent problem of running software you didn’t write.
      - autoexec 2y ago
        > My point is that there isn’t a technical reason that prevents Linus distros, or any other OS, from restarting your computer whenever it feels like it. Go install MS-DOS 6.22 on a computer. You can leave that system up and wait your whole life and you'll never see it suddenly restart your computer without asking. The technical reason why it can't is because there is no code in that OS designed to check for and accept an order from someone at Microsoft to restart your machine without asking. It doesn't exist. You could choose to find or write and then install new software that gives that OS the capability to do it, but that capability just isn't there otherwise. There's no rule that an OS has to include code to violate the rights and will of the people who install it on their devices. That's a choice that MS made. Far too many people have accepted that behavior from them so they keep pushing and pushing with new and increasingly user-hostile code and behavior but none of that is inevitable or unavoidable. That is what's a very recent development. For a very very long time no operating system would have dared to violate their users that way. None of them did. Yes, at a certain level you have to be able to place some level your trust in your OS. Especially one with internet access. MS has shown themselves to be entirely untrustworthy, but they could still change all of that. They could strip out every line of code that allows them to remotely access your system without your explicit permission. They could be 100% transparent about what their updates will do to your computer if they are installed and they could give you the ability to not install any update you didn't like and revert to any previous state. They could give you full access to every file and directory and process and give you the ability to control every aspect of their OS. They could vow to never modify a setting after you've changed it. They just choose not to do those things, because they don't care about you or your privacy or your wishes, or your rights. As long as people continue to use windows, Microsoft stands to make a lot of money by ignoring those things.
  - gryn 2y ago
    I don't think msft will give you the code for windows to review it if you ask nicely, unlike linux where it's already available. if you're paranoid about the distribution of your pre-built distro you can compile everything by hand and some do that for fun. so putting them on the same pedestal is weird mind gymnastics.
    - wilsonnb3 2y ago
      Yes, if you compile your own binaries, audit the source code, and for good measure audit your compiler and the system you are using to compile it, then there is a meaningful difference*. Since 99% of users don’t actually do any of that, then in practice there isn’t actually a difference. * I am aware that there are shades of grey between the scenario I describe and proprietary software - I am just being hyperbolic for rhetorical reasons.
      - autoexec 2y ago
        > Since 99% of users don’t actually do any of that, then in practice there isn’t actually a difference. I understand the hyperbole, but in practice we have strong evidence that MS is willing to intentionally use their OS against you, while we don't for your typical linux OS. That really means a lot. When linux distros disrespect their users even a little (see for example https://www.pcworld.com/article/436097/ubuntus-unity-8-desktop-removes-the-amazon-search-spyware.html https://www.pcworld.com/article/436097/ubuntus-unity-8-deskt...) users really don't put up with it and they can switch to another distro with very very little effort/change and even have the ability to modify the source and fork the OS. That helps to keep people a little more honest. The backdoored compiler problem is a bit harder. We can write our own, but it's turtles all the way down. Increasingly we also have to put a lot of trust in our hardware. There are only a small number of companies making CPUs and wireless chips. I imagine they're under enormous pressure from governments to compromise the privacy and security of the people using that hardware and we have less trust in our own devices the more we have "trusted computing" forced on us.
  - throwaway22032 2y ago
    Trust is earned. Your partner always has the capability to screw you over, cheat on you, embezzle from the shared account, whatever. Linux is like a nerdy guy who stays at home, plays with Warhammer figures and cooks you dinner. Windows is an OnlyFans model who goes on vacations for weeks at a time and ignores your calls.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    There's still a big difference between "a surreptitious hack is technically possible with future development and getting you to accept a bad patch" versus "the company is actively using sketchy powers and trying to make them constant and socially normalized." In one case, someone discovering sketchy secret backdoor code causes a huge flap and damage to the company's brand and stock price etc. In the other, some corporate drone bafflegabs about it enabling superior customer satisfaction synergies, while pointing to a tiny clause in an enormous contract of adhesion to claim everybody knowingly agreed to it.
- rgrmrts 2y ago
  Yeah this is my problem with windows. I’ll delete or disable things that were added to my machine only to have windows update restart my computer and those things show up again. I’m using a legit copy of Windows 11 Pro and it’s absurd that I’ve had to delete or disable random shit like social media apps multiple times.
- pcdoodle 2y ago
  Yes. This is why they renamed "My Computer" to "This PC". It's finally here. It's been fun, I love windows but this is the end IMO.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    I know how you feel. I was a fan of DOS, Win89SE, Windows 2000 Pro, and Windows 7 Pro (until 7's updates started including Win10's invasive telemetry). The good news is that alternatives are better than ever and the few windows applications I still use can run using wine (or worst case a VM)
cantSpellSober 2y ago
Windows victims (self included) are used to this. Setup takes an hour, configuring settings takes a week

by fh9302 2y ago

autoexec 2y ago

Eventually they can just re-enable it as part of an "important update". They can even stop you from being able to disable it entirely. If you're using Windows, it's not really your computer. At least you aren't the administrator of that device. Microsoft can access any file, install any software, change any setting, or remove any access at any time for any reason with no notice or indication to you that it happened. They can even shutdown your computer. Any device which works like that is not one that's under your control. Every internet connected windows computer is insecure by design and cannot be trusted to protect your privacy or security.

wilsonnb3 2y ago
> Microsoft can access any file, install any software, change any setting, or remove any access at any time for any reason with no notice or indication to you that it happened. They can even just shutdown your device. Any device which works like that is not one under your control. Having this power is inherent in making the OS. Whoever is the vendor of your particular Linux distribution has the same powers, it is just that you trust them not to use them (or, in a very small theoretical minority of cases, you’ve audited the code and binaries yourself). So yes, you shouldn’t use an OS from a vendor you don’t trust, I agree completely. I don’t understand why people are acting like this is earth shattering news though, this has always been the case since people started using software they didn’t write themselves.
- autoexec 2y ago
  > Having this power is inherent in making the OS. No, it really isn't. For decades I owned computers with operating systems which didn't have that capability. Once installed and configured, the OS was consistent and (reasonably) stable. Someone would literally have to break into my house or office to modify my settings or install software against my wishes. Even after I started connecting my devices to the internet the OS itself had no ability to do these things and couldn't gain that ability unless I explicitly chose to install updates that enabled that behavior. That's entirely different from the situation today where MS forces updates and restarts, installs unwanted software on our computers, and has files and folders that we (even using administrator accounts) don't have access to. Linux too is very different. Linux is transparent about what it does, adds, or changes. You have the power to choose which updates to apply or not. You have the power to modify any part of your OS so that it does what you want. I can't speak to all distros out there, but I've never seen a linux system force a restart in the middle of the day, or reinstall applications users removed without notice. Can't say the same for Windows. Unlike Windows, linux typically respects its users and their wishes. You really don't have to write your own software in order to have software that respects you and leaves you in control of your own devices. It's kind of crazy that you'd think there could be no other way.
  - wilsonnb3 2y ago
    > I can't speak to all distros out there, but I've never seen a linux system force a restart in the middle of the day. My point is that there isn’t a technical reason that prevents Linus distros, or any other OS, from restarting your computer whenever it feels like it. By definition the OS has control of the hardware and software and thus whoever writes the OS inherits that control. I completely agree that there are good reasons to not trust Microsoft and people who don’t should not be using Windows. I just dislike the framing of this issue as a recent development rather than an inherent problem of running software you didn’t write.
    - autoexec 2y ago
      > My point is that there isn’t a technical reason that prevents Linus distros, or any other OS, from restarting your computer whenever it feels like it. Go install MS-DOS 6.22 on a computer. You can leave that system up and wait your whole life and you'll never see it suddenly restart your computer without asking. The technical reason why it can't is because there is no code in that OS designed to check for and accept an order from someone at Microsoft to restart your machine without asking. It doesn't exist. You could choose to find or write and then install new software that gives that OS the capability to do it, but that capability just isn't there otherwise. There's no rule that an OS has to include code to violate the rights and will of the people who install it on their devices. That's a choice that MS made. Far too many people have accepted that behavior from them so they keep pushing and pushing with new and increasingly user-hostile code and behavior but none of that is inevitable or unavoidable. That is what's a very recent development. For a very very long time no operating system would have dared to violate their users that way. None of them did. Yes, at a certain level you have to be able to place some level your trust in your OS. Especially one with internet access. MS has shown themselves to be entirely untrustworthy, but they could still change all of that. They could strip out every line of code that allows them to remotely access your system without your explicit permission. They could be 100% transparent about what their updates will do to your computer if they are installed and they could give you the ability to not install any update you didn't like and revert to any previous state. They could give you full access to every file and directory and process and give you the ability to control every aspect of their OS. They could vow to never modify a setting after you've changed it. They just choose not to do those things, because they don't care about you or your privacy or your wishes, or your rights. As long as people continue to use windows, Microsoft stands to make a lot of money by ignoring those things.
- gryn 2y ago
  I don't think msft will give you the code for windows to review it if you ask nicely, unlike linux where it's already available. if you're paranoid about the distribution of your pre-built distro you can compile everything by hand and some do that for fun. so putting them on the same pedestal is weird mind gymnastics.
  - wilsonnb3 2y ago
    Yes, if you compile your own binaries, audit the source code, and for good measure audit your compiler and the system you are using to compile it, then there is a meaningful difference*. Since 99% of users don’t actually do any of that, then in practice there isn’t actually a difference. * I am aware that there are shades of grey between the scenario I describe and proprietary software - I am just being hyperbolic for rhetorical reasons.
    - autoexec 2y ago
      > Since 99% of users don’t actually do any of that, then in practice there isn’t actually a difference. I understand the hyperbole, but in practice we have strong evidence that MS is willing to intentionally use their OS against you, while we don't for your typical linux OS. That really means a lot. When linux distros disrespect their users even a little (see for example https://www.pcworld.com/article/436097/ubuntus-unity-8-desktop-removes-the-amazon-search-spyware.html https://www.pcworld.com/article/436097/ubuntus-unity-8-deskt...) users really don't put up with it and they can switch to another distro with very very little effort/change and even have the ability to modify the source and fork the OS. That helps to keep people a little more honest. The backdoored compiler problem is a bit harder. We can write our own, but it's turtles all the way down. Increasingly we also have to put a lot of trust in our hardware. There are only a small number of companies making CPUs and wireless chips. I imagine they're under enormous pressure from governments to compromise the privacy and security of the people using that hardware and we have less trust in our own devices the more we have "trusted computing" forced on us.
- throwaway22032 2y ago
  Trust is earned. Your partner always has the capability to screw you over, cheat on you, embezzle from the shared account, whatever. Linux is like a nerdy guy who stays at home, plays with Warhammer figures and cooks you dinner. Windows is an OnlyFans model who goes on vacations for weeks at a time and ignores your calls.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  There's still a big difference between "a surreptitious hack is technically possible with future development and getting you to accept a bad patch" versus "the company is actively using sketchy powers and trying to make them constant and socially normalized." In one case, someone discovering sketchy secret backdoor code causes a huge flap and damage to the company's brand and stock price etc. In the other, some corporate drone bafflegabs about it enabling superior customer satisfaction synergies, while pointing to a tiny clause in an enormous contract of adhesion to claim everybody knowingly agreed to it.
rgrmrts 2y ago
Yeah this is my problem with windows. I’ll delete or disable things that were added to my machine only to have windows update restart my computer and those things show up again. I’m using a legit copy of Windows 11 Pro and it’s absurd that I’ve had to delete or disable random shit like social media apps multiple times.
pcdoodle 2y ago
Yes. This is why they renamed "My Computer" to "This PC". It's finally here. It's been fun, I love windows but this is the end IMO.
- autoexec 2y ago
  I know how you feel. I was a fan of DOS, Win89SE, Windows 2000 Pro, and Windows 7 Pro (until 7's updates started including Win10's invasive telemetry). The good news is that alternatives are better than ever and the few windows applications I still use can run using wine (or worst case a VM)

cantSpellSober 2y ago

Windows victims (self included) are used to this. Setup takes an hour, configuring settings takes a week