4 ms·

>Recall is neither the first nor the last thing to record and store your actions and data. Why is it such a big problem? Not agreeing to something that one doe

>Recall is neither the first nor the last thing to record and store your actions and data. Why is it such a big problem? Not agreeing to something that one does not want, in spite of tolerating qualitatively similar yet different objects that one also does want not want, is not "hypocrisy". It's a boundary. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of boundaries? I feel like I'm in an argument with a psychologically abusive SO. You imply a defect in rationality via your misuse or misunderstanding of vocabulary. As what? A means of browbeating people into acceptance? Your need to resort to such a non-agreeable tactic, alone, should inform you that your logic is the problem if not your motive or Recall itself. It is within everyone's right, and within the bounds of rationality, to reject Recall on its qualitative differences, on the sole fact that they don't want one more tracker when they really don't want the first, or because others seem strangely over-interested in making poor yet insistent arguments in favor of it. I mean, if it's just one more tracker than why does anyone need it? Right? Or is the singular nature of Recall that makes it uniquely desirable to some the reason that it is rationally undesirable to others? Denial of that nature of Recall is what is hypocritical. >Most people are in fact fine with tracking, Do "most" people have the option of easily turning tracking completely off? Most are "fine" with it? Except the ones that aren't, who are tend to also be against having second to second activity recorded. Right? And who are significant enough that you feel compelled to argue with them here. >the commons do not fucking care about digital privacy ooph, the spicy language. I'm persuaded. >As for intrusions (presumably you mean attacks, whether digital or physical?) No, as the attack vs tracking difference of user data being sent to an off-site server, and then sold or otherwise, is immaterial when the user isn't aware of the nature of the data being sent if they are aware of it being sent at all. With Recall and for most users, the possibility that screenshot data would be remotely accessed certainly falls under the category of "intrusion". In spite of legalese. >it's not so much most people are fine with it so much as... it's all far above their paygrades. Boom

Dalewyn 2y ago
>Not agreeing to something that one does not want, in spite of tolerating qualitatively similar yet different objects that one also does want not want, is not "hypocrisy". It's a boundary. It is hypocrisy because there is no difference. None of you have yet managed to answer what differences, if any, exist between Recall and All The Other Tracking Siphoning Things(tm) most of us either accept or tolerate. >Your need to resort to such a non-agreeable tactic, alone, should inform you that your logic is the problem if not your motive or Recall itself. I am asking you all a question and so far noone has managed to answer it. If none of you can answer what exactly about Recall makes it unacceptable unlike All The Others(tm), your logic is flawed. Again: What is the difference? I do not see any. >Do "most" people have the option of easily turning tracking completely off? Most are "fine" with it? To the former: Actually, yes; just don't use the services or software that track you. As unenforcable as EULAs are, we all agree to them and it is made explicitly clear we can reject by not perusing. To the latter: Also, yes; everyone happily uses iCloud and Google Photos and OneDrive and Dropbox and whatever else that tracks user data. To say nothing of Windows, and even Firefox (yes, Firefox phones home) that people happily use. >And who are significant enough that you feel compelled to argue with them here. Significant in the sense that apples are significant in an orchard, but apples only comprise a small portion of all trees and most trees don't care. Likewise, techies bitch in tech circles and the noise is significant, but in the world at large techies are an insignificant minority as far as whether tracking is acceptable or not is concerned. >ooph, the spicy language. I'm persuaded. Whether I can persuade you is irrelevant, the commons still do not fucking care about digital privacy. Seriously. That's the reality. It's like how the Earth will spin and keep spinning no matter what any of us do. >user data being sent to an off-site server One of Recall's biggest marketing spiels is that it's all stored and processed locally. If Microsoft violates that marketing then they're guilty of false advertising and we can absolutely throw books at them for it, but that's tangential to the collection and processing of user data.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  Personally I do not think that there are any fundamental differences; Recall is just more "obvious" or "apparent". Plus according to someone Apple's AI thing does not record what you type into the text field inside your browser, but I really am not certain about that. All that said, I will continue using Linux with firejail (because I do not like the idea of programs sharing data in many cases).
- mrangle 2y ago
  There is a difference or Recall would be redundant, and you and they wouldn't care about it so much. It wouldn't exist. Your insistent advocacy and what you are demanding people accept, in Recall's supposed relative insignificance, are incongruent. Second, this situation doesn't fall under the definition of hypocrisy. It's more like date rapist's logic: "She didn't reject me when I kissed her while she was passed out, and so she's a hypocrite if she denies me sex". TF is your problem, honestly. Third, again see "boundaries" and people's right to them without needing to tolerate browbeating. Only weirdos and abuser types ignore firmly stated boundaries, and try to move past them via abuse tactics. > None of you have yet managed to answer what differences, if any, exist between Recall and All The Other Tracking Siphoning Things(tm) most of us either accept or tolerate. I wasn't aware that an answer to your nonsense question was required in order to justify Recall's popular rejection. It isn't. However, the answer is that nothing else in the base OS is creating a word for word, second to second, record of what is on one's screen to include passwords. And if it is, that should be made widely known so that it also has a chance to be broadly rejected. >I am asking you all a question and so far noone has managed to answer it. If none of you can answer what exactly about Recall makes it unacceptable unlike All The Others(tm), your logic is flawed. Your "flawed logic" premise is rejected. The assertion that your question is not sufficiently answered is rejected, but irrelevant regardless. You need people to accept Recall, for some bizarre reason. Beyond the already presented logic, they simply don't have to. To state that your logic is flawed would be polite. More accurately, its nonexistent. You resort to browbeating as a replacement for it. > Whether I can persuade you is irrelevant, the commons still do not fucking care about digital privacy. Seriously. That's the reality. It's like how the Earth will spin and keep spinning no matter what any of us do. And yet here you are. >One of Recall's biggest marketing spiels is that it's all stored and processed locally. Few if any who comment on either side of this fake argument trust MS or those who are above it, if they are being honest. MS spent its trust currency long ago, and no one owes it to them.

Dalewyn 2y ago

>Not agreeing to something that one does not want, in spite of tolerating qualitatively similar yet different objects that one also does want not want, is not "hypocrisy". It's a boundary. It is hypocrisy because there is no difference. None of you have yet managed to answer what differences, if any, exist between Recall and All The Other Tracking Siphoning Things(tm) most of us either accept or tolerate. >Your need to resort to such a non-agreeable tactic, alone, should inform you that your logic is the problem if not your motive or Recall itself. I am asking you all a question and so far noone has managed to answer it. If none of you can answer what exactly about Recall makes it unacceptable unlike All The Others(tm), your logic is flawed. Again: What is the difference? I do not see any. >Do "most" people have the option of easily turning tracking completely off? Most are "fine" with it? To the former: Actually, yes; just don't use the services or software that track you. As unenforcable as EULAs are, we all agree to them and it is made explicitly clear we can reject by not perusing. To the latter: Also, yes; everyone happily uses iCloud and Google Photos and OneDrive and Dropbox and whatever else that tracks user data. To say nothing of Windows, and even Firefox (yes, Firefox phones home) that people happily use. >And who are significant enough that you feel compelled to argue with them here. Significant in the sense that apples are significant in an orchard, but apples only comprise a small portion of all trees and most trees don't care. Likewise, techies bitch in tech circles and the noise is significant, but in the world at large techies are an insignificant minority as far as whether tracking is acceptable or not is concerned. >ooph, the spicy language. I'm persuaded. Whether I can persuade you is irrelevant, the commons still do not fucking care about digital privacy. Seriously. That's the reality. It's like how the Earth will spin and keep spinning no matter what any of us do. >user data being sent to an off-site server One of Recall's biggest marketing spiels is that it's all stored and processed locally. If Microsoft violates that marketing then they're guilty of false advertising and we can absolutely throw books at them for it, but that's tangential to the collection and processing of user data.

johnisgood 2y ago
Personally I do not think that there are any fundamental differences; Recall is just more "obvious" or "apparent". Plus according to someone Apple's AI thing does not record what you type into the text field inside your browser, but I really am not certain about that. All that said, I will continue using Linux with firejail (because I do not like the idea of programs sharing data in many cases).
mrangle 2y ago
There is a difference or Recall would be redundant, and you and they wouldn't care about it so much. It wouldn't exist. Your insistent advocacy and what you are demanding people accept, in Recall's supposed relative insignificance, are incongruent. Second, this situation doesn't fall under the definition of hypocrisy. It's more like date rapist's logic: "She didn't reject me when I kissed her while she was passed out, and so she's a hypocrite if she denies me sex". TF is your problem, honestly. Third, again see "boundaries" and people's right to them without needing to tolerate browbeating. Only weirdos and abuser types ignore firmly stated boundaries, and try to move past them via abuse tactics. > None of you have yet managed to answer what differences, if any, exist between Recall and All The Other Tracking Siphoning Things(tm) most of us either accept or tolerate. I wasn't aware that an answer to your nonsense question was required in order to justify Recall's popular rejection. It isn't. However, the answer is that nothing else in the base OS is creating a word for word, second to second, record of what is on one's screen to include passwords. And if it is, that should be made widely known so that it also has a chance to be broadly rejected. >I am asking you all a question and so far noone has managed to answer it. If none of you can answer what exactly about Recall makes it unacceptable unlike All The Others(tm), your logic is flawed. Your "flawed logic" premise is rejected. The assertion that your question is not sufficiently answered is rejected, but irrelevant regardless. You need people to accept Recall, for some bizarre reason. Beyond the already presented logic, they simply don't have to. To state that your logic is flawed would be polite. More accurately, its nonexistent. You resort to browbeating as a replacement for it. > Whether I can persuade you is irrelevant, the commons still do not fucking care about digital privacy. Seriously. That's the reality. It's like how the Earth will spin and keep spinning no matter what any of us do. And yet here you are. >One of Recall's biggest marketing spiels is that it's all stored and processed locally. Few if any who comment on either side of this fake argument trust MS or those who are above it, if they are being honest. MS spent its trust currency long ago, and no one owes it to them.