3 ms·

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

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
>There is a difference or Recall would be redundant, and you and they wouldn't care about it so much. Recall makes accessing the data more convenient especially for the commons, but that's a difference on the frontend. The criticism is directed at the backend, which is no different from all the others. >Your insistent advocacy and what you are demanding people accept I'm neither advocating nor demanding anything, stop mouthbreathing zealotry and go get some fresh air. >Third, again see "boundaries" You can't draw two lines on top of each other and say they are different lines to be treated differently. >I wasn't aware that an answer to your nonsense question was required in order to justify Recall's popular rejection. Can you answer what justifies the negative reaction? >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. Sure there are, literally everything sitting in RAM or the page file for starters. Clearing the page file on shut down is a security measure some people/organizations take, by the way. Also anything in the GPU, whose literal job is to render graphics and to do that it needs to know everything it has to render on screen. The GPU's data stores can also be accessed and routed externally, most commonly screen capture protocols and associated software. Of course, you also just made it clear you don't even know WTF you're talking about: Recall reads the screen and creates a database dump which will be subsequently processed and accessed. It doesn't store the literal video in any permanent sense. >Your "flawed logic" premise is rejected. ... The assertion that your question is not sufficiently answered is rejected ... You reject reality and substitute your own? >You need people to accept Recall, for some bizarre reason. See above. >And yet here you are. Indeed, and? >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. To cite the HN Guidelines: >Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Microsoft stated Recall is local, subsequent conversations and discussions should assume this to be correct until demonstrated otherwise which so far is not the case.

Dalewyn 2y ago

>There is a difference or Recall would be redundant, and you and they wouldn't care about it so much. Recall makes accessing the data more convenient especially for the commons, but that's a difference on the frontend. The criticism is directed at the backend, which is no different from all the others. >Your insistent advocacy and what you are demanding people accept I'm neither advocating nor demanding anything, stop mouthbreathing zealotry and go get some fresh air. >Third, again see "boundaries" You can't draw two lines on top of each other and say they are different lines to be treated differently. >I wasn't aware that an answer to your nonsense question was required in order to justify Recall's popular rejection. Can you answer what justifies the negative reaction? >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. Sure there are, literally everything sitting in RAM or the page file for starters. Clearing the page file on shut down is a security measure some people/organizations take, by the way. Also anything in the GPU, whose literal job is to render graphics and to do that it needs to know everything it has to render on screen. The GPU's data stores can also be accessed and routed externally, most commonly screen capture protocols and associated software. Of course, you also just made it clear you don't even know WTF you're talking about: Recall reads the screen and creates a database dump which will be subsequently processed and accessed. It doesn't store the literal video in any permanent sense. >Your "flawed logic" premise is rejected. ... The assertion that your question is not sufficiently answered is rejected ... You reject reality and substitute your own? >You need people to accept Recall, for some bizarre reason. See above. >And yet here you are. Indeed, and? >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. To cite the HN Guidelines: >Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Microsoft stated Recall is local, subsequent conversations and discussions should assume this to be correct until demonstrated otherwise which so far is not the case.