>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 especiall

>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.