
Microsoft’s new small print – how your personal data is abused - rvern
https://edri.org/microsofts-new-small-print-how-your-personal-data-abused/
======
kardos
TL;DR: "By using Windows 10, you relinquish any expectation of privacy".

Stallman is an optimist! This "privacy policy" is much worse than what we
expect from malware [1]. Cryptolocker might hold my files hostage for some
bitcoins, but they're not going to sell me out to aggressive lawyers or
overzealous law enforcement.

[1] [http://www.networkworld.com/article/2926215/microsoft-
subnet...](http://www.networkworld.com/article/2926215/microsoft-
subnet/richard-stallman-windows-os-is-malware.html)

------
batou
Not happening. Sorry this has gone on long enough.

Closed both Microsoft accounts and cancelled my MSDN and AP subscription
renewals.

I do a big chunk of my work on a CentOS desktop machine already. There's not
much of a push to chuck everything in an 8.1 VM and start moving it all over.
The MSDN licenses I need persist past the sub so that's enough for me.

I've been on the verge of doing this for a couple of months already anyway for
ref.

Edit: Also, I'm really not happy about the pro-Microsoft spin all over the
media recently. It appears to be covering up a number of nasty changes behind
the scenes and lacking in critical analysis.

Edit 2: Proof: [http://imgur.com/a/ZYWZM](http://imgur.com/a/ZYWZM)

Edit 3: does anyone know of a decent 4G modem for a laptop, preferably one
that works in Linux. I can then skip my phone as a tether and use a dumbphone.

~~~
nothisissparta
Just for the record, this article seriously paraphrases the shit out of an
actually very specific part of the ToS.

[https://www.microsoft.com/en-
us/privacystatement/default.asp...](https://www.microsoft.com/en-
us/privacystatement/default.aspx)

"Finally, we will access, disclose and preserve personal data, including your
content (such as the content of your emails, other private communications or
files in private folders), when we have a good faith belief that doing so is
necessary to: 1.comply with applicable law or respond to valid legal process,
including from law enforcement or other government agencies; 2.protect our
customers, for example to prevent spam or attempts to defraud users of the
services, or to help prevent the loss of life or serious injury of anyone;
3.operate and maintain the security of our services, including to prevent or
stop an attack on our computer systems or networks; or 4.protect the rights or
property of Microsoft, including enforcing the terms governing the use of the
services - however, if we receive information indicating that someone is using
our services to traffic in stolen intellectual or physical property of
Microsoft, we will not inspect a customer's private content ourselves, but we
may refer the matter to law enforcement."

Definitely close your accounts if you want to protect your data, no fault
there :) But make sure you know that this article doesn't actually tell an
accurate picture.

~~~
batou
Yep. I read the actual agreement first, don't worry :)

------
kbenson
How do we not yet have a metric for noting specific security policies, so we
can create a matrix of how different companies handle this information? I'm
appreciative of information on what personal data policies Microsoft uses, but
I'm _more_ interested in how it compares to other companies. How is it the
same or different than Google and Apple?

This is _extremely_ important. Right now we have an extremely inefficient
market with respect to privacy. Users don't know what policies companies have,
and even if they know where to find that information, it's extremely
inaccessible. Making it easy to compare services would allow users to actually
distinguish based on this metric, which is the first step towards pressuring
companies to actually _compete_ on this metric.

Simplistically, this could be achieved with a set of data policy components
(account information, login information, purchase information, location
information, various activity information items, etc) and their policy on them
in well defined terms, such as Not Applicable, Does not collect, Collects but
does not share, Collects and may share, Collects and known to share. That
would be the start of something beautiful.

~~~
blackethylene
Terms of Service; Didn't Read ([https://tosdr.org](https://tosdr.org)) is a
project aiming to achieve what you describe, but it's mainly for websites and
web applications.

They need much more contributors though.

~~~
kbenson
With a much more clearly defined set of items they measure this is fairly
close to an initial version of what I was describing. With that and a
standardized legend for the rating for each item (save the specifics for a
mouse-over) it would be fairly easy to create a service matrix of selected
services.

~~~
scrollaway
TOSDR isn't just a good service, it has some momentum and an excellent dataset
already. If the right people were to start contributing it could gather quite
a lot of steam.

------
arien
It is a little unsettling when you read these policies.

This is probably for Cortana. She has to understand and process your voice
commands, learn your nickname and preferences to be effective. She already
works in Windows Phone (very nicely), and I don't think a little phone
processor would be enough to power her up. In fact, she doesn't work without
an internet connection, at least in WP. What happens is that she takes the
information you input to the cloud, processes it there with more than enough
horsepower to do her stuff and brings it back to you. I suppose this is how
it'll work as well on PCs.

So for all this to work, yes they need to collect our data. Face it, with any
smart assistant that we want it's going to be the same, they're all cloud
powered. Doesn't Siri also require a internet connection? Probably Alexa too,
and any others work exactly the same.

It is a necessary evil to have a useful virtual assistant. Although if we
don't want her we can opt out of the MSA account, as someone posted in the
comments. Unsure if that removes all the privacy concerns, that would be
useful to know. On Windows Phone it did (you can opt out of sending data to MS
and Cortana is disabled).

~~~
arihant
On Windows 10 you can opt-out as well. In fact, using Microsoft account is an
opt-in while installing. You can just make a local account and certain
features would be off by default. If you try to access them it will remind you
that you need an MS account to access them.

The fundamental problem with this privacy policy is the scary wording. When
Gmail first came out, Google was (probably) the first company to read emails
to figure out ads. But they enforced the not-touched-by-human-handsiness claim
hard throughout. MS, on the other hand, not only says it will collect data but
again and again mentions "disclose when necessary." There are too many uses of
"disclose." It almost sounds like they will just hand over data without much
conviction.

~~~
irq-1
> On Windows 10 you can opt-out as well.

Few IT departments will allow opting-out -- it'll be part of how your work
computer is setup, and part of your job to use it.

~~~
unprepare
Surely those same IT departments expect you to keep your personal data on your
personal machine :)

------
kungfufrog
The real reason I'll never use Microsoft products again: I'm sick of legally
purchasing software and being treated like a potential charlatan every time I
change a component of my computer or upgrade. I have lost countless hours to
Microsoft Tech Support for licensing issues (which, to be honest, are
reasonably efficient these days). However, the older I get, the more I just
plain resent having to deal with this intrusion into what should be an
experience I control.

Microsoft licensing is hellish, I've worked with it for years and I still
don't entirely understand it.

~~~
batou
Indeed. Wait until you have to deal with an audit. Apparently, even on
microsoft's advice on licensing, we still owed them about £50,000 of missing
licenses after an audit...

Most of this was down to a SQL Server upgrade where core and CPU terminology
was changed.

~~~
redcalx
I'm currently arguing for serious considerations of SQL Server alternatives
for selected new development work (and where reasonably achievable), in order
to mitigate spiralling license fees. The main issue is that mostly those fees
are paid by our customers, but ultimately our customer's cost is our cost.
Collectively it's becoming a stupid amount of money.

~~~
batou
We're only keeping it around due to a pile of stored procedures and coupling
(see an earlier thread on this I was whinging about). PostgreSQL is the next
step. We'll pay for support via EnterpriseDB still.

Our main SQL cluster is two 48 core HP machines with 512Gb of RAM each and a
big EMC SAN. We want this as lots of much smaller machines but you can't
really scale down SQL Server once everything is coupled into it.

~~~
redcalx
> stored procedures and coupling

Right. Funny how 'best practice' became to use stored procs rather than
generated queries. Partly because it constrains and defines the API exposed by
the DB and greatly helps avoid SQL injection issues. Those things can also be
achieved with a well written code layer, and as for the 'API', well, we have
so many stored procs that that argument has become somewhat tenuous.

There's the performance aspect as well - having the DBA know what queries will
be 'thrown' at the server. But again, it's not black and white, it's more that
the stored proc does tend to limit really bad SQL queries moreso that open
ended srting queries, but 'it depends'.

~~~
batou
Rather than write another reply, I'll link you to my thoughts:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9928688](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9928688)

~~~
redcalx
Nice reference discussion, thanks. Sounds like we're on the same wavelength.

Our main issue (IMO) is that if you get a SQL Server person in to solve SQL
Server performance issues then you're likely going to go down the route of one
massive all powerful SQL Server box which just compounds the problem. A
broader solution of moving away from pure SQLServer and towards distributed
work, caching layers, etc. is probably a saner long term path to take. But in
business short term thinking generally takes precedence over long term.

~~~
batou
That's very true which is why we wrangled the architecture off the database
folk :)

------
jensen123
I wonder if what we're seeing here is basically the beginning of a new era of
some sort of feudalism, and the end of "the age of equality".

The French revolution, US revolution etc. talked about and put equality into
their constitutions, and that has kinda been the prevailing world view ever
since. Although, I guess the real cause for this were technologies like the
printing press, gun powder and the assembly line - technologies that made
people more equal.

But now, even if most people hear about this, I'm guessing that most will
continue using Windows. For the last 200 years or so, we've had various
leaders standing up for the little guy, but I wonder if anybody will bother in
the future, when they see that most "little guys" will not even bother to
switch operating systems or use a different search engine in order to preserve
their freedoms and rights.

~~~
touristtam
We have been in an economic feudalism for the last century. The fact that
companies have all the right and none of the duty of a normal person in front
of the law with the all power money can buy means there is a strong disparity
between normal citizens and them. Corporation have effectively replaced the
Lords of the previous despotic regimes in the Western World.

Only when we cease to consider Corporations more important than the rest of
the economic actors can we move the balance of powers back where the it has
been intended by the previous revolutionary movement.

But this is kind of off-topic with this news.

I hope MSFT get a bash for this kind of niceties and implement an opt-out
solution for all their in-built spyware.

~~~
IanDrake
>The fact that companies have all the right and none of the duty of a normal
person in front of the law with the all power money can buy

Can you unpack that for me? I own a corporation and enjoy nothing of what you
mention. I fear I'm missing out on something.

~~~
dikaiosune
See [1] for an overview of corporate personhood. They don't get _all_ of the
protections and rights of a human being, but they do get a surprising number
of them (like free speech) even though they never die, have children, or serve
in the military. They also can't be jailed, and not all laws that apply to a
natural person apply to a corporation. I'm sure that GP has some other
examples of "none of the duty of a normal person" in mind, but that's what I
know of off the top of my head.

Regarding their power, I think that corresponds to corporations' ability to
amass wealth and influence (often) faster than an individual. Of course there
is a spectrum -- national defense contractors with billions of dollars in the
bank can have a surprising amount of say in the way things are run, but an
incorporated small business might have a hard time getting a local zoning
issue addressed.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood)

------
AdieuToLogic
> Summing up these 45 pages, one can say that Microsoft basically grants
> itself very broad rights to collect everything you do, say and write with
> and on your devices in order to sell more targeted advertising or to sell
> your data to third parties. The company appears to be granting itself the
> right to share your data either with your consent “or as necessary”.

And this differs from Google's and Facebook's usage policies how?

Throwing out a red flag at this point for a corporation stating that
people^H^H^H^H^H^H^H _users_ are their product is the quintessential example
of "closing the barn door after the horse is out."

~~~
johnchristopher
We (edit: _used to_ [0]) paid for windows, we shouldn't be the product.

I believe the problem (and I am outraged about that) comes from the fact
people are paying for Windows and practices such as the collecting of e-mail
and contact shouldn't be necessary for 1. the OS to run smoothly and 2. for MS
to cover for a low selling price.

The OS and its default bundled application's set price should be enough to
guarantee MS doesn't need a user's private data and metadata to provide the
product (aka: we gave MS some money, they shouldn't need our private data to
make money in order to keep the price `low').

There are many things like "data about network you connect to" that need to be
collected and stored on the device unless the user wants to introduce the same
password over and over again. This has to be stated somehow and phrased.

Now if MS stores it on-line through the windows account for convenience it's
almost the same thing _if_ it's encrypted and hashed so MS just stores
something that can't be exploited if leaked.

I have been looking at Surface recently and now I wonder if I can run Debian
on it.

[0] but considering the upgrade path implies a paid product (win 7/8) it's a
huge change for the user and my point still stand.

~~~
AdieuToLogic
You make a cogent argument, which I almost completely agree (excluding an OS
vendor storing account info on their own servers).

The consideration I hope to make evident now is: how do your points differ
when applied to an Andriod device for which Google has been paid _their_
licensing fees by the device manufacturer?

Facebook's offerings are different, true, yet their Machiavellain use of
whatever is presented to them warrants inclusion in this type of discussion
IMHO.

~~~
icebraining
_Andriod device for which Google has been paid their licensing fees by the
device manufacturer?_

As far as I know, Google charges no licensing fees for Android (not even for
the proprietary apps / "Google Mobile Services").

[http://9to5google.com/2014/01/23/google-we-do-not-charge-
lic...](http://9to5google.com/2014/01/23/google-we-do-not-charge-licensing-
fees-for-androids-google-mobile-services/)

~~~
AdieuToLogic
Fees can be extracted in many ways:

    
    
      While Android is open source, the Google
      applications, like the Play Store, Gmail,
      Google Maps, Google Play Services, and others
      must be licensed. This licensing agreement is
      called the "Mobile Application Distribution
      Agreement" (MADA) and comes with tons of
      restrictions.[1]
    

This is only one example and the monetary considerations are unknown.

1 - [http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/new-android-oem-
licen...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/new-android-oem-licensing-
terms-leak-open-comes-with-restrictions/)

~~~
icebraining
The link I posted above explicitly says they don't charge for those
applications and services.

------
kijin
I'm going to hold off on the "free upgrade" to Windows 10 until I can find a
trustworthy and comprehensive blog post on how I can disable all of the
privacy-invading "features".

Not linking a Microsoft account with the local account seems to be a good
starting point. I also plan to do my best to get rid of OneDrive and Cortana,
neither of which I have any use for. But I have no idea how to go about
discovering and tackling all the other possible channels for data leakage,
which we're bound to hear about in the days and weeks to come.

Free upgrade means you're no longer a customer. It's a cliche, but it fits
perfectly this time. Some of the things I'd like to disable will probably
require upgrading to the Pro edition, which of course is only available to
paying customers.

~~~
kardos
It's a valiant effort, but you're navigating a privacy minefield. Even if you
find/disable all the known things, a single windows update can introduce a new
opt-out "feature" that undoes it all. Your effort might be better spent
migrating to a less invasive system.

"Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once – you will
have to be lucky always."

~~~
kijin
Well, I guess it's inevitable as long as I'm using a proprietary operating
system. I don't expect Apple to be any better. Heck, even Ubuntu nowadays
comes with ads that you need to opt out of.

At least if I get Windows 10 Pro, I'll be able to turn off non-security-
related updates.

~~~
kardos
> Heck, even Ubuntu nowadays comes with ads that you need to opt out of.

No longer true. Canonical took a lot of (deserved) flak for making that
feature opt-out, and last year they finally fixed it [1].

[http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2014/03/ubuntu-make-amazon-
produc...](http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2014/03/ubuntu-make-amazon-product-
results-opt-unity)

~~~
danieldk
Are you sure? IIRC the last LTS version I tried (14.04) still has Amazon
search on by default.

~~~
kardos
Actually, no. That article was dated Mar 31, 2014, so I assumed that they
switched the configuration option by 14.10.

.... but some searching indicates that they won't get around to disabling
online searches by default until Unity 8 is default in Ubuntu. It seems that
Unity 8 won't be default until 16.04 [1] or later [2]. So I rescind my
previous statement. Canonical deserves as much scorn as you can dish out for
disregarding their users' privacy for 3 years and counting.

[1]
[http://mhall119.com/2014/10/unity-8-desktop/](http://mhall119.com/2014/10/unity-8-desktop/)
[2] [http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ubuntu-16-04-LTS-Won-t-
Have-U...](http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ubuntu-16-04-LTS-Won-t-Have-
Unity-8-by-Default-the-Community-Will-Decide-480129.shtml)

------
brudgers
I dislike the Microsoft privacy policy. I don't see a better way for it to
navigate the legal minefield. If they promise any meaningful kind of
protection, it is inevitable that it cannot be delivered.

The wired world leaks data. Much of it by design, e.g. to a first
approximation all browsers work with cookies, store history, cache content,
use some sort of thumbprint for SSL, etc. No browser vendor promises
_operational_ privacy because implementing it would make the browser unusable.
Just using NoScript (as I do) is a bit of a pain in the ass. Microsoft has a
browser plus a whole lot more stuff including third party vendors, and big
stacks of cash to make itself a lawsuit magnet...some lawyer somewhere will
allege transmitting an IP address is breech under a strong privacy policy.

The reality is that nothing you do on a computer connected to the internet
should be considered private. The Microsoft privacy policy reflects this
reality even if it upsets the world some of us wish existed [so long as we
don't have to give up our mobile GPS, Uber, and iTunes]. But it hasn't existed
since the days of credit card processing over copper. I admire Stallman,
information wants to be free. Alas "An atom blaster point is a good weapon,
but it can point both ways."

~~~
bad_user
> _nothing you do on a computer connected to the internet should be considered
> private_

That doesn't excuse Microsoft and others for becoming more and more invasive.
And voting with your wallet works.

~~~
brudgers
I think Windows 10 is pretty much free as in beer for most ordinary users so
the wallet threat is pretty flat.

I read Microsoft's policy as more legal cover for the reality that data gets
stored all over the place. The internet is full of caches and nobody can
guarantee that they can identify all of them, much less control them. The
nature of people's complaints show how vulnerable Microsoft is to some jury
believing "they should have known."

If you want privacy, don't turn on your internet connected devices. TANSTAAFL.

~~~
bad_user
I think at this point, most people have a really screwed notion of price ...

1\. preinstalled / bundled Windows is not free, the " _Windows tax_ " being
very real

2\. this upgrade is not free for XP / Vista users

3\. Windows 10 is not free and will probably cost about the same price as
Windows 8.1, which is $120 for the Standard version or $200 for the Pro
version - it might turn out to be cheaper this time, but that's only because
they are changing the license to be tied to a particular device

4\. Windows being a platform, is a complementary to Microsoft's Office 365,
OneDrive, the Windows Store, Exchange, etc... the Windows Store in particular
charges a revenue fee and is the only source possible for "modern apps"

5\. personally I can't use the standard version, as it is missing features I
need, like BitLocker or the ability to make a bootable USB drive - things that
with the other operating systems I get for free

So in case I haven't been hibernating to wake up in some weird future in which
a beer costs $200 and comes with strings attached, yes, voting with your
wallet is significant.

~~~
brudgers
Linux with support from Redhat costs money, too. On the other hand, I've got
four Windows licenses at the house that I can upgrade for the price of
Ubuntu...which I will do, even though only one machine doesn't primarily run
Ubuntu.

------
sandycheeks
As a small business owner, my main concern is that there are no assurances
that my competitors large and small will not be able to see my
contracts/suppliers/budgets/sales/processes at some point due to this
ambiguous 'disclosure' mentioned or perhaps through some flaw that allows
access to the data collected from the computers used in my small business.

I must be missing something here since I know Microsoft wants Windows to be
used for businesses and the privacy of this information is vital to that.

~~~
fluidcruft
I'll get the popcorn ready while waiting to see what hospital IT have to say
about this.

They have already banned use of Microsoft's new mobile Outlook apps
(iOS,Android,Win Phone) when they found out that these are actually thin
clients to a cloud service that performs MITM on the hospital Outlook server
to download, store and processes all email (the cloud servers aren't even
fully Microsoft--they became Microsoft's via acquisition). And of course it
stores usernames and passwords in order to accomplish this (confirmed by
common sense, obtuse fine print and deceptive non-denials by Microsoft
support). The penalties in HIPAA and HITECH aren't jokes (and now include jail
time).

------
sandworm101
Anyone else use Noscript?

I just forwarded some comments re MS's privacy statement to a law-related
listserv. But everyone responded they couldn't see the text I cited from MS.
It turns out that the document looks very different with noscript than it does
without. With all script allowed (ie for those using IE/edge) all the scary
stuff hides behind "learn more" buttons.

Check it out for yourself: [https://www.microsoft.com/en-
us/privacystatement/default.asp...](https://www.microsoft.com/en-
us/privacystatement/default.aspx)

I'll be adding this underhanded approach to my loooong list of reasons to love
linux.

------
Animats
Does this apply to users of Windows 10 in general? If so, it's going to be
totally unacceptable to law firms, DoD customers, and anyone who competes with
Microsoft or their advertisers.

~~~
bitJericho
Most of the privacy invasion comes with logging in with a MS account. You can
login with a standard windows or domain account and then all this integrated
cloud stuff doesn't really apply.

~~~
labras
Not completely true. Don't forget you need an account, for instance, to buy,
install and use MS Office 360. I bet if it wasn't for the Office, many people
would move away from Windows easily.

And don't forget windows comes with Defender installed, which collects user
metrics out-of-the-box. IE/Sparta also collects your usage data. Even windows
"search" does.

------
urwth6u
So let's drop all pretense here. As a citizen of an European country, using
Microsoft Account™, NSA can look at anything I do?

~~~
jmnicolas
It certainly already does and your local spy agency too.

~~~
urwth6u
That is demonstrably not true. But that is not even what I was asking about.

What I was talking about is an online feature, called Windows Account, which
works online by default(!). Therefore we must ask ourselves what is Microsoft
doing with that information.

~~~
abstractbeliefs
>That is demonstrably not true.

Please do demonstrate/prove that then.

~~~
hkmix
I don't disagree, but burden of proof.

------
userbinator
It makes a lot of sense now why Windows 10 is being given away, even for those
running pirated Windows versions:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224880](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224880)

I had a feeling about this ever since the first announcements that Win10 would
be (monetarily) free. That old saying is still relevant as ever: "If you're
not paying for it, you're the product being sold."

------
rasz_pl
Anecdote: Created new and unique Microsoft account 3 weeks ago with the sole
purpose of testing w10, used it only ONCE to log into w10 vm. Started this VM
today, logged into outlook and what do I see? 2 spam messages and one google
news bounce.

How do you trust a company like that with any data?

~~~
kiiski
I suppose you're implying that Microsoft sold your new account name to
spammers? It could also be that you used a name that you, or someone else,
have used at a different place and the spammers simply try sending mail to all
the big email providers with that name in the hope of reaching someone. That
would seem like a more probable explanation to me.

~~~
mikegioia

        Created new and unique Microsoft account
    

I figure it was something he hadn't used before.

------
JimmaDaRustla
Not sure what the fuss is about, the same old rule applies: if you want your
data to be private, don't use any form of cloud services - server based
voice/video chat, cloud storage services (google drive, skydrive, icloud),
digital assistants (siri, cortana, google now), any contextual based delivered
services which "learns" anything about you to provide you with any form of
automated and/or dynamic experience.

If you want to be treated like you live in a box, then you're going to have to
live by it.

Everyone complaining and "fed up", closing their MSDN accounts, boycotting
MSFT products - you're in an echo chamber which won't be felt as our devices
become more service oriented rather than boxed solutions. MSFT is trying to
stay relevant, not undermine their massive user base. Whether it is right or
wrong, I don't have an opinion on, but if you think MSFT is a pioneer in this
space, you're being unjustly biased.

~~~
p4bl0_666
finally someone who gets it!

you want a service that requires your data? you have to give your data. you
don't want to? don't complain for the missing service!

~~~
JimmaDaRustla
I guess the only thing we can complain about is that we aren't given a
"closed/boxed" solution and able to accept the TOS to services we want on an
adhoc basis - we have to go and disable services and hope that the TOS we
agreed to needn't apply.

Perhaps these are growing pains for the direction services are heading, or
we'll just learn to accept invasion of privacy as a default.

------
cm2187
Does any of this apply when we use a local account with Windows?

------
martijn_himself
Honest question: is one better off using Apple's hardware and OS or is Linux
the only alternative?

~~~
fit2rule
Apple are just as bad as Microsoft. And some Linux distro's are headed in this
direction too (Ubuntu).

~~~
labras
Agree! Ubuntu and similar, along with zeitgeist pre-installed, do exactly the
same.

~~~
icebraining
As far as I know, Zeitgeist doesn't send that information to anywhere (it's
kept in the computer), so I don't see how it's even nearly the same.

I don't like the bloat, but I don't see it as more privacy invading than any
other system logs.

~~~
labras
Zeitgeist stores your information on it's datahub, where 3rd party
applications can retrieve it from. Nothing prevents such applications from
sending this information elsewhere, once accessed.

As this comes out-of-the-box by default, and is in fact a pain to switch off,
I compare it to this new windows behavior.

~~~
icebraining
All your criticisms apply to syslogd as well: it stores your information in a
central location (/var/log), which 3rd party applications can read and upload
to somewhere else, and lots of software expects it to be there, so it can be a
pain to switch off too.

Should we compare syslogd to the new Windows behaviour?

~~~
baghira
A normal user application, i.e. firefox, should not have access
/var/log/messages. The zeitgeist db can be queried by any application running
with the users privilege. Although to be fair the fedora 22 installation I'm
running allows me read the logs launching journalctl as a user, so there's
that. I don't think zeitgeist has much to do with the Windows behaviour (or
with the scopes behaviour). It's just a potential security risk, albeit a
minor one.

~~~
icebraining
_A normal user application, i.e. firefox, should not have access
/var/log/messages. The zeitgeist db can be queried by any application running
with the users privilege._

Zeitgeist itself runs with the users privilege (it's not a system daemon, it's
started by the user's session), so that hypothetical application could simply
log the data itself. There's no leak of information to underprivileged
processes.

~~~
baghira
I know that, what I meant was that there is information stored _about the
past_ , that a malicious application could not get otherwise (i.e. it can
record stuff only from the moment it is installed).

On similar note, I rememember someone arguing that the baloo/nepomuk db was a
security threat, I guess since it makes slightly easier to search among the
files on the system for a string like "password".

Both claims are technically true, and in neither case I believe they are
practically relevant, neither for security nor for privacy. I was nitpicking,
I guess.

------
Oletros
If the setting are synced between computers and Cortana is a personal
assistant, how they can work without backing up the data and collecting the
behavior?

~~~
drdaeman
There are two approaches.

First is technical. Encrypt everything on originating devices and store the
encrypted copy to which Microsoft would have no key (not even escrowed one).
Not like this works for all cases, but a lot of data - like browsing history
or WiFi AP passwords - does not require server-side processing.

Another is legal approach. Have sane privacy policies - not "we'll use your
data as necessary" \- and make sure users opt-in. Not like this also works -
certainly not against all adversaries, but at least you can sue.

------
cornstalks
For a company that ran a heavy Scroogled campaign, the irony is amusing.

~~~
bitmapbrother
So true. But, it's good to see these hypocrites finally expose themselves.

------
systemz
Default syncing with MS services is really bad for privacy. Unfortunately we
are living in opt-out world now.

~~~
kardos
> Unfortunately we are living in opt-out world now.

This is a hyperbolic statement. Here's a fixed version: "Microsoft has created
an opt-out privacy-hostile software ecosystem"

The world is not Microsoft. You're free to use alternatives.

~~~
amirmc
Network effects mean that there are few pragmatic options left. The GP may
well be free to use alternatives but at what cost? Should they be selecting
future employers based on the employer's choice of software?

I may well be free to go live in a (digital) cave but presenting it as a
_viable_ choice merely exacerbates the existing problem.

~~~
icebraining
If you're on your employer's computer, you already didn't have privacy, so
nothing's changed in that regard.

~~~
amirmc
True, but there's a difference between 1. your employer having a bunch of
information about you and 2. your employer signing up to a ToS with third
parties that effectively hands over all your info to them.

Point 2 is probably not unusual but were starting to see (imho) more
pernicious attitudes. Examples include the current Windows discussion, where
your employer may be perfectly happy to sign (on the employees behalf) that
your data be sent off to Microsoft (and used for whatever Microsoft deems
'necessary'). There was also the announcement of Facebook at Work, which I'm
sure would be more than happy to cross-correlate the 'work' you with the
'personal' you, in order to 'provide a better service'.

In both these scenarios, I'm sure the company will act to protect itself from
exposure, but it's unclear what choices the employees really have.

------
Zekio
The unique advertising ID is possible to opt out of and if you opt in again it
generates a new one so you won't get associated with the old one.

Anyway is it not as if apps aren't collection information on people without
asking already.

~~~
whoopdedo
Anyone up for making a Windows version of XPrivacy that generates a fake
advertising ID, randomized so there's no way to associate any two sessions
with each other.

~~~
Maarten88
Why do that when you can just turn it off?

------
bargl
I'd be interested to see an independent audit on how much of this data they
(and google/facebook/apple/etc) are collecting is being used to help improve
training of Cortana as an assitant (or other tools that directly assist the
user like Google Maps) , and how much of this data is really just for selling
to advertising companies, and how much is mandated by governements.

I know this isn't binary some data may be dual purposed (training and ads for
example) but I'd like to see an audit of what it's used for.

I'll never get that, but it would be interesting.

------
arafalov
They say they can read my browsing history. I wonder if that's IE only or will
they reach out into the Firefox and Chrome, etc.

------
shift32
People need to take into consideration the fact that that is how you build an
assistant or an AI. You need collective data gathered from a vast majority of
interactions with a user. Besides, I am pretty sure this is how Google, Apple
do it. All big corporations use your data in a form or another.

------
__Joker
And we thought Microsoft was a paragon when it comes to privacy[1]. Albeit,
[1] was about cloud services.

[1].
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9058283](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9058283)

~~~
yellowapple
It's worth noting that Microsoft is heavily afflicted with the "left hand
doesn't know what the right hand's doing" syndrome. Most of its product
departments have antagonistic relationships with one another at best. The
cloud services department(s) could have entirely different policies and
philosophies from the one that makes Windows, which further has different
policies and philosophies from the team that makes Office, which further has
different policies and philosophies from the team that makes Surface tablets,
etc.

------
bronlund
Finally! Microsoft going all in :D This is going to be fun.

------
cm2187
For those using a local account and having no use for these gadgets, would
firewall rules be enough to prevent Windows from leaking data to Microsoft?

------
VOYD
um yeah, this is how the entire internet works. You can't possibly think that
Google Chrome doesn't do the same thing.

------
sudioStudio64
I was expecting this kind of thing today. I'm surprised that there is only one
"oh noes muh freedums!" post on the front page.

