
Even when told not to, Windows 10 doesn't stop talking to Microsoft - gregmolnar
http://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2015/08/even-when-told-not-to-windows-10-just-cant-stop-talking-to-microsoft/
======
bsilvereagle
> And finally, some traffic seems quite impenetrable. We configured our test
> virtual machine to use an HTTP and HTTPS proxy (both as a user-level proxy
> and a system-wide proxy) so that we could more easily monitor its traffic,
> but Windows 10 seems to make requests to a content delivery network that
> bypass the proxy.

Does this mean a Win10 machine setup to use something like Tor will leak the
user's actual IP back to Microsoft? If you're VPN'd, is some traffic still
leaking outside of the VPN?

From an engineering perspective, how is this happening? Does Microsoft have a
second network interface hidden away using hardcoded settings for DNS, etc?

On a somewhat related note, if a Win10 app is cert pinning, is there a way to
force it to use your cert so you can MITM it?

~~~
blackbeard
I've been on Windows 10 for a couple of days now.

VPN traffic doesn't leak if the default route is the VPN interface. I tried it
and my firewall went silent apart from the tunnel.

I have absolutely no fucking idea what it is sending out though. It's always
talking to something. I've turned everything off that is documented and use a
local account and remove-appxpackage'd everything. Sorry but this release is a
write off. My host/vm relation is being inverted to Ubuntu as a host this week
rather than a guest.

If I don't know what it's doing, how can I trust it?

~~~
ultramancool
I've been trying to use a software firewall and here's what I've blocked so
far...

[https://up1.ca/#JQqL3y0xqLZnxaOlYQ0s6A](https://up1.ca/#JQqL3y0xqLZnxaOlYQ0s6A)

And this is on a machine running Enterprise with privacy settings cranked, and
most stuff disabled via group policy.

I'm trying to avoid blocking updates, but svchost is still out there talking
to random microsoft servers. The worst part is that I can't differentiate
between the servers used for tracking and the ones used for updates. I might
have already blocked necessary stuff for updates.

At this point I'm really tempted to just wipe the machine and go back to 7,
I've never felt so little trust in a machine I own. Even when I've run
malware, at least I knew or could easily find out what was happening. This is
just a big unknown to me. I'm seeing claims that it sends idle mic data even
with Cortana disabled too, which is making me very paranoid even though the
claims look sketchy at best.

~~~
kuschku
Here’s an image link to your image that actually fucking works:
[http://i.imgur.com/i4ydV1a.png](http://i.imgur.com/i4ydV1a.png)

~~~
antsar
Thank you.

 _Javascript is required to view and upload files._

No, it is definitely not.

~~~
ultramancool
Up1 uses client-side crypto, so in this instance it is. No real point here
though, but I use ShareX with it, and it's nice to be able to deliver
screenshots and stuff like this privately.

~~~
antsar
What's the point of client-side crypto in a browser? Can't you be served
backdoored JavaScript that no longer does proper encryption, and you'd be none
the wiser?

~~~
ikeboy
The service provider isn't able to decode the info because the key is part of
the URL that isn't sent to them. This decreases liability (and if nobody
visits them, they can't be forced to decrypt it).

~~~
kuschku
This protects you from nothing. It actually makes it LESS secure. Because you
now have to enable JavaScript.

The service provider can still decode the info by MitM'ing.

If you are using Google Fiber, for example, your service provider can do
whatever they want anyway – they control your browser, they are a CA and they
are your ISP.

If not: As we’ve seen with CINNIC, MitM'ing is trivial because CAs give out
root certificates far too often, far too easily

~~~
ikeboy
This is not to protect you, it's to protect the website.

>The service provider can still decode the info by MitM'ing.

Yes, but as I explicitly mentioned, only if you visit the website. If NSA goes
to the website and demands the data, they can't do anything with it until I
visit, whereas if it was decrypted, they could. This is a non-trivial
difference.

>If you are using Google Fiber, for example, your service provider can do
whatever they want anyway – they control your browser, they are a CA and they
are your ISP.

Google is _not_ going to risk their entire reputation by abusing their CA.
Notice how CNNIC was removed from trusted stores and basically lost their
business. Mitm by compromising a CA is far from trivial. Also, certificate
pinning can mitigate the CA risk almost completely.

~~~
kuschku
As you’ve probably seen with MEGA, this does not protect the site at all.

Take Megaupload (not MEGA), they had unencrypted data, but complied fully with
DMCA and operated fully legally.

Take MEGA, they have to comply with DMCA, too, even though everything is
encrypted and they never can decrypt the data, either (MEGA does literally the
same as up1.ca)

Additionally, Certificate pinning only works if I visited the site before the
MitM started. And some carriers like T-Mobile just strip every Certificate
Pinning header anyway, as they use proxies to compress data. (Chrome’s Turbo
mode does the same).

Essentially, the site uses JavaScript for showing images without providing any
advantage to either the user or the site.

~~~
k3d3
> Essentially, the site uses JavaScript for showing images without providing
> any advantage to either the user or the site.

That is a very baseless and false conclusion.

~~~
ultramancool
Well, admittedly, in the context of a link on Hacker News, it's pretty true.
The link containing the seed is trivial to obtain and could easily be reported
to the providers who would have to take it down if deemed legally necessary.

------
thescrewdriver
Until recently Microsoft had taken a far more reasonable approach to privacy
than say Google. Anyone remember the MS "gmail man" ads mocking the way Google
inspects your email when MS doesn't? It seems that MS under Nadella has taken
a decidedly Google-like turn away from privacy with Windows 10. MS seems as
hell-bent as Google and Facebook to collect as much data about you as
possible, even if it is for seemingly innocuous purposes.

~~~
TsomArp
An algorithm reading your email to look for words to server better ads is
hardly spying imho. I rather see ads of things that interest me than ads for
casinos. And I'm hardly a MS lover.

~~~
jazzyk
Unless, of course they are looking for the words "male", "escort", "date" in
e-mails from a (most likely Republican) Senator, married with kids :-)

Joking aside, you realize what you just have said is naive? Any form of
privacy invasion can be - and eventually will be - used for nefarious
purposes.

------
jammycakes
In all these discussions about Windows 10 phoning home, there are a couple of
things that I haven't yet seen properly discussed.

1\. Do the different versions of Windows (Home/Pro/Enterprise/Education)
behave differently? If so, how?

2\. Do the pro/enterprise versions behave differently when they're connected
to a domain?

I'd imagine that the answer to at least one of these questions would be "yes."
This kind of behaviour would be a deal-breaker in many enterprises.

~~~
blackbeard
We have an enterprise edition VM in test and it appears to react the same as
Pro at least. Haven't tried home.

What is scary is the lack of GPOs to turn this stuff off which you'd expect in
an enterprise product. Technically we can't apply policy to make this
compliant with our data protection requirements.

Their funeral to be honest.

~~~
ultramancool
There's actually some GPOs to turn this stuff off. I'm running Enterprise on
my desktop... the problem is that many of them don't work or only disable the
UI, but still connect out to random Microsoft servers. How the hell does
Microsoft think that's acceptable in an "Enterprise" product?

~~~
uxcn
This was something I was wondering about. It seems like any company that has
proprietary data to protect or privacy laws to comply with (most) don't even
have a choice. I personally don't use Windows a lot, but even knowing that
information was being sent out by default would be a deal breaker for me.

Can you give some examples of the stuff that does actually have switches?

~~~
ultramancool
> Can you give some examples of the stuff that does actually have switches?

Yeah, if you disable the Search thing in the start menu for example, it _does_
stop sending your queries to Bing. That switch does work. It just sends a
bunch of tracking info instead.

On Enterprise, you can also disable telemetry which does appear to work.

------
bhouston
Given that it is proven that the NSA spied on European companies for economic
reasons, this isn't a good idea. Now the NSA can just tap into Microsoft,
either covertly or through court order, and spy on the whole world.

Details of economic spying -- may not be the best article but the easiest to
find:

[http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/nsa-spied-on-french-
economy...](http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/nsa-spied-on-french-economy-
ministers-top-companies-reports-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=84733&NewsCatID=351)

~~~
likeclockwork
Embrace, Extend, Eavesdrop.

------
datainplace
Stupid question, but my Mom lives in a really rural area. Pays quite a bit for
internet and is charged by the MB. Can we ask Microsoft to pay for their
bandwidth usage?

Since upgrading to Windows 10 she's been hit with $200 in overages.

~~~
ikeboy
Did she set the connection as "metered"? I know some things stop then.

The $200 is likely from the automatic updates, which were pretty big. How much
extra in MB was it?

~~~
noja
It's likely from the automatic _sharing_ of automatic updates.

------
enqk
This highlights what we really lost when consumer operating systems started
replacing enterprise-grade operating systems. I would have never imagined this
kind of things happening on something like Solaris or Irix, which were the
base operating systems of many workstations. At some point when Linux became
popular it suggested that the regular consumer would benefit from the
robustness, focus, reliability of an entreprise grade OS. Not so..

That large companies accept this state of affair is extremely surprising.

That we accept that our electricity and communication bills are being diverted
to serve the interest of an operating system's creator.. that sounds crazy.
It's like letting the creator of your fridge eat your food and drive your car.

~~~
t0mbstone
Would you let the creator of your fridge eat some of your food, if they gave
you the fridge for free?

~~~
mjcohen
Maybe, from the stuff in the back that is way past its use-by date.

------
mark_l_watson
I was downvoted and criticised a few days ago for defending Microsoft on
Windows 10. I am starting to change my opinion after looking into the issue
more. I watched a recent Richard Stallman talk on youtube and went through the
process of making the tightest privacy settings I could on my iPad, Windows 10
laptop, and Android phone. (I left my Mac and Linux laptops as is since I just
use those for development.)

I think that Microsoft looked at the Google Now user experience on Android
phones and decided to emulate that type of AI assistent in Windows. Google
collects all sorts of user context information and Microsoft decided to do the
same.

This is a guess but the difference may be that (some) people are willing to
have less privacy on their smartphones but care more about privacy on their
computers.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I think that Microsoft looked at the Google Now user experience on Android
> phones and decided to emulate that type of AI assistent in Windows.

I don't mind that (Cortana).

I do mind that when Cortana and its supporting options are explicitly
disabled, Win 10 apparently _still_ won't stop chattering back with HQ
constantly. Not only for privacy reasons either; it seems (though I'm not
certain of the relationship) to have a substantial, though intermittent rather
than constant, impact on performance.

~~~
mark_l_watson
I agree.

------
pdkl95
From the image of the captured data that is sent when telemetry is "off", a
few bits are obviously Windows-style UTF-16. The GUID is obvious, and is that
an assert error message? Very strange...

    
    
        prod
        e5ff4669-311a-0933-dee2-9444eee86460
    
        instrumentation.cpp
        Instrumentation::StartQosExperience
        (Utilities::HashMapContains(_qosUXScenarioDataById, scenerioId) == false)
        Assertfailed: (Utilities::HashMapContains(_qosUXScenarioDataById, scenerioId) == false):
        Instrumentation is active when we try 
    

(it cuts off after "try")

------
jellicle
I have a really hard time understanding how "enterprises" are going to upgrade
to Windows 10.

An operating system that is sending random internal data to random places on
the internet seems to violate both a wide selection of national laws related
to data privacy, and many corporate policies relating to trade secrets,
privacy, internal operations and so on.

Microsoft must have thought of this. What's their plan for continuing to sell
to these customers?

------
cautious_int
_Windows 10 seems to transmit information to the server even when OneDrive is
disabled and logins are using a local account that isn 't connected to a
Microsoft Account._

Well there you go. If you ever wondered whether this is happening only on the
Microsoft Account(tm).

------
yellowapple
It's hard to know without inspecting the exact data involved, but I feel like
this is dangerously close to a HIPAA or HITECH breach, and I know of several
hospitals who are strongly on the Microsoft bandwagon and are considering
Windows 10.

The "send search data to an internet endpoint even if it's patently obvious
that the search is for local resources" reeks strongly of Ubuntu's Amazon
Shopping Lens. Did Mark Shuttleworth switch gears from Canonical to Microsoft
when I wasn't looking?

~~~
dragonwriter
> It's hard to know without inspecting the exact data involved, but I feel
> like this is dangerously close to a HIPAA or HITECH breach

Perhaps pedantic, but that's redundant; HITECH doesn't define breaches
separately from HIPAA, it establishes standards for when HIPAA data is
"unsecured" and reporting requirements, etc., related to HIPAA breaches.

~~~
yellowapple
I'm aware; my point was that there are HITECH implications as well that would
be very hard to address with Windows 10 if my suspicions are correct; it would
be hard to meet the breach reporting and notification requirements when the
operating system may very well be actively siphoning PII even when supposedly
configured to do otherwise. The only safe option is to assume that any patient
data that exists on a Windows 10 system is unsecured unless that system is
entirely disconnected from any kind of network or until Windows 10 is
significantly more transparent about what it's doing behind users' backs.

Of course, this is speculation right now, and perhaps my concerns are
unfounded, but I can already imagine some old doctor typing "J. Random Hacker
biopsy" into that Start Menu search field in the hopes of finding some
document and inadvertently sending the fact that J. Random Hacker had a biopsy
to Microsoft and potentially some advertising partners (depending on the
nature of such transmissions).

------
ultramancool
Hah, I mentioned this a few days ago. Glad to see someone picked it up and ran
it.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10037753](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10037753)

------
jcadam
Wow. I use Linux and BSD on my own machines, but the rest of the family is on
Windows 10. This sort of thing makes me seriously think about trying to get
the wife and kids to consider switching :/

~~~
scuba7183
I had the Win10 preview on a spare laptop that I just use for Netflix and
Pandora, and was planning on just upgrading it to full 10..... until all this
came out. Wiped it and installed Xubuntu.

I did like Windows 10 though, but then they kinda ruined it

------
jorgecastillo
I am sticking with Windows 7 until I get out of college and after that I am
ditching Windows forever.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
God forbid Microsoft give 7 the boot for support like they did XP. Windows 7
is standard for workstations at the college administration where I work, and
suggestions to switch to 8 are met with laughter across the board. We have
trouble enough with China trying to hack us literally thousands of times per
day, and there is no reason to trust Windows 10 to be any more secure.

~~~
Hello71
> We have trouble enough with China trying to hack us literally thousands of
> times per day

you mean you did "tail -f /var/log/secure".

> God forbid Microsoft give 7 the boot for support like they did XP.

god forbid Microsoft try to deprecate OSs after nearly 13 years. note that in
2001, the newest Linux kernel available was in the 2.4 series, with many
people still using 2.2.

~~~
Silhouette
_god forbid Microsoft try to deprecate OSs after nearly 13 years._

You seem to have invented a decade. Windows 8 RTM was just over 3 years ago.

Also, while I have some sympathy with both the idea that software isn't
perfect and the idea that Microsoft need a viable business model, I don't
think it's unreasonable to expect a product like Windows 7 to come with
essential support for a significant period of time, perhaps based on the
expected working lifetime of devices where the software is normally installed.

It's true that we don't know how to make perfect software yet, but it's also
still the case that those security and bug fixes are only necessary because
the product as originally provided was defective. If you're making as much
money from a product as Microsoft do from Windows, and if defects in your
product cause harm on the scale that bugs in Windows do, I think it's fair to
expect you to make good your mistakes for a reasonable period as well.

It also seems to me that Microsoft could do very well from stating a
reasonable period of guaranteed support with the purchase but then offering
reasonably-priced ongoing support afterwards so it have a real revenue stream
to fund long-term maintenance if it turns out that devices running Windows 7
are in use for a long time. This also conveniently removes the incentive to
ship successive products that are seen to be worse than what people had
before.

~~~
scholia
_> I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a product like Windows 7 to come
with essential support for a significant period of time, perhaps based on the
expected working lifetime of devices where the software is normally
installed._

Under Microsoft's software lifecycle policy, operating systems are normally
supported for 10 years. So, for example, we already know that support for
Windows 7 ends in 2020, unless it's extended.
[http://windows.microsoft.com/en-
GB/windows/lifecycle](http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows/lifecycle)

The best LTS on Linux is 5 years, and used to be 3 years. The best lifecycle
support on OS X is, oh well, pick a number. A small number.

If you bought Windows 7 in 2009 and took a free upgrade to Windows 10 then
you're supported until 2025, if your hardware lasts that long. So you'd have
got roughly 15 years' use of an operating system for roughly $40. It's
obviously terrible value....

~~~
Silhouette
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that Microsoft's current support periods are
somehow bad. On the contrary, I think they have historically been by far the
best in the industry, and that this has been a strong argument in favour of
building serious software on Windows.

All I'm saying is that a significant period of support -- longer than the 3
years the posts I was replying to seemed to be suggesting -- is a reasonable
expectation for this sort of commercial software, because the developers are
supplying an imperfect product in the first place.

In contrast, if the new version of Windows with its compulsory updates removes
that ability to keep what you actually bought working as well as it was when
you bought it, that is not a good thing, any more than it is when Apple have
dumped support for old versions of iOS or OS X well before the end of the
useful lifetime of devices they ran on. The position that the software
industry wants to keep changing things so everyone else should be forced to
keep up whether or not it's actually in their interests is not something I can
support.

~~~
scholia
_> The position that the software industry wants to keep changing things so
everyone else should be forced to keep up whether or not it's actually in
their interests is not something I can support._

Oddly enough, Microsoft already tried that. They ended up with people running
14-year-old code (which cost them money both short term and long term) and a
major malware problem.

Check out conficker devastating businesses and costing people a fortune ...
almost wholly because they didn't install the patch for it. And these idiots
are running supposedly-competent businesses or government departments.

The business branches offer more control over taking updates, but this is a
consumer operating system.

~~~
Silhouette
Again, this is conflating security patches with more general updates.

As a personal anecdote, the only serious malware that has ever hit any system
I run, as far as I'm aware, was a zero day exploit. The system was fully
patched when it was hit. In contrast, the amount of productive time I have
spent over the past few years recovering from problems caused by non-security-
related software updates that I didn't particularly want but couldn't avoid if
I wanted to keep the security patches is probably measured in weeks by now.

I'm all for keeping systems secure, but when updates start to take priority
over keeping systems useful, you have a problem. Most security patches are
fairly low risk and have few if any unrelated side effects anyway, but that is
certainly not the case with modern software updates more generally. Just look
at the frustration of browser users with Mozilla constantly rearranging the UI
or Google actively removing functionality from Chrome, or of course the number
of users who never moved from Windows XP to Vista or from 7 to 8 because the
changes weren't considered improvements.

In the brave new world of Windows 10, the average individual user will be
stuck with all the updates, security or otherwise, whether they want them or
not. There's really no excuse for that, even in a consumer-focussed OS.
Install updates by default, so less technical users get what they probably
want? Sure. Block even knowledgeable users from choosing whether to install
specific updates? The only time that makes a difference is if Microsoft want
to force an update that the user does not want.

~~~
scholia
_> Just look at the frustration of browser users with Mozilla constantly
rearranging the UI or Google actively removing functionality from Chrome_

Welcome to the brave new world. (Apple removing functionality as well.)

Windows 10 is moving to a continuous update process that is exactly like
Gmail, Facebook and all web apps, and for exactly the same reasons.

At least this avoids the "big bang" updates that left incompetent
organizations running buggy, insecure 14-year-old code. (The buggy insecure
new code actually does work a lot better ;-)

 _> Block even knowledgeable users from choosing whether to install specific
updates?_

How many are of those exist? As far as I can see, the number is between very,
very small and zero, and even the best know far less about updates than
Microsoft (because Microsoft can see tens of millions of PCs, and it has the
source code).

That very small number has a problem because Microsoft is trying to cater to a
billion users who don't even pretend to such arcane knowledge.

Otherwise, there's a business branch where you can delay updates for a few
months, and one where you can effectively delay them forever.

------
otis_inf
In the post-Snowden era, USA tech corporations, like Microsoft, felt the
downturn on trust from non-USA companies and citizens in their online
offerings. With Microsoft betting more and more on their cloud services, I
find it strange (or maybe it isn't strange, but let's be naive for a minute
here) that Microsoft goes against this and actually gives people _more_
reasons to not trust them than less.

As if they're thinking we all don't give a shit. But if we all didn't, why the
downturn in trust in USA tech corporations post-Snowden?

I can't help but think that this is either massively naive from their part
(people/companies won't care, they will buy our stuff and services regardless)
or very short-sighted (as it will hurt their cloud services offerings in the
long run, the more they hammer down the trust from their own users in MS'
wares.)

~~~
sliverstorm
Or maybe when nobody trusts you anyway, that ship has sailed? :)

------
fumar
I'm not savvy enough to discern whether OSX os iOS does this. Does anyone know
if iDevices also ping back to Apple?

~~~
jshelly
Little snitch indicates OSX does, but I'm not savvy enough to discern in what
capacity or the content

~~~
chmaynard
As I understand it, Little Snitch is a process-level network firewall that
uses a kernel extension to monitor and report all outgoing traffic. I have
used it for about a week on a Mac running OS X 10.11, and I'm seeing lots of
undocumented traffic from apps and daemons signed by Apple. By undocumented, I
mean that the built-in docs in Little Snitch can't explain what the sender is
doing.

------
elcct
Is Microsoft paying for that traffic?

~~~
irixusr
In canada that's a big concern

~~~
calvin_
Maybe in Ontario. It's uncapped out east.

~~~
irixusr
I don't know about the rest-of-Canada.

I stayed in Ontario (Mississauga) last year for six mo. and I was on Rogers,
capped at 80 Gb/month. My alternative was Bell. Same price. Same cap. Week-
long activation date.

I was paying what I had been paying for in the US for unlimited data. There
were uncapped plans available, but they're pricier. Considering the building
was hooked up to fiber (at least Bell suggested it was), getting 80 Gb seemed
a bit stingy.

The best way to illustrate how broken our system is to our American friends is
to point out that, when I returned to the US, I was thankful to return to
Comcast.

Which is like being thankful to getting reinfected with Ebola.

------
tdkl
Funny, nowadays there seem to be more firewall rules needed for outbound
traffic then inbound on Windows. In the old days we had a name for that -
spyware.

~~~
PythonicAlpha
The name today is "cloud" ;)

------
PythonicAlpha
You agreed to the privacy terms, so you are at the mercy of whatsoever
Microsoft implemented. Windows 10 even could totally ignore your settings.

 _I say this, not because I think that this is OK, but to reflect, that even
the change of the settings do not save you from the harm, that was done from
the privacy terms!_

 _Why downvoted? When you disagree, than give arguments, not gutless clicks!_

~~~
thescrewdriver
Very few people will read the privacy terms. Just because they have a document
people clicked 'agree' below without reading doesn't mean that MS should not
be held to account for what Windows 10 is leaking. For many users not using
Windows isn't an option.

~~~
PythonicAlpha
With such an argumentation, you could just trash any terms. As long as they
are not against any law, they are valid, as long as they do not contain
something that is totally unexpected (for example that you must pay Microsoft
additional fees above the normal price).

 _I also think, that Microsoft should be held accountable -- but it starts
with those terms!_

I think, many people just rushed into Windows 10, because it was free. But
free, seldom means free in deed. A clever trick of Microsoft to trick people
into this.

As long the privacy terms are not effectively changed _and_ the OS stops to
send coded data to servers, this OS can not be trusted.

~~~
wfo
Terms and conditions as a requirement to use a product you've already
purchased shouldn't ever count for anything. So I think you should trash any
terms. And I'd hope in a civilized country if a company tries to use
mandatory-accept 300 page terms and conditions to abuse their customers a
judge would step in and say "no."

And this is absolutely unexpected. That's why there's a very popular post on
ars technica and hacker news and reddit with tons of well-informed technical
people surprised about it and pretty pissed off.

~~~
RaleyField
> in a civilized country if a company tries to use mandatory-accept 300 page
> terms and conditions

If you don't like 300 pages of ToS then don't buy Windows. It's your free
choice. Software should be protected speech. I don't like Windows 10, but then
I also think that Microsoft should have the right to write Windows however
they like as long as they don't factually lie in their privacy statement and
other documents.

> to use a product you've already purchased

The person who sold you Windows should've informed you of the license.

~~~
wfo
> It's your free choice.

No, it isn't. Very few choices in a very capitalist society are actually free,
they are free in the sense that choosing to comply or not with a gun to your
head is "free". Which is why regulation is necessary. Burying anything
significant in a ToS is in our society meaningless, because if it actually had
teeth it would be fraud.

------
w8rbt
Windows 10 reminds me of a saying an old co-worker of mine used a lot, ___"
Vendors lie... packets don't."_ __

------
cryptophreak
Of course this is true. Companies make money by spying on their customers. Did
we really imagine that flipping the “Stop making money” preference was going
to work?

~~~
oxide
well...yes. I fully expect when I opt out of something, anything, that it
isn't still doing what I just thought I opted out of.

that's probably my fault for being so naive.

------
tempodox
Maybe I'm just jaded, but does that really surprise anyone? Most
“developments” at MS have been nothing but successive layers of lipstick-on-a-
pig. No amount of lipstick can make the pig underneath go away.

~~~
Silhouette
It doesn't _surprise_ me. Moves in this direction were likely as soon as
Nadella was chosen to be the new CEO and all but certain as soon as they
announced the free upgrade push for Windows 10.

It does disappoint me, though. Microsoft was one of the few major players in
IT that could realistically have offered an antidote to the always-online,
spy-on-everything, everything-is-a-service, subscribe-not-buy, force-updates-
you-don't-want madness of recent years. Instead, they seem to be throwing good
money after bad in what I'm already expecting to be a repeat of Vista/8 level
failure. They have about as much chance of actually out-Googling Google as
Mozilla do with Firefox, yet like Mozilla they persist in trying and in doing
so alienating the substantial user base who valued their products precisely
because they weren't like that.

~~~
at-fates-hands
>> Microsoft was one of the few major players in IT that could realistically
have offered an antidote to the always-online, spy-on-everything, everything-
is-a-service, subscribe-not-buy, force-updates-you-don't-want madness of
recent years.

I felt the same way after they came out and said they really believe in
protecting data and people's privacy. This is the exact _opposite_ of all the
big talk over the past few years. Disappointing for sure.

I tried upgrading to Win 10 this past weekend and it was a disaster. My 3 year
old video card wasn't supported (no dual monitors) and then after I reverted
back to 7, it killed all my network adapters so I couldn't connect to the
internet. I had to nuke my entire OS and start fresh. I'm not upgrading
anytime soon.

Here's some of those articles:

[http://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2013/12/04/protecting-
custom...](http://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2013/12/04/protecting-customer-
data-from-government-snooping/)

[http://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-
issues/2014/07/01/advancin...](http://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-
issues/2014/07/01/advancing-our-encryption-and-transparency-efforts/)

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/microsoft-...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/microsoft-
suspecting-nsa-spying-to-ramp-up-efforts-to-encrypt-its-internet-
traffic/2013/11/26/44236b48-56a9-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html)

~~~
dragonwriter
> I felt the same way after they came out and said they really believe in
> protecting data and people's privacy. This is the exact opposite of all the
> big talk over the past few years. Disappointing for sure.

But, that's pretty much a well-established pattern (Microsoft has done it with
lots of things before, but so has Apple and lots of other companies, its not
particular to Microsoft) -- if someone realizes an opportunity you didn't, you
attack them for it and try to get the market to see the product as unnecessary
or even abusive, right up until you are ready to push something that exploits
the same opportunity.

------
mjcohen
I got a refurbished HP Stream 11 for $120 (Groupon) and spent 3 hours
upgrading to Windows 10. I then installed Chrome and LibreOffice. It works
fine, but, with all these privacy invasions, I see no reason to use it. My
Acer C720 Chromebook (upgraded to a 128GB SSD) with Crouton and Ubuntu 14.04
is much more useful to me.

~~~
gluelogic
This is totally off topic, but, if you don't mind sharing, what SSD did you
get? I have the same Chromebook running Arch, but it has been idling since I
got something else. I really want to upgrade it and start using it again.

