I agree that the NSA spying is a real threat, but so is traditional malware. The article is basically saying that, because the malware protection is not good enough (i.e. not securing against NSA malware), it's worse than no protection at all.
I do agree that locking down the OS so that it runs only MS-signed applications is a dick move in general and we'll probably see really bad changes in the market overall, but I see no relation to the NSA spying issue. The NSA can install malware as well on XP machines as it can on Windows 8 machines, so in that regard, Win8 is no better nor worse than previous versions.
(also: I really don't intend to be trolling and my argument seems reasonable. As such I wonder what the reason for the downvotes is. Is it possible that you guys are getting an english article with a different content? If I click the link I get to see a german article)
No. If the OS is locked down so only MS-signed applications can run, it is impossible to run software that can detect malware that has been approved by MS. It is also impossible to run software that can remove such malware.
If the OS makes it impossible to detect or remove malware, it is less secure than OS that do allow detection and removal of malware. This is not FUD.
What should happen, is that MS should be held strict liable for any illegal acts which their restrictions helps to propagate. Held under vicarious liability by non-US markets (so they can't get immunity by the US government), MS shareholders would demand the elimination of the restrictions in favor of less legal risk for the company.
Second, I haven't seen your argument made for iOS and Chromebooks which are much more locked down than Windows 8. Though one could argue that Chromebook doesn't need to have malware since everything is helpfully uploaded to the cloud.
It might had been worth mentioned, I am not the first person to talk about liability issues regarding lockdown. I first heard it in a talk that described the iPhone.
You see no relation?
If MS is the only who could control your computer, and MS is an American company tat has to obey American laws, and the American laws says they must spy on every customer, specially non Americans, like Germans, as they are defined "adversaries"...
You see no relation?
Maybe, just maybe we have come to the point in time that unless a system has been shown to be secure, it should be assumed to be wiretaping the user. We can no longer assume secure until proven insecure.
Absolutely. This is what the reputational damage to american firms like Microsoft looks like. Why the hell should their systems be trusted now?
I 100% agree. But I really fail to see how this makes Windows 8 a worse operating system in that regards than its predecessors. A system that provides no trusted computing support is equally easily hacked by the NSA as is a system that does support trusted computing. The latter does have the benefit of making hacking significantly more difficult for everybody but the NSA, so I would say it's still a net positive and not a huge negative which the article makes it out to be.
Security-wise only of course. I hate the idea of losing control over the hardware I purchased and I will resist as long as humanly possible installing a system that removes this kind of control from me. It just has _nothing_ to do with NSA spying and everything with corporate control of the OS maker.
Fud or not, this is what happens when you shake the public's trust in... anything. In this case it happens to be government, the internet and technology. The NSA scandal will have wide reaching and unpredictable implications.
Losers will be traditional technology providers like Microsoft, HP, Cisco, etc. Remember how the US blocked China from supplying networking gear domestically on grounds of "security concerns"? (Which no doubt are totally valid.) Well, would you trust your company's or government's security to Cisco gear?