Windows 10 upgrade

[Raineh Daze]

There were two circumstances where they couldn't tell what kind of data was actually being sent. The data being sent to ssw.live.com and whatever it was doing that bypassed the proxy they had set up.

The fact that microsoft wouldn't give a straight answer about it when asked is also troubling.

And maybe I'm just old, but stuff like keylogging and copying your search and purchase history strikes me as invasive even if they do try to turn it into a "feature." It's like saying: "look, we snuck into your house and put cameras and listening devices in every room--including the bathrooms--but now we can notify you when you're out of toilet paper!" 

Yes, copying your search history that you've used via their services is harvesting your data. It's already logged on their systems ANYWAY. It's like complaining the bank has a record of your transactions. Same for the recording your purchase history through their damn store. Don't see anything about checking your purchase history elsewhere.

Keylogging? I can't even see an trace of that in the article you've linked. Er.

So what we have is two cases of unidentified data. Concerning, not a reason to panic and abandon the entire platform. It's pretty much a given that unless you carefully scope out every site you ever visit, SOMETHING is going to have received data you, personally, can't identify. There's no reason to presume it's some alarming sensitive info. I wouldn't be surprised if the data sent to ssw.live.com is 'does not have onedrive linked' or something.

[MrWolfe]

The keylogging was mentioned in this article, which someone linked to earlier. That's also what I was referring to when I mentioned search and purchase history, though I admit after going over the article I'm not seeing much to support that claim in the headline. Currently checking through other articles to see if there's a more detailed mention. One thing it does specifically say is that Windows 10 listens to your microphone and sends this data back to Microsoft, ostensibly so they can improve their voice recognition software. According to further articles on the subject, the other data Windows 10 collects includes "your music, alarm settings, whether the lock screen is on, what you view and purchase, your browse and Bing search history, and more."

That line is apparently taken from their privacy agreement. And this is just the information Microsoft is telling you they will access and use. Apparently Win 10 also automatically encrypts and backs up your entire hard drive online, along with a copy of the encryption key. So, yeah, they have literally everything on your computer.

Here's the thing: Even if I trusted Microsoft with this information, and I don't, having this data collected and transmitted over the internet is a huge security risk. Aside from concerns over personal privacy, any information stored or sent in this way could potentially be accessed by a third party. Keystroke logging means every username/password combination, every phone number, social security number, credit card/bank account number, etc you've ever typed into your computer is one security breach from being spilled across the internet.

The fact that Microsoft shows such blatant disregard for it's user's privacy and security that they think this is okay is extremely troubling. The fact that Windows 10 continues to send unidentified data to Microsoft servers without any obvious reason why is even more troubling.

[Stratovarius]

You do realise all the major companies do exactly that? The reasons go by the names of Cortana, Google Now, and Siri. Or did you think your always on cellphone mic wasn't doing that?

And no, Bitlocker is not on by default, or even available in Home edition. So you're reading garbled and misinformed idiots, of which there were a lot shortly after Win10 came out. And the keylogging bit? Turning it off is a one click option, and it's not necessary. And is again identical to massively popular android and otherwise features, most notably SwiftKey.

MS hasn't done one thing users haven't already accepted, and yet people are getting very bent out of shape. Which is amusing given around the time Win10 came out, MS sold its advertising business to AOL. So they aren't making money by ad targetting you. Google? Still the only way they make money. I'm more worried about the company that pledges to exploit my info for cash than I am the one who doesn't.

[Raineh Daze]

In addition to Stratovarius' above comments: of course Microsoft collects Bing search results. They own Bing. You're just saying the same thing that everyone not paying attention did when it came out: that they're collecting data for features that need that data to work and assuming this is malevolent.

[MrWolfe]

What always-on cellphone mic, Stratovarius?

I don't have a smartphone, and don't use services like Cortana, Google Now, or Siri. Or did you think that everyone blindly picks up the latest thing because it's "hip" and well marketed? Hell, I don't even use google if I can help it. There are other search engines which better serve my needs thanks to not engaging in the 'bubbling' BS that google pulls.

Pardons if you thought you were dropping some kind of bomb there.

Frankly, just because some (read: ignorant and gullible) users have accepted these shenanigans does not mean the rest of us have. Nor does consumer apathy make a questionable practice ok or not worth mentioning. And if you're going to claim that the information in these articles is wrong, maybe you can provide something beyond your anonymous internet person's opinion to back that up? I'll admit I'm not going to just take an article at face value either, but when it's fricking Ars saying this I'm inclined to err on the side of caution rather than assume a respected tech journal is just making shit up.

Speaking of people who can be described by words like "gullible" and "misinformed", I've noticed a lot of folks parroting the "but you can just turn it off" line. If it's been shown that even after "turning it off" unknown data is still being sent to microsoft under questionable circumstances, how do you know that clicking a checkbox has actually disabled these features? Especially if they're going to such lengths as bypassing proxies in order to hide what information is being transmitted? Because Microsoft told you so? Frankly, if the big software companies are going to act like shady malware purveyors, I'm going to trust them about as much as shady malware purveyors.

As for "but of course they collect your bing/cortana/etc search results," this isn't just Bing. By Microsoft's own admission, their data collection includes such gems as "data from your emails and text messages." Yes, could be relatively harmless metadata--except that there's no such thing--or they could be literally saving copies of your messages and using that data for their own purposes. There is an astounding potential for misuse and invasion of privacy here, which most people seem blandly unconcerned about. Even if Microsoft itself isn't making a policy of misusing the information, simply collecting it makes it possible for an employee to do so, or for a security breach to leak that information to other parties.

Like I said before, I don't care if they have some fancy "feature" to try and justify all this data-mining. The data-mining itself is a questionable and risky practice regardless of it's motivation. It's like people have suddenly forgot the basic principles of network security. Next I'm going to hear someone argue: "Well, they wouldn't try to abuse it like that because the government wouldn't let them to get away with it." 

Seriously though, I know this Nigerian prince who has an excellent business proposition for you guys.

[Stratovarius]

No, I expect people to have smartphones because almost everyone who can afford one has decided that the benefits are worth the trade-offs, especially in 1st World countries (where usage is around 105% of population). And I don't use those services because they're "hip" (I've got a BlackBerry at the moment, actually), but because they make it easier for me to communicate with friends, co-workers, and family, and to manage my schedule. Given I work from home, this is rather important.

Bluntly, you're arguing from a point of view that is being discarded by the large corporations as financially irrelevant. Even the premier Linux distribution of Ubuntu agrees, with its phone-home search partnerships. Since the options now boil down to "heavily restrict my ability to use modern technology" and "accept some privacy invasion in exchange for convenience", I chose to go with the option that allows me the most convenience and allows me to spend more time on matters I care about.

And people didn't "forget" the principles of network security - they decided that the benefits of data mining (most prominently with all of Google's services and Siri) were stronger than an uncertain and ill-defined downside. This is likewise true for businesses in almost any industry, but especially manufacturing and capital goods, as they move into Internet of Things and real-time data analysis using in-memory databases and the like, almost always run by a third party company that has the required technology.

I have a letter from a Nigerian Prince on my wall, actually. It's framed, because it was printed on diplomatic paper, notarized, stamped, hand-signed, and then mailed to my family address. From back in the day when the Nigerian Scam actually had a bit of class.

[Raineh Daze]

Because people have analysed it and discovered that, yes, turning it off does turn almost everything off. What's left does not constitute a significant issue, because you're going to leave that amount of data lying around just by going on the internet at all. Since that, if you're concerned about privacy and don't want the whole fancy digital helper stuff, is what's left? I'm not panicking. Since the relevant groups have concluded that disabling the fancy stuff does stop the major data accumulation*, I'm not going to get worried over device telemetry and minor data blips.

... especially not the device telemetry, because I'd TELL you that if you asked me.

*Not that they actually need to collect my emails. They've had them for years.

[MrWolfe]

Okay, rather than making another long, detailed post I'll try to just sum up a few points here:

• Just because the software companies have decided that privacy and security aren't important doesn't mean we should.

If people refused to use this crap companies like Microsoft might have to rethink how much they're willing to jeopardize their consumers. Instead people keep gobbling it up and acting like there's somehow no choice--and as a result the next product to come out is even worse. At this rate I expect Windows 11 to tie up all your CPU power and bandwdith mining bitcoins for Microsoft.

• People are using these products solely because they're new and slickly marketed.

What are the main reasons you hear for people upgrading to Windows 10?

Because "It's free?" So are dozens of OS, many of whom operate with more transparency and less data mining that Windows 10.
Because supposedly it runs better? Microsoft has said that about every new version of windows, and it's rarely been true.
Because it gives you the start menu back? If a start menu mattered that much to you, why didn't you stick with a previous version of windows instead?
Because Microsoft is going to stop supporting previous editions? Okay, so I can keep using an old version of windows, and it might get malware that could spy on me or cause issues, or I can upgrade to Windows 10--which will spy on me and cause issues. Hrm.

Because everybody's doing it and you don't wanna' get left behind? In other words, because it's new. Also, who is this everybody and what makes you think they're all upgrading to 10? Oh, right, advertising.

• These risks aren't minor or vauge.

They include fun things like identity theft, social and/or financial ruin, incarceration, and massive violations of your civil rights.

But nah, I'm sure cloud storage and a handful of apps is worth it.

Because people have analysed it and discovered that, yes, turning it off does turn almost everything off. What's left does not constitute a significant issue, because you're going to leave that amount of data lying around just by going on the internet at all. Since that, if you're concerned about privacy and don't want the whole fancy digital helper stuff, is what's left? I'm not panicking. Since the relevant groups have concluded that disabling the fancy stuff does stop the major data accumulation*, I'm not going to get worried over device telemetry and minor data blips.

... especially not the device telemetry, because I'd TELL you that if you asked me.

*Not that they actually need to collect my emails. They've had them for years.

Mind sharing a source for that claim? Which "relevant groups" are you referring to? Pardon me if I don't find vague assurances all that convincing.

[Raineh Daze]

Okay, rather than making another long, detailed post I'll try to just sum up a few points here:

• Just because the software companies have decided that privacy and security aren't important doesn't mean we should.

If people refused to use this crap companies like Microsoft might have to rethink how much they're willing to jeopardize their consumers. Instead people keep gobbling it up and acting like there's somehow no choice--and as a result the next product to come out is even worse. At this rate I expect Windows 11 to tie up all your CPU power and bandwdith mining bitcoins for Microsoft.

The markets are not dominated by technical specialists. People know enough to work computers. Though enough are willing to pay attention that there's options to disable things. An appeal to hyperbole or expecting the masses to care about things that they're barely aware of? It's going to happen no matter how much a minority wish it won't.

• People are using these products solely because they're new and slickly marketed.

What are the main reasons you hear for people upgrading to Windows 10?

Because "It's free?" So are dozens of OS, many of whom operate with more transparency and less data mining that Windows 10.
Because supposedly it runs better? Microsoft has said that about every new version of windows, and it's rarely been true.
Because it gives you the start menu back? If a start menu mattered that much to you, why didn't you stick with a previous version of windows instead?
Because Microsoft is going to stop supporting previous editions? Okay, so I can keep using an old version of windows, and it might get malware that could spy on me or cause issues, or I can upgrade to Windows 10--which will spy on me and cause issues. Hrm.

Because everybody's doing it and you don't wanna' get left behind? In other words, because it's new. Also, who is this everybody and what makes you think they're all upgrading to 10? Oh, right, advertising.

Free: also, despite the claims, FAR more fucking complicated to work, you have to install them yourself, and basic system maintenance will inevitably bring up a command line. Plus simple tasks tend to have far too MANY programs, whilst complicated things (or, oh, most games) have almost none.
Okay: it's definitely faster than 7. That's a given. They've HAD to improve performance (for eight, originally), because it's supposed to go on mobile platforms as well. Whilst they might have the power, that means considering battery life. The performance improvement over Vista and 7 is not in doubt.
I didn't stick with a previous version because A) the laptop I wanted didn't come with 7 and B) I had no intention of spending £100 to replace the whole OS and fuck over the warranty at the same time. I find it unlikely that I would be a completely unique case where it was eight, staying on old hardware, or paying up.
"Will spy on me". Sure, whatever you want to believe; the article you cited that reignited this whole debate reduces it to about four things, two of which are completely innocuous, and one of which is connecting to a file storage server. Wow, one piece of unknown data. I am sure this is immensely significant and going to mean that my bank details are forwarded to MS along with every password I own and all communication I have ever undertaken.

• These risks aren't minor or vauge.

They include fun things like identity theft, social and/or financial ruin, incarceration, and massive violations of your civil rights.

But nah, I'm sure cloud storage and a handful of apps is worth it.

You do realise that your bank could do this if it particularly had a mind to do it and even more subtly? Plus, again, what you're saying is 'they could do this, if it hadn't been shown that these can be disabled, and if they were actually a criminal organisation harvesting details rather than a technology company in the public spotlight where this would inevitably be brought up and ruin them'. This one's not even a question of trust, this is a question of basic logic. You've gone so far beyond 'collecting details for commercial purposes to' that you've landed on criminal conspiracy. >_>

Because people have analysed it and discovered that, yes, turning it off does turn almost everything off. What's left does not constitute a significant issue, because you're going to leave that amount of data lying around just by going on the internet at all. Since that, if you're concerned about privacy and don't want the whole fancy digital helper stuff, is what's left? I'm not panicking. Since the relevant groups have concluded that disabling the fancy stuff does stop the major data accumulation*, I'm not going to get worried over device telemetry and minor data blips.

... especially not the device telemetry, because I'd TELL you that if you asked me.

*Not that they actually need to collect my emails. They've had them for years.

Mind sharing a source for that claim? Which "relevant groups" are you referring to? Pardon me if I don't find vague assurances all that convincing.

[/quote]

The same Ars Technica article you've linked indicates that these can be deactivated. I'm not going to try and remember what sites I checked nearly two months ago to see how the privacy settings worked in order to make sure I wanted to turn them off rather than dig through the registry. Burden of proof is on you to prove that the settings don't work; the default assumption is that, actually, they do. >_>

[MrWolfe]

The markets are not dominated by technical specialists. People know enough to work computers. Though enough are willing to pay attention that there's options to disable things. An appeal to hyperbole or expecting the masses to care about things that they're barely aware of? It's going to happen no matter how much a minority wish it won't.

All the more reason to try and educate those masses of non-technical specialists, don't you think?

Free: also, despite the claims, FAR more fucking complicated to work, you have to install them yourself, and basic system maintenance will inevitably bring up a command line. Plus simple tasks tend to have far too MANY programs, whilst complicated things (or, oh, most games) have almost none.
Okay: it's definitely faster than 7. That's a given. They've HAD to improve performance (for eight, originally), because it's supposed to go on mobile platforms as well. Whilst they might have the power, that means considering battery life. The performance improvement over Vista and 7 is not in doubt.
I didn't stick with a previous version because A) the laptop I wanted didn't come with 7 and B) I had no intention of spending £100 to replace the whole OS and fuck over the warranty at the same time. I find it unlikely that I would be a completely unique case where it was eight, staying on old hardware, or paying up.
"Will spy on me". Sure, whatever you want to believe; the article you cited that reignited this whole debate reduces it to about four things, two of which are completely innocuous, and one of which is connecting to a file storage server. Wow, one piece of unknown data. I am sure this is immensely significant and going to mean that my bank details are forwarded to MS along with every password I own and all communication I have ever undertaken.

1: So you don't like the other free OS options. Admittedly they have less support from both consumers and the industry than products like Windows. However, if people started using them instead of Windows, that would likely change.
2: Yes, I've heard it's faster. Haven't seen any benchmarks to prove it yet but I don't particularly doubt that Win 10 runs faster than Win 7--when it's not locking your computer in a restart loop due to forcing a glitched update.
3: So, because it's new. You wanted a new laptop, and due to Microsoft's monopoly on the PC market, your only reasonable option was to buy one with Windows 10. I'm not seeing how that's an argument in favor of the OS though.
4: Uh, the Windows 10 privacy policy states that it will spy on you by default, and the Ars Technica article raises doubts as to whether all of this spying is actually disabled by opting out in the settings. Ever heard the phrase "better safe than sorry?"

You do realise that your bank could do this if it particularly had a mind to do it and even more subtly? Plus, again, what you're saying is 'they could do this, if it hadn't been shown that these can be disabled, and if they were actually a criminal organisation harvesting details rather than a technology company in the public spotlight where this would inevitably be brought up and ruin them'. This one's not even a question of trust, this is a question of basic logic. You've gone so far beyond 'collecting details for commercial purposes to' that you've landed on criminal conspiracy. >_>

Actually, I have been ripped off by banks in the past. A particularly memorable occurrence was when an ATM sucked over $500 back into the machine, less than ten feet from from the teller counter. We filed a claim, and waited several months before receiving a nice letter informing us that "according to our investigation, we have determined that nothing happened." That wasn't particularly subtle, given the number of witnesses and cameras in the area, but last I heard Wells Fargo has not been "brought down and ruined" despite the numerous class action lawsuits the company has faced over the years as a result of their shady business practices. "Not a criminal organization" indeed.

Speaking of basic logic, care to remind me which logical fallacy best describes your argument that "other people can do it too, therefore we shouldn't be concerned about Microsoft doing it?"

And again (what is this, the third time?) none of this requires Microsoft to be the one misusing the data. Simply having it sent and stored online creates the risk of either an employee misusing the data without Microsoft's consent, or a third party gaining access to it via a security breach. Honestly, "collecting details for commercial purposes" is the least of my concerns. It's the other risks inherent with having your personal information stored and transmitted online that worries me. This kind of thing has been happening with increasing regularity, with breaches that compromise personal and financial information being reported by numerous companies and government agencies. It is simply not safe to have this kind of information accessible online, no matter how "convenient" it might seem.

The same Ars Technica article you've linked indicates that these can be deactivated. I'm not going to try and remember what sites I checked nearly two months ago to see how the privacy settings worked in order to make sure I wanted to turn them off rather than dig through the registry. Burden of proof is on you to prove that the settings don't work; the default assumption is that, actually, they do. >_>

Actually, the article was expressing concern that even with the settings off, Windows 10 was still sending information without a clear reason for it to do so. A point you seem to be deliberately ignoring. However, since they were unable to determine the content of that information, they couldn't be sure whether or not any of it was the same information those settings were supposed to prevent Windows from collecting, or some other undisclosed data.

Perhaps you remember the debacle with the smart TV's that phoned home with viewing habits and file names scraped from user attached USB drives, and continued to do so after supposedly turning this behavior off in the settings? When contacted, the company didn't even try to claim it was a mistake, rather than a deliberate attempt to harvest personal information without their user's consent. Remind me, is LG still making TVs, or has the company been ruined due to this being brought into the public spotlight. 

TL/DR:

[Nanshork]

You two do realize that you're never going to convince each other right?

[Raineh Daze]

You two do realize that you're never going to convince each other right?

Yes, it's why I haven't actually looked at the last one.

[KellKheraptis]

For the record - all modern distros meant for general computing (i.e. non-techies) have GUI interfaces for installing and updating.  Some have completely automated the process.  Granted, some of us grew up on the command line and prefer it, but we're a dying breed

[Raineh Daze]

For the record - all modern distros meant for general computing (i.e. non-techies) have GUI interfaces for installing and updating.  Some have completely automated the process.  Granted, some of us grew up on the command line and prefer it, but we're a dying breed

And even so, I have found myself having to fuck around with the command line anyway because something has gone horribly wrong somewhere. I have sliiiiightly more needs than simple document editing (and even then that can have format issues).

[KellKheraptis]

For the record - all modern distros meant for general computing (i.e. non-techies) have GUI interfaces for installing and updating.  Some have completely automated the process.  Granted, some of us grew up on the command line and prefer it, but we're a dying breed

And even so, I have found myself having to fuck around with the command line anyway because something has gone horribly wrong somewhere. I have sliiiiightly more needs than simple document editing (and even then that can have format issues).

You must have been using Slackware or old Fedora   I've had an Ubuntu LTS of some incarnation running on family members' machines for years with zero issues.  The older versions of Fedora/CentOS had MAJOR dependency issues, and Slackware is in general not noobie friendly.  Mint though would likely 'just work' for basically anything you throw at it, other than new title games.

[Raineh Daze]

For the record - all modern distros meant for general computing (i.e. non-techies) have GUI interfaces for installing and updating.  Some have completely automated the process.  Granted, some of us grew up on the command line and prefer it, but we're a dying breed

And even so, I have found myself having to fuck around with the command line anyway because something has gone horribly wrong somewhere. I have sliiiiightly more needs than simple document editing (and even then that can have format issues).

You must have been using Slackware or old Fedora   I've had an Ubuntu LTS of some incarnation running on family members' machines for years with zero issues.  The older versions of Fedora/CentOS had MAJOR dependency issues, and Slackware is in general not noobie friendly.  Mint though would likely 'just work' for basically anything you throw at it, other than new title games.

Lesse, Ubuntu, Mint, some other thing, then at one point I got bored and started playing with Arch and THAT of course had problems (I never could get the sound working with KDE). Kept having to go into the command line with all of them. Not sure what caused the difference, to be honest. May have had other distros in the interim, but I don't really remember too well.

Not that I am letting any version of Linux anywhere near this system. I play games on it and keep torturing them by default. I am not relying on WINE or hoping Valve gets the things I want to play ported.

[KellKheraptis]

For the record - all modern distros meant for general computing (i.e. non-techies) have GUI interfaces for installing and updating.  Some have completely automated the process.  Granted, some of us grew up on the command line and prefer it, but we're a dying breed

And even so, I have found myself having to fuck around with the command line anyway because something has gone horribly wrong somewhere. I have sliiiiightly more needs than simple document editing (and even then that can have format issues).

You must have been using Slackware or old Fedora   I've had an Ubuntu LTS of some incarnation running on family members' machines for years with zero issues.  The older versions of Fedora/CentOS had MAJOR dependency issues, and Slackware is in general not noobie friendly.  Mint though would likely 'just work' for basically anything you throw at it, other than new title games.

Lesse, Ubuntu, Mint, some other thing, then at one point I got bored and started playing with Arch and THAT of course had problems (I never could get the sound working with KDE). Kept having to go into the command line with all of them. Not sure what caused the difference, to be honest. May have had other distros in the interim, but I don't really remember too well.

Not that I am letting any version of Linux anywhere near this system. I play games on it and keep torturing them by default. I am not relying on WINE or hoping Valve gets the things I want to play ported.

Heh, Arch, especially entirely vanilla Arch, is ALL command line driven unless you choose to install a GUI (that's part of the point - keep it entirely under your control).  It's also up there with Gentoo/Sabayon for NOT being a beginner or even intermediate distro by any means.  I learned more about the how and what of Linux from building (which as you might recall from doing it is a better term than installing) an Arch system from bare metal than I did from every other GUI driven distro put together.

Then again, for hardcore gaming, I can't hold it against ya using Windows.  That's about the only thing I bother my VB install with these days, if I don't want to play with WINE or PoL.  I think at the heart of it in a lot of cases, it's about system control.  For me, definitely - I'm a web dev/coder in general, and when I tell something to fucking work in machine language of some kind, I expect it to do just that, fucking work.  And that level of control is right at your fingertips with the Linux kernel under the hood.
/endrant/

And either way, if you do ever give it another shot, let me know - from the few posts I've read from you regarding OS use and especially you mentioning you'd used Arch even remotely successfully, you have to know what you're doing to a far greater degree than most.  I'd be happy to lend any knowledge I may have on things that might come up.  The other biggest learning experience for me and Linux was taking up a mod position on a Gentoo based FB group answering tech support type questions - it really makes you keep things sharp when it's someone else's /home folder that might get fucked if you screw up, instead of your own

[Raineh Daze]

It's more that I do not remotely want to tamper with something that seems to have enough component instability as it is that keeps me from poking Linux more. Old, shoddy laptop: fine (after I patched the damn BIOS to get the fans to work). Something that possibly has a hardware flaw or an unpatched error in the main drivers, along with FAR more recent components and an SSD I don't want to approach partitioning: I think I'll pass. I do not want to brick something expensive. XD

[MrWolfe]

Saw an article today that reminded me of a discussion we had in this thread:

Forbes - Microsoft Admits Windows 10 Automatic Spying Cannot Be Stopped

This according to Microsoft Corporate Vice President Joe Belfiore.

I think my favorite line from the article is: "This backs up detailed data that some had chosen to dismiss as conspiracy theories."

[Raineh Daze]

... so they basically confirmed the telemetry? Wow. Such important news.