Ah, Microsoft pretending to listen to its customers again.
Also, trusting Microsoft (or any large corporation) with your personal data is a can of worms waiting to be opened. It's never IF it will ever get opened, it's always WHEN.
Microsoft has released Build 10532 of Windows 10 as an “Insider” preview. Windows Insider is an opt-in public preview which enables Microsoft to test updates with a sizeable user base before general release. The latest build is unexciting, with tweaks to menu styles to make them more consistent and a new sharing feature in …
With a small company, the most likely reason for someone to randomly paw through a client's data is boredom and simple curiosity. Someone who does do it systematically with malicious intent, is also likely to only ever hurt a handful of people, even if they are never caught. Even a solicitor directly managing the financials of their clients is somewhat limited in the amount of damage they can cause.
With a large company, the intent from the get go is to extract the greatest amount value it can from the information it possesses or can obtain about its customers. All neatly collated, tagged and packaged for bulk slurping and misuse in the wrong hands. When in those wrong hands, it's not individuals, but thousands or even millions who's economic (and possibly social) lives are turned upside down.
When the local Pizzeria gets compromised, a handful of people are out their credit card details, and in all likelihood will be fully reimbursed. When a site like Ashley Madison (or heavens forbid Facebook) is breached, there is generally more than enough detail to carry out total identity theft and completely destroy a person's life. AND rinse and repeat ad infinitum.
Furthermore, Mom and Pop's piddling 1000 usernames and plaintext passwords are of little value to someone seeking to use those compromised credentials as part of a broader attack front against multiple web sites. Whilst on the other hand, as has been demonstrated recently with the Ashley Madison database, that even decent encryption is near on completely useless when people insist on using really, really crappy passwords.
It doesn't matter how solid the encryption is, if the algorithm AND the final hashes it produces are known quantities, given a large enough attack front. A 1000 word dictionary attack on a million password database will yield a significant list of usernames associated with those passwords, which can then in turn be used in front door attacks on other websites.
The Chrome issue seems to be fixed in the Chrome Beta channel as of yesterday, so if you don't want to stray too far from the stable build that's now an option. To be fair to Microsoft in this particular instance the issue is very much with Chrome relying on the instruction layout of a particular part of the kernel never changing which is somewhat dubious from a coding perspective (although potentially justifiable from a security standpoint).
I had 2 cumulative updates yesterday with the vague 'they fix stuff' as the description and to look up more details on the Knowledge Base. After some futile searching, I decided to try talking to the Microsoft Answers chap. His advice was to 'Search BING' and click on one of the results. I did as he suggested and it was basically an article on how Microsoft haven't posted any information on the updates. I think he was a bit red-faced on the other end.
"Microsoft does with your data is here and you will find similar statements from the likes of Facebook, Google and Apple. Microsoft"
Seriously stop making excuses pretending that what Microsoft is doing is OK because it isn't much worse than what other shits are doing.
I have never had a Facebook account, the sum of my interaction with Apple is having itunes installed on one of my PCs several years ago for the hour or so it took to see what an obnoxious pile of shit it was. I have 4 android devices and the appalling lack of privacy and security Google offers means I have never and won't ever put my real name or any valid personal information into any of them.
Windows 10 being no worse than android is reason enough to not use it.
Two simple points about your post
1) why did you useJP19 (reference to a long forgotten JP-Lotus perhaps) and not AC for your post.
don't you know that your little rant is a red rag to a bull for the likes of Google to track
2) If you eschew Windows, Android and anything bearing a Fruity mark why are you even on the internet?
Are you one of the few that uses Linux or even fewer somethig with BSD in its name?
If you are, well good for you.
Sadly, some of us mere earthlings has to use the [redacted] that comes out of Washington State to make a living. At the moment, I have a server 2012R2 build that (after a lot of customisation) approximates a mixture of XP and W7. It does what I want and there is no Modern/Metro/really? in sight.
and we used to think toggling in a bootstrap loader through the front panel was hard work....
> At the moment, I have a server 2012R2 build that (after a lot of customisation) approximates a mixture of XP and W7. It does what I want and there is no Modern/Metro/really? in sight.
Unless you are close to retirement hang in there a little longer and the bullshit will slide your way into the enterprise space as well.
Three years and counting from getting my state pension from next Sunday coz it is my Birthday.
If Microsoft put Metro/Tiles on their Server OS (when installed with a GUI) then IMHO they are digging their own grave in the Server space.
The more crap the MS put out then the closer to pulling the plug I get.
I consider myself one of the lucky ones. I really feel sorry for those who will have to live with this crap in the long term.
"Seriously stop making excuses pretending that what Microsoft is doing is OK because it isn't much worse than what other shits are doing."
I didn't read the article as making excuses by such comparisons, just pointing out that they're all in the same sewer.
The really worrying thing about the privacy statement is what it doesn't say. For instance under credentials section if you're not reading critically you might think that it's obvious it needs to retain these, otherwise you wouldn't be able to log on to Microsoft services if it didn't have your ID and password for them. But look again, what it doesn't say is that this only applies to Microsoft services; it doesn't say, for instance, that it doesn't retain your bank logon details. Similar comments could be applied to other sections. Are we to believe that this whole statement was sloppily written or are we to believe that it was very carefully crafted?
It should also be noted that services like Facebook are completely voluntary. No account then there is no ability for data slurps. Data slurps with any OS is a concern. With mobile OSes I will tolerate some location tracking for apps to be useful. Also, phone locations need to be tracked by the carrier so calls can be properly routed. Not thrilled but tolerable. Desktop OSes, however, are generally used in fix, predictable locations (for laptops) and none of the key features depend on knowing the location of the device. The only information the OS provider really needs is crash reports/logs. W10 has an overly broad EULA that appears to be a blanket EULA for all MS services without explicitly identifying which parts apply to what services. For this MS aka HooverSoft/MicroSlurp deserve all the negative publicity and hammering they have gotten and more.
I have a laptop and a tablet both brough low by absolutely lousy synaptics drivers. I've tried disabling driver updates. I've tried hiding the synaptics driver from windows update with a support tool. It still installs these sodding things over and over.
To me it simply demonstrates that auto update simply cannot work. Microsoft won't do sufficient testing and nor with some of their partner vendors. People will just keep being saddled with shitty broken drivers over and over with little to fix them.
Oh and Windows update in general stinks. If I'm to receive an update, even a mandatory one, it would be nice to state specifically what it's about. Not some vague knowledge base article saying it's an "update" but actually technical description right there in the dialog.
Sorry but I hate hate hate the word.
Usually it's some business hack referring to 'corporates', meaning (I assume) corporations. But here we have "Corporates can understand and manage these settings", implying that a corporate can be a person as well. Or is it a new name for someone who is self employed?
Rant over, I'm off to the pub.
Corporations are legal persons, with many of the legal rights and responsibilities of actual persons.
Some of that is a necessary legal fiction - if a corporation does something that harms you or your property, there has to be a way for you (or your loved ones) to sue the company and for the state to hold them to account.
That's the cost of Limited Liability - in some cases no individual human can be held legally fully responsible, so the company is - and thus the company directors.
For example, In corporate manslaughter cases, the company is prosecuted. I'm not sure what consequences lead from that though.
+1 Just because the powers that be might not be abusing things now, why would you tempt them with the capability?
Let me rephrase that. Just because the powers that be aren't abusing you now, why would you give them the option or support a company/product which gives them the option?
Well put, P. Lee.
Privacy violations are particularly egregious in the case of Windows. If I don't trust Facebook, I don't use Facebook. If I don't trust my smartphone, I use my PC. But if I can't trust my PC... where do i go? (Yes, Linux. But it's a painful transition, and not realistic for many of the billions of users who've relied on Windows for decades.)
Facebook has been Facebook right from the start. Suddenly altering the world's most ubiquitous OS from being (reasonably) trustworthy into a data-gobbling 'service' like Facebook is a sell-out of historic proportions.
simply because that would be admitting they were wrong and that people have valid concerns.
The most they'll do is clarify the terms and conditions, to narrow down what they will and won't do with the data they collect.
Of course, this doesn't change anything about the real issue, which is the chance of them losing control of the data they've collected in the case of a serious breach, or more likely, the NSA winning a judgement in some shadow court that lets them look at anything with no reasonable suspicion. Even assuming that that isn't already the case.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019