Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Vista is Watching You

Posted by CmdrTaco on Mon Jul 02, 2007 09:27 AM
from the also-up-is-higher-than-down dept.
Privacy Microsoft
greengrass writes "Are you using Windows Vista? Then you might as well know that the licensed operating system installed on your machine is harvesting a healthy volume of information for Microsoft. In this context, a program such as the Windows Genuine Advantage is the last of your concerns. In fact, in excess of 20 Windows Vista features and services are hard at work collecting and transmitting your personal data to the Redmond company."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Vista is Watching You 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Egomanical monitoring of the populace? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LoadWB (592248) * on Monday July 02 2007, @09:28AM (#19717103) Homepage Journal
    Is this another example of Bill Gate's Microsoft micromanagement leaking out into the general public, or is this truly a way for Microsoft to help fool-proof Windows operations?

    If this is nothing more than a way for Microsoft to ensure that Windows operates properly and to find potential issues, data collection should be an option. A lot of power users won't want it, and a lot of paranoid public won't either.

    Of course, what choice do they have if they want/need to run Windows? If enough of the system monitors your usage and activity, not using those services pretty much makes your computer a brick.

    Aside from privacy concerns, how much storage space and processing power is being used for this endeavor? Couldn't all that be put to much better use?

    • Re:Egomanical monitoring of the populace? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Necreia (954727) on Monday July 02 2007, @09:31AM (#19717153)
      "Aside from privacy concerns, how much storage space and processing power is being used for this endeavor? Couldn't all that be put to much better use?"

      Of course, Aero.

    • Re:Egomanical monitoring of the populace? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by brunascle (994197) on Monday July 02 2007, @09:32AM (#19717159)

      Of course, what choice do they have if they want/need to run Windows? If enough of the system monitors your usage and activity, not using those services pretty much makes your computer a brick.
      if the OS can function without an internet connection, it damn well better be able to function on a firewall that blocks access to MS servers.

      • Re:Egomanical monitoring of the populace? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by LoadWB (592248) * on Monday July 02 2007, @09:44AM (#19717315) Homepage Journal
        heheh Until the first update to Vista which requires that the information be dumped. It appears that Microsoft is slowly trying to head towards a near-constant connection of the end-user to their system, for what purposes is a matter for conjecture. And might this be precursor to a subscription-based OS?

        Microsoft is stepping over some big lines here.

        Something else comes to mind... what about users still on dial-up? Won't the transmission of this user information completely clog the line?
        • It should be interesting how this clashes with China's own obsessive need to control people's PCs. I can see it now at Redmond, thousands of Vista inquiries being returned "Nothing to see here, move along."
        • How about people who pay for bandwidth usage?
          Would you be able to charge microsoft for the bandwidth used by this unwanted feature?

        • This is my single biggest push to free software (Score:5, Insightful)

          by maillemaker (924053) on Monday July 02 2007, @10:07AM (#19717619)
          >It appears that Microsoft is slowly trying to head towards a near-constant connection of the end-user to their system, for what purposes is a matter for conjecture.

          And it's not just Microsoft doing it.

          This "phone home" crap is the single biggest thing that is driving me to consider open-source alternative operating systems and software.

          The second biggest thing is that it seems more and more that with commercial software every time I install an "upgrade" it is really an upgrade for the /author/ of the software, not the user - more DRM, more restrictions on how I can use the software, instead of better software for /me/. It's seriously getting to where I don't trust commercial upgrades anymore. It seems like 90% of the time or better a commercial upgrade limits what I can do with the application instead of enhances it.

          It's really all come down to games for me. If my games would all run on Linux I'd be there tomorrow.

          • Re:This is my single biggest push to free software (Score:4, Informative)

            by kryten_nl (863119) on Monday July 02 2007, @10:12AM (#19717693)
            http://games.cedega.com/gamesdb/ [cedega.com] check it out, add it as a bookmark.

          • Re:This is my single biggest push to free software (Score:5, Informative)

            by brunascle (994197) on Monday July 02 2007, @10:18AM (#19717773)

            It's really all come down to games for me. If my games would all run on Linux I'd be there tomorrow.
            this is the reason my desktop is still XP also. it's become not much more than a gaming console. but you'd be surprised how many good, native linux games there are. i was (recently). check out the linux gamers live cd [linux-gamers.net].
          • It's really all come down to games for me. If my games would all run on Linux I'd be there tomorrow.

            All I can say is I'm glad I don't have anything important like games to dictate what OS I use. Yes, in some respects I'm being a troll/sarcastic here, but also games appear to be _the_ driving force for technical people here on slashdot to tie them to Windows. Other less technical users simply don't know any better.

            Maybe I'm just an eletist or whatever, but I simply don't need the headaches that come with Windows. I had a couple of crappy jobs back in the 1999-2000 era that required Windows, but other than that I've been Windows free since 1997 or so both personally and professionally.

            To me, the OS is just software. Just like I have a choice in shells, window managers, desktop environments, web servers, whatever. For many reasons, technical, stylish, reliability, ease of use, ease of maintenance, etc, I simply can't find a reason to use Windows.

            If games were that important to me, I would buy a console, or two or three.

            • Re:This is my single biggest push to free software (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Kamokazi (1080091) on Monday July 02 2007, @11:01AM (#19718361)
              The problem is the console gaming experience is very different and generally considered quite inferior by those who prefer PC games. This is due to numerous reasons, but mostly:

              1) Multiplayer games and game modes (consoles are finally starting to catch up)
              2) Modability and expandability of the titles
              3) Better graphics (if you're willing to plunk down the cash for the hardware)
              4) Unique and indie titles

              Now most PC games can be played on Linux through a DirectX emulator, however there is almost always a performance hit, and often it's as bad as half your framerate going down the drain...the games are just heavily optimized for Windows (most Mac games are the same way...~20% performance hit on the same machine if you use OSX instead of bootcamping into Windows).

              What's become worse is that MS is now requiring Vista for some games...games that don't even require the newer DirectX 10...I've had to make my gaming PC dual-boot into Vista now just for Shadowrun. Halo 2 'requires' Vista as well...and it has awful Xbox 1 graphics...it sure as hell doesn't need Vista to run properly. And what's worse is Vista will make most games suffer 10%+ performance hits as well (hence the dual booting).

              Bottom line...serious PC Gamers are stuck with Windows.

          • This "phone home" crap is the single biggest thing that is driving me to consider open-source alternative operating systems and software.
            I got sent out on a call last week... Their complaint was that the PC was running fairly slow and that it kept asking to connect to the Internet (yes, the poor souls were still on dial-up). I honestly expected to find an assortment of spyware/malware on the machine. Instead, I found a pile of legitimate software was trying to phone home.

            Just about any HP camera/printer/scanner will install an update utility. Java has a updater that runs in the background. Real Player, Adobe Reader, Flash Player, Quicktime, and assorted Sonic software all have their own background updaters.
            • HP drivers are pathetic. The printer driver for my printer is a 600mb minimum install (the 'enhanced' software is another 500mb). Every 3 or 4 minutes a console window flashes on the screen - their phone home software is a console app and they haven't even bothered to hide the window.

              Oh and that's just for the printer.. the scanner part of the driver is nonfunctional on vista (despite the driver being the latest vista driver), and the whole thing won't install on OSX (a small (for them) 250mb driver) because they stopped supporting it after 10.4.2 and it's hardcoded to reject a version higher than that.

              For a while now I've been telling people to avoid HP like the plague because their drivers are is spyware infested bug ridden crap.

        • doubt it (Score:5, Insightful)

          by DogDude (805747) on Monday July 02 2007, @10:08AM (#19717643) Homepage
          Microsoft is stepping over some big lines here.

          Either that, or they're just using their pool of hundreds of millions of users with tens of millions different hardware/software configurations in order to collect bug data.

          That's really the most obvious and the most likely answer.

          • Re:doubt it (Score:4, Informative)

            by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <[moc.liamg] [ta] [yppupcinataS]> on Monday July 02 2007, @10:15AM (#19717717) Journal
            They already do that with the "Report this bug to Microsoft?" screens that pop up in XP every time a program crashes...And frankly, I SHOULD be able to opt out if I choose to do so. Hell, they should want me to be able to opt out, so if I do something and crash a program, I don't send them weird data.

            The OP is right; this is a precursor to a subscription based OS; that's microsoft's dream, where everyone just pays the OS tax on a monthly/yearly basis, and gets "free" upgrades on a once-a-decade cycle.

      • Re:Egomanical monitoring of the populace? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by B'Trey (111263) on Monday July 02 2007, @09:56AM (#19717477)
        it damn well better be able to function on a firewall that blocks access to MS servers.

        Has anyone done any network captures to see what sites are being contacted? Is blocking *.microsoft.com sufficient? Is there a list of IPs that can be blocked?

        • Re:Egomanical monitoring of the populace? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by click2005 (921437) on Monday July 02 2007, @10:09AM (#19717657)
          In XP, Microsoft hard coded the IP addresses of various servers into libraries and software so it bypasses any attempt to use DNS resolution to block it. I'd bet in Vista there is something worse. Maybe thats why they were working on some kind of BitTorrent/P2P protocol. Route the data through other people's machines to get around blocking.

  • No, it isn't. (Score:5, Funny)

    by jollyreaper (513215) on Monday July 02 2007, @09:29AM (#19717121)
    I don't have nearly enough ram.
  • I hear the icon on the desktop isn't called My Computer anymore, it's now just "Computer". I guess in the fine print it says "BillG's Computer".

  • Ah! The irony! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by c0l0 (826165) * on Monday July 02 2007, @09:33AM (#19717177) Homepage
    In the article, there's a Vista technology referred to as "Rights Management Services (RMS) Client" - I guess I'm not the only one who's midldy amused about the acronym used for that service ;-)
    What's especially delicate about it is that the service's name uses the term "Rights", where many who are in favour of digital freedom would probably deem "Restrictions" a much better fit.

    I bet if Richard Stallman were dead by now (please note that I'm glad and happy that he's alive and kickin'!), there'd be a chance he'd be rotating in his grave at high speeds because of this.

    • Re:Ah! The irony! (Score:5, Funny)

      by mwvdlee (775178) on Monday July 02 2007, @09:39AM (#19717239) Homepage
      If I promise to manage my rights, can I disable this system?

    • Re:Ah! The irony! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) on Monday July 02 2007, @09:40AM (#19717257)

      I bet if Richard Stallman were dead by now (please note that I'm glad and happy that he's alive and kickin'!), there'd be a chance he'd be rotating in his grave at high speeds because of this.

      Then, we could hook his body to a generator. So, everytime something like this happened, we could say "at least we just cut down on greenhouse emissions."

      • Re:Ah! The irony! (Score:5, Funny)

        by digitig (1056110) on Monday July 02 2007, @10:28AM (#19717877)

        Perhaps there's hope, and RMS can sue MSFT for the illegal infringement of his initials.
        Prior use (unfortunately). RMS stood for "Root Mean Square" before Richard Stallman was a package in his father's installation manager.

  • I work in an FDA-regulated environment,... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Yewbert (708667) on Monday July 02 2007, @09:33AM (#19717179)
    ... and this kind of undisclosed(?) sneaky communication has to be considered a security risk from our side, and one which may very possibly invalidate the state of validation (in, again, the FDA-regulated sense) of numerous production-related systems that might eventually run on Vista platforms. We're testing Vista now, and as soon as I get my hands on a copy, I'm gonna poke arounnd and try to figure out what data is sent where, what happens if you cleverly block it, what options there are to just shut these features the f*** off, and many et ceteras,...

    • Re:I work in an FDA-regulated environment,... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dave420 (699308) on Monday July 02 2007, @10:16AM (#19717737)
      It's fully-disclosed and hardly sneaky. If you block it, it will still work fine, but you lose updates to Windows and its components, you won't get your DRM certificates for media it's introduced to, your IPv6 NAT service won't work as expected, and online help features stop working. Want to stop them? Firewall rules, or disable the services.

      Everything has to be considered a security risk from your position, otherwise you're not doing your job :)

  • Vista's biggest enemy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drgonzo59 (747139) on Monday July 02 2007, @09:34AM (#19717189)
    Vista's biggest enemy is not Linux -- it's Vista. Americans take their privacy too seriously to ignore this if this becomes public. Of course, one could argue that by now the 'war on terror' has taught us to just bend over when the government says so, but hopefully, the reaction will be a little bit more violent when Microsoft asks us to 'submit'....who knows.
     

    • Re:Vista's biggest enemy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Hoi Polloi (522990) on Monday July 02 2007, @09:44AM (#19717319) Journal
      I was all for protecting my privacy until they offered me a free copy of "Minesweeper 3D" and "The Best of American Idol" audio tracks!

    • Re:Vista's biggest enemy (Score:5, Funny)

      by UbuntuDupe (970646) * on Monday July 02 2007, @09:45AM (#19717327) Journal
      Americans take their privacy too seriously to ignore this if this becomes public

      You mean, you wish they wouldn't ignore this?

      "OMG! Vista violates my privacy!"
      "So what are you going to do about it?"
      "I'm going to use a different operating system!"
      "Which one?"
      "Well, uh, the other one."
      "Which other one."
      "Like, the other Windows."
      "Which other Windows?"
      "Um, I guess ... XP, is it?"
      "Do you know how to install an operating system?"
      "Well, no ... I mean, I just won't buy computers with Vista."
      "And where do you buy a computer without Vista?"
      "Um ... I can just choose XP when I order one."
      "And when XP is discontinued?"
      "Then I'll get a completely different operating system, from a different company."
      "You mean a Mac?"
      "Oh, heavens no."
      "Then what?"
      "Um ..."

    • Re:Vista's biggest enemy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by apathy maybe (922212) on Monday July 02 2007, @09:47AM (#19717355) Homepage Journal
      Americans take their privacy seriously? Since when as the average yank done that?

      Sure you have some folk who do, but considering the supermarket "loyalty cards" (and it isn't just in the US of course), the various voting things (e.g. who's the hottest "singer"?), using plastic cards to pay for everything and so on...

      Meh, I'm sure you get my point, which is that only some people (around the world), take their privacy as seriously as you seem to think.

  • Anonymous? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MontyApollo (849862) on Monday July 02 2007, @09:40AM (#19717259)
    Seems like they would want to keep this data anonymous as much as possible too, or it would seem like they would have an endless barage of subpoenas for civil lawsuits like divorces, where one spouse wants evidence that the other was cheating.

  • Have we learned nothing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kebes (861706) on Monday July 02 2007, @09:40AM (#19717267) Journal
    The privacy concerns are obvious. I, for one, do not want to agree to having all kinds of (largely unspecified) information transmitted to Microsoft.

    But even putting that aside for a moment. Assume that Microsoft is a friendly company and that you are confident they will never use this information "against you." Even in that case, this is a really bad idea. Why? Because security works best when you *minimize* the avenues of attack. By sending this information to Microsoft HQ, your OS opens itself to new attacks. On the one hand you have the possibility of MS's servers being hacked, and your information stolen (or the transmission being intercepted and copied). But much worse, this transmission functionality can be co-opted by malware or viruses.

    Every functionality you include in the OS is a functionality that "the enemy" (malware, viruses, crackers, etc.) can (and will) use against you. In particular, every network-enabled program is a potential security breach. Hence, we should always be disabling as many services (especially network services) as possible. By having all kinds of code that is constantly communicating outside the machine (with no notification to the user), built into services that the user cannot sensibly disable, you are leaving a tempting target for "the enemy" to find vulnerabilities.

    Add to this the fact that it makes it harder on network admins to pick out suspicious traffic. If all these Vista installs are constantly sending out packets of information, how can the sysadmin tell when one of those machines has been taken over, and that "phone MS HQ" service is now sending nefarious packets?

  • Don't worry, it's not Vista... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) on Monday July 02 2007, @09:45AM (#19717329)

    It's just: Windows Update, Web Content, Digital Certificates, Auto Root Update, Windows Media Digital Rights Management, Windows Media Player, Malicious Software Removal/Clean On Upgrade, Network Connectivity Status Icon, Windows Time Service, and the IPv6 Network Address Translation (NAT) Traversal service (Teredo).

    See, typical /. overreaction

  • Negro, puhleeese (Score:5, Insightful)

    by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Monday July 02 2007, @09:47AM (#19717351)

    Microsoft will get your "Internet protocol address, the type of operating system, browser and name and version of the software you are using, and the language code of the device where you installed the software." But all they really need is your IP address.
    Huh, I thought I supplied that information to every website I visit.

    Every time you install a Plug and Play device, you tell Microsoft about it in order to get the necessary device drivers. The same is the case for PnP-X enabled device, only that Windows Update is more actively involved in this case.
    Oh noes!!! They need to know my device to supply the driver?

    Good grief, I hate Microsoft as much or more than the average Slashdotter, but most of TFA is just alarmist FUD.

  • Is Vista a product, or a service? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Morgaine (4316) on Monday July 02 2007, @09:52AM (#19717423)
    I expect that the majority of people believe that they're buying a product when they purchase Vista, or when they purchase a PC with Vista pre-installed. That presumption may be entirely wrong though.

    Certainly from Microsoft's point of view, and in view of their total focus on WGA, you've agreed to a single-payment licensing deal. EULAs may not be valid in some jurisdictions, but that doesn't seem to concern them. You live within their worldview, or else ... or else nothing, that's the only option. In fact then, you haven't purchased a product at all, but a service without any agreed terms.

    Likewise, from the content providers' point of view, your PC and its software certainly doesn't belong to you, which implies that you haven't purchased Vista as a product. Instead, it's just a delivery vehicle for their content, and Microsoft is the guarantor of DRM safety to ensure that this is so. The fact that you've paid for your hardware and software as if it were yours seems to have escaped both content providers and Microsoft alike.

    Perhaps in the future, people who are not technical will not own computers at all, but only rent content delivery vehicles?

    That's where Vista seems to be heading ... although Microsoft probably wants you to continue purchasing without owning.

  • Article Breakdown (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thePsychologist (1062886) on Monday July 02 2007, @09:56AM (#19717473) Journal
    This article is a lot of FUD. But there's lots of truth in it too. Even though some of this transmission of data is optional and can be turned off, it still goes too far because most average computer users don't know about this stuff. Hence it's taking advantage of people without their knowledge.

    hardware hash, which is a non-unique number generated from the computer's hardware configuration but no personal information.

    This is not good. Probably only used to invalidate your copy of Windows once you change the motherboard.

    The Customer Experience Improvement Program (CEIP) is optional, and designed to improve software quality.

    This service asks your consent, and is okay and OPTIONAL.

    Via the Device Manager, Microsoft has access to all the information related to your system configuration in order to provide the adequate drivers.

    Again: if a device is plugged in, a dialog first comes up and asks the user if he/she wants to search the internet for a driver. And the service NEEDS the name of the device to search for one.

    Similarly, Dynamic Update offers your computer's hardware info to Microsoft for compatible drivers.

    That's because you ASK for it. Similarly if I Google a problem, Google gets my search query. But they're collecting stats on hardware, and that's pretty normal for an OS company. After all, it'll help them build a better OS (not likely though).

    Event Viewer data is collected every time the users access the Event Log Online Help link. By using the File Association Web Service, Microsoft will receive a list with the file name extensions.

    Just the extensions?? Big deal. Here's a partial list for my computer: *.raw, *.mov,...wait, this person has some Apple format on their computer...DESTROY. Can they use this information to help with vendor lock-in? Maybe.

    Metadata related to the games that you have installed in Vista also finds its way to Microsoft.

    Maybe this is going a bit off the deep end. What I install is my business and not theirs.

    The Error Reporting for Handwriting Recognition will only report to Microsoft if the user expressly desires it to.

    This asks your consent, and is okay and OPTIONAL. Why are they even including this in this article?

    Through IME Word Registration, Microsoft will receive Word registration reports. Users have to choose to participate in the Installation Improvement Program before any data is sent over at Microsof[t].

    This asks your consent, and is okay and OPTIONAL. So, if you register, it receives the data. No surprise there.

    Ever used a print server hosted by Microsoft? Then the company collected your data through Internet Printing. Network Awareness is in a league of its own. It does not premeditatedly store of send directly information to Microsoft, but it makes data available to other services involving network connectivity, and that do access the Redmond company.

    Makes data available to services that contact Microsoft does not mean this data will be SENT to Microsoft. FUD.

    Via Parental Controls, not only you but also Microsoft will monitor all the visited URLs of your offspring.

    If this is actually true, then it's too far. Direct monitoring of the sites!

    Hashes of your Peer Name tied to your IP address are published and periodically refreshed on a Microsoft server, courtesy of the Peer Name Resolution Service.

    Too far. But I'm not sure what a Peer Name is now. And I doubt it's very useful.

    Every time you install a Plug and Play device, you tell Microsoft about it in order to get the necessary device drivers. The same is the case

  • The tone of TFA/S isn't what it should be (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sid0 (1062444) on Monday July 02 2007, @09:58AM (#19717507) Journal
    The things that get transmitted are:
    1. Activation info. Well, duh.
    2. Windows Update. -do-
    3. Auto Root Update. Updates the list of trusted certificate authorities. You know, Verisign etc.
    4. Windows Media DRM. Not an issue if you don't use DRM files, and no, information isn't transmitted every time you play the song.
    5. Windows Media Player. To download album art/track names. Again, no different from other players. Easy to disable completely.
    6. Malicious Software Removal. What's the problem if info is transmitted to Microsoft that you had an infection and it was cleaned? Non-issue. You can choose not to use it at all.
    7. Network Connectivity Status Icon. This doesn't TRANSMIT anything except the HTTP request. It just downloads a small page to check if the Internet connection is working. Easy to disable, no problem.
    8. Windows Time Service. Syncs time. Again, what's the problem? It's easy to disable if you really have a problem.
    9. Problem reports. It asks you very clearly if data is to be sent to Microsoft, and asks you again if you want to send personal data. And reporting problems is good.
    10. Games. Come on, it downloads fucking info and covers.
    11. Event Viewer. Data is sent only when you specifically REQUEST for more online help. http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/libr ary/28cd5e13-e955-4941-91d9-fec2525e96c71033.mspx? mfr=true [microsoft.com]
    12. Customer Experience Improvement Program. Microsoft *SPECIFICALLY ASKS YOU* if you want to opt-in. Once you say no, it never asks you again.

    - etc -

    The paranoia claims are really ridiculous. The operating system uses Internet resources to improve your experience, like telling you when you are connected to the Internet. Please take your tinfoil hat off for a minute and look at this objectively.

    • Blame the EULA (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kebes (861706) on Monday July 02 2007, @10:25AM (#19717837) Journal

      The paranoia claims are really ridiculous.
      Frankly, if companies want to stop people have having paranoid reactions to EULAs, they should stop writing such blatantly over-broad EULAs in the first place. Go ahead, read a random portion from the EULA for Windows Vista [microsoft.com]. It contains all kinds of broad statements limiting what I can do with the product, while simultaneously disclaiming all warranty on their part, and giving them broad ability to do as they please and change the terms as they please.

      As long as companies write such ridiculous EULAs, it is only natural that people will react this way to them. Frankly the only reason that more people are not scared and appalled at EULAs is that no one actually reads them. Probably many of the things claimed in EULAs would not hold up in a court of law. But if all the terms of the EULAs were actually legally enforceable, then it would not be at all paranoid to be concerned about them: the terms are, after all, very consumer-hostile.

  • New Apple ad (Score:5, Funny)

    by ducomputergeek (595742) on Monday July 02 2007, @10:23AM (#19717805) Homepage
    "Hi I'm a PC" "And I'm a Mac." Mac sees PC with phone in hand, watching a 3rd person. "So what you doing?" "SHHH! I'm collecting data on that user over there. And phoning hom." *to person on other end* "Yeah, he's reading a news site. No, it's not MSNBC. Is he allowed to do that? Confirm or deny?"

  • Just how secure are the MS servers? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sjames (1099) on Monday July 02 2007, @10:58AM (#19718321) Homepage

    Even if you decide that you believe MS 100% and trust that they won't quietly change the terms in a year or two (a right they do reserve) to allow them to collect personally identifying information AND sell, it, just how secure are their servers? Any chance their admins will sell the data on the side for obscene amounts of cash?

    Does any unique but not personally identifying information also appear in personally identifying Word documents? What is their policy if the NSA wants a copy? What is their policy if Bill needs a favor from Congress?

    Funny, my Linux boxen don't collect any information at all and still they run nice and stable and get their updates as needed.

    • The core question remains (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Opportunist (166417) on Monday July 02 2007, @09:55AM (#19717465)
      Why don't they tell you? Every halfway serious program I use that has to report information home (or at least wants to, for statistical purposes) asks me first, or at least informs me that it is going to do that now. Some programs even tell you what exactly they're going to send (and, behold, checking source and the transfered data shows that they actually tell you the truth).

      Usually I don't mind. They probably sell that information (not about me, but about their "user base") to someone to make some money that way, since I don't pay for the honor to use their program for free. No problems there.

      A problem arises when said data is transmitted without my consent. Without me even knowing that it is being sent. Am I supposed to trust a company that it isn't going to do shady business with my data when they're sneaky about it?

      Now, I'm not saying MS does. But, seriously, why the cloak-and-dagger approach? Just tell the user "Vista is now gonna send MS the following information about your system, anonymized so it can't be tracked, and we want it to see what hardware platforms our system should run best on. Thanks for your co-op."

      What's wrong about that? If someone doesn't care, heck, one more click on "accept" isn't going to be even noticed in Vista. And if someone does care, the smell of fish is not gonna hit his nose when something like this is being exposed.

    • Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kebes (861706) on Monday July 02 2007, @09:58AM (#19717501) Journal
      Well they say the information is anonymous, but it includes things like your IP address. So they can convert that it non-anonymous information quite easily.

      So... some reasons why this is probably a bad idea:
      1. If they discover that you are running non-legit software, they can track you down. (And considering that any such analysis will always make mistakes, even users of legitimate copies of software should be worried.)
      2. If MS's servers get compromised (or a bug is found in the "secure transmission" protocol), third parties can obtain your data. Depending on exactly what is being sent, this could be a privacy breach, security breach, or both.
      3. Having services constantly establishing these connections is a security risk. Malware or viruses may be able to exploit it as a point of infection. Or, they may be able to use it as a means of spreading copies of themselves, or secretly transmitting information back to a third party. Every unnecessary service (from a user perspective) is a security breach waiting to happen.
      4. Having code running that doesn't explicitly benefit the user is a waste of resources. This means overhead on your computer and overhead on your internet connection.
      5. The EULA seems to state that they can change the terms as it suits them. This means that they can push updates through Windows Update that increase the scope of the data obtained. Perhaps they eventually decide to drop the anonymous clause. I don't think signing over so much freedom and privacy is a good idea, regardless of how "well-intentioned" the recipient of your rights claims to be.

      And finally, there is the general "bad vibes" I'm sure we're all getting about this. It would be one thing if it were an additional feature that you could turn on if you wanted to. Something like "Help MS improve the quality of service by sending reports on how your software is running. This voluntary service is under your control, and only human-readable summaries will be sent, which you can inspect before they are sent. Do you wish to participate? Cancel/Allow"

      Instead we get something like: "MS reserves the right to monitor your computer and transmit information to MS HQ. We can change these terms at our leisure. By using any of these features, you implicitly agree to this monitoring."

      This is not an act of charity on MS's part. This is part of a plan to obtain information that they want, without customers noticing it is happening. That can only be a bad thing.

    • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PhysicsPhil (880677) on Monday July 02 2007, @10:03AM (#19717567)

      X-ray machines, Jet engines, and more all report operating conditions and usage information back to the manufacturer. Microsoft is doing this anonymously to improve the products. I have no problem with this. They aren't sending back any "personal information" like credit card numbers or even identification information.

      There are plenty of reasons you still don't want this happening. Consider...the war on terror continues and somebody gets caught up in the Feds dragnet. They press charges, but don't quite have the evidence they need. The defendant's lawyer (and the ACLU) is probably going to get him to walk unless they can find something. Little known to all, the President (or these days, the VP) issues a secret Executive Order that strips "terror suspects" of the right to attorney-client privilege. The Feds show up at Microsoft's door with several court orders. They order the tracking of the suspect, and they provide the IP addresses of computer in the offices of the defendant's attorney and the ACLU and demand that Microsoft install a backdoor patch to download documents off that computer. Of course the download will be indiscriminate...maybe this lawyer will also have you as a client, and your files will go to the Feds also.

      Far-fetched? Perhaps, but certainly plausible. Suppose it's not the American government, but the Chinese looking for a few journalists or Falun Gong members. Still far-fetched? Which way do you think Microsoft will go when the choice is a few journalists in prison or losing access to the Chinese market?

      Privacy is always good.

    • Re:Tagged as paranoia? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by plague3106 (71849) on Monday July 02 2007, @10:16AM (#19717729)
      Is it paranoia if the OS really *is* sending tons of data to Redmond?

      Is it? I saw nothing in the article that actually tried to attempt to see what information, if any, was being sent. All I saw was a really paranoid reading of an EULA.

      Is it slander if it's true?

      Just because something is in a license agreement doesn't mean its happening. People said the same thing about Windows update. The truth of the matter is it sends what OS / service pack your running and you get a list of updates available, which then is parsed by your computer to see if it needs them or not. Also, what updates are needed but not installed is reported back. Not exactly terrifying data.

    • Re:Why do Open Information People Care? (Score:5, Informative)

      by pandrijeczko (588093) on Monday July 02 2007, @11:13AM (#19718525)
      In fact, I'd bet there's MORE applications on Linux that send your private information back to some web server somewhere, just because Linux sockets are easier to write for than their Windows cousins and so Linux has and will always have a lead over networking for developers.

      Let's assume for one moment that what you are saying is correct (although I don't believe for one moment that it is), then since these are independent applications, then it's very easy to disable or uninstall them if you don't like them phoning home. So, pray tell, how would you do this in Windows where the "phoning home" is being done by a stealth application that's running as part of the intrinsic underlying OS.

      Also, you're turning this into a "Windows vs Linux" discussion which is an overly simplistic viewpoint. Open Source applications are subject to constant peer review meaning that any suspicious "phoning home" would be rapidly identified and brought out into public attention. I can't comment on YaST as I don't use SuSE Linux but I suspect, as a commercial entity, they are interested in user information but since there are a myriad of Open Source applications that run on Windows also, this is more a case of Open vs Closed Source, not Windows vs Linux.

      So, you might charaterize things less harshly as follows : Linux tries to let you keep your personal information private but all of your work product is public, and Windows keeps all of your work product private but your personal information is public.

      Sorry, but that's utter trash. Aside from stability, "free beer" and customisability, the main reason I use Linux as my primary OS choice is that it allows *ME* to take responsibility for protecting *MY* information and does not allow me to dump that responsibility into the hands of some private entity.

      I am one of the first people to volunteer to take part in surveys and information gathering excercises because when I am *ASKED* to provide information and have the choice of what information to and not to provide, it can be very useful to someone who is designing or marketting a product or service. But I am *NOT* going to let someone just take that information - and if that means never using Vista then so be it...

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.