Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×
Microsoft Privacy Windows Advertising Operating Systems Security Build

Microsoft To Enhance User Privacy Controls In Upcoming Windows 10 Update (hothardware.com) 183

MojoKid writes: When Microsoft first launched Windows 10, it was generally well-received but also came saddled with a number of privacy concerns. It has taken quite a while for Microsoft to respond to these concerns in a meaningful way, but the company is finally proving that it's taking things seriously by detailing some enhanced privacy features coming to a future Windows 10 build. Microsoft is launching what it calls a (web-based) privacy dashboard, which lets you configure anything and everything about information that might be sent to back to the mothership. You can turn all tracking off, or pick and choose, if certain criteria don't concern you too much, like location or health activity, for example. Also, for fresh installs, you'll be given more specific privacy options so that you can feel confident from the get-go about the information you're sending Redmond's way. If you do decide to send any information Microsoft's way, the company promises that it won't use your information for the sake of targeted advertising.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft To Enhance User Privacy Controls In Upcoming Windows 10 Update

Comments Filter:
  • by swb ( 14022 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @07:07PM (#53645203)

    If I'm using a web based console to change my local OS privacy settings, I'm guessing I'm telling some server that's already collecting the info just not to use the info it's already collecting.

    • by raind ( 174356 )
      Where's the registry hacks? Someone must have a list already.
    • I was going to call BS, too, but only on the theory that they could change or revoke anything at any time if it's a cloud-based setting rather than something managed locally. Your theory is even more disturbing, though, so it's probably the one that's correct.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @07:34PM (#53645331)

      If it's web based then no matter what your settings are your PC will be sending data to Microsoft. I also don't see anything in the article to suggest that users will be able to completely disable all of the built-in spyware.

      Even if Microsoft were to backtrack on Windows 10 and remove the spyware and adware and allow users to control their updates again, I will never use it. It's far too late for any of this and Microsoft has proven that they can't be trusted not to reintroduce all of it.

    • by Zaelath ( 2588189 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @08:41PM (#53645587)

      The article says "(web-based)" including the "our interpretation parentheses" where as the screen shot looks decidedly the same as the existing FormerlyKnownAsMetro interface that the half the Windows 10 configuration options are in, locally.

      I suspect their interpretation is incorrect, but regardless people will be watching tcpdump/wireshark/etc to see what if any effect the settings have so it's not like they can fool everyone.

    • Isn't that the PRISIM defence? Collect all the data, everywhere, all the time but don't actually look at it. Then get a warrant for just the bits you need. So you can claim the collection is 'a circumscribed, narrow system'?
    • Yeah they only need this so that they can properly calculate the price of the data they sell. People who have something to hide have more valuable data after all :)

    • If I'm using a web based console to change my local OS privacy settings, I'm guessing I'm telling some server that's already collecting the info just not to use the info it's already collecting.

      The only advantage of this that I can think of is that if you're getting your Windows on a new computer and don't wish to redo all the initialized settings but just pick up where you left off, then this OneDrive based settings would work well

      Otherwise it's just an ironic way of being flippant about the issue

    • Or maybe it's not 1999 anymore and windows pulls local configuration settings from you Microsoft account so privacy settings that adjust for all you computers at once are best set there?

      • by Cederic ( 9623 )

        I don't have a Microsoft account. I use a local account only.

        • I'm not sure what they will do for local administration. Chances are the options will be there. The Microsoft account is nothing more than a multi device administration, and I'm just pointing out there's nothing BS about having a web interface configure devices just because web.

          • I'm just pointing out there's nothing BS about having a web interface configure devices just because web.

            There is if using the web interface is the only way to configure. Relying on external servers for configuration is madness.

    • This seems to be another article trying to put Microsoft in a better light on privacy than reality.

      1) What is the option for Diagnostics other than "Full"? If it is "Basic" or "Enhanced" that is still quite a lot of data sent to Microsoft (configuration data including the network which includes WiFi and network connections and IP addresses, software and hardware installed, and performance and reliability data including usage information). Even the "security" level that is available in Enterprise and Educa

    • I interpreted "web based" as HTML based and displayed through the browser. I've used (and designed) consoles submit forms to a local server for UIs before. They've tended to be for limited release, but it's an easy way for a programmer to separate the view out in a way designers can manipulate.

      • by swb ( 14022 )

        Yeah, it's common in third party software with "web consoles" but Microsoft very rarely does it. I can only really think of the certificate server web enrollment forms as the only example, and that's pretty much a train wreck of minimalism. It looks like 1999 and barely works.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @07:08PM (#53645213)

    1. Transgress 100 meters
    2. Say you're sorry
    3. Backtrack 75 meters.
    4. Profit from more analytics gold than you know what to do with.

    This is the same way horrific laws are passed. First they propose something completely absurd, then "compromise" with something slightly less absurd.

    Eat shit Microsoft.

    • First they propose something completely absurd, then "compromise" with something slightly less absurd.

      Right, first we have the DMCA, but now it gets fixed with the TPP....wait a minute.

    • Your point is entirely fair, but it's also reassuring that we've now seen a couple of announcements in as many days, one on automatic updates and the second on privacy, where Microsoft seem to be backtracking at all. It might not be enough to fix the problems or satisfy the critics, but it does suggest that they aren't confident they can just continue with their previous aggressive Windows 10 strategy and be successful.

    • by Agripa ( 139780 )

      1. Ask your date to do her and her girlfriend.
      2. Negotiate down from there.

  • Why Microsoft wins (Score:2, Informative)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 )
    When Microsoft can figure out what the customers want, they jump to give it to them (note: average users are not necessarily customers, businesses are).

    Remember when everyone was complaining about Microsoft's security issues? Microsoft actually did an admirable job cleaning up that leaky ship. They still have bugs, but compared to before, when running a Microsoft OS was basically an invitation to come inside.
    • by lucm ( 889690 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @09:53PM (#53645783)

      Remember when everyone was complaining about Microsoft's security issues? Microsoft actually did an admirable job cleaning up that leaky ship.

      This is true. And while I have no evidence to support it, I suspect that the whole telemetry stuff is meant to give them information about how the system behaves in various situations for engineering purposes, not ads. This impression is based in part on the fairly decent level of privacy in hotmail/outlook.com compared to other free mail providers like gmail or yahoo where they milk your inbox to tweak ads.

      Firefox has the same kind of telemetry features. Chrome too. And pretty much everything else. But when it comes from Microsoft people freak out first, ask questions later.

      This being said, once they started to push hard to have people use "Microsoft accounts" instead of local accounts to login on Windows it became obvious that something was changing so maybe they are truly a bunch of fuckers nowadays.

      • Firefox has the same kind of telemetry features. Chrome too. And pretty much everything else. But when it comes from Microsoft people freak out first, ask questions later.

        Maybe that's because Firefox and Chrome don't try to trick and/or force you into upgrading. Ever.

        Maybe because the "X" or "Close" control in Firefox and Chrome never magically change what they do to mean "yes" instead of "no".

        • by lucm ( 889690 )

          Firefox has the same kind of telemetry features. Chrome too. And pretty much everything else. But when it comes from Microsoft people freak out first, ask questions later.

          Maybe that's because Firefox and Chrome don't try to trick and/or force you into upgrading. Ever.

          Maybe because the "X" or "Close" control in Firefox and Chrome never magically change what they do to mean "yes" instead of "no".

          You are right, but at the same time I can't help but wonder if those are not simply instances of "we know better" than truly tricking people for some nefarious goal.

          • You are right, but at the same time I can't help but wonder if those are not simply instances of "we know better" than truly tricking people for some nefarious goal.

            I'm glad we agree. Now send me all your money, lucm. I promise it's not for anything nefarious, I just know better than you what to spend it on.

        • Repeating what A.C.s 1 & 3 said, Chrome is all about forcing you to upgrade. The Goog has an administrative background service which prevents you from ever receiving the UAC prompt because they update that frequently and they don't want to train users to blindly click through UACs that were not initiated by user action. Mozilla Firefox does this too. All of which would be better handled through Microsoft Store, Chocolatey, or some other unified package update interface.
      • This being said, once they started to push hard to have people use "Microsoft accounts" instead of local accounts to login on Windows it became obvious that something was changing so maybe they are truly a bunch of fuckers nowadays.

        Yeah something changed. Microsoft realised that people don't use computers in isolation anymore and that account information, settings, and available files should travel with them across their dumb terminals. Microsoft realised that every vendor is offering something in the cloud and they need to as well.

        You can still run Windows without a Microsoft account, but like many systems you get a cost in functionality as a result.

      • by Cederic ( 9623 )

        for engineering purposes, not ads

        While the engineering purposes are valid I'm fairly sure that Microsoft are happily exploiting the commercial value of that data too.

        They're pulling far too fucking much data for it to be purely engineering anyway.

        • by lucm ( 889690 )

          for engineering purposes, not ads

          While the engineering purposes are valid I'm fairly sure that Microsoft are happily exploiting the commercial value of that data too.

          They're pulling far too fucking much data for it to be purely engineering anyway.

          Here's what their website says:

          To help us decide which services are working well and which need improvement, we pay attention to how people use Windows. We can spot patterns in the problems our customers have, understand the cause, and fix the issues quickly. We can also focus our resources on upgrading the things that people use the most, and to improve or even retire those that don’t get used. This data, collectively called ‘telemetry’, can also help us understand gaps in our services so that we can help people use Windows more effectively.

          When people choose to turn on location services, we get to improve our location services by collecting information about the location of mobile phone masts and WiFi access points. This information is stored in a database without data identifying the person or device from which it was collected.

          https://privacy.microsoft.com/... [microsoft.com]

          Now if your position is that they lie in their privacy statement this becomes a different matter.

          • by Cederic ( 9623 )

            How does my statement contradict the information you've pulled from their site?

            That quote at no point says, "We will not sell your data" and indeed explicitly says they'll use it to understand gaps in their services. That's a goatse sized gaping hole in any pretense about privacy.

      • I suspect that the whole telemetry stuff is meant to give them information about how the system behaves in various situations for engineering purposes, not ads.

        I don't really doubt this is the case. That doesn't make it OK, though.

        Firefox has the same kind of telemetry features. Chrome too. And pretty much everything else. But when it comes from Microsoft people freak out first, ask questions later.

        I don't use Chrome, but with Firefox, you can disable the telemetry. That's why I don't freak out about it: I just turn it off. Microsoft isn't giving us a "turn it off" option. That's why Microsoft is getting bashed over this.

  • by El Cubano ( 631386 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @07:14PM (#53645241)

    but the company is finally proving that it's taking things seriously

    Not quite. Proof that they are taking things seriously would be disabling all the telemetry, phoning home, adware, crapware, etc., and making it strictly opt-in.

    For example, the first time you hit the start menu, it can show you a balloon: "Would you like to see customized content here? This would require sending blah-blah-blah to Microsoft." Then two clearly labeled buttons. One for "yes, phone home and show me ads" and another for "no, and don't show me this ever again." They could something similar in other places where they think there might be a benefit to the users.

    Microsoft is launching what it calls a (web-based) privacy dashboard, which lets you configure anything and everything about information that might be sent to back to the mothership. You can turn all tracking off...

    If it is on by default and the user has to log in to a Microsoft website to control/configure it, then Microsoft is demonstrating that they are willing to do only the bare minimum to appease the critics. How much do you want to bet that in order to even access the dashboard the user will have to have a Live account (giving MS even more of their personal information). The screenshot in the article doesn't look web-based to me, so perhaps a Live account won't be required, but either way the big problem is that they opt you in (likely against your will) and only if you are sufficiently determined can you opt out.

    Taking things seriously, indeed!

    • For example, the first time you hit the start menu, it can show you a balloon: "Would you like to see customized content here?....They could something similar in other places where they think there might be a benefit to the users.

      God no! I hate it when you have to hunt around and try everything out when you set up a computer to make sure that you found all the settings. It's much better to have one single place that has all the configuration options. Given that you can set these options at install time, I fail to see how scattering the privacy settings all over the place makes it any more convenient or "proof that they are taking things seriously".

      • Certainly the settings should be controlled from a single control panel application or something like that. However, I can see how it would be helpful (think when you first fire up a new application) for it point out new things. However, it should not nag and it should only be displayed once. Also, if you go into the central settings panel and turn everything fully off you should never even see the first prompt.
      • But there is no conflict there, the setting could be controlled both directly from the start menu and also from a central all privacy settings place.
    • by jbn-o ( 555068 ) <mail@digitalcitizen.info> on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @08:36PM (#53645571) Homepage

      You're right in that the headline text is filled with lies (typical of the corporate tech press and their corporate repeater friends like /.) and things like this should all be opt-in by default. But without software freedom, even those changes would be necessary but insufficient to ensure user's privacy because there's no way to check to make sure the software actually behaves in accordance with the settings.

      Microsoft's record shows this to be the case. The GNU Project's surveillance section of the Microsoft malware page [gnu.org] does a good job of collecting stories about how this has already failed Windows users who thought they had tweaked the settings in just the right way [arstechnica.com] to get Windows 10 to not "phone home" or report details of what happened outside the machine. These settings failed to do that job because the software was designed to fail in this way.

      Much to the apparent chagrin of moderators in the recent Microsoft thread about letting Windows 10 users opt-out of automatic updates who marked down posts about software freedom, the real answer remains the same here—no software freedom means no real control over one's computer and that includes no privacy for the user. Network dumps reveal some of what the software does but not all; it's very easy for programmers to encrypt data they want to send somewhere and/or delay sending data in an attempt to not show up when the system's network output is being watched.

      Microsoft's promises (which boil down to "Trust us this time! Really!") must be interpreted in the context of taking the word of a liar whose secret software should now be trusted. That makes no sense to do, and the same logic applies to all non-free/user-subjugating software. No matter how much technical skill you have you have to assume proprietary software is doing what you don't want it to do because you don't have the permission to check out what it's actually doing, change it to make it obey you, or help your community by sharing copies of improved software.

      • And how much is that theoretical freedom worth to, say, someone using a popular Linux distro that made a controversial change like switching to systemd? Most users aren't technically knowledgeable enough to change back to init if they want to, and even those who are would effectively be separating themselves from the distro and its support system. It's legal to fork and produce a new distro that doesn't use systemd, but few people have done it, and the alternative distros typically lack the scale and ecosys

        • by jbn-o ( 555068 )

          You've overlooked an important benefit of freedom: only software freedom grants users the ability to either learn what needs to change and change it, or hire someone with the needed skill to do this job for them. You appear to have a preference for init over systemd (my experience is that the only people who bring this up dislike systemd), so you could do this work (or participate with others in doing this work) and then distribute the fruits of your labor, even commercially, so nobody else need live with t

          • You've overlooked an important benefit of freedom: only software freedom grants users the ability to either learn what needs to change and change it, or hire someone with the needed skill to do this job for them.

            I didn't overlook it, I just think it's mostly illusory. It's like saying that in the age of the Internet, the only thing stopping anyone with access from becoming a self-made millionaire is not spending the time to learn new creative skills, to create something valuable using them, and to learn the sales and marketing skills to then sell it. It's probably true that many people could actually do that and be successful under the right circumstances, but it's glossing over a lot of other details, and those de

      • by e r ( 2847683 )
        tl;dr: RMS was right all along.
    • From TFA:

      If you do decide to send any and all information Microsoft's way, the company promises that it won't use any of your information for the sake of targeted advertising.

      Meanwhile, on the screenshot right above this line is the option "Relevant Ads".

    • by dyfet ( 154716 )

      After already taking your information hostage they grant you visitation rights...

      An actually honest, rather than knowingly deceptive, company would have put such settings on the local machine to prevent upload of telemetry & keystrokes in the first place, rather than remote on a web site to manage after the fact in a way that they can then arbitrarily change by policy and use the data later anyway if they so choose, or still can provide to dangerous "third parties" such as a Trump lead US govt, etc...

  • by Anonymous Coward

    There is no way I'm going to trust an OS that was released with mandatory "telemetry".

    • I hear you -- Microsoft has a long track record that justifies deep mistrust, and it's terribly hard to start trusting them now. Even if what they claim is true and you can stop Windows from phoning home entirely, the fact that they have jumped on this "constantly update" train means that you can't trust that Windows will always be so considerate.

      • and it's terribly hard to start trusting them now

        hehe I'd say it was damn fucking IMPOSSIBLE to start trusting them now... Anybody who DOES trust them is either naive or an idiot.. Sorry if you're either one of those.. I dealt with their bullshit for close to 20 years as a system admin.. When I retired, I decided I was DONE...

  • by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @07:23PM (#53645291)

    "Microsoft is launching what it calls a (web-based) privacy dashboard..."

    Why does it have to be web-based? Was it too fucking hard to build it into the Control Panel or Settings app?

    This sounds like horseshit to me, and I've heard enough horseshit in my life to be able to reliably identify it when I hear it.

    • Re:What the fuck (Score:4, Interesting)

      by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @07:50PM (#53645419)

      "Microsoft is launching what it calls a (web-based) privacy dashboard..."

      Why does it have to be web-based? Was it too fucking hard to build it into the Control Panel or Settings app?

      Because your system will still send all the data to the MS cloud, but they will only use that data based on your settings there. I imagine they will still save all the data so if you ever allow something to be used (or they change their policies) all the historical data will already be there (just a guess though). If they were *really* serious, then, yes, they would provide local controls to prevent said data from being uploaded in the first place.

      • Because your system will still send all the data to the MS cloud

        Yeah, I know. I probably should have indicated I was being sarcastic more clearly.

        As someone else here said, all the data is still being sent; by using the control panel you're just telling the server what data to (supposedly) ignore or pretend it isn't seeing.

        • Because your system will still send all the data to the MS cloud

          Yeah, I know. I probably should have indicated I was being sarcastic more clearly.

          As someone else here said, all the data is still being sent; by using the control panel you're just telling the server what data to (supposedly) ignore or pretend it isn't seeing.

          There is absolutely no reason to make this a web-based "control" panel, other than to lie to the user about what is being sent.

          Hopefully, some people with packet-sniffers can do some "deep-packet-analysis" of their own, and (once again) expose MS for the bald-faced liars that they (once again) are.

    • Why does it have to be web-based?

      Because it's on a per login basis. Because one stop privacy shops are all the rage across companies. Because I want to do it once in one place not once on every damn device I own.

      • Because it's on a per login basis. Because one stop privacy shops are all the rage across companies. Because I want to do it once in one place not once on every damn device I own.

        Horseshit detected.

        Just out of curiosity, how does Satya Nadella's dick taste? Is it every bit as delicious as the Microsoft Marketing team would have us believe?

        • Horseshit detected.

          Probably. It's their implementation, no need to tell me. It's also common in pretty much every company focusing their efforts on anything web based or cloud based.

          Just out of curiosity, how does Satya Nadella's dick taste? Is it every bit as delicious as the Microsoft Marketing team would have us believe?

          Hmmm, JustAnotherOldGuy turns out to be a 12 year old boy struggling with puberty. Did not see that coming.

      • Because it's on a per login basis. Because one stop privacy shops are all the rage across companies. Because I want to do it once in one place not once on every damn device I own.

        That's a fine reason to have the option to control these things through the cloud. It is not a reason to make the use of the cloud mandatory.

    • Better story here: http://arstechnica.com/informa... [arstechnica.com]

      The screenshot was a future possible local settings panel, the "web-based privacy dashboard" is here https://account.microsoft.com/... [microsoft.com]

  • Updates? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @07:23PM (#53645295) Homepage
    This sounds like a good move. While they're giving users some control back, can we get back the ability to control when updates run?
    • There was an announcement on that just recently as well. I don't have a link handy, but the reports I saw were talking about allowing Pro/Enterprise/Education users to defer updates for about a month and to choose not to apply driver updates at all. It didn't seem to include Home users, and it wasn't a reversion to allowing full, indefinite control over which individual updates to apply. Probably worth a Google if you're interested.

      • Deferring particular updates to also be pushed down outside of my control doesn't really solve the issue. I want real control over what patches are applied, when they're installed, and when reboots happen.
  • Well Received? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chipschap ( 1444407 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @07:43PM (#53645379)

    From TFS: "When Microsoft first launched Windows 10, it was generally well-received"

    By whom? I don't recall much in the way of rave reviews except from paid promotors. I do recall quite a few people saying they'll stay on Windows 7, thank you.

    • From TFS: "When Microsoft first launched Windows 10, it was generally well-received"

      By whom?

      By Microsoft. They basically broke an arm jerking themselves off -- to borrow a phrase from Rick Sanchez [wikipedia.org] -- congratulating themselves on how wonderful Win 10 was.

    • The professional media seemed to be singing its praises in their reviews, with barely a mention of the concerns about updates and privacy that alarm the geek community.

      Among friends, family and professional colleagues, there are clear dividing lines in my experience. Some of my non-technical friends haven't had any problems with it and are generally positive about it. A few have had serious problems and think it's... well, something quite unpleasant. I don't know of any friend or family member with geek cre

    • . I do recall quite a few people saying they'll stay on Windows 7,

      I remember the same said about Vista, XP, 2000, ME, 98, .... I'm going to stop there. Back in the days of Windows 95 people actually bought OSes. These days people buy computers and live with the OS they have.

  • NO. GOOD. ENOUGH. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Noishkel ( 3464121 )

    No Microsoft, this is NOT good enough. We've already TOLD YOU that this is not good enough. We do NOT accept your telemetry data tracking. We do NOT accept your control over updates. We do NOT accept your attempt to turn everything to another FREAKIN' app store WE DON'T WANT TO USE.

    STOP trying to BABY STEP us into OS choices that WE DO NOT WANT. Turn it off or be replaced by the next half way decent OS option. Many of us already 'broke' out update ability not mater how many times you try to reinstall

    • And I missed a 'T' in the title. meh.

      This is why you don't Slashdot when you're pissed off. >,,>

    • We

      I don't think that means what you think it means. I don't think you know just how little of the customer base you speak for.

      The majority of the customer base when met with the revelation of Windows 10 having privacy implications would respond with a resounding "Huh? What do you want? I don't have any money, leave me alone!"

  • That's the most polite term for what Miscreant-o-soft is trying to be now: Having (in their view, anyway) won the war, and (again, in their view) having subdued and subjugated the conquered, Miscreant-o-soft is now attempting to demonstrate to their new subjects that they are benevolent, that living under their rule won't be so bad, and to accomplish this utter and complete fiction, they're creating a (likely) false sense of 'choice' and 'privacy'.

    I call bullshit on the entire fiasco; prove to us that this
  • Still can't turn off data collection and cyber stalking options now reduced from three levels to two.

    Congratulations Microsoft! Way to innovate and respond to the needs of your customers.

  • by Snotnose ( 212196 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @08:16PM (#53645521)
    I "upgraded" to Win10 because I was about to click on something when the "psst! Hey bud, wanna upgrade?" window appeared. It started upgrading and I was afraid to stop it.

    My opinions? The uptime is less than a week. It reboots whenever it wants without asking. Working on something, lunchtime, close the laptop, come back an hour later? Oh hey, fucking machine rebooted. Not to mention some of these updates take a good 20 minutes after the reboot to finally come up.

    The spying pisses me off. I disable most of it, but after every "upgrade" they turn it all back on.

    And it's flakey. With Win8.1 this laptop worked fine for months on end, only rebooting when I told it to. With Win10 after 4-5 days I'll open my laptop to find it won't wake up and I have to power cycle it.

    IMHO, any OS that reboots without asking is a POS nobody should support. Microsoft doesn't know what I'm doing when the laptop is closed, how the hell do they feel entitled to reboot my machine without asking?
  • Having looked at the small amount of information that we have been given (including the one screenshot), I don't see anything that we could not already change. All the settings listed in the screenshot are currently under the Privacy section of the Windows 10 settings right now.

    Location: Privacy->Location
    Speech Recognition: Privacy->Speech, inking & typing
    Diagnostics: Privacy->Feedback & diagnostics
    Tailored experiences with diagnostic data: Personalization->Start (and maybe Privacy->G

  • MS has crammed telemetry down the throats of earlier Windows version users. Will they also have the option of using this nifty web-based system?

  • by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @08:28PM (#53645551)
    It takes only a few seconds to lose my trust, but it takes years to earn it back.

    .
    At this point I am skeptical that this system actually prevents the collection of data from Windows 10 systems.

    But presuming this nifty new privacy system works, what is to stop Microsoft from suddenly saying that they are now removing privacy controls?

    Is this just an empty promise on Microsoft's part to get everyone to move to Windows 10? What sort of assurances are in place that guarantee the privacy controls will continue to work in future upgradtes and releases?

    • If this works properly, then just disable windows updates and Microsoft should not be able to remove it later.

  • For many years Mac users have purchased the affordable utility program 'Little Snitch' to control spyware.

    Nearly every program you install wants to 'phone home' and report to the source. Dozens of System processes also report to Apple and others. In an eight hour workday you can expect 212 attempts by your system and software to connect to outside servers. (If you have better stats, please reply.) Little Snitch can stop all that by reporting every single attempt, and offering to allow it or prevent it; once

    • by swell ( 195815 )

      So the ACs are saying
      "Little Snitch" is a software firewall. Windows has had a firewall built-in for ages ..."

      It's a reasonable bet that they are hackers who can work a firewall ... like all Windows users! But is that true? Does the average Windows user know how to manage a firewall? My experience with Mac users is that they don't have a clue. Little Snitch is not perfect but a big improvement in their ability to control their computer.

      Not being a Windows user, I don't know how the user can get a prompt whe

      • "Little Snitch" is a software firewall. Windows has had a firewall built-in for ages ..."

        OS X/macOS has had a built in firewall for ages, too. It used to be ipfw, but along the way, since Yosemite, they started using pf, which I believe is even more robust and flexible than ipfw.

        Little Snitch just puts a very friendly face on firewall rule-making, so that normals can actually understand (for the most part) and use EFFECTIVELY a firewall with outgoing rules. Windows really could use a similar application.

        By the way, there is also a nice GUI front-end for pf on OS X/macOS, murus [murusfirewall.com]. Not free for

  • Why, I did a Micro$oft upgrade and I'm very pleased with the results and speed of my system, and the ease of updates.

    sudo apt-get update

    does it all!

    Seriously, the times I've had to reboot a Micro$oft server and wait for updates to load before I could start fixing infrastructure issues is enough to make my eyeballs bleed. I had a 7 hour outage because the bastion was a misconfigured Windows server that "had to load updates" before it would present the bastion services. Once it was up, it took 2 minutes to fi

  • MS can say they're turning a lot of that spyware crap off, but since Windows is closed source, you're kinda stuck with trusting them to be telling the truth.. I used/supported Windows as a sysadmin for close to 20 years, and when I retired in 2010, I decided I was *done* with using MS products. Frankly, I trust them as far as I can throw them... hint: not far..

  • Routers can block addresses (either IP or DNS).
    Is there a list of addresses that MS uses for telemetry that could be blocked without breaking security updates?

    If an enterprising person manages to find it out, we won't need any favours from MS.

  • See the comment subject for more information.
  • by GerryHattrick ( 1037764 ) on Wednesday January 11, 2017 @02:43AM (#53646561)
    Doesn't everyone get their Win10 cousins to use 'Spybot Anti-Beacon'? Do we think the authors of that won't keep up with any new challenges?
  • In the screenshot from TFA, the setting for diagnostic data collection says "Full". I assume that means the alternate setting is "Basic", the same as they used to be in the old privacy control panel.

    So, this is just a web-based re-skin of the old interface, not an update to their policy which gives you more control. That's not my idea of enhancement.

  • Ok, now change that from "webbased" to something where I don't first of all have to hand over any and all info about me and we can actually start talking about what information about me I am willing to send to you (read: nothing).

    Until then, my question remains: Why the fuck do you wake me with news that aren't newsworthy?

  • When Microsoft first launched Windows 10, it was generally well-received

    This must be some new definition of "Well-received" I wasn't previously aware of

  • Hey, its not the targeted ads i am afraid of. I have adblock. Its the mass surveilance, they implement to track me to target their ads. So the promise not to target ads with the data is just a straw man. The problem are not the ads, the problem is the data.

  • by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Wednesday January 11, 2017 @08:35AM (#53647319)
    Arrange all the privacy settings in a single, coherent arrangement, not scattered through different panels and advanced dialogs. Summarize what the data is being collected and what it may be used for. Perhaps even have a single button that says "I want to remain private" and clicking it sets everything to secure. Don't try and bury the settings. Don't throw the switches wide open by default. Inform the user, ask the user and do what the user says. And for new installations, explicitly ask the user what settings they want.
  • by alexo ( 9335 ) on Wednesday January 11, 2017 @09:33AM (#53647595) Journal

    According to the Ghacks article [ghacks.net], for "diagnostics" the choice is between "full data" and "less data" with no explanation of what it means.

    Microsoft furthermore announced that it will reduce the data collection of the basic level. Myerson did not reveal what Microsoft intents to change though in this regard.

    Also, the "web-like" interface is for controlling the Microsoft account settings which are, unsurprisingly, on the web.

    All in all, a much more informative reporting.

Each new user of a new system uncovers a new class of bugs. -- Kernighan

Working...