Dutch Privacy Regulator Says Windows 10 Breaks the Law (arstechnica.com) 63
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The lack of clear information about what Microsoft does with the data that Windows 10 collects prevents consumers from giving their informed consent, says the Dutch Data Protection Authority (DPA). As such, the regulator says that the operating system is breaking the law. To comply with the law, the DPA says that Microsoft needs to get valid user consent: this means the company must be clearer about what data is collected and how that data is processed. The regulator also complains that the Windows 10 Creators Update doesn't always respect previously chosen settings about data collection. In the Creators Update, Microsoft introduced new, clearer wording about the data collection -- though this language still wasn't explicit about what was collected and why -- and it forced everyone to re-assert their privacy choices through a new settings page. In some situations, though, that page defaulted to the standard Windows options rather than defaulting to the settings previously chosen. In the Creators Update, Microsoft also explicitly enumerated all the data collected in Windows 10's "Basic" telemetry setting. However, the company has not done so for the "Full" option, and the Full option remains the default. The DPA's complaint doesn't call for Microsoft to offer a complete opt out of the telemetry and data collection, instead focusing on ensuring that Windows 10 users know what the operating system and Microsoft are doing with their data. The regulator says that Microsoft wants to "end all violations," but if the software company fails to do so, it faces sanctions.
gotta do it. it's Friday (Score:2)
Easy answer (Score:5, Insightful)
We are taking ALL OF THE DATA. Like in the deal.... the deal you agreed to by breathing and blinking twice while your eyes glazed over at the EULA.
In the spirit of full disclosure, we feel we should also make you aware that we'll be rebooting your computer whenever its good for us, and you can trust that we will reset any user changed settings back to whatever we feel is best at that time when we do so.
While we're at it, we are going to go ahead and remove a few features here and there, so that we can sell them back to you when you finally realize that you do indeed need them after all. But don't worry though, we will go ahead and leave the shell services and support files there so they can slowly but surely bog your system down to the point that you can only reset the system back to default and start the whole system over again.
P.S. Thanks for all of that bandwidth we just used downloading that giant update that removes more features than it adds. Your welcome.
Signed,
Your friends at Microsoft, the NSA, and h1b1 "employees" everywhere.
Re: (Score:1)
Even if M$ ever had or ever does have the option to opt out of all data collection, how could anyone possibly believe them? After all, this is a company that if left in a room with the truth would cause a matter/antimatter explosion of epic proportions!! M$ has lied so much and used so many deceptive practices that trusting them is totally impossible!!!!
Re: (Score:1)
And if you install the OS yourself, the installation routine enables you to turn off most of that stuff even before your first logon.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
We are taking ALL OF THE DATA. Like in the deal.... the deal you agreed to by breathing and blinking twice while your eyes glazed over at the EULA.
I've read the EULA from the first release of Win10. The way it read anybody you connected to (network) are free game for data mining (access anything connected to your computer). I'm now using Linux Mint with a dual boot of Win10 I am reluctant to use. If the EULA has changed it doesn't matter, it's the first one I'm going by.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Dutch law isn't quite so... "corporate friendly" with regards to EULA's as the US.
Microsoft Say Dutch Regulator Breaks The Law... (Score:1)
Microsoft Say Dutch Regulator Breaks The Law by violating copyright by engaging in deep reverse engineering in violation of the license agreement.
Two can fling that mud, buddy... 8p
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's the AC's.
That would be you, AC.
Re: (Score:2)
And not even that. Some will be clever enough to emigrate to higher positions.
Re: (Score:2)
Reverse engineering is generally legal in the EU. License agreements can't supersede law here.
License agreements are unable to supersede law anywhere.
Re: (Score:1)
Correct.
They are able to reverse engineer for interoperability.
Not to publish internal implementation details to further a political agenda.
Would I prefer Microsoft not collect this crap? Yes.
Would I prefer that the Dutch government not reverse engineer the update process sufficiently that they could put government spyware on the thing in place of a normal update? Also yes.
Re:then fine them! (Score:4, Insightful)
Full disclosure is meaningless if there is no option to completely opt-out of telemetry and data collection. There is no usable alternative to Windows, otherwise Microsoft wouldn't have 90+% market share on the desktop. Simply telling people what you are doing means nothing if they have no choice but to accept it, whether they like it or not.
While I agree it's half a solution, it wouldn't do much good if an alternative is available but nobody knows why they'd want it or need it. There's a reason the first amendment is the first, and why the four boxes of liberty are soap, ballot, jury and ammo in that order. The most important part of any change is to raise awareness as to why the change is needed. Clearly that too has some limitations (see: Snowden) but at least it brought the discussion out of the tin foil hat crowd and into the general public. And while the alternatives might be poor you can't really make a decision until you know the stakes.
Re: (Score:2)
The most important part of any change is to raise awareness as to why the change is needed. .... at least it brought the discussion out of the tin foil hat crowd and into the general public.
Most people don't give a shit, or will consider their convenience the overriding factor. Their bitching along with Snowden is easy because it does not affect their own convenience. However, refusing to use Windows on principle would affect people's convenience, do they wont do it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Full disclosure is meaningless if there is no option to completely opt-out of telemetry and data collection.
There is no usable alternative to Windows in most people's minds, otherwise Microsoft wouldn't have 90+% market share on the desktop.
FTFY, and the reasons for that market share are far more complex.
But it is true that nothing will come of this. MS will simply add a tick box for people to agree to surrender their data, and people will tick it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As for driver updates, while Pro has deferring built in, Microsoft still provides software on its website you can download to block and defer driver updates in the Home version.
So s
Shocking only if one accepts MSM bias (Score:5, Interesting)
This story only comes off as the Dutch looking out for Dutch Windows 10 users' interests if one accepts a mainstream media bias against critically examining the unethical power of proprietary software.
"The lack of clear information about what Microsoft does with the data that Windows 10 collects prevents consumers from giving their informed consent" is true as far as it goes but hardly affects just Windows 10. This whole story hinges on that Microsoft got caught ignoring user's privacy preferences and releasing more information than the user said they wanted released. All proprietary software inherently fails to give such clear information and every time that software is altered the information collected or disseminated can change, making informed consent harder.
Software freedom is needed to truly address the underlying concerns rightly raised by the Dutch government. Only with free software can users have any real chance to understand what published software does, verify programmer/distributor's claims about the software, ensure that the software complies by modifying the software, and help one's community by distributing the improved software.
So looking out for the users' interests makes sense to do at a government level (apparently the so-called "free market" approach results in situations like what we face now) but structurally this simply cannot be done in an effective and thoroughgoing way with non-free (user-subjugating) software. Proprietors know this and this is partly why they release their software without respecting their user's software freedom.
MS already admitted willingness to break EU law (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is a bit strange, because the EU is a much bigger market than the US. On the other hand, MS learned from their 'punishment' in the monopoly case that they can get away with anything in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Firewall Windows 10 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Windows 10 Home is a self-updating OS - and probably should be as even Facebook Granny uses it - and of course it will supply enough information to patch the system and update drivers.
Even with the Home version though, enthusiasts, power users and techies can
Should be opt-in only (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Everybody knows that Windows 10 Home is a self-updating OS. This requ
Considerations aside (Score:1)
If you installed Windows 10 properly - i.e. you install it yourself - the installation routine enables you to turn just about everything off as you install it, and the rest can be managed via Privacy in Settings. Elsewise, turning off one just Service, make just one regedit and Windows 10 is as private as a self-updating Home/Co
Re: (Score:2)
No, only the corporate version permits actually disabling everything via settings and policy. Additional hackery is necessary otherwise. On what level is that acceptable?
Re: (Score:1)
But even in the Home ver
Re: (Score:1)
"The answer is out there, Neo, and it's looking for you, and it will find you if you want it to."