When it comes to Windows 10 privacy, don't trust amateur analysts

dencal · 11 Feb 2016

Mark Phelps said:

Hey folks -- you're bashing Forbes -- but they didn't do the testing.

I'm not saying the tester is right, but to refute their claims, we need detailed information, not "how networks work".

If M$ had a mind to the word "Litigation" could stop such inflammatory claims from appearing.

Leopard · 11 Feb 2016

I agree that vetting a story is essential. One rebuttal is not nearly enough. Instead of other tech sites just regurgitating the same story it would be a breath of fresh air if they did their own investigation into the matter. If the tester was an amateur who had produced total garbage and the reporter also acted like an amateur - call them both out, but also prove it.

lx07 · 11 Feb 2016

He did come across as rather, well, cross that zdnet guy...

Leopard · 11 Feb 2016

dencal said:

If M$ had a mind to the word "Litigation" could stop such inflammatory claims from appearing.

It is highly unlikely that MS would litigate inflammatory claims, in general, as claims open them to a great deal of scrutiny. I can not see Forbes or MS going to court over this. A retraction may be enough to settle it. However, if MS and Forbes were to go to court, MS could possibly produce proof that the analysis done by Mr Crusty was garbage, but Forbes could then ask the court for MS to produce W10 code for analysis and that is something they would be very reluctant to do.

gator2013 · 11 Feb 2016

dencal said:

If M$ had a mind to the word "Litigation" could stop such inflammatory claims from appearing.

I think if MS had any legitimate grounds to pursue litigation they would do it in a heartbeat and therein lies the quandary. No litigation or threat of litigation = No Justification

Wynona · 11 Feb 2016

gator2013 said:

I think if MS had any legitimate grounds to pursue litigation they would do it in a heartbeat and therein lies the quandary. No litigation or threat of litigation = No Justification

Having spent the past four plus years in litigation, I can tell you that Microsoft won't pursue something as trivial as the Forbes article. When you sue somebody, you have to weight the odds. I don't doubt for one moment that Microsoft would win; however, at what price?

The litigation I'm still involved in doesn't affect me financially; however, the guy who's paying the bills has spent approximately $180,000.00 so far and it's not over yet. When all is said and done, we'll win, but the cost will have been way too high.

vfoster · 11 Feb 2016

Thanks to Gordon Kelly's persistence, Microsoft has responded and seems to be yielding to the "amateurs"' claims... somewhat. From what I gather, they'll be giving more control over what data is sent back. But it seems like it might only be for Enterprise.

Contacting me again a Microsoft spokesperson explained the company now wanted to speak about the issue. In short: Microsoft is taking action. It has decided to release updates “later this year” which will enable users to fully control all background telemetry and data tracking and, if desired, disable it completely. Microsoft also asked me to stress that disabling these background operations is something it would “strongly recommend against”.

Link

Wynona · 11 Feb 2016

vfoster said:

Thanks to Gordon Kelly's persistence, Microsoft has responded and seems to be yielding to the "amateurs"' claims... somewhat. From what I gather, they'll be giving more control over what data is sent back. But it seems like it might only be for Enterprise.

Link

Yes, it is only for Enterprise.

Other important takeaways from Microsoft’s telemetry U-turn? While it may change in future, for now full control over telemetry is currently only being brought to Windows 10 Enterprise. This means users of Windows 10 Home and Pro, typically consumers and small businesses respectively, will still need to cede control. Whether you like it or not, Microsoft spells this out in the Windows 10 EULA – its house, its rules.

One thing that needs pointing out is that as Insiders, we need to cede control to Microsoft. In order to become an Insider, I signed off on Microsoft's requirements. Thus, I have nothing to quibble about as far as privacy goes.

Other than that, several someones have problems with their HP printer drivers (I haven't checked mine yet). So far, my Brother Laser printer's drivers have to be reinstalled with each new Insider Build and I don't like that.

That said, the July 29 RTM and the November RTM are horses of a different color. At the very least we need control over drivers installed on our systems when Windows 10 RTM updates! As with the Insider builds, we need complete control over our drivers!

The bottom line, though, is that if we disable all of Microsoft's telemetry, we don't get our systems (whether they be Insider or RTM) updated.

Mark Phelps · 11 Feb 2016

Wynona said:

Doesn't matter who they are . . . if they pass on inaccurate information, they need to be corrected.

WHO says the information is innacurate? All I read here are ALLEGATIONS against the article and the writer.

I asked for detailed information indicating WHY the claims in the article are incorrect -- and have received NOTHING along those lines.

We have folks here who brand every article slamming Win10 or MS as inflamatory -- or worse -- but it would be refreshing to actually see someone come back with facts that clearly indicate why the claims in the articels are false.

Just like claiming something is true doesn't make it so, claiming something is false also does not make it so.

One claim is that the article writer didn't know anything about networking. OK, so if that is true, tell us WHAT the writer wrote that was incorrect, and WHY it was incorrect.

VBs · 11 Feb 2016

Mark Phelps said:

WHO says the information is innacurate? All I read here are ALLEGATIONS against the article and the writer.

I asked for detailed information indicating WHY the claims in the article are incorrect -- and have received NOTHING along those lines.

We have folks here who brand every article slamming Win10 or MS as inflamatory -- or worse -- but it would be refreshing to actually see someone come back with facts that clearly indicate why the claims in the articels are false.

Just like claiming something is true doesn't make it so, claiming something is false also does not make it so.

One claim is that the article writer didn't know anything about networking. OK, so if that is true, tell us WHAT the writer wrote that was incorrect, and WHY it was incorrect.

Did you read same article? Because It explains quite clearly what kind of traffic was confused with telemetry or "spying", and what was wrong with Mr.Chrust testing methods.