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

Here is what I posted over at seven forum, which will possible confuse people.

Hmm, I don't know what to think on this recent update. I am really confused because I know some stuff about networking which makes Ed Bott looks more correctly but then this article comes along, said Microsoft will make a tool to disable the tracking later this year which makes Ed Bott look wrong. This is just my confused opinion.


Microsoft makes windows 10 u turn

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".

Did you read the article? It's very detailed, and filled with the facts. I can't understand how you would say this if you'd read it.

Wynona said:

I don't think I have to defend Ed Bott, who thoroughly researches his information before he writes.

Not in this article. He dismisses the trivial errors (which were already dismissed in the comments in Voat linked to by Forbes) and then ignores completely the meat of the story with this comment:

there is certainly some telemetry data in there

and then goes on to to say absolutely nothing about it.

Sure Cheesus wasn't right by doing a feeble test and nor was the Forbes guy repeating it.

Ed Bott though, swinging his handbag around, copying the comments from the original source (not Forbes) to counter some of the siller claims and then ignoring the point (which some people are rightly or wrongly concerned about) only makes it worse.

You don't have to defend him, no. He could defend himself though if he put in a bit of effort rather than just sounding off like a moaning minnie, did his own research and actually answered peoples concernens.

As it is we have:

Tin hat: Microsoft are spying on us
Ed Bott: No they aren't
Tin Hat: Are too. And the NSA
Ed Bott: I can't believe I have to say this again - are not. I copied it off the internet.
Tin Hat: Are. And the CIA. And moon landings were a fake.
Ed Bott: You talkin about my mum? You are too stupid to learn. Better I link to your article.
..
and so on

Wynona said:

Oh, good grief!

Thanks :)

lx07 said:

Not in this article. He dismisses the trivial errors (which were already dismissed in the comments in Voat linked to by Forbes) and then ignores completely the meat of the story with this comment:

and then goes on to to say absolutely nothing about it.

Sure Cheesus wasn't right by doing a feeble test and nor was the Forbes guy repeating it.

Ed Bott though, swinging his handbag around, copying the comments from the original source (not Forbes) to counter some of the siller claims and then ignoring the point (which some people are rightly or wrongly concerned about) only makes it worse.

You don't have to defend him, no. He could defend himself though if he put in a bit of effort rather than just sounding off like a moaning minnie, did his own research and actually answered peoples concernens.

As it is we have:

Tin hat: Microsoft are spying on us
Ed Bott: No they aren't
Tin Hat: Are too. And the NSA
Ed Bott: I can't believe I have to say this again - are not. I copied it off the internet.
Tin Hat: Are. And the CIA. And moon landings were a fake.
Ed Bott: You talkin about my mum? You are too stupid to learn. Better I link to your article.
..
and so on

what i am curious about the article is that he claiming that microsoft "retrying" to connect

when the software detects an unsuccessful connection it will try to connect again. And again and again and again.

while mr. crust said that within 8 hours windows calling 5500+ times. (to 51 microsoft ip?)
if i making joke with basic math, windows is like retrying 11 times/minutes lol
it making things looks urgent to be sent

and this

The most important one is the Software Licensing Service, which checks the state of Windows activation periodically. By dropping those connections, Mr. Crust is not allowing those activation and validation checks to complete. Windows gets very cranky when that happens, which could explain why there were more than 1,700 connection attempts to a handful of addresses in a single range of IP addresses managed by Microsoft.

so if windows10 not allowed to call home for validation it DDOS itself ? lol

slyphnier said:

while mr. crust said that within 8 hours windows calling 5500+ times. (to 51 microsoft ip?)
if i making joke with basic math, windows is like retrying 11 times/minutes lol

Why not? If you want to get a connection and it isn't available you wait and then try it again. How else are you going to know? Take over the web-cam , look out of the window and wait until you see some Microsoft intern running down the street with a flag?

I'm a programmer and my default wait if I don't get a connection or answer is 5 seconds (that is 12 times a minute). I reduce that significantly if I think an actual user will use the software (rather than some other program waiting for a job to finish) as believe me 5 seconds with nothing happening is a very long time.

To answer your question though, yeah, I think you need to look at you math.

slyphnier said:

so if windows10 not allowed to call home for validation it DDOS itself ? lol

No it doesn't. You do need to activate it (either internet, KSM or phone) but you don't need a connection to remain activated.

I love these articles because they are crap and who cares? Honeslty does anyone realize how much data is collected on you everyday? I large majority of websites collect data and even retailers do with your credit card number. Look up some of the tactics Walmart uses, they are a premium case behind this.

I don't understand why everyone gets so upset at Microsoft when so many other Vendor's do this such as Apple, Google and even Ubuntu. They do it and some get upset but everyone is okay but Microsoft gathers some statistics and everyone freaks out.

My thoughts are if there is something you don't want the world to know about (which I don't blame you) then a computer is the last place to store your stuff, especially one connected to a network.