Yes, but the theme of this entire thread seems to be complaining about what seems to be unproven, "big brother is watching so get your tin foil hat" kind of nonsense.
An article with no proof such a thing doesn't exist in w10 is not proof it does exist. He is as biased as the ones complaining about it, for the most part, because no one can actually seem to prove anything right now.
What we ACTUALLY know is that w10 can collect information on users and that updates are automatic and mandatory. There are pros and cons to both of those things. You don't have to like it, but don't act like you're not biased yourself.
I'm also not just referring to the original post here, just to the topic in general.
An article with no proof such a thing doesn't exist in w10 is not proof it does exist. He is as biased as the ones complaining about it, for the most part, because no one can actually seem to prove anything right now.
What we ACTUALLY know is that w10 can collect information on users and that updates are automatic and mandatory. There are pros and cons to both of those things. You don't have to like it, but don't act like you're not biased yourself.
I'm also not just referring to the original post here, just to the topic in general.
The_Nameless_Bard wrote:
Yes, but the theme of this entire thread seems to be complaining about what seems to be unproven, "big brother is watching so get your tin foil hat" kind of nonsense.
Whether W10 can read my files or not, I honestly don't care. However, for the sake of the topic I would say that even with the most little amount of information collection, a warning for the user is necessary. I didn't check whether the announcement did warn for this, but if they would take information from you without you possibly knowing about this then it would be unfair as there are plenty of people that do care about stuff like this.
Change is gooooood
Picture by: VirusNG1
Want to advertise your guide, but don't know where? Click here for an opportunity of a lifetime!
The_Nameless_Bard wrote:
Yes, but the theme of this entire thread seems to be complaining about what seems to be unproven, "big brother is watching so get your tin foil hat" kind of nonsense.
An article with no proof such a thing doesn't exist in w10 is not proof it does exist. He is as biased as the ones complaining about it, for the most part, because no one can actually seem to prove anything right now.
What we ACTUALLY know is that w10 can collect information on users and that updates are automatic and mandatory. There are pros and cons to both of those things. You don't have to like it, but don't act like you're not biased yourself.
I'm also not just referring to the original post here, just to the topic in general.
An article with no proof such a thing doesn't exist in w10 is not proof it does exist. He is as biased as the ones complaining about it, for the most part, because no one can actually seem to prove anything right now.
What we ACTUALLY know is that w10 can collect information on users and that updates are automatic and mandatory. There are pros and cons to both of those things. You don't have to like it, but don't act like you're not biased yourself.
I'm also not just referring to the original post here, just to the topic in general.
Updates aren't mandatory if you use Windows 10 Pro, which you can get for free as a student.
Meiyjhe wrote:
I just want to say that pretty much only the first 3 were talking about the "big brother is watching you" thing. After that people started talking about performance and I started talking about how annoyed I am that microsoft practically spams me to download something I don't have any interest in. To say that the theme of the entire thread is complaining isn't particulary on point.
Whether W10 can read my files or not, I honestly don't care. However, for the sake of the topic I would say that even with the most little amount of information collection, a warning for the user is necessary. I didn't check whether the announcement did warn for this, but if they would take information from you without you possibly knowing about this then it would be unfair as there are plenty of people that do care about stuff like this.
Whether W10 can read my files or not, I honestly don't care. However, for the sake of the topic I would say that even with the most little amount of information collection, a warning for the user is necessary. I didn't check whether the announcement did warn for this, but if they would take information from you without you possibly knowing about this then it would be unfair as there are plenty of people that do care about stuff like this.
Also, you can just turn that off, they didn't make it easy, but you can.
Vynertje wrote:
Updates aren't mandatory if you use Windows 10 Pro, which you can get for free as a student.
<Editor>
Show more awards
You can disable most of the stuff in the privacy menu, telemetry can also be turned off. Not a big deal.
Besides if you are using windows for anything nefarious, it's not exactly a very privacy centric OS to begin with.
Besides if you are using windows for anything nefarious, it's not exactly a very privacy centric OS to begin with.
London is one hour ahead of the rest of England -Luther3000
wrote:
You can disable most of the stuff in the privacy menu, telemetry can also be turned off. Not a big deal.
Besides if you are using windows for anything nefarious, it's not exactly a very privacy centric OS to begin with.
Besides if you are using windows for anything nefarious, it's not exactly a very privacy centric OS to begin with.
What exactly rectifies justifies calling this a "conspiracy theory"? It's in Microsoft's right to take everything you have if it's in the EULA. Or, if they can get away with it, why wouldn't they do it?
On top of that, who said that this would be bad just for nefarious practice? It's not like Microsoft is a government agency, they don't give a **** about your potential nefarious practice. Whether you store pictures of your friends and family on your computer, write valuable research documents or work for a discreet instance like some governmental instances or, I don't know, a dollar bill printing company, you don't want Microsoft, or anyone else, to have the right to access to your data.
On top of that, who said that this would be bad just for nefarious practice? It's not like Microsoft is a government agency, they don't give a **** about your potential nefarious practice. Whether you store pictures of your friends and family on your computer, write valuable research documents or work for a discreet instance like some governmental instances or, I don't know, a dollar bill printing company, you don't want Microsoft, or anyone else, to have the right to access to your data.
********'s a pretty good fertilizer
I assume you mean "justifies" there. I meant that people going on about it like Cortana is watching (which I've seen on other places where people are discussing this) is kinda tin hat-ish. Also, it's in the terms it has you agree to, it's not as if the information isn't available to everyone who upgrades. If someone upgraded without reading them and is offended by the concept of Microsoft being allowed to collect information about them, that's really their own fault, not Microsoft's.
Ah, you're right, thanks.
What I was trying to say is, because it's in the terms (I assume, haven't checked myself), it's not a conspiracy theory. The fact that it's in the terms also makes it likely they are either using those rights now or they're planning to use them, why else would they put it in the terms?
So yeah, I don't think that expecting Microsoft to use their rights is tinfoilish at all. They can put all that information to good use, Google, Facebook and others proved that.
What I was trying to say is, because it's in the terms (I assume, haven't checked myself), it's not a conspiracy theory. The fact that it's in the terms also makes it likely they are either using those rights now or they're planning to use them, why else would they put it in the terms?
So yeah, I don't think that expecting Microsoft to use their rights is tinfoilish at all. They can put all that information to good use, Google, Facebook and others proved that.
********'s a pretty good fertilizer
You need to log in before commenting.
You seem to have missed this important sentence:
"Here's some reading from both points of view:"
"both points of view" referring to people thinking that it is a big deal and those thinking that it isn't, in case you didn't get that.
The article doesn't show any concrete proof and is written by a seemingly Microsoft-biased author (he's written like 20 books on Windows and other Microsoft programs, nothing on any program or OS made by a different company), meaning that him defending Windows should be taken with a pinch of salt unless concrete proof is presented, which it was not.
There are ways and means to do this. While Microsoft isn't as bad as Facebook (FB literally experiments on people without letting them know about it), this is definitely a step in the wrong direction.