Recall is Microsoft’s key to unlocking the future of PCs
www.theverge.com
Would you like a timeline of everything you do on your PC?

The new “Recall” feature really does look good on paper, but the taking in mind that it catalogues almost everything you do on your computer, it could turn out to be a privacy nightmare. “logging things you do in apps, tracking communications in live meetings, remembering all websites you’ve visited for research, and more,” according to the Verge. What could this mean for future computing? It would certainly make digital forensics a whole lot easier……

  • Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
    84·
    7 months ago

    where it won’t obscure passwords. But, surprise, it will obscure DRM content

    Yeah, we all know where the priorities really are.

    How have our consumer protections gone so fucking far.

    • Adalast@lemmy.world
      26·
      7 months ago

      I literally have a real “Consumer Protection Act” wishlist that I keep a running tally on in my head. Near the top of the list are things like “rent caps”, “strict opt-in for direct marketing”, and “strict opt-in for all data tracking”. On the last two, it is a “no purchase necessary” situation. Features and functionality are not allowed to be gated behind opting in.

      Oh, and big one here, no subscriptions gating features on purchased or leased property. If it is not directly paying for a perpetual service, fuck yourselves. If I see the word “subscription” tied to cars one more time I may start fomenting revolt. I have been seeing it more and more. Manufactured goods having their functions gated behind continuing to pay for the item is absolute bullshit and should be illegal. I’m wanting to lump SaaS in with that too. Consumers should be allowed to file suit to force companies to justify their subscriptions and there should be some pretty harsh guidelines on what qualifies. We need to be allowed to own things. Subscriptions and SaaS both do away with consumer ownership.

      Last one… EULAs need to be negotiable by individuals. Period. The idea that we can just “not use it if we don’t like the contract” is ludicrous in the modern world. No matter how careful one is, if you want to participate in the world, you must enter into a binding contract which can essentially take any rights and liberties they want with no recourse on the part of the consumer. And I don’t care if it would he prohibitively expensive for companies to do that. Just don’t make EULAs that people will feel the need to object to and you won’t have to worry. Costs nothing but all of the souls you harvest on a daily basis.

      • Omgpwnies@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        7 months ago

        A EULA is a contract and is by default “negotiable”. The buyer has the option to attempt to engage with the seller and negotiate an agreement. However, the seller has equal right to decline said negotiation with the understanding that the product will not be sold to the buyer.

        What would be far more productive is stricter regulation on what products can have a EULA attached, and what that agreement can contain (thus having the government pre-negotiate the contract on behalf of all the buyers collectively). These laws could also require a company engage a third party consumer advocacy group to negotiate the terms on behalf of the buyers as a collective, so as to keep that portion at an arm’s length from the government.

        This would still not preclude an individual from trying to negotiate, but a seller still has the right to say “I don’t want to sell this to you.”

        • Adalast@lemmy.world
          2·
          7 months ago

          This is all technically true and I 90% agree with the measures you suggested. My only issues are the fact that the ability for a seller to just ignore the negotiation request functionally means that EULAs are nonnegotiable contracts. Our rights mean nothing because their right of refusal is inherently more final. A consumer has no recourse to press the engagement of a seller who has refused negotiations.

          I agree in principal that the advocacy should be held at arms length from government agencies, but then you end up with well funded minority advocacy groups like the various right wing religious “parents” groups that push for censorship and other BS that most people are not for. The only way I would accept a civilian advocacy group would be if it were heavily regulated on how it can operate and absolute transparency on the books. I want to know who is funding them, who is directing their “advocacy”, and have the ability to collectively pump the brakes on them of they start working against our interests.

          I think the strongest idea is the one we share. EULA contracts need to be reigned in and be much more heavily restricted in what they can and cannot say. There also should be a legal framework for managing the whole “if any part of this contract is found to be unenforceable, all other clauses remain in effect” because it allows companies to put bullshit clauses that they know are outright illegal and violate consumer rights into the EULAs and just write it off when they get caught without consequences. There should be a limit somewhere. Some way for a judge or regulatory body to step in and say “OK, you have like 5 unenforceable clauses in here, the contract is void and all consumers who were previously party to it are released. Also, here is a $10,000/affected consumer fine, you have 30 days to pay it.” Idk, something with real teeth.