So, between the inherent security nightmare that is this feature and the myriad of other things in Windows that push ads, steal user data, and generally make the simple act of using the computer less secure, when do we give Microsoft an APT designation and start treating them as the world’s largest vendor of malware on the planet?
I think you should take a calm and sober look at what Microsoft actually does.
You may be right, I don’t know, but what I do know is any time I ask people for facts I get “read the end user license agreement” which is typically the furthest from factual a lawyers will get (it’s filled with claims that are designed to not hold up, but give a legal leg to stand on for other moves) or “remember candy crush!?!?” But few things in the realm of concrete facts.
The candy crush thing, or more generally the fact that since Windows 8 they preload third-party applications, is a relatively speaking small problem. However, the fact the specific applications that get preinstalled are based on a targeted advertising profile for the user signed into the PC, assuming you sign in with a Microsoft account is a bigger problem. While I’m sure they take every possible effort to make those profiles anonymous the data in aggregate is impossible to anonymize. There is a setting in Windows to disable that data collection, at least for advertising purposes, but it gets toggled back on “accidentally” after some updates.
They also have a number of features, like copilot (the chat bot), previously they had Cortana, that do similar kinds of data extraction. Mostly, in order to actually process the user request, but also to be used to train the model. They store it in an anonymized form, but again, it’s impossible to actually do that in practice.
That’s just two things that are installed and enabled by default that: collect user data for, what I and many others find to be unwanted purposes, don’t give the user the option to disable that data collection (only limit it), and seemingly doesn’t even consistently respect the users choice in that matter. That is by definition spyware.
They also place advertising on the desktop for things like OneDrive subscriptions, MS Office, and other paid Microsoft services. Those preinstalled apps I mentioned before are effectively ads for those applications, many of which are paid apps or have paid components to them. That is by definition adware.
Spyware and adware are forms of malware. Which makes Microsoft a malware vendor.
And when you make hyperbolic comparisons between people who actually make malware that actively destroys people data or is used for identity theft etc and a company advertising it’s own products within it’s own product, I think that makes you a bad faith actor.
Do I think either of the things you listed are good? Absolutely not, I only still use Windows because I’m technical enough to disable most everything I find objectionable and that level of effort is less than making Linux work for me as a daily driver. But this is like when the Linux nerds started calling Ubuntu spyware. If you accept a definition so broad most companies fall into it it becomes useless and so bereft of nuance it actively damages the efforts of those who want change for the better.
So, between the inherent security nightmare that is this feature and the myriad of other things in Windows that push ads, steal user data, and generally make the simple act of using the computer less secure, when do we give Microsoft an APT designation and start treating them as the world’s largest vendor of malware on the planet?
I think you should take a calm and sober look at what Microsoft actually does.
You may be right, I don’t know, but what I do know is any time I ask people for facts I get “read the end user license agreement” which is typically the furthest from factual a lawyers will get (it’s filled with claims that are designed to not hold up, but give a legal leg to stand on for other moves) or “remember candy crush!?!?” But few things in the realm of concrete facts.
The candy crush thing, or more generally the fact that since Windows 8 they preload third-party applications, is a relatively speaking small problem. However, the fact the specific applications that get preinstalled are based on a targeted advertising profile for the user signed into the PC, assuming you sign in with a Microsoft account is a bigger problem. While I’m sure they take every possible effort to make those profiles anonymous the data in aggregate is impossible to anonymize. There is a setting in Windows to disable that data collection, at least for advertising purposes, but it gets toggled back on “accidentally” after some updates.
They also have a number of features, like copilot (the chat bot), previously they had Cortana, that do similar kinds of data extraction. Mostly, in order to actually process the user request, but also to be used to train the model. They store it in an anonymized form, but again, it’s impossible to actually do that in practice.
That’s just two things that are installed and enabled by default that: collect user data for, what I and many others find to be unwanted purposes, don’t give the user the option to disable that data collection (only limit it), and seemingly doesn’t even consistently respect the users choice in that matter. That is by definition spyware.
They also place advertising on the desktop for things like OneDrive subscriptions, MS Office, and other paid Microsoft services. Those preinstalled apps I mentioned before are effectively ads for those applications, many of which are paid apps or have paid components to them. That is by definition adware.
Spyware and adware are forms of malware. Which makes Microsoft a malware vendor.
And when you make hyperbolic comparisons between people who actually make malware that actively destroys people data or is used for identity theft etc and a company advertising it’s own products within it’s own product, I think that makes you a bad faith actor.
Do I think either of the things you listed are good? Absolutely not, I only still use Windows because I’m technical enough to disable most everything I find objectionable and that level of effort is less than making Linux work for me as a daily driver. But this is like when the Linux nerds started calling Ubuntu spyware. If you accept a definition so broad most companies fall into it it becomes useless and so bereft of nuance it actively damages the efforts of those who want change for the better.