Microsoft speaks up about privacy
Here is the link.
I told you so.
None of this "I don't want to say I told you so" crap. I rarely respond to comments and forums elsewhere. And this topic reminded me why. People would hurl insults at me for making well reasoned stances and points against their unfounded fear mongering and hatred.
Of course, the post shouldn't have been required. Anyone with a brain who actually read the privacy policy would quickly have noticed that most of the articles were taking things entirely out of context and/or twisting words to match however they wanted everyone else to perceive the company.
My favorite were those who clearly just pretended to have read the policy. You could always pick them out of a crowd because they would make claims like "its wrapped up in so much legal speak...". Actually, the reference material everyone was using was straight talk version. It was super dumbed down and devoid of pretty much all avoidable legal speak.
That isn't to say that the document always made clear how data would be used. Which is where yet another group would go and say something like "well they don't state they aren't giving the NSA all of this data" and then imply that they left it open like that so that they could turn around and screw you over later.
The problem was that none of this was really based on any realistic data or action Microsoft had ever taken. The link above basically says what I've been saying all along on the topic about how Microsoft isn't spying on you and that the data is used to help improve their services.
Some out there will say, "well they could be lying". But again, there is absolutely no reason to believe that they are. You can't please everyone.
I'll end this by saying that there are 3 (legitimate) groups with regards to privacy that virtually every reputable company (especially public traded ones) fall into.
I told you so.
None of this "I don't want to say I told you so" crap. I rarely respond to comments and forums elsewhere. And this topic reminded me why. People would hurl insults at me for making well reasoned stances and points against their unfounded fear mongering and hatred.
Of course, the post shouldn't have been required. Anyone with a brain who actually read the privacy policy would quickly have noticed that most of the articles were taking things entirely out of context and/or twisting words to match however they wanted everyone else to perceive the company.
My favorite were those who clearly just pretended to have read the policy. You could always pick them out of a crowd because they would make claims like "its wrapped up in so much legal speak...". Actually, the reference material everyone was using was straight talk version. It was super dumbed down and devoid of pretty much all avoidable legal speak.
That isn't to say that the document always made clear how data would be used. Which is where yet another group would go and say something like "well they don't state they aren't giving the NSA all of this data" and then imply that they left it open like that so that they could turn around and screw you over later.
The problem was that none of this was really based on any realistic data or action Microsoft had ever taken. The link above basically says what I've been saying all along on the topic about how Microsoft isn't spying on you and that the data is used to help improve their services.
Some out there will say, "well they could be lying". But again, there is absolutely no reason to believe that they are. You can't please everyone.
I'll end this by saying that there are 3 (legitimate) groups with regards to privacy that virtually every reputable company (especially public traded ones) fall into.
- Those who make their money from your personal data in exchange for added value (Google).
- Those who make their money elsewhere, but who still use your data to improve value (Microsoft).
- Those who make enough money elsewhere that they can buy enough research data to avoid having to get it from you directly (Apple).
Windows 10 isn't free, and most Microsoft products and services have successful paid tiers. Microsoft doesn't need to (at the moment) sell your data, or use your data to help sell ads. Their R&D budget is also likely a fraction of Apple's and for them the best way to improve the experiences they offer is to use your usage data to help drive that.
And don't pretend even Apple is exempt. Siri collects data on its usage, and I'm sure other Apple features and services do as well.
Lastly, switch to Linux is not an answer. I hear that one a lot on discussions. That just reminds me of the Mac vs. PC commercials of old that used to claim that Macs were bug and virus free. It was effectively true... until the platform started becoming popular. I'm not sure how people think Linux will be exempt from this. If more and more people move to Linux, more and more of the features that collected user data will come with it.
In fact, Linux already suffers from some of this. When I first got into Linux, it was either command shell only, or minimalist desktop management systems. The true Linux fans hated the GUI heavy UIs. They required more powerful hardware, added OS overhead, driver overhead and when used CPU and GPU overhead. Over the years, Linux system requirements have actually started catching up to Windows and Mac OS system requirements.
Why? Because the successful distros were those that tried to emulate elements from Mac/PC experiences.
So, if all of the popular experiences today contain services that rely heavily on user data, do you really think that in 5-10 years you won't be seeing Linux distros with Siri/Cortana like functionality shipping out of the box? And do you really think a quality version of such a system (in todays world) can run on a local machine without requiring a massive machine learning system somewhere out in a data center owned by someone else?
Comments
Post a Comment