Technology

59087 readers

3244 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

1650

A PR disaster: Microsoft has lost trust with its users, and Windows Recall is the straw that broke the camel's back (www.windowscentral.com)

submitted 5 months ago by lemmee_in@lemm.ee to c/technology@lemmy.world

481 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It's a nightmare scenario for Microsoft. The headlining feature of its new Copilot+ PC initiative, which is supposed to drive millions of PC sales over the next couple of years, is under significant fire for being what many say is a major breach of privacy and security on Windows. That feature in question is Windows Recall, a new AI tool designed to remember everything you do on Windows. The feature that we never asked and never wanted it.

Microsoft, has done a lot to degrade the Windows user experience over the last few years. Everything from obtrusive advertisements to full-screen popups, ignoring app defaults, forcing a Microsoft Account, and more have eroded the trust relationship between Windows users and Microsoft.

It's no surprise that users are already assuming that Microsoft will eventually end up collecting that data and using it to shape advertisements for you. That really would be a huge invasion of privacy, and people fully expect Microsoft to do it, and it's those bad Windows practices that have led people to this conclusion.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 44 points 4 months ago (2 children)

This is status quo for every large corporation. Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, EVERY SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM, Roku.... They all, ALL, push boundaries to see what they can get away with to not only sell you something, but also make you the thing they sell. Sometimes they're bold enough to make it public what they're doing, sometimes, it's a leak that happens when people find out how little the company actually cares about it's users (Apple, so many user data leaks).

[–] TheOakTree@lemm.ee 19 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I love it when Apple pushes advertising that touts their focus on privacy... when in reality, they're breaching user privacy in all the ways that every other company does.

[–] dan@upvote.au 10 points 4 months ago

A big reason Apple focuses on privacy and apps not being able to track the user is because they want to keep all that data for themselves. None of the restrictions they've introduced apply to first-party apps. It gives them ad targeting data that no other company can collect. They do have their own ad network (for things like ads in the App Store), and last I heard, they wanted to expand it.

[–] Shelbyeileen@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

My bigger concern is that almost every company now has it in their contracts/terms of services, that all users are not allowed to participate in a lawsuit, be it class action, or court case against them Most of them even have a maximum sue limit too! There's a lot that have a rule that initial arbitration cannot have a lawyer, but that won't be enforced.

[–] Aecosthedark@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Is that a valid and enforceable clause though, even if i clicked "i agree"?

[–] asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It should be illegal to include unenforceable clauses in any TOS or contract since it deceitfully implies it means something.

[–] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Should be, yes. I'm pretty sure it's not in the US though. It's pretty common here.

[–] Nommer@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago

Of course not. But it won't stop them from trying or spending billions on legal fees to avoid paying out a tiny fraction of that.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No.

[–] Wiz@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Sorry, this may be unpopular, but software license click-through agreements are enforceable.

Source: I'm not a lawyer, but worked in a software contracts office with lawyers, so some of it ruined off. Essentially your legal options are, use the software according to the license agreement, or don't use the software.

A third option would be, I guess, use open source software so you don't deal with that bullshit.

Edit: Part of it is wrapped up in the Uniform Commercial Code, which is a whole bundle of standard laws which is quite complex. Basically you pays your money, and you get a thing, but there are all sports of knobs and levers to handle every contingency. You can nope out of the transaction, but you don't get the thing.

[+] bc93@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] Wiz@midwest.social 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Maybe?

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I've read a lot of EULAs.

However, to challenge that, your have to sue Microsoft, against their team of super-lawyers, the best that Microsoft could buy. And you'd have to do it in the jurisdiction started in the license agreement, which is undoubtedly friendly to Microsoft. And you'd have to have some sort of standing, meaning you have suffered some actual damage from the thing you arguing against, and that you want remedied. So you sue for damages, but it can only be for the amount that you were actually damaged, which is problematic - especially for free Microsoft software. But for paid software, I'm sure there's a return/refund clause which would make you whole.

And you are paying your own lawyer to Microsoft, right? How long do you plan to sue Microsoft? I guarantee they have deeper pockets than you, and can outlast you in court. And remember if you lose the lawsuit, you will probably be countersued for the cost of their lawyers.

Basically the EULAs are written by Microsoft's very expensive lawyers. Other corporations cower in fear of Microsoft's lawyers; I know the ones in my office did. And the rewards you'd get would be a Pyrrhic victory at best. "Do you feel lucky, punk?"