Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft To Add A Black Box To Windows
An anonymous reader writes "According to ZDNet, Microsoft plans to add the software equivalent of a 'black box' flight recorder to Windows. According to the article, 'The tool will build on the existing Watson error-reporting tool in Windows but will provide Microsoft with much deeper information, including what programs were running at the time of the error and even the contents of documents that were being created.'" Commentary available via C|Net as well.
Except the blackbox on a jet won't (unless I'm woefully uninformed more than usual) tell what you were doing in your own seat when the plane went down.
"occupant of 17A was eating peanuts, doing inflight magazine crossword and had dirty underwear"
"Our stance on this is that the user is in control," Sullivan [Windows lead product manager] said. "In the consumer environment, you will be presented with a dialog that clearly gives you the choice whether to share the information and then also provides exactly what the detail is so you can parse character by character what's being sent."
Sounds reasonable, so long as it doesn't hide anything from view. Of course, if you have Visual Studio you can hit Debug and lookie yourself, which is usually more helpful than anything I've ever got back from Microsoft.
The probablem was likely caused by a faulty driver
And consumers could have a tough time knowing just what information they were sending. Though they'll be able to see the contents of a document, they may not recognize the significance of the technical data--such as register settings--that's being sent.
Consumers stick with what works. If hitting Don't Send works, they stick with it. If the problem persists then they'll probably send.
It said, "what we have here is failure to communicate." What's that mean?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It will record your screams as your computer crashes.
The biggest issue I see with this, at least in the short term, is the possible use of this feature in the corporate setting.
With businesses, however, IT managers typically set the policy. If they wanted total information, they could configure systems so that they'd know not only that a user was running Internet Explorer, for example, but also that he or she was watching a video from ESPN.com. Or, they might find out not only that a worker was running Instant Messenger but also that he or she was talking to a co-worker about getting a new job.
This is a major invasion of privacy if you ask me. Of course, while at work you are using company resources so they really do get to say how and when they are used but I feel there is an important difference between monitoring your employee's resource usage and actually reading their emails and instant messages. You don't have to totally invade everyone's privacy to enforce your company policy of internet usage.
But Sullivan pointed out that businesses can already install third-party software to monitor workers' computer usage and some do.
While the above is most certainly true, having something like this built into Windows by default just makes it that much easier and thus inviting for a company to implement this sort of monitoring. I just can't wait for the day when all employees have a tracking system attached to them at all times and are reprimanded if they spend too much time going to the bathroom or chatting to a coworker. What great fun that is going to be!
Another issue with this that is mentioned in the article is the fact that while you will be able to look through all the data being reported, most people will not have the knowledge to determine how much of it is sensitive.
And consumers could have a tough time knowing just what information they were sending. Though they'll be able to see the contents of a document, they may not recognize the significance of the technical data--such as register settings--that's being sent.
Not everything is totally obvious, such as personal emails or credit card numbers. Not to mention the fact that it will very likely be buried among a lot of other unintelligable data. Also, given the habit of most Windows users of just clicking 'OK' or 'YES' to anything and everything that pops up on their screen, I doubt many people will actually review the information being sent in the report.
as long as I can shut it off!
Wouldn't it be faster for them to sift through the logs of what was happening when the system was stable? I mean, dear God, imagine the size of the log files if they logged crashes.
If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Personally, I'd draw the line at the point where "opt-in" becomes "opt-out". If the customer is being asked whether they want to send this information to M$, and told just what is being transmitted, then I don't see that much of a problem.
However, it's important that you actually have to acknowledge this - so, for example, the default button (the one that has the focus) should be "No" rather than "Yes", so users actually have to make a conscious decision instead of just saying hitting return because that's what they always do when an error pops up.
In other words, consent is required, but it also has to be informed consent. Someone who just says "Yes, do this" because they don't understand what's going on and what the implications are does not consent IMO.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
"When do we draw the line between normal computer use and invasion of privacy?"
When information is reported without your consent.
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
Plus, Qui custodet ipsos custodies? Microsoft just created a new target for hackers, both writing to (for hiding their own tracks) and reading from (for extracting information when searching for personal user information.) Not insurmountable problems, but will M$ think to solve them before being bit on the backside?
One step forward, two steps back...
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Or is it already?
If sending your computer's configuration to Microsoft in the background was found to be illegal by the courts back in the Win95 days...
Wouldn't sending configuration information PLUS document contents be considered illegal today?
I mean, come on now, this couldn't possibly be happening, and out in the open to boot?
...
C'mon, man. If the plane's going down, even a slahdork could probably find some girl on the plane who would be interested in a final go-round. Don't underestimate the power of impending death. It might be your best hope for losing your virginity.
You know what?
And it wouldn't even surprise me that, hidden somewhere in there, there's a license agreement that mentions that you give all the rights to the content you send to Microsoft somehow, or give them an unlimited royalty-free license... just like you do everytime you attach a file on Hotmail.
From the Hotmail Service Agreement :
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming