Microsoft Finally Reveals What Data Windows 10 Really Collects (theverge.com)

Starting today, Microsoft is updating its privacy statement and publishing information about the data it collects as part of Windows 10. From a report: "For the first time, we have published a complete list of the diagnostic data collected at the Basic level," explains Windows chief Terry Myerson in a company blog post. "We are also providing a detailed summary of the data we collect from users at both Basic and Full levels of diagnostics." Microsoft is introducing better controls around its Windows 10 data collection levels in the latest Creators Update, which will start rolling out broadly next week. The controls allow users to switch between basic and full levels of data collection. "Our teams have also worked diligently since the Anniversary Update to re-assess what data is strictly necessary at the Basic level to keep Windows 10 devices up to date and secure," says Myerson. "As a result, we have reduced the number of events collected and reduced, by about half, the volume of data we collect at the Basic level."

Comments

The real problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

... of course, is that we have to wait for Microsoft to "inform" us about that in the first place.

Re:The real problem...

[ytene]

And the only reason Microsoft are doing this is [likely to be] because the EU were basically telling them that their latest privacy-slurping OS was going to run foul of EU legislation if they didn't come clean. Having Windows 10 banned in the EU because of privacy concerns was likely a suitable incentive. What a shame it has come to the point where companies need this sort of inducement to come clean.

Re:The real problem...

[Kjella]

What a shame it has come to the point where companies need this sort of inducement to come clean.

Companies will run slave plantations unless somebody forces them not to. Capitalism is useful but it'll throw you under the bus if it means higher profit, it's nobody's friend just raw application of economic power. Once you're past the size where anyone feels personally responsible and they only answer to shareholders who want return on interest it has no conscience, ethics or morality. So I'm not sure what you think is new or different here, the only time they don't act like total psychos is exactly when there's consequences. Otherwise they'd make Soylent Green out of you.

Calling Stallman

[jawtheshark]

We all know that without the source, it is impossible to verify their claims.

Removed half of stats before disclosing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Our teams have also worked diligently since the Anniversary Update to re-assess what data is strictly necessary at the Basic level to keep Windows 10 devices up to date and secure," says Myerson. "As a result, we have reduced the number of events collected and reduced, by about half, the volume of data we collect at the Basic level."

I wonder what they felt they needed to remove before they were willing to publish the disclosure.

Re:Don't forget about open source projects.

[Raenex]

Some open source supporters will make claims like "But they're being transparent!" or "But you can opt out!" or some other nonsense like that.

But guess what? None of that matters!

It does matter. It's relatively trivial to opt out of Mozilla's data collection and to know what's being collected, whereas that's absolutely not the case with Microsoft. So when you say shit like this:

"we cannot consider them to be any better than Windows, or conversely, we can't consider Windows to be any worse than projects like Firefox"

I know you're either shilling for Microsoft or being idealistically stupid about practical differences.

Re:Don't forget about open source projects.

[Just Some Guy]

I disagree. RMS is supremely practical over long periods of time. His core message is "if you tie your fate to something you don't control, you will get burned." I've never seen this not be correct. Vendors come and go. Sometimes they change their pricing model from reasonable to extortionate. Maybe they discontinue features that were critical to you. Perhaps they throw away the whole thing and start over. But whatever form it takes, the end result is the same: if you can't control it, it will control you.

Apple and Microsoft have probably been the best major companies for keeping their changes small and manageable. Eventually you had to migrate off VB6. Eventually you had to click the "also compile this for Intel" checkbox in Xcode. But that doesn't change the fact that if you use their platforms, you are subject to their business decisions, even when they conflict with yours.

Perhaps hypocritically, I'm typing this on a Mac. I've decided that given Apple's track record, they're probably not going to yank the rug out from under me overnight. But you can bet that all the code I write is in FOSS languages and deployed to FOSS operating systems. I can change my desktop OS - with some pain and gnashing of teeth to be sure - without compromising the things I design. That's because RMS is correct: he's convinced many of us that it's practical to choose open platforms instead of closed shininess where it really matters.