Dutch Privacy Regulator Says Windows 10 Breaks the Law (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The lack of clear information about what Microsoft does with the data that Windows 10 collects prevents consumers from giving their informed consent, says the Dutch Data Protection Authority (DPA). As such, the regulator says that the operating system is breaking the law. To comply with the law, the DPA says that Microsoft needs to get valid user consent: this means the company must be clearer about what data is collected and how that data is processed. The regulator also complains that the Windows 10 Creators Update doesn't always respect previously chosen settings about data collection. In the Creators Update, Microsoft introduced new, clearer wording about the data collection -- though this language still wasn't explicit about what was collected and why -- and it forced everyone to re-assert their privacy choices through a new settings page. In some situations, though, that page defaulted to the standard Windows options rather than defaulting to the settings previously chosen. In the Creators Update, Microsoft also explicitly enumerated all the data collected in Windows 10's "Basic" telemetry setting. However, the company has not done so for the "Full" option, and the Full option remains the default. The DPA's complaint doesn't call for Microsoft to offer a complete opt out of the telemetry and data collection, instead focusing on ensuring that Windows 10 users know what the operating system and Microsoft are doing with their data. The regulator says that Microsoft wants to "end all violations," but if the software company fails to do so, it faces sanctions.

Comments

Easy answer

[WolfgangVL]

We are taking ALL OF THE DATA. Like in the deal.... the deal you agreed to by breathing and blinking twice while your eyes glazed over at the EULA.

In the spirit of full disclosure, we feel we should also make you aware that we'll be rebooting your computer whenever its good for us, and you can trust that we will reset any user changed settings back to whatever we feel is best at that time when we do so.

While we're at it, we are going to go ahead and remove a few features here and there, so that we can sell them back to you when you finally realize that you do indeed need them after all. But don't worry though, we will go ahead and leave the shell services and support files there so they can slowly but surely bog your system down to the point that you can only reset the system back to default and start the whole system over again.

P.S. Thanks for all of that bandwidth we just used downloading that giant update that removes more features than it adds. Your welcome.

Signed,

    Your friends at Microsoft, the NSA, and h1b1 "employees" everywhere.

MS already admitted willingness to break EU law

[mutantSushi]

MS has already admitted their willingness to do this, that if US law and EU law are in conflict they will follow US law. Now if they wanted to, they could structure their business so there is no ability for US to influence things. If they wanted to they could structure their business so it no longer is primarily based out of the US at all. MS and similar companies use all sorts of shenanigans to evade national tax liability, but MS isn't willing to take equivalent steps to evade US jurisdiction over-reach. US tech is is undeniably in the pocket of the US state and intelligence apparatus, they have billion dollar deals flowing from that and are comfortable cooperating within US intelligence control regime. That's what they're loyal to, pure and simple.

Re:then fine them!

[Kjella]

Full disclosure is meaningless if there is no option to completely opt-out of telemetry and data collection. There is no usable alternative to Windows, otherwise Microsoft wouldn't have 90+% market share on the desktop. Simply telling people what you are doing means nothing if they have no choice but to accept it, whether they like it or not.

While I agree it's half a solution, it wouldn't do much good if an alternative is available but nobody knows why they'd want it or need it. There's a reason the first amendment is the first, and why the four boxes of liberty are soap, ballot, jury and ammo in that order. The most important part of any change is to raise awareness as to why the change is needed. Clearly that too has some limitations (see: Snowden) but at least it brought the discussion out of the tin foil hat crowd and into the general public. And while the alternatives might be poor you can't really make a decision until you know the stakes.