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.

Shocking only if one accepts MSM bias

[jbn-o]

This story only comes off as the Dutch looking out for Dutch Windows 10 users' interests if one accepts a mainstream media bias against critically examining the unethical power of proprietary software.

"The lack of clear information about what Microsoft does with the data that Windows 10 collects prevents consumers from giving their informed consent" is true as far as it goes but hardly affects just Windows 10. This whole story hinges on that Microsoft got caught ignoring user's privacy preferences and releasing more information than the user said they wanted released. All proprietary software inherently fails to give such clear information and every time that software is altered the information collected or disseminated can change, making informed consent harder.

Software freedom is needed to truly address the underlying concerns rightly raised by the Dutch government. Only with free software can users have any real chance to understand what published software does, verify programmer/distributor's claims about the software, ensure that the software complies by modifying the software, and help one's community by distributing the improved software.

So looking out for the users' interests makes sense to do at a government level (apparently the so-called "free market" approach results in situations like what we face now) but structurally this simply cannot be done in an effective and thoroughgoing way with non-free (user-subjugating) software. Proprietors know this and this is partly why they release their software without respecting their user's software freedom.