microsoft against surveillance, they say

12 respostas [Última entrada]
Joined: 09/08/2014
Joined: 09/29/2009

On 10/05/17 18:45, name at domain wrote:

I do. This is not the nineties Microsoft. They have changed.
They were the ones revealing to the world the truth about how the
PATRIOT Act was used to spy on the data of european citizens. The have
been consistently opposing massive surveillance over the last years.

Ignacio Agulló · name at domain

Magic Banana

I am a member!

Joined: 07/24/2010

Are you kidding? Microsoft was the first company (since 2007, not the 90s) to collaborate with the NSA within the Prism program, it modified Skype (that it bought in 2011, not the 90s) to enable spying by agencies, same thing for SkyDrive (that is only a few years old, not decades), Windows 10 (not Windows 95) sends data to Microsoft about what applications are running, its default privacy settings let Microsoft the “right” to snoop on the users' files, text input, voice input, location info, contacts, calendar records and web browsing history, they share all those data to advertisers (the whole reason of the new commercial ID), Microsoft has the key of all its users who have chosen to encrypt their disk with Windows 10's default tool, etc.

There are plenty of references:

Really: this is not the nineties. Microsoft is much worse now.

Joined: 04/21/2016

But.. They are still un the top of contributions on github.

And.. Is not that I am saying they are the good guys..
But if I remember correctly Snowdon also said PRISM was using law and a secret court to force companies to gave the data. Even if this was against their will.

Now you might think, "yeah they didn't opposed, they probably helped those traitors".

But let's be honest. If the NSA is treating you in a secret court and not collaborating can put you in jail for more than one federal crime, or any other way the NSA can bully you.

What would you do? The NSA had the law and courts on their side...

Again I am not saying Microsoft is the best company ever. But they deserve a fair judgement, they have done wrong but they were also forced to do even more wrong.

We should not waste our time dealing with a company.

Instead, we should worry about having a law system that would make such practices as proprietary software and surveillance, impossible.

That is more of a problem than Microsoft.

J.B. Nicholson-Owens
Joined: 06/09/2014

name at domain wrote:
> How many believes microsoft?

There's no reason to believe any software proprietor that they're looking
out for user's interests. Nor is there any reason to single out Microsoft
as being anything but an example of a deeper underlying problem.

One of the stories that inadvertently highlights this concept is the story
about the time Microsoft got caught distributing inoperative so-called
"privacy" controls[1]. The story doesn't reach the conclusions I list below
(I don't believe Condé Nast is structured such that it could publish such
conclusions from their own authors. The message "all computer users deserve
software freedom" is anathema to most business IT publications these days
because the business IT press are wedded to the "open source" philosophy
which sees proprietary software as being just as worthwhile as any other
kind of software).

But clearly it didn't matter what those settings were set to (nor did it
matter if one used a particular kind of controls to change the so-called
"privacy" settings -- GUI, registry setting, or something else), network
traffic analysis showed that the settings didn't change the fact that data
left the computer to go to Microsoft. Anyone who knows anything about
programming could have told you this, but real-world examples help do away
with the need to deal with "tinfoil hat" dismissals or explaining
foreseeable consequences from a programmer's point of view.

I find this story particularly poignant because it shows that:

- any proprietor can exfiltrate data with any program, whether on-purpose
or by accident.

- that the software is non-free means it doesn't matter whether this was
done on-purpose or by accident because either way the user can't do
anything about it except stop running Windows.

- the UI details are irrelevant. No matter how they're labeled, no matter
if they're accessible to non-technical users (GUI controls) or not
(registry settings) doesn't matter because the exfiltration always occured.

- we need security scanning on all software but the only way to get
software that respects the user's wishes is running nothing but free software.

Joined: 07/03/2016

We should indeed not trust Microsoft to have the user's best interests in mind, but the message they've given is a good and valid one. The key here is to make sure we don't settle for anything less than we expect, and certainly no less than the now (weakly) reformed company has suggested we do. That, of course, means we must not let them make only the easiest contributions to freedom (or source exposure, as is often the case) in exchange for hypocritically maintaining the most profitable immorality. A few pawns make nice ornaments, but freedom rests on the game.

Mangy Dog

I am a member!

I am a translator!

Joined: 03/15/2015

Cought.......! cought.........!

Landing in 2 seconds Sir, was the lunch in Monaco at the Louis XV nice ?

Joined: 02/17/2016

It's our job to prevent '1984' from coming true

It's our job(s) to do to prevent Apple from doing it ever again.

Personally, I don't believe in their alleged reformation. They do whatever it takes to boost sales. For now, privacy and a general against "the Man" attitude are good selling points. Tomorrow, they'll readjust to the market if need be.

Joined: 12/31/2012

This reminds me of:

While sometimes corporations are on our side [...] [and] stand up for
the public's interest [...] We should not have to rely on them. ---
Edward Snowden, from

Also, the same talk by Snowden and Gillmore talks a bit about Windows
10, where the operating system no longer works for the user, but "the
user works" for it.

So instead of focusing on the company as such we should focus on the
activity itself; we should think about "Free Software business
activities", "Free Software business offers", and such. --- Matthias
Kirschner, from

I also put both citations in my recent talk about free/libre software
during the Festival Latino-americano de Instalação de Software Livre
(FLISoL) 2017 that I organized an edition locally in Balneário Camboriú.

The report I made about this FLISoL 2017 Balneário Camboriú event can be
read in:

- English: [[]].

- Brazilian Portuguese:

The homepage of the *local* event is at

- [[]]
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre, por isso não uso. Iguais a ele prefiro
GNU Ring, ou Tox. Quer outras formas de contato? Adicione o vCard
que está no endereço acima aos teus contatos.
- Pretende me enviar arquivos .doc, .ppt, .cdr, ou .mp3? OK, eu
aceito, mas não repasso. Entrego apenas em formatos favoráveis ao
/software/ livre. Favor entrar em contato em caso de dúvida.

Joined: 09/08/2014

I consider what microsoft is saying a mockery.
I do want to know the result of a poll asking people if they believe them.


I am a translator!

Joined: 10/31/2014

>How many believes microsoft?

It's not much a question of 'believing' or trusting. The game is lost merely because of indifference. Unfortunately it takes an apparently rare combination of "caring enough to read and understanding what you read". Anyone, I am convinced, who cares even remotely, having read their privacy policy, can not use their software/services without feeling lost.
The real problem is getting people to care about their fundamental rights enough to read and check. Again, unfortunately, when it comes to computers and Internet the proverbial Joe is vaguely turned into thinking in weak and somehow distant ideas of a far google or micro$lut that is miles away or those silly big ads monsters, but hey it's just stupid ads and I'm immune to them!..

Joined: 01/09/2013

immune to them!..
Well depends if you had your immunity shots updated since you was kid,but TOO TRUST THOSE SHOTS AS A LIFESAVER, IS THE QUESTION IN DEBATE. The same with software are they are trust worthy? At a point yes, but the viruses in software cause havoc, which develop a new market of employment for those involve in designing anti viruses, the worst kind are having back doors in your software.

Well enough from my experience, that is why I try my best to encrypt my voice,,,
Joined: 07/03/2016

The worst part is that the anti-virus programs in circulation now probably aren't even necessary- MS Windows has one built in, which is just as competent as any mainstream one (but for free with your spyware...), so the entire market is effectively an oligopoly feeding on unfounded fears. There's only one 'anti-virus' I can think of that actually offers any advantage of others: vrms (although we're still waiting on the MS Windows version- I'd like to see that one!).