Tech giants trying to stop impending vote on opting-out of collection / sale of personal data

[Delicieuxz]

Google And Facebook Are Quietly Fighting California’S Privacy Rights Initiative, Emails Reveal


Here's an excerpt from the article:

LOBBYISTS FOR THE largest technology and telecommunication firms have only three days to prevent the California Consumer Privacy Act, a ballot initiative that would usher in the strongest consumer privacy standards in the country, from going before state voters this November.

The initiative allows consumers to opt out of the sale and collection of their personal data, and vastly expands the definition of personal information to include geolocation, biometrics, and browsing history. The initiative also allows consumers to pursue legal action for violations of the law.

The idea that Californians might gain sweeping new privacy rights has spooked Silicon Valley, internet service providers, and other industries that increasingly rely on data collection, leading to a lobbying push to defeat the initiative before it gains traction. Their best hope may be to convince the sponsors of the initiative, including San Francisco real estate developer Alastair Mactaggart, to pull the proposal in exchange for compromise privacy legislation, AB 375, which would achieve some of the same goals of the initiative. Lawmakers behind the legislation, led by State Assembly member Ed Chau, D-Monterey Park, and State Senator Robert Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, have promised to swiftly pass their bill this week if sponsors withdraw CCPA.

Emails obtained by The Intercept reveal that tech giants are fighting behind the scenes to water down the privacy legislation, hoping to prevent an expensive and potentially losing ballot fight this year.

Andrea Devaeu, a lobbyist for TechNet, a trade group for Google, Facebook and other tech companies, has continually updated an ad-hoc business lobbying coalition formed to defeat the CCPA. In an update sent on Sunday evening, Devaeu provided a “compilation of feedback re: the most problematic aspects of AB 375.”

If you hate that a large portion of your internet bill is subsidizing your ISP and online services' gathering of your personal data so that they can sell it for profit, then you'll want this act to pass without it being watered down.



If you hate that the lowest settings for personal data-harvesting in Windows 10 Home and Pro still gathers your personal data from over 3,500 individual data streams to create a meticulous and comprehensive picture of your every step in the OS that is associated with your person, and which Microsoft profits from selling to whoever, then you'll want this act to pass without it being watered down.

If you hate the malicious designs of Windows 10 including forced updates and resets, file-associations resetting, UI mods breaking with each major update, and all other things in Windows 10 that trace back to Microsoft's goal of forcing as much personal user data into their servers so that they can sell it for their profit and preventing people from doing anything to obstruct Microsoft's ability to harvest your personal data, then you'll want this act to pass without it being watered down.

If you hate that your own personal life is being turned into the equity and a subject of these companies, against your will or choice, then you'll want this act to pass without it being watered down.

If you hate that even your graphics card drivers and games are starting to be stuffed with data-harvesting, then you'll want this act to pass without it being watered down.

If you hate that your own personal life is being turned into the equity and a subject of these companies, against your will or choice, then you'll want this act to pass without it being watered down.

Regardless of whether you live in California or the USA, if you want a stop to be put to the harvesting and selling of personal user data without the will of the software, system, or service user, then you'll want this act to pass without it being watered down.


Having this proceed in California without it being neutered would force business model changes throughout the data-selling industry, and could greatly increase exposure of which companies are selling personal user data. It would also put the discussion of the topic permanently out in the open, and could lead to similar legislation being passed by other states and countries.

The world needs this proposed legislation, and it has to start somewhere. I hope that if you live in California you might call your MP or whatever your representatives are called and put the pressure on them to see that this vote happens, and that tech/data companies are not permitted to water down the proposed legislation. And if you know people in California who are tech-minded, I hope that you make them aware of this legislation and encourage them to do the same.


And believe it or not, the negatives of unfettered unilateral data-harvesting by tech companies are still in the early stages.

 

[Executioner]

Yeah all this data harvesting have lead to hacks that steal your information. That is my concern. I don't trust any of these places that collect your information, and I'm glad to see that this is a start in the right direction.

 

[KazeoHin]

But isn't California a nanny state that is full of commies and SJWs?

 

[Delicieuxz]

It passed!!!: California approves privacy rules opposed by ISPs and tech companies


The whole article is filled with great information.

A legislative bill summary says the law will give Californians "the right to know what PI [personal information] is being collected about them and whether their PI is being sold and to whom; the right to access their PI; the right to delete PI collected from them; the right to opt-out or opt-in to the sale of their PI, depending on age of the consumer; and the right to equal service and price, even if they exercise such rights."

This is a fantastic development for individuals and privacy advocates. It means that we will have much greater insight into who is doing what with our data, because companies will have to reveal all that information to Californians, making it public for everybody.

Also, for those who can't stand the obscene amounts of personal data that Microsoft harvests through Windows 10 even at the most minimal settings, I think this new regulation should mean there will have to be a way for (at least Californian) Windows owners to completely disable all non-security data collection.

The ballot question was opposed by Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Uber, Comcast, AT&T, Cox, Verizon, and several advertising lobby groups, all of whom donated to a campaign against the initiative.

This gives some insight into who all are selling your personal data for profit.

"State-specific laws will stifle American innovation and confuse consumers," said CTIA, the mobile broadband industry's lobby group, according to Reuters.

The solution is to apply these regulations ubiquitously across all states and countries. And that's the direction I expect things to head.


"I feel like it's the first step, and the country's going to follow," Mactaggart said. "Everybody is finally waking up to the importance of digital privacy."

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article213993229.html

 

[ironforge]

Any personal data should be OPT-IN only. Even when you opt-in there should be an expiration date included.

 

[Delicieuxz]

Any personal data should be OPT-IN only. Even when you opt-in there should be an expiration date included.

With the new regulations that take effect on January 2020 Californians will at least be able to choose to not have their data collected or sold, and without repercussions for choosing so, and will be able to delete their data at any time, as well as see who their data is sold to if it is being sold. It's a major step forward for personal privacy and data rights, and hopefully an impetus for widespread data privacy regulations.


I think California's legislation goes beyond Europe's GDPR regulations, by mandating the choice to select whether data is collected and whether it is sold, with disclosure of who it is sold to being required. And the legislation declares it a right that people receive equal service at equal price regardless of their choices made over their data.

 

[Mazzspeed]

This needs to happen globally....

 

[B00nie]

This needs to happen globally....

Google would lose its stock value and Windows 10 would go back to a paid product...

 

[Delicieuxz]

Google would lose its stock value and Windows 10 would go back to a paid product...

That sounds good all-around. Also, Windows 10 already is a pay-for product, because the "free upgrade" period is over (even though it reportedly still works). Microsoft is just double-dipping with the sale of personal Windows owner data.

 

[Mazzspeed]

That sounds good all-around. Also, Windows 10 already is a pay-for product, because the "free upgrade" period is over (even though it reportedly still works). Microsoft is just double-dipping with the sale of personal Windows owner data.

It's disgusting isn't it.

 

[DPI]

Awesome.

Fuck Microsoft and their paid shills and apologists with their disingenuous "but but Google/Facebook" and "its just crashdump data" nonsense thats been defying logic and reason for three years. I can guarantee that these same assholes that have been defending the data collection in W10 as "no big deal just accept it" will be the first ones to disable it the first moment they can. Guaranteed.

It was apparent that Microsoft was never going to relent on the spying by some change of heart to start respecting their customers again. It was always going to require being dragged kicking and screaming away from the Big Data trough. It's just too big a business these days.

 

[heatlesssun]

Awesome.

Fuck Microsoft and their paid shills and apologists with their disingenuous "but but Google/Facebook" and "its just crashdump data" nonsense thats been defying logic and reason for three years. I can guarantee that these same assholes that have been defending the data collection in W10 as "no big deal just accept it" will be the first ones to disable it the first moment they can. Guaranteed.

It was apparent that Microsoft was never going to relent on the spying by some change of heart to start respecting their customers again. It was always going to require being dragged kicking and screaming away from the Big Data trough. It's just too big a business these days.

If you've got something better for me to use than Windows 10 please let me know. And it ain't Windows 8.1. Over the last two years I've spent a ton of money on new PC hardware and yes I went with Windows 10 because I knew going forward it would have the best support going forward, like the Rift. Windows 10 supports all that I do and my current place of employment is migrating to Windows 10. So don't load up all of this nonsense and call millions of people assholes simply because they want to use the shit they paid for and are going to have to deal with Windows 10 anyway because of work.

Again, I'm perfectly willing to take your position on Windows 10. What I'm not willing to do is have tons of shit not work, just like the folks that say how Windows 10 updates break their stuff. I've got $10k+ in hardware over the last two years, I COULDN'T BE using Windows 10 if were constantly breaking all of that stuff.

I just want a solution to the problems you perceive, fuck the name calling.

 

[B00nie]

Heatless will probably be the last person on earth still using Windows even if it's found to cause cancer like asbestos. Funny that you seemed to take the MS paid shill part as personal name calling. Hilarious actually

 

[ManofGod]

Heatless will probably be the last person on earth still using Windows even if it's found to cause cancer like asbestos. Funny that you seemed to take the MS paid shill part as personal name calling. Hilarious actually

Well then you will bitch because you computer is not working because that software you bought is not supported by the OS you are using. Cry me a river.

Awesome.

Fuck Microsoft and their paid shills and apologists with their disingenuous "but but Google/Facebook" and "its just crashdump data" nonsense thats been defying logic and reason for three years. I can guarantee that these same assholes that have been defending the data collection in W10 as "no big deal just accept it" will be the first ones to disable it the first moment they can. Guaranteed.

It was apparent that Microsoft was never going to relent on the spying by some change of heart to start respecting their customers again. It was always going to require being dragged kicking and screaming away from the Big Data trough. It's just too big a business these days.

That's nice dude, you just keep up the "paid shills" comment you hide behind everyday for your actual agenda...……..

Oh, and I have yet to see evidence of Microsoft stealing my personal information or selling but, why have evidence, they are Microsoft, it must be true, we do not need proof, we are the DIAF Microsoft brigade!

 

[Delicieuxz]

Again, I'm perfectly willing to take your position on Windows 10. What I'm not willing to do is have tons of shit not work, just like the folks that say how Windows 10 updates break their stuff. I've got $10k+ in hardware over the last two years, I COULDN'T BE using Windows 10 if were constantly breaking all of that stuff.

I just want a solution to the problems you perceive, fuck the name calling.

But you also would prefer to have Windows 10 with the option to turn off the harvesting of data, right?

Oh, and I have yet to see evidence of Microsoft stealing my personal information or selling but, why have evidence, they are Microsoft, it must be true, we do not need proof, we are the DIAF Microsoft brigade!

I expect that you have seen my previous posts on that matter, and so I must assume that you subscribe to a unique personal definitions of "business", which Microsoft does say they peddle personal data for, and "business partners", which Microsoft does say they peddle personal data to - definitions of that word and that term which do not inherently involve the aspect of profit and monetization, which I personally understand to be the crux of those terms. And it seems that so, too, do dictionaries:


http://www.dictionary.com/browse/business

1. an occupation, profession, or trade:His business is poultry farming.
2. the purchase and sale of goods in an attempt to make a profit.
3. a person, partnership, or corporation engaged in commerce, manufacturing, or a service; profit-seeking enterprise or concern.

There is also the fact that Microsoft funded lobbyists to oppose legislation that would restrict their ability to sell personal data - which means that Microsoft wants to be able to sell personal data.

There is also the fact that the data Microsoft collects at even the "Basic" setting in Windows 10 encompasses all things to create a meticulous image of the system user and their activities, and not simply technical performance.

And there is also the sensible acknowledgment that the business of collecting massive amounts of personal data involves the selling of that data - which Microsoft even says they do.

 

[Delicieuxz]

Here's a copy of a letter sent to Californians for Consumer Privacy (which helmed California's recently-passed act to protect personal data-privacy rights).

The letter addresses another aspect of the personal data-privacy subject that heretofore I haven't seen raised by rights advocates.

Please read it if you're wanting to learn more about why what tech companies are doing with your data is not only wrong, but logically illegal by existing property laws.

----------------------------

Hello, and thank you for working to ensure that personal privacy and security includes personal data. Also, congratulations on the passage of robust California legislation for this goal.

I wish to raise with you an imperative aspect of this whole matter which I have not seen mentioned by privacy advocates. It deals with businesses who are profiting off of personal data that is collected through purchased (not free) software and services, and where collection of that personal data is unrelated to the usage of that software by those who have purchased (via perpetual software licenses) and so own those instances of software. A key antagonist company in this example will be Microsoft, with the sold / purchased (not licensed) software licenses (not software IP) as the offending medium being Windows 10.

I do not include data that is collected via free online services in this example.

The example and explanation follow here:

So, if you stealthily hook a cryptocurrency mining rig up to your neighbour's electricity, or even use your neighbours PC to mine crypto-currency, who do the proceeds rightfully belong to, and who will a court rule that they belong to?

Data that is produced by the property, time, activity, electricity, and personal agency of a person is naturally also that person's property.

Microsoft has not entered into a contractual agreement allowing commercialization of Windows 10 owners' electricity, hardware, system housing, time, personal activity, etc, and so the data that is generated through all of those possessions is rightfully the property of the one who owns all of those things. Microsoft is unilaterally taking for granted that they have license to purloin these things for the profit of their corporation. And that setup doesn't pass the legal realms' Reasonable Person test and is a clear case of Unjust Enrichment.

Each owner of a Windows 10 license / instance paid for their electricity, their PC hardware, their perpetual software licenses, their home or hosting where their PC is housed. And their time holds value, and in the realm of personal data so does their unique activity. Microsoft is taking all of those things, purloining them, and using them to profit itself at the expense of each individual Windows license / instance owner. That makes us all unpaid employees of Microsoft, and we even have to pay work expenses to be those unpaid employees.

If you, whoever is reading this, is OK with that, then, surely, I can also freely use your PC for crypto-coin mining. May I? I even asked you for permission, which is more than Microsoft has done.

To be clear, Microsoft unilaterally collecting and selling personal data harvested from perpetual Windows 10 licenses is pure theft, and unjust enrichment.

Also, do you have anti-virus / anti-malware software installed on your computer to protect your system from being exploited by people who might do something like install a keylogger, a data-miner, or a crypto-coin miner on your system? If we collectively acknowledge that we are against all of those things, and take actions to protect ourselves against them, then why would these things invasive, exploitative, and infringing behaviours suddenly become OK when they're done by Microsoft in Windows 10? It's the same action. It's like Microsoft is a wolf in sheep's clothing (or a wolf in wolf's clothing) that itself is doing the very things it claims to be protecting people from.

Just because a company is getting away with an action (for now) during a period before awareness has spread doesn't mean that action is legally or morally sanctioned. And without a doubt, by any logical and rational measurement, the data that is generated by Windows license (instance) owners' electricity, hardware, housing, time, money, and activity belongs to them and is their sole personal property.

Because of this, I think that, while an essential and impressive victory, simply securing people's natural right to privacy and security from big tech companies is not the complete matter. Another essential aspect of this matter is spreading awareness that people's data produced by their own PCs / electricity / software licenses / housing / etc is their own personal property and nobody else has any right to profit off of it any more than some stranger has a right to sell your personally-owned car or rent your lawn to whoever they please for their own profit.

Because existing legislation didn't take into account the tech and informational realms, tech companies assumed they had carte blanche and created a Wild West of indulgence in personal data, where they effectively have made themselves masters over those who buy their products and have made those who buy their products their slaves to whom their personal lives have become their corporations' equity.

This has to stop, completely.

 

[heatlesssun]

But you also would prefer to have Windows 10 with the option to turn off the harvesting of data, right?

What I would prefer more than anything is a clear understanding of how all this works without the fact free accusations being made. I use cloud, storage, email and other services from Google, Amazon, Microsoft etc. daily. For some reason for some people the massive amount of data leverage used by virtually every major tech company became an issue ONLY when Windows 10 started doing collection.

So fine, put the off switch for it Windows 10. And while we're at it put is everything else and stop making this about Windows 10. The data collection in Windows 10 isn't even the fucking tip of the iceberg on this issue.

 

[Delicieuxz]

What I would prefer more than anything is a clear understanding of how all this works without the fact free accusations being made. I use cloud, storage, email and other services from Google, Amazon, Microsoft etc. daily. For some reason for some people the massive amount of data leverage used by virtually every major tech company became an issue ONLY when Windows 10 started doing collection.

There is a different between online and free services collecting data and an offline desktop environment collecting data. It is the same difference between having a right to film and take pictures in a public space versus a private space. You've paid for your offline desktop environment (whether you partook in the "free upgrade" offer or not), and it is exclusively your property. So, the same complaints are not as obviously valid in an online environment that is either public or belongs to someone other than yourself, as they are in your own offline environment which belongs solely to you.

So fine, put the off switch for it Windows 10. And while we're at it put is everything else and stop making this about Windows 10. The data collection in Windows 10 isn't even the fucking tip of the iceberg on this issue.

I would like to be able to have no personal data collected by other companies and governments as much as possible. However, somebody who creates an online environment is the owner and master of that online environment, and can say that if people want to access their environment and space, then they have certain terms - which might include collecting user data to make their online environment sustainable and profitable. However, that doesn't apply to the desktop environment that you paid for, and which you own by being the owner of the perpetual license for that desktop environment. The license represents the instance just as it does with car purchases (vs the car design, name, and technology IP), DVD movie purchases, etc, and the holder of the license is the owner of that instance.

When you use an online environment, you typically haven't purchased that software, and so you are a guest in that online environment. When you use your desktop PC, you have purchased that software:

This software (IP) is licensed, not sold; This software (license) is sold, not licensed.


Microsoft taking your personal data out of it, created by all of your own property from the electricity, to the hardware, to the license, to the user activity, is theft. If Google, Amazon, or Facebook did or do the same thing, it is also theft. But they are online privately-owned services belonging to their owners and your desktop is an offline privately-owned space belonging to you.

Microsoft receives notable criticism because in taking personal data from a space that doesn't belong to them but to you, me, and every individual who owns a Windows license, Microsoft is doing something discernibly different than online services that collect data. And online services that collect data are doing bad stuff of their own that needs addressing (like Facebook tracking people without Facebook accounts and on websites that aren't Facebook).

 

[heatlesssun]

Microsoft taking your personal data out of it, created by all of your own property from the electricity, to the hardware, to the license, to the user activity, is theft. If Google, Amazon, or Facebook did or do the same thing, it is also theft. But they are online privately-owned services belonging to their owners and your desktop is an offline privately-owned space belonging to you.

Billions of people everyday are connected to something that's collecting data. This online/offline distinction is meaningless in today's world.

 

[Delicieuxz]

Billions of people everyday are connected to something that's collecting data. This online/offline distinction is meaningless in today's world.

Not true. Not at all. My desktop environment is mine, and my actions in that environment are not dependent upon any online service.

Also, you're suggesting a one-way street, and double standards. Your argument is 'personal data doesn't belong to anyone'. In that case, we should all have unfettered access to all of Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon's data, and should be able to sell it per our sole discretion. Their data is as much ours as our data is theirs. And they have only the same right to data created by and existing in our privately-owned environments as we have to data created by and existing in their privately-owned environments.

 

[heatlesssun]

Not true. Not at all. My desktop environment is mine, and my actions in that environment are not dependent upon any online service.

Yet we wouldn't be having this conversation if both of us weren't connected. Pro-desktop Linux folks constantly point of the irrelevance of Windows because of web apps. And I've never disagreed on the point connectivity being central to personal computing today.

 

[Delicieuxz]

Yet we wouldn't be having this conversation if both of us weren't connected. Pro-desktop Linux folks constantly point of the irrelevance of Windows because of web apps. And I've never disagreed on the point connectivity being central to personal computing today.

We're connected by venturing beyond our private offline environments and through a privately-owned website, where we are guests, and the terms for usage of which are set by its owner, Kyle.

My offline desktop activities are not engaging anybody else'e environments but my own, which is privately-owned by me, and the rules for which are set by me.

You can't go into somebody else'e house and make demands over how the house internally operates.


You saying that the personal data in our offline desktop environments is not exclusively ours is like you claiming that Kyle doesn't own his website, and you have rights to all the data it contains. It's like the public saying that they have right to access and use Microsoft's company data per their sole discretion.

You aren't arguing that the differentiation between online and offline is meaningless, you're arguing that Microsoft should exclusively benefit from being able to enter into people's privately-owned environments and do and take as Microsoft pleases. You don't seem to be arguing that it goes both ways, and that we should be unobstructed from entering into Microsoft's privately-owned environments and do and take as we please.

Either there is such a thing as personal property, or there isn't. If the data that is generated by personally-owned hardware, software, physical location, electricity, time, and activity doesn't belong to anybody, then there would be anarchy and chaos, and no such thing as Intellectual Property. Theft of bank-account funds wouldn't be called theft, and installing crypto-coin mining malware on networks and PCs not owned by you wouldn't be a crime. You're arguing for digital anarchy - though seemingly exclusively for Microsoft.

As the owner of my desktop environment, and the owner of my hardware, my electricity, my software, my housing, and my activities with those things, I have the say in whether the data created by exclusively those things may be accessed and / or used by anyone other than myself. It is solely my right to say whether Microsoft may commercialize my property, my electricity, and my personal life in my privately-owned environments. And I say Microsoft may not do so.

And that Microsoft or any other may not do so is the default position: You don't need to ask to be declined, you need to ask for permission.

 

[techie81]

Billions of people everyday are connected to something that's collecting data. This online/offline distinction is meaningless in today's world.

Please speak for yourself. I like my privacy. I understand the difference between using a free service like google and facebook, but that is not comparable to using a paid OS. They are not equal.

 

[heatlesssun]

You saying that the personal data in our offline desktop environments is not exclusively ours is like you claiming that Kyle doesn't own his website, and you have rights to all the data it contains. It's like the public saying that they have right to access and use Microsoft's company data per their sole discretion.

Give a person a smartphone or tablet or PC that can't connect to the internet and that's the first thing they'll complain about. In the real world with average people who the hell is really thinking about offline vs online?

 

[heatlesssun]

Please speak for yourself. I like my privacy. I understand the difference between using a free service like google and facebook, but that is not comparable to using a paid OS. They are not equal.

And like the #1 thing people do with that paid OS is connect to this "free" services. Or paid one, I use the hell out Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime Video. If Microsoft is collecting and selling data out of Windows 10, I'm guessing places like this CNN, FOX, etc. will be reporting the hell out it. Hell if anyone that's complaining about Windows 10 and Microsoft selling the data they collect could prove it that wouldn't be fucking wasting their time here.

If Microsoft is selling data out of Windows 10, their done because that will immediately cast doubt on their fastest growing business, the cloud. No one will fucking trust Azure if they are selling people's data to 3rd parties. That'll take Microsoft in an instant.

Anti-Microsoft folks, don't worry about me, prove that. You'll realize your life long dream off killing Microsoft like squashing a bug.. While fucking becoming rich and famous in your own right.

 

[Delicieuxz]

Give a person a smartphone or tablet or PC that can't connect to the internet and that's the first thing they'll complain about. In the real world with average people who the hell is really thinking about offline vs online?

You're using false equivalency of online and offline environments to rationalize what isn't justifiable. And from the start I've distinguished between offline and online environments to say that people don't have the same rights when they're visiting somebody else's environment as they do when they're in their own environment.

Sell a person a house and then sabotage their connection to running water and electricity services, and they'll complain about not having those things. Does that make the distinction between ownership of the house and ownership of the services that supply the running water and electricity meaningless? No, and of course not. The house still belongs to the person who purchased it and the property it is on, and whoever sabotaged their connectivity to running water and electricity services still has no say, no rights, and no ownership over that house and cannot take the things inside of it and use them for their own purposes. Taking things from the house that doesn't belong to them and using them for their own purposes would be theft. And demanding say over the internal operation of that house in exchange for restoring connectivity to running water and electricity services would be blackmail and extortion.


You've descended into pure absurdity and non-arguments which are trying to rationalize the abuse and misuse of people's privately-owned property and environments. What you have just presented shows a total lack of judgment and conscience, and is shilling for what is overtly depraved and indefensible.

Because of that, and because you tried to plant a negative, self-opposing seed in people's minds using sentiment-laden rhetoric featuring a false premise:

"In the real world with average people who the hell is really thinking about offline vs online?"

... makes me seriously believe that you are paid by Microsoft to spread propaganda for them, to the detriment of the average person.

 

[techie81]

And like the #1 thing people do with that paid OS is connect to this "free" services. Or paid one, I use the hell out Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime Video. If Microsoft is collecting and selling data out of Windows 10, I'm guessing places like this CNN, FOX, etc. will be reporting the hell out it. Hell if anyone that's complaining about Windows 10 and Microsoft selling the data they collect could prove it that wouldn't be fucking wasting their time here.

If Microsoft is selling data out of Windows 10, their done because that will immediately cast doubt on their fastest growing business, the cloud. No one will fucking trust Azure if they are selling people's data to 3rd parties. That'll take Microsoft in an instant.

Anti-Microsoft folks, don't worry about me, prove that. You'll realize your life long dream off killing Microsoft like squashing a bug.. While fucking becoming rich and famous in your own right.

Wanting privacy is not equal to being Anti-Microsoft.

You just typed a whole bunch of excuses without addressing the real issue.

 

[heatlesssun]

You're using false equivalency of online and offline environments to rationalize what isn't justifiable. And from the start I've distinguished between offline and online environments to say that people don't have the same rights when they're visiting somebody else's environment as they do when they're in their own environment.

I've been told by many anti-Microsoft folks that Windows is pretty much irrelevant these days because the average computing device user is using online services. The notion of offline and online environments that are supposed to adhere to your rules is beyond ridiculous. Your thinking in stuck in the 1980s.

Again, this is at the core of much of the debate over Windows 10. Microsoft understands that the average person doesn't give a shit about your definition that they'd never understand. That's not to say that they have made mistakes or that privacy isn't extremely important but there's no way in hell the number of people what use these services would be using them if they saw it your way.

 

[heatlesssun]

You just typed a whole bunch of excuses without addressing the real issue.

Windows 10 could literally disappear from the face of the world tomorrow. Would that really fix anything that people that are supposedly concerned about privacy are saying. Of course not. I'm not making excuses it's just obvious that if this REALLY is about privacy and not Microsoft bashing, Windows 10 doesn't amount to a pile of yesterday's shit on this issue.

 

[Delicieuxz]

I've been told by many anti-Microsoft folks that Windows is pretty much irrelevant these days because the average computing device user is using online services. The notion of offline and online environments that are supposed to adhere to your rules is beyond ridiculous. Your thinking in stuck in the 1980s.

You're repeating the same depraved tactic as you did in your previous post, to which I said:


Because of that, and because you tried to plant a negative, self-opposing seed in people's minds using sentiment-laden rhetoric featuring a false premise:

"In the real world with average people who the hell is really thinking about offline vs online?"

... makes me seriously believe that you are paid by Microsoft to spread propaganda for them, to the detriment of the average person.



And here you use the same tactic again:

Again, this is at the core of much of the debate over Windows 10. Microsoft understands that the average person doesn't give a shit about your definition that they'd never understand.

To which I've just said:

Because of that, and because you tried to plant a negative, self-opposing seed in people's minds using sentiment-laden rhetoric featuring a false premise:

"In the real world with average people who the hell is really thinking about offline vs online?"

... makes me seriously believe that you are paid by Microsoft to spread propaganda for them, to the detriment of the average person.


And everybody already understands what I've written, as it is the core understanding that all Western property rights are built upon, and is the means by which any person owns anything and has any rights to their property.



And you finish off with another false and rationalizing assertion:

That's not to say that they have made mistakes or that privacy isn't extremely important but there's no way in hell the number of people what use these services would be using them if they saw it your way.

You are nothing resembling honest, and you're trying to fake out people into turning against their own interests. You are obviously shilling for corporate and anti-individual interests. You are wrong in what you say, and in your morals.

 

[heatlesssun]

You are nothing resembling honest, and you're trying to fake out people into turning against their own interests. You are obviously shilling for corporate and anti-individual interests. You are wrong in what you say, and in your morals.

I have no idea how much honest anyone can be by pointing out that modern day computing involves connecting to god know how many other things that the average person has no knowledge off. It's beyond honest in pointing out not a single privacy issue would be resolved if Windows 10 died right now. The average person living in a developed economy is online and connected 24x7 today. Most all that they do routinely with a computing device involves a connected experience.

When half the people I see out in public are face planted into a smartphone, and I know you've see this as well, I have no idea how in the hell you can label anything I say as anything but the observable truth.

 

[Delicieuxz]

I have no idea how much honest anyone can be by pointing out that modern day computing involves connecting to god know how many other things that the average person has no knowledge off. It's beyond honest in pointing out not a single privacy issue would be resolved if Windows 10 died right now. The average person living in a developed economy is online and connected 24x7 today. Most all that they do routinely with a computing device involves a connected experience.

When half the people I see out in public are face planted into a smartphone, and I know you've see this as well, I have no idea how in the hell you can label anything I say as anything but the observable truth.

You mean the fiction and paid-for Microsoft propaganda that you're spewing?

Every one of your attempted deceptions relies on ignoring the details of the subject and attempting to trick readers into a 'who cares?' attitude. But each argument you've made is false and has done nothing to change, sway, or shift the distinction between personal activities in personally-owned environments and software, vs activities in online environments owned by somebody else.

And even the online environments that you're saying are integral to the normal activities of many people are not public environments, they are privately-owned.


You are literally arguing that hardforum.com doesn't belong to Kyle and that people who visit it should adopt a 'who cares?' attitude about who it belongs to, and should treat it as their own property and expect full personal rights over his site.

You are literally arguing that Microsoft doesn't belong to Microsoft, and that all people should expect to be able to do whatever they want with Microsoft's data - which would including pirating all of their software.


You don't even understand the arguments that you're spitting out. Your method of argumentation is mindless shilling for another party, and is advocating for IP theft.


Distinction of property ownership doesn't matter?: Then everyone is free to pirate Microsoft products and hack and exploit their services.
Distinction of property ownership matters?: Then Microsoft nor other company is entitled to accessing and taking people's own data generated by their own electricity, hardware, software, housing, time, activity, will.

 

[heatlesssun]

Every one of your attempted deceptions relies on ignoring the details of the subject and attempting to trick readers into a 'who cares?' attitude.

What I am saying is that do average people who use connected devices know exactly what those devices are doing? Hell I don't even claim to know what Windows 10 does, even as it has an app that shows all the data that it's collecting.

Get off the high horse. Billions of people everyday are sharing data with who the hell knows. Eradicate Windows 10 from the face of Earth day, sucks for me because I have spent a lot on money on stuff that because useless but fine. I'll take the hit if would actually solve any of your concerns. That you are thinking like is 1982 and thinking about offline versus computing tells me that you have no idea what you're really talking about.

The average person that uses a computing device is using a web site or phone app. Web sites work on anything and Windows phones failed. Your rantings are meaningless/

 

[Delicieuxz]

What I am saying is that do average people who use connected devices know exactly what those devices are doing? Hell I don't even claim to know what Windows 10 does, even as it has an app that shows all the data that it's collecting.

Get off the high horse. Billions of people everyday are sharing data with who the hell knows. Eradicate Windows 10 from the face of Earth day, sucks for me because I have spent a lot on money on stuff that because useless but fine. I'll take the hit if would actually solve any of your concerns. That you are thinking like is 1982 and thinking about offline versus computing tells me that you have no idea what you're really talking about.

The average person that uses a computing device is using a web site or phone app. Web sites work on anything and Windows phones failed. Your rantings are meaningless/

Again, a whole lot of nothing that relates to the topic. Case-in-point: "Windows 10 from the face of Earth day, sucks for me because I have spent a lot on money on stuff"


Can't find a relation to the topic, there.


You also spent a lot of money on your PC hardware and software, your electricity, your home, etc. which makes Microsoft-invades-your-property-and-steals-your-personal-and-private-data-and-sells-it-to-whoever-they-want day suck for everybody, too.

 

[vegeta535]

Good. Now roll this out through out the entire country.

 

[B00nie]

My offline desktop activities are not engaging anybody else'e environments but my own, which is privately-owned by me, and the rules for which are set by me.

See, that's where you fail. You don't own Windows, you've just purchased a right to use it. Microsoft dictates what happens on your computer as long as you choose to keep _that_ OS on it.

 

[Delicieuxz]

See, that's where you fail. You don't own Windows, you've just purchased a right to use it. Microsoft dictates what happens on your computer as long as you choose to keep _that_ OS on it.

Actually, that's wrong. I do own my Windows - and you own yours:

I don't own the Windows Intellectual Property.

I DO own my Windows instance which is represented by my Windows license:


This software (IP) is licensed, not sold.
This software (license / instance) is sold, not licensed.


When corporations use the 'this software is licensed, not sold' line, they're referring to the software IP but are presenting it in a manner that played mind games with semantics in order to bias public perception in favour of the corporation to make it seem as if the purchasers, the owners of Windows instances do not hold rights of power over the corporation.

But, the instances of that IP represented by the perpetual licenses are most-definitely sold. They are sold as much as anything in this world is sold. And when you purchase one, you become the owner of an instance of Windows, which you are the full proprietor of, with all property and decision-making rights over that instance of Windows belonging solely to you. The top European Union court has even ruled on this.

When a sale occurs, there is also a transfer of ownership that occurs at the point of sale. What was sold and what transferred ownership in the sale of a perpetual Windows license? The unrestricted right to access and use a single instance of the Windows OS. You bought an instance of Windows, which you now own and are the sole-proprietor of. And you rightfully hold all decision-making authority over the instances of Windows that you have purchased.


The situation is no different than when people purchase cars from car dealerships:

This car (IP) is licensed, not sold.
This car (license) is sold, not licensed.

If you buy a car from a dealership, you don't become the owner of the copyrighted design of that vehicle, its appearance, its naming, its patented technology, etc. You instead only receive a non-reproduceable instance of the Intellectual Property of that car. It is exactly the same with software, as it is with movies, music, etc - with all of those things, and with every retail product, you are only buying a license to a non-reproduceable instance of an IP.



The semantical mind games that corporations including Microsoft play go both ways:

When you buy a perpetual software license, you have bought the software, and you own the software - just not the software IP. When you purchase a perpetual Windows license, you own Windows - just not the IP for Windows.


Windows owners should not be doing and spreading the dirty work of thuggish and deceitful corporations like Microsoft.

 

[B00nie]

Actually, that's wrong. I do own my Windows - and you own yours:

I don't own the Windows Intellectual Property.

I DO own my Windows instance which is represented by my Windows license:

No, you own the right to use only. You do not own any rights to Windows and Microsoft is capable of doing whatever it wants with your computer. This is the reality.

When you lease a car from a lease company, the lease company may have included a kill switch, enabling them to remotely kill your vehicle if you don't comply with payments or other rules. Same as Microsoft remotely booting your computer at will, removing software, changing settings and generally stomping on you.

At least the car lease company doesn't remotely fuck with your drivers seat or AC settings and drain the oil once in a while. They would if they were Microsoft though.

 

[Delicieuxz]

No, you own the right to use only. You do not own any rights to Windows and Microsoft is capable of doing whatever it wants with your computer. This is the reality.

When you lease a car from a lease company, the lease company may have included a kill switch, enabling them to remotely kill your vehicle if you don't comply with payments or other rules. Same as Microsoft remotely booting your computer at will, removing software, changing settings and generally stomping on you.

At least the car lease company doesn't remotely fuck with your drivers seat or AC settings and drain the oil once in a while. They would if they were Microsoft though.

Again, that's not how things are: You didn't lease your Windows license - you bought it.

For what you're suggesting, Microsoft would have to be licensing the licenses for Windows, or leasing Windows licenses. But Microsoft isn't - they're selling Windows licenses.

No, you own the right to use only. You do not own any rights to Windows

That depends on whether you define Windows as the IP, which people don't own, or as the individual instance which you may have bought via a license, which you do own.

The highest EU court has ruled on the matter (meaning that no lower court can contradict its ruling):

EU highest court says software licence terms can be ignored
EU Court: When You Buy Software You Own It
EU Court Says, Yes, You Can Resell Your Software, Even If The Software Company Says You Can't

The reason why you have a right to use software is because you bought as many instances of the software as your license is for.


And I think there have been 3 court cases in the USA that have touched upon a similar debate over the identity of software licenses (though none that were ruled on by the USA's supreme court). In 2 of the cases the judges ruled that people couldn't sell software licenses, and in one of the cases the judge ruled that you can resell software licenses.

In one of the cases where the judge decided that people don't have an automatic right to resell their software licenses, the reasoning was fallacious, with the judge agreeing that software is licensed, not sold. But that's obviously a case of a judge not understanding software and tech and being confused, because the licenses for software are sold, not licensed - which means that software licenses, each representing a defined set of rights for a non-reproduceable instance of software, are property that undergo a change in ownership along with their selling and buying. And once a publisher sells its software licenses, they can't treat them as though still their property to decide whether they may or may not be resold by the people who've bought them and become the owners of those software licenses.

This is what has been ruled in Europe, and it is the logical understanding. One or two US judges in different states have been hood-winked by corporations' mental games, but the matter in the US has not been resolved one way or the other. For that to occur, the matter will have to go before the US' supreme court to get a definitive ruling. But publishers and software corporations have thus far been unwilling to let a case on software licenses go to the US supreme court - and I believe that's because they know the outcome will be the same as it was in Europe. The "software is licensed, not sold" only applied to the software IP, and not the software licenses and the instances they represent. Those are obviously sold and undergo transfer-of-ownership at the point of sale.


The mental gymnastics of some publishers and corporations that aim to trick people out of their property and rights, for the selfish benefit of those publishers and corporations, is just that. There is no definitive ruling backing such claims, and the highest, most-authoritative ruling there has been on the matter says that you own the software you buy licenses for. You just don't own the software IP.


Also, EULAs are not laws, but are subject to laws. If what a publisher writes in an EULA is unreasonable, it risks invalidating the entire EULA. If a publisher claimed that you didn't own what you purchased, they would risk making their entire EULA legally indefensible. If you were advertised a product (which Windows is) and you paid for that product yet you didn't receive that product but only some abstract idea about that product, then you would have been robbed and whoever claimed to be selling you that product would be guilty of theft and would be criminally liable.

Publishers and corporations play mind games with semantics over "software" because they want to bias customer perception in their favour, to ward off potential challenges, and to keep their customers from acting out of a sense of rights - which those who have purchased their software do actually have.

 

[B00nie]

You only have the right to use (insert version here) of Windows. The lease period is the planned lifespan of the version. I.e. you bought Windows 7. You do not own a copy of Windows 7 but you're allowed to use it until it's end of life. After that your Windows7 may cease to function at any given time and MS won't give a damn. They may even release an update to break it in order to encourage you to switch OS.

As what goes of your right to resell that right to use bears no meaning in this discussion. The fact is you don't own your Windows 7 or any Windows for that matter so you cannot dictate also what Microsoft does with your OS. And by that you release control of your computer hardware to Microsoft when you install their OS. The only way to own your computer is to use free and open source software and OS.