Re: In today's news...
That's kind of not even the point, for me at least. I shouldn't have to go so absurdly far out of my way to keep the things I do, in the privacy of my own home, private. I don't care WHO is looking at that information/recording, but that it is being MADE in the first place, on MY DIME to boot! It can sit on a server for a hundred years never being looked at, I still don't want it done.
Not only that, but this is in fact illegal in the U.S. Being that if I am alone in my own house, with all the doors and windows/blinds closed, using my computer that is connected to the internet, yet not actively browsing said internet, I have a right to privacy as to my activity (I believe this also extends to browsing [browsing, not posting on] the internet, but am unsure) and windows 10 / all others that are receiving the telemetry updates are invading that privacy by logging my keystrokes, as well as taking video and sound recordings.
Now I know, they probably have somewhere in their terms of use policy that you give up that right when using their software, but that's a load of crap. You can't take legal rights away, or give yourself the right to commit illegal acts in a terms of use policy.
Okay, take two. See the above post (kept separate for ease of formatting) for the hilarity of posting at 3 am. Now on to the actual response.
There's two separate points I'll address here. First, you've stated things that should not be, which as I've said, I agree with, but here's the thing. "So what?" What are you going to do about it? Whatever a particular answer may be, what I'm getting at is a problem is only a problem if it has a solution. I could elaborate at length, but it would likely be an affair that would bore us both, but long story short, one of the big reasons I get annoyed by "scandals" and the "outrage" generated in response is because outrage is an entirely useless response that only serves to reinforce it's own negative feelings. Say you have problem X, and that makes you mad. By getting mad, not only do do you still have a problem which is causing trouble but now you're in a bad mood, which sucks. I much prefer to just find a solution and work towards that than ever indulge in emotional response. Not to say I don't have emotions, obviously, but when someone simply tells me they don't like the current state of affairs, while I can empathize, I just have to ask "So what?" "What exactly do you want?" and "How do you propose we go about this change?"
The second point is the "right to privacy". This could get lengthy in several side tangents about the nature of rights overall, but we probably don't need to get into that. I will point out, though, that the jury is still out (ha), legally speaking, on whether or not the US Constitution protects such a right to privacy, and if so, in what circumstances. There is case law that can be used as example in both directions, and some of those examples are actually on rather shaky legal ground, in danger of being overturned, are flukes, or in other strange states of limbo. That being said, when it comes to e-surveillance, I'm pretty sure any court could (though not necessarily would) nail the right to privacy argument so hard it would be blasted into next Tuesday.
Theoretically, you could be using 100% private infrastructure, in which case the argument would hold up (and such networks do exist, such as if I physically wired my desktop to my laptop, or on an office private network, for example), but when using the internet at large, you're going to have to use some public infrastructure, or some asset that has to be publicly regulated because of necessity, lest the internet cease to function because of protocol incompatibilities or scrambled DNS lookups. The fact of the matter is, you may PHYSICALLY be sitting at home using the internet, but when you use the internet you are NOT in your own home. You have left the confines of your property. The public infrastructure does indeed mean some of your resources are going to maintain what you're using, and potentially to look at what you're doing. But guess what, so are MY resources, and guess what else... I don't trust you, so let the observation on public networks commence! Why? Well, in this example, because I'm being a dick for the sake of argument, but it doesn't take much effort at all to come up with some more practical examples. I have a friend, let's call him Matt (because that's his name), and Matt has real trouble asking for permission. Just yesterday he was in my house and suddenly started using my computer, to check his financial statements (unwise for many other reasons, but I'll not harp on that as well). Due to the nature of the information involved (we share the same bank, same college, etc), he had to go there first and log me out (because I'm also not as careful as I should be). I cringed and mildly protested, but because I was sitting here watching and he didn't actually do anything malicious, I let him proceed. If he actually did start to compromise my data, however, you can bet there would have been some manner of physical altercation.
Using the internet as a whole is the same thing. It's really not that hard to fuck things up if you're trying, and to a certain degree, we trust that those we share the virtual space with to behave. With that in mind, if someone actually is dicking around with something that could negatively impact me, using resources that in part I am responsible for, it's only reasonable that at least some level of protection is in place. For those that do not wish to abide by the rules for using public goods, there is always an alternative: do not participate. While it's true that a lot of Terms and Conditions are BS (and a lot of the BS does get thrown out in court), if you're going to be using someone else's stuff it's only reasonable that they are allowed to set some form of terms and conditions at all.
While on the surface, you gave a very good specific example of a situation in which privacy can be expected, because the issue at hand seems to be Windows 10 reporting data even without internet usage, honestly, if they put in the terms and conditions that it does that, from a legal standpoint I'd err on Microsoft's side. They are not taking away your right to privacy, because you willingly surrendered it yourself. If you do not surrender your right to privacy, then do not use the product. The licence agreement is specifically telling you this. They are giving you the option, the option to not have information transmitted from Windows 10 by not using Windows 10. There's also a few legal caveats I should make clear as well. When terms and conditions are thrown out in court, there are typically very clear reasons for doing so, most often having to do with purchase rights. Typically if you "buy" something through a service, the courts very much say you own it, and that terms and conditions of the service can't set restrictions on the product. In this case, it likely wouldn't apply because 1) Windows 10 is free in most circumstances, so there's no loss involved in the choice. You didn't buy anything. 2) There is no separate product, Windows 10's terms applying to itself stick a lot better than say iTunes' terms applying to songs, because in Windows 10's case it's all one and the same. 3) Because you didn't actually buy anything, you merely entered into a deal with Microsoft, you are in essence "in their house", and thus they have a lot more freedom to make rules about what goes on in their house. 4) Even if you had done something such a bought a ticket for an amusement park, if you get drunk and barf everywhere, they'll still kick you out. Same applies here. If a Microsoft service is used in a way they don't agree with, they at least have the right to refuse to serve you. As a separate, final legal caveat, courts have never found a right to privacy beyond a "reasonable" right to privacy. That's the reason the whole doors locked, curtains drawn was important for the example. For the above stated reasons, the reasonable-ness of such a right to privacy when using Windows 10 is negligible. I mean, for me, the law is just a hobby, my true profession is more akin to policy analysis/clerical work/statistical researcher, but someone with an actual law degree could at least take the argument I've made here up to a very high level in the courts, and I'd wager have at least a 50/50 shot of winning, if not greater. I'll state again: I do not like Windows 10, think online surveillance has gone too far, and the whole 9 yards, but credit always needs to go where credit is due. The best thing to do is to simply just not use Windows 10 if so concerned about it. By using it you are consenting to the system. If you want to stop the trend, stick with existing OS and let 10 flop.
Edit: And for the record, so we all know where I stand, I'm still pissed I had to get rid of XP last December finally
