Why You Must Dump Microsoft NOW
Posted by XenokRoy 8 years, 8 months ago to Government
While this article has a great deal of truth within it (Microsoft is a big government spy) what it fails to mention is that so is Google, Yahoo and now with Steve Jobs gone I would bet apple.
Purely an observation on my part. The government (a few years back) filed a series of security warnings on many tech companies. When a tech company (facebook was first) changed privacy policies so that they could collect and share with the NSA the inquisitions against that company went away.
The only CEO to let the hearing about their security to actually happen before congress was Steve Jobs. He proved that peoples names and personal informaiton that could be used for billing was secure. When apple did get hacked they go pictures but could not get the credit card numbers, SSNs and other person info.
The point is after jobs died apple then adjusted their privacy notices as well.
While much of this article (extremely bias) is true there is no tech company I am aware of that has any significant user base that is not open to share its data with the NSA based on privacy agreements.
Does anyone know of one?
Purely an observation on my part. The government (a few years back) filed a series of security warnings on many tech companies. When a tech company (facebook was first) changed privacy policies so that they could collect and share with the NSA the inquisitions against that company went away.
The only CEO to let the hearing about their security to actually happen before congress was Steve Jobs. He proved that peoples names and personal informaiton that could be used for billing was secure. When apple did get hacked they go pictures but could not get the credit card numbers, SSNs and other person info.
The point is after jobs died apple then adjusted their privacy notices as well.
While much of this article (extremely bias) is true there is no tech company I am aware of that has any significant user base that is not open to share its data with the NSA based on privacy agreements.
Does anyone know of one?
I worked for company 50 years ago and we were that was coerced into buying out a competitor that had completely blotched a US government job in a foreign country. They alleged antitrust against us to be ignored if we absorbed the criminal company that had paid off government inspectors to pay for work not done and materials that did not meet specifications. Others in the industry were making jokes about us being so stupid but we were keeping our CEO, who was a great man, out of prison on a fake charge. The world has not gotten better in 50 years, it has gotten worse. Until tens of millions are willing to sacrifice more than an inconvenience, this will continue.
There is so much in that TV series that IS real, I know I have worked for companies that implement it, and in fact it is almost worse in real life than this series portrays.
I think the Government secretly sponsors TV shows like this so people become desensitized to these offenses against our privacy and personal liberty.
But then again too many say violent video games have no impact on society or people...so
A bit off topic but:
As far as the violent video games having an effect on people, there is a good reason why you find data to support both sides. I was watching a talk show video at one point where they interviewed a guy that did training and then reverse training for the military. I paraphrase here as its been a while I do not remember the words exactly but the basic idea has stuck with me.
He talked about how they trained solders from the Vietnam period through the Iraq war. He was retired now but he designed the program for about 30 years, I can't recall his name and I think it was Glenn Becks program that had him on.
At one point they trained just to kill everything that moved. PTSD was more often and more severe, then they added civil targets to reduce accidental death of civilians. he found something odd. When people choose to kill the bad guys and save the good guys PTSD cases were far fewer, and those that occurred were less sever. He then talked about studies this spawned and what they found was very interesting and could be directly related to violence in computer games.
They found that people who were asked (and later in studies rewarded) for taking out precised good guys became more violent and had more mental problems. However when backstory was given that made the people they were "killing" in practice bad, and also had perceived good guys the increased violent tendencies were completely eliminated and doing scenarios of this type after real combat helped to reduce the likelihood of PTSD problems when returning to normal life. They found doing scenerios that were positive like this as a group actually improved the way in which men related with each other and the world around them.
He then talked about applying this to video games.
A game that has you commuting crime and being rewarded for it, or killing a perceived good guy (cop) or civilian will have a negative effect. "A game that makes you a criminal, is training you to be a criminal" I think that is word for word.
On the flip side a game which makes you a hero and enforced by rewarding positive behaviors, regardless of the violence instills positive behaviors in the person, particularly if the person is playing the game with a group of friends.
I like computer games, and have bonded with my kids by playing some violent ones. Some games just felt bad to me, like the who car stealing game line (cant think of its name right now) and some others where the hero you are playing is just dark. When I listened to this guy it clicked for me, it made sense and while I was basically doing it anyway I could not put into words what seemed right to me.
It is not the violence in the game, it is the context of that violence the breeds the ill effect in the person playing the game. This explains a great deal in the conflicting studies around this subject, and reinforces that context and the thought patterns that must go through the mind are what is really risky and can cause harm. Violence is certifiably a compounding factor when the context is wrong, but it makes sense to say that if you want your kids to be good, let them play good guys and the opposite it true as well.
If you have a game that has you stealing cars, raping women and then getting rewarded for doing so with a big old bonus for shooting a cop in the face, what context is that game teaching to be acceptable?
If a muslim nut wanted to really condition the terrorists they would make games where you go out kill the jews and americans, strap on bombs and get points for the civilians you killed. Get enough points before you die and you end up in a room full of beautiful virgins. Get less points end up in a room of not so beautiful virgins and if you really screw up. You score poor you get this guys afterlife. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMpvv...
About twenty years ago, my then young son introduced me to the game Doom, where you run around a dungeon and shoot Nazis. I took my turn and when the door opened there was one of the Nazis facing the other way. I shot him.
My son said, "You can't do that, Dad. You are a Knight".
I agreed and from then on waited for the Nazis to turn around.
Also what medieval recreation group? SCA, Dagorhir or something else? I only ask because I use to do both of those at different times in my past.
SCA was fun but a bit more political than I wanted, so I wussed out to Dagorhir as the politics were less and I could just go fight. Although that only lasted for about 10 years and then I quit it as well.
I would be giant ball of sweat if just put on my 35 pound chainmail shirt and jogged for 10 minutes. :)
Jan
Jan
Dagorihir is about the acting/character and the fighting. A small minority really take the in role seriously and do not fit in well in the real world. Ultimately they were why I quit.
A "kingdom" decided to take on a Scottish element to it, including kilts and well some of the Scottish battle habits. Which include turning your back to your enemy and pulling the kilt up. A few also took on the aspect of what they do not wear beneath the kilt from the scotts that should have been forgotten.
Getting flashed before or sometimes during every fight was just more than I cared for, and something I did not care to talk to them about so I decided it was time to quit. We had been thinking about doing so anyway.
Jan
The interview with this guy was really interesting. It was a podcast from Glenn Becks program I listened too and I looked a bit but I can never find them again if I do not save them.
I have since thought that the perhaps some of the same (context of what the movie makes good or bad) can likely be applied to movies as well.
It wasn't easy for me to make the switch to Linux after I swore off M$ after XP, but today's good distros have overcome most of that. Linux is still not great for the gamers, but otherwise so many FREE and GOOD Open Source apps are included with the distros. I got my life back!
I looked at making the Linux switch as well, but one of my favorite time burning things to do would have to go too.
I think sites would have to add support for such functionality as well as the company that designed the software to do it on the consumer device.
as for Stocks. Those were gone in 2006 roughly. Along with Starbucks. Two years before the US Went bankrupt. Where? Ha ha surely you jest?
As for the product itself. Preaching to the choir. We started saying that openly in the early nineties.
Take note of the targeted advertising on your PC. If you pay attention you will notice ads, here and there, that target you - yet you never did a search or addressed that topic in an email or on social media.
the privacy we generally concern ourselves with is the rights to privacy under the constitution for individuals.
Corporations are also considered and "individual" but they have very different rules that govern their privacy, ESPECIALLY if they are publicly traded and fall under SEC rules and regulations.
The Privacy rules are between the company and the Government, and ONLY the privacy rules in the ever-changing terms between you and the company which THEY indicate are subject to change without notice means that any data or information you save on the Google Drive, Dropbox, Microsoft 360 are 100% at the disposal of the company and/or the Government.
I have written gobs about this and was told, Mark, your crazy. HAHAHAHAH, I was right and seem to be always proven right after the fact. BAH hehehe
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...
The Fourth Amendment originally enforced the notion that “each man’s home is his castle”, secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. It protects against arbitrary arrests, and is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to many other criminal law topics and to privacy law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privacy
right of privacy: an overview
Distinct from the right of publicity protected by state common or statutory law, a broader right of privacy has been inferred in the Constitution. Although not explicity stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890 then to be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled 'a right to be left alone.' This right has developed into a liberty of personal autonomy protected by the 14th amendment. The 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments also provide some protection of privacy, although in all cases the right is narrowly defined. The Constitutional right of privacy has developed alongside a statutory right of privacy which limits access to personal information. The Federal Trade Commission overwhelmingly enforces this statutory right of privacy, and the rise of privacy policies and privacy statements are evidence of its work. In all of its forms, however, the right of privacy must be balanced against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include the promotion of public morality, protection of the individual's psychological health, and improving the quality of life. These distinct rights of privacy are examined separately on the following pages:
Due Process
Introduction
The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures. Most of this essay concerns that promise. We should briefly note, however, three other uses these words have had in American constitutional law.
did not take the time to write this up. In a constitution law class some years back (the professor was bias on the liberal side) he brought up this point, that privacy law came about later and was not part of the constitution. It was expanded to some extent by due process but largely stands separate from the constitution, thanks for the details.
To not know YOUR constitution is to NOT know your rights and the LACK of rights the Government really has.
From everything I have seen there is no constitutional right to privacy. I think there should be.
Data is your property, "unless" you choose to place it someplace NOT in your control.
Due Process specifically state the government cannot come to YOUR home and seize YOUR property without warrant which requires probable cause.
The second you place YOUR stuff under someone elses control though all bets are off.
Protection of privacy would for example keep someone from using a telescopic lens from taking a picture through your window from the road.
Once again Due process states that they cannot come to your home and seize your property without warrant, but that does not say they cannot sit at the edge of your property and listen for what you might say and then use that against you in some way.
The technology did not exist for privacy concerns to be part of the constitution. About the only thing that could have been added as a protection from someone else (including government) taking a look at your snail mail.
I can see where you are attempting to create a parallel and some judges would support it, but there is no privacy clause in the constitution. Nothing calls out a right to privacy.
What would such a provision be needed for in the late 1700s? You could I guess ease drop on a conversation or high a spy to work for someone and report back what you heard.
The closest thing to it would have been a provision that expressly forbade the interception and reading of mail delivered by Currier. That would have been a right to privacy clause for the time period, but it does not exist.
We do have right to due process, and right to being compensated should they decide to take our property "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." from the 4th amendment. That clause it what the supreme court used as justification for imminent domain being constitutional. So we really are not even guaranteed that our property cannot be seized only that they have to compensate us for it.
It does not in any way limit government or others from taking pictures or making recordings from the road sides. If it can be seen from the road its fare game. I would not call those limitations nearly enough to protection of privacy, but rather protection from search and seizure. It does nothing to protect mail from inspection by authorities, which today would be the email and other such communication.
An oversight in my opinion but one that is still present and will be forever, unless we make an amendment to cover privacy.
Your DATA is your property. If you use Microsoft 360, Google Drive, Dropbox, or accept Microsoft's EULA that says you GIVE permission then your personal privacy, i.e. your data, what you do in your home, now becomes the right of the government to intrude on.
THAT is the point.
They have back doored around the property protection, which is not privacy protection, by having deals with companies to get information.
If you had privacy protection it would be illegal for any entity to sell your information or provide it without your consent. that would be a form of privacy protection. EMEA has laws like this now, we have never done so.
That is the point.
That's while I prefer to use a moniker.
Picking a moniker you can act out with can be fun.
http://dilbert.com/search_results?ter...
"A great deal of the decisions made with Windows 10 are of the 'damned if you do' and 'damned if you don't' variety. When we made Windows Update optional for home users --- users went years without updating their machines. As a result, an entire culture of remote exploitation, hacking, and bot-nets emerged. In Windows 10 (Home Edition only), updates are automatic. This is actually in line with nearly every other piece of software out there nowadays that auto-updates on launch.
When you encrypt people's cloud storage (remember, this is the free storage not the business storage) people have this great habit of losing their encryption keys and then calling up Microsoft expecting us to somehow let them in to their personal photos, data, etc, which are now gone forever. We decided to do what every other Cloud provider does and safeguard this. You can STILL encrypt your files and information using any other form of encryption -- and obviously if you lose THAT key -- you're on your own. Again, these are decisions made to service the 80% majority of home users. Apple/Google does the same thing."
Not true. Nearly all others allow the user to decide not to update (in my experience.)
Disclosure: Not updating is the choice that I often make. Although that may not be the right choice for others, it is the right choice for me, and my systems have not suffered from exploits. If I ran a web server subject to exploits, I would not choose MSFT os for the server and I would keep security updated.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-...
This also avoids most of the information collection from my systems. Looks like 10 Home will make this required to keep the prying eyes out.
Does this mean they push the ethics window, yes. Does it mean the get in bed with government, there should be no advantage in doing so but if there is then yes.
I do not like it but its our reality today.
Did Gates steal others technology and loose law suite after law suit about it. Yes, but it cheaper to do that than to pay the development costs and build a market himself. The problem is not with Gates, he is running a business in the most effective way possible, that was his job. The problem is the courts did not assign proper punishments for the damages they causes other companies.
The DR-DOS verses MS-DOS suit was lost, the company that ended up owning DR-DOS bought the lawsuit, they should have upon winning it gotten everything that had come from the theft, all of windows. Instead they got a non disclosed amount and had a one time earnings of 450 million. So it cost Microsoft 450 million to develop the initial OS they built the company on. Unethical but it is good financial sense for Microsoft.
No regulation is needed, no anti trust is needed. Just proper rewards for damages and this behavior would stop.
If Microsoft tracks and sales information that costs you later in life, you should be able to come at them for the damages and have it hurt them, problem would be solved as its no longer cost effective to sale a person information.
Microsoft attempted to get your money by controlling markets and leaving you no other choice.
Apple attempts to get your money by providing a product that is significantly better than others products. It will be very interesting to see what apple does as other phones catch up and surpass the iPhone. Will they continue to innovate and rule the market because people like their devices better, or will they turn to control of market through manipulation?
(Their own words!) What that really means is, “We’ll listen in, record what you type, then store it or sell it as we see fit.”
I would add: and/or give it to the government goons
I wouldn't characterise MSFT as the author of the article does, but he makes valid points about the contract, and he suggests a free market solution.
It also makes the patriot act something they can expire and not loose a drop of information on people in so doing.
much about it. I do not have an Internet computer
of my own, so I use the ones at the public library.
(I also am allow to use the ones at Goodwill and at
the Workforce Innovation Center down at the So-
cial Services Building, but when I need help to
send something over the machine, I can get it
more easily at the library). So I have to use
whatever program the machine at the place is
using. I don't have a credit card and have no in-
tention of ever getting one; I don't like them. I
have a lot of annoyance, in looking for jobs, with
having to read the Terms of Service of different
sites (I hate contracts to be longer than the En-
cyclopaedia Britannica), especially as they claim
the right to change them without notice; still, I
have found most of the ones I have seen to say
about the same thing. I do not put my Social
Security number over the Internet. Mostly, em-
ployers have not required this (on the Internet, I
mean), but a couple have, and in those cases I
have simply refused to go any further with the
application. (I would have had no objection to
writing it down for them on a piece of paper, our
giving it to them verbally over the phone). But
that is how things are in present circumstances.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-10ew...