Microsoft announced this week that the latest version of its flagship operating system, Windows 10, would become a recommended update, starting in 2016, for users of current Windows platforms.
For several weeks, users of Windows 7 and Windows 8 have received periodic offers to upgrade to the latest iteration of the Windows operating system for free, however the move next year to “recommended update” will result in the new version automatically initiating its instillation on user’s PC’s.
“Early next year, we expect to be re-categorizing Windows 10 as a “Recommended Update”. Depending upon your Windows Update settings, this may cause the upgrade process to automatically initiate on your device. Before the upgrade changes the OS of your device, you will be clearly prompted to choose whether or not to continue” wrote Microsoft’s executive of Windows and Devices Group, Terry Myerson on Microsoft’s official Windows blog.
Myerson went on to explain that users could still refuse the Windows 10 upgrade. A prompt that appears prior to installation will verify whether users want to continue with the upgrade or not, and of course, users could always turn off the option of automatic updates within their current Windows operating system, however turning off those updates would also turn off security upgrades to Windows systems that could leave a user more vulnerable to threats.
Windows 10 has faced criticism since its launch earlier in the year as a platform for Microsoft to spy on its users.
A Newsweek report from August of this year detailed Microsoft’s desire to collect as much information as possible from Windows 10‘s users:
“From the moment an account is created, Microsoft begins watching. The company saves customers’ basic information – name, contact details, passwords, demographic data and credit card specifics.”
“Other information Microsoft saves includes Bing search queries and conversations with the new digital personal assistant Cortana; contents of private communications such as email; websites and apps visited (including features accessed and length of time used); and contents of private folders. Furthermore, your typed and handwritten words are collected.”
Tech outlet NetworkWorld.com also reported on the peeping propensity of Microsoft’s new Cortana (named after the same Cortana A.I. that features as Master Chief’s assistant in the Halo saga) personal assistant, writing that “she” has “access to your camera and microphone, and more importantly, it has access to your contacts, calendar, and probably all of your documents.”
Microsoft was caught forcing the update on users without their knowledge earlier in the year, which the company claims is an accident.
The insistence of Microsoft on having users upgrade, coupled with the massive amounts of data that they are collecting through Windows 10 would naturally lead one to question just what Microsoft is planning on doing with all of that information?
While an onslaught of targeted advertisements based off of user’s searches (and possibly recorded conversations sent to Microsoft) are a natural assumption, it is also interesting to note that this announcement comes in the same week that the controversial Cyber Information Sharing Act, known as CISA, passed the U.S. Senate.
The legislation, which has been billed as necessary for protecting America from acts of cyber terrorism, passed by a 74 to 21 vote margin, was sold as being a tool for fighting cyber-terrorism, however it has faced an avalanche of criticism as a tool for further domestic spying.
“The bill encourages tech giants and other companies to disregard existing privacy agreements and share citizens’ personal information with the federal government in exchange for immunity from prosecution by angry customers.” according to a report from the Register in the United Kingdom.
The London Guardian quoted Princeton University Professor, and member of the Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy, David S. Levine, said that CISA would damage the Freedom of Information Act.
“The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) would be neutralized, while a cornucopia of federal agencies could have access to the public’s heretofore private-held information with little fear that such sharing would ever be known to those whose information was shared.”
The Guardian further noted that CISA was “negotiated in secret” and that amendments that were introduced as ways to try to protect the privacy of private citizens, were all shot down.
A Wired Magazine article published this past March, quoted policy lawyer for the Open Technology Institute, Robyn Green’s assessment of CISA’s ability to override existing privacy legislation:
“CISA trumps privacy laws like the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986 and the Privacy Act of 1974, which restrict eavesdropping and sharing of users’ communications. And once the DHS obtains the information, it would automatically be shared with the NSA, the Department of Defense (including Cyber Command), and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.”
Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who is currently in exile in Russia because of his revelations of the extent of the NSA’s domestic spying programs, was concise in his stance against CISA; tweeting that “a vote for CISA was a vote against the internet.”
What all this could mean, is that information previously gathered through warrant-less surveillance by government agencies, which is a violation of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, would now be “voluntarily collected from users through user-agreements, such as the one included in Windows 10, by companies like Microsoft. That data would then be submitted, wholesale to those agencies by those corporations, who would then be shielded from legal repercussions.
Of the five members of the U.S. Senate who are currently running for President of the United States, only one, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, voted against CISA. Marco Rubio of Florida and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina voted in favor, while Ted Cruz of Texas and surprisingly, Rand Paul (who has made ending warrant-less spying a centerpiece f his Presidential campaign) of Kentucky, were both absent from the vote.
This is disgusting. This country has become nothing short of a disgrace. I hope in some miraculous turn of events that this “deal” buries Microsoft.
Anyway, great article Watchman! You filled me in on some stuff I didn’t know.
America – and more specifically the corporate “religion” by which we operate certainly has its problems, but a disgrace? That’s a harsh word. As the old saying goes, “freedom isn’t free.” Would I be thrilled if some flunkie at Microsoft could look at my records and sift through every scrap of porn I’ve looked through? Of course not, but if it’s this type of vigilance saves us from the next 9-11 or Sandy Hook Shooting then I’m all for it.
I get why people are uncomfortable with the collection of information, but I hope they realize that, most of the time, it is being put towards legitimate uses. And before long everything we do is going to be under surveillance, recorded, and archived…whether it’s Microsoft today or the US government tomorrow. It’s not really a question of “if” activity like this is going to be permitted, it’s a question of “when.” But what if tomorrow your family was killed in an attack? What if information gleaned from someone’s inbox TODAY could’ve stopped it? Would America still be a disgrace?
Don’t get me wrong, I see where you are coming from, Cubist. I would most likely agree with you too, if the F.B.I hadn’t debunked that very claim by explicitly stating that the program has failed to stop any crimes or catch any criminals. If you google anything about police, you will most likely come across many articles stating “even if you aren’t a subject, do NOT talk to the police, because you can and most likely will incriminate yourself (even if your innocent!)” Well, this program is basically giving the police full access without even having to talk to them. For example, I read an article a while back shortly after the Boston bombing that police raided someone who googled a pressure cooker. Turns out, the person simply wanted it to, you guessed it, cook! However, they were harassed and treated like a criminal. The program has failed to stop any terrorist attack or mass shooting in recent history, and this isn’t because it wasn’t implemented yet – oh no, this program has been around from Bush era.
America’s constitution gives us the right to be secure in our homes, and to be free from warrantless searches. This program doesn’t require a warrant, though the government would love for you to believe otherwise. (Thank you, Edward Snowden!) Therefore, if the government is going to trample on the constitution, then I feel like they best have some damn good results – which they don’t.
Ugh I hate seeing this crap bc I feel like I have no control. My only option is to not use the internet, only use a landline phone at home, and no social media. Even then, I’m not convinced we can avoid this stuff. It sucks. Great article tho Dave!