Microsoft now blocks Windows 7 and 8.1 updates on Kaby Lake, Ryzen systems

[Raiderman]

Lol... that was dated from February of LAST year!!

Check your sources before you post... after receiving this flack about their OS, they released updates and allowed more control of your privacy settings... try some evidence from this year please

Also... you might want to read the comments for your "source".... they kind of shoot it down pretty handily.... My favourite comes around halfway down and pretty much annihilates your article single-handedly
____________________


Yannick Franssen ·
Works at Greenyard Prepared Belgium
I love how this is claiming that local network connections are telemetry-data related. Also, non of these "Port 80" connections are outgoing data. Windows can't do that by default, it will only receive data through port 80. And many of those others are just for DNS Teredo, the network status icon, activation services, etc. This test was literally manipulated so that Windows would make as much connections as possible in an as short time as possible. Honestly. If you don't activate Windows, it will go nuts trying to confirm the validity of your license causing it to try to connect with other IPs multiple times, many of the IPs in this list are just the activation servers. And there's nothing wrong with that. If I'm not sure, Windows performs a network connection test for the network icon in the system try at least every 30 seconds. So in the timespan of this "test", that on its own is already at least responsible for 960 connections over multiple IPs. And again, there is nothing wrong with that. The 94.245.121.253-IP, the #1 spot, is Teredo. Again nothing wrong with that.

The laughs come around when you go to #3 and #4. When you get there, you should really be scratching your head to whether or not you should take this serious any further. The IP-addresses listed on #3 and #4 are respectively 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.1.255. Together making up for another 1232 connections in this test. Anyone with basic knowledge knows that this is just plain wrong (well, it's not wrong in that these connections where maid, it's wrong to what these connections are devoted). First of all, these are the first and last IPs within their range. Second of all, it's within the 192.168-range. That's a range for local networks. No internet required.

Seriously, most of these connections can be reproduced on any other OS. Plenty of OS's connect with local connections, check for the network indicator, etc, etc. There's is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Not to mention that most of these connections that actually contain any serious data that is being send over secured connections.

Not to mention that, unlike what this article claims, that Chees-guy did not changing anything about possible telemetry changes. He just performed a clean install.

It is on topic, as it pertains to the fear mongering that Microsoft is doing themselves. Calling those that dislike what they have done, as fear mongering is ridiculous, yet its okay for Microsoft to do the same thing without any repercussions? Complete nonsense.

Do us all a favor, if you want proof, leave your pc on overnight for a week or two, and lets take a look at your router log, and see the traffic headed out? Do you know how to do this? Do I need to explain to you how to enable your router log, or log in to your router? No those connections cannot be reproduced by other OS's. Would you like to see my router log?

As I am becoming quite tired of being your google *****, you should try it yourself for a change. Funny how the EU is very worried about Microsoft's activities, yet there is nothing here in the states....wonder why?

http://searchsecurity.techtarget.co...ivacy-issues-persist-says-EU-privacy-watchdog
http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14682256/microsoft-windows-10-eu-privacy-concerns
http://windowsreport.com/windows-10-creators-updates-privacy-issue/

 

[Raiderman]

Since when do you have the right to keep your CPU private? Especially when your CPU actually matters for your OS...

Did you really just say that? LMAO That is funny as ****.

 

[Yynxs]

Since when do you have the right to keep your CPU private? Especially when your CPU actually matters for your OS...

roflmao...you really don't have a clue do you. This one will get kicked for personalizing the comment too, even though the last one talked about young people and lumped the poster in with them.

There were articles here, if you actually read everything on techspot and hackernews that specifically show that each bit of information about the computer can be combined with numerous other bits of information about the computer to identify a specific computer out of the mass of them. Which fonts are installed, which version of which cpu is installed, amount and type of RAM, type of hard drive and size, and the list goes on and on to the extent that the government can rely on it for prosecution. Google specifically uses this information to target ads down to a couple hundred people in as specific subject in a pool. The only reason it's not specifically to you each time is the uproar about the (and this is beyond funny it's so sad) privacy issues that would occur should you denial people find out it can be tailored that far and you can't deny it anymore.

Every operating system is supposed to be written to hardware STANDARDS. The multithreading, multiprocessor, I/O and cacheing capability is optimization of the hardware STANDARDS but is NOT required for the basic operating system to run on a CPU. When those same things are written to the chips so hardware speeds can be used, the operating system is supposed to change to use that capability not specify how its done so it's easier on MS to support. What is occurring is W10 is stating, and more to the point, enforcing the optimization as the hardware STANDARD so they can make their secondary products EDGE, MSIE, Defender, etc. look good against everyone else . Good for them if they're sellng the optimization of the hardware per se. They're not. The hardware manufacturers are selling optimization and drivers for their own equipment. What is occurring is collusion to bypass a hardware STANDARDS and enforce the use of the operating system vendor's products.

 

[Yynxs]

I have no idea what you are trying to say. What is true is that Windows has different software licenses for businesses, including Pro and an Enterprise Edition -

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsforbusiness/windows-product-home

For home use users have 2 choices - Home and Pro. Pro allows control of updates so as it does not disrupt workflow. Home does not. Most people who complain of their render getting interrupted or their server restarting unexpectedly are running the wrong version - Home.Windows 7 had 6 different versions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7_editions

• Starter
• Home Basic
• Home Premium
• Professional
• Enterprise
• Ultimate.

Your points are not valid and ignore the past.

Oh yeah. you. I can't give you a basic business degree. You have purchase that on your own. Did you read the post I replied to? or just trying to demonstrate you can link a MS license list? What you're doing here is showing the licensing for Windows because, of course, no one posting to this thread has ever seen or use that in your estimation.

You said you didn't understand the post. A normal person would ask for clarification of why there is a difference between 'Professional" when a company talks about business support and other support. But you're locked into only what you know. I see that a lot from one-dimensional focussed types that think the world revolves around the what they know instead of they are a small part of a lot of other things.

One dimensional thinking can be viewed as useful when solving programming problems or working out what food you want today at this moment. Unfortunately, one dimensional thinking also gets you polluted rivers because 'disposal is right there'; you can't build a house on this prairie because at least 3 times every hundred years it floods and waterfowl will want to use it when it floods; and other insanities.

You want to discuss your lack of understanding, reply off thread (if mailpup decides to leave it) and I'll point you to the articles you must read to 'get' what it means. oh and btw, those are pricing versions above, anyone can buy them, in spite of the name. Non-digital businesses don't have the luxury of renaming other products with 'tiers' and then saying and just by the way, you're only renting, not owning.

 

[Yynxs]

It is on topic, as it pertains to the fear mongering that Microsoft is doing themselves. Calling those that dislike what they have done, as fear mongering is ridiculous, yet its okay for Microsoft to do the same thing without any repercussions? Complete nonsense.

Do us all a favor, if you want proof, leave your pc on overnight for a week or two, and lets take a look at your router log, and see the traffic headed out? Do you know how to do this? Do I need to explain to you how to enable your router log, or log in to your router? No those connections cannot be reproduced by other OS's. Would you like to see my router log?

As I am becoming quite tired of being your google *****, you should try it yourself for a change. Funny how the EU is very worried about Microsoft's activities, yet there is nothing here in the states....wonder why?

http://searchsecurity.techtarget.co...ivacy-issues-persist-says-EU-privacy-watchdog
http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14682256/microsoft-windows-10-eu-privacy-concerns
http://windowsreport.com/windows-10-creators-updates-privacy-issue/

Bravo. Interestingly, I wonder if Europe, and especially Germany since they are pro-active on this issue, are accepting MS disabling PCs because they 'want to'. UK has declared MS a monopoly and subject to those rules governing monopolies, I wonder if anyone is notifying the Post-Brexit people that MS is disabling their ability to keep their data out of the US. Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[foxrox]

Since when do you have the right to keep your CPU private? Especially when your CPU actually matters for your OS...

Hmmm. Wow. That's really messed up. If you actually think this way, then you have my sincerest heartfelt condolences.

If others think in the same manner, is it any wonder that we see this sort of liquid projectile filth spewing from the bowels of the Redmond Mafia?

I am not concerned about rights as much as liberty, and I will take my liberties without so much as batting an eye where my rights are violated. The topic at hand is an article that essentially boils down to a violation of consumer rights and a demonstration of Micro$loth taking liberties that are not theirs to take. Two can play that game, and I won't feel bad about the things I will do to Windows 10 to defeat the steps they are taking now. In fact, I take it as a slap in the face with a leather glove that signals a challenge to the next duel.

The only redeeming quality that Windows 10 has to offer is the entertainment value and personal satisfaction derived from the cat and mouse play of our hacking it to pieces and stripping out all of its cancer to try to make a silk purse from the dirty old lice covered sow's ear they want us to use. With sufficient modding it's almost as good as Windows 7. The fact that it actually needs so much modding to be an acceptable product is precisely why it will never be as good as Windows 7.

 

[Squid Surprise]

It is on topic, as it pertains to the fear mongering that Microsoft is doing themselves. Calling those that dislike what they have done, as fear mongering is ridiculous, yet its okay for Microsoft to do the same thing without any repercussions? Complete nonsense.

Do us all a favor, if you want proof, leave your pc on overnight for a week or two, and lets take a look at your router log, and see the traffic headed out? Do you know how to do this? Do I need to explain to you how to enable your router log, or log in to your router? No those connections cannot be reproduced by other OS's. Would you like to see my router log?

As I am becoming quite tired of being your google *****, you should try it yourself for a change. Funny how the EU is very worried about Microsoft's activities, yet there is nothing here in the states....wonder why?

http://searchsecurity.techtarget.co...ivacy-issues-persist-says-EU-privacy-watchdog
http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14682256/microsoft-windows-10-eu-privacy-concerns
http://windowsreport.com/windows-10-creators-updates-privacy-issue/

I'm wondering if you actually READ the links you post.... First off, they all use the exact same thing as their source - an open letter from the Article 29 Working Party (basically the EU privacy commission) expressing their concerns to MS...

Microsoft answered this letter.... nowhere does it actually prove that MS is collecting your info illegally...

The concern is that there MIGHT be problems... No one has actually proven that MS is doing anything wrong - they claim the info is not excessive and is kept anonymous. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

If you have any proof, I'd love to see some...

 

[Yynxs]

I'm wondering if you actually READ the links you post.... First off, they all use the exact same thing as their source - an open letter from the Article 29 Working Party (basically the EU privacy commission) expressing their concerns to MS...

Microsoft answered this letter.... nowhere does it actually prove that MS is collecting your info illegally...

The concern is that there MIGHT be problems... No one has actually proven that MS is doing anything wrong - they claim the info is not excessive and is kept anonymous. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

If you have any proof, I'd love to see some...

Let me get your understanding of theft of privacy correct. The router logs. The firewall logs I maintain on connections. The Fiddler packet monitoring and the web pages listed above that have shown there is more than just generic hardware information being collected. The fact that hardware information is collected over and over. The sheer volume of packets being transferred (setting aside their contents being encrypted or not for reasonable security) showing that the hardware information, (which btw is about 5K bytes unzipped and unencrypted in toto because I've pulled it to check using a hardware sniffer in Windows and Linux). None of this convinces you.

We, the users or the countries containing the users, must infiltrate Microsoft servers and gather the information pertaining to us and then display it to you as proof that Microsoft is gathering personal information? Is that correct?

And you think we must 'prove' it in your court of law? May I submit, it CAN'T be proved to you? You will ignore and argue with anything other than MS's tacit admission of guilt.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Let me get your understanding of theft of privacy correct. The router logs. The firewall logs I maintain on connections. The Fiddler packet monitoring and the web pages listed above that have shown there is more than just generic hardware information being collected. The fact that hardware information is collected over and over. The sheer volume of packets being transferred (setting aside their contents being encrypted or not for reasonable security) showing that the hardware information, (which btw is about 5K bytes unzipped and unencrypted in toto because I've pulled it to check using a hardware sniffer in Windows and Linux). None of this convinces you.

We, the users or the countries containing the users, must infiltrate Microsoft servers and gather the information pertaining to us and then display it to you as proof that Microsoft is gathering personal information? Is that correct?

And you think we must 'prove' it in your court of law? May I submit, it CAN'T be proved to you?

Where are these logs? Have you shown them to us? And when I followed that other link showing "proof" that Windows 10 was stealing private info, it turned out it was all hokum and malarkey... kindly show me this proof of yours...

 

[cliffordcooley]

The concern is that there MIGHT be problems... No one has actually proven that MS is doing anything wrong

I don't know if they are true or not, but I've heard stories of horse thieves being hanged. But yet somewhere along the line, someone deemed it illegal. So what was once acceptable is now considered unacceptable.

Once again I don't know. But I can only imagine there were many people debating the merits of both, before the law was actually changed. During the debate I assume everyone was rattling on much like we are in this thread.

 

[Squid Surprise]

I don't know if they are true or not, but I've heard stories of horse thieves being hanged. But yet somewhere along the line, someone deemed it illegal. So what was once acceptable is now considered unacceptable.

Once again I don't know. But I can only imagine there were many people debating the merits of both, before the law was actually changed. During the debate I assume everyone was rattling on much like we are in this thread.

Now this I can agree with

But this consistent MS bashing and fear-mongering over something that is not only not illegal, but not even proven to be actually happening is just inane... I've very happy to revisit this topic in a year or 2 when we actually have some facts... but again, I do believe in "innocent until proven guilty" and there is absolutely NO evidence that MS is doing anything wrong.... yet...

 

[cliffordcooley]

there is absolutely NO evidence that MS is doing anything wrong.... yet...

It's simple then, you are calling out the article as fictitious.

 

[Yynxs]

Where are these logs? Have you shown them to us? And when I followed that other link showing "proof" that Windows 10 was stealing private info, it turned out it was all hokum and malarkey... kindly show me this proof of yours...

I have 517 megs of firewall logs. I intially started to upload them to my personal FTP site for you to download and review. I have the router logs but toss them every 100 megs and was going to do the same thing. Then it occurred to me how much work I have to do to anonymize my data for you. Bad choice, even with automated tools.

Instead, I'm providing this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiddler_(software.
and this link: http://forums.peerblock.com/
and this link: https://www.ghostery.com/
and this link: http://proxomitron.info/
and this link: https://noscript.net/
and this link: https://www.wireshark.org/

Download, install and configure for your system.
Block all of Microsoft and Azure and Akaimai and Amazon and DNS Server IP ranges (it's easier to block everything and work backwards on what you like but you're asking for specific logs) .
Make sure that Peerblock and Proxomitron are installed and connections are routed to them before the O/S boots completely. Blocking starts before everything else.
Do not start Proxo automatically.
If you can disable VPN capability in your hardware and W10, you now have complete control with backups of network I/O data moving out of your system at the desktop level (I also have it blocked on the router but that's a separate storyline). Fiddler will tell you if it is working. Oh and use a wired connection to get rid of other devices adding spurious connection attempts to the logs, they will be large enough as it is.
Start Proxo. The O/S will recognize that internet is available (there will be visible connect attempts in Peerblock prior to that, but they shouldn't work, if they did, you didn't configure correctly get back to work).
Watch the logs to determine which are Microsoft and Microsoft rent-a-cloud connection attempts.
At this point the experiment begins.
Turn on Fiddler and Wireshark logging.
Open the Microsoft addresse(s) in Peerblock for 15 minute intervals only.
At the end of 15 minutes blocking should restart.
Pull the logs and search for the connections made and packets transferred. Examine them.
Come back here with YOUR logs showing it's innocuous.

 

[Yynxs]

Now this I can agree with

But this consistent MS bashing and fear-mongering over something that is not only not illegal, but not even proven to be actually happening is just inane... I've very happy to revisit this topic in a year or 2 when we actually have some facts... but again, I do believe in "innocent until proven guilty" and there is absolutely NO evidence that MS is doing anything wrong.... yet...

There is honestly no way to deal with this level of ignorance. None. After MS owns the system and all the people legally asking for security updates without having their systems shut down by by parties colluding to eliminate to defraud the consumer no longer have recourse in the courts, then he/she's very happy to revisit this topic.

Maybe it's not ignorance. Maybe he/she is a MS employee and here to divert attention like the alleged Russian trolls were allegedly doing for Trump during the campaign.

Nooo. There's no proof of that.

 

[Squid Surprise]

It's simple then, you are calling out the article as fictitious.

No.... The article never claims that MS is doing anything wrong... Just says that it is blocking updates for something that it is not supporting.

I have 517 megs of firewall logs. I intially started to upload them to my personal FTP site for you to download and review. I have the router logs but toss them every 100 megs and was going to do the same thing. Then it occurred to me how much work I have to do to anonymize my data for you. Bad choice, even with automated tools.

Instead, I'm providing this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiddler_(software.
and this link: http://forums.peerblock.com/
and this link: https://www.ghostery.com/
and this link: http://proxomitron.info/
and this link: https://noscript.net/
and this link: https://www.wireshark.org/

Download, install and configure for your system.
Block all of Microsoft and Azure and Akaimai and Amazon and DNS Server IP ranges (it's easier to block everything and work backwards on what you like but you're asking for specific logs) .
Make sure that Peerblock and Proxomitron are installed and connections are routed to them before the O/S boots completely. Blocking starts before everything else.
Do not start Proxo automatically.
If you can disable VPN capability in your hardware and W10, you now have complete control with backups of network I/O data moving out of your system at the desktop level (I also have it blocked on the router but that's a separate storyline). Fiddler will tell you if it is working. Oh and use a wired connection to get rid of other devices adding spurious connection attempts to the logs, they will be large enough as it is.
Start Proxo. The O/S will recognize that internet is available (there will be visible connect attempts in Peerblock prior to that, but they shouldn't work, if they did, you didn't configure correctly get back to work).
Watch the logs to determine which are Microsoft and Microsoft rent-a-cloud connection attempts.
At this point the experiment begins.
Turn on Fiddler and Wireshark logging.
Open the Microsoft addresse(s) in Peerblock for 15 minute intervals only.
At the end of 15 minutes blocking should restart.
Pull the logs and search for the connections made and packets transferred. Examine them.
Come back here with YOUR logs showing it's innocuous.

Here is your problem... You've decided that the onus of proof is with MS.... But that's not the case in any trial... It's the prosecution that needs to provide evidence that there is wrongdoing...

You (and many on this site) have simply taken it for granted that MS is an evil, heartless corporation, and therefore everything they do is wrong...

This might be true.... But it is on you (or someone else) to prove this.... We still have no proof.... Your crazy logs notwithstanding....

 

[cliffordcooley]

No.... The article never claims that MS is doing anything wrong... Just says that it is blocking updates for something that it is not supporting.

I see now that I agree with everyone else. Your interpretation is in error, and nothing anyone says will change it.

 

[Yynxs]

No.... The article never claims that MS is doing anything wrong... Just says that it is blocking updates for something that it is not supporting.

Here is your problem... You've decided that the onus of proof is with MS.... But that's not the case in any trial... It's the prosecution that needs to provide evidence that there is wrongdoing...

You (and many on this site) have simply taken it for granted that MS is an evil, heartless corporation, and therefore everything they do is wrong...

This might be true.... But it is on you (or someone else) to prove this.... We still have no proof.... Your crazy logs notwithstanding....

Yeah.. That is actually what I thought you would say and it is typical fanboi. The sad part is, you don't seem to see it. As I said, nothing will prove it to you unless MS actually says it did. You're certainly not going to go look on your system. If what you're saying as non-provable simply shows up on your system as innocuous ON YOUR TERMS, not necessarily ours, then your position is rock solid. I'm guessing you don't believe that. Your 'prove it to ME' position is beginng to tatter a bit.

BTW, Europe made their laws in response to Google. Google said exactly the same thing. Only non-personal. Google-bois said exactly the same words you're saying until Google announced they were abandoning the non-personal and linking with third party AND had the capability to do it because Doubleclick, among others. By then it was too late for everyone. Nothing on the web is ever erased. You're also saying corporations never learn how to make money from each other.

I have no idea how you can think that way. I could make a big government liberal snide comment here, but it's too sad for that. If you have any skillz at all, I recommend you follow my instructions on finding out.

Oh, and as a side note, I didn't have MS blocked for a number of years untill my peerblock logs (you can label the IP addresses in the setup so you know who's range it belongs to) started showing MS a bit too regularly. After that, it just took followup and that's not even W10.

edited a bit for a missing word.

 

[OcelotRex]

You said you didn't understand the post. A normal person would ask for clarification of why there is a difference between 'Professional" when a company talks about business support and other support. But you're locked into only what you know. I see that a lot from one-dimensional focussed types that think the world revolves around the what they know instead of they are a small part of a lot of other things.

I didn't ask for clarification because you've more than adequately demonstrated your inability to form coherent thoughts and translate those into writing.

As to business support I am somewhat versed in them, working closely with the Enterprise support for the company I work for with approximately 10,000 Windows machines. I grabbed a technician this morning to read over your posts and he's not sure of your point either but was kinder guessing that English was not your strong suit.

I think we've exhausted this thread and I'll say good day to you.

 

[Yynxs]

I didn't ask for clarification because you've more than adequately demonstrated your inability to form coherent thoughts and translate those into writing.

As to business support I am somewhat versed in them, working closely with the Enterprise support for the company I work for with approximately 10,000 Windows machines. I grabbed a technician this morning to read over your posts and he's not sure of your point either but was kinder guessing that English was not your strong suit.

I think we've exhausted this thread and I'll say good day to you.

My post?

Uh no. The concept in business is, in Professional Support, someone is making money off your product, you get to charge for that. The concept in Windows Pro is: You want more control of your operating system, you gotta pay for that.

If your idea about Win Pro being designed for professional (read businesses) were true, then the game makers would have to include it in the cost of their games. The router and cable modem manufacturers would have to include it in the cost of their hardware and the cable companies and ISPs would have to capitalize the cost of upgrading everyone for security into the cost of their services.

Windows Home has always been about getting the product out there for user acceptance. The same concept is used in Student copy of MS Office. After training the majority of the populace there is nothing else, then you start charging for 'enhanced' standard features.

In business, there is a difference between Professional and Public. Windows does not follow that model.​

the post I was replying to.

I was mainly trying to drive the point home that most people who complain about updates in Windows 8 or 10 bought the home version then explain how some process was disrupted when they were doing something professional like rendering/compiling/etc.

Professional software exists for that reason and that's why the "Pro" versions allow for more flexibility. Home users will be vastly better served getting the updates than ignoring them (as they have in every other version of Windows).​

My original post (or at least the one I think you're replying to in responses to the above post.) The replied to post defined 'professional' and 'pro' as "...doing something professional like rendering/compiling/etc..." and "...Professional software exists for that reason and that's why the "Pro" version allows for more flexibility..."

I disagreed and explained that Win Pro wasn't like that at all. If you followed the difference throughout Windows history you know you got what were normal network controls and other features in the "Pro" version but you paid extra for them. This history of windows is apparently not your history. I've no idea why. Forums have discussied this for umpteen years.

Your post after that attempted to tell me there were more tiers in windows. I'm guessing because of your basic non-understanding of the rest of the world's use of the word professional. I pooh poohed that comment because it had nothing to do with the statements about how 'professional' was incorrectly linking 'professional software' and 'Windows Professional".

The poster also said: "...Home users will be vastly better served getting the updates than ignoring them (as they have in every other version of Windows). I have vast arguments against this even though it is mostly true. I argue because everyone's privacy stolen is my privacy stolen. There's a separate conversation going on about that in this same thread.

In any case, the user should NOT lose control of the operating system such that 'home' or 'professional' users have to research and learn or hire a technician or a team to configure their system to stop random reboots. In my multi-dimensional world, the 'home user's' time is as valuable as the 'professional's' time to them because they are putting their work into the task on the computer. They're just not being paid by another party for that time.

Looking back, I should probably have written more on how 'public' to the professionals means the same thing this poster talked about when they said 'home users". Another thing occurred to me now, as I mentioned above, you probably don't understand that 'professional' means 'degree'd' person.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/professional+person "...professional person - a person engaged in one of the learned professions..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional
A professional is a member of a profession or any person who earns their living from a specified professional activity. The term also describes the standards of education and training that prepare members of the profession with the particular knowledge and skills necessary to perform their specific role within that profession. In addition, most professionals are subject to strict codes of conduct, enshrining rigorous ethical and moral obligations.[1] Professional standards of practice and ethics for a particular field are typically agreed upon and maintained through widely recognized professional associations, such as the IEEE.[2] Some definitions of "professional" limit this term to those professions that serve some important aspect of public interest [3] and the general good of society.[4][5]​

Without that acceptance of the rest of the world's definition of 'professional' my comments about "Windows Professional" wouldn't make sense.

In any discussion, especially between professionals, a common core of language and definitions is required or the whole thing boils over quickly in rancor. When I write on Techspot, my presumption is a common background and education level, if not age. Otherwise I wind up "talking down" to others and hardly anyone likes that. For me, this explanation was 'talking down' to you because it required me to think of you as not 'one of us' professionals to set the 'common core' language definitions and the outside world language definitions.

I'm actually holding back some caffeine induced snidery (sic) because of the English comment from your 'tech'. I like engineers but understand their lack of (as Scott Adams has made a living at portraying) interface with the rest of the world. If you and she are supporting 10,000 systems my suggestion would be to expand your horizons a bit. Your comments indicate a basic non-understanding of issues outside your 'profession'. The very fact you asked another (presuming you're a tech) tech and not a business person indicates a preference for only seeking confirmation of what you know, or as my snidery wishes me to say, what you think you know.

HTH

 

[Squid Surprise]

And if you didn't understand his previous post... I defy you to try and comprehend that one... Ocelot, I agree, this thread is done...

Oh, and as a side note, I didn't have MS blocked for a number of years untill my peerblock logs (you can label the IP addresses in the setup so you know who's range it belongs to) started showing MS a bit too regularly. After that, it just took followup and that's not even W10.

edited a bit for a missing word.

So basically, you're admitting that it's just MS you have an irrational hatred of, as you acknowledge that the same behaviour was noticed for previous version of Windows....

I know this is hard... but if you really think MS is evil, instead of just fear-mongering, give us some proof...

 

[Yynxs]

And if you didn't understand his previous post... I defy you to try and comprehend that one... Ocelot, I agree, this thread is done...



So basically, you're admitting that it's just MS you have an irrational hatred of, as you acknowledge that the same behaviour was noticed for previous version of Windows....

I know this is hard... but if you really think MS is evil, instead of just fear-mongering, give us some proof...

uh..apparently you like to project for emotional emphasis or your own clarity. Look up 'project'. I said 'it started showing up'. All that happened is, I went from mostly ignoring MS to not trusting MS and adding that non-trust into the layers of protection on my systems.

Following this, W10 showed up. Minimal reading of users protesting their loss of privacy showed the problem was fairly big and getting bigger. (Dealing with 'free upgrade' W10 breaking everything my wife holds dear didn't help.) It's later yet and this article shows it wasn't just privacy now, it has became enforcement of MS dictums. Try to remember that in a 'real world' you don't notify the neighbors when you get up in the morning or you turn on your coffee pot. In W10 world you do. The act of turning on or not turning on the PC is being reported and frankly, the time of day of activity doesn't even require specific system info reporting, just checking in gives that. In the 'real world' your water supplier doesn't get to tell you can't use a water filter. In the real world you get to choose to filter out bad things. In the real world, your suppliers don't get to lie to you about reality and then take action to make the lie true. In W10 world you do. You don't 'get' there is a problem with your O/S supplier making all that happen in W10. Thus you project your ignorance by attempting to make others 'prove' to you that it's 'bad'. We get that.

I tend to say "oh you're one of those" when people like you show up in a discussion. Apparently mailpup doesn't like me making it personal. But you are. You refuse to see what is obvious to anyone else with a measure of security training sees. You refuse to acknowledge parallels in the history of the digital world like Google and fact that everything Google collected before Europe and everyone else started blocking them is still available to Google. That is aside from Google buying up companies like doubleclick and other company data to make their own massive collection more of a privacy problem You think delaying all discussions so Microsoft can do the same thing and have a higher level of system and user privacy intrusion on PCs than Google dreamed of is ok. You even refuse to take the time to do the research and refute all the horrible tinfoil hats like me spouting our paranoid delusions (as you see them).

Yes there are lots of way for techs to defeat this intrusiveness. The fact it shouldn't require a tech's involvement seems to be lost on you. The fact, as shown in this article, of MS actually taking proactive measures to defeat users making their old operating systems work is a very very bad thing, is also lost on you. Instead of saying "prove" it to you with no way for us to draw a line in the sand to be crossed, on the other side of which, for you, 'proof' occurs, try stating what is actual proof to you. That requires you to think past 'fanboi' for a moment.

State what information in the packets will make you revise your opinion of MS from a Godlike benevolence in the world to a despicable spy like Google. State what activity beyond actually breaking a system with a "security' update so the 'lie' about hardware incompatibility can continue would convince you of MS doing bad things with monopoly control and collusion. Those of us with open eyes and open minds already see enough to justify our beliefs. What exactly would cause you to believe this?

If you make positive statements about what is required, maybe then we can set about 'proof'. So far there is no indication anything but Microsoft tacitly admitting to this that would make you believe us. (I said that before). It's up to you to put your beliefs on the line now. What exactly, at the packet or data or personal information level, is it going to take to convince you?

 

[Squid Surprise]

uh..apparently you like to project for emotional emphasis or your own clarity. Look up 'project'. I said 'it started showing up'. All that happened is, I went from mostly ignoring MS to not trusting MS and adding that non-trust into the layers of protection on my systems.

Following this, W10 showed up. Minimal reading of users protesting their loss of privacy showed the problem was fairly big and getting bigger. (Dealing with 'free upgrade' W10 breaking everything my wife holds dear didn't help.) It's later yet and this article shows it wasn't just privacy now, it has became enforcement of MS dictums. Try to remember that in a 'real world' you don't notify the neighbors when you get up in the morning or you turn on your coffee pot. In W10 world you do. The act of turning on or not turning on the PC is being reported and frankly, the time of day of activity doesn't even require specific system info reporting, just checking in gives that. In the 'real world' your water supplier doesn't get to tell you can't use a water filter. In the real world you get to choose to filter out bad things. In the real world, your suppliers don't get to lie to you about reality and then take action to make the lie true. In W10 world you do. You don't 'get' there is a problem with your O/S supplier making all that happen in W10. Thus you project your ignorance by attempting to make others 'prove' to you that it's 'bad'. We get that.

I tend to say "oh you're one of those" when people like you show up in a discussion. Apparently mailpup doesn't like me making it personal. But you are. You refuse to see what is obvious to anyone else with a measure of security training sees. You refuse to acknowledge parallels in the history of the digital world like Google and fact that everything Google collected before Europe and everyone else started blocking them is still available to Google. That is aside from Google buying up companies like doubleclick and other company data to make their own massive collection more of a privacy problem You think delaying all discussions so Microsoft can do the same thing and have a higher level of system and user privacy intrusion on PCs than Google dreamed of is ok. You even refuse to take the time to do the research and refute all the horrible tinfoil hats like me spouting our paranoid delusions (as you see them).

Yes there are lots of way for techs to defeat this intrusiveness. The fact it shouldn't require a tech's involvement seems to be lost on you. The fact, as shown in this article, of MS actually taking proactive measures to defeat users making their old operating systems work is a very very bad thing, is also lost on you. Instead of saying "prove" it to you with no way for us to draw a line in the sand to be crossed, on the other side of which, for you, 'proof' occurs, try stating what is actual proof to you. That requires you to think past 'fanboi' for a moment.

State what information in the packets will make you revise your opinion of MS from a Godlike benevolence in the world to a despicable spy like Google. State what activity beyond actually breaking a system with a "security' update so the 'lie' about hardware incompatibility can continue would convince you of MS doing bad things with monopoly control and collusion. Those of us with open eyes and open minds already see enough to justify our beliefs. What exactly would cause you to believe this?

If you make positive statements about what is required, maybe then we can set about 'proof'. So far there is no indication anything but Microsoft tacitly admitting to this that would make you believe us. (I said that before). It's up to you to put your beliefs on the line now. What exactly, at the packet or data or personal information level, is it going to take to convince you?

No... I just hate long-winded rants that make little sense... anyways, I'm going to try and make sense of your last one... Correct me if I'm wrong, but you'd like me to clarify what type of proof I'd accept to admit MS is actually the evil heartless corporation you are stating it is?

Here you go: At the "packet level", I'd like to see evidence that MS is collecting your private information and utilizing it for purposes other than to enhance Windows 10 to your detriment. Examples of this could be selling your NON-ANONYMOUS data to advertisers, stealing your banking information for nefarious purposes, acquiring compromising photos of you and your loved ones for future blackmailing purposes... etc...

I'd accept a legitimate link (not the outdated one that was disproved as fearmongering in its own comment section posted by your pal Raiderman earlier in this thread) that proves this - or even gives credible reason to believe this is happening.

I thought this would be obvious, but I guess not... I await your reply

 

[Yynxs]

No... I just hate long-winded rants that make little sense... anyways, I'm going to try and make sense of your last one... Correct me if I'm wrong, but you'd like me to clarify what type of proof I'd accept to admit MS is actually the evil heartless corporation you are stating it is?

Here you go: At the "packet level", I'd like to see evidence that MS is collecting your private information and utilizing it for purposes other than to enhance Windows 10 to your detriment. Examples of this could be selling your NON-ANONYMOUS data to advertisers, stealing your banking information for nefarious purposes, acquiring compromising photos of you and your loved ones for future blackmailing purposes... etc...

I'd accept a legitimate link (not the outdated one that was disproved as fearmongering in its own comment section posted by your pal Raiderman earlier in this thread) that proves this - or even gives credible reason to believe this is happening.

I thought this would be obvious, but I guess not... I await your reply

/sigh. Ok I think about this when I'm not posting, because trying to understand how people not-like-me think is what I do. I'm not veering from your statements but I'm asking some questions to clarify. I've worked with rapid prototyping and the user's basic idea of where they are going is key.
a) do you believe privacy is a right?
b) do you believe privacy can only be given up explicity?

Your statements hinge on the answers to those questions.

The example 1 you name, to whit: "selling your NON-ANONYMOUS data to advertisers' expects me to not examine what is being transferred but to examine what is being done by MS on their servers and in their correspondence with their customers and possibly their vendors.
The example 2 you name: "...stealing your banking information for nefarious purposes..." implies that it's ok to steal it if it's not for 'nefarious purposes'. It also involves me getting into MS servers and digital correspondence.
The example 3 you name: "...acquiring compromising photos of you and your loved ones for future blackmailing purposes..." a) requires me to not only get into MS servers and digital correspondence, but also to preemptively read their minds about use of any materials, let alone compromising photos, in the future, should they decide to acquire them.
etc....

I do not want to back out of what I've stated, but you've basically asked me to prove MS is Black Hat hacker in example 2 and MS is planning to be a Black Hat hacker in example 3, and example 1 requires me to do some hacking.

This is not a flame. What you're asking is not based in reality and should I seriously pay someone to get this information, stating up front I don't have the skills to hack MS, I would be subject to Federal prosecution in the US where I reside.

Again, not backing out of the question I asked, but you're somewhere else than the rest of us in the discussion.

To parse your query a bit, MS has already shown 'nefarious' activity in disabliing W7 by detecting the CPU and then injecting the system destruction in a "security update". I realize this external activity in this article doesn't convince you, but it's there when you look at your words for clues about what would convince you.

I am being bold here because I'm not sure you're reacting non-emotionally about deciding what constitutes MS as being bad. In that boldness I am phrasing the questions to you of what you should have asked...

What should be asked is:
1) What is the minimum information MS needs to make W10 secure and work with your hardware? That is based on their and your statements as to the need for collection being inherently true.
2) Is MS collecting more than that minimum data?
3) If that 'more than that minimum data' collection exists in W10, what shows that?
4) If that 'more than that minimum data' collection exists in W10 and can be shown, what constitutes a violation of a 'right to privacy'? This, of course, is based on your answer about there being a right to privacy.
5) If that 'more than that minimum data' collection exists in W10, is MS taking advantage of their absolute control of the user interface to abuse their monopoly position and collect that information for "nefarious purposes"? (I see this question as being answered in the subject matter of the this article. Probably you don't.)

There are probably other ways to phrase the 'proof' requirements. I see these as narrowing your scope and allowing you to better see your point of view in relation to those of us who disagree.

Please examine this with an open mind and rephrase the questions I've proposed. You can even say you wish only your questions to be answered, but bear in mind finding the answers as you've phrased the questions, is illegal.

 

[Squid Surprise]

/sigh. Ok I think about this when I'm not posting, because trying to understand how people not-like-me think is what I do. I'm not veering from your statements but I'm asking some questions to clarify. I've worked with rapid prototyping and the user's basic idea of where they are going is key.
a) do you believe privacy is a right?
b) do you believe privacy can only be given up explicity?

Your statements hinge on the answers to those questions.

The example 1 you name, to whit: "selling your NON-ANONYMOUS data to advertisers' expects me to not examine what is being transferred but to examine what is being done by MS on their servers and in their correspondence with their customers and possibly their vendors.
The example 2 you name: "...stealing your banking information for nefarious purposes..." implies that it's ok to steal it if it's not for 'nefarious purposes'. It also involves me getting into MS servers and digital correspondence.
The example 3 you name: "...acquiring compromising photos of you and your loved ones for future blackmailing purposes..." a) requires me to not only get into MS servers and digital correspondence, but also to preemptively read their minds about use of any materials, let alone compromising photos, in the future, should they decide to acquire them.
etc....

I do not want to back out of what I've stated, but you've basically asked me to prove MS is Black Hat hacker in example 2 and MS is planning to be a Black Hat hacker in example 3, and example 1 requires me to do some hacking.

This is not a flame. What you're asking is not based in reality and should I seriously pay someone to get this information, stating up front I don't have the skills to hack MS, I would be subject to Federal prosecution in the US where I reside.

Again, not backing out of the question I asked, but you're somewhere else than the rest of us in the discussion.

To parse your query a bit, MS has already shown 'nefarious' activity in disabliing W7 by detecting the CPU and then injecting the system destruction in a "security update". I realize this external activity in this article doesn't convince you, but it's there when you look at your words for clues about what would convince you.

I am being bold here because I'm not sure you're reacting non-emotionally about deciding what constitutes MS as being bad. In that boldness I am phrasing the questions to you of what you should have asked...

What should be asked is:
1) What is the minimum information MS needs to make W10 secure and work with your hardware? That is based on their and your statements as to the need for collection being inherently true.
2) Is MS collecting more than that minimum data?
3) If that 'more than that minimum data' collection exists in W10, what shows that?
4) If that 'more than that minimum data' collection exists in W10 and can be shown, what constitutes a violation of a 'right to privacy'? This, of course, is based on your answer about there being a right to privacy.
5) If that 'more than that minimum data' collection exists in W10, is MS taking advantage of their absolute control of the user interface to abuse their monopoly position and collect that information for "nefarious purposes"? (I see this question as being answered in the subject matter of the this article. Probably you don't.)

There are probably other ways to phrase the 'proof' requirements. I see these as narrowing your scope and allowing you to better see your point of view in relation to those of us who disagree.

Please examine this with an open mind and rephrase the questions I've proposed. You can even say you wish only your questions to be answered, but bear in mind finding the answers as you've phrased the questions, is illegal.

Wow.... and to think that I was trying to be clear by using simple words and phrases.... let me try again...

Find me PROOF that MS is using your private info some way, OTHER THAN TO ENHANCE WINDOWS 10, that is bad for you.

You don't have to do any hacking - although I suppose that would work - just find some article somewhere that proves this...

The reason you won't find anything is because NO SUCH PROOF EXISTS!

This is how courts of law work: you bring a charge against someone, you give EVIDENCE to support your case... the defendant does the same.... and a judge then decides which side has more merit. In the event that the verdict is disputed, the losing side may appeal to a higher authority (assuming there is one).

MS may very well find themselves in court over this... If/when that day happens, I'll be happy to revisit this thread and we can debate the evidence and decide whether MS is in the wrong.

But without evidence, all you have left is empty fear-mongering... and in your case, terribly long-winded responses that completely obfuscate the actual point....

 

[Yynxs]

Wow.... and to think that I was trying to be clear by using simple words and phrases.... let me try again...

Find me PROOF that MS is using your private info some way, OTHER THAN TO ENHANCE WINDOWS 10, that is bad for you.

You don't have to do any hacking - although I suppose that would work - just find some article somewhere that proves this...

The reason you won't find anything is because NO SUCH PROOF EXISTS!

This is how courts of law work: you bring a charge against someone, you give EVIDENCE to support your case... the defendant does the same.... and a judge then decides which side has more merit. In the event that the verdict is disputed, the losing side may appeal to a higher authority (assuming there is one).

MS may very well find themselves in court over this... If/when that day happens, I'll be happy to revisit this thread and we can debate the evidence and decide whether MS is in the wrong.

But without evidence, all you have left is empty fear-mongering... and in your case, terribly long-winded responses that completely obfuscate the actual point....

and obviously, you didn't read it, are unable to follow what was said, or you don't want to answer.
is privacy a right or not?

Collecting my information to "enhance" W10 as MS is now doing is bad for me. Period. It's my privacy. I have a right to it. It doesn't matter what they collect, without explicit permission from me, it's bad for me. Can't be any clearer than that. I don't care what they ostensibly or hidden do with it. It's my hardware and my privacy being invaded. Everyone understands that you 'not don't but can't get that'. It's why we label you 'one of those', usually millenials that don't know any better. The really interesting part is when 'we' say we're not going to spend money on it, you get irate and demand proof for court. Simply look up the search term 'microsoft sued'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp. monopoly
https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/27/microsoft-sued-for-10-000-after-unwanted-windows-10-upgrade/ successfuly...
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/microsoft-sued-over-windows-10-update-campaign/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-browser-lawsuit-idUSBREA3A1YI20140411 this was Europe.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/2632950/operating-systems/microsoft-sued-over-windows-update.html
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us...-be-sued/ad1a82ae-1774-44b5-b0e4-aa4400f340f3 10Nov13 ​

These are just ones I confirmed as still being there. None of these 'prove' MS is doing bad things with W10, but nothing 'proves' a child molestor will do bad things again either. You have to take certain things on faith in spite of fanbois. Right now, everything you say says everything MS does that isn't currently being sued over is ok, and even much of what it was sued over is ok with you. Well it's not ok with other people and MS has had to pay more than once, in court, about that.

So if you want a logical answer, go back and read the previous post and parse out how you want the question answered. Yelling no proof exists is your absolute lie just by the court cases listed above, let alone the article here on techspot. Any good tech is preemptive in how they handle digital problems. It is very apparent you are not and much much worse than that, don't want to be.