Windows 8 - Deeper Impressions

[NoelC]

Think about that...  A declining market share.

 

On a technical note, have you noticed the increasing number of folks on forums who get their Windows system into a state where it just doesn't work right any more, and they find themselves - because of the online-only upgrade policies, quirks in product key usage, etc. - in a state where they just can't easily get their systems back to a working state?

 

I saw this coming and bought a full Windows 8.1 license on a DVD just in case (though I know how to avert system rot), but those who are unwilling to send Microsoft a few hundred bucks more aren't finding any easy time of reinstalling their systems, even with the provided "restore, refresh, reset" technology.  And certainly Windows 8 isn't any more immune to being botched up into a useless steaming pile of bits by users, malware, etc. than any prior version.

 

I don't remember - with any version - hearing so many people saying, "I'm going to give up and drop back to the previous version."

 

So...  Will Microsoft try the same BS again?  Will they release preview after preview, sneakily "evolving" the parts into something their Marketing people think is "the next new thing"?  Ignoring the geeks who review the betas at no cost to Microsoft and pick out the problems with the substance of the thing?

 

-Noel

[JorgeA]

Yes, I have indeed seen what seems to be a much greater incidence of these sorts of things -- certainly of people who can't "up"grade to Win8.1 because of MSFT's a$inine idea to make it available only via the Windows Store. Ya gotta provide alternative ways to accomplish things, folks!

 

Possibly related to this situation (or perhaps suggestive of the nature of Win8 as a whole) is the following tidbit I just came across:

 

The latest update from Bit Defender that required a reboot prevented my PC from booting into Windows 8.

[emphasis in original!]

 

Maybe BitDefender simply IDs Win8 itself as malware...

 

--JorgeA

 

[JorgeA]

Another drawback of moving everything to the cloud:

 

Saving old software from extinction in the age of cloud computing

 

We live in the golden age of cloud computing. Storing user data and preferences on the Internet makes our multi-device lives easier than ever before. Data input on one device is often seamlessly available on every other device, making it a snap to jump from desktop to laptop to smartphone. Some software has come to depend so completely on these cloud servers, though, that we are starting to create a software ecosystem that will be historically untraceable.

 

That's an issue, because software we use today will eventually be an important part of history. Computers are one of mankind's most significant achievements, and the devices have enabled an era of change that is more rapid than any other time in history. Historical record is a vital, precious thing. We've kept records of just about everything since before written language. Cloud computing has no time for the past, though. Many apps depend on server support to function, but that support is based on usage numbers and profitability, not on nostalgia or trying to maintain a record. Software that doesn't get used has support cut off, and—if there is even a local client left behind at all—it becomes a broken, empty husk.

 

It's about time we started asking ourselves: what are we leaving behind for future generations? When our descendants look back on the computer revolution, what will they still have access to?

 

I remember reading, some years ago, that the advent of word processors would make the work of future literary historians and biographers more difficult. They often rely on strikeouts and margin notes in manuscripts to follow the development of an author's concept for an important novel, or to trace the writer's evolving style. And e-mail between writers and editors -- indeed, from any historical figure to other important people in their lives -- tends to be less permanent than physically mailed letters. (Well, maybe they can apply to the NSA for its records. )

 

Now software itself is at risk of suffering the same fate that it has helped to visit on manuscripts and correspondence. Microsoft is both a follower and a pusher in this trend.

 

--JorgeA

 

[ricktendo]

Top 10 reasons to trust Microsoft in the cloud

[JorgeA]

Top 10 reasons to trust Microsoft in the cloud

 

Good find!

 

Some of what they say sounds promising. Here's an excerpt from one of the links in the document:

 

· Customer content moving between our customers and Microsoft will be encrypted by default.

· All of our key platform, productivity and communications services will encrypt customer content as it moves between our data centers.

· We will use best-in-class industry cryptography to protect these channels, including Perfect Forward Secrecy and 2048-bit key lengths.

· All of this will be in place by the end of 2014, and much of it is effective immediately.

· We also will encrypt customer content that we store. In some cases, such as third-party services developed to run on Windows Azure, we’ll leave the choice to developers, but will offer the tools to allow them to easily protect data.

· We’re working with other companies across the industry to ensure that data traveling between services – from one email provider to another, for instance – is protected.

 

And yet...

 

...I will feel confident in Microsoft's assurances only when a variety of reputable third parties confirms that neither Microsoft, nor the government, nor anyone else can read my communications or trawl through the files I have stored online. We may recall that Microsoft has already acted, for example, against a German photographer who stored erotic images he himself took. In light of the assurances quoted above, can we be sure that Microsoft will be physically incapable of doing this sort of thing again in the future? That's what I would ask my friendly MSFT salesman next time he came calling about my subscribing to their cloud services.

 

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

^^ Well, here's our answer --

 

Microsoft Is Also Scanning For Illicit Images

 

According to a July 31 criminal complaint, Microsoft twice detected Hoffman uploading illicit images to his SkyDrive account earlier this year. The firm then passed on details of the uploads to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which, in turn, tipped law enforcement officials.

 

--JorgeA

 

[ricktendo]

I think this is what you are referring to (GMail)

Google scans your Gmail inbox for child porn to help catch criminals, but don’t worry about loss of privacy (yet)

Last week, a man in Texas was arrested by the police for sending child porn to a friend email.

[JorgeA]

Yeah, that's the other story making the rounds. The one I linked to shows that -- for all its assurances of respect for privacy -- Microsoft, too, is routinely rummaging through customers' stuff.

 

If they can look for one type of thing, they can look for any number of other types of things. As the ExtremeTech piece concludes, this

 

is probably only the beginning.

 

Caveat emptor.

 

--JorgeA

 

[NoelC]

My question to those surprised by their data being looked over is this:  Why would you have any reasonable expectation of privacy with any data you put on or through someone else's computer?

 

Frankly, given that Microsoft has its foot in the door (e.g., Windows Update, etc.) I don't really have a strong expectation that data on my OWN computer is private.

 

CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow once pointed out wisely that in the real world it all comes down to "what a man CAN do and what a man CAN'T do."   Savvy?

 

-Noel

[JorgeA]

I liken it to a bicycle messenger: I certainly do not expect him to rummage through the package that I entrusted him with. Or, to put it more strongly, I EXPECT HIM NOT TO rummage through my package.

 

It's irrelevant to me that the package is in his possession or inside his messenger bag for the time it takes to deliver it to the intended recipient.

 

--JorgeA

[NoelC]

I EXPECT HIM NOT TO rummage through my package.

 

Why not?  Because you'll see to it that he's fired if he does?  What if his employer decided that for reasons of security the messenger will be required to carefully examine everything he carries.  Then what?  You'll find another messenger company?  What if all of them decided to do that?

 

In real terms, what's our alternative?  Find a OS maker that doesn't push "cloud computing"?  Set up our computers to use local accounts.  Take them offline?

 

Only one of those things is viable right now, and only just barely.  Microsoft carefully hides in plain sight the options to set up systems with local accounts, and there are reports that an attempt to use things like Apps from the Windows Store invokes a process that leads your system to try to convert you to a Microsoft account. 

 

There's a completely opaque process in the Task Scheduler called "Regular Maintenance" with a "Custom Handler" for an action.  What does that do, exactly?  Does anyone really know?

 

The point is that we enter a partnership with our service providers, and we need to trust them to have OUR best interest at heart.  Trouble is, no one's giving us any good reasons any more to do so.

 

-Noel

Edited August 6, 2014 by NoelC

[Flasche]

In real terms, what's our alternative?  Find a OS maker that doesn't push "cloud computing"?  Set up our computers to use local accounts.  Take them offline?

 

Even some Linux Distro's push for the cloud . The disadvantages of the Modern Internet ruled world I guess. .

[JorgeA]

 

Why not?  Because you'll see to it that he's fired if he does?  What if his employer decided that for reasons of security the messenger will be required to carefully examine everything he carries.  Then what?  You'll find another messenger company?  What if all of them decided to do that?

 

There's a distinction between what is reasonable/right, and what we have the power to prevent/punish. If I'm a 96-year-old confined to a wheelchair and attached to an oxygen tank, there may not be much that I can do about a burglar breaking into my home, but that doesn't make it right or reasonable for the burglar to do it.

 

Now we may not be in a strong position do stop the snooping, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable. As to what if anything we can do about it, we can take some encouragement from the experience with the removal and now the return of the Start Menu and button and default boot to desktop. If enough customers speak up and/or stop buying their products, they'll pay attention.

 

 

There's a completely opaque process in the Task Scheduler called "Regular Maintenance" with a "Custom Handler" for an action.  What does that do, exactly?  Does anyone really know?

 

That's somewhat disturbing. In principle it should be possible to set up an Internet traffic monitor to see what connections (if any) the computer is making and to where, no? If I were technically savvy enough about networking, I'd be tempted to test the idea. (Although it might not tell us very much about WHAT the connections are to, but at least we might discover that it's making mysterious connections, which a security researcher such as Krebs or Schneier or Soghoian might be able to investigate.)

 

 

The point is that we enter a partnership with our service providers, and we need to trust them to have OUR best interest at heart.  Trouble is, no one's giving us any good reasons any more to do so.

 

Amen to that last sentence!

 

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

Even some Linux Distro's push for the cloud . The disadvantages of the Modern Internet ruled world I guess. .

 

Fortunately, there are plenty of alternative distros out there that don't try to push or lure their users into the matrix.

 

--JorgeA

[jaclaz]

I liken it to a bicycle messenger: I certainly do not expect him to rummage through the package that I entrusted him with. Or, to put it more strongly, I EXPECT HIM NOT TO rummage through my package.

 

It's irrelevant to me that the package is in his possession or inside his messenger bag for the time it takes to deliver it to the intended recipient.

 

--JorgeA

You don't travel by plane, I believe.

 

Seriously, there is a point to be very attentive to.

 

I personally believe that there are few more revolting crimes than abusing of children or dealing with child pornography, but of course it is just where the bar has been set.

 

So, it is morally acceptable that someone peeks in your baggage for "safety reasons" (or in the post package you sent), like for bombs/explosives/weapons when you travel by air, it is morally acceptable to forfait your privacy in order to protect the environment having custom officers checking everything in your baggage when you land in (say) Australia of organic nature that may be infected with any kind of virus/biological threat against which the under-down environment has no defense, and it is also  morally acceptable that in order to prevent direct or indirect children exploitation there is someone peeking in your baggage (or - by the same token - e-mails).

 

But what about murders?

Aren't they a serious crime?

Shouldn't society do whatever technically possible to check that noone is planning the murder of another human being?

 

And who are the watchers?

Appointed Law Enforcement officers on duty or a Google or MS employee?

Once the "automated scanning" triggers an alarm is this sent without human intervention to the relevant Police force or is it "reviewed"?

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/187521-google-scans-your-gmail-inbox-for-child-porn-to-help-catch-criminals-but-dont-worry-about-loss-of-privacy-yet

If there’s a match, presumably a human at Google double-checks the result and then notifies the relevant authorities.

 

 

Does this MS or Google employee has an automated, one time only, temporary and limited, access to the single message that triggered the alarm or does he/she have full access to the whole mailbox from where the "triggering" message was sent?

Or does he/she have access also to the recipient's mailbox (if also on their servers)?

 

So, the bar is set at a high position, yet a bar exists, and can be lowered at will.

 

jaclaz