Windows 10!!

[redmonaco]

Just been forced in to buying a new PC. Quite happy with my old original i3 Win7 Machine but SHMBO insisted I should have a new one... :0(

Anyway, the new PC has Windows 10. What a faff. I must have spent 45 minutes hunting through trying to turn off the multitude of things that would send my keystrokes, browsing habits, appointments, contacts...infact my entire life, to various businesses around the globe.

Do others just ignore and accept all this, is it just that I'm of the slightly "older" generation?

Also, anyone got any pointers on how to make it look more like win7, I mean, what are all those useless to me "Tiles" about???

[Skier]

Install Stardock Start 10 ($4.99) and research any other issues you have via Google. Windows 10 is actually quite a good and stable OS but, I agree that privacy settings are an issue.

The so called 'Connected User Experiences and Telemetry' can be disabled as follows:

- Hold down the Windows key and tap the R key
- In the box that opens type ‘services.msc’ and press the Enter key
- In the ‘Services (Local)’ section locate ‘Connected User Experiences and Telemetry’ and double-click it
- In the ‘Service status’ section click ‘Stop'
- Under the ‘Startup type’ drop down menu select ‘Disabled’ and then confirm this and close the window by clicking ‘OK’

[redmonaco]

Install Stardock Start 10 ($4.99) and research any other issues you have via Google. Windows 10 is actually quite a good and stable OS bit, I agree that privacy settings are an issue.

The so called 'Connected User Experiences and Telemetry' can be disabled as follows:

- Hold down the Windows key and tap the R key
- In the box that opens type ‘services.msc’ and press the Enter key
- In the ‘Services (Local)’ section locate ‘Connected User Experiences and Telemetry’ and double-click it
- In the ‘Service status’ section click ‘Stop'
- Under the ‘Startup type’ drop down menu select ‘Disabled’ and then confirm this and close the window by clicking ‘OK’

Cool, thanks Skier, that's the sort of info I needed!! :0)

I think a lot of my annoyance regarding privacy issues is that all anyone wants to do with personal information is make money with it and sell things to you...

[StackH]

I'm personally coming round to the idea that if you go online then the likelihood is that you are being tracked in some way, however hard you try to stop it. Your ISP and/or phone network provider are logging your activity, as are any search engines you use, sites you visit etc. There are obviously ways to make yourself less identifiable but at the end of the day you are fighting a losing battle. For me, it's not much different from my car reg being logged by ANPR cameras, or my ugly mug being recorded on town centre or shop CCTV, debit and credit cards logging where I've purchased etc. If you have a loyalty card for a supermarket they probably know more about you than Microsoft do. I guess the old adage applies - if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.

[markrlondon]

I'm personally coming round to the idea that if you go online then the likelihood is that you are being tracked in some way, however hard you try to stop it. Your ISP and/or phone network provider are logging your activity, as are any search engines you use, sites you visit etc. There are obviously ways to make yourself less identifiable but at the end of the day you are fighting a losing battle. For me, it's not much different from my car reg being logged by ANPR cameras, or my ugly mug being recorded on town centre or shop CCTV, debit and credit cards logging where I've purchased etc. If you have a loyalty card for a supermarket they probably know more about you than Microsoft do. I guess the old adage applies - if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.

None if this is a reason to not control one's privacy where and how one reasonably can.

For example, this "Your ISP and/or phone network provider are logging your activity, as are any search engines you use, sites you visit etc." is only the case if you let it be the case. One can easily control what these entities see by using reasonable privacy measures.

And the old adage to which you refer is cretinous rubbish: Are you seriously saying that you would be ok with anyone in the world entering your bedroom to watch what you do there? Ah, you do have something to hide afterall, don't you. The fact is that privacy is a legitimate desire and right in its own right, no matter what the individual might or might not want to hide.

[davidsm]

Seconds out!
D.

[Mick P]

None if this is a reason to not control one's privacy where and how one reasonably can.

For example, this "Your ISP and/or phone network provider are logging your activity, as are any search engines you use, sites you visit etc." is only the case if you let it be the case. One can easily control what these entities see by using reasonable privacy measures.

And the old adage to which you refer is cretinous rubbish: Are you seriously saying that you would be ok with anyone in the world entering your bedroom to watch what you do there? Ah, you do have something to hide afterall, don't you. The fact is that privacy is a legitimate desire and right in its own right, no matter what the individual might or might not want to hide.

Sorry I disagree.

I want the government to know everything that we get up to for security reasons. Also would you be concerned if say a school teacher or someone in a position of national security was gawping at dodgy porn sites or how to make a bomb type of thing.

It's not nice but if it helps the authorities to prevent bombings etc, then so be it.

[redmonaco]

Sorry I disagree.

I want the government to know everything that we get up to for security reasons. Also would you be concerned if say a school teacher or someone in a position of national security was gawping at dodgy porn sites or how to make a bomb type of thing.

It's not nice but if it helps the authorities to prevent bombings etc, then so be it.

Could you be more precise and explain what you mean by the above highlight please?

Just want to make sure I'm only gawping at ok ones!!!

[Glamdring]

Install Stardock Start 10 ($4.99) and research any other issues you have via Google. Windows 10 is actually quite a good and stable OS bit, I agree that privacy settings are an issue.

The so called 'Connected User Experiences and Telemetry' can be disabled as follows:

- Hold down the Windows key and tap the R key
- In the box that opens type ‘services.msc’ and press the Enter key
- In the ‘Services (Local)’ section locate ‘Connected User Experiences and Telemetry’ and double-click it
- In the ‘Service status’ section click ‘Stop'
- Under the ‘Startup type’ drop down menu select ‘Disabled’ and then confirm this and close the window by clicking ‘OK’

Snap. Did exactly that the day after I installed it.

[markrlondon]

I want the government to know everything that we get up to for security reasons. Also would you be concerned if say a school teacher or someone in a position of national security was gawping at dodgy porn sites or how to make a bomb type of thing.

I think you are being facetious. :-)

It's not nice but if it helps the authorities to prevent bombings etc, then so be it.

It does not in general, of course.

[StackH]

None if this is a reason to not control one's privacy where and how one reasonably can.

For example, this "Your ISP and/or phone network provider are logging your activity, as are any search engines you use, sites you visit etc." is only the case if you let it be the case. One can easily control what these entities see by using reasonable privacy measures.

And the old adage to which you refer is cretinous rubbish: Are you seriously saying that you would be ok with anyone in the world entering your bedroom to watch what you do there? Ah, you do have something to hide afterall, don't you. The fact is that privacy is a legitimate desire and right in its own right, no matter what the individual might or might not want to hide.

Okay, fully accept that including the adage (which I didn't mean in such broad scope as you have implied, it was meant in regards to online activity) was probably a mistake.

I was trying, obviously in a poor way, to say that your activities are logged in a multitude of ways (not just online). Some can be controlled to varying degrees and others can't. I personally don't feel the need to worry about it. Others might.

[hogthrob]

For example, this "Your ISP and/or phone network provider are logging your activity, as are any search engines you use, sites you visit etc." is only the case if you let it be the case. One can easily control what these entities see by using reasonable privacy measures.

What measures, out of interest? TOR and VPN? I don't pay too much attention to this stuff, but isn't TOR compromised, and VPN's widely suspected to be honey pots? Or are you thinking of other measures?

[PickleB]

Snap. Did exactly that the day after I installed it.

As an alternative you might want to set 'Feedback & Diagnostics' (in Settings, Privacy) to 'Basic'...as suggested by this article: link.

[markrlondon]

I don't pay too much attention to this stuff, but isn't TOR compromised, and VPN's widely suspected to be honey pots?

These two measures are certainly relevant. No, Tor isn't compromised in general and VPNs are not necessarily honeypots (especially if you run your own).

It's interesting to see how propaganda works. ;-)

[Jake]

If I remember correctly Windows 7 has this telemetry as well - pushed out via innocuous KB updated.Jake

[Mr Pointy]

Sorry I disagree.

I want the government to know everything that we get up to for security reasons. Also would you be concerned if say a school teacher or someone in a position of national security was gawping at dodgy porn sites or how to make a bomb type of thing.

It's not nice but if it helps the authorities to prevent bombings etc, then so be it.

So are you saying that you have no issue with Microsoft or Google knowing, for instance, that you have been searching for information about sexually transmitted diseases or how to cope with incontinence? They want to know these things so they can serve you the correct advertising. How about having all of you medical history sold off by the Government for a bit of loose change?

The utter lack of awareness of people like you about the pernicious effects of the loss of privacy & just how much is known about our everyday lives by those who do not have our best interests at heart is truly chilling. 1984 is here & you, & many others, don't seem to care.

[Mick P]

So are you saying that you have no issue with Microsoft or Google knowing, for instance, that you have been searching for information about sexually transmitted diseases or how to cope with incontinence? They want to know these things so they can serve you the correct advertising. How about having all of you medical history sold off by the Government for a bit of loose change?

The utter lack of awareness of people like you about the pernicious effects of the loss of privacy & just how much is known about our everyday lives by those who do not have our best interests at heart is truly chilling. 1984 is here & you, & many others, don't seem to care.

No I could not give a damn.

What I do care about is that people should be about to walk the streets in safety and not worry about terrorist attacks.

[markrlondon]

What I do care about is that people should be about to walk the streets in safety and not worry about terrorist attacks.

Indeed so, that would be a nice fantasy. Back in reality, mass invasion of privacy has not succeeded in preventing such things so far. It seems very unlikely ever to do so in general.

Mass surveillance as a magic cure fpr Bad Things is neither socially nor technologically plausible. The negatives of it in fact seem far greater than the possible benefits, even ignoring the moral issues of eroding privacy and the untrustworthy and unreliable nature of the state and its lax controls over and misuse of data under its control.

[Mick P]

Indeed so, that would be a nice fantasy. Back in reality, mass invasion of privacy has not succeeded in preventing such things so far. It seems very unlikely ever to do so in general.

Mass surveillance as a magic cure fpr Bad Things is neither socially nor technologically plausible. The negatives of it in fact seem far greater than the possible benefits, even ignoring the moral issues of eroding privacy and the untrustworthy and unreliable nature of the state and its lax controls over and misuse of data under its control.

Mark

If snooping on everyones internet useage helps to prevent some terrorist attack and saves just one innocent life, then to my mind it is worth it, even if it takes 10 years to save that life.

To be blunt, if you don't like it, sell your computer, either way I could not give a damn my dear.

[UKMike]

I wouldn't bother about Microsoft or indeed anyone "snooping" on your internet searches for recipes for "Weasel Pie", when they can access your mobile phone remotely, take pictures of your ear, read your text , check your location and movements and record your voice calls - even potentially record your conversations when you aren't even on the phone. Only those with something to hide need worry - normal perverts are acceptable nowadays as long as they are adult human beings vs adult human beings lol In this world of terrorism and wrongdoers, only serious breaches of security are likely to trigger further investigation because of the volumes of data involved - and we DO want them to find the terrorists!
And don't forget the 130+ CCTV cameras which allegedly focus on us every day - mapping our movements has never been so simple.

As for making Windows 10 look like Windows 7 it is as simple as clicking on the "Window" icon which should be on your taskbar and it switches to Desktop view (no tiles) - very simple if that is what you feel you need

[Groundrush]

Mark

If snooping on everyones internet useage helps to prevent some terrorist attack and saves just one innocent life, then to my mind it is worth it, even if it takes 10 years to save that life.

To be blunt, if you don't like it, sell your computer, either way I could not give a damn my dear.

I do find this reasoning a bit perplexing. 90 people have been killed by terrorists in the UK since 2000. Bad news to be sure, but during the same period 52 people in England and Wales were killed by dog bites. Maybe we should ban dogs. More people drown in their own bath than get killed by terrorists. So should we ban baths?

Identity theft runs at about 120,000 cases per year and is rising at around 30% per year. The Ministry of defence lost the personal data for 1.7 million people, Revenue and Customs lost the data for 25M (twenty five million) people, the driving standards agency lost 3 million.

You would happily sell out the personal information of every man woman and child in the country to an entity that has repeatedly proved it cannot be trusted to keep it safe, knowing that it is likely to end up in the hands of criminals who will use it against you simply because you're worried about a problem that has odds of affecting you similar to that of winning the National Lottery? That's nuts.

[nunya]

If snooping on everyones internet useage helps to prevent some terrorist attack and saves just one innocent life,

It's been a massive waste of time, resources and money

[Mick P]

I do find this reasoning a bit perplexing. 90 people have been killed by terrorists in the UK since 2000. Bad news to be sure, but during the same period 52 people in England and Wales were killed by dog bites. Maybe we should ban dogs. More people drown in their own bath than get killed by terrorists. So should we ban baths?

Identity theft runs at about 120,000 cases per year and is rising at around 30% per year. The Ministry of defence lost the personal data for 1.7 million people, Revenue and Customs lost the data for 25M (twenty five million) people, the driving standards agency lost 3 million.

You would happily sell out the personal information of every man woman and child in the country to an entity that has repeatedly proved it cannot be trusted to keep it safe, knowing that it is likely to end up in the hands of criminals who will use it against you simply because you're worried about a problem that has odds of affecting you similar to that of winning the National Lottery? That's nuts.

Yes I agree that leakage is a problem but on overall balance I am prepared to take the chance and have everything about me on file. For instance, if I am knocked unconscious in a motoring accident, it is reassuring to know that all my medical information could be made available to say an ambulance driver. The exchange of information on the net is to everyones advantage and sometimes the right to privacy just as to go.

If you want your "secrets" to remain secret, then get shot of your pc, get rid of your mobile, do not have a bank account or a credit card and wear a hoodie when walking the streets.

Privacy is already dead, accept it and move on.

[markrlondon]

If snooping on everyones internet useage helps to prevent some terrorist attack and saves just one innocent life, then to my mind it is worth it, even if it takes 10 years to save that life.

I think that is both absurd and irrational when one takes all risks into account.

It's hard to be sure, of course, but I think it exceedingly unlikely that ubiquitous monitoring has saved any lives at all or is likely to. Added to that we know that government is not competent to manage data safely, securely or privately (and, make no mistake, loss of privacy of your data can harm you). Thus ubiquitous monitoring, data collection and things like backdooring encryption actually cause greater danger than they can reasonably prevent. In short, it's just not worth it.

[markrlondon]

Yes I agree that leakage is a problem but on overall balance I am prepared to take the chance and have everything about me on file. For instance, if I am knocked unconscious in a motoring accident, it is reassuring to know that all my medical information could be made available to say an ambulance driver. The exchange of information on the net is to everyones advantage and sometimes the right to privacy just as to go.

If you want your "secrets" to remain secret, then get shot of your pc, get rid of your mobile, do not have a bank account or a credit card and wear a hoodie when walking the streets.

Privacy is already dead, accept it and move on.

Your comments are naive and foolish, almost trollishly so one might think. You are promoting fantasy.

You are giving up valuable protection in favour if an imaginary and false idea of security. You're actually choosing to make your life more dangerous overall, not safer. You've been taken in, hook, line and sinker.

[Mick P]

I think that is both absurd and irrational when one takes all risks into account.

It's hard to be sure, of course, but I think it exceedingly unlikely that ubiquitous monitoring has saved any lives at all or is likely to. Added to that we know that government is not competent to manage data safely, securely or privately (and, make no mistake, loss of privacy of your data can harm you). Thus ubiquitous monitoring, data collection and things like backdooring encryption actually cause greater danger than they can reasonably prevent. In short, it's just not worth it.

Mark

We are going to have to disagree on this.

If someone had an accident in say London twenty years ago but lived in say Plymouth, the London hospital was in the dark for several hour on the medical condition of the person involved. They did not know of any allergies or if they were on current medication. Today that information is soon to be processed online and on a voluntary basis. If see nothing wrong with that. It will save lives.

Also whether you like it or not, IPS's retain your tracking data for two years. I would like to know, for instance, if a school worker is regularly accessing child porn. This can only be done by snooping and yes there are arguments for and against it, but on balance I want everyones information recorded, including mine.

It is slowly happening and that is a good thing.

[markrlondon]

If someone had an accident in say London twenty years ago but lived in say Plymouth, the London hospital was in the dark for several hour on the medical condition of the person involved. They did not know of any allergies or if they were on current medication. Today that information is soon to be processed online and on a voluntary basis. If see nothing wrong with that. It will save lives.

You seem to be changing the goalposts. Although online access to medical records has serious privacy and security implications of its own, it is nothing directly to do with ubiquitous communications monitoring and so on that was previously under discussion. Access to medical records is not the same as communications, business and personal information security (it is a subset of it).

Also whether you like it or not, IPS's retain your tracking data for two years.

Well, it depends. They are legally forced to retain what they have access to but that isn't necessarily much. One might reasonably observe, as many who understand this do, that such limited and unrepresentative tracking is actually less than useless and, in net terms, counter-productive. It potentially harms the eventual utility and effectiveness of more targeted and more useful data gathering.

It is slowly happening and that is a good thing.

As I said, you are at best misguided. You are creating more trouble than you hope that you are solving. Your approach is to make life more dangerous overall, not safer, and it seems that you don't wish to hear that this is the case.

Your moral position in favour of all this, the literal "if it saves one life" argument, is only morally justifiable in naive and unrealistic terms. In practice it is a delusion. Your belief structure will ultimately costs both actually money, security and lives. This means that position ceases to be morally justifiable at all and becomes explicitly immoral.

[Mick P]

You seem to be changing the goalposts. Although online access to medical records has serious privacy and security implications of its own, it is nothing directly to do with ubiquitous communications monitoring and so on that was previously under discussion. Access to medical records is not the same as communications, business and personal information security (it is a subset of it).



Well, it depends. They are legally forced to retain what they have access to but that isn't necessarily much. One might reasonably observe, as many who understand this do, that such limited and unrepresentative tracking is actually less than useless and, in net terms, counter-productive. It potentially harms the eventual utility and effectiveness of more targeted and more useful data gathering.



As I said, you are at best misguided. You are creating more trouble than you hope that you are solving. Your approach is to make life more dangerous overall, not safer, and it seems that you don't wish to hear that this is the case.

Your moral position in favour of all this, the literal "if it saves one life" argument, is only morally justifiable in naive and unrealistic terms. In practice it is a delusion. Your belief structure will ultimately costs both actually money, security and lives. This means that position ceases to be morally justifiable at all and becomes explicitly immoral.

If you don't like, moan to your MP rather than me.

[Saint-Just]

If you don't like, moan to your MP rather than me.

I think the point is in your reasoning, not in the situation itself (at least in this thread)

[hogthrob]

Firstly, let's not confuse government surveillance with that by commercial entities. Microsoft/Google/Facebook are collecting your details so they can sell you stuff. Do you really want them knowing all your personal information?

Then there is the prospect that sooner or later someone will steal that data and use it for malicious purposes.

Even if you're OK with that, you might want to define how much access you are fine with. Everything? How about writing stuff and savings files on your computer?

[mattbeef]

You could always build your own VPN, run linux as your main os and the use duck duck go a your search engine via TOR?

If people want your info they will get it. Its normally from a unexpected root such as social media or guessing bad passwords so what do you do, stay offline? Most peoples stuff isnt interesting anyway. Just make sure that you read the terms before accepting them on anything

[Saint-Just]

You could always build your own VPN, run linux as your main os and the use duck duck go a your search engine via TOR?

If people want your info they will get it. Its normally from a unexpected root such as social media or guessing bad passwords so what do you do, stay offline? Most peoples stuff isnt interesting anyway. Just make sure that you read the terms before accepting them on anything

You need to make the difference between being targeted specifically by an individual or an agency, and giving your details away to commercial companies

[mattbeef]

Very true but most companies that want your data make you give it them by you agreeing to their service T&C's.
The extreme way i mentioned would avoid some though as you bypass Microsoft & Google