Okay, let's see if I can help put the thread back on track. The article demonstrated and its author Ed Bott admitted in the article's comments, that NO REAL CHANGE IN THE PRIVACY AGREEMENT OCCURRED. He was cornered on that in the comments. He pretended that there was no section in the EULA which had been cited to refute him, though citations were pasted directly from it and its 'linked terms' several times.
I'm the one who pasted the sections refuting Ed's claims. He ignored the sections pasted. You can read all that, yourself, in the article's comments. Since this topic is about that article and I participated in the article's comments, this is my deposition about it, which you can thus verify.
For the article, only covered minor and barely relevant changes in aka.ms/privacy, adding 'OneDrive' and 'Outlook' (q.v.) and similar superficial appositives. Leaving untouched the harmful and all-encompassing text which Gordon Kelly of Forbes has been asking Microsoft to clarify since JULY (the new amendments are in blue):
Finally, we will access, disclose and preserve personal data, including your content (such as the content of your emails in Outlook.com, or files in private folders on OneDrive), when we have a good faith belief that doing so is necessary
The phrase 'such as' is another legal way of saying the following classic phrase, 'including but not limited to'.
BUT NOT LIMITED TO. So it's not only Outlook and OneDrive which are slurped. It would still be wrong if those two were slurped for your private data.
So if you have medical information, it got slurped. If you had medical information on other people, it got slurped. So if you are a medical practitioner, you doggone well better avoid anything this 'privacy' agreement covers. And it covers Windows 10, as shown here in the Win10 EULA, Paragrah 14 (emphasis added in blue, and you can read the following text absent emphasis at MSFT, here):
"14. Entire Agreement. This agreement (together with the printed paper license terms or other terms accompanying any software supplements, updates, and services that are provided by the manufacturer or installer, or Microsoft, and that you use), and the terms contained in web links listed in this agreement, are the entire agreement for the software and any such supplements, updates, and services (unless the manufacturer or installer, or Microsoft, provides other terms with such supplements, updates, or services). You can review this agreement after your software is running by going to (aka.ms/useterms) or going to Settings - System - About within the software. You can also review the terms at any of the links in this agreement by typing the URLs into a browser address bar, and you agree to do so. You agree that you will read the terms before using the software or services, including any linked terms. You understand that by using the software and services, you ratify this agreement and the linked terms. There are also informational links in this agreement. The links containing notices and binding terms are:
· Windows 10 Privacy Statement (aka.ms/privacy)
· Microsoft Services Agreement (aka.ms/msa)
· Adobe Flash Player License Terms (aka.ms/adobeflash)"
Crystal clear. The aka links coupled with the blue text constitutes a legal technique called 'incorporation by reference', where a document not 'inside' is brought inside merely by referring to it. Ed in his article and his comments, doesn't understand that. But he doesn't write up legal documents for a living, so he doesn't know that. I however, do write legal documents for a living (viz, US qualified retirement plan legal documents, inter alia). For 30 years.
That's why I keep harping on this. It's not to vilify MSFT, but hopefully and only, to warn it. Someone dropped the legal ball here, and to keep on pretending or bullying those who show the problem, will harm millions. I'm not the only warner, there are hundreds of them. (Maybe thousands or millions, but I've only seen hundreds.) And it's so easy to fix this, just amend/rescind the offending provisions!
Ergo, anyone claiming that oh, this ZDnet article answers all concerns about privacy, well.. such a person isn't reading this article and its comments, or is disingenuous.
So perhaps the better thing for this topic, is to discuss what was changed, and what wasn't?
Problem is, this article covers EULA issues, as quoted above. And it's my understanding that EULA issues are no longer allowed to be discussed in BC (not quarrelling with that, just seeking clarification). Personally, you all know what I'll say, so I'll not say more about them.
Point is, chirping praise is not helpful. Vilifying is not helpful. Discussion of the meat of the issues is hopefully helpful, as I tried to demonstrate above. For the problem is not going away. It will only get worse. What to do, about that?
This issue of privacy violation by contract and telemetry terms, is a real problem. Notice how it has nothing whatsoever to do with, the quality of the software.
Everyone here is suffering from the privacy concerns, for we can all be sued for recommending MSFT products covered by this and the more heinous aka.ms/msa agreement(s), as (i.e., computer) practitioners.
We're all in this together.
Edited by brainout, 20 November 2015 - 09:50 AM.