New “Recall” feature in Windows 11 is a privacy nightmare
New “Recall” feature in Windows 11 is a privacy nightmare
Would you like a timeline of everything you do on your PC?
The new “Recall” feature really does look good on paper, but the taking in mind that it catalogues almost everything you do on your computer, it could turn out to be a privacy nightmare. “logging things you do in apps, tracking communications in live meetings, remembering all websites you’ve visited for research, and more,” according to the Verge. What could this mean for future computing? It would certainly make digital forensics a whole lot easier…..
You're viewing a single thread.
In case anyone read the headline and was worried it would pop up on your computer overnight, it does appear to need some hefty and recent processors and between 6-25GBs free in order to run at all, so I don't think it'll sneak up on folks any time soon.
On the bad news front, I thought this was standard AI bad until I got to the part where it won't obscure passwords. But, surprise, it will obscure DRM content (and private browsing, but just if you're using Microsoft Edge).
Terrible for privacy aware consumers but I really anticipate the worst of this will be in a corporate setting. Plenty of employers already spy on employees but this would be pretty next level.
where it won't obscure passwords. But, surprise, it will obscure DRM content
Yeah, we all know where the priorities really are.
How have our consumer protections gone so fucking far.
I literally have a real "Consumer Protection Act" wishlist that I keep a running tally on in my head. Near the top of the list are things like "rent caps", "strict opt-in for direct marketing", and "strict opt-in for all data tracking". On the last two, it is a "no purchase necessary" situation. Features and functionality are not allowed to be gated behind opting in.
Oh, and big one here, no subscriptions gating features on purchased or leased property. If it is not directly paying for a perpetual service, fuck yourselves. If I see the word "subscription" tied to cars one more time I may start fomenting revolt. I have been seeing it more and more. Manufactured goods having their functions gated behind continuing to pay for the item is absolute bullshit and should be illegal. I'm wanting to lump SaaS in with that too. Consumers should be allowed to file suit to force companies to justify their subscriptions and there should be some pretty harsh guidelines on what qualifies. We need to be allowed to own things. Subscriptions and SaaS both do away with consumer ownership.
Last one... EULAs need to be negotiable by individuals. Period. The idea that we can just "not use it if we don't like the contract" is ludicrous in the modern world. No matter how careful one is, if you want to participate in the world, you must enter into a binding contract which can essentially take any rights and liberties they want with no recourse on the part of the consumer. And I don't care if it would he prohibitively expensive for companies to do that. Just don't make EULAs that people will feel the need to object to and you won't have to worry. Costs nothing but all of the souls you harvest on a daily basis.
A EULA is a contract and is by default "negotiable". The buyer has the option to attempt to engage with the seller and negotiate an agreement. However, the seller has equal right to decline said negotiation with the understanding that the product will not be sold to the buyer.
What would be far more productive is stricter regulation on what products can have a EULA attached, and what that agreement can contain (thus having the government pre-negotiate the contract on behalf of all the buyers collectively). These laws could also require a company engage a third party consumer advocacy group to negotiate the terms on behalf of the buyers as a collective, so as to keep that portion at an arm's length from the government.
This would still not preclude an individual from trying to negotiate, but a seller still has the right to say "I don't want to sell this to you."
This is all technically true and I 90% agree with the measures you suggested. My only issues are the fact that the ability for a seller to just ignore the negotiation request functionally means that EULAs are nonnegotiable contracts. Our rights mean nothing because their right of refusal is inherently more final. A consumer has no recourse to press the engagement of a seller who has refused negotiations.
I agree in principal that the advocacy should be held at arms length from government agencies, but then you end up with well funded minority advocacy groups like the various right wing religious "parents" groups that push for censorship and other BS that most people are not for. The only way I would accept a civilian advocacy group would be if it were heavily regulated on how it can operate and absolute transparency on the books. I want to know who is funding them, who is directing their "advocacy", and have the ability to collectively pump the brakes on them of they start working against our interests.
I think the strongest idea is the one we share. EULA contracts need to be reigned in and be much more heavily restricted in what they can and cannot say. There also should be a legal framework for managing the whole "if any part of this contract is found to be unenforceable, all other clauses remain in effect" because it allows companies to put bullshit clauses that they know are outright illegal and violate consumer rights into the EULAs and just write it off when they get caught without consequences. There should be a limit somewhere. Some way for a judge or regulatory body to step in and say "OK, you have like 5 unenforceable clauses in here, the contract is void and all consumers who were previously party to it are released. Also, here is a $10,000/affected consumer fine, you have 30 days to pay it." Idk, something with real teeth.
They can afford more and better lawyers, that's how.
Yeah it takes screenshots periodically and all the storage and analysis is done on your local device, which is why it requires the newer CPUs with NPUs from Intel, AMD, and Qualcomm. There's a setting to turn the whole feature off, and you can also choose to turn it off for only certain applications, etc. Microsoft seems to be making an effort to encourage chip manufacturers to make better NPUs so that their AI features can run as locally as possible. That's likely why their new surface devices will be using the snapdragon x elite processors because they're the only ones that have NPUs with enough TOPS to run all the AI features Microsoft wants on device, instead of having to send the data for processing to a Microsoft server. I think beyond trying to quell privacy concerns, it would be a huge cost for Microsoft if they had to have enough compute available to run all these AI tasks for users for free. I'm sure there's still some way they are logging pieces of info here and there, but they'll have to include some way to make sure the OS is secure enough for business operations that are handling secure information.
People are acting as if auto saving, web history, reopen last used windows, etc aren't already features on all modern apps and OSes. If the claim about everything staying on device is true then this is no different.