CassiusLonginus
Banned
So for the people who would buy Kinect separately, they're allowed to get spied on?
Well, like most other devices that can be used for monitoring, at least it would be a user option.
Better than nothing...
So for the people who would buy Kinect separately, they're allowed to get spied on?
It's so amazing. Not only did Microsoft work so tirelessly to "aggressively challenge" the government on PRISM, but they were the first company to jump gleefully aboard! Truly they work day and night in the name of the consumer.
How do you know they joined voluntarily and gleefully?
if i can at least prevent a part of this spying (ie. a 24 hour surveillance of my living room) by not buying an entertainment product im fine with that.I'm not sure why some people are blaming Microsoft for this privacy issue.
The US government is responsible.
And of course Sony wasn't involved with the NSA, they have no services that would be of interest to the NSA.
Microsoft runs Windows OS, Outlook/Hotmail, Skype, Azure, and Bing.
It isn't Microsoft's fault for offering such services, and they shouldn't be blamed for the possibility of NSA collecting data from Kinect.
If companies have to stifle innovation in order to protect their customers (us) from our government, then we are in a pretty bad state, and the government tracking what we eat in our family rooms is the least of our problems.
I'm not being apologetic, I want things to change.
Boycotting a company's product to protest a government policy is a form of living with the policy, not fighting against it.
The difference is that a Skype video is something that you broadcast, and you are aware that it's going through their servers (I think it's even mentioned in the terms of use that those may be recorded).
It's very different from recording videos of people without their knowledge nor authorization.
The info regarding that has been posted in this thread ad nauseam.
Stop being so dense and read it.
(My biggest peeve at the moment is when people keep asking for proof or links even when it's been posted frequently in the same thread. It's like people doing know how to scroll up or hit backspace...)
I have read the thread. I must have missed it. Can you point me to the information that says Microsoft ask to be part of PRISM and was happy about it. Thanks.
source...
Microsoft told The Verge in early June that, “we provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis. In addition we only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers. If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we don’t participate in it.”
This statement is in total contradiction to the latest Guardian report.
Helping the NSA around its encryption completely discredits any claims that voluntary surrender of infomation never happens and also that they were unaware of any other broader surveillance programs.
Its also being reported that Microsoft has spent months with the FBI to allow them Prism access to its cloud storage service SkyDrive without any special request.
Quotes directly from the documents read:
“this new capability will result in a much more complete and timely collection response”.
“This success is the result of the FBI working for many months with Microsoft to get this tasking and collection solution established.”
It's so amazing. Not only did Microsoft work so tirelessly to "aggressively challenge" the government on PRISM, but they were the first company to jump gleefully aboard! Truly they work day and night in the name of the consumer.
The Guardian report that your link is talking about never says that Microsoft volunteered to help the NSA. Microsoft says they only work with the NSA when they get "legally binding order or subpoena to do so". Now of course you can not believe them and that is fine but we don't have any facts that show what they say is false.
So they'll secretly listen in and record every skype call made on the planet but the thought that they may/might already be recording when people aren't in calls? Heavens no! That would be unethical!
That's all you got from reading that?
Providing access tools and giving them help around encryption is not the same as just providing records upon request.
Microsoft told The Verge in early June that, we provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis. In addition we only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers. If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we dont participate in it.
This statement is in total contradiction to the latest Guardian report.
Helping the NSA around its encryption completely discredits any claims that voluntary surrender of infomation never happens and also that they were unaware of any other broader surveillance programs.
Its also being reported that Microsoft has spent months with the FBI to allow them Prism access to its cloud storage service SkyDrive without any special request.
Quotes directly from the documents read:
this new capability will result in a much more complete and timely collection response.
This success is the result of the FBI working for many months with Microsoft to get this tasking and collection solution established.
I understand that. I am saying that we don't know that Microsoft volunteered to providing the access tools.
You are assuming that Microsoft had a choice. We dont know that at all.
If it was something that the NSA or anyone with 'authority' could request, I would think we would have heard from all the other companies in PRISM doing the same thing.
If they can muscle MS into providing more than records, they could muscle pretty much anyone to do it.
I understand that. I am saying that we don't know that Microsoft volunteered to providing the access tools.
You are assuming that Microsoft had a choice. We dont know that at all.
One of the greatest mysteries of PRISM is if companies were volunteering or forced and there has been no evidence for either. All there is is a chart showing joining dates joined but there really has been no evidence for and against just how "voluntarily" companies joined and what methods the NSA used. After that point, it's simply conjecture as Greenwald and Snowden haven't provided the details of how companies were brought onto the program. Only that they were put on and what date. Till it's revealed if it was legal brute force, financial incentive or both that was used to bring in data providers. Then it's conjecture.
According to the NSA documents, work had begun on smoothly integrating Skype into Prism in November 2010, but it was not until 4 February 2011 that the company was served with a directive to comply signed by the attorney general.
We are going to need to see the Snowden docs to know the whole truth. Which there seems to be several computers worth. I am just saying that we can not say as a fact that Microsoft had a choice. They say they didn't and we have nothing that says they did.
One of the greatest mysteries of PRISM is if companies were volunteering or forced and there has been no evidence for either. All there is is a chart showing joining dates joined but there really has been no evidence for and against just how "voluntarily" companies joined and what methods the NSA used. After that point, it's simply conjecture as Greenwald and Snowden haven't provided the details of how companies were brought onto the program. Only that they were put on and what date. Till it's revealed if it was legal brute force, financial incentive or both that was used to bring in data providers. Then it's conjecture.
directive to comply signed by the attorney general.
And I hate this line of thought. Do you care nothing about your privacy? Do you care nothing about those who do? Do you have parents who are concerned by it? Siblings? Friends? Neighbors?
There are a lot of forms of privacy. Some we give up without realizing it. Some we are very much aware of losing when the time comes.
What is unreasonable is not recognizing that your lack of concern for your own privacy doesn't mean that you should stop being aware of others who are still concerned, and of the snowball effect that giving up each piece of it brings.
You are assuming that Microsoft had a choice. We dont know that at all.
I agree 100%. No evidence shows Microsoft "voluntarily" did anything. Much less they did so gleefully. Microsoft does say they were legally compelled to comply. Believe them or not.
Not necessarily:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-dataAccording to the NSA documents, work had begun on smoothly integrating Skype into Prism in November 2010, but it was not until 4 February 2011 that the company was served with a directive to comply signed by the attorney general.
The only way to stop the snowball effect of giving up your privacy means not buying ANY next-gen console, giving up public/free email, giving up your cable box, giving up your cell phone, giving up your internet. Some would argue that you could just adjust whom you are voting for, but we know that's not going to work.
That sounds more like the NSA trying to get ahead of it's own bureaucracy rather than Microsoft volunteering since those "Directive to comply" orders need to work their way through the system by having MS work on it while the directive worked its way through the system. And still no definitive proof on who was controlling who there either. But it's neither a confirm or denial on who's controlling who.
If Greenwalt and Snowden have a definitive document that shows who's pulling who's strings. Then we'd have a better idea. Till then, we're still talking conjecture.
At least with smart phones and laptops, you can break/remove the cameras and miccrophones on them if you really really want them gone
But really, MS needs to make the Xbox One not require the Kinect being always connected.
When I worked at Best Buy, there was thus nutty rich woman who would come in every month or so and pay Geek Squad to remove all wireless cards and webcams from her electronics because she was paranoid the government would use those to spy on her.
She was rich, she knew. They all know, man.Turns out she wasn't so nutty after all, lol...
The government doesn't need the cameras on those devices to spy on you. They can just use everything else.No offense but my cell phone is never facing my bed... I also have a case the covers the camera of my phone. (They do exist) Hell you could put on a sticker if you wanted to cover it all the time.
What you are replying to has no merits.
You didn't even have to mention it was a toy.
No they don't. This comment ranks as one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site.
Companies build a case for a tax treatment of certain transactions. Some are very aggressive but they then have to go and create financial reserves on their books based on the probability those transactions aren't upheld by a tax audit.
It doesn't do a company any good to break tax laws when there are so many advantageous legal things they can do.
My question is what would happen if they didn't comply? I mean we drag companies in front of congress all the time for actually breaking the law and all they get is a stern talking to and maybe a small fine.
There is the cautionary tale of the QWEST CEO who refused to participate in NSA domestic surveillance in Feb. 2001...
http://au.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-joseph-nacchio-and-the-nsa-2013-6
For all the other Telcos who said yes despite it being against the law at the time? Retroactive immunity... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/10/supreme-court-telecoms-win-immunity
There is the cautionary tale of the QWEST CEO who refused to participate in NSA domestic surveillance in Feb. 2001...
http://au.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-joseph-nacchio-and-the-nsa-2013-6
For all the other Telcos who said yes despite it being against the law at the time? Retroactive immunity... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/10/supreme-court-telecoms-win-immunity
Microsoft's definition of "agressively challenge" seems to differ greatly from the rest of the world.
If they always immediately comply, the government will never have to force them so they'll never have to aggressively challenge anything. Brilliant!"And we'd aggressively challenge in court any attempts to try and force us to do so."
I think MicroSoft is just being what they are: A giant, clumsy and powerful corporation.
Kinect is 'alway on' and mandatory because ADVERTISERS
I posted this some pages back, but I really believe this is their primary motivation: monetizing the Kinect tech.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/0...e-with-kinect/
Anything else regarding spying is just an externality for them.
I don't think MS cares about our privacy in any meaningful manner.
We need to (and are having ) a conversation about what our relationship is with our technology, and what are the acceptable boundaries for privacy vs. being very interconnected. This is part of that larger debate.
Once again MS are being craven and inelegant. Given the general enthusiast reaction to their overall XBox One rollout strategy; shitty policies (DRM), hubris, really bad marketing/PR decisions, I guess I'm happy that they are being evil idiots, rather than evil geniuses. Losing marketshare and consumer trust is a simple and clear lesson for them going forward. I support everyone being pissed off at any corps dumb decisions. It's the only way they'll learn.
Let's see which side wins this November; 1 billion $ in MS marketing blitz to the masses, or an informed consumer. My popcorn is ready.