CassiusLonginus
Banned
Well, like most other devices that can be used for monitoring, at least it would be a user option.
Better than nothing...
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft will "aggressively challenge" any gov't attempt to spy through Kinect
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
Well, like most other devices that can be used for monitoring, at least it would be a user option.
Better than nothing...
ArchangelWest
Member
I'd be just aswary of simple access at will to the device than access to records. Noticed that there was no mention of that.
IHaveCandy
Banned
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.
But really, MS needs to make the Xbox One not require the Kinect being always connected.
The Wraith
Member
With Skype being a program on this console you're going to get spied on anyway. I hate everything the Kinect stands for. Motion controls are terrible and with this always on nonsense the NSA has the ability to spy on anyone as they see fit. MS has truly disappointed me this time around. Im done with the Xbox brand and I have already paid my PS4 in full because I do not have to deal with this nonsense.
CharlieDigital
Banned
Apologies if posted, but this is amazing because Microsoft is basically confirming that it is possible to spy on you via Kinect............................................................................................
How do you know they joined voluntarily and gleefully?
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...)
SporeCrawler
Member
i totally trust them after seeing how they dealt with this issue in the prism affair (sarcasm).
xbone wont get a buy from me unless kinect is optional
xbone wont get a buy from me unless kinect is optional
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 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.
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.
It seems it's somewhat a situation like cheaters in relationships.
"Hey honey, I know that I lied to you. But I will not cheat on you again. I swear. I luv you."
And some posters remind me of abusive relationships.
"Yeah, he/she punched me a lot. He/she also cheated. But he/she said that he/she loves me and that I can trust him/her. I know that he/she cheated a lot behind my back, but this time he/she won't do it. He/she told me that he/she wouldn't do it anymore."
They only care about the money. They would trade in their grandma, if that would mean selling a few million Xbones extra. If they would have cared about any of their customers whatsoever, they would have "challeged it aggressively" in 2007. They are only saying that because people know about their previous doings now.
CassiusLonginus
Banned
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.
Alx
Member
Well,one is even less ethical than the other.
Actually the first one is legal, since the US laws now claim that "anything that goes through a US server is ours to analyze", but there's no law allowing the remote activation of a sensor for recording purpose.
It's the whole difference between accessing legal data and collecting illegal data.
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.
Moral Panic
Member
It's one thing to say you don't believe Microsoft, but their denial of being part of PRISM is pretty clear.
CassiusLonginus
Banned
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.
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.
RobotRocker
Member
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.
CassiusLonginus
Banned
So benefit of the doubt goes to MS?
Kind of hard to justify that...
It speaks more to me that so far, MS is the only company we've heard of providing such ease of access to their systems.
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.
I missed that.
Certainly doesn't point to volunteering.
blurredvision
Member
This has nothing to do with me not caring about my privacy, I just don't think the Kinect is going to be used where somebody will be watching and listening to me. Just don't, sorry. When anybody expresses that opinion, it gets old seeing them get accused of working for Microsoft. It would be the same as you saying you don't like the Kinect and me saying you must work for Sony or Nintendo in that case. It's just dumb.
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.
semiconscious
Member
but, if they had no choice, then what the hell is all this 'aggressively challenge' stuff about? did they just not challenge it aggressively enough the last time? or does 'aggressively challenge', when it comes to the nsa, just mean fuck-all?...
you can't have it both ways. either they did it, & enjoyed it, or they didn't enjoy it, but did it anyway. either way, there doesn't appear to be any room for 'aggressively challenging' anything when the nsa comes knocking...
Integrating Skype into PRISM before they were served a directive sounds pretty "voluntarily" to me...
Honestly, it doesn't really matter whether it was voluntary or forced. What matters is how extensive it is, and the steps they've taken to minimize how much of our information is being shared.
Even if Microsoft was forced on every single piece of information, it doesn't matter. It seems that they're involved in sharing access to virtually everything they do at this point, and with the advanced sophistication that Kinect 2.0 has it's naive to believe that it won't become part of the program.
This is where Microsoft could do what they can to minimize things, by letting us unplug and remove the Kinect from the Xbox One if we choose to. It won't prevent it when it is being used, and it won't prevent the possibility for those who are ambivalent or apathetic regarding their privacy. But it will provide a greater amount of control over when/if the Kinect is used, and give their customers more control over how/when their privacy is potentially at risk.
By choosing not to minimize the extent of potential information that the NSA is able to request, they show a policy more in line with sharing information than guarding or protecting it. They apparently consider the information too valuable, despite still charging for the cost of the hardware, and would seemingly rather share it than reduce it's volume.
Even if Microsoft was forced on every single piece of information, it doesn't matter. It seems that they're involved in sharing access to virtually everything they do at this point, and with the advanced sophistication that Kinect 2.0 has it's naive to believe that it won't become part of the program.
This is where Microsoft could do what they can to minimize things, by letting us unplug and remove the Kinect from the Xbox One if we choose to. It won't prevent it when it is being used, and it won't prevent the possibility for those who are ambivalent or apathetic regarding their privacy. But it will provide a greater amount of control over when/if the Kinect is used, and give their customers more control over how/when their privacy is potentially at risk.
By choosing not to minimize the extent of potential information that the NSA is able to request, they show a policy more in line with sharing information than guarding or protecting it. They apparently consider the information too valuable, despite still charging for the cost of the hardware, and would seemingly rather share it than reduce it's volume.
That isn't true at all. The issue is control over your privacy, and being able to decide when it's put at risk and by how much. Choosing which services put more information at more potential risk than others. Making informed decisions on how that data will and can be used. You can choose where your phone is stored, what you do on the internet, and monitor the software being used on either to have a better idea of who is tracking your information.
Microsoft is looking to take data mining to the next level, literally. We're talking about aggregating biometric data on people inside of their own homes at an enormous scale. That isn't currently available any other way, your phone and laptop cameras can't provide that, and your Facebook page and browser's tracking cookies don't know it.
You can buy a PS4 and choose whether or not to get a PS Eye. And even if you do, you can choose when to plug it in and when to put it away. It's easy right now to choose a next gen video games console, because the PS4 is cheaper, more powerful, better value, and gives you better control over your privacy.
Most people give up a good deal of privacy without even realizing it. The kind of inferences that can be made just from somebody's Facebook page is mind boggling, never mind when you add in multiple social media sources, forum profiles/posts, and other sources.
But each time there's a choice that can be made, and Microsoft wants to take that choice away with the next Xbox by not even allowing the device to be unplugged, even if it's fully disabled.
RobotRocker
Member
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.
To be fair, that wasn't under Microsoft's umbrella (MS bought Skype some months later). That was just an example of a company working with the NSA before they were formally ordered to do so.
With that said, your logic sounds problematic. Because, well, NSA's bureaucratic works should be irrelevant to the other companies. In other words, a company has a formal order to comply or not. If they don't, they are volunteering. Or at least, that's how I see it.
Snowden's Secret
Banned
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.
Turns out she wasn't so nutty after all, lol...
MesserWolf
Member
lol @ this kind of statements from microsoft or any other company for what it matters.
Suddenly I feel like reading again 1984 of Orwell ......
Suddenly I feel like reading again 1984 of Orwell ......
She was rich, she knew. They all know, man.
The government doesn't need the cameras on those devices to spy on you. They can just use everything else.
Dreamgazer
Member
Having experience as both a federal and multi-state level tax auditor, I can assure you that there are many corporations who are knowingly breaking tax laws. Not so much on the corporate income tax side, but plenty on Sales & Use Tax, Insurance Premium Tax, Communication Service Tax, etc where it's easier to get away with stuff.
Luxury stores would ship empty boxes to out-of-state/country residence to avoid charging sales tax on site.
Restaurant chains would use sale zappers to prepare two set of books.
Companies paying out large sum of % of sales considerations to their sister company landlords to raise expenses, etc, etc.
These are no longer just tax treatments. These are obvious violation of tax laws.
If companies don't do this stuff, I wouldn't have a job.
Furthermore, from my experiences, it's only the larger, established companies that actually set up reserves for their tax audit liabilities, use tax, etc. There are many small-mid scale corporations out there who still don't have competent controllers/tax managers to setup those accounts or heck - file their returns correctly in the first place.
Now. I will admit that I am biased in the sense that any company that would get audited in the first place obviously already have an issue. My views are therefore "narrowed". However, it's not like there's only 5 cases going through my regional office or something.
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
RedNumberFive
Banned
The only thing that Microsoft is going to "aggressively challenge" is our patience with the amount of targeted advertising sent to our console. They would hand over all of your personal information to the NSA for the guaranteed purchase of a single Windows 8 license.
dragonelite
Member
So its comply or go to jail.
CreateNowSleepLater
Member
I have an idea, dump that stupid Kinect that nobody wants anyway.
I would love to read more about that specific case, but at the same time, I'm sick of all of these.
If they always immediately comply, the government will never have to force them so they'll never have to aggressively challenge anything. Brilliant!
HiredN00bs
Member
Gamers will "aggressively challenge" Microsoft by abstaining from purchasing their new console. Maybe then they'll remove the Kinect requirement, which will make this ludicrous statement moot.
Saint Francis
Member
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.
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.
SwiftDeath
Member
Yep the advertising aspects of kinect bother me far far more than the possibility of spying with it
Targeted ads, data-mining for ad purposes, multiple license potential etc.
I don't want that in a game console I spend $500 on
Similar threads
- Locked