I'll mention that I'm deeply worried about the direction we're collectively taking in terms of data accumulation and mass-surveillance and the implications down the line. And I think that everyone who gives their informed consent to the deal which google, facebook and microsoft are offering... does their part to really make things even more difficult for the rest of us. I may not use gmail, but if you do and if I send you a mail, big G gets it all the same. I may not be on facebook, but post a picture I'm on and I'm going into their database all the same. Bonus points for tagging my name. Those agencies "knowing everything about us anyways"? Sure, as long as we actively ensure that it's economically feasible to just suck it all in. So I don't approve. But as I said, neither would I expect to make any difference with anything I could type here. I do agree that using google or Facebook is comparable to using Windows 10 - so I don't use their services. Facebook and Google do everything they can to make temporary opt-outs as difficult as possible. But those are still web services. If it's the OS, though? The actual layer between me and my hardware - with the explicit understanding that neither my personal files nor my mails are off-limits if the mothership decides I (might) suck? I maintain that's a different - and probably worse - story.OSes that use our data to make an OS that's really ours.
Personally, I'd question who does the owning. But that's just me and I realize that you appear to be fine with a deal which involves the exchange of your personal data for services you enjoy. I'm not trying to change your mind here (and I doubt I could).
>Facebook and Google do everything they can to make temporary opt-outs as difficult as possible. But those are still web services. If it's the OS, though? Android is an OS though, and if you use Google apps on it in is pretty ruthless in regards of your privacy. Comparable to, if not worse than, Windows 10.
Sure, the situation on mobile devices is actually rather worse. It's pretty much Apple, Google or Microsoft. With Android at least, it's possible to run a version that comes without anything google. There are alternative app stores, including one built around the idea of free and open-source. It's not ideal, but works surprisingly well. Fortunately, the situation looks a lot better on the pc side.
Yeah I know, I'm using f-droid, but it's pretty lacking in selection (not really their fault, but there is a fair share of open source apps that are on play store and github but not on f-droid). I'm currrently getting half of my applications from the play store, but not through the play store (*puts on the tinfoil hat* I don't have an account), I sideload the play store APKs. Sometimes I download the compiled APKs from XDA or github, if they're available there. Very small percentage of my apps are from F-Droid.
Yes, it really isn't all that easy, unfortunately. I pretty much handle it the same as you do, although sideloading apks comes with its own share of potential problems and we really need to watch what we're installing that way. Simply grabbing them from the playstore is one of the better options, but of course not always an option (since the DRM stuff the apps are looking for isn't on the phone.) At the end of the day, what goes for the computer goes for the smartphone x 10: Consider everything done on it at least potentially publicly available or worse.
But see - I see this data collection and mass surveillance as two beasts. Data collection on it's own is not inherently harmful - in this world, it is a tool. And tools can be used as much for good as for bad. The issue that most people of civilized countries have is that they don't try hard enough to control their government. They've been grown into a feeling of complacency - of being unable to control what's bigger than themselves, while having the government being this powerful entity. That's why mass surveillance is an issue - because, through time, we've allowed them to do so, and a lot of countries have been having more than dubious candidates (while some other places and under certain circumstances, the voters have done a bad decision that put a bad candidate in power). And refusing Microsoft and Google our data is not the way to go, in my opinion - because, if you remember, the governments that asked for Google data ended up using their court system into strong-arming Google into a catch-22 - either Google gave over the data they asked, or they would impede or completely block operations in that country. Google fought as well as it could - but it is we (as a collective civilization - the issue has started, perhaps, around the first two World Wars - I'm not too sure, but it's not a new issue) that eventually allowed the governments to have tools to force it. Data collection is a corporate matter. Mass surveillance is a political tool. To me, saying that data collection is bad because of mass surveillance is like picketing/preventing the construction of nuclear reactors because the result can be used to make atomic bombs. Or that we should stop producing weapons because some of them can end up in the hands of the enemy. We're not going to stop mass surveillance by depriving corporations of data - the parties interested in such data for nefarious purposes will find other ways to get that data. Anyone with a bad intention has the mind to get to it's goals regardless of how they do it. We will only have won the fight against mass surveillance when they have access to the data but cannot use it as a weapon against people. And that battle is one that's fought, first, in courts and elections, and THEN if necessary in the streets. It's entirely fair that you use none of these services - and I know that they make opt-out as hard as possible, because today data is very valuable AND useful. While I don't entirely agree with it, I don't blame them - because in a better world, that data could be put forward for good things. If you're so afraid of mass surveillance through data collection, then take action. There's entire groups dedicated to that. And you can always send messages directly to your political representatives (Canada has three layers - you can contact the Sheriff for municipal pressure, the representatives of your province's government or the members of the Senate. The US, you can contact your state representatives and governor, or send a message to the White House. Other countries I'm not sure) to actually represent the people. The best part about this is that once this is done, there most likely will be the infrastructure to hold companies in the same level of accountability - and you might be able to fight the forms of data collections you disagree with. The bottom line is that, for me, I don't let a political issue get in the way of potential. And you make it out to be worse than it really is - your emails aren't being sent to Microsoft (unless you're using an Outlook address), and your files are off-limits to Microsoft unless you upload something to OneDrive (which was what the big fuss was about - some people mistook the possibility of making all of your files remotely accessible through OneDrive between devices as "MICROSOFT BE TAKING MY FILES"). It's not "between you and your hardware", it's "on top of your hardware". Microsoft can't decide to lock down your computer, still, and I don't even think they can lock down Windows itself. They have no control beyond the data you acknowledge you send them - and that happens to possibly include files and emails if you use their services for it.
Well, I certainly agree with your criticism of the political landscape. But we have to deal with reality as it is, not as it ought to be. And in the situation as it is in the year 2015, handing over our data to anyone on a silver platter doesn't seem like the reasonable thing to me. Even if I were to share your optimistic view of corporations and their motives (which I don't), ultimately it's a moot point as you correctly pointed out. I'm not afraid, but I'm concerned. If i was afraid, I'd just shut the hell up about this and use whatever everyone else uses. Because I'm not that worried about being targeted individually. I actually really think that I don't have a lot (of interest to any spooks) to hide. The sad truth is that the compliance of the masses actually paints a big bull's eye on everyone who goes against the grain. Yes, they actually do target the privacy-conscious. I believe we are well past the point where calling our representatives and sending concerned letters is the answer, if there ever was such a point. Things have taken on a dynamic of their own. When my government sent the NSA a long list of questions regarding the mass-surveillance of my country, they simply didn't receive an answer. They were also actively lied to about the nature and the extent of surveillance programs. How exactly is me voicing my concerns as a citizen going to help when actual official government actions prove entirely ineffective? And should I really expect my government to take action against corporate data collection domestically when it only stands to gain from the collection of that data? Well, what can I say? It's certainly not just "a political issue". It's way more fundamental than that. It's not 2012 anymore. We don't have to assume - we know that behind the shiny UIs and friendly personal assistants, a guy behind a curtain is busy stuffing it all into well categorized files and folders for later use. "Finally, we will access, disclose and preserve personal data, including your content (such as the content of your emails, other private communications or files in private folders), when we have a good faith belief that doing so is necessary to:[...]"
(http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/privacystatement/default.aspx) Whatever they are currently doing (and how the hell would we know?), they have certainly granted themselves the right to do whatever the hell they want to do, haven't they?We're not going to stop mass surveillance by depriving corporations of data - the parties interested in such data for nefarious purposes will find other ways to get that data.
Well, we can either make it trivial to collect that data or we can try our best make it economically inviable. Anyone with a bad intention has the mind to get to it's goals regardless of how they do it.
I certainly hope not. If anyone with bad intentions could ultimately be expected to realize these intentions no matter what, we might indeed as well sit down and wait for the end, right? We will only have won the fight against mass surveillance when they have access to the data but cannot use it as a weapon against people.
I think that no access to that data would count as a victory against mass surveillance as well. How would you ever prevent data being misused once it's there? It's data. It doesn't matter who collected it in the first place. Everything is broken and data finds a new home in unexpected and surprising ways all the time. If you're so afraid of mass surveillance through data collection, then take action. There's entire groups dedicated to that. And you can always send messages directly to your political representatives (Canada has three layers - you can contact the Sheriff for municipal pressure, the representatives of your province's government or the members of the Senate. The US, you can contact your state representatives and governor, or send a message to the White House. Other countries I'm not sure) to actually represent the people. The best part about this is that once this is done, there most likely will be the infrastructure to hold companies in the same level of accountability - and you might be able to fight the forms of data collections you disagree with.
The bottom line is that, for me, I don't let a political issue get in the way of potential.
your emails aren't being sent to Microsoft (unless you're using an Outlook address), and your files are off-limits to Microsoft unless you upload something to OneDrive (which was what the big fuss was about - some people mistook the possibility of making all of your files remotely accessible through OneDrive between devices as "MICROSOFT BE TAKING MY FILES").
And I'm saying you won't make it economically inviable to spy on people as long as the people who want to do it are in power, because they have a significant control over the economy. That was my exact opposite point. Since bad people will do bad things to you anyway, you should do as much as you can before you can't for whatever reason.
You can't. However you can make sure that the misuse is completely trivial - like being sold to some shadier advertisers (the kind that make adware/malware) rather than to a party which has the power and can have the will to erase you. I know that. However, let's face it - Windows never was a privacy-conscious choice. For those who really want to do so, they are better off with Fedora, FreeBSD or Arch Linux. Fighting Windows 10 in the fight for privacy is completely useless. And that, too, I know. However I disagree that it is more than a political issue - because the guy behind the curtain is doing it so that the government can class what they would consider dissidents. Again, I have read that. And I am 90% certain that, in the context it was given, it was for Outlook accounts and OneDrive private folders. It's absolutely nothing new.I certainly hope not. If anyone with bad intentions could ultimately be expected to realize these intentions no matter what, we might indeed as well sit down and wait for the end, right?
I think that no access to that data would count as a victory against mass surveillance as well. How would you ever prevent data being misused once it's there? It's data.
The sad truth is that the compliance of the masses actually paints a big bull's eye on everyone who goes against the grain. Yes, they actually do target the privacy-conscious.
Well, what can I say? It's certainly not just "a political issue". It's way more fundamental than that. It's not 2012 anymore. We don't have to assume - we know that behind the shiny UIs and friendly personal assistants, a guy behind a curtain is busy stuffing it all into well categorized files and folders for later use.
"Finally, we will access, disclose and preserve personal data, including your content (such as the content of your emails, other private communications or files in private folders), when we have a good faith belief that doing so is necessary to:[...]" (http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/privacystatement/default.aspx)