you mean by imbedding a chip in our foreheads? That will be hacked just like everything else? Oh yea I thought I had met the longest winded person some years ago but you and the guy before you take the trophy.
While money aka crash can't be stolen ... Thanks, I all take it from here. See it, there will be always ways. But's fully OT now.
and it says: "Die gefürchtete EULA-Klauselwüste (End User Licence Agreement), die jedem PC mit vorinstalliertem Windows beiliegt und die man bei jeder Neuinstallation per Zwangs-Mausklick abnicken muss, hat übrigens keine vertraglich bindende Kraft -" "The endangered EULA end-user license ("End User License Agreement"), which is included with every PC with preinstalled Windows and has to be sent by forced mouse click on every new installation, does not have a contractually binding force -" that's a general statement on eulas, its not relevant what is also explained in the article. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension or trying hard to create straw mans to fight? You wrote that windows activation sends a lot of data to M$ hence why complain about telemetry: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/windows-10-privacy.377785/page-24#post-2670918 To what I replayed that all users that have an issue with activation sending data to M$ can use a KMS activator tool, which activates a windows without talking to M$, hence making you argument void: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/windows-10-privacy.377785/page-24#post-2670929 Than you created your first straw man claiming that I am complaining against KMS, while I did the exact opposite: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/windows-10-privacy.377785/page-24#post-2671075 Than I explained that to you: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/windows-10-privacy.377785/page-24#post-2671128 Than you complained about KMS tools not being trustworthy: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/windows-10-privacy.377785/page-25#post-2672252 To what I replayed that its up to the user whom he trusts less: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/windows-10-privacy.377785/page-25#post-2672711 And now you returned to think (or at least write) that I'm complaining against KMS activation, what a I don't: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/windows-10-privacy.377785/page-25#post-2672896 So please try to follow the discussion or better don't try to set up straw man arguments. ok? That's you choice whom you (don't) trust. But i think you can't dispute that auditing linux's telemetry features is orders of magnitude easier that auditing a closed source product like window, or can you? No its not necessary, its just helpful. You have NOT provided any valid arguments why there should be NO full opt out option from telemetry. Sure I can i just need a signed hash sum of that file, but to avoid straw mans, what file integrity do you mean, earlier we were talking about compromised internet lines so i assumed you don't mean file integrity on your HDD but file integrity of data sent over the Internet, and with GPG and mailing I provided one of many means how you can validate the file integrity of transferred files. Sorry but that is BS if I messup the implementation in one of the example cases I see that the ciphertext output of two test cases does not match, than I validate booth until i eider get a matching output or am confident beyond any reasonable doubt that the implementation is correct meaning that i proven a manipulation. I see the OS output and can compare it by hand, that is easy. Yes that what I said: Its a weakness found in SSL but its not a principle weakness of arbitrary encrypted connection, for example my file sharing client: https://github.com/DavidXanatos/NeoLoader does not use SSL but a more rigid protocol that would not allow a man in the middle to pick a weaker cipher standard that what the communicating parties want to use. Than I will just use Zerocoin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerocoin wherever possible I'm providing a solution all the time: force M$ by law to add a switch to fully opt out form any telemetry Like many years ago M$ was forced to add the browser selection tool to their products. EU can do David X.
Sure it can. But you know its better to be robbed of some of your money than of your freedom or even your life, isn't it?
I was forced to upgrade to Windows 10 because Windows 7 could not update in my area any longer. I spent hours on the phone with Microsoft support due to not being able to connect to their update server for several months. I was informed there was nothing I could do about it because it was a bug on their end. Microsoft tried to install the updates remotely, and failed miserably. I tried reformatting multiple machines, and ended up being stuck with machines without any updates. I was informed the best option was to upgrade to Windows 10. The only good think I have seen about Windows 10 so far is it is pretty stable. I have not had any BSOD's using it. The bad thing is it has a millions of different things constantly dialing out to share my data with Microsoft even if I opt out of everything possible. Microsoft does not have any business collecting so much data on it's users without an option to opt out. It is also quite buggy in the fact that it is incapable of remembering my default applications. I have to sometimes reset them more than once a day. Also, I have slow DSL internet, and it uses 100% of my bandwidth at random times. There should be more custom settings to prevent this from occurring without having to use metered internet. I miss Windows 7 so much! I think it may be working in my area again. I will probably use the Windows 7 license through my University to revert back to Windows 7 as much as possible. Most of my network, and database classes still use Windows 7. I'm going to be switching to Linux as much as possible for my own use. Linux will take care of most of my needs, and I will be recommending it to my future clients once i'm finished with school next fall.
Your argument about EULA is still wrong because it (at times today) not even affects OEM's anymore, due the fact that key is stored in bios. So whatever software you get it doesn't matter at all since you can't (without touching the bios) give the key 'back'. I not argue with you about illegal KMS activation (which btw only works in Enterprise versions) [so not a reliable solution for home users]. It doesn't even matter at all if you contact WUS servers (for updates) afterwards since then they anyway get a minimum on information. You suggest to use illegal tools because you want to avoid MS connections, I said if they are distrust better use Linux. End of this topic. You don't get it. You argument was that Linux is open source. I said it even comes with same telemetry. Which I think was first time you ever heard/noticed it has telemetry too. Then I said it makes no difference because no one audit it. So why you don't give up - you're already wrong with EULA, KMS and Linux too. For 99% of all users the toggles making no difference, they skip everything and press okay, toggles or not. Gpedit.msc exist now 20 years and how many people use it? Only experts and experts are not the problem here. You don't even know what you talking about here. GPG has nothing to do that MS encrypt the stream. You simply need a decrypter and there is none (yet). So you can't prove anything here even if you do everything locally here with VM or whatever tools. And no we talked about the telemetry <-> spying proof. It's not BS. You simply have no clue what you talking about. If encryption is strong enough and someone request it and needs to verify it e.g. manually then this effort is so huge that everyone give up very fast. Lavabit was most known example. I never said you can downgrade this, it was about duplicating the data stream (with a second cable which is already widely used) and they using such things because it's less effort. Yes, you. The target we talking about are users which not having much 'PC knowledge'. Nice troll effort here. And how long it takes until someone find out other things. This had nothing to do with the main argument. There are always ways. If not on the software then on the human level via reverse engeneering, fake updates, and and and. Your argumentation that 'virtual' things are more safe is wrong together with the fact that this isn't even widely known (yet). So you can't use something if the rest of the world not accept it. Bitcoin also claimed to be secure, first hack was not even 1 year after the first bigger 'banks' accepted bitcoin (bitcoin market <-> hackers). That's not a solution. You basically complain about possible MS spying but want now government spying/control. Ridiculous. Just because EU/EFF forced MS to change something doesn't mean they're always right. It's their OS and they can theoretically do whatever they want if it's not against law. It was ridiculous story with browser, cause people are too lazy/stupid to download another Browser. Seriously? We have/had much bigger problems like this.
This is so irrelevant! Its about EULAs in general, bios keys are only for windows that is only one product that uses an EULA. But the fact that in the German speaking realm EULAs are not legally binding for end users unless presented before payment applies to all software The simple point is you can entirely disable it when using Linux, you can not do that reliably with windows. I'm not arguing if its ok or not to provide optional telemetry in a product. I'm arguing that if such feature is present there must be a reliable option to entirely and permanently disable it. Because I'm right, as simple as that You just really love your straw mans don't you? You wrote that the the governments can "compromise the cables directly" and you prefer to "so I prefer to give them meta-data which are useless compared to giving them unlimited access." here https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/windows-10-privacy.377785/page-25#post-2672252 to what I replied that "Compromise the cables directly is still less an invasion of privacy than Compromise the OS itself." https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/windows-10-privacy.377785/page-25#post-2672711 Than you argued "Compromising the cables is more dangerous. YOu can test and check the OS against attacks but not what leaves your home. You not know if the traffic isn't captured, manipulöated." https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/windows-10-privacy.377785/page-25#post-2672873 And I argues that that is BS and that there are very well ways to ensure the integrity of data you send and or receive, by for example "but when sending a encrypted confidential mail to a friend we can use GPG to ensure confidentiality and integrity" : https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/windows-10-privacy.377785/page-25#post-2672885 Than you prepared your straw man by replying "No you can't. You can't check file integrity when traffic was encrypted. Which is currently the fact when it comes to telemetry. Mailing is another topic created by you now." https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/windows-10-privacy.377785/page-25#post-2672896 Smelling that I asked for clarification what you are talking about "Sure I can i just need a signed hash sum of that file, but to avoid straw mans, what file integrity do you mean, ..." https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/windows-10-privacy.377785/page-26#post-2673008 So who is not knowing what he is talking about here? Its surly not me, and 3rd party readers of this topic can validate that by the provided links and quotations. Now to the next thing you don't know what you are talking about or are trying on purpose to misunderstand my postings: You started on a tangent: "What if Intel/AMD manipulated the hardware (CPU's) in first place which makes every encryption weak - You can't prove that since you have not the tools/hardware and the research to prove if 1+1 is 2. You only can check what the OS tells you and this can be different from what you're hardware offer." arguing that why should we care about OS spying if already the hardware may be compromised to weaken encryption: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/windows-10-privacy.377785/page-25#post-2672873 To what I replied that in fact I can validate if my hardware is applying the known cryptographic algorithms correctly: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/windows-10-privacy.377785/page-25#post-2672885 that it is in fact no sorcery and can be done quite easily. Than you made some pointless arguments in reply to the presented method of validation: "You can't because one single mistake in 1000 lines of one single encrypted word and the effort would be useless.": https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/windows-10-privacy.377785/page-25#post-2672896 And to that I replied that you are wrong: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/windows-10-privacy.377785/page-26#post-2673008 And now you wrote this: What is really not what we were talking about, we were talking about "What if Intel/AMD manipulated the hardware (CPU's) in first place which makes every encryption weak" now, to validate that for block ciphers you just have to test that given a particular key and some plaintext your implementation will generate proper ciphertext according to the specification. I presented to you how one can do that in a way that even using manipulated hardware should allow you to check if the crypto running directly on the hardware operates properly. Now we don't need to always validate every byte of the hundreds of TB of encrypted date, one only has to validate that the implementation works and one can do some comparisons to randomly selected samples if one is especially paranoid. You simply have no clue what you talking about. And the issue you started with had nothing to do with Lavabit printing keys on paper to make the live difficult to the authorities. Nope it was not about "duplicating the data stream", it was about you writing "NSA and other agencies not need the OS, they lower the encryption or downgrade to a weaker one and then they can grab the data. This works without that the user has any control of it or that MS/OS knows from it." https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/windows-10-privacy.377785/page-25#post-2672885 It was not about inserting a beam splitter into some backbone optical fibres and sniffing the traffic in bulk but apparently about a man in the middle Attack as proven by your later reply providing links to such type of attack: And my point rightfully stands, such attacks work only for some connections of the conditions are right. Its much less of a threat to your privacy than a compromised os. And here you create an other straw man: Please PLEASE point to a post of mine where I would claim that "'virtual' things are more safe". I absolutely do not think so. And your most recent attempt on at least a partial straw man: You are right I want government control of large companies that hold a monopolistic position. But that is not spying, and I don't want government control on everything or everyone, absolutely not. The smaller you are the more freedoms and less regulations you should be subject to. I love so much good old style forum threads, Dialectic trickery can be so easily defeated by pointing to relevant conversation parts, ensuring non of the discussing parties can spin the public perception in his favour while in reality beeing the loosing party. David X.
I only can laugh at this ignorance and lack of understanding. 25 years EULA and he things he knows it better. Ridiculous also no proof of anything.
I feel the same about you. There are 100 and one pages you can google for in the German speaking realm saying the same thing, a EULA is null and void if presented to the user after he already bought the software. Like here: https://bgb-faq.de/2013/07/04/muss-...eren-geltung-bei-der-installation-bestaetige/ "Muss ich Nutzungsbedingungen gekaufter Software beachten, wenn ich deren Geltung bei der Installation bestätige? Nein. Der geschlossene Kaufvertrag über Software berechtigt zur Nutzung der Software. Dieses Recht besteht allein aufgrund des Vertrags und kann nicht von der rechtsgeschäftlichen Bestätigung weiterer Bedingungen abhängig gemacht werden. Wenn man also auf eine Schaltfläche der Art „Lizenzbedingungen bestätigen“ klicke oder einen Haken an einem entsprechenden Textfeld setzen muss, ist das ohne Bedeutung. Damit wird keine Willenserklärung abgegeben. " or here: https://www.brennecke.pro/204140/Li...proprietaere-Lizenzen-EULA-und-Zwangslizenzen "Genau hier liegt schon das erste Problem, nämlich die Gültigkeit von EULAs, denn diese werden in der Regel erst nach Kauf des Produktes gestellt und entfalten somit keine Wirksamkeit." or here: https://internetrechtakademie.de/erklaerung-internetrecht/ "Rechtlich gesehen sind solche Lizenzvereinbarungen als „Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen“ (AGB) einzuordnen, welche zum Zeitpunkt des Vertragsabschluss bereits einbezogen sein müssen (§ 305 Abs.2 BGB). Da Sie bei der Installation die Software i.d.R. bereits erworben haben (entweder durch Kauf einer CD-ROM, DVD oder durch Download auf Ihren Rechner) ist der eigentliche Kaufvertrag die rechtliche Grundlage für die Vertragsbeziehungen zwischen Ihnen als Anwender und dem Betreiber der Software. Diese EULA wären also nur dann Vertragsbestandteil, wenn Sie schon zum Zeitpunkt des Vertragsabschlusses die Möglichkeit hatten vom ihrem Inhalt Kenntnis zu nehmen." As simple as that, you know not all the world works like the US
Maybe you should read MS EULA yourself, it's mentioned in there + they proving already since 20 years an online EULA so you can read it BEFORE you download/buy the product. This is what MS already provide since (I guess forever) and I already linked that. TOS + EULA Help. Only real prove you gave is now § 305 Abs.2 BGB and this doesn't matter because MS (as said) offers this. It's not possible to offer 'more' here. Again you're wrong, if you would be right MS already had been forced to change this. But nothing. I could argue on your other false statements but it's like explaining a bird math, he never will get it.
This has to be provided in the shop where you buy it not just hidden some ware on the internet. The amount of ad hominem attack's in your recent postings is astonishing. Your lack of arguments as supported by your unwillingness to "argue on your other false statements" is really embarrassing. Don't you get that you are not arguing to convince me and I'm not arguing to convince you, its all about convincing 3td party readers of this thread.
This is never mentioned somewhere. Also you can ask in shop to print it from internet, I bet no one ever asked that because it's ridiculous. I already was giving a lot of arguments, it's you knowledge which is lacking here. There is a difference between your personally wishes here and the truth. That you still can't give up on it makes yourself a laugh number. You're wrong, everyone in this channel know this already but you still argue with you so called 'fact' which are comments from other people. Only true fact here is one single line § 305 Abs.2 BGB which gets totally destroyed due the fact that MS already offered this. When you buy a hard copy you already get a little paper EULA with it (last time I check with windows 7). And times have changed so you can't expect if someone downloads the OS (which is normal today) that he download a 'paper' through the internet. So you entire argumentation is only because you think you're right here with ignoring the fact that no one ever had complained about this? Otherwise show me a court order or a poll.
Why should you ask for something that could put additional constrains on you, if the merchant offers you the product without asking any additional contrasts its good for you. Haha the laugh number here are you, the paper EULA is not available to you before you buy, as its inside the package which you can only open once you bought the product. how about that court ruling I found in only a few minutes: https://www.thebuddyforum.com/threads/urteil-des-lg-hamburg-vom-04-03-2014.152272/ "(1) Keine Einbeziehung von AGB beim Kauf der Box-Version Die Einbeziehung der Battie.net-AGB, der Battle.net EULA und der Auktionshaus- AGB erfolgt zwar noch nicht bei dem Kauf der Box-Version bzw. der DVD. Die Voraussetzungen des § 305 II BGB werden bei Abschluss des Kaufvertrages über die Box des Spiel-Clients für die Battle.net-AGB, die Battle.net EULA und die Auktionshaus-AGB nicht erfüllt. Zwar weist die Box Hinweise auf die AGB und wo diese zu finden sind, auf, es ist aber nicht vorgetragen worden, dass dem Käufer die Möglichkeit verschafft wird, bei Kaufvertragsschluss in zumutbarer Weise von dem Inhalt der AGB Kenntnis zu nehmen." The EULA which in German law is treated like AGB gets in the case in question only to be valid when the customer registers for an additional online service to which the same EULA is presented "(2) Einbeziehung der AGB bei der Registrierung auf dem Battie.net-Server" I'm sure if you put more work into into it you will find better once. So one could argue that people using a online M$ account probably are subject to the M$ EULA even though they may have bought a physical copy. But the ruling clearly states that bought a physical copy in the shop does not makes ans EULA valid, hence all people that buy a hardcopy of windows in the German speaking realm are definetly free and for them the EULA is null and void. And that is entirely irrelevant, for the mater at hand. You can not say cause most buy online and see the EULA before entering their credit card info M$ EULA apples to all customers, that a major logical fallacy. You remember that we started this tangent by you arguing that M$ can do what they want because if they write it in the EULA they have the right to do so. That is not entirely true in the German speaking realm eider even for the cases where the EULA happens to remain valid. As in Germany the EULA is only a form of AGB its subject to a myriad of legal restrictions many of which covers subjects like privacy protection etc, hence you can expect that those EULA clauses about sending to many data to M$ would be found null and void in a German court. https://www.brennecke.pro/204140/Li...proprietaere-Lizenzen-EULA-und-Zwangslizenzen "...unstreitig ist jedoch, dass EULAs der Inhaltskontrolle der AGB unterliegen, wonach besonders Klauseln ungültig sind, die den Unterzeichner unangemessen benachteiligen, was sehr oft der Fall sein dürfte. Klauseln, die so überraschend kommen, dass der Unterzeichner nicht mit ihnen zu rechnen braucht, sind ebenfalls ungültig." The simple thing is that if you could support your Argumetns you would instead of hoping the readers of this thread will fall for your dialectic trickery.
Maybe read your links and then you see it yourself. Hopeless .. as said bird and math. Not affects MS here. It's also different here, because MS has it's own WebStore while Battle.NET acts like it's own pay to download store this has nothing much to do with OS or the EULA itself. Since in the battle.net is a platform which offers different eula's for each thing, for the game the store itself and other third-party products. This is totally different from MS and because they know about this they even mentioned it. Your second link is also not a prove, more like a well known thing which only explains how EULA works for software. Umstritten. Yes, but a lot of things are 'umstritten'. So before you waste your time google now (to troll me) check it's content (the full content) and not only pick up the parts you think they're supporting your personal arguments. Good luck trolling others now. Wake me up when MS gets a real court order on this (which never will happen).
I checked the content and it supports my arguments. And if any reader of this thread wants to check that for himself he can, apparently google translate is really good these days. David X.
Related to Windows 10 privacy, this is also interesting: http://www.nsaneforums.com/topic/29...tings-windows-10-creators-update-phones-home/
Hah ha, And i'm still only now flushing the bugs out of 1511. I can't imagine what a nightmare and another 100 years worth of probing the inner belly of the next (2) might be like. I will say this, IF only they would find a way to kill off at least 1/2 the services they stuff into these O/S's, and find some other method less resource hungry, they might actually have something with snap to brag about. Like a car, truck, and yet another analogy our own gut, you just can't keep stuffing without bogging things down, Answer? Upgrade to more powerful machine, and another one after that and so on and so forth.
Blocking outbound traffic on router/firewall is probably only way to prevent communication with mother ship. OTOH maintaining the list ob blacklisted domains and IPs would probably be real PITA.
Let's be honest. The only reason I use Windows is because most PC games don't support Linux, and you are forced to use Windows in order to run them. Otherwise, I have absolutely no good reason to ever use Windows. Windows is only good for PC gaming...that's it...otherwise, Linux beats it every way in every aspect.
Some recently updated tools: Destroy Windows 10 Spying v1.7.1 (February 12, 2018) Github Disable Windows 10 Tracking v3.2.1 (January 23, 2018) Github
Hi I am going to format my computer running Windows 10 latest version Is there a guide to properly configured Windows 10 and avoid telemetry to spy on users? Thanks Came
Personally, I wouldn't bother with disabling telemetry more so than the system itself allows. You never know what issues you will eventually get if you disable it completely. In addition that telemetry could help fix issues you have with your computer without you having to mess with anything.
That is an urban myth, which MS keeps spreading to scare people from disabling telemetry. I used to keep error reporting on for the same reason, but in years MS has never fixed a single issue I had. Thanks to Insider, MS always has thousands of reports of various errors and yet it fails to fix them before releasing RTM with known bugs, they are being fixed 1-2 months afterwards.
I have experience with it. Had a video issue that was fixed without me doing anything. So for me telemetry is very useful.
