Windows 10 and OS X... which has better privacy policies?

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by Rigz, Aug 30, 2015.

  1. Rigz

    Rigz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Posts:
    65
    Location:
    Earth
    Which OS spies the most? Which company has the better privacy policy? Is it even up for debate or are both operating systems equally as intrusive?
     
  2. amarildojr

    amarildojr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2013
    Posts:
    2,044
    Location:
    Brasil
    Why do I see only two options here? ;)
     
  3. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    6,382
    Apple is the clear winner, I think. Microsoft wants to know whether your Windows install is legitimate. So it must track. Apple just makes sure that OSX will only run on its hardware. So it doesn't need to track. Also, Microsoft is moving toward the "users as product" model, like Google, Facebook, etc. But Apple is doubling down on the "good user experience" model, and rejecting tracking-based advertising.

    But actually, as amarildojr implies, Linux and *BSD are the clear winners :)
     
  4. driekus

    driekus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2014
    Posts:
    489
    Id not put a blanket Linux is the winner statement out there.

    Some users have raised questions over Ubuntu in the past. Given that it included Amazon shopping stuff previously (dont know about that now) id question where it falls.

    Debian, Arch and Mint I have previously worked with and would agree privacy is high with these variants. Others I am sure are ok but dont have direct experience.
     
  5. amarildojr

    amarildojr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2013
    Posts:
    2,044
    Location:
    Brasil
    To be fair: Linux is not Ubuntu, and Ubuntu is not "Linux".

    But I agree. Ubuntu should be avoided at all costs as it's managed by an anti-ethical company.

    Mint is even worse then Ubuntu when it comes to privacy as it has numerous non-free codecs, plugins, and even Flash Player.
     
  6. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    6,382
    Yes, avoid Ubuntu and relatives, if privacy matters.

    Still, while I don't like what Canonical has done with Unity search, it's not at all comparable to Windows 10. Yes, it's creepy for "local" search to hit Amazon. But if you're using a VPN, the Ubuntu install doesn't know who you are. And anyway, it's easy to turn off.
     
  7. MisterB

    MisterB Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Posts:
    1,144
    Location:
    Southern Rocky Mountains USA
    Ubuntu wins hands down over Windows in general in privacy. So does Apple plus Apple's security is much better on all levels from architecture to implementation details and backend server support.

    My general impression of Ubuntu is that it is slick and convenient but that usually means some trade off somewhere. I have no problem disabling things I don't like in software that is otherwise acceptable even if it means some reversing and hacking of files. I don't see that as nearly as big a problem in Ubuntu as in Windows. I haven't seen the need to reverse and do unauthorized hacks in Ubuntu. It is still Linux and the OS structure and files are transparent in Linux. Neither OSX nor Windows are in any way transparent in their inner workings.
     
  8. Palancar

    Palancar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Posts:
    1,746
    I'ld like more follow up on Ubuntu concerns too. Agreed, you may have "issues" with their philosophical approach maybe. However; if a user disables Amazon and third party online search activity (very easy to do), then what else concerns you all from a security standpoint.

    I have switched to Debian (Cinnamon) and I am running that and Ubuntu side by side on two partitions while I keep trying to figure out strengths and weaknesses. Ubuntu takes a few seconds to kill Amazon and tracking searches, so what else to harden? I just want to be completely fair to both while I draw a long term conclusion.
     
  9. ComputerSaysNo

    ComputerSaysNo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2012
    Posts:
    1,448
    Apple is miles ahead of Microsoft when it comes to privacy and security. The fact that OSX is unix based means it has a better security architecture.

    iOS is also better than Android both in security and privacy. They control the app store ecosystem really well. Not much malware has slipped into it.

    I think my next phone will be a iPhone. I'm sick of Androids security holes. Now that Signal is available for iPhone I have no hesitations in buying one.
     
  10. Paranoid Eye

    Paranoid Eye Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Posts:
    175
    Location:
    io
    Does Debian not have more frequent o/s updates then ubuntu?
     
  11. Palancar

    Palancar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Posts:
    1,746
    I think Debian has far fewer because they only deal with "stable" advancements.

    btw --- I am also running a third Linux OS, that being straight Deb without a DE. Basic debian 8.1 running lvm on luks is just lightning fast because its light and smooth. Struggling with getting it setup just how I want it. Repeating, man is it fast!

    ps --- I was commenting on ongoing daily updates not the full OS updates. Sorry, I missed your actual question. Oooops!
     
  12. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,528
    OS X adds so much proprietary blobs on top of UNIX, that saying it's more secure than Windows (especially 10) is backed by opinion not fact.

    An actual security comparison hasn't been made in a while, and needs to be updated. But hearing hackers say OS X is easier than Vista+ isn't rare or anything like that. Privacy is another matter.

    As for Android "insecurity", how many people are actually being infected when they don't even know how to download apps outside of the Play Store?
     
  13. Paranoid Eye

    Paranoid Eye Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Posts:
    175
    Location:
    io
    actually meant daily updates anyhow :)

    Still good to hear Deb is running fast with DE I have to admit when I tried it was sluggish may try it without, then again plenty to play with ubuntu and mint still to try!
     
  14. Krusty

    Krusty Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Posts:
    3,803
    Location:
    Among the gum trees
    Now where did I leave my tin-foil hat? :ninja:
     
  15. MisterB

    MisterB Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Posts:
    1,144
    Location:
    Southern Rocky Mountains USA
    OSX's proprietary blobs lock it down more than UNIX. That is coupled with excellent back end server support, much better than Microsoft's. Apple has built an OS that takes user sloppiness into account and that was from the beginning. Windows has been catching up in that area since Xp and has an OS that is poorly structured and overly complicated to patch. It is much easier to patch a tightly run ship than a leaky boat.
     
  16. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,528
    Source, especially server support of all things? And how is user sloppiness taken into account since the beginning when you had to pretty much install applications from various different parts of the Internet like Windows?

    Seriously, what kind of security did OS X add to UNIX sudo and whatnot? And how is it superior to Vista+?
     
  17. MisterB

    MisterB Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Posts:
    1,144
    Location:
    Southern Rocky Mountains USA
    Open up a Mac and try to find the etc folder and the fstab file. You can't access key parts of the system without special software even in administrator mode. I could go right into the system 32 folder in any version of Windows and delete a key system file. I might get a UAC prompt but I, and any malware, have pretty much complete access to the whole system in a typical Windows installation run from an administrator account. OSX administrator accounts are far more limited.

    For just some of what Apple does at the server end:

    https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202234

    There are also updates and patches similar to Windows but better implemented. I've read some more detailed accounts of server end malware protection from Apple but I can't find them right now.

    I am not a great fan of Apple and don't currently own any of their products but I used some of the earlier versions of OSX and was impressed on how tightly locked down they were compared to Windows. I have to do a lot of work to get Windows locked down to the point of an out of the box OSX installation. The real genius of this is that it is transparent to the user and doesn't cause inconveniences that cause users to disable built in security features.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2015
  18. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,528
    So root isn't all-powerful like in traditional UNIX? And you cannot delete any key part of the system with just the root password? If you still can, sounds just like fancier Windows SYSTEM/TrustedInstaller permissions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like an OS X "admin" is equivalent to Windows UAC-enabled "standard user".

    If OS X had to have the same level of support and compatibility with different hardware/software/firmware, I doubt it's patches will be better than Windows. And to be honest, that link you have me hardly sounds superior to Windows MSRT.

    You're gonna have to expand on that last part, because I don't see it from my relatively modest past OS X experience.
     
  19. MisterB

    MisterB Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Posts:
    1,144
    Location:
    Southern Rocky Mountains USA
    I'm not going to comment much more other than to say, that your comparisons to Windows are way off. Things that might seem similar on a superficial level are quite different in the the way the OS implements them. Even with a root password, you won't get to key system files, they are quite locked down in OSX.
     
  20. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    6,382
  21. roark37

    roark37 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Posts:
    193
    Back to the original question of this thread how does Google, specifically ChromeOS, compare to Windows & OSX in terms of privacy?
     
  22. MisterB

    MisterB Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Posts:
    1,144
    Location:
    Southern Rocky Mountains USA
    Thanks Mirimir. It's been years since I've used OSX and I don't remember this from older versions. I remember having to get a 3rd party file manager to have root access. In any case, apple takes pains to keep such access hidden from casual use which is what I meant by taking into account user sloppiness.
     
  23. MisterB

    MisterB Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Posts:
    1,144
    Location:
    Southern Rocky Mountains USA
    I wouldn't expect privacy from Google. They are really good at authentication and account security which comes at the expense of privacy. The more you reveal to them about your real identity, the safer your accounts are with them are. They want to track you and try to seduce you into accepting it. You can disable almost all of their tracking but you have to trust them to follow through with your choices on their servers. They are much more transparent about their policies and practices than Microsoft so I feel more confident using their services but I wouldn't use them if deep privacy or anonymity were what I wanted. ChomeOS is going to be connected to Google at pretty much the same level as Windows 10 is to MS so the choice isn't really about privacy but which corporation you trust more with the information they take from your computer. OSX seems to be more of an OS in the traditional sense and less a cloud client OS so my gut feeling is it is the best choice for privacy outside of Linux.
     
  24. Joxx

    Joxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Posts:
    1,201
    I understand someone not giving on Windows; because of gaming, having to use programs like Office or Photoshop or simply out of habit.
    I wouldn't, couldn't understand spending a small fortune on a sissy looking machine loaded with proprietary software that presents the same incompatibility issues as Linux but not its open sourceness nor safety record and made by a Wall Street darling multinational.
     
  25. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    6,382
    Well, one can buy a used MacBook for cash. OSX is free. Also, Apple is OK with Tor, and doesn't require personal information to create an account. And one can use gift cards purchased with anonymized Bitcoins. But of course, there's no anonymity when you need cell connectivity :(

    Or you just use Linux ;)
     
Loading...