EDIT: This and the next two posts, are designed to provide orientational material and links. By contrast, click here to go straight to the Win10 EULA License links so you can read them for yourself. Posts focusing on the illegality of the EULA -- which will take time to prove in court, as only a government can sue MSFT, and no government will do that until a) a citizen brings complaint to governmental authority and b) that authority investigates the complaint and tries to settle with the object prior to bringing suit -- begin here.

My latest due diligence notices calling Ed Bott a liar directly TO him (a practice I adopted since July 15), are here and here. It's his job to lie. MSFT is really the culprit. Back in July I used the Insider Feedback to say essentially the same things to MSFT, so there's no subterfuge here. I want my Windows not to be wrecked by what MSFT is doing.

Click here for a summary of the highest risks; which are explained in more detail, within the following posts on this page. For a summary of the 'legal dangers' and what you can do about them, click here then read that post and the ones after it.

EDIT: this post summarizes the core problem, of MSFT bypassing duly constituted authority via its EULA.

This article tells you who's the head of the clearly-unthinking legal team, who drafted that EULA.

For a quick summary of reasons not to update to Win10 largely based upon this EULA, click here.

Original post, follows.
==================

This topic of Big-Brother control is finally getting some press: but not, enough. So this topic is started so folks can post links or comments: the idea being, to have more of the concern available for view by anyone searching on the internet. Because 'brainout.net' is an older domain it comes up in the searches sooner: godaddy tells me it's because there is a lot of 'content'. So too, forums. So this way, your comments get a wider hearing. Which, your loved ones and others maybe won't hear in person, but can secretly read without telling you. Or, without knowing it's you, making the comment. This way they have freedom to avoid confrontation, yet learn the issues. For all you can ever do, is disclose.

Here is the SOURCE TEXT. Always go by Source first, not hearsay. Third party interps are important for testing your own. Never use only third party interps, but SOURCE TEXT FIRST.

• SOURCE TEXT, the License Agreement. Source Text, one of the incorporated by reference Services Agreement in Paragraph 1b of the above-linked, License Agreement.
  
  There are other source texts in the License agreement, which are links you must PASTE in a browser, to read them. In the Agreement, all these links begin with 'aka.' (use the period). For, that same License Agreement's text near its beginning says (pasted text follows, color and bolding are added):
  
  "This agreement describes your rights and the conditions upon which you may use the Windows software. You should review the entire agreement, including any supplemental license terms that accompany the software and any linked terms, because all of the terms are important and together create this agreement that applies to you. You can review linked terms by pasting the (aka.ms/) link into a browser window."
  

Best to read it yourself, and know for yourself. If you already installed Windows 10, you can find the License agreement with all its linked aka's, by typing 'winver.exe' in your device's Search Box, and clicking on the 'winver.exe' that shows up. Then, click on the blue link of the dialogue box which results, to read the actual license. Or, go into your root Windows/System32, and look for 'license.rtf' -- where the actual license is stored, replete with the aka links. It will take you several hours to read. DO that, if you value your privacy and freedom.

What follows is a snipped version of my larger comment in a thread on this very problem of Windows 10 control, made here, and earlier in that thread, here. Please read the context, so you can see there is much disagreement.

However, the crux is what MSFT says. So let's look at what it says. If you install Windows 10, Para. 3 of the Microsoft Services Agreement, imposes on you a CODE OF CONDUCT : such provisions were never in any license or product-sales agreement by anyone for anything ever in history, that I can find. So it's unprecedented. So it can be fought over, in any and every court. For, it goes way beyond the accepted role of licenses. So, MSFT's terms, sure disturb me and many others. To the point where, I won't use it. So too, many others will shie away from it as well.

This CODE OF CONDUCT is incorporated by reference into the EULA Paragraph 1b.

Paragraph 2 of that same Services Agreement says MSFT HAS AN UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO ALL YOUR PRIVATE INFORMATION, and all your 'typing, inking, and speech' (seen only if you elected customize in the lower left corner at installation rather than the big EXPRESS INSTALL at lower right).

As shown in Ars Technica, MSFT thus overrides your post-installation privacy settings to send data to MSFT servers: the EULA and Paragraph 2 say they have a right to do so.

Consequently, it's doggone disturbing to Forbes and Ars Technica and other magazine writers and most sane people, to see a mere software suite arrogate to itself the role of Big Brother over your own property. All your hardware, and all your software and all your information is now subject to MSFT's approval? Not, your government's, not your own? Even what you purchased and you own, if you use its OS, grants it not you, a right even greater than any government would claim? Seriously?

Count on it, this EULA is unconstitutional in every nation on earth, and it's the death of MSFT too, if their lawyers don't wake up. Of course, it takes a good 5-10 years of escalating court fights to go all the way up the legal chain to a nation's own Supreme Court equivalent, to declare something unconstitional. Meanwhile, all that data, gets collected...

• • • But the usual and correct stance on licensing or selling anything,
      is to DISCLAIM any harm which might result from its usage.
      So to DISAVOW any authority, right, rule of overseeing how your product/service is used.
      For if that is not done, then the creator can be SUED.

And, that will happen. MSFT will be drowning in lawsuits over the next five years, owing to this EULA. Disgruntled wives wanting access to their husbands' machines will have their lawyers petition MSFT for the content in the name of harm done them, and MSFT will end up having to comply with the subpoenas. Same for any criminal accusation, tort, or other claim.

Why? Well, if the maker of milk insisted on the right to police how its milk is used, then it arrogates to itself the responsibility over how the milk is used. So if some kid is allergic to milk, then the milk producer can be sued, for it granted itself LEGAL STANDING as a Plaintiff, when it arrogated to itself the right to police its products.

That, is what will happen to MSFT. Every lawyer who wants to make a name for himself, will seek pro bono cases so he can get his name in the paper and sue on behalf of every poor Millie or James who alleges that someone disliked, has incriminating information on his computer, and subpoenas MSFT to provide it.

And the big worry everyone notices (which is the least threat), the NSA or other government agencies, is already true for decades. But those agencies first procure WARRANTS. Granted, in the UK the rules are slightly different, a formal warrant is not needed. But the UK has a 'civility' culture, so it's very unlikely someone will spy on you without at least mistakenly thinking it had first, a good specific suspicion of you. And that, only to spare manpower, for no one can spy on everyone all the time.

Until now: for this EULA is without warrant. That should disturb you a lot. Unless, your brain has stopped working.

For until now, MSFT didn't have much to give the governments. Now, it will have everything. Is that what you want?

Do you remember the movie Brazil? That was a parody of the UK, in the future. Where a typographical error re the name of a terrorist -- who was deemed a terrorist for actually fixing people's broken plumbing and air conditioning for free -- resulted in the death of someone deemed him?

You know how all that gets started, right? FEAR. FITTING IN. WANTING SOMEONE ELSE TO HANDLE IT. NOT FIGHTING FOR YOUR FREEDOMS WHEN THEY ARE ERODED IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES. WANTING THE BAD GUY TO GET IT, AND THINKING YOU WON'T BE DEEMED THE NEXT BAD GUY.


For remember the Twilight Zone short, 'To Serve Man'.

When I wrote the above posts, I didn't know where a killer paragraph about MSFT's snooping was located. I now know. So if you're interested, click here to read the elaborated second rebuttal.

The key text is

Microsoft Privacy Statement Section 'Reasons We Share Personal Data' wrote:“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”

Paste aka.ms/privacy into your browser to see it. If you print that Privacy Statement out to pdf, you'll find the quoted paragraph at the very end of page 4. You can't see it online, unless you clicked on the section and also on 'Learn More' (which sounds like a parenthetical explanation, not an opening of MORE LEGAL TEXT).

Section 14 of the End User License Agreement wholly incorporates it by reference. Which means, YOU AGREED to this invasion of privacy at MSFT's discretion when you installed Windows 10.

Which means, no one should ever send anything to your computer. For they become an inadvertent party to your contract with MSFT if you are on Windows 10.

Often in discussions or debates, one needs to quote the Windows 10 license terms. This license is formally called 'End User License Agreement', or 'EULA', for short. This post, contains the EULA and its primary links (which are highlighted like this text), all in one place.

Problem: MSFT, magazines and other public-discourse outlets are NOT properly explaining this text. Yet it becomes your responsibility to obey, if you install Windows 10; for you become contractually bound to terms that you won't fully understand. Here in particular there is great shock at what 'rights' MSFT has over your data. Should be even greater shock at MSFT's enforcement rights over the content of your machine, to the point where it can purposefully and remotely, disable or remove

• features,
• programs, and/or
• private and personal content
• from your machine for reasons which in its opinion, are right.

There's no precedent for these provisions, in other products I can find. When you buy milk or shoes, the milk or shoemaker has no rights over how you use the milk or shoes. When you get your driver's license, the polity granting it to you can revoke it, yes: but it doesn't police your driving habits. When you buy other software, how you use it is your responsibility, not the software issuer's; so, there is a standard disclaimer clause to that effect; meaning, the software maker disavows any policing authority over software it contracted with you. The disavowal, is normal, you can see it in the EULA for any software you have.

Yet suddenly now MSFT asserts a policing right over how you use its software or devices you didn't purchase from MSFT.

So when you quote or warn of these provisions, people are likely to disbelieve you, since someone 'authoritative' hasn't covered it. (Same problem, when quoting Bible: the actual SOURCE TEXT doesn't matter to people. They prefer hearsay over source! )

To wit:

Windows 10 official EULA at MSFT (English): http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms ... nglish.htm NOTE: to see the full panoply of language options, you must paste the following into a new tab of your browser: aka.ms/useterms. I can't type in a link, as the destination changes to the language of the browser used.

• You can also find the EULA on a Windows machine by typing 'winver.exe' in the Search Box, then clicking on 'winver.exe' which shows at the top of the results, then clicking on the blue link in that resulting dialogue box. Or, you can go to your root Windows drive, its System32 subdirectory, and then look for 'license.rtf' to read the whole thing in Word. The 'aka' links (you can search on 'aka' to find them) are actual weblinks but you don't click on them, you must paste them into your browser.

• Caution: the official EULA for a machine is ON that machine. The link here is the official EULA published by MSFT at its site, and there are probably some minor differences (i.e., my own 64-bit Win10 EULA's paragraph 3 differs, saying only 'you agree to receive updates', with no mention of automatic or without notice).

Windows Official 'Lifecycle' Fact Sheet Policy is also incorporated by reference in EULA Legal Paragraph 7 as ( aka.ms/windowslifecycle ), and it matters to read that policy, too: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle

• For its ** says that you must have OEM support in order to get updates. Question is, what does OEM support mean? Normal parlance means 'warranty', but that term is not used in the Lifecycle Statement, which implies that if the OEM does not support your device, warranty or no, you can get no Win10 updates for it, even if you can get or do have Win10 installed. So I did a video on that, here.
  
  Notice that the 10 years is the lifetime of Windows 10; and, that updates only continue for a supported lifetime. So the lifetime of the support is defined, not in terms of the lifetime of your device. There is much disinformation claiming that the support lasts for the lifetime of your device. Not so, as you can see from the Microsoft text itself. Instead, the supported lifetime is the earlier of:
• the expiry of Windows 10 itself, slated for 2025 as shown in the sheet,
• the end of OEM support for your device, or
• the end of your device.
• So if you get your device in 2024, then you have one year of support left (assuming the terms are the same as now);
• if you bought your device used on Ebay so have no warranty or other OEM support, then technically you can't get any updates;
• if you have to change the motherboard then your device is deemed dead and you must get a new Win10 license.

Microsoft Services Agreement (aka.ms/msa in the EULA) is at: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/servicesagreement/

• Pay close attention to Legal paragraphs named '2', '3', and '7', for the provisions there are unique to Windows 10 and the other 'apps' or 'services' also made part of the EULA. This Agreement is incorporated by reference first in the EULA legal Paragraph 1b.i, and then last in legal Paragraph 14. It might be referenced more than once, but those two places give it blanket application to the EULA. So I did a video on Paras 2 and 3, here. So essentially,
• Per Paragraph 2, you grant MSFT a worldwide 'royalty-free' right to see and use your 'content' on your machine, public or private, with the result that
• per Paragraphs 3 and 7, you must obey a Code of Conduct by MSFT's unstated definitions of what constitutes legality, morality, and harm;
• should you fail to meet whatever it deems the compliance with those (undefined) standards, MSFT has a right to change/delete your data, and even 'stop services':
• since those 'services' include the OS itself, your 'device' can be effectively and remotely, borked.
• Which means, it has some kind of back door into your 'device' at all times, in order to monitor, police, and enforce these rights.
• What kind of back door that is, you don't know;
• just as, you don't know what constitutes its own definitions of 'illegal', 'immoral', and 'harm' in its own Code of Conduct enjoined upon you.
• NB: most nations of the world don't have such rights over their own citizens. So why it's suddenly 'okay' for MSFT to have these rights, is unfathomable.

Microsoft Privacy Statement (aka.ms/privacy) is at: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/privacys ... fault.aspx

• Pay close attention to the section 'Reasons We Share Personal Data', and be sure to click the 'Learn More' link to open up the rest of that section's very surprising terms. The first place this subStatement is referenced is in EULA legal Paragraph 3, and the last place is also legal Paragraph 14. Again, notice that those two places give it blanket application to the EULA. Notice in particular that no matter whether you shut off privacy options or not, you're still giving MSFT the right to look at, store, use your data. This fact is further stressed in the Privacy Statement itself. So be sure to read it:

  Reasons We Share Personal Data, third physical paragraph wrote:“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”

Legal Paragraph '14' of the EULA specifically incorporates all of the terms of the above two subAgreements as part of the whole EULA, but all the 'aka' links are subsumed as part of it, so be sure to search on and read all of them. You'll find the language saying so in the third physical paragraph of the EULA, this text (bolding added):

Microsoft EULA wrote:This agreement describes your rights and the conditions upon which you may use the Windows software. You should review the entire agreement, including any supplemental license terms that accompany the software and any linked terms, because all of the terms are important and together create this agreement that applies to you. You can review linked terms by pasting the (aka.ms/) link into a browser window.

That last bit, 'together create this agreement' is more commonly phrased as 'together constitute this agreement' in traditional legal contracts. The last legal paragraph 14 of the EULA called 'Entire Agreement' means the same thing: its purpose is to define the 'legal documents' which together constitute the whole agreement. This matters, for you're looking only at the EULA, and if you didn't pay close attention to that quote above, you're likely going to skip over the 'aka' links and think that what you see, is all you're agreeing to. NOT SO.

I find it quite disingenuous of MSFT to put the most objectionable portions of this License in aka links the typical user won't know he needs to read. And he has to know how to paste them in a browser, can't just click on them. Worse, at the time of installation he has to agree or not, and has no browser he can use, to copy and paste!

For you're presented with only the EULA at the moment of installation. So you've likely had a tough time waiting for hours and maybe going through reboots, so you're very grateful to see it at all, so you hastily select OK or I Agree, not reading at all. So the coupling of a buggy installer and this sneaky EULA is bad business. But, you decide, I can only state the case as I see it. Feel free to disagree, but please provide substance, not merely insults.

Finally, compare the above EULA terms with others,click here. If you're still not sure you understand the gravity of this law-breaking EULA, click here and ponder the issues there raised.

Below reproduces and fixes my comment in Infoworld, re

Biggest reasons not to update (for it's a downgrade) to Win10

1. HITLERIAN EULA, especially aka.ms/msa Paragraph 3 and 7, incorporated by reference into EULA legal Paragraph 1b.(i), which grants MSFT the unconstitutional right to remove what's on your machine if in its OWN opinion you are illegal, immoral, or harmful, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Even were Win10 a perfect OS, this hitlerian EULA makes it heinous, a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, and similar violation in every other country.

2. LITIGIOUS EULA, for in the aka.ms/msa Paragraph 2 and 'Reasons We Share Your Personal Data' in aka.ms/privacy incorporated by reference into Paragraph 3 of the EULA, MSFT arrogates to itself the unilateral right – again violating due process of law -- to copy and use everything you have at its own discretion; thus all your client confidential data is compromised, and you can be sued by said client(s) for client breach. Worse, anyone can then subpoena MSFT for your data, and it must comply. Which again, puts your clients' confidential data at risk.

3. PIRATING EULA. Further, this provision constitutes a type of pirating, 'covered' by that worldwide royalty-free right. Worse, anyone using Win10 with whom you might correspond, now has YOUR data in THEIR machine and it can be compromised directly by MSFT without YOUR permission. So YOUR data gets PIRATED by MSFT just like a pirating program which steals from an internet stream, except that this isn't an internet stream, but someone's private machine. Even though you are NOT signatory to the EULA. So now you can sue anyone with whom you correspond, if your data is exposed due to them having Windows 10.

4. BUGGY INSTALLER designed to wreck the Windows you have, not allowing a clean install to another partition.

5. HORRIBLE UPDATE TERMS in the lifecycle agreement, which is incorporated by reference as aka.ms/windowslifecycle in Paragraph 7 of the EULA, which specifies in its ** footnote, that MSFT won't allow updates if you don't have OEM support; since most OEM support dies with the warranty, if you have none it means MSFT can stop the updates at anytime. Given #1, you've overwritten your old license and are stuck with the new one.

6. CHILDISH AND DYSFUNCTIONAL INTERFACE which MSFT LIED as a return to the Start Menu. So if the company will so blatantly lie about a feature, then who can trust it to adequately and morally handle your data? For if we say it did not lie about the Start Menu, then what it said is incompetent. So with respect to your data, it is also lying, incompetent, or both.

7. MANDATORY UPDATES. Given the history of updates,and the lying and lack of transparency and incompetence, then these will make breakage more frequent. Worse, now you can't even know what's in the 'updates', and they are cumulative, frequent, break what you have and you end up spending MUCH more time troubleshooting rather than living.

8. CONVOLUTED BYPASS mechanism to get out of privacy, Bing, Cortana, Edge, restrictions on customization, all manner of necessary setups in order to run the OS. Much much harder to configure versus XP. The average user has to become an IT person, just to use his own machine.

9. GLYPH AND SCATTERED interface provisions which don't reveal what is clickable and what is not, coupled with gee-whiz items no one needs or can yet use due to their equipment or other limitations, like Hello Hololens Xbox Continuum, Edge Cortana.

10. NO HOPE OF THESE HORRID CHARACTERISTICS, ever being repealed. Ergo, Win10 is machs nix, even if otherwise well-constructed, due to the above. So just fire the Board and the top brass and the entire legal department of MSFT. Yesterday.

Enfin, It becomes an immoral act to install or use Win10, since you put in jeopardy, the data of everyone with whom you correspond.

My revised email tagline will likely be

EmailTagline wrote:========

We refuse to use Windows 10, as it is unconstitutional and compromises sensitive information. Please see its License Agreement Sections 1b, 3, and 14 (with link).

I tried to more succinctly demonstrate the illegality of the EULA, here. See if that helps. A copy of it follows below the ===, slightly reformatted:
===========Don't forget paragraphs 2 and 3 of aka.ms/msa in Paragraph 1bi and 14 of the EULA, a link you must paste in a browser to read, even though you can't have a browser until after you've installed and therefore accepted the EULA unread! -- which grants MSFT sovereignty even your own nation will not exert over you (bolding added, in the quote):

Microsoft Services Agreement Paragraph 2 wrote:
To the extent necessary to provide the Services to you and others, to protect you and the Services, and to improve Microsoft products and services, you grant to Microsoft a worldwide and royalty-free intellectual property license to use Your Content, for example, to make copies of, retain, transmit, reformat, display, and distribute via communication tools Your Content on the Services. If you publish Your Content in areas of the Service where it is available broadly online without restrictions, Your Content may appear in demonstrations or materials that promote the Service.

Now, ask yourself this question: what private content on your machine could ever be needed for Microsoft's own services? MSFT has no right to access my or my clients' tax returns which I did on my machine. Nor, any of my emails. Nor, any of my other stuff I do on that machine which is NOT related to browsing on the internet. So this is one big data slurp which can kill me and my contacts at any time! Google restricts its usage to online content. But MSFT invades my HOME and small business??!

Read with it, the aka.ms/privacy which is Paragraph 3 and 14 of the EULA, which reads (third physical paragraph
visible only after you click 'Learn More'),

Reasons We Share Personal Data wrote:"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”

Then, the kicker, "Microsoft Services Agreement Paragraph 3"Colors added, but bolding is in the original: notice how the red terms are not defined, not subordinated to duly constituted legal authority, so then MSFT is asserting suzerainty over you as if it was your country instead. Notice also that MSFT itself is breaking every term in red itself, by what it collects. Notice also how a great deal of innocent activity could be misconstrued, as in the movie Brazil (Buttle instead of Tuttle), but most of all, how there is NO DUE PROCESS to establish guilt or innocence or even the definitions of what might constitute infractions. Totally unconstitutional.

The brown terms are where MSFT itself asserts enforcement rights. As in, brown shirts. For the action is arbitrary and capricious (legal term meaning abuse of a fiduciary responsibility), and above all, UNILATERAL. Again, bypassing due process of law.

Microsoft Services Agreement Paragraph 3 wrote: 3. Code of Conduct.

a. By agreeing to these Terms, you’re agreeing that, when using the Services, you will follow these rules:
i. Don’t do anything illegal.
ii. Don’t engage in any activity that exploits, harms, or threatens to harm children.
iii. Don’t send spam. Spam is unwanted or unsolicited bulk email, postings, contact requests, SMS (text messages), or instant messages.
iv. Don’t publicly display or use the Services to share inappropriate Content or material (involving, for example, nudity, bestiality, pornography, graphic violence, or criminal activity).
v. Don’t engage in activity that is false or misleading (e.g., asking for money under false pretenses, impersonating someone else, manipulating the Services to increase play count, or affect rankings, ratings, or comments).
vi. Don’t circumvent any restrictions on access to or availability of the Services.
vii. Don’t engage in activity that is harmful to you, the Services, or others (e.g., transmitting viruses, stalking, communicating hate speech, or advocating violence against others).
viii. Don’t infringe upon the rights of others (e.g., unauthorized sharing of copyrighted music or other copyrighted material, resale or other distribution of Bing maps, or photographs).
ix. Don’t engage in activity that violates the privacy of others.
x. Don’t help others break these rules.

b. Enforcement. If you violate these Terms, we may stop providing Services to you or we may close your Microsoft account or Skype account. We may also block delivery of a communication (like email or instant message) to or from the Services in an effort to enforce these Terms or we may remove or refuse to publish Your Content for any reason. When investigating alleged violations of these Terms, Microsoft reserves the right to review Your Content in order to resolve the issue. However, we cannot monitor the entire Services and make no attempt to do so.

So notice: registry hacks or GPO settings to recapture privacy, since they are NOT the defaults in MSFT, could be construed to violate Paragraph 3's "vi. Don’t circumvent any restrictions on access to or availability of the Services." Ooops. EULA violated, now MSFT can do the brown stuff. Bork your OS.

This is why I'm so adamant and witchy in that ZDnet article, accusing Ed Bott. He glosses over all this. It's in print, for crying out loud, and he denies it? MSFT does nothing, none of the pundits call attention to this, they all gloss over it? NOT TIN FOIL, k, to wonder why all this silence over language you see yourself, violates your citizenship rights and that of your nation, as well?

One dingdong in that article who can't read very well, kept on saying that since 'the Services' meant only certain things here, that it wasn't an issue. Really? First of all, he ignores the beginning of the EULA, which reads, in the first three paragraphs (on your root Windows/System32/license.rtf), with color added, black bolding native to the doc:

Microsoft Licensing Agreement wrote: Depending on how you obtained the Windows software, this is a license agreement between (i) you and the device manufacturer or software installer that distributes the software with your device; or (ii) you and Microsoft Corporation (or, based on where you live or if a business where your principal place of business is located, one of its affiliates) if you acquired the software from a retailer. Microsoft is the device manufacturer for devices produced by Microsoft or one of its affiliates, and Microsoft is the retailer if you acquired the software directly from Microsoft.

This agreement describes your rights and the conditions upon which you may use the Windows software. You should review the entire agreement, including any supplemental license terms that accompany the software and any linked terms, because all of the terms are important and together create this agreement that applies to you. You can review linked terms by pasting the (aka.ms/) link into a browser window.

By accepting this agreement or using the software, you agree to all of these terms, and consent to the transmission of certain information during activation and during your use of the software as per the privacy statement described in Section 3. If you do not accept and comply with these terms, you may not use the software or its features. You may contact the device manufacturer or installer, or your retailer if you purchased the software directly, to determine its return policy and return the software or device for a refund or credit under that policy. You must comply with that policy, which might require you to return the software with the entire device on which the software is installed for a refund or credit, if any.

So you have to agree to ALL of the terms even if you don't use the services. In other words, the services aren't alone 'covered' by Paragraph 3, but EVERYTHING, since you must agree to ALL of it, even if you don't use the listed services. Putting the aka.ms/msa in Paragraph 14 of the EULA is the clincher, as it's made severally there part of the ENTIRE Agreement, alone with aka.ms/privacy . For they are separately listed in Paragraph 1b.(i) and 3, respectively. So if not meant to be TOTAL pan-Agreement, then they shouldn't be affirmatively listed in Paragraph 14, too.

Secondly, and bigger, is that the 'Services' and 'Service' are used interchangeably. Then, when you look more closely at the 'Services', you find Bing among them, which is the heart of Cortana, and your own searching on your own machine is run by Bing, not merely for the internet. So what, you must avoid searching on your own machine, to avoid Paragraph 3? You certainly have to avoid Edge, IE11, and Cortana!

So you see, sly clever language ends up meaning your entire OS is borked by the brown shirts who unilaterally decide with NO DEFINITION GIVEN TO YOU IN THE EULA, all that red stuff. Which, your own country has the right to adjudicate, not MSFT, and certainly no arbitration board!

But oh the MS fanboys will call us tin-foil nutters, to demand due process of law instead? What, do we need an American Revolution again, this time fighting MSFT instead of George III?

It's not possible to say anything good about MSFT so long as Paragraph 3 exists. It's this paragraph which essentially justifies and even mandates they snoop on ALL the activity on your computer, ALL the data in and cycling through it, private and online, in order to ENFORCE paragraph 3.

Pox on Ed Bott and all the MS fanboys for glossing over it. Paragraph 3 bypasses due process of law. So very simply, NO DO NOT GET WINDOWS 10 until this heinous EULA is corrected. And if not corrected, you harm anyone with whom you correspond, compromising THEIR data, so long as you use Windows 10.

THINK OVER the following. Remember, the evidence and validity is in the text, never the repeater/writer of it. Here, the EULA text linked above at the top of this thread, combined with logical deduction about what must result from that text...

There are several categories of LEGAL DANGERS anyone who installs Windows 10 incurs:

1. Danger of being sued by any of your contacts.
2. Danger of being falsely accused by Microsoft.
3. Danger that Win10 itself will be prohibited by some country where one or more of your contacts resides.
4. Danger that Win10 will be declared unconstitutional.

As each of these dangers requires some act of adjudication to occur, you can't know how long or how well you are safe; worse, once it occurs it's too late for you to protect yourself. Typically, a lawsuit will take a year or two in order to come to trial, but the meanwhile there's the expense of preparation. For state-generated lawsuits (i.e., to prohibit Win10 or declare it unconstitutional), the timeline is more like five to seven years. But all that must happen, is for suit to be filed or threatened to be filed, for EVERYONE on Windows 10, to become cannonfodder for thrill seekers.

It needn't be a malign purpose, to generate such a domino effect. For example, say Sally is divorcing Sam, alleging some kind of harm done by him, which requires his computer on Win10, be subpoena'd. Then MSFT gets the subpoena since under paragraphs 2 and 3 of aka.ms/msa and 'Reasons We Share Personal Data' in aka.ms/privacy (both of which are incorporated by reference into EULA Paragraphs 1b(i), 3, and 14) -- MSFT has data which could be pertinent to the divorce filing.

Pretend Sam is a physician. He has patient data on his machine. So that data, as part of the enforcement requirement in Paragraph 3 of aka.ms/msa, is partly or wholly within MSFT's servers, as Sam has at least once used Bing or Cortana, has at least used Edge and IE11 once. So is now bound, by those terms. So now all that patient data must be examined as part of 'discovery', the usually pre-trial phase where both Plaintiff and Defendant get to look at both sides' evidence to establish what will and will not be brought up in trial/court case, as 'exhibits'.

So now, all those patients' confidential data is breached, and they can sue Sam. Very unintended consequence of MSFT's EULA, Danger #1 above.

Danger #2, using the same example: Sam has some nude pictures on his machine of patients with uticaria. The bot doing the policing for MSFT doesn't know that's why they are there, but the Paragraph 3 prohibition against 'nudity' is in the EULA, aka.ms/msa, so the bot immediately takes action by borking Sam's machine. Which it can do, as Sam has used at least one of the 'Services' once, and so now MSFT asserts rights under Paragraphs 2 and 3 and 'Reasons We Share Personal Data', to ALL the data on his machine.

Danger #3, using the same example: one of the patients is in Saudi Arabia. Whether we agree with its laws or not, it is a sovereign nation, and its definitions of 'illegal' and 'harmful to children' and 'nudity' are not like our own here in the States. So it bans Windows 10 altogether. Of course, Sam didn't know that, and one of his patients is in Saudi Arabia, having come to visit Sam for medical consultation here in the States, with most of the correspondence being done thereafter by email. So now Saudi Arabia brings legal action against Sam and MSFT.

Danger #4, should be obvious: clearly the US Constitution Amendment #4 is being violated. But until a legal action actually occurred, there was no one with legal standing to bring action against the EULA. Now, due to Sally's divorce filing, there is: the US Attorney General. Or, the Supreme Court, depending on how the issue cycles to the national litigation level.

And everyone in the country at that point will hear of this, all Windows 10 machines will be pariahs, and everyone will be scrambling to ditch the machines and sweat out being sued.

Stranger things have happened. Nothing about the above is far-fetched, though of course it is farcical. But financially rewarding, for someone who wants to be a muckracker.

So what happened to MSFT's legal team? If a mere brainout can see the ramifications, why couldn't they?

brainout wrote:THINK OVER the following. Remember, the evidence and validity is in the text, never the repeater/writer of it. Here, the EULA text linked above at the top of this thread, combined with logical deduction about what must result from that text...

There are several categories of LEGAL DANGERS anyone who installs Windows 10 incurs:

1. Danger of being sued by any of your contacts.
2. Danger of being falsely accused by Microsoft.
3. Danger that Win10 itself will be prohibited by some country where one or more of your contacts resides.
4. Danger that Win10 will be declared unconstitutional.

Insert 'anyone who corresponds with' before 'anyone who installs' in the above quote.

So Danger #1 and #2, if you correspond with someone who uses Win10, your correspondence goes on their computer, and even though you are NOT a signatory to the EULA, your stuff (to the extent sent that other person) is now subject to the data slurping on MSFT's servers, under

* aka.ms/privacy 'Reasons We Share Personal Data' which is incorporated by reference into EULA Paragraph 3 and 14, and
* aka.ms/msa Paragraph 2 (and 3 for enforcement) which is incorporated by reference into EULA Paragraph 1b(i) and 14.

So now if you were from Saudi Arabia, not using Win10 but even if Linux.. and shared via email your connubial bliss with your baby bride (legal in that country and in most other Arab countries, as part of shari'a law), then the MSFT bot picks it up as 'harmful to children' in aka.ms/msa Paragraph 3a, the recipient of your email can be zapped and so too maybe you.

Or, less prurient, say via email you are investigating piracy and found some pirated games and are reporting them. JUST reporting them. Then MSFT's bot scanning your email in the Win10 recipient's machine, can bork that machine by invoking aka.ms/msa Paragraph 7b, for it doesn't actually know if you stole the games, and it might ASSume that the Win10 recipient has pirated games, since the term is in the correspondence. After all, to snoop on so many machines, a robot sniffer will have to be used, and it will have to make ASSumptions. Kinda like in a normal forum or comment page on an article where if you type certain words or provide links, your post is stricken or put on moderation, even if the words you use are in a proper context. In short, just like the movie Brazil.

Hopefully now you can quickly come to see how #3 and #4 would become issues to governments, as their citizens' rights are now being adjudicated by a robot. Soon after of course is the pariah status of Win10, but this time due to someone NOT USING Win10, being a victim, or someone using Win10 becoming a victim due to correspondence received.

It's not at all hard to envision. Comments and forums already do this kind of thing and we see the mistakes the bots make, routinely. That's why this Frankforum is NOT moderated, and no one knows who you are unless you decide to tell someone.

Much harsher examples can be provided, but I'm trying to keep it 'light'. Think it over. This whole EULA thingy would make a great sci-fi series, were it not real. Sadly, it's all too real. Fire the MSFT lawyers, please. Yesterday. Remove aka.ms/msa and aka.ms/privacy, please, or reword it to say MSFT is NOT RESPONSIBLE for whatever you do with your machine, as every other software vendor has long done. THAT is good disclaimer language and THAT is what the MSFT lawyers should have put in this EULA.

Or, put more succintly, as I just had to do in a PC World article, to a dingdong who thinks that what MSFT is doing is just the same as all online providers, like Google:

• OFFLINE IS NOT ONLINE. MSFT uniquely slurps OFFLINE DATA which includes all your contacts even if you don't use MSFT services. For the first time you searched on your computer, the first time you tried out Edge, the first time you tried out and even turned off Cortana, the first time you tried to import your favorites into IE11, at THAT point you became bound to aka.ms/msa Paragraphs 2 and 3, which are incorporated by reference into EULA Paragraph 1b(i) and 14 -- obligating you to a CODE OF CONDUCT which can easily go wrong and obligating MSFT TO POLICE YOUR DATA. All of it. In fact, at the end of Paragraph 3b of aka.ms/msa, MSFT apologizes for being unable to slurp all of it, a kind of disclaimer allowing them to get off the hook for being a bad policeman.
  
  Meanwhile, compromising the data of everyone else you know, whose stuff is on your machine OFFLINE.

brainout wrote:

brainout wrote:THINK OVER the following. Remember, the evidence and validity is in the text, never the repeater/writer of it. Here, the EULA text linked above at the top of this thread, combined with logical deduction about what must result from that text...

There are several categories of LEGAL DANGERS anyone who installs Windows 10 incurs:

1. Danger of being sued by any of your contacts.
2. Danger of being falsely accused by Microsoft.
3. Danger that Win10 itself will be prohibited by some country where one or more of your contacts resides.
4. Danger that Win10 will be declared unconstitutional.

Insert 'anyone who corresponds with' before 'anyone who installs' in the above quote.

So Danger #1 and #2, if you correspond with someone who uses Win10, your correspondence goes on their computer, and even though you are NOT a signatory to the EULA, your stuff (to the extent sent that other person) is now subject to the data slurping on MSFT's servers, under

* aka.ms/privacy 'Reasons We Share Personal Data' which is incorporated by reference into EULA Paragraph 3 and 14, and
* aka.ms/msa Paragraph 2 (and 3 for enforcement) which is incorporated by reference into EULA Paragraph 1b(i) and 14.

So now if you were from Saudi Arabia, not using Win10 but even if Linux.. and shared via email your connubial bliss with your baby bride (legal in that country and in most other Arab countries, as part of shari'a law), then the MSFT bot picks it up as 'harmful to children' in aka.ms/msa Paragraph 3a, the recipient of your email can be zapped and so too maybe you.

Or, less prurient, say via email you are investigating piracy and found some pirated games and are reporting them. JUST reporting them. Then MSFT's bot scanning your email in the Win10 recipient's machine, can bork that machine by invoking aka.ms/msa Paragraph 7b, for it doesn't actually know if you stole the games, and it might ASSume that the Win10 recipient has pirated games, since the term is in the correspondence. After all, to snoop on so many machines, a robot sniffer will have to be used, and it will have to make ASSumptions. Kinda like in a normal forum or comment page on an article where if you type certain words or provide links, your post is stricken or put on moderation, even if the words you use are in a proper context. In short, just like the movie Brazil.

Hopefully now you can quickly come to see how #3 and #4 would become issues to governments, as their citizens' rights are now being adjudicated by a robot. Soon after of course is the pariah status of Win10, but this time due to someone NOT USING Win10, being a victim, or someone using Win10 becoming a victim due to correspondence received.

It's not at all hard to envision. Comments and forums already do this kind of thing and we see the mistakes the bots make, routinely. That's why this Frankforum is NOT moderated, and no one knows who you are unless you decide to tell someone.

Much harsher examples can be provided, but I'm trying to keep it 'light'. Think it over. This whole EULA thingy would make a great sci-fi series, were it not real. Sadly, it's all too real. Fire the MSFT lawyers, please. Yesterday. Remove aka.ms/msa and aka.ms/privacy, please, or reword it to say MSFT is NOT RESPONSIBLE for whatever you do with your machine, as every other software vendor has long done. THAT is good disclaimer language and THAT is what the MSFT lawyers should have put in this EULA.

A balanced article on the new Win7 and Win8 'spying' telemetry which the MS fanboys will like, was just issued here. The fanboy position is that MSFT would never snoop, is the White Knight just doing its patrolling job, all in the interest of making your computing life, better. The demonizing crowd would have you believe that MSFT is an agent for NSA.

Frankly, neither position is correct. MSFT announced in Win8 that it is out to "monetize the desktop". Search on that in articles circa 2010-2012, for Windows 8. That continues to be the goal for Win10, search on the same phrase and on 'Amy Hood', the financial MSFT spokesgal on this topic.

So the risk is different: that private offline data you have gets exposed to SOMEONE ELSE. This is not at all like the risk of being online, and of course whatever you say or do online, is rightfully part of the public slurping by Google or whomever.

By contrast, Private data is OFFLINE. No one should have a right to see it, apart from your express consent per item of data requested. THAT, is covered by the US Constitution, and by many other constitutions around the world.

Now, most of us feel that we have no worries about our own data, but if we are moral at all, we should be concerned about SOMEONE ELSE's data on our machines.

Which, that SOMEONE ELSE gets hurt if YOUR machine is party to a lawsuit, directly or indirectly, in the process of collecting 'evidence' (process in law is called 'discovery', and it applies in civil or criminal pre-trial cases). Win10 EULA arrogates the right to collect and even use ALL of the data in your machine, in aka.ms/privacy 'Reasons We Share Personal Data', which is incorporated by reference into Paragraphs 3 and 14 of the Win10 EULA. The other big problem, aka.ms/msa Paragraphs 2, 3, and 7, not only restate this same arrogation, but also add POLICING RIGHTS which even no government has. These Paragraphs are incorporated by reference in Paragraphs 1b(i) and 14 of the Win10 EULA.

So all anyone has to do, is subpoena MSFT for YOUR Win10 machine's data. They do not need YOUR consent, per the EULA. Then, your life is toast. You don't have billions of dollars you can pay lawyers to fight, do you.

brainout wrote:Or, put more succintly, as I just had to do in a PC World article, to a dingdong who thinks that what MSFT is doing is just the same as all online providers, like Google:

• OFFLINE IS NOT ONLINE. MSFT uniquely slurps OFFLINE DATA which includes all your contacts even if you don't use MSFT services. For the first time you searched on your computer, the first time you tried out Edge, the first time you tried out and even turned off Cortana, the first time you tried to import your favorites into IE11, at THAT point you became bound to aka.ms/msa Paragraphs 2 and 3, which are incorporated by reference into EULA Paragraph 1b(i) and 14 -- obligating you to a CODE OF CONDUCT which can easily go wrong and obligating MSFT TO POLICE YOUR DATA. All of it. In fact, at the end of Paragraph 3b of aka.ms/msa, MSFT apologizes for being unable to slurp all of it, a kind of disclaimer allowing them to get off the hook for being a bad policeman.
  
  Meanwhile, compromising the data of everyone else you know, whose stuff is on your machine OFFLINE.

brainout wrote:

brainout wrote:THINK OVER the following. Remember, the evidence and validity is in the text, never the repeater/writer of it. Here, the EULA text linked above at the top of this thread, combined with logical deduction about what must result from that text...

There are several categories of LEGAL DANGERS anyone who installs Windows 10 incurs:

1. Danger of being sued by any of your contacts.
2. Danger of being falsely accused by Microsoft.
3. Danger that Win10 itself will be prohibited by some country where one or more of your contacts resides.
4. Danger that Win10 will be declared unconstitutional.

Insert 'anyone who corresponds with' before 'anyone who installs' in the above quote.

So Danger #1 and #2, if you correspond with someone who uses Win10, your correspondence goes on their computer, and even though you are NOT a signatory to the EULA, your stuff (to the extent sent that other person) is now subject to the data slurping on MSFT's servers, under

* aka.ms/privacy 'Reasons We Share Personal Data' which is incorporated by reference into EULA Paragraph 3 and 14, and
* aka.ms/msa Paragraph 2 (and 3 for enforcement) which is incorporated by reference into EULA Paragraph 1b(i) and 14.

So now if you were from Saudi Arabia, not using Win10 but even if Linux.. and shared via email your connubial bliss with your baby bride (legal in that country and in most other Arab countries, as part of shari'a law), then the MSFT bot picks it up as 'harmful to children' in aka.ms/msa Paragraph 3a, the recipient of your email can be zapped and so too maybe you.

Or, less prurient, say via email you are investigating piracy and found some pirated games and are reporting them. JUST reporting them. Then MSFT's bot scanning your email in the Win10 recipient's machine, can bork that machine by invoking aka.ms/msa Paragraph 7b, for it doesn't actually know if you stole the games, and it might ASSume that the Win10 recipient has pirated games, since the term is in the correspondence. After all, to snoop on so many machines, a robot sniffer will have to be used, and it will have to make ASSumptions. Kinda like in a normal forum or comment page on an article where if you type certain words or provide links, your post is stricken or put on moderation, even if the words you use are in a proper context. In short, just like the movie Brazil.

Hopefully now you can quickly come to see how #3 and #4 would become issues to governments, as their citizens' rights are now being adjudicated by a robot. Soon after of course is the pariah status of Win10, but this time due to someone NOT USING Win10, being a victim, or someone using Win10 becoming a victim due to correspondence received.

It's not at all hard to envision. Comments and forums already do this kind of thing and we see the mistakes the bots make, routinely. That's why this Frankforum is NOT moderated, and no one knows who you are unless you decide to tell someone.

Much harsher examples can be provided, but I'm trying to keep it 'light'. Think it over. This whole EULA thingy would make a great sci-fi series, were it not real. Sadly, it's all too real. Fire the MSFT lawyers, please. Yesterday. Remove aka.ms/msa and aka.ms/privacy, please, or reword it to say MSFT is NOT RESPONSIBLE for whatever you do with your machine, as every other software vendor has long done. THAT is good disclaimer language and THAT is what the MSFT lawyers should have put in this EULA.

This forum and all the posts in Win10 are largely due to the insight of a guy in bleepingcomputer who wrote a post I initially misread. Of all the pundits and people I had read by the time his post was written, only he was savvy enough to see the ramifications. So click here, then here, and especially here for his posts. I owe this guy much.

So many of my clients and friends will be spared the EULA nightmare, all because this guy had the guts to post as he did. Hopefully his perspective on it will help you, too.

.. written maybe 20+ years prior! http://www.jokes4us.com/celebrityjokes/ ... rjoke.html

@ brainout

Having thoroughly reviewed the EULA I have concluded that your interpretation is accurate. In fact shockingly so.

Apologies for my previous ignorance regarding this as I had not read the agreement in detail. In light of this disturbing reading I shall be rolling back to Windows 7.

5735guy, No apology needed. I had the same views as you did, until darkbit in bleepingcomputer.com responded with this thread, above your post. So the credit goes to him. BTW, he gave me this link on how to install Windows 7 so you can't be attacked by future Win7 updates. It uses Virtual Box, which you'll understand better than me.

Finally, I made an Apple/Mac forum in Computer stuff, if you want to put anything in there. Sorry for being late in creating it! Lemme know if you want me to change anything!

@brainout

Here is a ZDNet article of interest regarding Windows 10 and privacy

Microsoft is pushing the Windows 10 installer files to users who have not requested them just in case they decide to upgrade.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10 ... it-or-not/

5735guy wrote:@brainout

Here is a ZDNet article of interest regarding Windows 10 and privacy

Microsoft is pushing the Windows 10 installer files to users who have not requested them just in case they decide to upgrade.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10 ... it-or-not/

Thank you for posting this, and for your posts in that magazine. People really don't know how bad it is. I just hope they learn the easy way, rather than the hard way.

Parallel post is in Computer stuff. The hitlerian EULA part is aka.ms/msa , which defines its coverage for 'Services', here: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/services ... rviceslist , which is actually at the bottom of aka.ms/msa . Note the long list of 'services', including Bing (which can be used by any OS or browser), Microsoft Account of any kind, Office 365, Skype -- all on that list, along with the essential services for Windows 10. So enjoy being under hitlerian Windows 10 even if not on Windows 10, if you are on Office 365, using Bing, etc. Now, only to the extent your stuff goes THROUGH that service, is it going to be collected and (allegedly) policed. But why bother? Boycotting seems a smarter reply, as you never know who might go to MSFT to know what's on your machine.

Couldn't resist, had to make this post in ZDnet just now:

brainoutInZDnet wrote:@klumper @M Wagner Oh, and that's not all, klumper! You left out the Sturm und Drang, to wit (pasted Paragraph 3 of aka.ms/msa, follows, some bolding added, but the italics are my comments). Notice how the bolded terms ARE NOT DEFINED, so whatever MSFT deems them to mean, unilaterally is used, apart from every law of every government on earth:

MicrosoftServicesAgreement wrote:3. Code of Conduct.
a. By agreeing to these Terms, you’re agreeing that, when using the Services, you will follow these rules:
i. Don’t do anything illegal.

• (By whose standards? In Muslim countries, it's legal to marry a child but not in Western countries.)

MicrosoftServicesAgreement wrote: ii. Don’t engage in any activity that exploits, harms, or threatens to harm children.

• (So does that mean that the Palestinians who strap their kids with bombs will be denied MSFT service?)

MicrosoftServicesAgreement wrote: iii. Don’t send spam. Spam is unwanted or unsolicited bulk email, postings, contact requests, SMS (text messages), or instant messages.

MicrosoftServicesAgreement wrote: iv. Don’t publicly display or use the Services to share inappropriate Content or material (involving, for example, nudity, bestiality, pornography, graphic violence, or criminal activity).

• And who defines what those terms mean? Hmmm? A doctor having nude patient photos for diagnosis, can get his machine borked by MSFT without notice?

MicrosoftServicesAgreement wrote: v. Don’t engage in activity that is false or misleading (e.g., asking for money under false pretenses, impersonating someone else, manipulating the Services to increase play count, or affect rankings, ratings, or comments).

• So then all the MSFT pundits should be fired, for every article they write about Windows 10 is both false and misleading. So MSFT shouldn't be allowed to use its own products since it too has lied about them in print using its own services.

MicrosoftServicesAgreement wrote: vi. Don’t circumvent any restrictions on access to or availability of the Services.

• So we can't shut off our machines from the internet, to avoid your stinking mandated updates?

MicrosoftServicesAgreement wrote: vii. Don’t engage in activity that is harmful to you, the Services, or others (e.g., transmitting viruses, stalking, communicating hate speech, or advocating violence against others).

• What about the hate speech and damage MSFT has inflicted on all its users by claiming they are conspiracy nutters just because they quote the hitlerian EULA, as here? What about all the damage from borky installers and updates which ruin the lives of thousands of people, millions of lost man hours because (hate speech), we humans non-Enterprise are GUINEA PIGS?

MicrosoftServicesAgreement wrote: viii. Don’t infringe upon the rights of others (e.g., unauthorized sharing of copyrighted music or other copyrighted material, resale or other distribution of Bing maps, or photographs).

• Funny, by accepting this hitlerian EULA I'm damaging both myself and the rights of anyone with whom I correspond, and MSFT is harming ME, infringing on MY rights, so MSFT shouldn't be allowed to use its own products, is violating its own EULA terms.

MicrosoftServicesAgreement wrote: ix. Don’t engage in activity that violates the privacy of others.

• MSFT is doing that, so its Win10 and all its non-Enterprise online services violate the very EULA which covers them.

MicrosoftServicesAgreement wrote: x. Don’t help others break these rules.

• MSFT is breaking these rules, and forces its breakage on others, downloads without permission and thus harms millions of others, costing them time, money, angst, pain, and many lost hours of work. So by this very subparagraph alone, Win10 and all MSFT online services should be rescinded.

MicrosoftServicesAgreement wrote: b. Enforcement. If you violate these Terms, we may stop providing Services to you or we may close your Microsoft account or Skype account. We may also block delivery of a communication (like email or instant message) to or from the Services in an effort to enforce these Terms or we may remove or refuse to publish Your Content for any reason. When investigating alleged violations of these Terms, Microsoft reserves the right to review Your Content in order to resolve the issue. However, we cannot monitor the entire Services and make no attempt to do so.

• So if what you say is true, oh prevaricating MSFT, why do you have this hateful, illegal-in-any-country, EULA? If you cannot monitor my machine, you cannot enforce this heinous, hitlerian Paragraph 3, so why does it exist? Forked tongue, and incompetent lawyers!

Maybe this summary will help. I just posted it in ZDnet, as ever trying to make sure folks understand that aka.ms/msa is an assertion by Microsoft of rights even your government doesn't have, over your stuff:

Why Boycott Microsoft:

o Paragraph 3a of aka.ms/msa enjoins upon the user (who first uses Bing, Edge, IE, Office365, Skype, Win10 inter alia) a 'Code of Conduct', which bypasses all due process of law and makes Microsoft your government instead of your government.
o Paragraph 3b then arrogates to Microsoft the right to SCAN AND RETAIN AND EVEN REMOVE PRIVATE DATA from whatever 'device' is thus enjoined, in the name of investigation and enforcement of 3a, again bypassing all due process of law, making MiscreantSoft your government instead of your government.

NSA cannot do this. NSA requires a warrant. No police force under any government anywhere in the world can do this. They all have some form of due process of law. So Microsoft is asserting rights above all governments in this aka.ms/msa, which has no language subordinating it to any other government. Furthermore, there is no right granted to you to enquire, stop, or even KNOW when Microsoft is doing this to you. No government on earth makes such demands on its citizens.

So now watch: anyone can ACCUSE you of violating Paragraph 3a to Microsoft and trigger the above. At any time. For there is no due process of law, no trial and evidence, no discovery, nothing.

So boycott all MSFT offers until the above is rescinded, the telemetry it justifies is also rescinded, and something PROHIBITING such illegal conduct by Microsoft is again inserted.

In some of the greatest drooling chutzpah I've ever read, both not-so-Belfiore and Ed Bott laugh away our very proper concern about how hitlerian Win10 is.

They both blithely ignore Paragraph 3 of aka.ms/msa . In the Bott link above, I repeated that problem so many times, it's tiring to read. But you know, there comes a point when stating the obvious, stops.

Cuz by contrast, Enterprise has no telemetry, click here for that article. But MSFT's bread and butter depends on Enterprise. So if what Belfiore and Bott claim were true, then Enterprise should need telemetry more. But of course THEY don't have to have it, but we who are not Enterprise.. do?

Enterprise license is an alternative, if you're willing to pay for it (click here).

I'm beginning to understand why God goes silent.

The text below is reprinted, the original is here. A year from now it cannot thus be claimed that Ed wasn't warned. I don't want him or ZDnet hurt by the coverup, hence all this warning. Now it will not be on my conscience. But I would rather that he and MSFT be saved from what promises to be the biggest legal disaster in the history of computing. All because they drooled over monetizing the desktop. They could have made far more money some other way. But aren't. And won't listen. So a year from now when the disaster starts to become obvious, here's the proof someone warned them. I'm not alone at all. But I am vociferous, so can sleep at night.

brainout wrote:@Ed Bott @jessepollard @Rick S._z Paragraph 3 of aka.ms/msa proves you a liar, Ed. It is wholly incorporated by reference in Paragraph 14 of Windows 10.

Sorry to do this, but here is a PASTE of its text, which has NO PARALLEL anywhere in history except in dictatorships. It says:


"3. Code of Conduct.

a. By agreeing to these Terms, you’re agreeing that, when using the Services, you will follow these rules:
i. Don’t do anything illegal.
ii. Don’t engage in any activity that exploits, harms, or threatens to harm children.
iii. Don’t send spam. Spam is unwanted or unsolicited bulk email, postings, contact requests, SMS (text messages), or instant messages.
iv. Don’t publicly display or use the Services to share inappropriate Content or material (involving, for example, nudity, bestiality, pornography, graphic violence, or criminal activity).
v. Don’t engage in activity that is false or misleading (e.g., asking for money under false pretenses, impersonating someone else, manipulating the Services to increase play count, or affect rankings, ratings, or comments).
vi. Don’t circumvent any restrictions on access to or availability of the Services.
vii. Don’t engage in activity that is harmful to you, the Services, or others (e.g., transmitting viruses, stalking, communicating hate speech, or advocating violence against others).
viii. Don’t infringe upon the rights of others (e.g., unauthorized sharing of copyrighted music or other copyrighted material, resale or other distribution of Bing maps, or photographs).
ix. Don’t engage in activity that violates the privacy of others.
x. Don’t help others break these rules.

b. Enforcement. If you violate these Terms, we may stop providing Services to you or we may close your Microsoft account or Skype account. We may also block delivery of a communication (like email or instant message) to or from the Services in an effort to enforce these Terms or we may remove or refuse to publish Your Content for any reason. When investigating alleged violations of these Terms, Microsoft reserves the right to review Your Content in order to resolve the issue. However, we cannot monitor the entire Services and make no attempt to do so."

NOWHERE ARE THE 3a ITEMS DEFINED, NO DEFERENCE TO DULY CONSTITUTED COURTS OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, NO WARRANT PROCEDURE, NO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND NO CODICIL SAYING WHAT NATION'S LAWS GOVERN TERMS LIKE 'illegal' or 'harmful'.


SO MSFT IS ACTING LIKE A POLICEMAN ALL ON ITS OWN. THOUGH THE USER IS NEITHER AN EMPLOYEE NOR A STUDENT OR ANY OTHER SUBORDINATE. THIS IS AS PATENTLY ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL AS IT GETS. MICROSOFT VIOLATES ALL OF 3a ITSELF IN EVEN WRITING THIS, WHICH NO ONE ADOPTING IT CAN EVEN KNOW, SINCE THE LINK MUST BE PASTED IN A BROWSER.


Legal contracts frequently capitalize vital parts to make sure the user can read them. Clearly you have not been reading very well. And this is why so many users attack your articles. You are being dishonest or are incompetent at reading.

I bolded the parts which are without precedent; THERE IS NO DISCLAIMER CLAUSE AND NO CLAUSE DEFERING TO DULY-CONSTITUTED LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR THE DOMICILE OF THE USER.

This is against HIPAA and the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution, clearly. It also usurps the sovereignty of any nation on earth by making MSFT alone the arbiter in 3a.

A copy of this post will be posted in viewtopic.php?f=7&t=59 to serve as witness that due diligence was provided you.

Ed Bott wrote:As far as I can tell, that "off switch" already exists, and when it's flipped to the correct position, I believe there's virtually no chance that Windows 10 telemetry information constitutes even a remote privacy issue.

What's interesting about it is that U.S. government and big enterprise users won't be using the telemetry versions of Windows 10. So we need to ask ourselves, if telemetry can completely be turned off / poses no issues to personal security, why is it being omitted in environments where it could cause havoc?

Ed Bott wrote:In earlier Windows versions, the telemetry system was known as Windows Error Reporting, which traces its ancestry to the Dr. Watson feature from the earliest days of Windows. Windows Error Reporting was an opt-in feature. In Windows 10, the expanded telemetry system is on by default.

Dr. Watson is a LOCAL debugger and does not run on its own accord... in fact you have to manually start it. And when it does a memory dump it can't be sent over the internet (even if you want it to). This was back in an age when the OS was expected to not be connected to the internet and few people had it. So no, Dr. Watson really has nothing to do with Telemetry since they take different approaches and can be argued at being completely different technologies. Not to mention you can view the debug reports and can see what is collected. That's just my opinion though and I think Ed Bott is trying to make the connection to imply "telemetry was in every windows version", which is false.

Ed Bott wrote:Microsoft insists that its telemetry system is designed to prevent any privacy issues. "We collect a limited amount of information to help us provide a secure and reliable experience," the company says, describing telemetry data without using the term. "This includes data like an anonymous device ID and device type. ... This doesn't include any of your content or files, and we take several steps to avoid collecting any information that directly identifies you, such as your name, email address or account ID."

I have watched Microsoft's behavior in regard to privacy over the years. This statement is consistent with the way the company works, in my experience, and I am unaware of any evidence from external sources that contradicts these statements.

If telemetry has no privacy issues, we have to ask ourselves why it's being removed from the enterprise market and government users? Furthermore, Forbes Insight on behalf of Microsoft states telemetry running on the consumer versions is used for Guinea pig tests before it's given as an option to roll out for the elite enterprise users. That in itself is enough for me to say "no thanks" to telemetry, I'm not running free experiments for Microsoft on my production computers.

I've looked and I could not find a document or release statement as to WHAT telemetry collects. If telemetry collects your MAC address and your computer's serial number ("device ID" is vague) this leads to a direct identification of your computer. The only thing that I could find is that telemetry utilized multiple connections. Until I can find a release document that proves or disproves the information collected, I cannot say whether it leads to personal identification or not. Unfortunately Ed Bott doesn't provide any assistance on this, and instead just keeps repeating "there is no privacy issue", well how can we know that if we don't know precisely what telemetry collects?

Ed Bott wrote:Without telemetry data, this type of problem isn't identified for days or weeks, until the support lines start lighting up and someone notices a pattern. With accurate real-time data about crashes and hangs, Microsoft engineers can spot a problem before it becomes a widespread support issue.

If that's the case, then it certainly doesn't matter for businesses since (and he should know this) updates are not pushed out the very next day. The system administrator (or the outsourced I.T.) needs to approve it first. So even IF telemetry was used for important security rollouts, critical servers can't just be restarted instantly.
Secondly, telemetry on my work computer has done nothing since my programs still crash, devices still lock up-- and the issues are getting worse over time (and yes I leave all of the Windows 10 stuff enabled on my work computer since none of my personal data is on there). So Ed Bott's response for it providing application reliability and security are looking rather bleak.
Thirdly, as I have stated previously, we don't have a list of every item that it collects, so at this point it's largely speculation from both pro-telemetry and anti-telemetry groups.

Obviously it's potentially problematic in critical environments with sensitive information, that much we know. I'm more inclined to believe that Microsoft wants this so their non-enterprise users can be used as beta testers. After all, the enterprise market is far more profitable for Microsoft than the consumer sector.

But there is that old running joke that if you run windows, you're essentially a beta tester indefinitely anyways...

hupostasis wrote: Obviously it's potentially problematic in critical environments with sensitive information, that much we know. I'm more inclined to believe that Microsoft wants this so their non-enterprise users can be used as beta testers. After all, the enterprise market is far more profitable for Microsoft than the consumer sector.

But there is that old running joke that if you run windows, you're essentially a beta tester indefinitely anyways...

Your whole post was sterling, yet I'm keying off this last part, to ask a new but related question: is that why they baked IE into the OS from what.. Win95 onward? Not merely to beat Netscape out, but to make us the guinea pigs?

For they just HAD to know that baking an internet browser into the OS would forever make it VULNERABLE.

So too now, with Bing aka Cortana baked in: you turn her off in Services, and 30 seconds later she's on again, slurping God-knows-what to phone home; never mind you turned off the Privacy Options, you granted carte blanche collection permission by installing Win10: for aka.ms/msa is wholly incorporated by reference in the Win10 EULA paragraph 14; both Bing and Cortana are severally listed in it, as well.

The risk is the same as it was with IE, though allegedly IE no longer is baked into Win10, Edge is, and that not so much an issue since now your LOCAL SEARCH AND LOCAL USE are slurped. No browser used to be able to do that.

So now Win10 is a bigger risk than during the baked-in IE days. AND IT IS DELIBERATE.

So MSFT is putting us at risk deliberately. Or am I misunderstanding something?

brainout wrote: Your whole post was sterling, yet I'm keying off this last part, to ask a new but related question: is that why they baked IE into the OS from what.. Win95 onward? Not merely to beat Netscape out, but to make us the guinea pigs?

For they just HAD to know that baking an internet browser into the OS would forever make it VULNERABLE.

So too now, with Bing aka Cortana baked in: you turn her off in Services, and 30 seconds later she's on again, slurping God-knows-what to phone home; never mind you turned off the Privacy Options, you granted carte blanche collection permission by installing Win10: for aka.ms/msa is wholly incorporated by reference in the Win10 EULA paragraph 14; both Bing and Cortana are severally listed in it, as well.

The risk is the same as it was with IE, though allegedly IE no longer is baked into Win10, Edge is, and that not so much an issue since now your LOCAL SEARCH AND LOCAL USE are slurped. No browser used to be able to do that.

So now Win10 is a bigger risk than during the baked-in IE days. AND IT IS DELIBERATE.

So MSFT is putting us at risk deliberately. Or am I misunderstanding something?

Internet Explorer wasn't initially integrated into Windows 95-- it was only until the later releases was it integrated into with explorer.exe and the desktop (you could set animated GIFs and web pages as your background).

(although not widely discussed, it is possible to remove internet explorer from Windows 9x; and once it's removed the interface operates 50% faster)

The sudden move to integrate IE in Windows 95 and 98 was definitely a political one so Microsoft could have a product for consumers to use. So I'm inclined it's not related to debasing consumers as Guinea pigs in that regard; Internet Explorer was also cobbled together using NCSA's Mosiac, so Microsoft didn't even write the initial browser completely (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_%28web_browser%29). However, what it does share in common with Cortana and Telemetry is that Microsoft public information isn't consistent with what is actually the case.

• Microsoft says you can't remove IE from Windows 9x: turns out you can
• Microsoft says you can turn off Cortana from 'settings', well the service is still running when turned "off", and when killed in task manager RESTARTS itself like a piece of malware, so you can't turn it "off" unless you edit Windows a bit: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-ca/wind ... -on-or-off

Therefore Microsoft is LYING in both cases.

Ed Bott has done it again, using a fluff piece to cover up the heinous new Win10 terms, click here.

In that article you'll see my refutation, which I've also posted elsewhere, as it's really important to see his subterfuge technique. He seems to think by ignoring refutation, that it will go away. As a spokesperson for MSFT, then he must be getting approval to do so, BY MSFT. So no longer can he be blamed for his outrageous stubborn refusal to admit the evidence. MSFT is responsible, instead. Just as, if I told an employee to act a certain way, that employee obeying me is not to blame, I would be.

Now, there are psychophants everywhere, drooling over everything MSFT says, and it caters to that drooling. But if you work with or in computers, you can't afford to drool. You can be sued. So I tried to summarize that problem with reference to the above article, here.

Not getting paid for all this warning activity, and after four months, I'm ready to stop it. This forum was in part created to display the warning so I wouldn't have to spend hours and hours running to the articles and posting the warnings. Whether God even wanted me to do all this, I'm not sure. I needed to do it, so to sleep at night, knowing that I did warn, 'to the best of my knowledge and ability'.

Seems like the due-diligence appropriate, has ended for now.

brainout wrote:Ed Bott has done it again, using a fluff piece to cover up the heinous new Win10 terms, click here.

In that article you'll see my refutation, which I've also posted elsewhere, as it's really important to see his subterfuge technique. He seems to think by ignoring refutation, that it will go away. As a spokesperson for MSFT, then he must be getting approval to do so, BY MSFT. So no longer can he be blamed for his outrageous stubborn refusal to admit the evidence. MSFT is responsible, instead. Just as, if I told an employee to act a certain way, that employee obeying me is not to blame, I would be.

Now, there are psychophants everywhere, drooling over everything MSFT says, and it caters to that drooling. But if you work with or in computers, you can't afford to drool. You can be sued. So I tried to summarize that problem with reference to the above article, here.

Not getting paid for all this warning activity, and after four months, I'm ready to stop it. This forum was in part created to display the warning so I wouldn't have to spend hours and hours running to the articles and posting the warnings. Whether God even wanted me to do all this, I'm not sure. I needed to do it, so to sleep at night, knowing that I did warn, 'to the best of my knowledge and ability'.

Seems like the due-diligence appropriate, has ended for now.

Yeah I like how they keep passively implying businesses are successfully migrating and updating to Windows 10. Give me a break, Windows 10 is a complete failure in the business sector so far (too many versions too soon). Windows 7 for the majority, Windows XP for legacy things that still require it, and Windows 8 on some ultraportables that executives like to use.

I'm in the I.T. industry (and we deal with some clients that have up to 500 seats). None of these clients are being updated to Windows 10 and we cannot since critical software does not yet work with it. Not to mention I would hate it if I had to support Windows 10 at this given time--since I have problems on my main work computer with Windows 10 which not even I can resolve... imagine if a client had that. Their computer would have to be sent in and completely redone causing both parties to lose money and time. You can't just mass migrate businesses to Windows 10 (ESPECIALLY considering Windows 10 has serious driver issues and bugs). It does NOT WORK LIKE THAT! Holy crap.

But hey, Ed needs the BottBucks, and Bill Gates can provide.

@hupostasis:

You bring up a good point. I'm trying to figure out who in Redmond is really behind this Win10 fracaso (Spanish for epic failure, mess, fracas). Seems like Mr. Gates wants EVERYTHING running on Windows, as the core company mission.

So this latest iteration is to fulfill that mission. So it's not Nadella we should be blaming, but Gates -- who is no longer even on the Board, right? But he's advising Nadella.

Yet in earlier Windows iterations, their freedom and flexibility, made them successful. Now, all that is being taken away, no doubt because now they ape the PHONE OS model (which specializes in canned all-or-nothings). Full of Apple-envy, as ever. Petty, really.

So how can such canny person(s) not know this movement away from freedom, will defeat his own ultimate 'mission'? Is the petty Apple-envy motive, clouding what had been a genuine, past, FREEDOM success?

brainout wrote:@hupostasis:

So how can such canny person(s) not know this movement away from freedom, will defeat his own ultimate 'mission'? Is the petty Apple-envy motive, clouding what had been a genuine, past, FREEDOM success?

I came here from betanews.com.

Yes, MS, as always, never really innovates and says "hey we've got a chance here to great something different and useful." They copy. Live tiles? We've had widgets on droid for a long time. The app launcher? Use the ubuntu unity launcher on android, among others. Outlook mobile? Blackberry circa 2003/2004 AFAIK. Onenote? I use it on my :android: droid to sync to my desktop.

Re: Windows 10 updating: I've never had an update prevent an exploit on my personal computers. There's no reason to update except for real bugs and instability.

Welcome to frankforum!

Thank you for explaining how MS doesn't innovate. I wondered where the live tiles came from. Am sure some of the others here will be grateful to talk with you on this, and on any other topic!