I’m generally in favor of privacy, but a bar is public place. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Unless they’re putting cameras in the bathrooms, I don’t see how this is an issue. They likely already have security cameras that are recording, this just makes some of those publicly viewable. Other than an additional layer of convenience, how is this any different from walking into a bar, seeing it’s packed, and leaving.
So, not graphic, just verbose.
pegging -v
If it’s been more than 30 or 60 days (can’t remember which) you will be unable to sign in if you don’t have an active internet connection. I found that out in 2022 when I had to travel for work (90 days in a fairly remote area) and the only internet connection I had was at the worksite on a company computer.
The candy crush thing, or more generally the fact that since Windows 8 they preload third-party applications, is a relatively speaking small problem. However, the fact the specific applications that get preinstalled are based on a targeted advertising profile for the user signed into the PC, assuming you sign in with a Microsoft account is a bigger problem. While I’m sure they take every possible effort to make those profiles anonymous the data in aggregate is impossible to anonymize. There is a setting in Windows to disable that data collection, at least for advertising purposes, but it gets toggled back on “accidentally” after some updates.
They also have a number of features, like copilot (the chat bot), previously they had Cortana, that do similar kinds of data extraction. Mostly, in order to actually process the user request, but also to be used to train the model. They store it in an anonymized form, but again, it’s impossible to actually do that in practice.
That’s just two things that are installed and enabled by default that: collect user data for, what I and many others find to be unwanted purposes, don’t give the user the option to disable that data collection (only limit it), and seemingly doesn’t even consistently respect the users choice in that matter. That is by definition spyware.
They also place advertising on the desktop for things like OneDrive subscriptions, MS Office, and other paid Microsoft services. Those preinstalled apps I mentioned before are effectively ads for those applications, many of which are paid apps or have paid components to them. That is by definition adware.
Spyware and adware are forms of malware. Which makes Microsoft a malware vendor.
So, between the inherent security nightmare that is this feature and the myriad of other things in Windows that push ads, steal user data, and generally make the simple act of using the computer less secure, when do we give Microsoft an APT designation and start treating them as the world’s largest vendor of malware on the planet?
It’s one of my six dump stats.
As others pointed out, you’re missing Vista from your list. You’re also missing Windows 2000 for Workstations (between 98SE and ME) and 8.1 (between 8 and 10) both of which were pretty good releases.
Do you know how many times Microsoft has had a supply chain attack inject a critical vulnerability into Windows? Or how many times a malicious insider at Apple has added a backdoor to iOS?
Nope, and you cant possibly know because those systems are closed.
With open source software you have the ability to audit the code for vulnerabilities. We have the ability to reasonably state that that incident was an exception to the rule because its so easy to see the available code and major security incidents tend to become major news.
Pretty sure you’d run afoul of some kind of federal cyber crime law if you did that.
In either of those scenarios what power would the application developer have over the owner of the device? If the owner doesn’t like what the app is doing they’re free to remove it. There is no obligation to use that particular application to use the device for any purpose the owner sees fit.
AOSP is full open source mobile OS and uninstalling Google Chrome is as easy as uninstalling any other app and it can be replaced with any browser of the owners choice.
Similarly, SteamOS 3 is full Arch based Linux distro and uninstalling Steam is as easy as removing any package installed in Arch. Actually the immutable root file system does make it slightly more difficult, but it’s far from hard, and it can be replaced with a game launcher of the owners choice.
Proprietary software only becomes unethical when it is designed in a way that gives the device owner no option but to use it for their device to function as the owner desires.
Running SteamOS 3 on the Deck is like running AOSP on a phone with Google Chrome installed. You have an entirely open OS running a singular proprietary application.
In both cases you could pretty easily uninstall that app and replace it with something else.
I (obviously) hadn’t realized that. That’s awesome that valve has done that.
Though my point was more that there’s very little in SteamOS 3 that’s actually proprietary.
As for patching in drivers to a different distro for the Deck, for me that’s not a huge concern since I don’t own a Deck. I’d more so like to see Valve release SteamOS 3 for general use rather than only providing images for the Deck.
It looks like Bazzite is a good third-party option for that though, and I intend to try it out when I get home from traveling.
I wish an official SteamOS 3 existed with hardware support for anything other than the Deck.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure Steam and some of the drivers for valve developed hardware (like the controller) are the only closed source parts of SteamOS.
Wizards can definitely be femboys. Sir Ian McKellen still looks good in a dress.
I would say the potential for misuse, while definitely present, is outweighed by the potential benefits.
A creep watching you from their basement is less likely to act on their dangerous impulses.
An overcrowded bar, poses a lot of risks in itself and the ability to determine how crowded the bar is without having to be physically present can mitigate your exposure to those risks.
In a crowded bar you have a higher risk of being drugged or assaulted because security and staff will likely be distracted or simply unable to notice and intervene. Also, in the event of an emergency that requires you to be able exit quickly, such as a fire or earthquake not only will it be much more difficult to leave it’s also more likely that people will panic and exasperate the problem.
Is a camera with a public live feed the best way to achieve that? No, probably not. But it’s simple, cheap, and gets the job done.
A bar is also a public venue. In a public place you have absolutely no reasonable expectation of privacy. So, while in most circumstances it’s unreasonable to expect that you’re being recorded, it’s equally unreasonable to expect that you’re not.