Microsoft to make Windows 10 updates mandatory

[RichF]

I thought conspiracy theories were not allowed here.

So much for a substantive response to my post. If you don't like the points I made then either don't respond or make the effort to post something substantive.

Business is a conspiracy to make a profit. Government is a conspiracy to maintain and expand power. If you don't see those things you're being naive. There are a lot of facts, not just theories, if people care to take a look. Dismissing any criticism of the attempt to take control away from people as "conspiracy theories" is lazy, intellectually dishonest, and counterfactual.

One of those is that it is in the interest of people in power to maintain a system where regular people have minimal control over their relationship to information while those in power have things like an expectation of privacy for e-mail. It is hardly theoretical that you can find plenty of articles condescendingly telling regular people that they are foolish if they expect any degree of privacy for services like e-mail and yet the government is going after Clinton for "classified email". How can there be classified e-mail when e-mail is supposed to have no expectation of privacy? That answer is that the government claims it has the right to privacy online and the citizenry can't expect to have that privilege. I guess you missed everything about the Snowden leaks and so on.

It's not much of a theory when there is plenty of hard evidence for anyone who cares to put in the minimal effort required to gather information and connect the dots. There is a clear and obvious trend toward reducing individuals' control over data and their computer experience in general -- toward placing that information in the hands of corporations and government. Remember that corporations are legally obligated to comply with the demands of government surveillance because the courts that rule on this are secret and companies are barred from speaking publicly about the vast majority of the requests and what is related to those. If not for Wikileaks and Snowden there is a lot we would still see as theoretical rather than evidentiary. Part of that evidence is that Microsoft was highly cooperative with the government, even proactive, while Yahoo attempted to resist the demands.

I also noticed that you didn't call out the other posters here who expressed concern over the placement of backdoors.

 

[R-T-B]

If I was the NSA and wanting to target sensitive data, I'd do it in an OS agnositc way. The OS is the worst place to do this when most major tech companies are american... gives us ability to target hardware, so do it in hardware! Make Intel's "vPro" tech a spy tool. Use hard disk / SSD firmware (actually, they may already be doing that, don't know if I buy it or not, but it's far more plausable than this), target the BIOS, etc etc.

But seriously... doing it in the software stack makes zero sense from a spy perspective. It's highly detectable, and all anyone needs to do to get around it is install linux. It will also flood you with useless data such as Mary's facebook friends list and what Anna is preparing for tomorrow brunch. It's borderline stupid, which is part of the reason I call it out as such.

 

[RichF]

The Snowden leaks make it quite clear that the NSA and similar agencies highly value having as many vectors as possible. Argumentation based on the concept that they are simply aiming at the most efficient vector while ignoring those which are less so is not supported by the existing evidence. It's also pretty obvious that compromising Windows does not mean Linux is not also compromised.

Regardless of the spying angle, the German government warned (just as one example) about changes related to the trend toward loss of control over computers and the problems that that entails. It's easy to dismiss what I wrote by focusing just on the spying issues but those are just part of the overall trend toward reducing individuated control over information and data for regular people.

the use of Windows 8 in combination with a TPM 2.0 is "accompanied by a loss of control over the operating system and the hardware used." It explains that ... users and computers running critical infrastructure ... may face "new risks."

Similarly, the move toward subscription-based programs, cloud storage, streaming, and other examples are all part of the relocation of user control over their data and computing experience from the user's body and residence toward greater reliance on corporations from afar, corporations which are required by law to acquiesce to secret requests. The pattern toward "the cloud" is, as I said, accompanied by the claims that there are two standards for online privacy: privacy for those in power (e.g. "classified e-mail") and minimal privacy (if any) for regular individuals online. Plenty of mainstream IT articles have declared privacy dead while failing to address the government's belief that it is entitled to things like classified (private) e-mail correspondence.

While this trend can be seen as an unavoidable result of increasing connectivity, due to the rise of the Internet itself, it is not clear to me that one group can demand privacy while simultaneously claiming others are not entitled to it. Privacy cannot be dead and alive at the same time. It is in the interest of anyone in power to reduce others' access to information, as well as their ability to act on that information. All things which concentrate power by reducing individuals' control over their computing experience should be considered in this light.

 

[R-T-B]

Snowden also told us there are holes in basic AES encryption that the government exploits, and failed to substantiate it. As far as I'm concerned Russia is using him to stir up trouble these days, and if the leak was not in his initial leak I don't trust it as valid.

That's just me though. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

[JL87]

While drinking my morning coffee and browsing...just wanted to pass this on in case it's of any use/interest.

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/46685/want-forced-windows-10-updates-tool-block/index.html

Now, I have no idea if this is even close to a fix. I did not participate in the beta to rtm program. But I have been following the automatic forced updates news with a bit of interest. I for one will stay away from windows 10 for now until I see if this works itself out one way or another.

 

[Mussels]

it allows you to block an update, but in the case of drivers you have to automatically download and install, block, uninstall, then reinstall the old one. far from ideal.

 

[Pill Monster]

^Lol Forbes also posted that article this morning, as news. Funny part is MS released it 3 weeks ago. (Not dissing u btw JL87).

I thought Forbes was a respectable site, similar to NYT, is that not the case? Seem a bit like Inquirer or wccftech imo.


Btw earlier I read a blog which said updates are for Home Edition, not Pro....... But who knows.



Also after properly testing GTAV tonight I must admit it looks a lot better on W10.

 

[remixedcat]

I posted that Forbes article becuase even not the usual sites are reporting this.... it'd aTHAT big an issue!

Also they left telemetry in it and some people have wiresharked it and also used other, deeper tools and they've seen some fucky stuff network wise. Also these updates blow thru mobile B/W like water. Even when you set the connection to "metered".

 

[Pill Monster]

You're telling me...lol



One hour after a fresh install:

After seeing this I went on a rampage through the registry, disabling anything which appeared suspicious or possibly annoying.

Course now UAC is turned off properly windows won't let me load win32 apps. The trolls. Haven't figured out how to get around that yet. Like I said.... too much time and effort. _

 

[remixedcat]

WTF so they turn off access to win32 apps for turning off UAC geez um they are bad. That's midevil shit there.

 

[Pill Monster]

Might just be Windows shop apps like Maps, Cortana and People etc. Still an unnecessary PITA, specially since have to delve into the registry to disable UAC in the first place.

I think the term Power User is no longer in M$'s vocabulary.

 

[remixedcat]

They are targeting 3 year old Fatima that cries when Disney channel isn't playing her toons

 

[R-T-B]

UAC and power user are not really mutually exclusive, though I agree with giving options for certain.

 

[SonicZap]

Wait, what's different in UAC between 8.1 and 10? I have UAC enabled on 8.1 and I'm fine with it.

 

[Ahhzz]

Not sure about the difference, but I have several times come across software installs and operation where I am told by the vendor to disable UAC in order to make the install/program run properly. This should be fun....

 

[Pill Monster]

UAC and power user are not really mutually exclusive, though I agree with giving options for certain.

Can u think of any reason why Joe Power User would want UAC turned on? I can't.

BtwI remember now it prevents Immersive Shell running.

 

[R-T-B]

Can u think of any reason why Joe Power User would want UAC turned on? I can't.

Same reason a linux user should never run as root full time. Full power is dangerous. It's not quite comparable in Windows (as technically the SYSTEM account is root), but you can still fuck up your system massively if you give the wrong command. This is particularly true at command prompt and ESPECIALLY with powershell.

I run with it enabled as I frequently edit .cmds and scripts of all sorts.

 

[remixedcat]

Can u think of any reason why Joe Power User would want UAC turned on? I can't.

BtwI remember now it prevents Immersive Shell running.

Typical mentality of people that want to punish ppl for stuff becuase they have an agenda of nanny state control. Seems it's an epidemic in the PNW within the past 2 or so years Another reason I'm glad to not live there.

 

[SonicZap]

Same reason a linux user should never run as root full time. Full power is dangerous. It's not quite comparable in Windows (as technically the SYSTEM account is root), but you can still fuck up your system massively if you give the wrong command. This is particularly true at command prompt and ESPECIALLY with powershell.

It's not only scripts either, think of all the 3rd party programs that you run. I don't want them all to have administrative priveleges, there could be various vulnerabilities in many of them, and if I don't trust the author of the software entirely, they can do less harm when running with user rights. I will only elevate software that have a good reason for needing administrative priveleges.

 

[jboydgolfer]

Now would a Company SO nice Force updates on You??

 

[Pill Monster]

Same reason a linux user should never run as root full time. Full power is dangerous. It's not quite comparable in Windows (as technically the SYSTEM account is root), but you can still fuck up your system massively if you give the wrong command.

Hmm, I'll take that as a "no I can't think of a single reason either," it's weak enough.
Dangerous" is for those who don't know they're doing. Power Users are known as power users because.....um, they aren't noobs?

Besides, UAC isn't bullet-proof anyway.
If a curious end user can find his way into the registry, then he can also disable UAC, give himself write access and happily and completely fubar his system. UAC will not save him.....

 

[Reefer86]

Microsoft has already said this can be turned off.............................in a statement no less after the graphics driver glitches.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyl...soft-backtracks-on-windows-10-forced-updates/

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/07/windows-10-includes-an-update-blocking-driver-fail-safe-tool/

 

[rtwjunkie]

Microsoft has already said this can be turned off.............................in a statement no less after the graphics driver glitches.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyl...soft-backtracks-on-windows-10-forced-updates/

Except you missed I beleive it was @Mussels report on how this actually works. It first insists that you let the offending update install. Then you must uninstall it again, before you can tell it not to install that update again. The Forbes guy did a disservice by even admitting he had not tried it yet to see how it actually performed before reporting it.

 

[Mussels]

Microsoft has already said this can be turned off.............................in a statement no less after the graphics driver glitches.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyl...soft-backtracks-on-windows-10-forced-updates/

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/07/windows-10-includes-an-update-blocking-driver-fail-safe-tool/

Except you missed I beleive it was @Mussels report on how this actually works. It first insists that you let the offending update install. Then you must uninstall it again, before you can tell it not to install that update again. The Forbes guy did a disservis by even admitting he had not tried it yet to see how it actually performed before reporting it.

It only works on updates that have not been installed yet.
So if you have a problem with an update, you have to run this program either before its installed, or after its uninstalled - let it scan for available updates - and then 'hide' that update.

this is what it shows me, on pro because i have all available updates installed (because i have no choice in the matter)

So to make an example of how this actually works you have to:
Run it before windows update automatically runs
run it before windows update automatically installs the update/driver
or
run it after all of the above you manually uninstall the windows update, reboot, and BEFORE it tries to reinstall it

 

[Ahhzz]

So, have we determined that simply disabling the Windows Update service will prevent any updates from being installed?