Tony_Tarantula on 24/1/2014 at 02:42
Quote Posted by faetal
Eva - wind your neck in a bit - I was wasn't posting "proof" of MS or W8 being malevolent
Just because you weren't attempting to do that doesn't mean it's not the case. Long term, Windows 8 has some serious security concerns as it phones home to Microsoft about a lot of the activity you carry out (including EVERY program you install, not just W8 enabled apps). If you work in any field that involves information that is personally identifying, contains trade secret, classfied data, etc that is not acceptable behavior. NASA has ditched Windows 8 (It's for security concerns, not the reasons they state) and Germany is warning its citizens to avoid Windows 8.
Sources:
(
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10049444/International-Space-Station-to-boldly-go-with-Linux-over-Windows.html)
(
http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2013/08/21/nsa-ueberwachung-bundesregierung-warnt-vor-massivem-sicherheitsrisiko-bei-windows-8/)
Edit:
Part of this also has to do with the advancement of the "Trusted Computing" idea that Microsoft has been pushing for some time now(crummy english due to translation software):
Quote:
“Together with the method now implemented by Microsoft within Windows 8 (in particular, secure boot), the user is largely beyond the control of its own hardware and software. It reminds fatal to an electronic ankle bracelet. For example, asked about the network can be approved only if software is running., The end of personal computers and smartphones. It sounds like a dream for runaway intelligence agencies and repressive states. (...)
Renzatic on 24/1/2014 at 03:34
Bwuh? The only thing Secure Boot does is check and see if an OS has a proper key before launching into it. The one major advantage is that it can block rootkits and boot sector viruses from enabling themselves at launch. Of course it could be used for nefarious purposes. Mainly as a way for MS to keep people installing any other OS on their machines, but...hey. It can be disabled on every and all x86 machines. So if you don't like it, you can turn it off.
As for the rest, it sounds about the same as people freaking out over Palladium and DRM in Vista back in the day. IT'S THE END OF EVERYTHING! BLAH!
EvaUnit02 on 24/1/2014 at 04:45
Quote Posted by dethtoll
I mean, look at the second line in your response to Subjeff. Was that really necessary?
Sometimes the easiest way to make someone understand is to pour a bucket full of cold reality over their head. It was an apt analogy for the speed of progress in the medical industry.
Tony_Tarantula on 24/1/2014 at 05:44
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Bwuh? The only thing Secure Boot does is check and see if an OS has a proper key before launching into it. The one major advantage is that it can block rootkits and boot sector viruses from enabling themselves at launch. Of course it could be used for nefarious purposes. Mainly as a way for MS to keep people installing any other OS on their machines, but...hey. It can be disabled on every and all x86 machines. So if you don't like it, you can turn it off.
As for the rest, it sounds about the same as people freaking out over Palladium and DRM in Vista back in the day. IT'S THE END OF EVERYTHING! BLAH!
That's a sever understatement of what the system does. We're talking about TPM, not "secure boot". These are systems that rely on keys built into the actual hardware of the system, that allows content providers (and others) to set privileges for what end users can do with content on their own system. It's not as benign as you imagine. A similar system is used in the Xbox. For example, that is what makes their movie rentals so secure: watching a video on your console can be set to require privileges to be remotely enabled, using authentication keys built directly into the hardware.
There was a lot of talk about what could be done with this. They could remotely disable computer's ability to view known pirated files, make files impossible to view on more than one computer, shut down pirates in the act, etc....all the things you'd expect for what was more or less a GFWL like DRM scheme embedded so deep into the software and hardware you couldn't remove them.
While the original idea has been toned down a bit (for PC's, they fully implemented it for the consoles), what's left is still a lot more invasive than you describe:
(
http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/08/22/not-so-trusted-computing-german-government-worried-about-windows-8-risks/)
Quote:
This also suggests that a Win 8 system using TPM 2.0 might well reject any attempts to use an alternative operating system — a so-called “secure boot” might cut off any application other than Win 8. For all intents and purposes, a machine with Win 8 and TPM 2.0 will operate to Microsoft's orders and to the orders of whomever is ordering Microsoft these days. It's not out of the question that Win 8 systems lacking valid TPM 2.0 might be prevented from accessing the internet or any other network.
Which begs the question: if Windows 8 and TPM 2.0 are installed, whose computer is it?
It goes beyond just that, but would allow the effective "blacklisting" of computers.
Also note that this entire conversation doesn't even touch the issue of how Windows 8 tracks user behavior and sends that data back to Microsoft. If you were working for a European or Asian firm in direct competition with a US corporation you would have to be insane(or brain-dead naive) to not be concerned about the security risks of having data from your company stored on a Microsoft server in the US(where it can be shared with anyone who's got a big enough pocketbook to get access to that data). And we're not dealing in the realm of conspiracy theory, but in events that have already occurred where information gathered from those programs was used to benefit American corporations. One incident that I am aware of involved airbus, and another involved Union organizers in South America. Information on Occupy Protestors was also shared with New York Banks. For any competitive business having information free for the taking is not acceptable.
june gloom on 24/1/2014 at 13:59
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Sometimes the easiest way to make someone understand is to pour a bucket full of cold reality over their head. It was an apt analogy for the speed of progress in the medical industry.
No, it really wasn't, and it wasn't necessary. It's like Chimpy said, this isn't a debate club, and you don't "win" by being the only one being an asshole. It's all about
tone -- rein it in a bit, yeah?
Besides, what're you doing trying to explain things to Subjeff for?
SubJeff on 24/1/2014 at 14:26
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Sometimes the easiest way to make someone understand is to pour a bucket full of cold reality over their head. It was an apt analogy for the speed of progress in the medical industry.
If you don't dance and your friends don't dance, they're no friend of mine.
Hoo Haa!
yeaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh
