Comment by CMay
3 days ago
Can someone explain to me why the immediate perception is that this is some kind of bad, negative, evil thing? I don't understand it.
My assumption is that when this feature is on and you turn it off, they end up deleting the tags (since you've revoked permission for them to tag them). If it gets turned back on again, I assume that means they need to rescan them. So in effect, it sounded to me like a limit on how many times you can toggle this feature to prevent wasted processing.
Their disclaimer already suggests they don't train on your photos.
This is Microsoft. They have a proven record of turning these toggles back on automatically without your consent.
So you can opt out of them taking all of your most private moments and putting them into a data set that will be leaked, but you can only opt out 3 times. What are the odds a "bug" (feature) turns it on 4 times? Anything less than 100% is an underestimate.
And what does a disclaimer mean, legally speaking? They won't face any consequences when they use it for training purposes. They'll simply deny that they do it. When it's revealed that they did it, they'll say sorry, that wasn't intentional. When it's revealed to be intentional, they'll say it's good for you so be quiet.
A bug, or a dialog box that says ”Windows has reviewed your photo settings and found possible issues. Press Accept now to reset settings to secure defaults”
This is how my parents get Binged a few times per year
This feels different though. Every time you turn it off and then on again it has a substantial processing cost for MS. If MS "accidentally" turns it on and then doesn't allow you to turn it off it raises the bar for them successfully defending these actions in court.
So to me it looks like MS tries to avoid that users ram MS's infrastructure with repeated expensive full scans of their library. I would have worded it differently and said "you can only turn ON this setting 4 times a year". But maybe they do want to leave the door open to "accidentally" pushing a wrong setting to the users.
9 replies →
There’s dark pattern psychology at play here. You are very likely to forget to do something that you can only do three times a year.
The good news is that the power of this effect is lost when significant attention is placed on it as it is in this case.
Of course, the problem with having your data available even for a day or so, lets say because that day you didn't read your e-mails, will mean, that your data will be trained on, used for M$ purposes. They will have powerful server farms at the ready holding your data at gun point, so that the moment they manage to fabricate fake consent, they are there to process your data, before you can even finish reading any late notification e-mail, if any.
Someone show me any cases, where big tech has successfully removed such data from already trained models, or in case of being unable to do that with the blackboxes they create, removed the whole blackbox, because a few people complain about their data being in those black boxes. No one can, because this has not happened. Just like ML models are used as laundering devices, they are also used as responsibility shields for big tech, who rake in the big money.
This is M$ real intention here. Lets not fool ourselves.
> to prevent wasted processing.
If that was the case, the message should be about a limit on re-enabling the feature n times, not about turning it off.
Also the if they are concerned about processing costs, the default for this should be off, NOT on. The default should for any feature like this that use customers personal data should be OFF for any company that respects their customers privacy.
> You are trying to reach really far out to find a plausible
This behavior tallies up with other things MS have been trying to do recently to gather as much personal data as possible from users to feed their AI efforts.
Their spokes person also avoided answering why they are doing this.
On the other hand, you comment seem to be trying to reach really far trying to find portray this as normal behavior.
That they limit opt-outs instead of opt-ins, when the opt-in is the only plausibly costly step, speaks for itself.
Yeah exactly. Some people have 100k photo collections. The cost of scanning isn’t trivial.
They should limit the number of times you turn it on, not off. Some PM probably overthought it and insisted you need to tell people about the limit before turning it off and ended up with this awkward language.
> Yeah exactly. Some people have 100k photo collections. The cost of scanning isn’t trivial.
Then you can guess Microsoft hopes to make even more money than it costs them running this feature.
This is irrelevant to opting out, nobody is forcing MS to scan the photos in the first place.
If it was that simple, there would be no practical reason to limit that scrub to three ( and in such a confusion inducing ways ). If I want to waste my time scrubbing, that should be up to me -- assuming it is indeed just scrubbing tagged data, because if anything should have been learned by now, it is that:
worst possible reading of any given feature must be assumed to the detriment of the user and benefit of the company
Honestly, these days, I do not expect much of Microsoft. In fact, I recently thought to myself, there is no way they can still disappoint. But what do they do? They find a way damn it.
It takes processing power to scan the photos.
then it should say "this setting can only be turned back on three times a year"
Does it take processing power to NOT scan photos?
4 replies →
well said
Just because you can't personally think of a reason why the number shall be 3, and no more than 4, accepting that thou hast first counted 1 and 2, it doesn't mean that the reason is unthinkable.
I feel like you're way too emotionally invested in whatever this is to assess it without bias. I don't care what the emotions are around it, that's a marketing issue. I only care about the technical details in this case and there isn't anything about it in particular that concerns me.
It's probably opt-out, because most users don't want to wait 24 hours for their photos to get analyzed when they just want to search for that dog photo from 15 years ago using their phone, because their dog just died and they want to share old photos with the family.
This doesn't apply to your encrypted vault files. Throw your files in there if you don't want to toggle off any given processing option they might add 3 years from now.
> I feel like you're way too emotionally invested in whatever this is to assess it without bias
Did this line ever win an argument for you or you just use it to annoy who you're talking to?
3 replies →
“Way too emotionally invested.”
Then proceeds to appeal to emotion with dog photo statement.
2 replies →
<< It's probably opt-out
Clearly, you personally can't think of a reason yourself based on that 'probably' alone.
<< I feel like you're way too emotionally invested
I think. You feel. I am not invested at all. I have.. limited encounters with windows these days. But it would be silly to simply dismiss it. Why? For the children man. Think of the poor children who were not raised free from this silliness.
<< I only care about the technical details in this case and there isn't anything about it in particular that concerns me.
I can respect that. What are those technical details? MS was a little light on the details.
1 reply →
> Their disclaimer already suggests they don't train on your photos.
We know all major GenAI companies trained extensively on illegally acquired material, and they were hiding this fact. Even the engineers felt this isn't right, but there were no whistleblowers. I don't believe for a second it would be different with Microsoft. Maybe they'd introduce the plan internally as a kind of CSAM, but, as opposed to Apple, they wouldn't inform users. The history of their attitude towards users is very consistent.
I am aware that many companies train on illegally acquired content and that bothers me too.
There is that initial phase of potential fair use within reason, but the illegal acquisition is still a crime. Eventually after they've distilled things enough, it can become more firmly fair use.
So they just take the legal risk and do it, because after enough training the legal challenges should be within an acceptable range.
That makes sense for publicly released images, books and data. There exists some plausible deniability in sweeping up influences that have already been released into the world. Private data can contain unique things which the world has not seen yet, which becomes a bigger problem.
Meta/Facebook? I would not and will never trust them. Microsoft? I still trust them a lot more than many other companies. The fact many people are even bothered by this, is because they actually use OneDrive. Why not Dropbox or Google Drive? I certainly trust OneDrive more than I trust Dropbox or Google Drive. That trust is not infinite, but it's there.
If Microsoft abuses that trust in a truly critical way that resonates beyond the technically literate, that would not just hurt their end-user personal business, but it would hurt their B2B as well.
Then you would limit the number of times the feature can be turned on, not turned off. Turned off uses less resources, while turned on potentially continues using their resources. Also I doubt if they actually remove data that requires processing to obtain, I wouldn't expect them to delete it until they're actually required to do so, especially considering the metadata obtained is likely insignificant in size compared to the average image.
It's an illusion of choice. For over a decade now companies either are spamming you with modals/notifications up until you give up and agree to a compromising your privacy settings or "accidentally" turn these on and pretend that change happened by a mistake or bug.
Language used is deceptive and comes with "not now" or "later" options and never a permanent "no". Any disagreement is followed by a form of "we'll ask you again later" message.
Companies are deliberately removing user's control over software by dark patterns to achieve their own goals.
Advanced user may not want to have their data scanned for whatever reasons and with this setting it cannot control the software because vendor decided it's just 3 times and later settings goes permanent "on".
And considering all the AI push within Windows, Microsoft products is rather impossible to assume that MS will not be interested in training their algorithms on their customers/users data.
---
And I really don't know how else you can interpret this whole talk with an unnamed "Microsoft's publicist" when:
> Microsoft's publicist chose not to answer this question
and
> We have nothing more to share at this time
but as a hostile behavior. Of course they won't admit they want your data but they want it and will have it.
Like iCloud on iOS and MacOS. It's not just Microsoft who insists on stealing your data, Apple does it too.
I wonder if Apple collects those activity data logs, the only thing I couldn’t switch off.
Telling that these companies have some real creeps high up.
Your explanation would make sense if the limit was on turning the feature on. The limitation is on turning it off.
> So in effect, it sounded to me like a limit on how many times you can toggle this feature to prevent wasted processing.
That would be a limit on how many times you can enable the setting, not preventing you from turning it off.
Both enabling and disabling incur a cost (because they delete the data, but then have to recreate it), but they wouldn't want to punish you for enabling it so it makes sense that the limitation is on the disabling side.
They should always allow you to delete your remote data. The left switch thrown should always be able to be "off".
They can put a giant warming in front of the last "off" click or whatever, not it needs to be there.
This reeks of MS thinking very MS-centric and hoping they fortunately retain some users.
Then they should allow infinite opt outs as well.
1 reply →
> Can someone explain to me why the immediate perception is that this is some kind of bad, negative, evil thing? I don't understand it.
I bet you "have nothing to hide".
We work with computers. Every thing that gets in the way of working is wasting time and nerves.
It sounds like you have revoked their permission to tag(verb) the photos, why should this interfere with what tag(noun) the photo already has?
But really I know nothing about the process, I was going to make an allegory about how it would be the same as adobe deleting all your drawings after you let your photoshop subscriptions lapse. But realized that this is exactly the computing future that these sort of companies want and my allegory is far from the proof by absurdity I wanted it to be. sigh, now I am depressed.
> Their disclaimer already suggests they don't train on your photos.
Did you read it all ? They also sugest that they care about your privacy. /s