Comment by buran77
3 days ago
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.
As stated many times elsewhere here, if that were the case, it'd be an opt in limit. Instead it's an opt out limit from a company that has a proven record of forcing users into an agreement against their will and requiring an opt out (that often doesn't work) after the fact.
Nobody really believes the fiction about processing being heavy and that's why they limit opt outs.
> it'd be an opt in limit
Aren't these 2 different topics? MS and big-tech in general make things opt-out so they can touch the data before users get the chance to disable this. I expect they would impose a limit to how many times you go through the scanning process. I've run into this with various other services where there were limits on how many times I can toggle such settings.
But I'm also finding a hard time giving MS the benefit of the doubt, given their history. They could have said like GP suggested that you can't turn it "on" not "off".
> As stated many times elsewhere here .... Nobody really believes the fiction
Not really fair though, wisdom of the crowd is not evidence. I tend to agree on the general MS sentiment. But you stating it with confidence without any extra facts isn't contributing to the conversation.
A lot of people have a terabyte or more of OneDrive storage. Many people have gigantic photo collections.
Analyzing and tagging photos is not free. Many people don't mind their photos actually being tagged, but they are a little more sensitive about facial recognition being used.
That's probably why they separate these out, so you can get normal tagging if you want without facial recognition grouping.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/group-photos-by-p...
If you have a large list of scenarios where Microsoft didn't respect privacy settings or toggles, I would be interested in seeing them.
I know there have been cases where software automated changes to Windows settings that were intended to only be changed by the user. Default browsers were one issue, because malicious software could replace your default browser even with lower permissions.
Are you talking about things like that, or something else?
If that's the case, limit opt ins so Microsoft doesn't have to pointlessly scan data. But they're limiting opt outs, which forces people into that endless scanning of their data.
Nobody. Absolutely nobody. Believes it's to save poor little Microsoft from having their very limited resources wasted by cackling super villain power users who'll force Microsoft to scan their massive 1.5 GB meme image collections several times.
If it was about privacy as you claim in another comment, it would be opt in. Microsoft clearly doesn't care about user privacy, as they've repeatedly demonstrated. And making it opt out, and only three times, proves it. Repeating the same thing parent comments said is a weird strategy. Nobody is believing it.
> Analyzing and tagging photos is not free
Then why they are doing it ? Maybe because CIA/NSA and advertisers pay good money.
3 replies →
> A lot of people have a terabyte or more of OneDrive storage.
Maybe in your social bubble. I don't know anyone with OneDrive subscription.