http://windows.wonderhowto.com/how-to/everything-you-need-disable-windows-10-0163552/
 
http://lifehacker.com/what-windows-10s-privacy-nightmare-settings-actually-1722267229
 
http://www.techrepublic.com/article/windows-10-violates-your-privacy-by-default-heres-how-you-can-protect-yourself/
 
 

No where is the eula that says all this. The one I have appears no more intrusive than any other eula. I don't want some one else's interpretation but the pertinent sections that are saying what YDHTCMMJ alleges.
 
For example what if you are a lawyer and are using word to prepare a plea for a client. If MS were to get that doc they could be held criminally culpable for doing so. If they passed it on to the police all heck would be brought on them. Both civil and criminal. Further no licensee agreement can over ride the constitution and the bill of rights. One can not as a matter of law sign away ones rights.
 
Nothing is as simple as people think when it comes to contracts.          

The eula is directly tied to the privacy policy, as stated in the eula, which contains lots of very obscure acquired permissions via the eula. Rund and round.
 
And the examples of what all needs to be disabled is amazing. And not complete.
 
MS clearly states that updates can and do change settings. Which means after every update the user will have to review all the dozens of settings to assure they have not been changed.
 
This provided link is particularly revealing:
http://lifehacker.com/what-windows-10s-privacy-nightmare-settings-actually-1722267229
 
What is concerning is how many people defend these practices by noting that, "At least the MS managers ALLOW users to change these settings."
 
A thief informing me he is going to steal my stuff only makes him a polite thief. He should not be excused.
 
All of the settings should be OPT-IN, not OPT-OUT.

YouDontHasToCallMeJohnson
A thief informing me he is going to steal my stuff only makes him a polite thief. He should not be excused.
 
All of the settings should be OPT-IN, not OPT-OUT.

A person who asks you if they can have your stuff is not a thief, they are just asking you. If they take your stuff anyway then they are a thief.

No excuses can alter the fact that Microsoft has turned into a controlling, intrusive monster. Those of us old enough to have read Huxley's Brave New world and Orwell's 1984 can see this clearly. The younger generations, bred on decades of propaganda, don't get it. They are easy prey for the advancing forces of Big Brother. They will laugh at what they see as my paranoia. Just what the doctor ordered.

michael diemer
No excuses can alter the fact that Microsoft has turned into a controlling, intrusive monster. Those of us old enough to have read Huxley's Brave New world and Orwell's 1984 can see this clearly. The younger generations, bred on decades of propaganda, don't get it. They are easy prey for the advancing forces of Big Brother. They will laugh at what they see as my paranoia. Just what the doctor ordered.

why single out microsoft particularly? they're all at it... and brave new world turned out to be more accurate than 1984

Why single Microsoft out? Because 90% of the world is on Windows. The  potential for harm is thus much greater.

ner, ms aren't personal/mobile enough, unlike say google, facebook, apple...

Bristol: most excellent irony!
 
Windows is not like chrome.  I cannot stop using windows. It is the computer. That is why this is more disturbing.
 
And to say, "They are just like everyone else, so what's the big deal," is exactly what they want you to think.
 
None of them should be allowed to do this. These are evil people. Mostly not knowing what they do is wrong.
 
It is disturbing so many react by attacking the messengers instead of the true villains. But isn't that how it always is when somebody criticizes?