Puts this in an entirely different light, doesn't it:<p>Even when ostensibly not functioning, the Xbox One can run in a low-powered state, ready to be snapped on at a moment's notice. That's something Microsoft was showing off last week as an asset. The only on-switch Microsoft showed for waking the machine from its low-power state was a voice command... "Xbox On." The Xbox One could only hear that if the Kinect was already, always listening. The idea that the Kinect might always be listening got people reaching for their tin foil or vowing to not let an Xbox One into their home.<p>Microsoft is now seeking to calm concerns that the new Kinect might spy. "We are designing the new Kinect with simple, easy methods to customize privacy settings, provide clear notifications and meaningful privacy choices for how data will be used, stored and shared," the Microsoft rep told me.<p>"We know our customers want and expect strong privacy protections to be built into our products, devices and services, and for companies to be responsible stewards of their data. Microsoft has more than ten years of experience making privacy a top priority. Kinect for Xbox 360 was designed and built with strong privacy protections in place and the new Kinect will continue this commitment. We’ll share more details later."<p><a href="http://kotaku.com/xbox-ones-kinect-can-turn-off-microsoft-says-noting-510100564" rel="nofollow">http://kotaku.com/xbox-ones-kinect-can-turn-off-microsoft-sa...</a><p>Not sure I'd want the Xbox One in my house after this fiasco.
I feel so stupid and so ashamed of myself for all the time I have thought of everything Richard Stallman had to say about privacy and security concern as a "neck-beard, tin-foil hat, nutjob".<p>He was right all along, it was us who didn't care enough to understand what he was saying and its importance.
This whole thing makes me very suspicious of Apple's and Microsoft's whole disk encryption technologies. I can't help but wonder if back doors have been inserted into the products.
Sorry this is news folks? Really? See this from 2011/12<p>from <a href="http://www.infolaw.co.uk/newsletter/2012/01/microsoft-office-365-for-lawyers/" rel="nofollow">http://www.infolaw.co.uk/newsletter/2012/01/microsoft-office...</a><p>However, the Patriot Act, introduced to protect US national security, can require that any US company (wherever data is held) must disclose data on demand to the US Government without the knowledge of the owner of the data, which is contrary to the UK Data Protection Act. Microsoft has been up-front in acknowledging that they cannot give that guarantee and this applies to data held in all their hosted solutions. As a result, in December 2011, BAE ditched plans to adopt Office365 because Microsoft could not guarantee the company’s data would not leave Europe, in spite of operating a data centre in Dublin.
The sad thing about all of this is that Microsoft were pretty much forced into this position (so we're told) by the authorities.<p>In the process these leaks have just destroyed pretty much any credibility Microsoft's online services had, which form large parts of their strategy (according to the recent Ballmer memo).<p>It also makes you wonder about the OS and other software they produce, which isn't a good place for MS to be in.
Then I start thinking about when Microsoft were being dragged through the competition and monopolies commission in the US, was this the US Government showing Microsoft what would happen if they didn't cooperate.
Maybe I'm missing the source, but where's the source? These people keep writing stories about what's being revealed and "according to secret documents" this and that is shown. So where are these leaked documents?<p>If these media outlets are holding on to them to dribble and drab them out to make a buck, there's a huge problem with that. Everything should be out on a torrent or wikileaks for all to see.
What do they mean by bypass encryption? If I use outlook.com (or gmail.com or whatever) over https, then it's encrypted over the wire, but it's obviously decrypted on their servers. It's the only way that search could work. I assume if you are PGP encrypting your messages or something equivalent, it's still unbreakable.
going to try for devil's advocate angle.<p>could there be a case where the parties in a conversation are legitimate suspects? in such a case, why does it matter if it's Microsoft or some other private company that the NSA hires to break encryption?<p>it seems that the article is presenting the Microsoft / NSA relationship, and later states <i>“If you look at what happened when Bush, Cheney and General Hayden – who was head of the NSA at the time – deliberately violated the law to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant"</i> which hints at a vague conclusion that Microsoft is helping to spy on citizens without a warrant.<p>possibly i missed something, so is the point that Microsoft (or any private company) should not do any work for NSA, or that it should not do it without a warrant, or that we can't trust it with anything because it did some work for the NSA? Or is that the details are still not disclosed so it's pure speculation?
"It's hard to square Microsoft's secret collaboration with the NSA with its high-profile efforts to compete on privacy with Google."<p>I think it squares quite nicely. Set your standards low enough...