The Idea of True Security and Cloud Services

I understand why some may feel that Cloud services are important, but for me personally, I don't like the concept of cloud-computing, knowing that someone else is in charge of watching, holding, protecting my information--------it just doesn't sit right with me. I feel much safer having my files stored on a device that I have complete physical control and ownership of. That's my idea of real and true security (even if it's my own personal cloud). But hey, that's just me.

 

With that in mind, I hope that F-Secure recognizes the importance of always providing the user with a choice in this regard. Things like Cloud services, among many others, should never be forced on users in order to provide them with access to a desktop application.

 

And yes, I understand that F-Secure may use the Cloud when it pushes updates to it's applications on a users machine, however, keeping a user constantly connected via a cloud is not necessary in order to provide them with a safe module the customer can use to protect it's machine. It's the same idea of Windows users not wanting to be persistently and indiscriminently connected to Microsoft, when, for example, all we're trying to do is type and save a letter.

 

Microsoft has gone to the extreme again in this regard for Windows 10 users, with it's new policies by forcing users to tie into their centralized Data hub via a Microsoft account. This is one reason why I will never switch to Windows 10 and I hope that F-Secure will never do such a thing to it's customers either.

Ukko

Accepted Answer

Comments

  • nanonymenanonyme Posts: 146 Path Finder

    Hey,

    Sorry but I just couldn't skip this one. Windows 10 requiring Microsoft account is fake news. It works with a local account, the creation of one is just a bit hidden for obvious reasons. They might in the future try to press harder but I doubt it since enterprises routinely use local admin accounts

    Ukko
  • SimonSimon Posts: 2,661 Superuser

    Yes, I've been happily (ish) using Windows 10 without having a Microsoft account, and I haven't come across any restrictions as yet.

    Ukko
  • tj7tj7 Posts: 4

    On the contrary, in the very beginning, (the period of time when Microsoft was using all manner of bullish tactics to coherse users to switch), it was almost next to impossible without having to implement a rediculously convoluted work-around-------but hey!-------being Microsoft, I can't say that I'm all together too surprised by that. They've been trying to force account-integration upon users in their own way for quite some time, but now, it's all about trying to force everyone onto their cloud and other SaaS implementations. 

     

    Their up to their old bag of tricks again-------taking away user choice and forcing us to sacrifice our privacy and true protections of our personally identifiable information, per their own new policy mandate.  When you read it carefully, it becomes very plain to see that Microsoft is extorting us of our own identites. By accepting Microsoft's new EULA's and ToS aggreements, users are conceding to the provisions in these new policies which allow Microsoft to aquire part ownership rights to our identities.

     

    It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure that out either, if people actually stop to notice what these agreements are really saying. But the fact is, most people don't read these agreements and Microsoft knows it too, which is why Microsoft designed their products and policies in this way, because they know that people are less likely to read an 18-page document full of terms and conditions when the font-size is smaller and/or the legal jargon is superfluous. Ironically, some of the legal language in their new policies are also deliberatly left vague, so as to legally protect their exploitation of your personally identifiable information. It is truly mind-boggling when you examine the vast scope of Microsoft's chicanery in this regard.

     

    And no, this isn't something new. Companies have been doing this for a long time------but that doesn't make it right. They are crossing a line that should never have be crossed in the first place, because they're in fact violating our personal boundaries when they engage in these manipulative tactics.

     

    Our identities and privacy are an integral part of what makes us a unique individual and these are necessary in order to maintain the human condition with a measure of decency and civility. Take them away and you destroy what it means to be human.

     

    I don't care how much sugar (Spy)soft throws onto their (Win10) pile of crap------as far as I'm concerned, it is, and will always be another, more-aggressive method of control for Microsoft, with increased levels of non-configurable exploitation to their own benefit-------yet, sadly, at the expense of our privacy and our freedom to choose.  

     

    These corporate thugs force our hand to give up our privacy rights, just so that we can use their product or service!!!-------Really?!-------Where is the sense of responsibility and accountability in all of this?!--------Where is the agency of oversight that's supposed to look over Microsoft's shoulder to say, "Nope!, You can't do that! You can't subvert a citizen's personal boundaries just so you can make a fast buck! Sorry, that's wrong! This is the line that you can't cross!"

     

    Microsoft gets away with this because, like many other corporations, they stuff billions of dollars into the pockets of law-makers in Washington so that instead of passing the kind of regulation that would stop these unethical and instrusive practices dead in their tracks, our bought-and-paid-for congress would rather shine the shoes of these corporate goons, while at the same time letting them extort us and pull the wool over our eyes, and all without the threat of any consequences for their deplorable acts of intrusion.

     

    Now some might say that privacy is subjective or unobtainable, even over-rated as they'd like us to think, but the simple fact that remains, is that without privacy, we lose complete control of how the information of our personal, private lives, is used--------and in turn, how we are effected by such usage, as well as how we may be perceived by those whom have exploited these once private pieces of our lives.

     

    It's none of Microsoft's business what I had for breakfast today, unless I want it to be. And the fact of the matter is, that companies should not be forcing us to accept their exploitive actions in exchange for a service provided-------but instead they should always maintain our right to privacy and personal choice. 

     

    By taking away our right to choose and to choose to opt-in, rather than to be automatically opted in, companies that do this, are in fact, infringing upon our freedoms and violating our privacy rights.

     

    In the words of Bruce Schneier himself, 

     

           "...Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance. We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the privacy of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn them. Privacy is a basic human need...

     

           ...For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that -- either now or in the uncertain future -- patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable...

     

           ...Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide."

     

           ---Excerpted from the following article by Bruce Schneier:  The Eternal Value of Privacy

     

                                                         

     

     

  • nanonymenanonyme Posts: 146 Path Finder

    If you really want to go that far into idealism, I don't think it's intellectually honest to think you can keep your privacy with a closed source operating system. If you want to go to the extreme a la Richard Stallman, you won't even use anything else than open hardware and simple hardware enough that either you or your friend can tell it hasn't been tampered with

  • nanonymenanonyme Posts: 146 Path Finder

    Addendum: I trust Microsoft and F-Secure enough to use their systems. If I didn't, well, Linux works pretty well. Of course, if you went that far, dropping social media and going only with email using GnuPG is a good idea too

  • tj7tj7 Posts: 4

    A system that I build, manage and secure on my own, is a system I have complete control over period.

     

    When we put our trust into a company whose really only looking out for their bottom line and not our best interests, whether we're talking about cloud services or not, we're taking a far greater risk, than if we simply maintained our own private database and hardware storage in a physical location that we have complete access and control of...

     

     

     

    the-dirty-dozen-12-cloud-security-threats

     

    https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/07/risks_of_cloud.html

     

    https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2007/01/solving_identity_the.html

     

     

     

     

This discussion has been closed.