Microsoft's new Surface Laptop for Business (8th Edition), aka the Surface Laptop 8, has one defining feature that I think is reason enough for many to seek a generational upgrade.

I'm talking about the integrated privacy screen, a first for any Surface product and a key tool in a busy professional's fight against data security.

It's an optional upgrade that's only available on the 13.8-inch Surface Laptop 8, but hey, at least it's something that further separates the "for Business" and regular consumer Surface devices.

Surface isn't the only brand offering integrated privacy screens, nor was it the first. Far from it. I'm going back to when this sort of privacy feature first arrived at HP, and I'm taking a look at how it's been implemented by some of the big laptop brands in the following years.

Which brand had the first integrated laptop privacy screen?

Surface is far from the first laptop to feature an integrated privacy screen. HP's Sure View method made its debut in 2016 on the EliteBook 840 G3 and EliteBook 1040 G3, and we actually have a hands-on video with the original implementation, which I've embedded above.

Like any good privacy screen, HP's Sure View was capable of cutting out 95% of visible light when viewed from an angle, effectively making the screen impossible to see if you weren't sitting head-on like the actual user.

It wasn't a permanent feature, only activated by pressing the Fn + F2 shortcut. This is really what set it apart from alternative, third-party options that had you gluing an extra layer to your screen after purchase. These alternatives, of course, couldn't be toggled on and off.

HP followed up its original Sure View screen with a second-gen version in 2018's EliteBook x360 G2 that we reviewed, and at the time, Windows Central Editor-in-Chief Daniel Rubino did a deep dive into the tech.

The second-gen version moved to a method using off-axis contrast reduction, resulting in a bright white panel if viewed at an angle.

Rubino noted that the biggest downsides to a Sure View Gen 2 privacy screen were less battery life (about a 20% difference between always on and always off) and a higher cost (about $111 for the upgrade).

Of course, there were also ongoing issues with picture quality and bad contrast when Sure View was activated.

Sure View's third generation returned to a darker privacy screen that boosted security beyond the first two generations. Sure View Reflect came after as a fourth-gen proprietary method using copper tinting to better function in dark and light environments.

Sure View tech is still around today in a wide range of HP's professional laptops, giving buyers that extra protection against visual hacking that's so important when working in crowded spaces.

Lenovo 's Privacy Guard arrives to compete with HP Sure View

Not to be outdone, ThinkPad maker Lenovo introduced its Privacy Guard feature a couple of years after HP debuted Sure View; right around the time HP was working on its third-gen implementation. Privacy Guard first arrived in the company's premier 14-inch ThinkPads, including the legendary T480s.

Privacy Guard essentially worked the same way as HP Sure View, providing users with a shortcut toggle for privacy. The biggest difference between HP and Lenovo was that the latter focused more on preserving image quality. Regardless, its low brightness output made some think twice about buying.

Brightness woes were mostly solved in second-gen Privacy Guard screens, and Lenovo eventually folded Privacy Guard into its overarching ThinkShield suite of security tools, where it remains today.

This is also when PrivacyAlert was introduced to the mix. Lenovo was the first company to combine its IR cameras with tracking software to recognize when eyes other than yours were glancing at your screen. Once tipped, the laptop would enable Privacy Guard or, at the very least, give a warning on screen.

These advances have now evolved into modern Human Presence Detection that can lock and unlock your PC automatically, give you warnings of onlookers, and a lot more. Of course, Dell and HP have also added these features to many of their own laptops.

How does Dell handle privacy screens in its laptops?

Dell's SafeScreen arrived in 2019 for select Latitude 7000 business laptops, and its implementation was almost identical to Lenovo's and HP's. Just hit a shortcut on your keyboard to enable the privacy screen and carry on working.

However, the inner workings were different from the first Sure View generation. Dell chose to rely entirely on the display's backlight to obscure the picture. Although it cut down on viewing angles and also didn't sap battery life as much, it also affected the real user sitting head-on.

Like with HP and Lenovo, Dell's SafeScreen has evolved to be easier on the eyes and has joined other advanced security features to better protect your data when working in public.

How is the new Surface privacy screen different?

Our Editor-in-Chief, Daniel Rubino, was among the first in the world to test the new Surface Laptop 8 privacy screen, and he shared some insights into why it's different from other laptop implementations.

As Rubino explains, Surface takes a similar approach to what Samsung did with its Galaxy S26 Ultra.

The best part about Microsoft/Samsung's approach is that the privacy screen doesn't harm brightness, color reproduction, or contrast.

Rubino tested 100% sRGB, 89% AdobeRGB, and 100% P3 color reproduction using a colorimeter with and without the privacy screen enabled. It was also able to hit the same 500 nits with privacy toggled on.

The Surface privacy screen isn't quite perfect ... but it's close

I appreciate how Microsoft took the best current privacy tech on the market and applied it to Surface. It fits the "boutique" market that Surface has always been a member of, with higher prices reflecting premium design and features. Leave it to Surface to do it best.

However, the cost here for the privacy screen upgrade is quite aggressive, with compatible 13.8-inch Surface Laptop 8 models starting at $2,549.99. I don't think it makes any sense that you can't add 5G connectivity AND a privacy screen; wouldn't those who need wireless data to work anywhere also want additional privacy?

There's also the matter of display finish. Microsoft only offers the privacy screen with an anti-glare layer, whereas those without the filter use a superior anti-reflective finish.

Finally, a lack of Human Presence Detection shows how Microsoft is still settling into its new privacy feature. Maybe that's not such a big deal in your world, but for me, it's something I hope is remedied in the next Surface generation.

I want to know your thoughts on laptop privacy screens

I had a great time going back through the extensive Windows Central archives while researching this piece, and I hope it helped shine a spotlight on a laptop feature that I think is often overlooked.

Now I want to know your experience. In what sort of laptop (and from what year) did you first get experience an integrated privacy screen? Was it satisfactory?

If you've considered using one in the past, what stopped you? Brightness or contrast concerns? Battery concerns?

Let me know your thoughts in the comments section below!

Join us on Reddit at r/WindowsCentral to share your insights and discuss our latest news, reviews, and more.

What you need to know

• Xbox has announced some changes they're making to the way Xbox consoles collect data on their users.
• Xbox consoles will now give new and returning users a diagnostic overview of what information their console will collect.
• Users will also be able to optionally choose whether or not they wish to share additional diagnostic data with Xbox.
• This is an overall effort to be more transparent, and give players more control over what information they share.

Xbox is making some important changes today with the way the collect diagnostic data and other information on Xbox consoles. The changes are threefold, going over how Xbox will tell users what data is being collected, options for sharing additional data, and what data will no longer be collected. These changes will affect new users moving forward, including the upcoming Xbox Series X and Xbox Series S, but will also roll out to existing users in the near future.

Source: Xbox

The first change is a diagnostic overview, which will outline exactly what data your Xbox console shares, and why it's necessary for it to do so. Players logging in may see a new message going over this information, clearly outlining how Xbox uses this information and what information it's collecting.

Required diagnostic information includes:

• Details of errors that might hamper the console's ability to run games and apps
• Details of console setup success and failure to diagnose issues that would keep you from using the console
• Details of software update success and failure, as well as other console errors

The second change is for optional diagnostic data. Users will now have the choice in additional information they can share beyond the necessities, to hopefully improve their overall Xbox experience.

Optional diagnostic data includes:

• Actions you take while using your console
• Enhanced error reporting (detailed diagnostic data for conditions causing errors and crashes)
• Console performance data

Finally, Xbox will no longer collect data on voice searches and speech-to-text conversions, as the Xbox team decided this data was not necessary to improving the Xbox experience. This is likely a welcome change for many people, when voice recordings and other related information remaining continued privacy concerns.

These changes are small overall, but are an important step for Xbox to be totally transparent towards its customers, and for Xbox users to be confident that their information is protected and private, and that Xbox only collects what is absolutely necessary. How do you feel about the changes Xbox is making towards privacy and transparency? Do you feel that it's enough in this modern world? Let us know in the comments below!

Xbox

Main

• What is Xbox Game Pass?
• Best 4K TVs for Xbox Series X and S
• Must-buy Xbox One Headsets
• Our Favorite Xbox One Wireless Headsets
• Best Upcoming Xbox Games for 2021
• Xbox One X vs. Xbox Series S

What you need to know

• Google recently announced its intention to phase out support for third-party cookies in Chrome.
• Within days, major trade organizations involved in advertisement have come out against the move.
• They cite the potential loss of revenues for startups that depend on advertising and ask Google to walk back on its plans until alternatives can be found.

Google this week announced its plans to develop new web standards that would make third-party cookies 'obsolete'. The Mountain View hopes to do so within two years, at which point it will stop supporting them on its browser, which currently holds a 69% share of the desktop browser market.

It's only been two days since Google made its plans public, and it's already meeting stiff resistance from advertisers. Both the American Association of Advertising Agencies (4A's) and Association of National Advertisers (ANA) — they represent ad sellers and the corporations that buy those ads, respectively — have penned an open letter urging Google to reconsider its decision (via Netimperative).

The letter is signed by Dan Jaffe and Dick O'Brien, both of whom are EVP of Government Relations at ANA and 4A's, respectively.

Privacy is a big thing these days so they don't, of course, question the motives behind the move or suggest Google kill its plans entirely. Instead, they ask Google to simply stay its hand:

O'Brien and Jaffe also state that in the time they're asking from Google, the two organizations will work with both Google itself and other stakeholders and policymakers to ensure "effective and competitive alternatives" that can "ensure the digital advertising marketplace continues to be competitive and efficient" are developed.

While they promise cooperation for a solution, the letter also makes clear their disdain for the change. "We are deeply disappointed that Google would unilaterally declare such a major change without prior careful consultation," say the pair, arguing the decision could "choke off the economic oxygen from advertising that startups and emerging companies need to survive."

Google plans to improve privacy by deprecating user-agent strings on Chrome

What you need to know

• Google wants to make third-party cookies a thing of the past.
• With new standards like its proposed Privacy Sandbox, it hopes to make them obsolete and eventually drop support for them in Chrome.
• In the meantime, it'll start making changes to its policies for cross-site cookies beginning this February, with the aim of making them more secure.

Google is charging ahead with its idea of a Privacy Sandbox that both improve users' privacy across the web and allows online advertisers some semblance of control and insight into user habits necessary for them to keep running their businesses.

To that effect, Google this week announced its intent to eventually phase out the use of third-party cookies in Chrome. It hopes to do so within two years. Other browsers have already jumped on the anti-tracking and anti-cookies bandwagon a while ago, but Google claims their approach may be misguided.

There may be some merit to the company's argument that merely removing third-party cookies without providing any alternatives to publishers could lead to an even worse privacy paradigm on the web than the one we currently have.

For example, the Mountain View giant points out that in the absence of personalization via cookies, many ad companies instead are turning to indirect methods such as fingerprinting to make up the difference. Google is also clamping down on such techniques and promises to reveal more tools aimed at detecting and mitigating covert tracking and fingerprinting later in the year.

For now, it's continuing on its path of slowly phasing out the use of cookies across the web. To start off, if cookies don't clearly indicate whether they're 'cross-site' or 'same-site' — meaning whether they link to another website/service — Google will automatically assume they're same-site and prevent information sharing with another site. That'll start in February.

For cross-site cookies, Google will mandate the use of HTTPS encryption to ensure any data they communicate is secure.

What you need to know

• Google is planning on phasing out user-string agents in the Chrome browser.
• The change would improve individuals' privacy by making it harder for ad peddlers to 'fingerprint' users online.
• It would also help solve a variety of compatibility issues experienced by other browsers.

Privacy is all the rage at the Chrome labs these days. Amidst its efforts to do away with notification spam on Chrome and adding electronic privacy screen support to its Chrome-powered notebooks, Google this week announced its desire to eventually phase out and deprecate user-agent (UA) strings on its browser.

For those not familiar with the term, this is a string of metadata sent out by your browser every time you visit a website. The information includes your browser's name and version, the operating system, and the rendering engine used. The last two, in particular, can be far more revealing than you might assume. Take a look at the following example on Google's documentation for UA strings in Chrome:

As can be seen, the UA String not only shows that the individual is using Android 5.1.1, it also indicates the specific Android build for the device in use, a Nexus 5. The rendering engine information, for example, can tell an ad company if a person is an iPhone user, since most third-party browsers on iOS still use Safari's rendering engine behind the scenes.

The combination of such information can allow ad companies to 'fingerprint' — or indirectly identify — individuals on the web for targeted ads, even if you're trying to ensure you're not being tracked across the web. To circumvent this potential privacy snag, Google has decided it wants to end the era of user-agent strings entirely.

In addition, as the company's Yoav Weiss explains, ending the practice would also help avoid a number of compatibility issues between browsers:

Case in point, Vivaldi recently decided to stop announcing itself across the web, instead opting to present itself as Google Chrome in order to fix a number of rendering issues it was experiencing.

What Google hopes to achieve is to anonymize the information sent out by the browser to only what is absolutely necessary. As such, it will eventually unify UA strings based on desktop and mobile versions by late 2020. This means that while a website may be able to detect which browser a visitor is using and whether they're on the desktop or a mobile device, that's about all they'll be able to initially determine.

However, as many online advertisers do depend on this information, Google is creating a new standard called User Agent Client Hints to replace the deprecated UA Strings. The difference between the two is that the former is far more privacy-conscious, and only provides the necessary bits of information when explicitly requested by the website.

As a result, even though a lot of the same information will still be accessible to websites, the fact that they have to ask for it actively (rather than allowing passive trackers to simply glean the information wholesale) would enable the browser to track precisely what a website knows about you. In the future, Google could then penalize sites for being too nosy about your information with initiatives such as a Privacy Budget — i.e. limits on how much information a particular party can access over time. Think carbon budgets, but for user data.

This approach, Google hopes, will also improve interoperability between browsers and eliminate some of the aforementioned compatibility issues that arise from the incorrect parsing of a UA string by a website. Weiss explains the potential benefits as follows:

The complete deprecation of UA Strings will occur in late 2020, with the release of Chrome 85. In the meantime, Google will start notifying websites that use the current UA strings paradigm of the impending change starting in March and begin anonymizing UA string information by June of 2020.

How to use Chrome extensions on Windows 10's new Edge browser

What you need to know

• The legislation was passed by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology.
• It requires cellphone companies to take facial scans of users registering for a new number or SIM card.
• The move is aimed at strengthening the Chinese government's attempts to link users' virtual identities to their real ones.

The Chinese government is already well known for its prolific censorship of speech, especially in online forums, as well as its general control over what its citizens consume thanks to the likes of The Great Firewall. This week, the Communist Party took yet another step in strengthening its ability to track and scrutinize its citizens' activities by mandating new SIM card buyers to register their faces with the government (via Channel News Asia).

The new rules, which China says are aimed at "safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of citizens online", will mandate cellphone companies with the responsibility of having customers scan their faces before buying a new SIM card or registering a new cellphone number at offline stores.

The country's authorities already require users to link their national IDs to their cellphone numbers, but these latest regulations would incorporate the use of biometric authentication and artificial intelligence into its overarching surveillance regime. They're not also entirely unexpected, given the exceeding pace with which facial recognition technologies are being adopted in the country, from shopping store checkouts to even public transportation. A recent Financial Times report, for example, highlights Chinese companies' role in pioneering the standards for facial recognition, and the power this gives the country, especially in the developing world.

What you need to know

• Microsoft committed to extended new privacy laws in California across the U.S.
• The new protections are granted under the California Consumer Privacy Act.
• The laws require companies to be "more transparent" about data collection and use, and allow people to opt out of having their data sold.

Microsoft announced today that it will extend privacy regulations put in place by a California privacy law across the U.S. The law, known as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), is similar to Europe's General Data Protection Regulations (GPDR), and is set to go into effect in January 2020.

"We are strong supporters of California's new law and the expansion of privacy protections in the United States that it represents," Microsoft chief privacy officer Julie Brill said in a blog post. "Our approach to privacy starts with the belief that privacy is a fundamental human right and includes our commitment to provide robust protection for every individual."

Under the new law, companies will be required to inform customers about how their data is collected and used. People will also have the right to opt out of having their personal information from being sold. This could represent a blow to companies like Facebook and Google, which make money off of selling user data to advertisers. Both Facebook and Google have already made the necessary changes to comply with Europe's GDPR, and it's unclear how much of an impact the CCPA will have on their bottom lines. However, both companies reportedly fought to "water down" the legislation.

A source speaking with Reuters notes that Microsoft's decision to comply with the law across the U.S. may not be as "substantial" as it appears on the surface. Under the law, Microsoft is treated as a "service provider," a group designation that means it will likely have an easier time complying with the CCPA.

The other two categories, businesses and third parties, must disclose to consumers when data is shared between them, potentially allowing them to opt out. Service providers are companies that have agreed, under contract, not to keep or share any personal information for any reason other than the purposes defined in the contract.

For its part, Microsoft says that it hopes the CCPA will spur action at the federal level to implement privacy protections across the U.S., which would circumvent a need for a patchwork of legislation across states.

"We are optimistic that the California Consumer Privacy Act — and the commitment we are making to extend its core rights more broadly — will help serve as a catalyst for even more comprehensive privacy legislation in the U.S.," Brill said. "As important a milestone as CCPA is, more remains to be done to provide the protection and transparency needed to give people confidence that businesses respect the privacy of their personal information and can be trusted to use it appropriately."

What you need to know

• The Dutch Data Protection Agency requested that the Irish Data Protection Commission looks into how Windows 10 gathers data.
• The Irish Data Protection Commission confirmed that they are "liaising with the Dutch DPA to further this matter."
• It was concluded in 2017 by the Dutch DPA that Windows 10 breached privacy laws.

The Dutch Data Protection Agency (DPA) has requested that the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) look into privacy concerns regarding how Windows 10 collects user data. The DPC is the lead EU privacy regulator for Microsoft because Microsoft's regional headquarters are in Ireland. The DPC confirmed that they are "liaising with the Dutch DPA to further this matter" to TechCrunch.

In 2017, the Dutch DPA determined that Windows 10 was in violation of local privacy laws. Following this, Microsoft made several changes to how Windows 10 asks users about data collection. Testing these changes that took effect in April is what led the Dutch DPA to have new concerns. The agency discovered what it calls "new, potentially unlawful, instances of personal data processing" in a press release.

Because Microsoft's headquarters are in Ireland, which requires GDPR compliance, the lead privacy regulator that covers Microsoft is the Irish DPC. A spokesperson from the Irish DPC told TechCrunch that the DPC is looking into the concern.

A Microsoft spokesperson released a statement to TechCrunch as well.

One of the concerns raised by the Dutch DPA is if it's necessary for Microsoft to collect non-diagnostic data.

Potential penalties for violating GDPR can be up to 4 percent of a company's annual global turnover. Though, it will likely be an extended period of time before the DPC makes any official decisions.

Several companies, including Microsoft, have been in the news recently surrounding how much data they collect. Microsoft confirmed that it uses humans to listen to portions of Skype calls and Cortana queries. If you want to view or manage the data that Microsoft stores, you can use the company's online tool. It allows you to view, download, and delete your browsing history, search history, location activity, voice activity, and more.

Products used in this guide

• Manage ypur data: Microsoft account privacy tool (Free at Microsoft)

How to view your data

The first thing that you'll want to do is view the data that Microsoft has stored. You can view individual audio recordings, location activities, search queries, and several other pieces of data.

1. Go to Microsoft's online privacy tool.
2. Log in to your Microsoft account.
3. Click on Overview. (This is the default section the page loads to).
4. Select a specific section such as View and Clear Browsing History or View and Clear Voice Activity.

Within these sections, you can view any individual piece of data that is stored. You can listen to specific audio clips without having to download them or go through any other stored data. There's also an option to delete single items or your entire history within that section.

How to delete your data

The Microsoft privacy tool allows you to delete individual queries or entire sections.

1. Go to Microsoft's online privacy tool.
2. Log in to your Microsoft account.
3. Click on Overview (this is the default section the page loads to).
4. Select a specific section such as View and Clear Browsing History or View and Clear Voice Activity.
5. Select Clear on a specific item to delete it.
6. Select Clear Activity to clear an entire section.

Remember that clearing a section doesn't do anything to other sections. For example, if you clear your entire browsing history, your search history is left unaltered. You'll have to clear multiple sections to delete everything.

How to download your data

If you'd prefer to download your data instead of looking at it online, you can do that easily with the tool.

1. Go to Microsoft's online privacy tool.
2. Log in to your Microsoft account.
3. Click on Download your data
4. Select Create new archive.
5. Check the box or boxes for specific sections such as Browse History or Voice interactions.
6. Select Create archive.

The archives created expire after one week. You can't delete them within that week.

Nearly 2,000 gaming industry folks woke up this past weekend to news of a massive data leak from the organization behind the E3 gaming conference. Everyone who registered with the Entertainment Software Agency (ESA) as a member of the press, YouTuber, Influencer, or streamer had all that registration information made publicly available. While the ESA acted relatively quickly to remove the information, the data had already been downloaded and reshared.

The worst news by far, however, is how few consequences it seems like there will be for the ESA after having allowed such an egregious violation of trust to take place. Its sad apology letter didn't help either.

How did ESA's E3 privacy breach unfold?

When you register for any tech or gaming event, there's a fairly significant exchange of information. Mailing addresses, phone numbers, and occasionally an emergency contact is requested when applying for access to these events. In some cases, you're not just sharing your information but also that of your editor to confirm you're actually applying to attend the event to do work instead of just play games or get a free pass to a paid event.

For many events, this information is shared with the businesses that will also attend. Doing so allows those businesses to contact press members and invite them to either see things under embargo or get a private tour of their booths before everyone else. This gives the media the ability to get photos and videos without a crowd, which makes it easier to share the experience with everyone not attending the event. This is all fairly standard, and there's usually a checkbox confirming that you're OK with receiving pitches from companies in attendance.

The ESA gathered all of these registrations into a single document and had that document on its website in a file labeled "Registered Media List." This document was available to anyone with a web browser. In other words, anyone could download this info and explore it, which is exactly what YouTuber Sophia Narwitz did when she showed the world what the ESA had done.

For an organization that claims on its website to be "visionaries redefining the business and creative boundaries of entertainment," the ESA demonstrated some fairly stone age data privacy and web access practices.

This isn't something that only happened once.

Using the Wayback Machine and other tools, similar documents from previous E3 registrations have been unearthed. Put simply, if you attended E3 since the internet has been a thing, there's a good chance your personal information is out there for the world to see. And that sucks.

Since the data has been made public, gaming industry folks have found themselves in difficult situations. I've seen friends lock their Twitter accounts and change their phone numbers thanks to a nearly endless wave of personal attacks. Many are concerned about the return of practices like "SWATing" if they say something a person on the internet doesn't like, while others are afraid of good old fashioned credit card scams thanks to the personal information now publicly available. How did the ESA respond to these concerns?

From the response ESA sent to the affected:

That's it. It regrets exposing nearly 2,000 people, the folks invited to attend an event it makes heaps of money from each year. E3 is, and has been for many years, the game conference in the U.S. It's where the largest companies in the gaming world create massive spectacles that keep viewers at home glued to their phones for an entire week. Regardless of how the company handled this incident, people who write about games for a living have little choice but to attend future events, even though ESA seems to have little to no concern for their safety or well being.

Very few consequences for ESA and E3

While some folks outside the U.S. are having a conversation about a possible lawsuit against the ESA for this breach, the sad truth is there's little to be done. Many have changed their phone numbers, but home addresses were also leaked, and it's not like most of the people attending this event can just up and move house. There are no legal consequences in the U.S. for this kind of thing, both because you agree to share that information when you sign up and because the U.S. government doesn't seem interested in pursuing this in any sort of regulatory or legal sense.

To be clear, this isn't like a financial data breach, where there are protections in place and legal consequences. This happened, and outside of the promise from the ESA to not do it again, there's no way to guarantee it won't happen again. Or punishment if it does.

ESA says, "we are the video game industry," but it is clearly mishandling this incident. While all of this is happening, the organization gets to act as though it's the hero when it comes to things like console manufacturers rolling out united policies on loot boxes. If a data breach like this had happened to people registered for an Xbox event, the ESA would be involved in the process of ensuring it never happened again. There would be a strongly-worded blog post on the ESA website about how Microsoft would implement new policies to ensure it doesn't happen again. But the reverse is not happening; there will be no public pressure from the biggest names in the industry to ensure the ESA takes care of the people who attend its event in a journalistic or promotional effort.

It's unlikely we've heard the end of this particular story. If a lawsuit happens to make it beyond a private settlement, it probably won't have any lasting consequences. The ESA could have offered anything, from a personal apology to the people it exposed to basic credit monitoring services, and that would have been an order of magnitude more impactful than what it actually did. In the end, nothing will have really changed.

It really shouldn't take a catastrophic incident for an organization to care about the privacy and safety of the people it serves and works with. For now, there is not much else the affected can do but hope this particular breach won't result in one.

Windows Hello face recognition and privacy screens explained

Windows Hello uses facial recognition, iris scanning, and fingerprint scanning to provide a secure alternative to passwords for Windows devices. Windows Hello compatible devices use the camera and near-infrared light to scan your face. This allows Windows Hello facial recognition to work, even in the dark.

Privacy screens (also called privacy filters) work like blinds in your house. From certain angles, such as looking straight at the screen, the light passes through and you can see and continue to work as normal. As you move to the side, the light gets blocked, so peeping eyes can't see what's on your screen unless they're directly behind you.

Since Windows Hello uses near-infrared light and light passes through the privacy screen at a direct angle, Windows Hello face recognition should work with a privacy screen.

How can I make sure Windows Hello face recognition work with my privacy screen?

Ensure Windows Hello facial recognition will work on your device with a privacy screen by making sure the camera and infrared sensors are not obstructed. Remove dust or dirt on the camera and sensors (usually at the top of the laptop) and try to not cover the area with the privacy screen.

Some privacy filters come with cutouts for the camera and speakers such as this privacy screen from 3M. That should make application and use much simpler.

Why use a privacy screen?

Privacy screens are essentially polarized plastic filters that you put over your computer screen in order to make seeing the information on them impossible from any angle other than a 60-degree viewing angle from the front — in other words, where you are. Outside of that cone, nobody will be able to peep on your web browsing or work projects.

This can be incredibly useful for pretty much anyone, but it's especially useful for traveling business managers or college students spending time on campus. While the 60-degree viewing angle still leaves sneaky spies an opening, you'll surely catch them in the act at that tight of a viewing cone. Additionally, the filter screen can double as protection against scratches as well, albeit a mediocre one. If display safeguarding is what you're after, you'd be better off getting a dedicated screen protector.

The rest of this article will suggest privacy screens for Surface Book 2 owners. If you have a different laptop, then we recommend searching the name of your computer and "privacy screen" on Amazon in order to find one that works for you.

What are some great privacy screens available?

If you own a Surface Book 2, then you're in luck: some truly excellent privacy screens are available on the market. One of them is the 13.5-inch GeckoCare Privacy Screen, which is a special privacy screen designed to be easily taken on and off of your device at will thanks to the special silicone seal that's used to attach the screen to your Surface Book 2 display. This makes the GeckoCare screen ideal for users who want to use a privacy screen sometimes, like when opening confidential documents, but not all the time.

Another great privacy screen is the 3M Privacy Filter. 3M has a well-earned reputation for being one of the best privacy screen developers in the tech world, and if you use its 15-inch Surface Book 2 filter, you'll see why. On top of effectively hiding your screen from others, the 3M filter is also designed with advanced microlouvre technology that keeps the things you see on-screen just as sharp and detailed as they'd be without a polarized filter.

Amazon's Alexa virtual assistant is a pretty great thing. You can ask about the mundane details of life to know when your next dentist appointment is (provided you linked a calendar in the app) or have Alexa remind you to do things at a certain time or even build out a detailed to-do list if you're busy enough to need one. She (Alexa is a" she" like Siri or Cortana and not an "it" like Google Assistant) also is tightly integrated with Amazon services, so you can play Amazon Music or watch Amazon Videos and even control your Fire TV, as well as shop for almost anything your heart desires on Amazon just by asking her to find it for you.

Where Alexa really shines is when it comes to controlling the smart products in your home, and just about any connected gadget you can buy will have Alexa support, even gadgets from other companies like Google's Nest.

Of course, to be this smart and do these sorts of things means Alexa has to know a lot about you. You can't expect any service to know your schedule if you haven't shared it, and with products like the Echo Show that were clearly designed for communication with other people, details about your friends and family need to be shared, too. This brings up a very important set of questions: what sort of information does Amazon get from me when I use Alexa, what does it do with it, and can I take it back if I change my mind?

What you share

For many, this is the most important thing to know about a service like Alexa. Privacy matters and it gets slowly eroded every day, even if you aren't using a smart assistant that knows everything about you. And when any device is always listening, it's worthy of special attention.

Alexa does listen to every word it can hear, but most of it is never stored or sent off to the cloud. Products like Alexa work by use of a "hot word" and an Echo or Fire TV has to listen for that word to operate. If it hears the hot word, it will shift gears and be ready to process what comes next. From Amazon's Alexa Device FAQ page:

Of course, everything electronic can be exploited and some older models of Amazon's Echo were vulnerable to a hack that had it record everything it could hear, but it required modifying the Echo itself and some soldering. For the most part, these things are safe because they stay locked up inside your home.

Once Alexa is initialized because the hot word was detected, what she can hear is then streamed to the cloud for Amazon to process. That's where things get a little worrisome for people who are privacy-conscious, but the reality is pretty benign.

You're able to review everything Alexa has recorded through the app on your phone, and Amazon has made it easy to delete any queries through the app's history feature as well as remove any Amazon device from your account (thus deleting all of its associated data) through the My Devices page on the web.

Seeing what Amazon collects is simple, and removing your data is, too. That's great, but what does Amazon do with our data while they have it?

How Amazon uses your data

Amazon isn't in the business of selling your data away to another company. Like Google, they are more concerned with using it to build out a marketing profile of you. Say, for example, you're a single male between 25 and 40 who makes $50,000 to $75,000 per year. You would then see ads for Amazon products that they have determined are things that people like you are likely to buy. They gather this data by monitoring how you use their products.

Where Facebook knows about the people you know and places you go, and Google knows about the things you use the internet to do, Amazon knows everything there is to know about what you buy online. Amazon.com is easily the biggest online shopping site and according to CNBC, 75% of people in the U.S. who shop online use Amazon to do it the majority of the time. Every one of those purchases is tied to the account that initiated it, and connecting that account to an Alexa-powered device simply rounds out the "360-degree view" of you that Amazon wants to create.

Amazon also uses information about your contacts and who you are calling through Alexa. From the Alexa Terms of Use:

Besides using your data to do the things you ask Alexa to do, Amazon also uses it to "improve their services" which includes any customer profile they may be creating about you. Big data is an amazing monster and machine algorithms that can use something innocuous like knowing you call your mother on Sundays to target products to you is a real thing.

Amazon also promotes advertisements using this data. Amazon sellers can pay to have their products promoted and Amazon sweetens that deal by promoting products to users who are more likely to buy them. We think of Google when talking about online advertising, but Amazon does the same thing and does it very well. They just limit it to their own market, mostly.

Does Amazon sell any of your data?

No, because if they did they would lose a lot of money. Your data is kept in-house and secured and encrypted, and during transmission is secured and encrypted through SSL. Amazon does not detail how much of your data is stored anonymously, and it's safe to assume that the bulk of your customer data is easily traceable back to you. That means keeping it secure is very important and Amazon uses their own security specialist teams to keep the machine running and in check.

Like most online services, there are times when Amazon shares your data with partners. Here is what Amazon has to say about how they handle this from their general Privacy Policy:

Examples of when Amazon shares your data are things like sharing with credit card processors, their own subsidiaries, package and parcel delivery services or wire transfers. Amazon does offer third-party promotions (ads for companies or websites that are not under the Amazon umbrella) but they build and send these themselves on behalf of the third-party and don't give another company your information. Seeing anonymized data shared with strategic partners is commonplace and no cause for alarm.

The shopping profile Amazon has built of you makes your data more valuable to Amazon than any dollar amount. Using the profile of your account for targeted advertisement is a never-ending well of revenue, and selling it away to another company would only serve to lessen its value. Amazon is worth billions, and a big part of what got the company there is how they target products to potential buyers. They aren't about to give any of it away or sell it for a relatively small fee.

News reports have been swirling about Facebook (a company you know), Cambridge Analytica (a company you might not have heard of), and the 2016 United States presidential election. It's an important story, but I've observed a critical misunderstanding or miscasting of the discussion in many media outlets, even those that are supposed to be tech-savvy. You've maybe seen this story described as a "breach" or a "leak."

The reality is far more distressing: Facebook basically gave away our profile data. The company has always made all of this data available, it just never expected it to be used like this.

Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and what happened

Cambridge Analytica is a data mining and analysis firm that specializes in delivering, to quote their mission statement, "Data-Driven Behavioral Change by understanding what motivates the individual and engaging with target audiences in ways that move them to action."

Which is to say, it uses profile data to tailor messaging and advertisements. This isn't a new concept — magazine, TV, and radio ads have long been customized to subscriber demographics. What's new is the breadth, depth, and precision of the targeting. The nature of the internet means that a huge amount of data about you is available for the taking, and you've given it all away.

Cambridge Analytica worked with the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump, using the data of 50 million Facebook users to target advertisements at voters that they believed to be receptive to the campaign's message. It was an effort unprecedented in politics, and how much it affected the vote is unanswerable. But there's little doubt there was an effect. But how did Cambridge Analytica get that much data?

According to some excellent reporting by The New York Times, Cambridge Analytica built a personality survey app that required a Facebook log-in. That app was distributed by a compliant Cambridge University professor, who claimed the data would be used for research. This was entirely legal and in accordance with Facebook's policies and the profile settings of its users. That the data was passed from the professor to Cambridge Analytica was a mere violation of Facebook's developer agreement.

Around 270,000 Facebook users reportedly downloaded the survey app. So how did Cambridge Analytica harvest the data of some 50 million users? Because they were Facebook friends of people who downloaded the app.

How this happened

Facebook's policies and default privacy settings allow apps to collect massive amounts of profile data. That information is supposed to be used to provide you with a customized product; in reality, it's usually tailored advertisements. The most painful part is that we users opened the door to these apps — the user has to download the app and grant it permission to access their Facebook profile. It tells you right up front what data it wants access to.

Taking the survey required allowing access to your Facebook profile. Thanks to Facebook's default privacy settings (which only a small portion of users have changed) the survey app also pulled in the profile data of millions of Facebook friends. All of this data was forwarded to Cambridge Analytica, which rolled it up with data from other sources to build psychological profiles of potential voters.

Facebook says it cares about your privacy, but that's lip service. The company wants you to be just comfortable enough that you keep sharing. Facebook is a business, but that business is not being a social network — the business is advertising. The free social network that most Facebook users use is a conduit for collecting data and distributing ads. Facebook was designed to get you to hand over as much information and spend as much time on it as possible, all in order to deliver more and better-targeted ads.

How we got here

Years ago we, as a collective of internet users, made a grand bargain. Given the choice between paying for a subscription service or getting a service for free and dealing with ads, we chose free with ads. Except we paid with our data and we had no concept of its value. Facebook, Google, and others are all designed to gather more and more data, and they've become more and more effective at synthesizing that data and precisely targeting users. Google's free product is an incredible search engine, but the company logs all of those searches to build a profile of you and sell ads against that profile.

This is true of most companies built on a free service, including Facebook, Google, Twitter, Spotify, even free tax preparation services. The real customer is whoever is buying your data or buying advertising slots based on your data.

That's just how the modern web works. What we've failed to grasp are the scope of all that data and its potential. But the people collecting it certainly did. They were playing a long game and they made it fun for users. We were happy to fill out our profiles, delighted to post about our interests, comfortable handing over our files, and just fine with logging our searches.

You know the phrase "knowledge is power"? In the twenty-first century, data is power, and whoever controls it writes the rules.

Consequences and the presidential election

None of this excuses Facebook or Cambridge Analytica. That your data was readily available for exporting and exploiting — via your friends — should both appall and infuriate you. But this was not a breach or a leak; it was an exploitation of Facebook's own tools and rules.

Facebook and Cambridge Analytica will be hauled in front of Congressional committees for testimony. But what happened was not against any laws, and it's not clear if there will be any consequences beyond revoking Cambridge Analytica's access to new Facebook user data. (Facebook requested the data be deleted, but it has no way to enforce that request.)

Your seemingly innocent and private profiles, musings, likes, and shares were all mined and assembled into a profile of how best to exploit your beliefs, fears, and hopes during the last election. It's disconcerting when this information is used for advertising; it's terrifying when that same data is used to sway the electorate.

Trump did not run a sophisticated traditional campaign. His traditional "ground game" was incredibly lacking, but he made up for it with loud media savvy (either by accident or by design) and a quiet and unprecedented online campaign that understood the power of your data better than any in the past. And now Donald Trump is President of the United States.

Data. Is. Power.

So what now?

This was the natural next evolution of the web we implicitly agreed to without understanding the trade-offs. Users and companies have reaped rewards from this data, but this level of abuse was only a matter of time.

Our society is built on trust, and when that trust fails we make laws. We trusted Facebook and the company gave away our data with an unenforceable developer agreement as the only safeguard. Facebook isn't alone — every company wants your data, and you should be reticent to trust any of them. It doesn't matter what company we're talking about — Google, Uber, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Tesla, Spotify, et al — they all want your data. Some are more judicious in how they handle it, but even if they're not selling your data they will use it to sell to you.

I won't tell you to delete your Facebook account, but I also won't stop you. Nobody has to have a Facebook account. If you want to keep using Facebook, review your privacy settings, your profile information, which apps you've authorized, and even what you're posting and liking.

Don't trust Facebook or any other company with data you wouldn't give to a complete stranger. Don't log in to apps or services with your Facebook profile — and if they offer no alternative, use something else. Don't take random Facebook quizzes. Think twice before posting any personal information online. We all need to be cognizant of the data we're giving out.

That's the short game. In the longer term, we need systems in place to protect everyone. Silicon Valley is not going to fix this problem; its leaders are too naive about the nature of the humans to realize it even is a problem. We have laws and regulations governing airplanes, pharmaceuticals, construction, shipping, and everything else under the sun. I'm not normally one to advocate for more regulation, but it's clear that today's laws were not written for the modern internet.

Digital companies will claim that current laws and regulations are enough and that new ones will limit innovation. New regulation will indeed increase costs, but as long as there is money to be made investments will not stop. Regulation didn't stop innovation in the automotive or aerospace industries, and it certainly won't bring tech innovation to a halt. Some coalition of tech companies will issue an "Internet Bill of Rights" or such and say its principles will be sufficient to protect users. We've seen such pledges before But anything short of federal law will be insufficient. The tech sector accounts for nearly one-tenth of the U.S. economy and is growing rapidly; it's in everybody's best interest for it to be sensibly regulated.

It's well past time that we demand tech companies act responsibly with our data. The internet of today and the hyper-customized AI services of tomorrow only work if we can trust them to respect and safeguard our data. We users need to get a better handle on what we're putting out there for free, what's being done with our data, and what we expect from the Facebooks, Googles, Amazons, and Apples of the world.

Either through negligence or malevolence, our implicit trust in these companies was misplaced. We need trust for all of this to work, and the only way for that trust to be restored is through concrete action and enforceable regulations.

Microsoft has been gradually tweaking and improving its privacy controls in Windows 10 throughout its last several updates, and the next is no different. Alongside the release of Windows 10 preview build 17115 today, Microsoft is giving Fast ring Insiders a chance to check out a new privacy setup experience set to debut with the upcoming Redstone 4 update.

Coming this spring, the new experience brings a revamped setup experience that gives users granular control over which privacy settings they want to tweak. While Insiders will get to test the experience with build 17115, Microsoft is actually testing two styles. The first places every setting on one screen, where users can switch them on and off with a toggle. Other Insiders will see seven individual screens, each of which is dedicated to a single privacy setting.

The more methodical of the two, the second experience asks you to respond with a "Yes" or "No" answer in response to whether you'd like to turn each setting on. Microsoft notes that it has highlighted "Yes" as its recommended option by depicting a dotted line around the answer.

A new "Inking & Typing" setting is also tagging along in this build, allowing users to decide whether they want to send that data to Microsoft to help improve language recognition and suggestions.

"By offering multiple experiences to our Insiders, we're able to hear multiple points of view, along with preferences on the best set up experience that showcases privacy set up choices," Microsoft says. "We're excited about the new Windows 10 update coming this spring that will deliver these new privacy set up experiences."

If you're in the Fast ring, you can check out the new privacy settings setup experience by downloading build 17115 now.

That very question is the topic of an interesting discussion in the Windows Central forums.

Rightly or wrongly, it's a question that will never go away. Why? Google has a bit of a bad reputation when it comes to protecting its users' privacy ... as opposed to selling their personal details. And if you do go to use an Android phone, it's entirely possible to use as little Google as possible. We've shown how easy it is to Microsoft up an Android device, but the simple truth is you can't use one without at least having a Google account. And for some people, that's a concern.

Does Google actually steal information from you? Probably not, but it does use the information you give it access too. Android allows a great deal of control over how much you share and what gets permissions on your phone, but it's still a concern in the back of some people's minds.

I've been using Android in some way fairly steadily since 2010, and I've yet to have a serious concern. Or at least, one generated by Google. But I've also started to use fewer of its services, and I very much enjoy using Android with a suite of Microsoft goodness in its place.

What say you? If you have some wisdom to contribute, hit the forums thread below and join the conversation.

If I disable most of Google's privacy settings on Android - is the big G still spying?

Credit-reporting company Equifax has just announced a major cyber security breach that has exposed the data of approximately 143 million U.S. consumers.

What data was exposed?

The company says the following data was accessed:

• names
• Social Security numbers
• birth dates
• addresses
• driver's license numbers
• credit card numbers (approx. 209,000 U.S. consumers)
• dispute documents (approx. 182,000 U.S. consumers)

Equifax says the data of some UK and Canadian residents may have been exposed as well.

When did this happen?

The company discovered the intrusion on July 29 and believes the intrusion happened between mid-May and July 2017.

What did Equifax do when it discovered the intrusion?

The company says it immediately took action to stop the breach. It also hired a cybersecurity firm to learn more about the breach and determine how much data was exposed:

How can I determine if my data was exposed in the breach?

Equifax has set up a dedicated website, www.equifaxsecurity2017.com where U.S consumers can determine if their data was impacted.

To determine if you were potentially impacted by the breach, you can visit the Equifax security site and enter your last name and the last six digits of your Social Security number (no, the irony is not lost on us). If you were impacted, you'll receive a message indicating just that.

The company is also offering free credit file monitoring and identity theft protection:

The company says it will mail out notices to consumers whose credit card numbers and dispute documents were exposed in the breach.

What can I do if my data was exposed in the breach?

You should absolutely take advantage of the free credit file monitoring and identity theft protection. You should also do the following:

• Obtain a free copy of your credit report from Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion by requesting the documents on the Annual Credit Report site. ( Note: You can do this once a year for free. )
• Place a credit freeze or fraud alert on your identity. You can learn more about placing a credit freeze here and learn more about placing a fraud alert here.
• The FTC recommends filing your taxes early. If someone steals your personal data and files your taxes, they can use it to claim a tax refund or get a job.
• Stay vigilant. Exposed data can be used in fraudulent calls, emails, and other messages.
• If your driver's license number was stolen, contact your local Department of Motor Vehicles and explain the situation.
• Visit IdentityTheft.gov for more information.

The internet is a vast, wonderful, dangerous place, and we're only beginning to understand the ramifications of things like social media, forums, blogs, and other venues for sharing information about our lives with the general public. You don't want to avoid them completely, but a balance can be struck that will help safeguard some privacy. Even if you use privacy measures like a VPN and other encryption software, they can't help protect what you share willingly.

Why is sharing information online a problem?

Say you're a frequent user of Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. You've customized the privacy settings so that only certain people can find you, and you've set it up so not everyone can read what you're posting.

However, we've all seen many examples of tweets and posts that shared way too much information, and once they're online, they don't disappear. Even deleting social media posts or blog entries doesn't entirely ensure that they're gone, thanks to initiatives like The Internet Archive.

A simple screengrab can be easily shared and just as damaging, and if the content of the picture is enticing enough, it might make its way into the broader streams of the internet and be seen by a lot more people. Potential employers often check out social media streams before they make a hire. (Avoiding taxes will also be much more difficult if a history of your spending is recorded online.)

The next time you're about to share something over a public medium, no matter how you've tweaked security settings, remind yourself that what you're sharing will likely live somewhere on the internet forever.

A list of information you should never share online

With the idea that what you share will exist forever in some databank, here are some bits of information that should never be shared publicly:

• Passwords.
• Date of birth.
• Where you live.
• Where you work or study.
• Where you grew up.
• Names of family members.
• Credit card or other banking information.

While some of this information doesn't really mean a lot on its own, if combined, it can be quite damaging. Secondary security questions you forgot you set up might be cracked, and then you're dealing with compromised accounts and identity theft. You might even attract some people who are interested in more than just following you around.

One more thing to look out for is sharing high-value items. Sure, you might have finally bought that big item you've been saving up for and want to share it with friends, but you're sort of making yourself a target, especially if location sharing is enabled.

Just look at the Kim Kardashian example, where she was robbed in Paris after posting photos of expensive jewelry.

As a rule of thumb, next time you share something on a blog or on social media, imagine it being seen by everyone. That's a lot of views and, if you're excited about everyone seeing it, you're probably alright posting it.

Best practices for other information you share online

With the idea in mind that everyone might see what you post, also remember that it can be seen in the future. Like, 10 years down the road. Will your political views remain the same? Will those less-than-flattering pictures of you from a high school or college party help you get hired for your dream job?

Managing a responsible, active social media persona is a lot of work. Each bit of information should be thoughtful and shouldn't share too much. If you're thinking about starting a blog, or you're an active forum member on your favorite website, remember that you need to be just as cautious about oversharing.

The best way to ensure you're not sharing too much online is to take matters into your own hands. Don't rely on privacy settings of individual platforms, but take an active stance on what you choose to share online.

More resources

If you're concerned about privacy online, we put together several roundups of ways you can protect yourself.

• 6 sure-fire ways to protect your privacy online
• How to ensure data you store in the cloud remains secure
• Do you really need a VPN?
• Best VPN services for 2017

Here's what file shredding is, why it's important, and how you can do it.

• The importance of shredding
• Antivirus suites
• File shredders
• The choice is yours

The importance of shredding

Shredding physical documents is an important step toward securing your identity and other sensitive information, especially regarding financial and legal matters. The same practices should be carried out when it comes to computers and virtual data. Throwing away an important document with your personal information plastered in the header is similar to right-clicking on an important PDF file and moving it to the recycle bin. It's not a good idea.

The problem with deleting files this way is if someone else gains access to your PC, they will have the opportunity to retrieve the data through the use of specialist software. It's important for consumers to protect themselves from their data falling into the hands of others — passwords, contact information or even bank cards. Merely deleting files or formatting your hard drives and reinstalling Windows will not remove all references to old data.

To solve this problem, we recommend "wiping" your hard drives using software to write random data on connected storage and remove all references to the old data. The same goes for shredding files, but instead we're restricting the random write to the file location in question and not the entire drive, which is ideal if you simply wish to delete a few files and not reinstall your entire OS.

Whether you plan to sell your desktop or laptop, or you simply wish to better bolster your own protection, it's really easy to shred important files.

Antivirus suites

It's highly likely your chosen antivirus suite will have a feature to shred files securely. Depending on the software at hand, the way you go about launching this tool differs between available brands. The best part about using your antivirus package is there's no need to download and install more software to shred files. It's worth noting that some companies may require you to pay for an optional download.

The following antivirus solutions feature file shredding functionality in some form:

• Avast.
• AVG.
• McAfee.
• Norton.

If your antivirus suite doesn't have this option, or you'd like to try a dedicated piece of software to handle file shredding, we've got you covered with some great alternatives.

File shredders

These programs are either specifically designed to shred files or have some sort of related functionality built in.

• BitKiller
• CCleaner
• Eraser
• Moo0 File Shredder

BitKiller

BitKiller is an open-source suite that can not only handle the destruction of files and folders but can easily take on an entire storage drive. It's also portable, for use on removable storage, which means it can be run from a USB stick without the need to install anything on the target PC. It's incredibly straightforward and simple to use, too, especially with version two.

There's also the option to use Gutmann algorithm, for a total of 35 passes and additional security. It's secure but time-consuming, so be sure to go and fetch a hot (or cold) beverage while it carries out the file deletion. Much like Moo0 File Shredder (more coming up on that tool), BitKiller lets you drag and drop files into the app. It's absolutely up there as one of the easiest shredders to use.

Download BitKiller

CCleaner

CCleaner is one of the best tools for checking what files are taking up valuable space on your PC. The suite also handles file deletion with random overwriting, so if you already have it installed you don't need to install another tool to carry out shredding. CCleaner need to be configured to handle the secure deletion of files, but once that's set up you'll be good to go.

To access the file shredder in CCleaner, you'll need to go to Options > Include to add any folders or files you wish to have CCleaner securely delete on its next system scan and delete pass. The easiest way to manage this feature (if you want to shred files on a regular basis) is to set up a folder where you can dump files you wish to permanently delete. Then you can simply add this folder to CCleaner and it'll delete everything within the folder.

Here's a quick look at how to add individual files, and folders are added in a similar fashion:

1. Hit "Add".
2. Choose "Browse" under "File". (For folders, simply choose the top option.)
3. Select the file for CCleaner to shred. (You can't do multiple selection here.)
4. Hit OK.

5. Choose "Cleaner" in the side menu.
6. Hit "Run Cleaner."

Having a dedicated shredder folder will allow CCleaner to clear out and shred files contained within on each cleaner run. That makes it real easy to delete files normally through Windows and shred important or sensitive information using the suite.

Download CCleaner

Eraser

Eraser is incredibly easy to use. In fact, you control pretty much everything through Windows Explorer context menus. Need to shred a file quickly? Simply right-click on it, choose Eraser and then the use erase option. If you'd like to go slightly more advanced, firing up the software can allow for scheduling tasks, much like CCleaner but without any user interaction. You just add a folder or two, and the software handles the rest.

The default erase method is Gutmann, which overwires files 35 times. While secure, this means the process can take a little time to complete.

Download Eraser

Moo0 File Shredder

Another great leightweight file shredding tool is from Moo0. It's small, highly secure and it gets the job done without issue. A great feature of Moo0's shredder is the ability for you to drag and drop files into the software to have it carry out the process. Forget having to set up automated tasks and specific folders for shredding.

The suite can be configured to remain on top of all programs, to make accessing it more convenient, and there are four rather humorous options for shredding: Vaporize, Into Ashes, Extra Carefully and Shred Once. The first is the most thorough option based on the Gutmann algorithm, and Shred Once is a light but fast attempt to overwrite the file.

Download Moo0 File Shredder

The choice is yours

What software you use to shred files is entirely up to you. A good way to see how well your choice works is to run a file recovery program, such as Recuva, and then have it search for a test folder you used to shred some files. If it can detect and recover your deleted files, you'll know to either use a more secure setting or opt for an alternative shredder suite.

Without a second thought, many of us accept the default privacy settings that Microsoft sets up when installing Windows 10. Those of us that value our privacy may not feel 100% comfortable sharing data, especially if it's not essential in making Windows 10 any better.

Download your free eBook

Preserving your Privacy in Windows 10, is an extremely informative eBook that's available for free through December 23. This quick and easy read will walk you through the different privacy settings in Windows 10 and show you how to disable them, so you can rest easy knowing your personal data is safe and secure. Simply fill out their form with some basic information and instantly download your complimentary eBook!

Download your free eBook

When it comes to the world of bittorrent, you cannot sidestep the big red flag that the majority of its usage is for sharing copyrighted material. Sure, torrents have legitimate uses, but let's not kid ourselves that most users are trading music, movies, games, and comics.

Putting that background into context and it is understandable that people running private trackers like iTS are slightly paranoid. After all, their business can be one fraught with lawsuits and criminal penalties.

Who is banning what?

If you have never heard of iTS and some of the other sites reported on Torrent Freak this Saturday as 'banning Windows 10', don't worry as these are the small fish in the torrent world. Unlike the legendary Pirate Bay or Demonoid, iTS and others are relatively unknown and, therefore, their actions less interesting.

According to the site Torrent Freak, who reports on the bittorrent scene, iTS has already banned Windows 10 users from using their service and BB and FSC are considering the same. The reason? Their misinterpretation of Microsoft's EULA for Windows 10 and the Windows Store.

Indeed, Windows Central initially fell for the legalese trap when we reported that Microsoft could "revoke" or disable pirated games. Of course, anyone who has used Windows Phone in the past knows that Microsoft has had this ability for a very long time. Indeed, we once watched it work with a pirated GPS app found in the Store. A user bought, downloaded, and re-uploaded the software to the Store and offered it for free. Microsoft not only banned the user but then pulled the pirated software off of people's devices.

Windows Phone Marketplace works...pirated software promptly removed (2011)

This ability to be able to revoke software offered through the Store is very important for piracy and security concerns. Were Microsoft to find software that illegally recorded phone calls it would be necessary to pull that software not just from the Store but from unsuspecting users too.

Put it this way: For years, Microsoft did not have a centralized store for distributing protected software. What is the legacy of Windows? Browser helper objects, pirated software, viruses, and yes, whoops, security risks for the common people. Ironic that in addressing security and safety in Windows 10 Microsoft is being accused of draconian privacy violations.

Folks, someone, has to watch the software. If not you, then good luck to grandma downloading that .exe from whatever site she received in that phishing email. Likewise, best of wishes if you want to hack Xbox Live or use OneDrive to distribute pirated software (or worse).

In short, Microsoft does not like the idea of you using their services to facilitate a possible copyright crime or aid in distributing illegal pornography. Do it if you want to, just don't ask Microsoft to help you by letting you use their technology. Some users may see this as intrusive, but Microsoft has a business to run and a reputation to uphold.

Their reasons are…crazy?

Complaints from iTS and BB range from the ludicrous:

...to the insane.

The company in question is MarkMonitor, whom, as Torrent Freak rightly points out, Microsoft has been working with for years. Even more, MarkMonitor is also used for anti-phishing schemes, and spam passed through Internet Explorer, Microsoft Edge, and Outlook. If you ever wondered what powers Microsoft's SmartScreen technology (which you can disable), well there you go.

As far as sending the contents of your local disks directly to their servers, well yeah, welcome to the world of OneDrive, which syncs your folders to the cloud with your permission. Granted, you can disable OneDrive, or only share particular folders, but such nuance is lost of the geniuses at iTS.

I want academics, researchers, and experts tell me I should fear Windows 10, not some kid running a two-bit torrent site.

All you need to know about privacy and settings in Windows 10 and Microsoft Edge

Paranoia is good, but facts are better

The problem I have with all of this privacy paranoia is we have yet to see any conclusive information about what "bad things" Microsoft is doing with it. Particularly I mean there have been no prominent hackers or academics yet who have done an adequate analysis or written any white papers on major security concerns.

Those critical analyses may be coming, but until then it is hard to get too worked up about it. Alternatively, if you are that concerned with security, privacy, and air-gapped PCs, well what are even doing using Windows? To my knowledge, no 31337 h4x0r fires up Cortana before coding their latest exploit. But hey, there are a lot of script kiddies out there, what do I know.

None of this is to say Microsoft is a do-goody company or that you should completely trust them.Certainly not. However, until those with expertise weigh in the matter, I simply won't take the what-if legal and technical advice from bloggers or those without reputations in the field. If you are getting security advice from anonymous staffers on a torrent site or YouTube, well, I think you could do better.

Microsoft's EULA is not much different from what was in Windows 8. Using services like OneDrive, Xbox Live, Windows Store, Skype and other services comes with a certain surrendering of privacy.You are transmitting data through Microsoft or even letting them store it. Microsoft's servers host OneDrive. If you are putting illegal material on there, it is akin to harboring a fugitive in your house or at the very least, puts the company in an awkward public position. I also think Microsoft having safeguards to prevent people from hacking Xbox Live or posting pirated software in their Store is a good thing.

For now, I think these obscure torrent trackers are in the wrong. Personally, I don't even care I just worry about the unfounded fear spreading to more legit services. They are acting out of a misreading of the EULA and yes, the burden of proof is on hackers and computer scientists to back up their fears with real examples, or proofs of concept.

Still, if you are committing crimes, pirating software, distributing illegal pornography or staging the next big terrorist attack, perhaps you should jump to Linux. But if you needed me to tell you that, well, your life of crime won't last long anyway.

Speaking of torrents and Microsoft, they still don't have a problem with torrent software in the Store. Torrex Lite and Torrex Pro were just updated for Windows 10 and are still fantastic apps. Considering it is not their app or service, this should not be a surprise. Microsoft, to our knowledge, is only concerned with (a) their software and services (b) improving those through collected user data and (c) making sure their services are not being used to commit a crime.

The idea that Microsoft's new mission is to try and screw over their users of the OS by reporting them for torrents is a bit of a stretch. Just thinking of the PR nightmare that would create for their OS would unimaginable.

Do you disagree? Is Microsoft's Window 10 the next gateway drug for the NSA? Is any modern OS truly secure from prying eyes? Sound off in comments.

Source: TorrentFreak

Several technology companies, including Microsoft, Apple, and Google, have signed a letter to President Obama calling for him to reject measure that would weaken encryption and security in smartphones and other devices. Companies like Facebook and Dropbox have also joined in. The letter urges the President to instead encourage the wide adoption of encryption on consumer devices.

From the letter:

This letter, also signed by numerous security experts, follows several calls by law enforcement officials for companies to make it easier for agencies to access data on consumer devices. Recent security measures make it more difficult for outside parties to gain access to your data, including law enforcement.

Despite professional rivalries, smartphone encryption and security is an issue that often unites these companies. Apple, Google, and others have often banded together, such as their attempts to curb wide-scale NSA phone surveillance.

Read the entire letter right here

Source: The Washington Post

More information has come to light on government surveillance, with new information revealing a campaign by the CIA to break through security on devices from Apple and Microsoft. Researchers working with the agency would apparently present their latest efforts at a yearly meeting called the "Jamboree". In 2010, a group of attendees announced that they were able to extract BitLocker encryption keys, according to The Intercept:

Microsoft was one of the many tech companies calling for mass surveillance programs to be curbed. The company has also resisted efforts by the U.S. government to obtain emails stored on servers in Ireland, receiving support from companies like Apple, Amazon, and Verizon.

You can read the full report at The Intercept at the link below.

Source: The Intercept

In the wake of the recent terrorist attacks in France, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has come out in support of banning encrypted messaging apps. According to a new report, Cameron alluded that he would be for banning encrypted communication apps, which could include WhatsApp, Snapchat, and Apple's iMessage.

From The Independent:

To justify such an action, Cameron was quoted by Ars Technica as saying the following:

This is just the latest in a much larger privacy battle that has been ramping up as smartphones have become more and more ubiquitous. Late last year, the NSA was accused of spying on citizens through the use of fake towers. A few days later, a bill that would have curbed the extent of NSA spying just barely fell short of passing the senate.

However, keep in mind that there's no telling if such a ban would actually be possible, but it would stand to impact a large swath of popular messaging apps in the UK if instituted.

Sources: The Independent, Ars Technica

Microsoft is getting a ton of support for its stance on not disclosing emails stored on one of its servers in Ireland to the US government. A number of major tech companies, including some of Microsoft's direct rivals such as Apple and Amazon, have submitted "friend of the court" briefs today, in support of the company's decision to keep the content of those emails private.

US federal prosecutors got approval from a judge a year ago for a search warrant to look at emails stored on that server. However, Microsoft has been fighting this move ever since, claiming that a domestic search warrant cannot be enforced on emails that are stored on an overseas server.

Today, Microsoft said:

Besides Apple and Amazon, companies such as Verizon, Cisco, Salesforce, HP, eBay, Infor, AT&T, and Rackspace filed their own briefs in support of Microsoft's stances. They were joined by organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Center for Democracy & Technology, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. A number of major media companies have also supported Microsoft with their own briefs, including CNN, ABC, Fox News, Forbes, the Washington Post, the New York Daily News and others.

Source: Microsoft

A number of big-name tech companies are teaming up to lobby the Senate to pass legislation that would limit the reach of the NSA's spying activities, Bloomberg reported today. The coalition of tech giants includes the likes of Apple, Google, and Microsoft, among others.

The goal of the lobbying is to encourage the Senate to act on issues of NSA spying in advance of the Republican takeover of the chamber next year, as many members of the political party are seen as supportive of government surveillance programs.

Addressing the effect of revelations surrounding the extent of NSA spying, Gary Shapiro, CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association which represents the tech giants, said that members of the group "have already lost contracts with foreign governments worth millions of dollars." This signals that the need to curb the NSA's reach is very real not only from a privacy standpoint, but an economic one as well.

We should see if their efforts pay off soon, as the companies are throwing their weight behind a Senate bill that goes up for vote on November 18th that would prevent the NSA from bulk-collecting subscribers' electronic communications.

Source: Bloomberg

A congressional advisory committee will be taking the initial step Thursday to discuss the legal ramifications of protecting Internet privacy. Prompted by the recent hacks resulting in the leak of nude photos of celebrities like the high profile case involving actress Jennifer Lawrence, the Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee will be discussing the topic of privacy and the legal remedies against hackers, websites, and those partaking in revenge porn.

In a session titled "Jennifer Lawrence's Hacked Photos: A "Sex Crime?" The Legal Underpinnings of Digitally Exposed Private Images and What Congress Needs to Know" the advisory committee, which is comprised of members of the private sector and is not a government body, will be asking what remedies, if any at all, ordinary citizens will have against people who hack, leak, or peddle private photos.

To engage the public and gain coverage, the committee will be using the hashtag #exposedphotos on Twitter, so be sure to join in on the discourse tomorrow.

Source: Advisorry Comittee to the Congressional Internet Caucus; via CNET

No one likes ads, even if they are what powers our web economy. The debate over ad blockers is always a tough one, even more so since it even affects our site too. Without the revenue, we do not get money, which means we cannot pay our writers, which means we do not have employees. Still, there are selective uses of ad blocking that is useful, and we will show you how to do that in IE11 for Windows 8.1.

Internet Explorer 11 cannot do traditional plugins like Chrome or Firefox, which is a big gripe for many who would like to use it as their main browser. As a tradeoff, though, IE11 has fewer security issues, and it is gentler on your battery, which is important for tablets, laptops, and the Surface. However, there is a way to block ads within IE11 even without plugins, and it does not involve any hacks or modifications. Yes, Microsoft has given you the tools directly.

Disable ads in Internet Explorer 11 for Windows 8.1

• Open IE11 in Modern or Desktop mode
• Bring up the Charms bar (swipe from the right)
• Tap 'Settings'
• Select 'Privacy'
• Tap 'Add Tracking Protection Lists'

Following the above steps launches Microsoft's IE gallery, an online repository for their browser add-ons. 'Tracking Protection Lists' is their fun euphemism for ad blocking.

As of August 2014, you can add seven different lists to IE11. You can add one or all; the choice is up to you. One of the more interesting ones is 'Stop Google Tracking,' which gets around Google's circumventing of IE's privacy preferences. Huzzah. EasyList Standard is the same list that powers the familiar Adblock Plus plugin, giving the same ability to IE11 users as Chrome and Firefox.

If you feel bad about blocking a site's only source of revenue, in the address bar you can see a 'buster' symbol letting you know that some content is blocked (see image below). Tapping this symbol brings up a window explaining what is happening, and it gives you the ability to unblock that content, making the world right again. Either way, the choice is yours. Once you have selected your lists, the browser automatically blocks that content going forward. That is all there is to it.

We will leave the choice up to you for which content on which sites to block. Watch the above tutorial video to see how to do this yourself.

Did you know about the built-in ad blocking in IE11 and is it something that you use? Let us know in comments and feel free to share any other browsing tips you have too!

The UK government is looking to reinforce powers of security services to require internet and phone providers to maintain records of customer email and calls. Emergency laws are to be introduced into the Commons next Monday, following private talks and gaining support of both Labour and the Liberal Democrats on the basis that there will be new board to oversee the functioning of new powers. The move is an effort to continue protecting UK citizens from external threats.

Transparency reports will be released on an annual basis confirming just how frequently police and security services are using the legislation. Expiring in 2016, the new laws will require fresh legislation post-general election. It's reported that there will be no powers to look at the content of phone calls, but location, date and phone numbers in question will be accessible. UK prime minister, David Cameron, recently explained why the emergency powers were being pushed through.

It's noted that a recent European court of justice ruling in April concluded that current laws invaded individual privacy, thus the UK government has taken action to ensure records are kept should investigations be started, requiring access to data retained by providers. The court ruling affected regulations requiring businesses to hold said date for up to 12 months.

What are your thoughts on the new legislation to reinforce surveillance?

Source: The Guardian

Microsoft has been heavily involved with other tech companies in fighting for customers' privacy rights in the courts and congress in the US. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which publishes a Who Has Your Back report each year, has awarded Microsoft (among a handful of other companies) with top marks when it comes to protecting user data against government officials.

The report grades technology companies on how they handle customer data access requests, put forward by government. Microsoft met all six factors included in the report, which each listing is graded by. The company scored full marks across the board on the following:

• Requires a warrant for content
• Tells users about government data requests
• Publishes transparency reports
• Publishes law enforcement guidelines
• Fights for users' privacy rights in court
• Fights for users' privacy rights in congress

Microsoft has previously announced the company has nothing to do with programs including PRISM, reassuring customers that all data is safe and they will be notified should government officials request data. Other companies have also been vocal about protecting user data. Apple, CREDO Mobile, Dropbox, Facebook, Google, Sonic, Twitter and Yahoo all joined Microsoft in receiving the full six stars.

Microsoft was also praised for improvements made through the years (the company only had a single star in the 2012 report), and the company appears to be actively open to feedback on said issues. Contrast to the success of a select few, MySpace, AT&T and Amazon.com all scored a measly two stars, while Snapchat ended up with only a single star – not a positive end result for the private image sharing service.

The tech giant received a total of 37,196 requests from law enforcement agencies in the first six months of 2013. These requests affected 66,539 accounts on Hotmail, Outlook.com, OneDrive, Xbox Live, Microsoft Account, Office 365 and Skype. It's noted that only a select number of these requests were actually fulfilled with the disclosure of customer data.

Be sure to read through the full report over on EFF.

Source: EFF, via: WinBeta

If the government demands your personal, private email or other data, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple, and others are reportedly taking steps to notify you faster and more frequently than they did in the past. That's putting them at odds with prosecutors who believe such notifications can interfere with ongoing investigations and evidence gathering. The Washington Post:

These new policies, however, don't affect data requests from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or from National Security letters, which are automatically gagged as a matter of law.

Google already has their policy in place, which includes exemptions of imminent harm and criminal activity. They said in a statement:

Apple's statement:

Microsoft is likewise working on revising their disclosure policies.

For much more on the matter and its implications, see the link below. Then let me know — how comfortable are you with the way companies handle disclosing demands for your information?

Source: The Washington Post

Microsoft, along with other companies have been in the news surrounding the US National Security Agency (NSA) and general privacy concerns that government agencies have easy access to customer data. Brad Smith, General Counsel & Executive Vice President, Legal & Corporate Affairs at Microsoft, recently published a blog post detailing now is the time for an international convention on government access to data.

US President Barack Obama recently spoke about the role of the NSA along with some important changes to come regarding surveillance practices. Smith goes on to talk about the upcoming World Economic Forum, which will be held in Davos, Switzerland on January 21st. Privacy concerns will be on the agenda at this meeting, as well as the reform of government surveillance. 

Smith notes that the time has come for a wider discussion about privacy and data protection against such practices, which is hoped to result in an international framework for both surveillance and data access rules to be formed and enforced around the world. We're talking about human rights and individual privacy, but not to an extreme sense that governments and authorities cannot tackle potential issues (ie. terrorism).

Just how secure and private is your personal data?

Since technology is developing at an alarming rate, which is viewed as nothing short of magical for enthusiasts such as you and I, protection for consumers also has to advance to keep up with how the world is changing. It'll be interesting to see just how Microsoft (and other supporting companies / parties) can help shape some new processes that enable data access to authorities while ensuring consumer privacy is protected.

A international framework would also cease confusion between regions when multiple countries are affected. Microsoft's Smith provides an example as to how a convention could work on an international stage. With a world further computing and storing data in the cloud, clearer rules for data access would not only provide better piece of mind for consumers, but also ensure there are less hurdles for companies operating in one country for customers in another.

Companies have also worked hard to fight for greater transparency with both Microsoft and Google suing the US Government over surveillance transparency. Previously stating that while NSA does not have direct access to backend systems and services, the tech giants admitted they were legally unable to disclose how many data requests have been completed. Smith said the following in a previous article:

We recommend you check out the full post over on TechNet, it's a really good Tuesday read. We'll keep our eyes open for more details in the future of any potential plans for reform on an international scale. That said, it's positive to see Microsoft take such a stance on this issue, even if this post by Smith is published coincidentally after mercenary hackers, HackingTeam, claimed they've gained full control over Windows Phone for governments.

Source: TechNet

It's no secret that Microsoft's at war with Google when it comes to email. Redmond has continuously attacked Google for crawling through emails that are believed to be private to provide better targeted advertisements to consumers. Microsoft has launched Keep Your Email Private, a new campaign to fight Google regarding this very concern. Do you use Gmail and/or are concerned about activities carried out by the Search? Read on past the break.

We've previously seen Microsoft release videos featuring the Gmail Man. This fictional character went through the mail of others while delivering them, causing unrest and concern. The idea was to illustrate exactly what Google does with email. 

But targeted advertising using keywords doesn't always work...

So what's Microsoft doing with the campaign? A brand new website is available (www.keepyouremailprivate.com - catchy, we know) with information on exactly what Redmond is doing to help consumers out by having them switch to Outlook (there's an awesome tutorial on how to achieve this on our forum) and sign a petition to bring this issue to the attention of Google.

There's a handy facts page to check out articles in reputable publications and to compare both Gmail and Outlook. Microsoft also provides a link to both its own and Google's privacy policies, as well as stating a rather interesting fact: simply because you don't use Gmail doesn't mean your emails remain private. If you've sent an email to someone who uses Google's email service, that message too may have been scanned. Some food for thought.

Head on over to Microsoft's Keep Your Email Private website for more details, some videos and links to get involved. Let us know in the comments if you've been affected by the issue and switched to Outlook (or another provider).

Microsoft is teaming up with Google (no, you read that correctly) to sue the US government and win the right to reveal details surrounding official requests for user data. The two tech giants announced the lawsuit yesterday, taking the battle over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to a whole new level.

The National Security Agency (NSA) and other US government bodies utilise the mechanism to collect data on foreign Internet users, which has been in the news recently with activity through the likes of PRISM leaked to the media. Microsoft previously responded to the NSA controversy, stating the company is not spying on consumers.

Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, published the lawsuit announcement on Technet, complaining of the government's "continued unwillingness" to allow the company to publish information regarding FISA requests. With many believing both companies have indeed been spying on their online activities, Microsoft and Google are desperately attempting to clear their image through attempts to be as honest with consumers as legally possible.

The leaks by Edward Snowden, provided to the Guardian and Washington Post, revealed NSA claims about access to technology companies' data through PRISM. Smith continues:

Good guy Microsoft standing up to government

Previously stating that while NSA does not have direct access to backend systems and services, the companies admitted they were legally unable to disclose how many data requests have been completed. "We believe we have a clear right under the US constitution to share more information with the public," said Smith's post. "The purpose of our litigation is to uphold this right so that we can disclose additional data."

Smith did welcome an announcement made earlier this week by the US government, which detailed plans to publish the total number of national security requests for consumer data for the past 12 months. However, Microsoft's general counsel noted that the public deserves and the constitution guarantees more than what's currently in the works, "we believe it is vital to publish information that clearly shows the number of national security demands for user content, such as the text of an email."

It's suggested that said figures should be published in a form that separates them from the number of demands that only capture metadata such as subscriber information associated with a particular email address. Smith explains, "we believe it's possible to publish these figures in a manner that avoids putting security at risk. And unless this type of information is made public, any discussion of government practices and service provider obligations will remain incomplete."

The blog post aimed to not only lift Microsoft to the moral high ground, but also Google and other companies who are fighting for more transparency. Whether or not consumers will believe the walls of text that's being published is another question. What are your thoughts on the situation regarding collected data and governments? Are tech companies doing enough for customers?

Source: Technet, via: Guardian; thanks, Tragic, for the heads up!

In a world where people don’t feel like being monitored 24/7 and the NSA just might have control over your devices with the snap of a finger, Xbox One’s always on Kinect was a big issue for many consumers. Yesterday Microsoft announced that the company would be doing another 180 on their policies and allow the Xbox One to be used without a Kinect plugged in to the unit.

Marc Whiten explained the new decision to IGN, stating that users would still be able to use the console without the Kinect sensor plugged in, but any feature or experience that made use of the sensor would be made unavailable.

Microsoft claims that the change was made in response to a NeoGAF poster voicing his concern of having an unusable console if his Kinect sensor were to fall from his television set and break. Albert Penello, Microsoft’s senior director of product planning, stated that:

Up until Microsoft made this recent policy change, they claimed that the Kinect was “an essential and integrated” piece of the Xbox One. While not as clear as they could have been, the company did state that users would have the ability to “completely turn the sensor off in your settings”, which would shut down any functions that rely on voice, video, or gesture.

Food for thought: If Microsoft’s original claim that the Kinect was an “essential” part of Xbox One was true, then why would you be able to shut off the sensor and still be able to use the system without trouble?

Either way, Microsoft has done it again and responded to what their customers want to see. You can view it as a company who keeps backtracking or as a company who really cares about customer experience.

Feel safe world, Kinect doesn’t have to watch you.

Source: IGN via Polygon

ZEN & TECH is our mobile lifestyle podcast, focusing not just on our phones, tablets, and gadgets, but how we can use technology to help us live better, richer, happier lives. It's how we center our inner geeks! Since it's security week on Talk Mobile 2013, Georgia and Rene talk about everything from camera phones in the locker room to wiretaps on the internet and how we, as private people, can cope in an age of where everyone from friends to family to strangers to governments may be spying on us.

• Subscribe via RSS: Audio | Video
• Subscribe via iTunes: Audio | Video
• Follow on Twitter: @ZENandTECH
• Download Directly: Audio | Video

Hosts

• Georgia (@Georgia_Prime)
• Rene Ritchie (@reneritchie)

Disclaimer

While Georgia is a therapist, she's not YOUR therapist. Everything said or implied on this show is for informational and entertainment purposes only. And shouldn't be taken in any way as a replacement for proper, professional care.

Credits

Music is Peace on Earth by wellman.

Thanks everyone, you're the best community on the web and we love having you with us!

On May 21^st, when Microsoft officially announced the Xbox One a lot of questions still remained. Will I be able to sell my games? Share my games? Do I need an internet connection once a day or once a month? These were questions we did not expect answered until E3, but Microsoft has decided to attack these concerns head-on and has shared their plans on all these fronts and more. That leaves E3 to be focused on games (a good call in our book). Details on the Xbox One after the break.

To connect or not to connect

The earliest (and biggest) rumor about the next Xbox has been whether or not it would require a constant internet connection to play games or use. That rumor started months before the official unveil and details remained murky after the event.

It’s not surprise that Microsoft is pushing for online connections with the next Xbox. After all, next generation games will be literally powered by both your Xbox and servers thousands of miles from your home. It’s actually a clever trick to combat the Wii U and PlayStation 4. Your Xbox One will actually get more powerful over time.

The following are examples that Microsoft has listed on their site as benefits for using the cloud:

• Because every Xbox One owner has a broadband connection, developers can create massive, persistent worlds that evolve even when you’re not playing.
• Xbox One is designed to run in a low-powered, connected state. This means your system, games and apps are always current and ready to play—no more waiting for updates.
• Never miss an opportunity to play games with your friends or to catch up with family on Skype. Use Skype in Snap mode to chat while you play games or watch TV.  Or enjoy group video Skype calls with people around the world, all from the comfort of your living room.
• After signing in and installing, you can play any of your games from any Xbox One because a digital copy of your game is stored on your console and in the cloud.  So, for example, while you are logged in at your friend’s house, you can play your games.
• You’ll be able to buy disc-based games at traditional retailers or online through Xbox Live, on day of release.

Those sound like fairly good reasons for connecting your Xbox One to the internet. However, there are some potential cons to this approach. A persistent connection is apparently not required. However, if you want to game offline you can only do so for 24 hours or one hour from a console that isn’t your own. Offline gaming won’t be possible until you re-establish a connection (you can watch live TV or disc-based movies though). The reason? The Xbox One is designed (and required) to verify if your system, application, or games need updates or if you’ve acquired new games. Additionally checking if you’ve resold, traded in, or shared a game with a friend.

Licensing on the Xbox One

Needing to connect your Xbox One to the internet once in a 24 hour period to game may seem like con to a lot of people, but there are some pluses to this approach. You’ll benefit from this semi-constant connection when playing games. Here’s how licensing will work on the next generation Xbox.

Again from the Microsoft/Xbox One site:

• You’ll be able to buy disc-based games at traditional retailers or online through Xbox Live, on day of release. Discs will continue to be a great way to install your games quickly.
• After signing in and installing, you can play any of your games from any Xbox One because a digital copy of your game is stored on your console and in the cloud.  So, for example, while you are logged in at your friend’s house, you can play your games.
• Your friends and family, your guests and acquaintances get unlimited access to all of your games.  Anyone can play your games on your console--regardless of whether you are logged in or their relationship to you.
• Xbox One will enable new forms of access for families. Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One. Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friend’s house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games.  You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time.
• Today, some gamers choose to sell their old disc-based games back for cash and credit. We designed Xbox One so game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers.  Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games.
• Xbox One is designed so game publishers can enable you to give your disc-based games to your friends. There are no fees charged as part of these transfers. There are two requirements: you can only give them to people who have been on your friends list for at least 30 days and each game can only be given once.

Something most of us have wanted for a long time is the ability to buy and download games the same day on our Xbox 360s. Now you can with the Xbox One. Whether you get your game through the cloud or a disc you’ll be able to access it anywhere you go through your Microsoft/Xbox account.

Your physical Xbox One will allow up to ten members of your “family” to log in with their accounts and play games you’ve installed.

Now for some cons. Microsoft has implement a system that allows you to sell your disc games to participating retailers. The issue is that publishers can enable or disable this for a specific game. So in some dark dystopian (near) future companies like Activision and EA may say you can resell your copies of Madden, but not Call of Duty. It’s also worth pointing out, that this system only mentions “participating retailers” but not individuals. Does this mean you can’t give your friend Halo 5 for ten bucks? No. You can give a disc-based game to a friend, without fees, so long as they’ve been on your friends list for at least 30 days. This move should stifle direct sales between two individuals. This also dependent on game publishers.

Privacy: Is your Kinect going to listen to your 24 hours a day?  

Another concern that the internet had after the unveil of the Xbox One centered on privacy and the Kinect. So Microsoft has given consumers control over their privacy and date. Again, from the Xbox site here is how you can control that data:

• By design, you will determine how responsive and personalized your Xbox One is to you and your family during setup. The system will navigate you through key privacy options, like automatic or manual sign in, privacy settings, and clear notifications about how data is used. When Xbox One is on and you’re simply having a conversation in your living room, your conversation is not being recorded or uploaded.
• If you don’t want the Kinect sensor on while playing games or enjoying your entertainment, you can pause Kinect. To turn off your Xbox One, just say “Xbox Off.” When the system is off, it’s only listening for the single voice command -- “Xbox On,” and you can even turn that feature off too. Some apps and games may require Kinect functionality to operate, so you’ll need to turn it back on for these experiences.
• You can play games or enjoy applications that use data, such as videos, photos, facial expressions, heart rate and more, but this data will not leave your Xbox One without your explicit permission. Here are a few examples of potential future scenarios: A fitness game could measure heart rate data to provide you with improved feedback on your workout, allow you to track your progress, or even measure calories burned. Or a card game could allow you to bluff your virtual opponent using your facial expressions.
• While it’s faster to find what you’re looking for using your voice and gesture commands with Kinect, you can use a controller, your remote controls or your smart devices instead. And you can use all of these devices when Kinect is paused.

A lot of people feared that the Kinect would be able to listen to you when the Xbox One was off. Apparently, when off, the Xbox One is only listening for one command in its low-power state: “Xbox On”. It’s nice to know that you’re in control when the Kinect is on, off or paused. Some games though will require Kinect functionality (again, at the discretion of the game developers/publisher). That’s up to you to play or not play those games.

Holy guacamole Batman! Information overload! Hit up the source links below to read the info. Don’t forget to share your thoughts, questions, and concerns below in the comments. We’ll do our best to answer.

Source: Xbox Connection, Xbox Licensing, Xbox Privacy

Privacy in smartphones is always a big deal amongst consumers, so it’s a little odd to see the super popular WhatsApp messaging client have a platform-specific privacy breach regarding geo-location metadata.

The situation is a little convoluted so stick with us when trying to explain.  Photos that are received (not sent) from WhatsApp are automatically tagged with your current location, regardless of your privacy Settings (Applications > Photos + Camera). That means if you were to then pass that photo on to someone else or upload to SkyDrive, your location info will be preserved.

As an example, say Rich Edmonds sends me a photo of his house in the UK. When I save that photo to my gallery in the US (New York), my current location is tagged to that photo. If I were then to email it someone or share it publicly via SkyDrive, you would all see my current location.

GPS info tagged by WhatsApp to a saved image from a user in the UK

Oddly enough, this behavior seems to be restricted to just the Windows Phone version of WhatsApp, as opposed to iOS and Android.  We also tried it on Kik and were unable to replicate the result (indeed Kik strips metadata automatically, so nothing is revealed or added).

The good news is the app is not tagging your photos with your location that you are sending to people, which would be a lot worse. In our case, we rarely download photos from friends and then pass them on to others (and if we sent it to another Windows Phone, it would ironically be over-written by that user’s location data).

Still, it’s discomforting to have your specific GPS coordinates stored unknowingly in your photo gallery. It also raises the question as to why WhatsApp is constantly accessing your geo-location information. Often, ads are targeted based on our current locale so having your info picked up in an app is the norm. But WhatsApp has no ads, which means this must be a side-effect of the optional “share your location” feature (powered by Foursquare). Clearly WhatsApp is constantly accessing your phone’s location for quick revelation when called upon by the user. The problem here is that the app is wrongfully using that info all the time to tag your saved images.

We’ll of course reach out to WhatsApp and Nokia (who are helping them with development) to see if this can be resolved. For now, you’ll want to think twice about passing on photos received from friends or until WhatsApp easily patches this bug.

Thanks, Amir, for the heads up

A joint investigation by Canadian and Dutch officials has determined that popular mobile messaging program WhatsApp violates privacy laws of both countries. The problem is that the application, which lets users text each other over the internet in order to circumvent carrier texting charges, requires users to grant it access to their entire address book and not just the contacts who use it.

Jacob Kohnstamm, chairman of the Dutch Data Protection Authority, said in a statement:

The iOS 6 version of WhatsApp lets users add contacts manually, avoiding such privacy issues. However, versions for Windows Phone, Android and Blackberry still require access to all contacts. WhatsApp, Inc., makers of the program, have reportedly committed to resolving the issue, but have not yet provided a timeline for doing so.

Last January, Canada's Office of the Privacy Commissioner conducted an investigation based on "reasonable grounds" that WhatsApp "collecting, using, disclosing and retaining personal information" in such a way that it was in violation of Canadian privacy law. Dutch officials joined in shortly after.

The report says that the investigation turned up other privacy concerns, which were quickly resolved by WhatsApp, Inc.

• Messages between users were unencrypted at the start of the investigation, "leaving them prone to eavesdropping or interception, especially when sent through unprotected Wi-Fi networks." In response to the investigation, WhatsApp introduced encryption in September 2012.
• WhatsApp generated passwords for message exchanges using information about the mobile devices involved that "can be relatively easily exposed," creating the risk that a third-party could send and receive messages on a user's behalf without them knowing. Password security was upgraded in the newest version of the app.

In a deserved pat on their own back, officials said that their cooperative effort "has led to WhatsApp making and committing to make further changes in order to better protect users’ personal information.” This is a win-win situation for consumers who want to keep their information private and for WhatsApp, who has demonstrated that they are willing to do the right thing to protect their customers.

We will keep you posted if we hear any updates.

Source: CBC

A rag-tag group of privacy advocates, internet activists, journalists and organizations have banded together and have written an open letter to Skype, calling on the communications giant to "publicly document Skype’s security and privacy practices."

The letter, which is addressed to Skype Division President Tony Bates, Microsoft Chief Privacy Officer Brendon Lynch, Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith, says that the members of the group who authored it rely on Skype to communicate under circumstances where privacy and security are imperative and that it would be doing them a great service to know just what they can expect.

The authors have requested that Skype regularly release a Transparency Report that includes:

1. Quantitative data regarding the release of Skype user information to third parties, disaggregated by the country of origin of the request, including the number of requests made by governments, the type of data requested, the proportion of requests with which it complied — and the basis for rejecting those requests it does not comply with.
2. Specific details of all user data Microsoft and Skype currently collects, and retention policies.
3. Skype’s best understanding of what user data third-parties, including network providers or potential malicious attackers, may be able to intercept or retain.
4. Documentation regarding the current operational relationship between Skype with TOM Online in China and other third-party licensed users of Skype technology, including Skype’s understanding of the surveillance and censorship capabilities that users may be subject to as a result of using these alternatives.
5. Skype's interpretation of its responsibilities under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), its policies related to the disclosure of call metadata in response to subpoenas and National Security Letters (NSLs), and more generally, the policies and guidelines for employees followed when Skype receives and responds to requests for user data from law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the United States and elsewhere.

This isn't the first time that privacy concerns have been raised since Microsoft purchased Skype back in May 2011. Just last summer, it was thought that Microsoft had made changes to Skype's network that would allow law enforcement agencies eavesdrop on conversations. Of course, Microsoft responded that that was not the case and that the changes were made to allow for cool new features for users. And with Skype set to become the center of communication across Microsoft's platforms, the concerns will likely continue.

The senders of the open letter, as well as everyone else who uses Skype, have every reason to want to be informed of just what level of privacy they should expect. No one is telling Microsoft what they can and cannot do, but simply asking them to lay it all out for their customers, so that they can then make an informed decision on whether or not to use the service.

With the internet and social media playing integral roles in everything from presidential elections to revolutions, these questions will continue to be raised. Let's hope we can count on the providers of these services to be honest with their users.

Source: SkypeOpenLetter.com; Via: Reddit

Microsoft has been taking extra steps to prove to us that our online privacy is much more of a concern to them than other companies.

To mark Data Privacy Day 2013, which is held on January 28^th, Microsoft has announced results ahead of time about a new company-commissioned survey by Ipsos Public Affairs of over 1,000 people on the subject of online privacy to better understand their users’ expectations. The results of this new research show:

• 45 percent of respondents said they feel they have little or no control over the personal information companies gather about them while they are browsing the Web or using online services, such as photo-sharing, travel or gaming.
• Only four in 10 said they feel they totally or mostly understand how to protect their online privacy.
• An equal number of people (39 percent) said they are turning to friends and family, as well as privacy statements, as their top source for privacy information.
• A third of those surveyed (32 percent) said they are paying attention to companies’ privacy reputations, track records, and policies when choosing which websites to visit or services to use.

Microsoft has launched a new website with information on how Microsoft handles these features in IE10, Bing, Windows Phone 8 and Xbox, and Microsoft’s Personal Data Dashboard, which is a central location for users to choose and better manage how their personal information is used online. They have also created a new video series called “Privacy in Action”, illustrating these privacy options. These videos will be available at microsoft.com/yourprivacy.

Source: The Official Microsoft Blog

Earlier today, Facebook announced a new advanced search engine for users called Graph Search. The engine allows users to search content friends and others have shared in rather interesting ways.

For example, a phrase like “Friends who live in Los Angeles under 30” would produce a list of all your friends who currently live in Los Angeles and are under 30 years old. While Graph Search was built by Facebook, sometimes results from the web need to be pulled in to help add context to results. Facebook was planning on working with Google, but that plan fell apart over privacy concerns.

When using Graph Search, you might want external data (like weather, ticket prices, etc) pulled into the results. That data will be supplied from Bing because Google wasn’t willing to work with Facebook on their privacy needs. When a Facebook user changes their privacy setting on something like a photo, Google was unwilling to remove it from their search index. Facebook hasn’t always had the best stance on privacy, but the company has been making recent efforts to simplify the overall privacy experience. It’s really interesting that Google didn’t want to work with Facebook and instead chose to place the importance of their search results over privacy concerns from users.  

Tweet of the day comes from Ed Bott, talking about the whole breakdown between Facebook and Google he said:

Facebook’s Graph Search has a lot of promise to be a useful tool, mostly because of the amount of data that users have made Facebook privy too. This partnership with Bing should help boost their overall standing in the search engine wars.

A win for Bing and a loss for Google. Now whether or not you decided to use Facebook is entirely up to you. It’s just worth highlighting when an awesome deal like this comes up. No word yet when we can expect this in the Windows Phone Facebook app. We’ll let you know when it does come.

Source: Talking Points Memo

Microsoft, the company that has been plagued by security concerns with Internet Explorer in the past, has announced that it would change its new disclosure policy to inform customers explicitly that it will not use personal information obtained from product and service usage. This will protect customers from data being passed onto third-party companies for marketing and advertising.

This action follows a letter sent from Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat and co-chairman of the Congressional Bipartisan Privacy Caucus, to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer expressing concern about the policy, which went into effect last Friday. Markey pointed out that Microsoft's new services agreement gave the company leeway to collect and use personal information obtained from consumers of both Hotmail and its recently launched Outlook.com email services.

Microsoft has issued a statement on the matter:

According to the New York Times report, the policy provided Microsoft identical rights as Google, which actively scans contents of emails sent through Gmail. We've previously covered Microsoft's humorous Gmail Man campaign, which pokes fun at the search giant's desire to creep through messages sent and received by users. As well as this, Verizon was in the spotlight last week by selling accumulated customer data to third-parties for marketing purposes.

The Gmail Man

Speaking of Internet Explorer, Microsoft has stated that a "do not track" option will be set as default to true, which will protect users from having web browsing information collected by Microsoft. It's good to see the company react to such concerns, as privacy is particularly important to users, especially with consumers being ever more connected to the Internet.

Source: NY Times; Microsoft

Verizon has begun selling customer information, according to a report by Yahoo!. The carrier is passing on geographical locations, app usage and even web browsing activities to third-parties. This - as one would expect - has raised privacy questions.

The start of October saw Verizon start offering reports to marketers showing what subscribed customers are doing on mobile phones, including what iOS and Android apps are used in locations.

Verizon states data supplied to third-party databases may be coupled with information about customers' gender, age, and even personal details such as sports enthusiast, frequent diner or pet owner. Bill Diggins, US chief for the Verizon Wireless marketing initiative, said the following to an industry conference earlier this year.

Verizon Wireless's initiative, called Precision Market Insights, is said to be legal due to the information collected being aggregated and doesn't reveal customer identity, not to mention customers can indeed opt-out. Is it moral? That's another question. We previously looked at AT&T collecting data and contacting customers. There was also an option to be excluded from said lists. But that was internal use, while Verizon is said to be actively selling customer information.

Staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, Hanni Fakhoury, has stated a carrier that discloses information about which URLs a customer has visited could leap outside the boundaries set by the Wiretap Act, which explicitly says carriers may not monitor and pass on details of any communication. Fakhoury goes on to explain:

Verizon's Diggings went on to tout the carrier's extensive monitoring abilities at the industry event:

Verizon declined to answer questions put forward by CNET on how the technology works, but the company did respond with the following statement:

We can then engage in discussion about packet inspection and whether or not Verizon is in the wrong, but we'll allow the comments to provide the battleground for such debate. Luckily there's an option to opt-out, so be sure to check out Verizon's website for more information - or better yet, give them a call. While it's stated this affects both iOS and Android customers, we're unsure if Windows Phone is included, but to be on the safe side, feel free to take precautionary steps.

No word if there is a connection between this data collection and supposed issues with upcoming Windows Phone 8 devices on Verizon, though the news does seem coincidental. 

Source: Yahoo!; thanks, J, for the heads up!

Did you know those using Facebook apps on their mobile devices can access your email address even if it's not displayed on your profile when checking the website? Most users of the social network don't.

Headlines have continuously attacked Facebook due to privacy concerns, confusing account settings and other monstrosities, but today we'll look at a quick tip on how to prevent your email address being available to contacts who can view your profile.

Just because your personal email address isn't viewable on the website when checking your profile via a web browser, don't be fooled into believing your friend's Windows Phone won't pull it down to his (or her) contact list. By default, it seems Facebook's settings are configured so email addresses are invisible to the 'timeline' but are still available and accessible by friends. So how does one configure email settings on Facebook to prevent them being accessed?

Covering up your tracks - configuring emails

To be able to prevent the social network from revealing email accounts tied to an account, we have to dive into the main profile and configure a few options - this is where it could confuse some users of the social network. We have a screenshot of where the settings are above, which can be located by hitting "About" on the main timeline page, then scrolling down to a box on the right-hand side - titled 'Contact info'.

The blue box represents the selectors to control the level of protection for each individual email address, while the box highlighted in red shows controls to toggle whether each address is displayed in this contact information box. Enabling all email addresses to be displayed in the box will do exactly as it says. This is dependent on the settings that are on the left, in our blue box. Should these be configured to 'only me', then no one will be able to see your email addresses. Make sense? Good.

Facebook's email privacy controls

We have a number of options representing the level of security that's desired (these are configurable for each email address associated with the Facebook account):

• Public - email address is viewable by anyone.
• Friends - restricted to accepted friends on your contacts list only.
• Friends except acquaintances - restricted to friends only, though contacts labelled as acquaintances will not be able to see your email address.
• Only me - email address is only viewable by yourself, this is the setting we'd choose to mask the ID from mobile devices.

By default (as far as we're aware) 'Friends' is selected and contacts will be able to see all added email addresses to a Facebook account. However, by selecting 'Only me' the email address is hidden from view on both the website and in supported applications / services. We tested the iOS and Windows Phone Facebook apps, as well as the integration Windows Phone boasts, and by choosing 'Only me' we were able to have our email addresses kept safe from view.

Personal email address pulled down by Windows Phone

It's a measure that can be taken to add a layer of security to your email address, should you be paranoid about others actively having access to it. A useful tip to know regardless. Just remember to configure the privacy settings accordingly, merely hiding the email address from the Facebook timeline will not prevent apps and services accessing the address.

Thanks, TschonDoe, for bringing this to our attention.

Online ads can be annoying and it appears Microsoft is working on a way to focus these ads more towards your likes and away from your dislikes. We ran across the Microsoft Personal Data Dashboard that will let you filter out the unwanted ads and let those you might be interested in through.  These filters will likely impact ads you see over on Outlook.com and on your Windows Phone.  

The Dashboard has several sections or tabs with the main tab reflecting your Windows Live Profile. Additional sections include: 

My Data: Here is where you can tag your interests and dislikes from a wide variety of topics. You can also narrow down your likes and dislikes to the brand names of products.

The My Data page also lets you view your Bing search history and any Microsoft Newsletters you are currently subscribed to.

My Choices: This page lets you make choices on how Microsoft uses your data. Presently you have options to turn on/off Microsoft Advertising and Microsoft Email Communications. When turned off, you'll still get the ads but your personalized choices won't kick in.

More Services: This is a listing of additional services from Microsoft that may store and use your personal information. In clicking on one of the links, you can manage how these services use that information.

The Microsoft Personal Data Dashboard is a Beta program and in tinkering with it just for a short bit, not all of the fields are active.  And with those fields that are active, there seems to be some limits as to what you can enter. For example, I can dislike Financial Institutions but I can't dislike cats. I can like computers but I can't like Windows Phones.

It will be interesting to watch how the Dashboard develops and it's nice to see Microsoft giving us a few options on what ad content shows up in our daily life. I think it will be nice to add not only topics of interest but brand names to my dislike list and not have to worry about seeing those type ads again.

You can find the Microsoft Personal Dashboard here and keep in mind it's a Beta so not everything is up to snuff.

Thanks, John N., for the tip!

The location services on your Windows Phone can come in handy for navigation apps, finding local services and focus ad banners to content relative to your location. It also allows wireless providers and OS manufacturers to provide location services to allow customers to locate their phones if lost.

A recent Court ruling may have opened the door for law enforcement to use the same location services to track you without a warrant (at least in the Sixth Circuit). The case in question involves a drug dealer, Melvin Skinner, who was tracked by Federal Agents using his cell phone location services. Agents received Court authorization to obtain information on the cell phones used by Skinner that was in turn used to track his location. The tracking information obtained by law enforcement not only connected Skinner to the crimes but would also lead agents to his location for arrest.

At trial, Skinner objected to the use of the GPS data, the Federal District Court denied his objections. Skinner would eventually be convicted on drug trafficking charges and sentenced to 235 months imprisonment. Skinner would appeal his conviction, based in part on the claim the tracking of his phone was a violation of his 4th Amendment rights. The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit heard the case and issued it's ruling yesterday (here is the full brief).

In a nutshell, the Court upheld the conviction citing that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred because there was no expectation of privacy present and a warrant was not required to track his cell phone. Because of the Circuit in which the ruling came from, it will likely overturn an earlier Ohio State Supreme Court that required warrants to track cell phones.

Several issues come into play with this ruling from the fact that Skinner purchased these phones under a false name and lacked standing to object to the "pinging" of the phones to determine location was the least intrusive means where other cases dealt with greater intrusions by law enforcement. While I'm all for convicting those who break the law, the ruling made me pause beyond the effects it had in this particular case.

In the ruling, Justice Rogers notes

Additionally in a footnote, Justice Rogers extends the lack of an expectancy of privacy to innocent actors as well as those using phones in the commission of a crime.

Maybe it should be a case where the expectation no longer exists when the phones are used in the commission of a crime but I would argue that there is an expectancy of privacy to our Windows Phones location services. If there wasn't anyone would be capable of tracking any cell phone with location services. If there wasn't wireless providers or OS manufacturers would have language in their privacy policies along the lines to indicate that your information will only be disclosed in order to comply with the law or respond to a lawful request or legal process.

The ruling equated the expectancy of privacy in these cases to a getaway car driver expecting his license plate to be private if they thought they had fled unseen. But that's the key.. anyone can see a license plate but not everyone can see your location services. Even with Microsoft's find my phone feature or AT&T's Family Map, while you have access to the technology to track a phone you are only allowed to track your phones. If no expectation of privacy existed, anyone could obtain the information and track your phone.

Again, I am all for giving law enforcement the technological tools to combat crime but in the process those tools shouldn't be abused. Enter the need for a warrant. A warrant gives police actions judicial scrutiny and adds a layer of protection against abuse, as well as a layer of credibility to the case they are building. Yes, there are situations that can exist that allow for warrantless searches but I'm just not sure if tracking a phone's GPS signal is one of them.

We aren't sure if this issue will make it to the next step, a review by the United States Supreme Court, or if other Federal Districts will adopt the same point of view should a similar case cross their bench. I do think that this issue has the potential to be a slippery slope opening the door for abuses.  On the conservative side, one could argue that if you aren't doing anything wrong why worry?  But what if those who are doing something wrong uses your location data against you?

If you use your Windows Phone in the commission of a crime, it shouldn't be immune from tracking or monitor.  There just needs to be checks and balances in place to prevent abuse from authorities or to prevent our Windows Phones from being used against us.

Source: ARS Technica

A few days ago, questions were raised over Skype's security in that Microsoft is reconfiguring the Skype network to allow Law Enforcement Agencies can have access to intercept calls. Mark Gillett, Skype's Chief Development and Operations Officer, responded to these concerns today.

With regards to the claims Skype has made changes in its architecture to provide Law Enforcement Agencies have greater access to Skype communications, Gillett says that this is false:

Gillett continues to explain that the move to mega-supernodes was not intended to facilitate greater law enforcement access to Skype user's communications:

Law Enforcement Agencies must follow appropriate procedures (e.g. court issued subpoena) to access records and Skype will respond to such requests where legally required (and technically feasible). Skype's Privacy Policy echoes Gillett's position by stating,

With regards to the architecture changes making it easier for Skype to record and monitor your conversations, Gillett assures us that this too is false.  Skype, as some may know, does collect information from users but, according to Gillett, audio and video captures from calls do not take place. Instant messaging is captured and stored for thirty days to enable users to retrieve messages history.

To repeat Dan's bottom line from a few days ago, if you're a political dissident or concerned about privacy Skype might not be for you.  For all the fine print on Skype's Privacy Policy and what content they do capture, just follow this link.

Source: Skype's Big Blog

Our audience is smart enough to know that no electronic system of communication is impervious to eavesdropping and there’s very little out there that’s near 100% secure. So it should come as no surprise that Skype is getting some publicity of its internal network restructuring that started occurring once Microsoft acquired the company last year.

The charge: Microsoft is reconfiguring the Skype network so that it Law Enforcement Agencies (LEA) can have access to intercept calls over the network to aid in investigations.

The reality is of course convoluted with no concrete evidence but it’s worth mentioning what exactly is going on here. So head past the break to get the scoop.

Skype Headquarters?  (Orig. image via South Park)

As Rafael Rivera explained a few months ago is his article about Skype and Windows Phone, Skype’s original network operated on a peer-to-peer node system which means that Skype only initiated the calls but the actual communication was one-to-one with no one as the middleman.

That structure also has the benefit of being very difficult to intercept. In fact, Skype used to brag about its security and LEA used to lament it because they could not listen in on to calls. Instead, LEA would have to use a Trojan-attack on the target’s machine to gain access (as opposed to remote access, wire-tapping, etc.).

The downside to the network is it can get messy with no real way to harness and control it, especially if you wanted to unify the system to roll it out across various services like Office 2013, Xbox 360 or Windows Phone.

Sometime in late spring, Microsoft started to reconfigure the network making it more centralized by giving-called ‘super nodes’ more power. Our understanding of these changes was because Microsoft is starting to re-do Skype in order to align it with the company’s vision for future VOIP services. Presumably off-loading some of the server-work from peers to super-nodes will take the processing power off of the end-user and will allow Microsoft to tailor services. That’s our understanding.

The more malevolent and somewhat conspiratorial reason is Microsoft is doing this just to appease LEA so that Skype is now vulnerable to eavesdropping—or rather to make it easier for them to do so.

This idea does have some merit. For instance, right after Microsoft bought Skype it won a controversial patent for “legal intercept” technology designed to be used with VOIP services like Skype to “silently copy communication transmitted via the communication session.” Okay, even we’ll admit that is highly coincidental and is curious.

What’s more, the US Government is asking internet companies for a “back door” to their software for LEA purposes by amending the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA (1994), in essence making software “wire-tap friendly”. In other words this is more than a Skype issue.

Microsoft and Skype are not confirming nor denying it either telling Slate only that they (Skype, Microsoft) “co-operates with law enforcement agencies as much as is legally and technically possible” (we already know they store chat logs for instant messages up to 30 days). Before we jump on that statement as a confirmation, remember Microsoft does not necessarily want to advertise the fact that they can’t track you either as that’s tantamount to inviting potential criminal activity to their network.

So when you combine the re-working of the Skype network, Microsoft’s patent, changes to CALEA  along with Microsoft’s “cooperation” with LEA and we can see how “Skype is no longer safe for secure calls” can be interpreted.

Our feeling on the matter was this move to re-organize Microsoft’s Skype was being done for strategic purposes anyway but the government’s request and Redmond’s patent probably was a convenient option to exercise as well. Has Microsoft actually done this? We just don’t know.

Bottom line, which you already knew is don’t use Skype if you’re a political dissident or concerned about privacy. What is interesting though is noting previously how hard it was to crack Skype for LEA.  Either way, hopefully you now know a bit more on the topic.

Source: Slate, CNet

Microsoft has updated the how-to section of the official Windows Phone website to include a small tip regarding when location based services are currently active. A small indicator (see above image) will be included in a future update, which be displayed with the other disappearing status indicators that will alert the user as to when apps are using the phone's location.

Microsoft informed The Verge that the update will be included with handsets shipping with Windows Phone "Tango" with existing devices receiving the update once the company has finalised the update with carriers.

Just how long existing consumers will have to wait for the update hasn't been specified, but it's a positive move to fight privacy concerns. We could well see the update including this location indicator being bundled with the new features in "Tango" for Mango users.

Source: Microsoft, via: The Verge, @WPUG