Microsoft to delay release of Recall AI feature on security concerns

The implementation will be a slog, annoying, and distract from something that Microsoft ought to care about: creating a delightful, snappy experience.

Why isn’t recall a piece of software instead of an operating system integration?

Can apps spawn apps? Like, if you want chrome session recalled- open recall, then open chrome from there?

Why does every new feature need to enshitificate the operating system? Isn’t that an indication that the operating system doesn’t give app developers enough expressive power to create tools that they must go up the hierarchy and reach for OS modification?

The core issue is that everyone has things on their computer that they want to be transient. I don't ever want my computer taking screenshots when I'm entering, say, my credit card number. More importantly, though, I oftentimes have text editors containing "scratch pads" that may contain sensitive data that I never want to persist.

Microsoft just never thought through the security implications of this feature.

This will help train RPA bots and reduce the need for human workforce for repetitive tasks.

Microsoft can collect this data across industries with or without informed consent and sell RPA/AI bots back to the same enterprise customers as a managed service.

Lot of commercial potential there for the taking. Just needs a innocuous enough cover story ro make it a default offering to server you the individual customer alone and help you gain an edge over your peers.

Not agreeing to something that one does not want, in spite of tolerating qualitatively similar yet different objects that one also does want not want, is not "hypocrisy". It's a boundary.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of boundaries?

I feel like I'm in an argument with a psychologically abusive SO.

You imply a defect in rationality via your misuse or misunderstanding of vocabulary.

As what? A means of browbeating people into acceptance?

Your need to resort to such a non-agreeable tactic, alone, should inform you that your logic is the problem if not your motive or Recall itself.

It is within everyone's right, and within the bounds of rationality, to reject Recall on its qualitative differences, on the sole fact that they don't want one more tracker when they really don't want the first, or because others seem strangely over-interested in making poor yet insistent arguments in favor of it.

I mean, if it's just one more tracker than why does anyone need it? Right?

Or is the singular nature of Recall that makes it uniquely desirable to some the reason that it is rationally undesirable to others?

Denial of that nature of Recall is what is hypocritical.

>Most people are in fact fine with tracking,

Do "most" people have the option of easily turning tracking completely off? Most are "fine" with it?

Except the ones that aren't, who are tend to also be against having second to second activity recorded. Right?

And who are significant enough that you feel compelled to argue with them here.

>the commons do not fucking care about digital privacy

ooph, the spicy language. I'm persuaded.

>As for intrusions (presumably you mean attacks, whether digital or physical?)

No, as the attack vs tracking difference of user data being sent to an off-site server, and then sold or otherwise, is immaterial when the user isn't aware of the nature of the data being sent if they are aware of it being sent at all. With Recall and for most users, the possibility that screenshot data would be remotely accessed certainly falls under the category of "intrusion". In spite of legalese.

>it's not so much most people are fine with it so much as... it's all far above their paygrades.

Boom