Hacker News Reader

Comment by spinningslate | Hacker News Reader

Agree it's great that the Dutch Government is pushing Microsoft to be more transparent.

> Still seems to be fights left to have, but this is definitely a step in a positive direction.

Indeed. From the article:

"The Dutch government’s new privacy terms and conditions do not (yet) apply to data processing via Windows 10 Enterprise or the mobile Office apps. It is not possible to minimize data traffic in Office Online. From at least three of the mobile apps on iOS, data about the use of the apps goes to a US-American marketing company that specializes in predictive profiling. This is done without providing any information about the purposes of this processing, and without giving the users or administrators any possibility to prevent this processing."

So: use Office on iOS, and it'll send usage data off to some predictive profiling marketing firm.

Why, as a (presumably) paying user, is it OK for Microsoft to do that?

View on HN

Holy shit, that quote. Did absolutely not expect that (even though I assumed thorough telemetry is sent to Microsoft itself).

I've been sitting for months on this article explaining my belief that advertising is a cancer on modern society, and I can't get myself to publish it, because literally every other day brings another thing I want to include on the list of damage being done. I'm not even actively looking for examples anymore; I just open HN and - lo and behold - top story tells me that MS Office mobile apps send data to US predictive profiling company, because of course they do.

A thought you could add to your article. In the medieval period in Europe, advertising outside your shop was strictly forbidden because it was considered an assault on your senses. I totally agree with this sentiment.

Interesting. Do you have a source for that? Not that I'm inclined not to believe you, but I'd really love to read more on that. Thanks in advance. =)

Thanks for that thought! Definitely fits in there. Do you have a link to some source about that, though? I'd love to know about this in more detail.

Phillip Campbell (aka Boniface) of http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/ should be able to point you in the right direction, he is a medieval scholar.

Edit: Sorry I don't have any exact citations, he said it in an interview wit Ryan Grant, so I'm sure he has a source he read somewhere.

All good, thanks!

> top story tells me that MS Office mobile apps send data to US predictive profiling company

That by itself isn't necessarily damaging though, is it? Without knowing what company is getting the data, what data they are getting, and what they are profiling for, how can we come to any conclusions?

What if they are just trying to segment users into casual and power users and are using the data to guide future product development and design?

That said, the data sharing should definitely be opt-in.

> What if they are just trying to segment users into casual and power users and are using the data to guide future product development and design?

Is that something you'd hire an external marketing company for predictive profiling, though?

Sure, the quote doesn't give much information about the company and their use of data, but when evaluated in context of typical data sharing with third parties, it's highly damning until proven otherwise.

> Is that something you'd hire an external marketing company for predictive profiling, though?

I don't know. Are there predictive profiling companies that don't work in the marketing sector?

You don't need predictive profiling for product QA.

Cell growth isn't necessarily damaging though, is it?

At least, unless it is cancer cell growth.

Oops.

So any cell growth should be assumed to be cancerous?

> From at least three of the mobile apps on iOS, data about the use of the apps goes to a US-American marketing company that specializes in predictive profiling.

@Microsoft folks here: This, if true (edit: in the way presented here) is outright disgusting.

I have lately found myself defending you when people have been complaining about telemetry (I'm a developer myself so I can see the value), but selling (or giving away) data from Office apps to profiling companies is not ok.

I honestly believed that your upside of such deals was the ability to easily upsell me to a paid version of this software.

This, again if it is correct, is disgusting and might easily be a huge GDPR issue despite how many cookie warnings anyone adds.

This, again if it is correct, is disgusting and might easily be a huge GDPR issue despite how many cookie warnings anyone adds.

Indeed, remember that warnings here a not enough to comply with the GDPR. IANAL, but GDPR requires opt-in rather than opt out, there should be a clear choice, permission should be asked for specific purposes. Also, it should be possible to withdraw permissions, one should be able to retrieve all the stored data, and the data has to be removed on request.

> but GDPR requires opt-in rather than opt out, there should be a clear choice,

My understanding as well. And the way it has been presented to me is that clear choice means easy to understand (and notice).

No, it has to be more than that. From Recital 43 of the GDPR:

Consent should be given by a clear affirmative act (...) such as by a written statement, including by electronic means, or an oral statement. This could include ticking a box when visiting an internet website, choosing technical settings for information society services or another statement or conduct which clearly indicates in this context the data subject’s acceptance of the proposed processing of his or her personal data. Silence, pre-ticked boxes or inactivity should not therefore constitute consent.

So basically: yes, including but not limited to what I what wrote above?

Maybe, sorry. I understood "clear choice means easy to understand (and notice)" to mean that a simple banner would be enough to count as "choice", even if it didn't have an explicit action.

which company is this? i looked at the long form but couldn't find it there either

Could that be reason enough for Apple to toss it out of the appstore?

Office on iOS is free.

On the iPad Mini and "iPad." The iPad Pro/Air requires Office 365:

> The suite of apps is free of charge for consumers with devices smaller than 10.1 in (26 cm), but business customers need to purchase an Office 365 subscription to take full advantage of the suite on larger screens.

You need to sign up for a Microsoft Account either way.

Damn. Microsoft still convoluting matters with their "editions" and tiers for everything like it was still the 1990s. This is yet another mess that I'm glad to have left behind in the Windows world.

The 10.1" seem carefully chosen so that on Android, most tablets and phones are covered by the "free" edition while Chromebooks (that can run Android apps) are not.

A more sane approach would be to have a "Lite" version for completely free and a paid "Pro" version or something with all features without restrictions on device size, which is an arbitrary metric because a tablet's marketed size sometimes increases when they reduce the bezels around the screen, without increasing its physical dimensions, as with recent iPads.

That's not arbitrary. The metric is always screen size.

If I'm currently using a "9.7 inch" iPad, and I decide to upgrade it to a newer model with the same physical dimensions (because of space in my bags/compatibility with existing cases etc.), but it's now marketed as a "10.5 inch" or whatever, will I lose access to my current [free] MS Office tier?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com