> There is no practical way for the average person
And I'm arguing that this should not be a concern. If you do not understand something then you shouldn't agree to it. People should ask their lawyer, consult Microsoft, consult websites dedicated to such issues, etc. Unless you can prove that privacy statement is misleading to laypeople then it should be user's fault for not bothering to inform themselves.
> A ban on taking advantage of this is no more a nanny state than already existing bans on many cons and scams
I'm arguing for this (even though I severely disagree with choices Microsoft made) because it's a slippery slope that leads to precedents for government to introduce regulations that clearly aren't in public's interest.
Software as protected speech was established at the end of crypto wars, when encryption programs stopped being classified as munitions and restriction on strength of cryptography were lifted.
If we let Microsoft not exercise their right it might set a trend for the governments to go back in other areas like cryptography, using old scare tactics to reverse what was achieved before in the name public's interest by appealing to the fear of terrorism. You fight for Windows to not be compromised for its users, but it could be that this fight would lead to other curtailments of speech that would not only paradoxically harm Windows but any other reasonable alternative that we currently have.
And I'm arguing that this should not be a concern. If you do not understand something then you shouldn't agree to it. People should ask their lawyer, consult Microsoft, consult websites dedicated to such issues, etc. Unless you can prove that privacy statement is misleading to laypeople then it should be user's fault for not bothering to inform themselves.
> A ban on taking advantage of this is no more a nanny state than already existing bans on many cons and scams
I'm arguing for this (even though I severely disagree with choices Microsoft made) because it's a slippery slope that leads to precedents for government to introduce regulations that clearly aren't in public's interest.
Software as protected speech was established at the end of crypto wars, when encryption programs stopped being classified as munitions and restriction on strength of cryptography were lifted.
If we let Microsoft not exercise their right it might set a trend for the governments to go back in other areas like cryptography, using old scare tactics to reverse what was achieved before in the name public's interest by appealing to the fear of terrorism. You fight for Windows to not be compromised for its users, but it could be that this fight would lead to other curtailments of speech that would not only paradoxically harm Windows but any other reasonable alternative that we currently have.