• NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 day ago

    Um, the core feature is privacy invasion. It does what it says on the tin.

    It’s fine if some people want that functionality, as long as it’s not enabled by default.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      One could argue that it’s a feature that could be done on-client without sending to a server. Or with its server component doing nothing more than syncing with E2E encryption.

      • Russ@bitforged.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        19 hours ago

        I have zero interest in Recall, but I thought it was already done on-device? IIRC it always was that way, which is why it’s only available on new computers containing dedicated “neural coprocessors” I believe was the term.

        Now given that it’s closed source, you have to trust that they aren’t silently sending data back to themselves - which is where my problem lies, I don’t trust them in the slightest.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          19 hours ago

          You can verify that nothing is being sent back by watching network traffic. I guess they could hide it in update packets, but thats pretty unlikely.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          19 hours ago

          I’ll admit I’ve not looked into it. My computer won’t even upgrade to Windows 11 if I wanted it to, thanks to MS’s artificial restriction on compatibility. Maybe it is all on-device. But if so, whence all the privacy complaints? And does it not allow syncing between devices?