I appreciate the content there, but the second sentence refutes exactly what you’re saying.

That data may be in snapshots that are stored on your device

Cast or put doubt on Microsoft security, or their privacy practices. That would be a great conversation starter as a post. But without evidence of wrongdoing the post here is a non story.

An example that would be notable is: “Packet sniffing reveals that Recall is sending image hashes to remote servers”. That would be a big story that could then appeal to the title of this post. But the Ars article, and even that screen shot you posted is nothing like that.

There’s a reason reputable news sites don’t report on things that don’t happen. Its because that’s not news. So back to the reference to the title of this post: “to steal your corporate secrets” is just blatantly false!

Well said and thanks for posting the examples. It’s something that bothers me about any social media kind of site. Especially here on Lemmy. Nobody gives a damn about the incredible amount of negligence the drivers must have. It immediately becomes an anti Elon circlejerk every time.

It’s similar with news articles, which this post doesn’t even link to, most of the articles name drop Tesla or Elon just because otherwise it’s not a story. “Somebody hit a car / person / train because they weren’t paying attention to the road” isn’t story worthy. But as soon as doubt can be cast on an Elon company, it become a must post thing. I can’t stand Musks antics either, but he gets too much free rent in peoples mind. It’s wild

/rant

Ars Technica reports Microsoft will add AI to Windows, to steal your corporate secrets

Look, I think it’s a dumb feature and a dumb direction for Microsoft to head so deep into (AI and the whole Copilot branding). But that title is a downright lie and not supported by the article at all.

The article refutes your title in the 5th and 6th paragraph. Did you link to a reddit post rather than the article to make your title more clickbait? Come on, that doesn’t foster actual discussion. You can do better than that.

Exposes the “myth” of deleted I think is a bit much. They described it very well a good ways down:

One framework for thinking about the deletion of photos in the year 2024 is that it really has different levels. In Google’s documentation for its cloud services, for example, the company details its stages of deletion—the soft deletion, the logical deletion, the eventual expiration. The company says that in all cloud products, copies of deleted data are marked as available storage and overwritten over time. Not dissimilar to the dinosaur disk drive, “delete” equals “let’s just make this space available until something else comes along.”

If your phone deletes a photo, say as a background process (after being in the trash for 30 days) and a bug prevents that space from eventually getting reclaimed, that data would persist even though it’s “inaccessible”. Fixing something else, may have made that data accessible again causing the issue people were seeing. Good to see they got it resolved though

I was curious, in case anybody else doesn’t know who Dirk Hohndel is:

• Currently works as Head of the Open Source Program Office at Verizon
• Formerly VMware’s Chief Open Source Officer
• Formerly spent almost 15 years as Intel’s Chief Linux and Open Source Technologist
• Formerly Chief Technology Officer of SuSE and Unix Architect of Deutsche Bank
• Developer and contributor in Linux and open source since the early 1990s. He was one of the early Linux kernel developers and has contributed to several dozen open source projects over the years.

Source 1 Source 2

This is the advice people (with iOS) should follow, not disabling biometrics altogether. Using FaceID or TouchID prevents shoulder surfing to find out what the password to your phone is. When local passwords have so much control over a device, using biometrics to prevent anyone from seeing what your passcode is is very useful.