Among the recommendations is to not use SharePoint, and to not use oneDrive? Wow, those are kind of important products for many enterprises. I see the recommendations around these two as quite damning.
I have worked for companies and with goverment contracts in the past and you had to use special hardware provided by the goverment to work on those projects. So it doesn‘t surprise me at all they they themselfes can‘t use SaaS offerings.
Microsoft repeatedly switches a flag which urges Windows users to "upgrade" to Windows 10 when users had said no. http://www.computerworld.com/article/3012278/microsoft-windo...
Microsoft forces some Windows systems to switch to Windows 10 by silently downloading Windows 10 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/11/microsoft...
This forced "upgrade" had adverse effects on some users with poor connectivity. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/03/windows_10_upgrade_...
Once the switch to Windows 10 was accepted there was no way out https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/01/windows_10_nagware_...
Windows 10 is quite nasty for many reasons all of which boil down to being nonfree, proprietary software. For example, it by default sent core dumps to Microsoft or whatever organization Microsoft chooses. http://betanews.com/2016/11/24/microsoft-shares-windows-10-t...
Windows 10 ignores users' so-called "security" settings putting a fine point on how insecure they are. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/08/windows-10-microsoft-b... and https://archive.fo/2ey80
https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.html is filled with more references to still more stories of how Windows runs against user's security interests and control over their own computer.
So when the Privacy Company "recommends admins of the enterprise version of Office ProPlus in the Netherlands (although many of them should also be applicable to other countries) [...] Apply the new zero-exhaust settings" there is no reason to believe that one gains privacy from Microsoft in so doing. Ultimately one's control over proprietary software only goes so far as the proprietor will allow. This remains true notwithstanding user's requirements or willingness to investigate and implement whatever the computer owner wants changed.
Microsoft is merely illustrating the inherent and unjust control over one's computer proprietary software has. It is this power that is at the heart of what's so wrong with these recommendations, nothing to do with a relatively minor quibble over whether one set of users has different requirements for privacy or security than other users.