Saying "Client information is sacred" and stealing executables off all windows machines with the automatic sample submission on by default does not go well together.
PS: And that function makes sense for "the public" don't you think?
Thats an awfully low standard to set don't you think?
I don't think it makes sense for the public. Stealing files from unsuspecting users without as much as a popup saying "hey, we just snatched this file without you knowing this is even a possibility" is just sad.
EDIT: i just realized you are being ironic
Im saying dubiously authorized because I bet no more than 5 out of a 100 windows users are aware this is even happening...
So no, this is not proof. At this point the lack of proof is near proof no backdoor existed.
At the risk of sounding tin hatty, not true. (In)Famy doesn't equal success or money, anyone attempting to post state secrets without the help of another state is probably not hard to intercept and buy off...
Anyways, there doesn't need to be proof - a (forced) system update straight from the source (Microsoft), targeted to your machine, is all it takes to make all security redundant, and there are enough publicly known phone home systems in Windows that we don't really need to prove they don't already dragnet.
I'll grant you, subverting corporate sec is a bit harder, but usually boils down to a bit of carfully targeted infil, put the right exceptions in the right corporate solutions, and corp security is also nill.