Storage and processing happens on your device and it is encrypted, so I don't see how this feature makes my information less private at all.
It seems like the actual issue people have is that they don't trust Microsoft or they don't trust the government/people/everyone.
Which is fine and understandable, it just isn't related to privacy.
Microsoft controls this entire process. They could easily send copies back to "the mothership" like they probably already do with the processed results.
> It seems like the actual issue people have is that they don't trust Microsoft or they don't trust the government/people/everyone.
Whether or not this invasion of privacy is cause for concern depends on your level of trust. But it is still a privacy issue.
Microsoft controls the whole operating system, they can already do whatever they want with your data. They could be sending screenshots back to the mother ship already.
I can understand why people may not trust them but they already have the keys to the kingdom. This new feature isn't any more or less private than Windows already is.
You can't possibly believe that. What am I missing here? Can you explain why this doesn't have everything to do with privacy? In order for it to not be relevant to my privacy, I have to trust the software spying on me and that Microsoft and the government won't use it against you if it benefits them in some way. I do not trust that, even though I also live a charmed life relative to most people in the world, I think. That doesn't mean I haven't read how, historically, government and other people of power are not to be trusted any more than absolutely necessary.
And probably ban the software you can already install to monitor someone's computer activity.
Isn't this argument just the classic "think of the children" dressed up in new clothes?