I see the same double standard with Google's generative search vs OpenAI's chatGPT with search - when Google gets it wrong, it's a big issue, but not for the other.
Apple AI essentially provides API hooks that apps can use to expose actions and data to the model. Currently it seems Apple own apps does that but any app owner can decide to support this or not.
Two completely different approach.
Just semantics. In the end Apple has access to everything, like MS.
The only reason people aren't outraged at Apple is because they won't be able to access the directory with all the screenshots unlike on Windows.
Both implementations are awful. Apple's one is probably the worst one actually, because it sends some data to Apple's servers for processing (probably most), when Microsoft runs everything on the device.
We already know how it works, it’s based on App Intents. It’s how Shortcuts has worked for years, just instead of meticulously making your shortcuts for each automation you want to do, you essentially get an ML model to make one on the fly.
… Wait, how do you think they’d keep _that_ one secret?
Not a cleartext SQL Lite database, with stuff written either in C or C++ with COM, as the WinDev business unit loves to do.
Those of us with long Windows development experience certainly don't.
Because Google was presenting the AI-generated answer as the top query result, implying it's the most relevant/factual answer. OpenAI (and Bing) make it clear you're talking to an AI chatbot, which most people wouldn't expect to be as reliable/accurate as the first result in Google search.
There are already many things that record our data and actions that most of us are otherwise fine with. Browsing history, Undo in any number of productivity software, search histories both local (eg: Windows) and remote (eg: Google, Bing), password managers and Post-Its on monitors(tm), chat logs, vidja gaem save files, and more.
Some of the issues floated like the seemingly complete lack of encryption are valid, but the overall response indeed felt very overblown and hypocritical.
None of these are taking screenshots of your entire desktop, using OCR and AI to summarize all text/secrets displayed and storing them in a single centralized, location, (currently) easily exfiltrated and searched by any one gaining access to your desktop
They made the right call to delay and revisit this.
Also, if a hostile has access to your computer then all bets are off. Nothing matters at that point besides how quickly you can remove that access if it's even possible and whether you can deal with the fallout.
Given the choice now though between someone having access to my computer, _or_ someone having physical access to my computer as well as a database with a detailed and lengthy history of every secret i've ever seen in my terminal or web browser, as well every bit of employer or customer data that I've seen whilst working, as well as well ... everything else personal, all in one nice tidy package they could download and search as they pleased - I think the former would end up not being quite as bad things could get.
So like the clipboard?
>anything in incognito browser window
None of that is private.
>And it may have stored images, not just text.
They're both data.
Once again: Is there any difference? I'm not seeing one. Pedantics aren't worth my time.
Last, your statement falsely presupposes that most are happy with any tracking / intrusion.
Recall is neither the first nor the last thing to record and store your actions and data. Why is it such a big problem?
>Last, your statement falsely presupposes that most are happy with any tracking / intrusion.
Most people are in fact fine with tracking, it has been demonstrated time and time again ad nauseum that the commons do not fucking care about digital privacy and especially if they are inconvenienced.
As for intrusions (presumably you mean attacks, whether digital or physical?), it's not so much most people are fine with it so much as they don't/can't care as it's all far above their paygrades.
Not agreeing to something that one does not want, in spite of tolerating qualitatively similar yet different objects that one also does want not want, is not "hypocrisy". It's a boundary.
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of boundaries?
I feel like I'm in an argument with a psychologically abusive SO.
You imply a defect in rationality via your misuse or misunderstanding of vocabulary.
As what? A means of browbeating people into acceptance?
Your need to resort to such a non-agreeable tactic, alone, should inform you that your logic is the problem if not your motive or Recall itself.
It is within everyone's right, and within the bounds of rationality, to reject Recall on its qualitative differences, on the sole fact that they don't want one more tracker when they really don't want the first, or because others seem strangely over-interested in making poor yet insistent arguments in favor of it.
I mean, if it's just one more tracker than why does anyone need it? Right?
Or is the singular nature of Recall that makes it uniquely desirable to some the reason that it is rationally undesirable to others?
Denial of that nature of Recall is what is hypocritical.
>Most people are in fact fine with tracking,
Do "most" people have the option of easily turning tracking completely off? Most are "fine" with it?
Except the ones that aren't, who are tend to also be against having second to second activity recorded. Right?
And who are significant enough that you feel compelled to argue with them here.
>the commons do not fucking care about digital privacy
ooph, the spicy language. I'm persuaded.
>As for intrusions (presumably you mean attacks, whether digital or physical?)
No, as the attack vs tracking difference of user data being sent to an off-site server, and then sold or otherwise, is immaterial when the user isn't aware of the nature of the data being sent if they are aware of it being sent at all. With Recall and for most users, the possibility that screenshot data would be remotely accessed certainly falls under the category of "intrusion". In spite of legalese.
>it's not so much most people are fine with it so much as... it's all far above their paygrades.
Boom
It is hypocrisy because there is no difference.
None of you have yet managed to answer what differences, if any, exist between Recall and All The Other Tracking Siphoning Things(tm) most of us either accept or tolerate.
>Your need to resort to such a non-agreeable tactic, alone, should inform you that your logic is the problem if not your motive or Recall itself.
I am asking you all a question and so far noone has managed to answer it. If none of you can answer what exactly about Recall makes it unacceptable unlike All The Others(tm), your logic is flawed.
Again: What is the difference? I do not see any.
>Do "most" people have the option of easily turning tracking completely off? Most are "fine" with it?
To the former: Actually, yes; just don't use the services or software that track you. As unenforcable as EULAs are, we all agree to them and it is made explicitly clear we can reject by not perusing.
To the latter: Also, yes; everyone happily uses iCloud and Google Photos and OneDrive and Dropbox and whatever else that tracks user data. To say nothing of Windows, and even Firefox (yes, Firefox phones home) that people happily use.
>And who are significant enough that you feel compelled to argue with them here.
Significant in the sense that apples are significant in an orchard, but apples only comprise a small portion of all trees and most trees don't care.
Likewise, techies bitch in tech circles and the noise is significant, but in the world at large techies are an insignificant minority as far as whether tracking is acceptable or not is concerned.
>ooph, the spicy language. I'm persuaded.
Whether I can persuade you is irrelevant, the commons still do not fucking care about digital privacy. Seriously. That's the reality. It's like how the Earth will spin and keep spinning no matter what any of us do.
>user data being sent to an off-site server
One of Recall's biggest marketing spiels is that it's all stored and processed locally. If Microsoft violates that marketing then they're guilty of false advertising and we can absolutely throw books at them for it, but that's tangential to the collection and processing of user data.
Second, this situation doesn't fall under the definition of hypocrisy. It's more like date rapist's logic: "She didn't reject me when I kissed her while she was passed out, and so she's a hypocrite if she denies me sex". TF is your problem, honestly.
Third, again see "boundaries" and people's right to them without needing to tolerate browbeating. Only weirdos and abuser types ignore firmly stated boundaries, and try to move past them via abuse tactics.
> None of you have yet managed to answer what differences, if any, exist between Recall and All The Other Tracking Siphoning Things(tm) most of us either accept or tolerate.
I wasn't aware that an answer to your nonsense question was required in order to justify Recall's popular rejection. It isn't. However, the answer is that nothing else in the base OS is creating a word for word, second to second, record of what is on one's screen to include passwords. And if it is, that should be made widely known so that it also has a chance to be broadly rejected.
>I am asking you all a question and so far noone has managed to answer it. If none of you can answer what exactly about Recall makes it unacceptable unlike All The Others(tm), your logic is flawed.
Your "flawed logic" premise is rejected.
The assertion that your question is not sufficiently answered is rejected, but irrelevant regardless.
You need people to accept Recall, for some bizarre reason. Beyond the already presented logic, they simply don't have to.
To state that your logic is flawed would be polite. More accurately, its nonexistent. You resort to browbeating as a replacement for it.
> Whether I can persuade you is irrelevant, the commons still do not fucking care about digital privacy. Seriously. That's the reality. It's like how the Earth will spin and keep spinning no matter what any of us do.
And yet here you are.
>One of Recall's biggest marketing spiels is that it's all stored and processed locally.
Few if any who comment on either side of this fake argument trust MS or those who are above it, if they are being honest. MS spent its trust currency long ago, and no one owes it to them.
Recall makes accessing the data more convenient especially for the commons, but that's a difference on the frontend. The criticism is directed at the backend, which is no different from all the others.
>Your insistent advocacy and what you are demanding people accept
I'm neither advocating nor demanding anything, stop mouthbreathing zealotry and go get some fresh air.
>Third, again see "boundaries"
You can't draw two lines on top of each other and say they are different lines to be treated differently.
>I wasn't aware that an answer to your nonsense question was required in order to justify Recall's popular rejection.
Can you answer what justifies the negative reaction?
>However, the answer is that nothing else in the base OS is creating a word for word, second to second, record of what is on one's screen to include passwords.
Sure there are, literally everything sitting in RAM or the page file for starters. Clearing the page file on shut down is a security measure some people/organizations take, by the way.
Also anything in the GPU, whose literal job is to render graphics and to do that it needs to know everything it has to render on screen. The GPU's data stores can also be accessed and routed externally, most commonly screen capture protocols and associated software.
Of course, you also just made it clear you don't even know WTF you're talking about: Recall reads the screen and creates a database dump which will be subsequently processed and accessed. It doesn't store the literal video in any permanent sense.
>Your "flawed logic" premise is rejected. ... The assertion that your question is not sufficiently answered is rejected ...
You reject reality and substitute your own?
>You need people to accept Recall, for some bizarre reason.
See above.
>And yet here you are.
Indeed, and?
>Few if any who comment on either side of this fake argument trust MS or those who are above it, if they are being honest. MS spent its trust currency long ago, and no one owes it to them.
To cite the HN Guidelines:
>Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Microsoft stated Recall is local, subsequent conversations and discussions should assume this to be correct until demonstrated otherwise which so far is not the case.
I mean, sure, private cloud looks as good as something can be without being open source and self-hosted, but it seems nobody considered the fact that I do not want everything I do to be tracked.
If this was a per-app opt-in then maybe but as it has been presented this is pure distopia.
I feel if that were the case I'd suddenly feel a lot more comfortable with the MS approach than the Apple approach.
And Microsoft’s solution was borderline useless