Microsoft's Xbox One policy says they spy on you.
http://www.polygon.com/2013...

Microsoft and other companies like google are fighting against NSA, though I do not think they can win a fight against the NSA. My advise for potential terrorist do not buy a xb1. Jokes aside I think we should be more worried about the security of the online services, protecting personal kinect and billing data is more important. Sure hackers and NSA will be looking into ways to get acces to kinect-, laptop- cameras-, phone- data etc.

- http://www.huffingtonpost.c...
- http://www.pcworld.com/arti...

MS was the FIRST company to Hop on Pop when PRISM started, so don't be fooled when they act all sympathetic.

Unlike Yahoo, MS's fight back against the NSA has been largely superficial.

@DragonKnight

Data on your interests and purchasing patterns is a valuable commodity, and selling that data is big business. You agree to it every time you accept Sony's terms as well.

I can understand concerns about a camera transmitting images of you. But Microsoft's ideas that you reference were in collecting data based on where your eyes look and possibly your facial expressions. That's not any more evil or sinister than collecting data based on what you click, it's just a damn sight more clever.

@Charybdis: Microsoft is only fighting for transparency, not fighting to prevent it. Basically, they want you to be able to know exactly what is being taken from your camera feeds, but not to stop taking it.

@Volkama: 1. Just because it's big, valuable business doesn't make it acceptable.

2. I've never had an add from Sony in the entire lifespan of Playstation and in Sony's agreements you can opt out of data collection entirely.

"I can understand concerns about a camera transmitting images of you. But Microsoft's ideas that you reference were in collecting data based on where your eyes look and possibly your facial expressions. That's not any more evil or sinister than collecting data based on what you click, it's just a damn sight more clever."

You're condoning a third party watching you through Microsoft's camera. If you really think it's limited to the eyes only, your naivety rivals that of a child. A click of the mouse is something you choose, a camera watching you without your knowledge definitely is not. There is also no indication that that's the ONLY thing the camera is doing, especially considering Microsoft's Past in spying on their customers/service users.

I'm well aware that it's completely pointless to engage you in discussion, but hey I've got another bubble to spare :|

I get adverts all over my PS3 all the time. Movies and games of interest and such. If there is an option to opt out of that data collection I haven't seen it, but then I haven't looked because I don't oppose ads being targetted rather than blanketed.

As for spying, I wasn't referring to the data that various spy agencies reportedly intercept. I don't believe Microsoft are a willing party in that at all, it's massively damaging to them.

I am referring to Microsoft's proposed plans to track your eyes and expressions and collect data, not transmit any imagery at all. You know this to be what I am referring to, because it was quite clear in what I wrote. Your personal attack is unwarranted.

Clicking an item of interest is voluntary, but so is watching something. Most of us control our own eyes.

When you decide to buy a game or watch an advert do you click thinking "hmm yes I think I fancy sending this data to advertisers", or is that something that just happens in the background? When you "clickout" of N4G are you considering who does what with the data? It's really not so different, specially in terms of ethics of it (or lack there of).

I'm sure you'll come up with some well-written but entirely empty response, and I don't really care. I find you transparent and your agenda quite tedious.

For starters, I never personally attacked you. Unless of course your sensibilities are so delicate that being called naive is personally insulting and offensive to you, in which case I will continue the "personal attack" by telling you to grow up.

Next I'll tell you that if you DON'T look for options to opt out of your data being collected, then you are complicit in all spying attempts large or small. You show an acceptance to violations of privacy and aren't deserving of any rights to privacy if you don't care to protect it for yourself.

"As for spying, I wasn't referring to the data that various spy agencies reportedly intercept. I don't believe Microsoft are a willing party in that at all, it's massively damaging to them."

Except they are a willing party. It's already been proven that Microsoft were the first to join PRISM, and that they built in back doors in Windows for the NSA. They willingly joined PRISM and they willingly built in those back doors. The government would have no way of forcing Microsoft to compromise their own product in that way. Everything we know about Microsoft's involvements in any spy related area shows their own willingness to co-operate, and in the case of Skype to engage in it themselves.

"I am referring to Microsoft's proposed plans to track your eyes and expressions and collect data, not transmit any imagery at all. You know this to be what I am referring to, because it was quite clear in what I wrote. Your personal attack is unwarranted."

I know what you're referring to, and I stand by the claim of your naivety. The fact you honestly believe the Kinect will only focus on your eyes just proves you to be naive. MS even sold facial expressions (meaning a focus on more than your eyes) and heart rate as a potential means to gauge interest in commodities that can be advertised. Hell, someone was able to access the camera feed of the Kinect that is sent out to Microsoft and saw that it didn't focus only on your eyes.

"Clicking an item of interest is voluntary, but so is watching something. Most of us control our own eyes."

This is a laughable reply. By your logic, when you're on a computer and a pop up add somehow appears on your screen, it's your choice because you looked at it. Oh of course, we're supposed to close our eyes and use the console now. Yes, that's how we protect our eyes from being spied on. You're exactly the type of person these kinds of corporations and agencies love because you tacitly accept their increased incursions and invasions of your privacy. To be accepting of marketing your facial expressions is just sad.

"When you decide to buy a game or watch an advert do you click thinking "hmm yes I think I fancy sending this data to advertisers", or is that something that just happens in the background? When you "clickout" of N4G are you considering who does what with the data? It's really not so different, specially in terms of ethics of it (or lack there of)."

It's COMPLETELY different. In none of those cases is there any personally identifiable information available. It's simply raw, mechanical data. The system doesn't know that it's me clicking on it, or if it's my sister, or someone visiting me and using my devices. Involve a camera, and suddenly it becomes exceptionally personal and has the potential to collect more than simple numbers and raw information. Plus, you can't argue a positive that this collection happens in the background. There is no positive for it unless you are an advertiser.

That you sit here and condone a camera being used to monitor you as a person is disturbing and unfortunate.

This would be an excellent Segway for ms to unbundle the kinect if they wanted to do it early. Everyone likes not being spied on. Just a thought.

@DragonKnight:
To be "fair", MS weren't planning on selling the ability for 3rd parties to watch XB1 owners, but rather the information or data MS itself gathered. How long someone looked at a commercial. Their reactions to scenes from TV shows and movies. Specific information.

That the actual information gathered would be a lot more or that Kinect seems to be a better at monitoring than being a motion controller is besides the point.

And that last bit was sarcasm.

@BX81: It would be an interesting situation. On the one hand, MS could prove (at least a little anyway) they have customer privacy interests in mind, as well as potentially boost their PR image and sales by unbundling Kinect for this very reason. On the other, people would likely take it as an admission of guilt and hammer them for that too. Personally, if Microsoft took that step I'd consider it more of the former than the latter because I will always give credit to any company that takes any steps, no matter how small, to stick it to any government.

@Godmars290: That's a fair point to make, though I'd argue that it's merely semantics. Whether the 3rd parties had direct access to the camera feeds themselves, or MS sold them that data, the point remains that it's still being used for spying purposes. And who's to say MS wouldn't sell more sensitive information to the government?