Nope. I'd rather have a local database, even though I assume that's more difficult to keep up-to-date with what I imagine are rapidly changing blacklists. Firefox, for example does this.

But this behavior is (unfortunately) pretty bog standard, and in the case of IE, it's nothing new, so it seems a little bizarre to get all outraged about it now when all Microsoft has added is a check on file download hashes.

Flip the checkbox to turn SmartScreen off then.

It's equally as simple. Probably simpler - never used an Android phone. Both are opt-out from your description, and the SmartScreen functionality seems to be outright presented as an option on installation.

I am also pretty sure that Chrome does, in fact, come standard on Chrome OS and I assume that the default web browser on Androids is Chrome or some variant thereof that sends your URLs to Google same as Chrome does.

Should Linux repositories, the Apple App Store, the Google Store, and the Microsoft store provide a similar warning, since they actually glean more information from what you download there?

I mean, all Microsoft gets from this is a filename and a hash. Unless Microsoft has a hash of every program in existence, that doesn't do them much good for spying purposes. On the other hand, they know everything about the app you're downloading from their store.

I'd rather it be done locally as well. I suppose the reason it's done remotely is so the blacklist can be updated and maintained on the server side. That's a perfectly good reason - Chrome sends all your URLs to check against a server-side blacklist as well - and it is probably better from the security standpoint.

Long-term, though, I think the remote check opens up a potential for vector for invading privacy in the future, which I'd rather not have.

Do you opt-in to Chrome sending your URLs to Google?

Because that would be the equivalent analogy. SmartScreen sends URLs and file hashes to Microsoft, the exact same way Google's anti-malware sends URLs to Google to compare against a blacklist.

And besides, that, Google "collects" information about what you download through their store, in the same sense - you can't download the app without them knowing your IP, which is the same information Microsoft is getting. If you really cared about this kind of privacy, the app-store model is a much bigger threat than some file hashes being sent to Microsoft.

Just read the Ars Technica article. The Slashdot headline is ridiculously slanted, as was the previous story.

While I disagree with it in principle - I'd rather it be local, like how Firefox uses a local version of the bad-sites list, this is not in any way unusual or awful behavior, and it's mostly a good idea, and Microsoft has been completely open about how and why they're doing this and giving you an easy way to turn it off. It is not some privacy invading nightmare. Microsoft is not keeping track of what programs you download (unless, obviously, you get them through the Microsoft store.)

Slashdot stories are becoming more and more ridiculous. The summaries are never even worth reading anymore.

You think that might have anything to do with the massive rise in income inequality the US has experienced in the past 50 years? Richer rich people and more poor people?

Maybe your numbers are misleading and Politifact is (more-or-less, it does have real problems) right.

Nearly everything our government does is important to someone but it's clear from our high taxes and massive deficit that we just can't afford it all. Cutting waste will help but it won't enough

Our "high taxes"? The same ones that are lower than they've been in generations?

Our deficit? Why don't you tell us where that deficit is coming from? The fact is, if you cut out the recession (lowers tax receipts, increased spending on unemployment, etc.), rolled back the Bush tax cuts, and ended the wars, there would be NO DEFICIT. Zip. Zero. Check the CBO numbers.

The whole idea that "rampant government spending" is some kind of problem budget-wise is a huge non sequitur and strawman. If you genuinely believe that government shouldn't be playing the role it does - fine, I disagree with you, but there are legitimate philosophical arguments you can have there. The idea that our deficit is caused by some kind of crazy government spending though, is not legitimate. It is completely untrue.

It is astounding to me that people can get away with claiming government spending is a problem when in fifteen years, the Bush tax cuts will be responsible for fifty percent of the total US debt.

I play back at 1.5x simply because you barely notice the difference when you get used to it, and you save that much time. 2x is stretching it, but depending on the show, and what's happening, it's doable.

Then it sounds like you have automatic updates disabled. Maybe you did this in the distant pas, I don't know.

Options > Advanced > Update and reselect the default option, which is "install updates automatically."

Thanks!

Addons are automatically set to be compatible and, at least in my case, I've never noticed any that weren't.

I haven't noticed any UI changes since 4. Doesn't mean they weren't there - I'm inattentive - but the UI is not "completely different."

This is the biggest problem Mozilla has. They listen to everybody and everything, and so they can't win because surprise, people don't agree.

People were pushing hard for Firefox to have a more minimalist UI like Chrome. Mozilla acquiesced. Then all the people who use their browser as a tool and not a lifestyle got a big surprise when the update came down the pipeline and got irritated about it.

People are pushing hard for Firefox to update more often - this was probably legitimate, since it was taking a year plus between releases. They did. Then another group of people got irate about rapid releases.

People were pushing hard for Firefox to reduce memory usage. Mozilla reduced Firefox's memory usage. Now people complain that Firefox is a bit slower and uses more CPU because less is cached in memory.

How do you know Firefox updates are happening?

The only notification you get is when you don't close the browser for days after an update has been downloaded. I assume Chrome has a similar notification window since Chrome updates also cannot be applied until a restart.

No, there pretty much were no problems. Mozilla developers tried to do everything they could to get rid of the image of Firefox as memory-hungry, so now Firefox is the leanest browser memory-wise, yes. And now I have to wait for my 50 tabs to load one by one when I restart and switch to them, because of you people. Thanks.

And despite their frenetic efforts, Firefox still has a public perception of using too much memory.