Microsoft and antivirus vendors have very different goals. Microsoft wants to quietly protect your computer without making a big deal out of viruses, while antivirus vendors always want to let you know that they're hard at work protecting you and that the world is a dangerous place so keep giving them money(or in the case of free versions, keep it installed so they can keep vacuuming that data).

I wish that my various "premium" subscriptions to services like Spotify or various other apps meant that my privacy will be respected but I have absolutely no illusions about it. That's why I'll never ever consent to turning off u-block, I want the freemium/ad-driven model to die, it's the original evil that makes all these practices worthwhile.

Because it's the right thing to do? Why is it so hard for people in technology to simply do what's right?

I don't buy the hackneyed HN arguments about "A company is required to maximize profits for the shareholder!" or high school thought exercises like, "Who gets to decide what is right?" It's simply not that hard.

I wonder if software engineers had to pass ethics classes like other types of engineers if the world would be a different place today.

I had to take one as part of my ABET program. I highly doubt it made a difference. If anything, it demonstrated how much ethical behavior varies between people. I distinctly remember conversations about how awesome computer-aided sniper rifles would be (before these became a literal thing). That seems completely unethical to me, but I went to a college full of people getting back from tours in Afghanistan, so they had a very different perspective on the topic.

Example:

What is an acceptable use case:

A) Utilizing photo manipulation to place an individual somewhere they haven't been before.

B) The same except for them to enter in a contest.

C) The same, for some one who just wants the picture to flesh out a personal scrapbook with a picture of them and their SO having done something they wanted to do, but the SOwasno longer alive for somehow.

They don't do a great job at preparing you to understand how industry gets you to actually do unethical things, or how to react when they do.

I.e. It's rarely, in my experience, "Hey, do blatantly unethical thing." Though that happens. I've had some snuck by my filters in the form of

>Hey welcome aboard! <Several months of innocuous work later>. Okay guys, time for <skeevy thing>. Business really needs this, so it's pretty high visibility.

Generally it escapes your notice because for once you're just happy to have clear requirements, and to not be getting jerked around, so you do it. Minimal complaint is encouraged, or will at least be pretended to be entertained, relying on the cushy salary and in-house benefits to carry you through to job completion.

But the ball keeps rolling regardless. You can decide to not work on certain stuff, but that generally gets shluffed off to another team that doesn't share your ethical proclivities.

The sad thing is, you almost need a labor or professional organization like structure to be capable of keeping major divergence from the ethical straight and narrow in check, because otherwise you can pay lip service to higher ethical and moral standards, but when it comes paycheck time, most are going to go with that phat paycheck.

I'm working on considering my next link in the career chain, and ethical implications are strongly influencing my choice. I'm sick and tired of being someone else's money vacuum mechanic. I'd like to work on software that actually helps people.

And I'll stop anyone who suggests "but those systems are capital pumps, and help people because the free market." No they don't not in any but the most indirect of ways. If people overall weren't having all their siphoned off them, I'dwager there would be a much higher degree of actualization or entrepreneurial development in the hands of less capital starved people.

I know a positive feedback loop when I see one, and you can damn well bet that's why every tech company is scrambling to become a fintech in one way or another.

True, as long as keeping outdated software/practices is facilitated. The attack surface is relatively small if someone installs only apps from an App Store - no matter which one that is - and from well-known vendors.

That said, Microsoft has created a nice breeding ground for viruses by keeping all the software backwards compatible but accepting that users might need to get new hardware for every major update. At least the major updates have become quite cheap...

And a follow-up, "Avoid Non-Microsoft Antivirus Software", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13489100

I believe there have been academic studies on the non-effectiveness of antivirus software, but I can't find them. (If others can, I'd like to read them.) I find the argument that antivirus software increases attack surface compelling because it's third-party software that tries to get into everything. This is not the '90s anymore; all of the big players care about security. I think that the engineers at Microsoft, Google, Apple and Firefox are more qualified to secure their own software than outside vendors are.

Another issue that while microsoft's incentives may be better aligned it still fundamentally is an antivirus and thus an increase in attacksurface. There have been exploits against it[0] and it turned out that it did things with SYSTEM privileges and no sandboxing.

[0] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/list?can=1&q...

1. Security on desktops has been improved quite a bit. You can no longer simply email someone a .exe file that's the equivalent of `sudo rm -rf /` and have it work, multiple levels of safeguards (from the browser, to the email virus scan to windows defender catch it). OS's also simply won't run unsigned binaries anymore unless you force them to which is (maybe?) a good thing.

2. Piracy has been on a downtick, and people seem to be more open to paying for software since App stores made it somewhat more acceptable. Less likelihood that people download sketchy binaries off the internet and run them on their PCs.

3. More hours spent on mobile OSes which are inherently more secure. casual PC usage at home is declining.

Wine literally stands for “Wine is Not an Emulator”.

It won't have direct local OS access, but files and networking can be shared through most emulation systems, generally as SMB/CFS shares.

From the article:

> Some past, present, and potential clients include Google, Yelp, Microsoft, McKinsey, Pepsi, Sephora, Home Depot, Condé Nast, Intuit, and many others.

Microsoft doesn't need its AV products to do shady data collection because it outsources this to third-party shady AV products, therefore keeping its own reputation clean as your post demonstrates.

> Microsoft declined to comment on the specifics of why it purchased products from Jumpshot, but said that it doesn't have a current relationship with the company.

Which seems to indicate that Microsoft is in the list of past, not potential clients.

I remember when it came out and it would scan away and do it's thing and it was pretty much noticeable. I was "yeah this is it" uninstalled whatever I was using at the time and never looked back.

That was a big plus in a market where as you say everything feels sketchy.

* except for that which is or comes with Windows. Unfortunately this has grown substantially - Windows 7 seems like something of a high-water mark for performance/polish/lean...

Most viruses aren't stealthy, although a few are, and you're right, those you'll have a hard time with if they're well hidden and undetected.

IMO - Something like Glasswire + Windows Defender is pretty robust. Nearly any virus will need network connectivity after all.

Do you have data?

A lot of viruses sell "installs" - where other less moral software devs will pay per installation of their software. Or they spam ads across your entire computer etc. Or they encrypt your files and demand a ransom. None of these things are quiet or stealthy - anybody with decent IT experience will notice them pretty fast.

It's kinda like regular crime. Sure every once in a while there's a thief that quietly lockpicks his way into somebodies home after spying on them and knowing they've left on vacation, leaving little evidence they took anything at all. Most of the time somebody just does a smash-and-grab, quick and dirty.

I keep running into the same phenomenon everywhere; everyone thinks they know whether they've been infected or not. I suppose everyone is a malware expert, so there's no need to share the data with anyone. I'm quite out of the loop here.

I mean I get what you're saying. My point is that most viruses aren't trying to be hidden, so they're rather obvious. Of course there's a chance they try to be sneaky, and you're right you have no way of knowing if those are present and well hidden.

But anti-virus only does so much, if you're past Windows Defender you're past a bunch of other tools too. A lot of anti-malware software is very generic, and relies on some rather dumb techniques.