> I think the thought is proportional to the amount of thought a non-tech customer will put into it.

Part of me wonders if this is the consequence of how accessible tech has become, and the prevalence of increasingly non-technical product managers. I'm a former PM, and I'm not here to denigrate the PM role, but the fact that a product like Recall got shipped says a lot about the makeup of the product org that shipped it.

While I get that younger people tend to see privacy differently, I'd argue this isn't really a privacy issue, it's a security conversation, albeit with obvious privacy implications. Leaking what apps I use or what sites I visit is mostly a privacy issue. Leaking what I type into the boxes on those sites is a security issue. If the end result of leaking this info is the attacker can pwn all of my bank accounts, we're solidly into security territory.

The fact that this got shipped means that multiple levels of leadership either didn't think about the consequences or didn't care about the consequences. I hope it's the former, because that means they can learn from the backlash and hopefully recalibrate.

Microsoft is in a position of power that IMO requires a significant duty of care and responsibility to their customers, and lapses like this need to be judged through that lens, i.e. it is their entire business to make sure features like this are safe.

> The fact that this got shipped means that multiple levels of leadership either didn't think about the consequences or didn't care about the consequences. I hope it's the former, because that means they can learn from the backlash and hopefully recalibrate.

There was probably from lower decks, where they are closer to reality. However, people are scared for their jobs in this economy and likely didn’t take it farther.

I think it’s a good point - these are still privacy issues, and being fatigued with the impossibility of defending privacy is indication of a power imbalance, not an acceptable default for humanity.

It's not surprising once you consider that all the big tech firms hire MBAs for their PM roles. The ideal PM profile for these companies is someone with consulting experience who just finished an MBA.

As an engineer with an MBA and in an executive level twchnokogy role, an MBA is part of what I would consider a good background. That said, OP was talking about non-technical PMs. That is the issue. You can teach a tech person to understand business, vision, strategy, finance, etc. You cannot teach very well the business person who has all that the intricacies of technology.

That's not really a fact though is it?

> ... an MBA is part of what I would consider a good background.

Emphasis on "part." I'm totally guessing on this, but I think OP may have been talking about PMs where the MBA is their only notable feature rather than those where the MBA is just one part of a well balanced whole.

> You can teach a tech person to understand business, vision, strategy, finance, etc. You cannot teach very well the business person who has all that the intricacies of technology.

I'm inclined to agree with this. The thing about business degrees is that they are so minimal effort that actually understanding business isn't a prerequisite to being awarded one. I would know, I have 2 of them.

There's no guarantee a "business person" actually learned business, much less that they are capable of learning tech. Don't get me wrong, I'm not by any means implying that all business people are inept or that they are collectively unable to learn tech; it's often unrealistic, but not impossible.

When going to school for tech, such as an MS in engineering, CS, etc., typically requires enough effort that one will end up learning their respective field (I have met exceptions to this and interacting with them is infuriating) whereas going to school for an MBA is one of the easiest ways I know of to get government financing for a decade of partying.

> an MBA is one of the easiest ways I know of to get government financing for a decade of partying.

Well this wasn't in the brochure. Best look into it!

> but the fact that a product like Recall got shipped says a lot about the makeup of the product org that shipped it.

Microsoft is just tripping over themselves right now bringing AI to market because they don't want to miss the boat. Their copilot for office 365 stuff is hardly working, it's real beta quality. No normal company would have released it to market in this state. But they're just terrified that Google will eat their lunch.

I don't think security and privacy concerns are much on the radar there anymore. They just want to establish their name in this new market at all costs. And I think in their eyes it makes sense, they've always succeeded because they had the biggest installed base, not because they were the best. It makes sense they see value in being first mover at all costs.

It's just a bit frustrating as a customer. As usual with something they launch it's more promise than substance. I have to say that usually they do have the follow-through to really make it a success. But it does take time.

It's how it's always been, always.

Many here may be too young to remember when many consumer products came with a "product registration" card. This was basically a postcard that asked for all sorts of information, such as your name, address, phone number, birthdate, sex, SSN, marital status, annual income, interests, other products owned, whether you own or rent your home, etc.

People willingly filled these out and sent them in. All the info went into databases that were merged with other sources and traded around various marketing agencies on 9-track tape reels. Advertisers could get mailing lists segmented by age, sex, income level, geographical region or specific zip codes, etc. for their campaigns.

It's all much more pervasive and invisible now, but it's basically what has always been done.

> It's how it's always been, always.

I don't know, I don't think sending in product registration cards could/would often result in your bank account being drained...

> It's all much more pervasive and invisible now, but it's basically what has always been done.

So you admit it is far worse today than it was before? But the second half of your sentence seeks to disingenuously pretend that it has "always" been bad.

I can be sick with a cold or I can have stage-four brain cancer. People have "always" been sick but one is serious (terminal cancer) one is not (a non persistent cold).

> It's all much more pervasive and invisible now, but it's basically what has always been done.

Basically is doing a lot of work here, the level and degree of how much data is vacuumed, processed, and used for targeting nowadays is orders of magnitude of difference from these primitive ways.

A tent and a house are basically the same: a shelter.

Right, the pervasivenes today is much higher. But marketers/advertisers have always hoovered up and exploited as much information as was technically possible. That attitude isn't new.

Another thing that is absolutely new is the vast number of people using this data for things other than ads/marketing. The data on registration cards was never used to decide if you get a job or not, or how much you pay for a hotel room vs the next person, or how long you wait on hold when you call a customer service line, or how much your insurance rates go up, or whether or not you're a suspect in a criminal investigation, or if you get custody of your child in a divorce proceeding. The amount of things our data ends up being used for is on a scale that simply was not possible when people started filling out product registration forms.

For better or worse, those use cases are at least somewhat legitimate. Marketing is purely malicious.

I can't recall a time where I or anyone I knew filled those out and sent them in. I realize this is anecdotal but it a lot easier to not mail in a form than to try to find the opt-out option in some computer OS.

> Everyone knows they're being tracked everywhere they go physically and on the web

That sounds good to some people. But if I mentioned it to most people in my family they would probably be rather weirded out by it. They probably also would have no idea of the scope of the size of it and how it is being used against them.

Do you listen to music only with earbuds? Do you cover your face when going outside? Do you transform your voice for each person you’re talking to? Are you buying only with cash that you handled with gloves?

Privacy is not a binary concept. There are actions and information that some people are ok being public, and there are some they prefer to remain private.

What is not OK is spying and exploitation. I should know what data you’re collecting and preferably specify which I’m ok with. I also should know what is intended for and preferably for most of it to be anonymized.

Most people expect reasonable privacy policies from companies and they believe that there’s some regulation in place.

> Most people expect reasonable privacy policies from companies and they believe that there’s some regulation in place.

Absolutely, but if you ask/inform these people they will say "Well, guess I have nothing to hide." because they can't comprehend going without all their devices/services.

Most people think that "anonymized" data can protect them https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/11/debunking-myth-anonymo...