>>Hi Al.
>>
>>>https://voat.co/v/technology/comments/835741
>>
>>This turned out to be bogus: http://www.zdnet.com/article/when-it-comes-to-windows-10-privacy-dont-trust-amateur-analysts/
>>
>>Doug
>
>That's a nice example of a cover up.
>It says the original author was a fool (no doubt on that, 192.168.1.* rofl) It also says he could have done better settings then average user - the one the test might have simulated. Possibly there was a reason? The article makes it laughable that the author says he need to run throug three pages of switches - what's not true on it? Why they are scattered like that?

Ah, forgot the cherry on the cake. The fourth page of the settings, available only in more expensive versions, which brings tracking to "a minimum". Doesn't say "to zero". IOW, no matter how much you pay, we still want to know. Actually, if you have so much money to throw at as, we're more interested.