Leading questions, bordering on straw man: One of the facts percolating to common awareness is that while a PK-like identifier is clearly better, profiles without such an identifier can be good enough for probable identification. Given that such identification is possible, arguing that MS [probably today] not going the last step to identify is IMO similar to propose carrying a loaded weapon into mass transport and leaving it there - but not shooting anybody with it yourself.

>Please provide evidence that a) personally identifiable information is being sent and b) Microsoft is using this to track you specifically and not aggregating it into non-identifiable information.
>
>
>>It is at least in that way that courts can only order to turn over data which was transmitted. The fault is with MS
>>a) by NOT enabling the user to opt out totally of messaging home
>>b) by (probably) erring on the MS POV what is necessary to send home