I disagree. Being covert and having access to user input are necessary criteria for a keylogger, but not sufficient. They also have to, well, log. And since keyloggers are a kind of malware, using these logs for malicious purposes is also implied, and so is that the data would be tied to your identity. They also tend to operate all the time, rather than just in specific contexts.
But the criterion of "having access to user input" is also necessary for goofy unneeded features like showing web search results in the Start Menu though, which they shove down people's throat like they do with every other feature their product team thinks is a great idea (explaining the "being covert" bit), at which point you have a complete, non-malicious explanation for the entire thing.
The reasonable thing to do then is to apply Hanlon's razor, at which point no, it's no longer reasonable to believe or portray it to be a keylogger anymore. Not essentially, not otherwise. Not only that, but the YouTuber in question made this portrayal knowing full well that it's impossible for them to actually properly demonstrate this feature doubling as a keylogger, as they have no access to the server side. They relied on people being gullible enough to simply not grasp this, and leveraged people's preexisting privacy concerns to farm views.
Having the capability to engage in crime doesn't make a criminal. Imagine if I portrayed 107M (!) of the 340M residents of the U.S. as a criminal because they own a gun, despite knowing full well that gun ownership sensibilities are just fundamentally different over there.
“if you use the windows taskbar, by default Microsoft sees your keystrokes now. Here’s how to disable it” is a completely reasonable take. Every week there’s a new announcement of a some-million-count leak of personal information. People’s privacy fears are well-founded.
Is appealing to those fears to deliver misinformation ethical? Does it help this issue or worsen it? Cause I'd say poisioning the well is not a good thing. The road to hell being paved with good intentions and all. See the effect lies like this had on the person in this very thread above us: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44552625 I share in their disbelief at decent amounts by this point, too.
It's like making up a bunch of rubbish when there's a hate train going on against something or somebody just to participate. Then having all of that backfire disproportionately when the tides turn. Why make things up when reality has plenty bad enough stuff going on already that one can report on? Rhetorical question of course.
> The road to hell being paved with good intentions and all.
Why are we assuming good intentions from a company who for years has increased places and amounts of data it collects and tracks, and removed more and more ways to opt-out of this?
The intention of "search web first before searching local computer even if the user never asked for it" didn't appear from the intent of "let's create a keylogger", but it never came from a good innocent intention either.
But the criterion of "having access to user input" is also necessary for goofy unneeded features like showing web search results in the Start Menu though, which they shove down people's throat like they do with every other feature their product team thinks is a great idea (explaining the "being covert" bit), at which point you have a complete, non-malicious explanation for the entire thing.
The reasonable thing to do then is to apply Hanlon's razor, at which point no, it's no longer reasonable to believe or portray it to be a keylogger anymore. Not essentially, not otherwise. Not only that, but the YouTuber in question made this portrayal knowing full well that it's impossible for them to actually properly demonstrate this feature doubling as a keylogger, as they have no access to the server side. They relied on people being gullible enough to simply not grasp this, and leveraged people's preexisting privacy concerns to farm views.
Having the capability to engage in crime doesn't make a criminal. Imagine if I portrayed 107M (!) of the 340M residents of the U.S. as a criminal because they own a gun, despite knowing full well that gun ownership sensibilities are just fundamentally different over there.