The problem isn't exactly with what is happening today, but more with where things are headed.
Yes, Windows 8 will allow the removal of apps you got only from their app store. And they will probably use it in extreme cases for malware removal.
But that gets people used to the idea that it is OK for a company to remotely remove programs and data from their system without asking and with no court order.
Once people get used to the idea Windows 9/10/whatever might expand it to removing any program from a person's computer.
Then what? Other companies might ask Microsoft to remove programs/data they don't like on people's computers and be allowed. Maybe as an anti-piracy measure - for the good of everybody. Right.
Next hypothetical step - companies get the right to connect to people's computers and remove a program/data without even asking Microsoft.
Next maybe all our computers will be continually scanned for unwanted and unauthorized programs/data/usage... to "protect society and ward off terrorists" maybe.
See where I'm going? Do you think this is good and right? Would you like a future where you have no say in who does what to you and your property?
Somehow corporations always cry for "free" market and to be allowed to do whatever they like with no restrictions and regulations. To get corporate information even the government has to go through dozens of lawyers, courts and whatnot, and that is seen as a good thing.
When it comes to the actual citizens though (the very people a country is established by and made to protect) all of a sudden "free" and "privacy" are turning to be bad words.
When private citizens are concerned, more and more entities can mess with freedom and privacy on a whim and with no other reason that "for your own good".
If it were truly for MY good, then all these companies would give me an easy, clean way to opt-out of their "protection services". Or even better these "services" should be opt-in by default.
As for arresting people on suspicion - there is a reason we have a Constitution. There is a notion in the Constitution that is called separation of powers and one of the things it does is make the executive branch of government be in-check by the judicial branch - as in one's home cannot be searched without a warrant, one cannot be thrown in jail with no proof... as in innocent until proven guilty.
If a book on bomb-making is legally sold and the materials to make a bomb are legally sold, and one owns them, then they should not be arrested only because they own said materials. If the person has a violent/criminal history, then maybe there should be a court order forbidding them from owning such materials. Then they can be arrested for just having them in their house.
If the police suspect a regular Joe to be a bomb-maker they should watch him and try to get proof - get a court order to tap his phone or a court order to search his email etc. Not bust into his house and throw him in jail on a a pure suspicion and no proof. This system has actually worked quite good for the last couple of hundred years.
A lot of lobbyists have been pushing to reduce this separation of powers. Thanks to them it is now possible for the police/FBI/whatever to, for example, say they suspect you in terrorism with NO proof and throw you in jail and keep you there indefinitely with NO trial. I'm not saying they are doing it today, but the door is open - they can do it if they want to. To anybody.
The question should not be "what are you afraid of" - it should be "what gives them the right".
Every big change starts with baby steps and I don't like what they are changing our country into.
-----signature-----
Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable. ~ G. K. Chesterton
