Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 30th Jun 2006 20:31 UTC
Legal A computer user is suing Microsoft over the company's Windows Genuine Advantage anti-piracy tool, alleging that it violates laws against spyware. The suit by Los Angeles resident Brian Johnson, filed this week in U.S. District Court in Seattle, seeks class-action status for claims that Microsoft didn't adequately disclose details of the tool when it was delivered to PC users through the company's Automatic Update system.
Order by: Score:
Oh
by deanlinkous on Fri 30th Jun 2006 20:50 UTC
deanlinkous
Member since:
2006-06-19

saweeeet
I say he will get some money out of this! Isnt that exactly what it is - spyware?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Oh
by anevilyak on Fri 30th Jun 2006 21:08 UTC
anevilyak
Member since:
2005-09-14

Except that it's been tagged as class action, which essentially translates into lawyers will get a fat wad of cash, while the defendants lumped into said class will get maybe $10.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Oh
by Kroc on Fri 30th Jun 2006 21:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Oh"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

It shouldn't be about money, it should be about defending your rights. Or is money more important to you than rights?

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Oh
by Al2001 on Fri 30th Jun 2006 21:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oh"
Al2001 Member since:
2005-07-06

The guilty have far to many rights already

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Oh
by Kroc on Fri 30th Jun 2006 21:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Oh"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

If you fight corporations with greed, the corporations always win - they have more greed and carelessness than anybody.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Oh
by chlordane on Sat 1st Jul 2006 01:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Oh"
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

"The guilty have far to many rights already"

Did you know that if you are accused of breaking some law, that you will have that on your record before you are even convicted, and that having that on your record will keep you from getting a lot of jobs....?

Just because you are accused, doesnt mean your guilty...

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Oh
by ThawkTH on Fri 30th Jun 2006 21:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oh"
ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

You wouldn't have to ask the question if it weren't largely the case...WGA and the like wouldn't exist. Microsoft wouldn't have it's monopoly. People prefer a convenient, black and white, simple world over the truth.

That's why everyone uses Windows. People will allow themselves to be pushed around and abused to maintain the status quo.

Unfortunately for Microsoft, human beings have a breaking point, and I sincerely hope they're reaching it now.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Oh
by raver31 on Fri 30th Jun 2006 21:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Oh"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

so what? he might not be doing it for the money, he might just be doing it to highlight the bad business practices of Microsoft.

and if he wins and gets some publicity for the whole thing, then better yet.

Reply Score: 5

Yes,...
by arctic on Fri 30th Jun 2006 21:13 UTC
arctic
Member since:
2006-04-19

... it was about time someone started to react imho. I have nothing against securing a computer, but calling spyware a critical security update is not only a bad joke but plain ugly. Let's hope that he wins the lawsuit soon.

Edited 2006-06-30 21:13

Reply Score: 5

Deserved, but will it work?
by indech on Fri 30th Jun 2006 21:21 UTC
indech
Member since:
2005-12-06

It'll be interesting to see if Microsoft manages to weasel out of this. They have quite a history of walking the line of morallity, often on the wrong side, and managing to get away with it unscathed. You'd think that all that bad karma would have to catch up to Microsoft one of these days.

It'd be nice if one day customers weren't treated like crooks. Or perhaps Microsoft has been showing all along how much better off you are if you are a real pirate...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Deserved, but will it work?
by DittoBox on Sat 1st Jul 2006 07:00 UTC in reply to "Deserved, but will it work?"
DittoBox Member since:
2005-07-08

It'd be nice if one day customers weren't treated like crooks. Or perhaps Microsoft has been showing all along how much better off you are if you are a real pirate...

Well put. I think Microsoft is starting to wreak of the same rotten stench the RIAA and MPAA have been skanking in for years.

The only people in this entire setup who get really the shaft are the people who pay but still want some sort of power over what they've payed for. Freddy Foobar doesn't know what he's getting screwed out of and the so-called `pirates' have already cracked it into submission. Those of us who want to be `legal' and still hold some sort of power over what they've payed for and don't want to crack anything are really just getting the shaft more than anyone else.

MS isn't hurting from `piracy' and they've no right to invade my personal computer to look for `pirated' software, expecially if they fail to properly recognize it as legal. I've not installed the WGA tool simply to spite microsoft, I don't want this crap phoning home anyway.

Apple had better get an Intel PowerMac out soon along with Adobe getting CS3 in universal so I can finally just up and quit on MS altogether. I'm fed up with them.

Although...is Apple any better? Or is their core just as rotten...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Deserved, but will it work?
by kaiwai on Sat 1st Jul 2006 09:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Deserved, but will it work?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Last time I remember I didn't have to activate my copy of MacOS X, use a serial number or register the product - if I wish to download updates, none of my personal details are sent to Apple, and the updates are available to all customers, irrespective of their MacOS X licence status.

Ultimately for Apple, who gives a shit if people are pirating MacOS X - there are plenty more customers out there (who make the majority) who are willing to pay for the software - so why spend so much time and effort, pissing off the legal purchases, simply to get at the hardcore 15% or so who use pirated software? it just doesn't make any sense.

Reply Score: 2

DittoBox Member since:
2005-07-08

That wasn't what I referring to at all. I was referring Apple's http://www.spymac.com/news/article.php?contentid=1554">suing , the iPod and FairPlay with iTMS and it's lockin strategy, and to a (much) lesser degree Mac OS X being locked to apple's hardware (understandable compared to FairPlay).

Last time I remember I didn't have to activate my copy of MacOS X, use a serial number or register the product - if I wish to download updates, none of my personal details are sent to Apple, and the updates are available to all customers, irrespective of their MacOS X licence status.

Not all of that is true though, at least in my experience. You imply that MS requires "personal details" for update, it does not. however Apple pushes (hard) registration upon installing OS X, with quite a bit of those "personal details". When I installed (legally purchased) Tiger on my laptop there was no way to get around the registration portion of installation, none that I could find anyway. It did this on Panther before it, both with fresh installs. Microsoft doesn't discriminate based on License Status at the moment either, though to be fair it seems that might change soon.

This isn't a really bad thing, I'd trust those details to Apple over most other large corporations any day but I'd still prefer a choice.

Apple isn't as bad as MS, but all I asked was if they were headed in that direction.

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

That wasn't what I referring to at all. I was referring Apple's http://www.spymac.com/news/article.php?contentid=1554 suing their fans, the iPod and FairPlay with iTMS and it's lockin strategy, and to a (much) lesser degree Mac OS X being locked to apple's hardware (understandable compared to FairPlay).

And if Apple didn't make a strong stand against these people, the recording industry would have turned around, concluded that Apple condoned piracy by not acting against those circumventing their 'anti-piracy' measures, and voila, you would have no itunes store, and as a result, we would all be worse off.

Want to blame someone for the heavy handed DRM enforcement, blame the music companies who are twisting the IT companies arms by their approach of "use DRM or kiss your chances of reselling our music good bye".

Not all of that is true though, at least in my experience. You imply that MS requires "personal details" for update, it does not. however Apple pushes (hard) registration upon installing OS X, with quite a bit of those "personal details". When I installed (legally purchased) Tiger on my laptop there was no way to get around the registration portion of installation, none that I could find anyway. It did this on Panther before it, both with fresh installs.

And you know, if you don't have a network connection, the information is saved as a file in your home directory, which, if you wanted to send away, all you have to do is double click and click on send.

Its pretty simple, don't have it connected to the network and the information won't get sent.

Microsoft doesn't discriminate based on License Status at the moment either, though to be fair it seems that might change soon.

Under which rock have you been hiding? Microsoft has released WGA which will be used to lock out those they suspect as not to be running genuine copies of Windows - I'm sorry, but they are and have moved to 'descriminate based on licence status'.

Apple isn't as bad as MS, but all I asked was if they were headed in that direction.

Apple can't, won't and never will go in that direction; they don't have the luxary which Microsoft has of bleeding enterprise customers dry (partially because the customers are as ignorant as pig shit to the alternatives that exist), there fore, the must walk a vey tight line between keeping their customers happy, their third party developers happy, and the music/media industry happy.

Reply Score: 1

I-Smile Member since:
2005-09-20

During any fresh install of Mac OS X, you can skip the registration sequence by pressing Command-Q.

Reply Score: 1

Hm
by sappyvcv on Fri 30th Jun 2006 21:27 UTC
sappyvcv
Member since:
2005-07-06

The notification aspect is part of WGA. The WGA tool is optional at this point and is installed with the consent of the user.

I don't think this guy has a case. Heck, it's hard to even sue companies for real spyware still.

"Microsoft effectively installed the WGA software on consumers' systems without providing consumers any opportunity to make an informed choice about that software," the suit alleges.

That's why I don't think it will get anywhere.

Edited 2006-06-30 21:30

Reply Score: 3

RE: Hm
by Kroc on Fri 30th Jun 2006 21:39 UTC in reply to "Hm"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Optional-ish.
WGA Notifications is included in auto-update. When that bubble pops up saying that updates are ready to install (because they've downloaded automatically) and you're presented with "Express" or "Custom", clicking on express automatically accepts whatever has been downloaded without showing you a thing - installing WGA without you even realising it.

Only if you choose custom, scroll down in the list, find WGA hidden in there with an obscure description and no privacy details, and untick it, then click a button to say not to include it again next update, can you actually choose to not install WGA.

Why, it's positively as simple as OS X updates. Whatever is the complaint?? ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Hm
by n4cer on Fri 30th Jun 2006 22:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Hm"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Optional-ish.
WGA Notifications is included in auto-update. When that bubble pops up saying that updates are ready to install (because they've downloaded automatically) and you're presented with "Express" or "Custom", clicking on express automatically accepts whatever has been downloaded without showing you a thing - installing WGA without you even realising it.
Only if you choose custom, scroll down in the list, find WGA hidden in there with an obscure description and no privacy details, and untick it, then click a button to say not to include it again next update, can you actually choose to not install WGA.
Why, it's positively as simple as OS X updates. Whatever is the complaint?? ;)


True, however this still boils down a choice made by the user. Users accepted auto-install and the details in its EULA when they setup Auto Update in the first place.

If they wanted detailed notification of everything that gets installed, they should've opted for one of the manual installation options for AU along with the Custom installation, or kept AU turned off and visited MS Downloads or MU/WU whenever they wanted to update their system. Even with full AU on, an entry is written to the system event log with details about applied updates, including their KB number which you can use to get more info about the update from MS' website and/or find the update in Add/Remove Programs and uninstall it.

From my event log:
Event Type: Information
Event Source: Windows Update Agent
Event Category: Installation
Event ID: 19
Date: 6/27/2006
Time: 2:24:06 PM
User: N/A
Computer: MINE
Description:
Installation Successful: Windows successfully installed the following update: Windows Genuine Advantage Notification (KB905474)

For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.

Edited 2006-06-30 22:38

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Hm
by dylansmrjones on Fri 30th Jun 2006 23:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hm"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The WGA has been a requirement for some days now, if you want to use Windows Update or Microsoft Update.

You can no longer update your Windows installation without installing WGA.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Hm
by n4cer on Fri 30th Jun 2006 23:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hm"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

You can still download security updates from MS Downloads without going through WGA.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Hm
by dylansmrjones on Fri 30th Jun 2006 23:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hm"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

It is extremely annoying and time consuming.

I'd rather spend double that time on making more Win-applications run in Wine. I've almost reached the state where I can wipe out my windows installation. I'm looking forward to that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Hm
by n4cer on Fri 30th Jun 2006 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hm"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06
RE[7]: Hm
by dylansmrjones on Sat 1st Jul 2006 00:18 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hm"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

It's fine they are downloadable - but will they be installable in the future _without_ WGA?

And it still gives as much as a month from release of a security fix till a bulk release containing such a security fix.

It's better than nothing I guess, but far from being reasonable and acceptable.

There is only one reasonable solution. Withdraw the WGA. Until then I'll keep trying to get as many applications as possible to work under Wine (quite a challenge btw. - some apps work with one version of wine, and other apps only works with older or newer versions than the one installed...)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Hm
by DrillSgt on Sat 1st Jul 2006 05:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hm"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"You can still download security updates from MS Downloads without going through WGA."

The average user does not even know MS Downloads exist. And actually in order to download from there as of today you have to run WGA to get the downloads...I tried earlier to get a few things.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Hm
by n4cer on Sat 1st Jul 2006 05:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hm"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

The average user does not even know MS Downloads exist. And actually in order to download from there as of today you have to run WGA to get the downloads...I tried earlier to get a few things.

Look 2 posts above yours. AU still works without WGA for security updates. Likewise MS Downloads does not require WGA for security updates, only software updates.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Hm
by DrillSgt on Sat 1st Jul 2006 09:16 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hm"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Look 2 posts above yours. AU still works without WGA for security updates. Likewise MS Downloads does not require WGA for security updates, only software updates."

Actually AU does not work without WGA. I don;t care what others have posted, the fact is on my computers it does not. If you refuse WGA, AU no longer works with a message that WGA is required. This is on 4 computers. WGA is required currently to even get security updates.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hm
by dylansmrjones on Fri 30th Jun 2006 23:22 UTC in reply to "Hm"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

You cannot use Windows Update or Microsoft Update without installing WGA.

If you try to block WGA, updating will fail. At least that's what happened to me 2 days ago, when I was running Windows for a short while.

I've been trying to avoid having to install WGA, but this time I was forced to install it.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Oh
by anevilyak on Fri 30th Jun 2006 21:41 UTC
anevilyak
Member since:
2005-09-14

I'm not questioning that, I'm simply pointing out that class action lawsuits, by and large tend to be shams that accomplish little more than getting law firms rich with a settlement, and don't frequently result in much actually getting done apart from lining a few people's pockets.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Oh
by anevilyak on Fri 30th Jun 2006 21:45 UTC
anevilyak
Member since:
2005-09-14

so what? he might not be doing it for the money, he might just be doing it to highlight the bad business practices of Microsoft.

The problem is this isn't usually how class action lawsuits get initiated. More often than not someone voices a minor complaint in a letter to the editor or some other means in a newspaper, and a law firm latches onto it and tries to convince said person to taking it into a class action case. Such cases more often than not get settled out of court with some large monetary settlement rather than resulting in actual product improvements/behavioral changes, and typically the legal fees for organizing said lawsuit end up with the result I mentioned above where the only thing to come out of it is a law firm cashing in.

Reply Score: 2

Where's the choice?
by robojerk on Fri 30th Jun 2006 23:12 UTC
robojerk
Member since:
2006-01-10

I know that when I did updates in the past, it would require me to have WGA installed in order get the latest updates. So if the choice that Microsoft was giving last time I manually updated was to leave my PC insecure, or install spyware.

Similiar to being held at gun point and having the choice of handing over my wallet(identity) or my life.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Where's the choice?
by dylansmrjones on Fri 30th Jun 2006 23:26 UTC in reply to "Where's the choice?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

2 days ago I finally installed WGA, simply because I was forced to do so.

I could not install the updates without accepting the WGA being installed. I was quite close to wipe out my Windows installation, since it isn't strictly necessary for me anymore.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Where's the choice?
by Celerate on Sat 1st Jul 2006 01:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Where's the choice?"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm still holding out. I had no idea I wouldn't be able to get security updates without the WGA update, I couldn't figure out why things were so peaceful in Windows lately (no notices of available updates).

I don't remember getting any notification that the update would cause problems, in fact I specifically went to the Windows update site and used the online interface to tell it never to try the update again. I also made sure the configuration on my computers was set up so it would only download and not install anything. If I'm cut off from getting updates because of that then I'm done with Windows.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Where's the choice?
by dylansmrjones on Sat 1st Jul 2006 01:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Where's the choice?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I was cut off, but I'm not sure if everybody was cut off at the same time, or if it happens gradually.

I tried to tell the updater not to download the WGA but it simply kept coming back with it. And trying to update via IE simply gave me the message that I had to install the WGA in order to access Windows Update.

Reply Score: 2

Use autopatcher
by jjmckay on Sat 1st Jul 2006 04:57 UTC
jjmckay
Member since:
2005-11-11

I don't use Windows Update. I use Autopatcher:

http://www.autopatcher.com

No need for WGA.

Reply Score: 4

Idiot...
by kaiwai on Sat 1st Jul 2006 09:01 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

If this is such a bad thing; then why don't consumers simply look for an alternative; use the one thing Microsoft does under stand, and thats money - if you're not giving them your money, they'll soon learn to dance to a different tune.

Too bad most customers are too lazy to get off their ass and actually do something about it; they would rather the legal system sort out their little squabble rather than using the marketplace by simply moving to a different platform.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Deserved, but will it work?
by Soulbender on Sat 1st Jul 2006 10:31 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

"Or perhaps Microsoft has been showing all along how much better off you are if you are a real pirate..."

But of course. Where would MS be today without the massive market penetration that rampant piracy gave them?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Deserved, but will it work?
by Kroc on Sat 1st Jul 2006 10:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Deserved, but will it work?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Rampant Piracy? Maybe in China, but in the Americas and Europe Miscrosft won because every new PC came with Windows. Rampant Piracy contributed only to more software on Windows being used, more than more users of Windows itself. If you want a case of rampant piracy securing a monopoly, it's Adobe Photoshop and Macromedia^H^H^H^H^Hdobe tools.

Reply Score: 2

lachelp Member since:
2005-10-26

Yes, rampant piracy! (Other than from Microsoft itself of course - they've only been legally busted 5 out of 40 times... the rest were settled.)

In the early 90's software was given away with any computer that you bought from the little computer shop on the corner - IN THE USA.

This happened up until about 2-3 years ago, but was MUCH more prevelant in the '90s.

Edited 2006-07-02 07:46

Reply Score: 2

What's the point?
by taschenorakel on Sat 1st Jul 2006 11:47 UTC
taschenorakel
Member since:
2005-07-06

I am clearly not a fan of Microsoft or Windows - but what's your point!?

- Microsoft sells their software for cash and this is OK.
- Many people illegally use Windows as they have not bought the proper license for their copy of Windows. This is not OK.
- Now Microsoft finally takes measures to make sure everyone pays for the license in use. This is OK.

You all have legal copies of Windows - so I have to ask you: What is your problem? Microsoft Windows clearly and without any doubt is the property of Microsoft Corporation. They own it. They make the rules. As long as they do not break any law this is very ok and I really doubt that they break any law, by not supporting stolen copies of Microsoft Windows.

Reply Score: 1

How many pirates?
by bolomkxxviii on Sat 1st Jul 2006 12:46 UTC
bolomkxxviii
Member since:
2006-05-19

Anybody got a figure on percentage of Windows users that are pirates? It can't be that many. Other than buying a Mac, every computer purchased comes with Windows pre-installed. The vast majority of computer users do not build their own, so what are all these pirates running their ill-gotten versions on? I understand concern over pirate copies of Office, but BillW gets his pound of flesh from everyone. I run Mandrake and I still had to pay BillW to get the computer in the first place. I want my money back Bill, you pirate!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Deserved, but will it work?
by Soulbender on Sat 1st Jul 2006 13:06 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

"Rampant Piracy? Maybe in China, but in the Americas and Europe Miscrosft won because every new PC came with Windows."
Uh hu, and every machine came with a kosher MS license right? My first PC sure didn't come with an legal copy (this was in 1990) and neither did any of my friends.
Not saying machines shipping with it didn't help but there sure was/is a lot of Windows pirating in Europe and Americas too.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[10]: Hm
by zsitvaij on Sat 1st Jul 2006 15:56 UTC
My 2 cents
by DrillSgt on Sat 1st Jul 2006 18:17 UTC
DrillSgt
Member since:
2005-12-02

All in all WGA is not a bad thing for what it is designed to do. The primary issue I have with it is the communication with Microsoft, and the phoning home. Last time they had a program that phoned home was Windows Media Player, which transmitted your system information as well as each and every file title/artist you played with it. The data was transmitted to a Microsoft data server and stored in a database without anyone's knowledge, until they got caught. When they got caught the were finally forced to eliminate the phoning home requirement, and it is now like all the other music players in which you can turn off the notification, since they ALL transmit information, Itunes, RealPlayer, Winamp, etc, they all do unless you turn it off. I just want the technical detaoils of WHAT is being transmitted, in the form of a sample report. They do not need to know what my system is, just that my windows is legal. That is all I care about.

Reply Score: 0

Consider the impact...
by tomcat on Sat 1st Jul 2006 18:40 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

The WGA software reportedly contacted MS servers. What kind of information did it communicate? This isn't entirely clear. So, I'm not sure you can characterize this as spyware. You have to consent to install WGA on your machine. It doesn't happen automatically.

And if you do consider this as spyware, isn't all of the update crap that you get from various vendors that ping their home planet to check on updates also spyware? I think it all boils down to the purpose and intention of the software.

Similarly, what is the impact? What kind of damages were incurred by this user? From what I can tell, there haven't been any obvious damages, other than time spent on discovering the issue and filing a lawsuit. On the surface, it has the appearance of a nuisance lawsuit; ie, a plaintiff without any real damage.

Reply Score: 1

That's Nacho OS
by Sphinx on Sat 1st Jul 2006 19:03 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

Never has been, the license everyone clicked on has stated that clearly for years. Since it's their OS, not yours, they don't have to sell it to you and you don't have to buy it. They in a fair and just world have all the right to license and restrict it as anally as they please and your only recourse as a customer is to shop somewhere else, sue, kick your heels and squeal all you want, the odds of this actually going anywhere are nil.

Reply Score: 1

RE: That's Nacho OS
by kop316 on Sat 1st Jul 2006 22:52 UTC in reply to "That's Nacho OS"
kop316 Member since:
2006-07-01

In order for me to not buy Microsoft I pretty much have to build my own Desktop, and without going to a local computer store, it is next to impossible to get a laptop without XP. Though it does say if you do not agree with the EULA, you can return it, it is next to impossible to get your money back. One person in CA had to go to small claims court in order to get his money back.

I would like to hear of a chain computer store in which you could buy a naked computer.

Reply Score: 1

As I see it.
by Dudesdad on Sun 2nd Jul 2006 17:26 UTC
Dudesdad
Member since:
2005-07-10

This is my opinion.
Microsofts actions are like the Police Dept. coming to my house and telling me that they must search my house for "stolen goods" because someone stole something. Of course the reasoning is that "If I have nothing to hide it shouldn't be a problem".
It is a problem. Your privacy IS being abused. Legal users of the software have to "phone home" to get permission to proceed any time Microsoft sees fit. The legal users suffer and the bandits still crack away.
Microsoft has never encountered a technology that they haven't tried to hijack and make their own propriety service.
They already try to keep may data hostage to the Office upgrade cycle lock-ins and file formats.
Their next "last territorial demand" will be the Internet and all pc-pc communications.
Once complete they will be selling you "Office Time" over the Internet. Pay per use will be billed as helping out the "little guy" - you know - not making him pay as much as the mean old big corporations.
Computing will be on their terms alone.
I have been using computers since the Tandy Model 4D
with 64k mem and two 360k drives was the hot ticket.
So I have been watching this progression for a long time. I don't like to be locked-in, I don't like to be anybody's "boy".

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hm
by archiesteel on Sun 2nd Jul 2006 21:12 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

True, however this still boils down a choice made by the user. Users accepted auto-install and the details in its EULA when they setup Auto Update in the first place.

Which is why Kroc said "optional-ish". It's true that the users consented, but it's also true that 99.9% of users don't read EULAs. I mean, do you?

Anyway, I think we can agree that a lot of users agree without knowing what it is they are agreeing to, and if they did, well perhaps some would choose not to agree.

But hey, if you want to defend Microsoft's view of it over the users', that's your choice.

Edited 2006-07-02 21:15

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Oh
by archiesteel on Sun 2nd Jul 2006 21:21 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

I'm not questioning that, I'm simply pointing out that class action lawsuits, by and large tend to be shams that accomplish little more than getting law firms rich with a settlement, and don't frequently result in much actually getting done apart from lining a few people's pockets.

I disagree. They're only "shams" if you you seek is a way to get rich off of a company's wrongdoing. If what you're really interested in is making sure corporations think twice about pulling the same stunts.

You're making it sound as if the corporations are frequently victims. Everyone knows it's the customer that gets shafted most of the time (even though not everyone will admit it, for obvious reasons).

Reply Score: 2

RE[10]: Hm
by archiesteel on Sun 2nd Jul 2006 22:43 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

It won't make any difference, but this is OSNews. A large portion of the visitors have personal (baseless) vendettas against MS that they use any flimsy excuse to air.

Perhaps if MS hadn't made it personal, advocates would tend to be less passionate.

"From my parents' basement I stab at thee!"

Funny stereotype (I'd see the Comic Book Guy say this), but I must say foul. Really, it would apply to pretty much all OSNews posters, be they pro-Linux or pro-MS! (Astroturfers excluded, unless you're Steve Ballmer's son!!) :-P

/Joking. Left home at 17, now 35, not Ballmer's love child.

Reply Score: 1

Astroturfers and MS spy-scams
by stormloss on Mon 3rd Jul 2006 03:37 UTC
stormloss
Member since:
2005-08-03

MS astroturfer cronies are alive and well at Osnews and other OS news sites, but hey if MS gave you a free licence or cash, would you astroturfer spam too? lol

Microsoft is behaving badly as they always have done, end of story.
Funny how their simple VMS based OS is the base of all scorn when it's Redmond Campus that need the arse whipping like the bad overgrown child it is.

Reply Score: 1