Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Security > Windows Defender whitelisting certain spyware ?

Reply
Thread Tools

Windows Defender whitelisting certain spyware ?

 
 
Unruh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-13-2007
Sebastian Gottschalk <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>Bit Twister wrote:


>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:06:35 -0500, Gus wrote:
>>
>>> Since we bought Microsoft os there is no law that says we must give
>>> control to it.

>>
>> Next time you get your updates and are provided with the popup to
>> accept the licence, READ IT.
>>
>> When you click Accept/OK, Micro$not gets to do whatever terms YOU
>> agreed/Accepted.


>Maybe you should learn to differ between clicking the OK button of a
>primitive text and lawfully agreeing to some Terms Of Service. Not even
>mentioning that signing a contract is something beyond.


It is of course a nice legal point. Whether or not you will be willing to
fund a court challenge on the legality of that contract against the MS
lawyers is probably the key question.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Sebastian Gottschalk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-13-2007
Unruh wrote:

>>> Next time you get your updates and are provided with the popup to
>>> accept the licence, READ IT.
>>>
>>> When you click Accept/OK, Micro$not gets to do whatever terms YOU
>>> agreed/Accepted.

>
>>Maybe you should learn to differ between clicking the OK button of a
>>primitive text and lawfully agreeing to some Terms Of Service. Not even
>>mentioning that signing a contract is something beyond.

>
> It is of course a nice legal point. Whether or not you will be willing to
> fund a court challenge on the legality of that contract against the MS
> lawyers is probably the key question.


Even under such strange legislation like in the US, a contract is only made
with the seller of the software at the time of buying. Anything afterwards
is at best meaningless, at worst an illegal trial of changing the content
of the contract afterwards.

After all, you won't have to face any MS lawyer. Microsoft is fully aware
that their EULA is utter bullshit, their intend rather is to fear people
with it. People believing in the validity of the EULA will usually care for
not violating it, and it's in Microsoft best interest to not educate them
that the EULA is unenforcable.

Indeed, you have to differ between an EULA and some Terms Of Services. The
latter, if agreed on, actually becomes part of the contract until you
sucessfully sue against it. When software is bought online, the presented
EULA might actually be some valid ToS.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Private Equity
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-13-2007

"Unruh" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:et4coa$55n$(E-Mail Removed)...
> http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Moe Trin) writes:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in
>>article
>><45f479cf$0$8927$(E-Mail Removed)>, Steve H. wrote:

>
>>>Someone on another BBS I'm on declared that Microsoft might secretly
>>>whitelist certain spyware companies. This is total BS, right ? I cannot
>>>imagine Microsoft doing this and the resulting scandal.

>
>>This is a troll, right? You've had your head up-and-locked and haven't
>>bothered to read the End User License Agreement that _you_ agreed to when
>>you got windoze, and haven't bothered to know what the words "Digital
>>Rights Management" mean. That's funny.

> ...
>>In case you're not trolling, point your news reader to the news groups
>>"alt.privacy" and "alt.spyware". Or just hit google and find a copy of
>>the microsoft EULA - or pick up any computer magazine and find the
>>discussion about the spyware - it's not called that, because you agreed
>>that microsoft has the right to install it and can do anything they want
>>with the information they get from your computer.

>
>
> Ie, by using and installing Vista, you have given away the keys to your
> computer to MS...


and we actually have to PAY Microsoft to take away our User Rights?!
shouldn't Microsoft pay us for that? Many companies pay me for my
information...


 
Reply With Quote
 
Unruh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-13-2007
"Private Equity" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:


>"Unruh" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:et4coa$55n$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> (E-Mail Removed) (Moe Trin) writes:
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in
>>>article
>>><45f479cf$0$8927$(E-Mail Removed)>, Steve H. wrote:

>>
>>>>Someone on another BBS I'm on declared that Microsoft might secretly
>>>>whitelist certain spyware companies. This is total BS, right ? I cannot
>>>>imagine Microsoft doing this and the resulting scandal.

>>
>>>This is a troll, right? You've had your head up-and-locked and haven't
>>>bothered to read the End User License Agreement that _you_ agreed to when
>>>you got windoze, and haven't bothered to know what the words "Digital
>>>Rights Management" mean. That's funny.

>> ...
>>>In case you're not trolling, point your news reader to the news groups
>>>"alt.privacy" and "alt.spyware". Or just hit google and find a copy of
>>>the microsoft EULA - or pick up any computer magazine and find the
>>>discussion about the spyware - it's not called that, because you agreed
>>>that microsoft has the right to install it and can do anything they want
>>>with the information they get from your computer.

>>
>>
>> Ie, by using and installing Vista, you have given away the keys to your
>> computer to MS...


>and we actually have to PAY Microsoft to take away our User Rights?!
>shouldn't Microsoft pay us for that? Many companies pay me for my
>information...


Try it. Send them a bill.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Moe Trin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-13-2007
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
<45f5ffb7$0$28167$(E-Mail Removed)>, Steve H. wrote:

>"Moe Trin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote


>> Steve H. wrote:


>>>Someone on another BBS I'm on declared that Microsoft might secretly
>>>whitelist certain spyware companies. This is total BS, right ? I cannot
>>>imagine Microsoft doing this and the resulting scandal.


>> In case you're not trolling, point your news reader to the news groups
>> "alt.privacy" and "alt.spyware". Or just hit google and find a copy of
>> the microsoft EULA


>The question was serious. Thanks.


Sorry - didn't mean to kick over the ant-hill, but the bottom line is
that you need to read the EULA, and then figure out if that agreement
is what you want. You may be thinking about the stink that was raised
when Sony was caught installing spyware in late 2005 (google for the
key "Sony+spyware" if you've forgotten). The difference in the Sony
case was that there was no notice, and no consent of any kind. Microsoft
is also a major player in the Digital Rights Management arena, and the
difference is that they tell you they are doing this - but few people
bother to read the agreements they are accepting when they install or
update their windoze computers.

Not reading agreements is fairly common. Few people read (let alone
understand) the contracts for such things as the loans used to buy cars
or houses, and even the relatively straight-forward agreement for starting
telephone, electrical or water service at their residence, renting a car,
or shipping a package (or person) across a state line.

Old guy
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sebastian Gottschalk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-13-2007
Moe Trin wrote:

> Microsoft is also a major player in the Digital Rights Management arena, and the
> difference is that they tell you they are doing this


or not. Par example they don't tell you that DRM updates may also
restrict/disable your ability to play non-DRMed content. Or that DRMed
content allows any distributor to delete all your files. But that's how
it's implemented.

> Not reading agreements is fairly common.


Indeed, but also for the competent people. They know that this entire EULA
is void, not even partially being any kind of agreement. And clicking the
OK butten merely is a step in getting the software installed and running,
nothing more.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Lopshire
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-14-2007
Moe Trin wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
> <45f5ffb7$0$28167$(E-Mail Removed)>, Steve H. wrote:
>
>>"Moe Trin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote

>
>>>Steve H. wrote:

>
>>>>Someone on another BBS I'm on declared that Microsoft might secretly
>>>>whitelist certain spyware companies. This is total BS, right ? I cannot
>>>>imagine Microsoft doing this and the resulting scandal.

>
>>>In case you're not trolling, point your news reader to the news groups
>>>"alt.privacy" and "alt.spyware". Or just hit google and find a copy of
>>>the microsoft EULA

>
>>The question was serious. Thanks.

>
> Sorry - didn't mean to kick over the ant-hill, but the bottom line is
> that you need to read the EULA, and then figure out if that agreement
> is what you want. You may be thinking about the stink that was raised
> when Sony was caught installing spyware in late 2005 (google for the
> key "Sony+spyware" if you've forgotten). The difference in the Sony
> case was that there was no notice, and no consent of any kind. Microsoft
> is also a major player in the Digital Rights Management arena, and the
> difference is that they tell you they are doing this - but few people
> bother to read the agreements they are accepting when they install or
> update their windoze computers.


I am sure that MS has their collective asses covered by their EULAs, but
I still consider these to be /dirty tricks/.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03...a_phones_home/

http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/431032

No one would expect that clicking on Cancel would establish an internet
connection. MS has responded that it is no big deal.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3c8exj

The information that is sent, of course, is not the issue. Being above
board is.

Ron
 
Reply With Quote
 
Moe Trin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-14-2007
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
<W8TJh.127291$(E-Mail Removed) ink.net>, Ron Lopshire wrote:

>Moe Trin wrote:


>> Sorry - didn't mean to kick over the ant-hill, but the bottom line is
>> that you need to read the EULA, and then figure out if that agreement
>> is what you want. You may be thinking about the stink that was raised
>> when Sony was caught installing spyware in late 2005 (google for the
>> key "Sony+spyware" if you've forgotten). The difference in the Sony
>> case was that there was no notice, and no consent of any kind. Microsoft
>> is also a major player in the Digital Rights Management arena, and the
>> difference is that they tell you they are doing this - but few people
>> bother to read the agreements they are accepting when they install or
>> update their windoze computers.

>
>I am sure that MS has their collective asses covered by their EULAs,


They have lots of lawyers to make it not worth your time/expense to try to
get them into court

>but I still consider these to be /dirty tricks/.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03...a_phones_home/
>
> http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/431032
>
>No one would expect that clicking on Cancel would establish an internet
>connection. MS has responded that it is no big deal.


Yeah, I'm waiting for the next virus du Jour to go through and reset the
WGA "globally unique identifiers (GUIDs)" code so that it returns some
specific number for every system it infects. Microsoft then discovers
that all the systems calling home have the same serial numbers - must be
pirated copies, so disable them all!!! Anyone want to start a betting
pool of when this is going to happen? You _know_ that microsoft is
aware of the possibility and has some additional mechanism hidden in the
code to try to alleviate the resulting disaster. Hope everyone has good
backups. Hope everyone else has read the EULA and realizes that microsoft
is under NO obligation to anyone who has installed windoze or _any_
application, other than to return the purchase price when you return the
software in an undamaged condition. If any of your data is suddenly toast,
that's tough bananas. Virus damage is explicitly listed as voiding even
that "warranty".

>The information that is sent, of course, is not the issue. Being above
>board is.


Hey - they put the information in the privacy statements. Is it _their_
fault that no one reads the statements? I _was_ going to clean the
heads on my VCR by sticking into the washing machine until I found the
warning in the user guide not to get it wet. I guess that means I've got
to send it out to the dry cleaners. Sure glad I read that user guide
from cover to cover.

Old guy
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sebastian Gottschalk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-14-2007
Moe Trin wrote:

> Yeah, I'm waiting for the next virus du Jour to go through and reset the
> WGA "globally unique identifiers (GUIDs)" code so that it returns some
> specific number for every system it infects. Microsoft then discovers
> that all the systems calling home have the same serial numbers - must be
> pirated copies, so disable them all!!! Anyone want to start a betting
> pool of when this is going to happen?


Eh... what about those people who used a generated key with their
legitimate Windows installation? They already have problems with WGA. And
Microsoft is to blame, since they intentionally broke the Windows
installation after it already successfully installed and worked with the
generated key. Simply illegal behaviour of Microsoft.

> Hope everyone else has read the EULA and realizes that microsoft
> is under NO obligation to anyone who has installed windoze or _any_
> application, other than to return the purchase price when you return the
> software in an undamaged condition. If any of your data is suddenly toast,
> that's tough bananas. Virus damage is explicitly listed as voiding even
> that "warranty".


I didn't bother to read the EULA, since I know that I don't have to care.
It is void in any case, and especially Microsoft is bound to local law
which states that even if their EULA was an actual contract they'd still be
liable to damages from really serious software bugs. Like an update
intentionally risking to deactivate the entire Windows installation.

>>The information that is sent, of course, is not the issue. Being above
>>board is.

>
> Hey - they put the information in the privacy statements. Is it _their_
> fault that no one reads the statements?


At the time of installation, their privacy statement didn't contain any
such information. Their official documentation didn't either.

And no, they can't change it afterwards. This, if they decide that WGA
might phone home, they have to inform me before the fact.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Lopshire
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2007
Moe Trin wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
> <W8TJh.127291$(E-Mail Removed) ink.net>, Ron Lopshire wrote:
>
>>Moe Trin wrote:

>
>>The information that is sent, of course, is not the issue. Being above
>>board is.

>
> Hey - they put the information in the privacy statements. Is it _their_
> fault that no one reads the statements? I _was_ going to clean the
> heads on my VCR by sticking into the washing machine until I found the
> warning in the user guide not to get it wet. I guess that means I've got
> to send it out to the dry cleaners. Sure glad I read that user guide
> from cover to cover.


LOL. Thanks for your thoughts, Moe.

These guys evidently read the EULA and decided to pass, at least until
they understand it. [bg]

U.S. Government Agencies Banning Microsoft Vista

http://www.nist.org/news.php?extend.215

One of my favorite disclaimers is for Mold & Mildew Cleaners:

"Use only in well-ventilated areas ..."

If it were well-ventilated, there would not be any mold and mildew in
the first frickin' place.

Ron
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Windows Vista cannot obtain an IP address from certain routers or from certain non-Microsoft DHCP Brian W Wireless Networking 7 01-31-2010 03:46 AM
remove Win pc Defender rogue spyware dfinc Cisco 0 05-01-2009 05:13 AM
Windows Defender/ unable to remove unwanted spyware Texas Smoke Computer Support 3 06-30-2007 06:52 PM
Anti-Spyware Rival Slams Microsoft's Windows Defender, Vista Au79 Computer Support 4 01-28-2007 01:27 AM
Defender thinks nVidia file is spyware jabloomf1230 Windows 64bit 3 09-10-2006 11:04 AM



Advertisments