«

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.

Steve

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
<45f479cf$0$8927$>, 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.

Old guy

(Moe Trin) writes:

>On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
><45f479cf$0$8927$>, 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, it is not a secret, it is something you agree to (well, that is
actually doubtful that you agree to it, since it is part of contract of
adhesion, and you have no opportunity to actually negotiate it, or even
know what its terms are before purchase.)
Ie, what it rather is that Microsoft Claims the right to disable any part
of the operating system at its whim. Whether this would stand up in court
is dubious, but would you want to be the one to take on Gate's billions in
a legal fight. Might makes right in this case, especially when the
govenment is totally unwilling to take on blatant and declared illegal
actions by that company.

Ie, by using and installing Vista, you have given away the keys to your
computer to MS, or to whatever other agents can determine how MS can
disable your system.

> Old guy

Unruh wrote:
> (Moe Trin) writes:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
>> <45f479cf$0$8927$>, 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, it is not a secret, it is something you agree to (well, that is
> actually doubtful that you agree to it, since it is part of contract of
> adhesion, and you have no opportunity to actually negotiate it, or even
> know what its terms are before purchase.)
> Ie, what it rather is that Microsoft Claims the right to disable any part
> of the operating system at its whim. Whether this would stand up in court
> is dubious, but would you want to be the one to take on Gate's billions in
> a legal fight. Might makes right in this case, especially when the
> govenment is totally unwilling to take on blatant and declared illegal
> actions by that company.
>
> Ie, by using and installing Vista, you have given away the keys to your
> computer to MS, or to whatever other agents can determine how MS can
> disable your system.
>
>> Old guy
Since we bought Microsoft os there is no law that says we must give
control to it. Therefore there would be nothing certainly immoral ,or
unlawful to controlling our own computers and whatever we choose to run
on them. Surely there are computer geniuses out there who want to make
few bucks by giving back control of our os and computers.

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.

Yes, there is no law that says we must give control to it.
Just do not click the Accept/OK.

Or change OS Vendors.

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.

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:06:35 -0500, Gus wrote:

> Unruh wrote:
>> (Moe Trin) writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
>>> <45f479cf$0$8927$>, 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, it is not a secret, it is something you agree to (well, that is
>> actually doubtful that you agree to it, since it is part of contract of
>> adhesion, and you have no opportunity to actually negotiate it, or even
>> know what its terms are before purchase.)
>> Ie, what it rather is that Microsoft Claims the right to disable any part
>> of the operating system at its whim. Whether this would stand up in court
>> is dubious, but would you want to be the one to take on Gate's billions in
>> a legal fight. Might makes right in this case, especially when the
>> govenment is totally unwilling to take on blatant and declared illegal
>> actions by that company.
>>
>> Ie, by using and installing Vista, you have given away the keys to your
>> computer to MS, or to whatever other agents can determine how MS can
>> disable your system.
>>
>>> Old guy
> Since we bought Microsoft os there is no law that says we must give
> control to it. Therefore there would be nothing certainly immoral ,or
> unlawful to controlling our own computers and whatever we choose to run
> on them. Surely there are computer geniuses out there who want to make
> few bucks by giving back control of our os and computers.

Good point.

"Moe Trin" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in
> article
> <45f479cf$0$8927$>, 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.
>
> Old guy

The question was serious. Thanks.

In article <uhjJh.27$>, Gus <@rockymtn.net> wrote:

--Snipped--

> Since we bought Microsoft os there is no law that says we must give
> control to it. Therefore there would be nothing certainly immoral ,or
> unlawful to controlling our own computers and whatever we choose to run
> on them. Surely there are computer geniuses out there who want to make
> few bucks by giving back control of our os and computers.

Hell, they have done it for free.

Go here and download (for free) whatever flavor of Linux suits your fancy:

http://distrowatch.com/

Take your windoze CDs back to your vendor & tell them you are rejecting the M$ license terms and you want your money back.

Gus <@rockymtn.net> writes:

>Unruh wrote:
>> (Moe Trin) writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
>>> <45f479cf$0$8927$>, 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, it is not a secret, it is something you agree to (well, that is
>> actually doubtful that you agree to it, since it is part of contract of
>> adhesion, and you have no opportunity to actually negotiate it, or even
>> know what its terms are before purchase.)
>> Ie, what it rather is that Microsoft Claims the right to disable any part
>> of the operating system at its whim. Whether this would stand up in court
>> is dubious, but would you want to be the one to take on Gate's billions in
>> a legal fight. Might makes right in this case, especially when the
>> govenment is totally unwilling to take on blatant and declared illegal
>> actions by that company.
>>
>> Ie, by using and installing Vista, you have given away the keys to your
>> computer to MS, or to whatever other agents can determine how MS can
>> disable your system.
>>
>>> Old guy
>Since we bought Microsoft os there is no law that says we must give

No, you did not buy it. You bought a license to use it. They will claim you
agreed with teh terms of that license ( and in fact you probably had to
explicitly agree to it at some point in on the initial startup).


>control to it. Therefore there would be nothing certainly immoral ,or
>unlawful to controlling our own computers and whatever we choose to run
>on them. Surely there are computer geniuses out there who want to make

Just a violation of that agreement at which point your only legal recourse
( well that is what they will claim) is to erase it from your disk and
destroy all copies you have.


>few bucks by giving back control of our os and computers.

And risk the legal wrath of Microsoft. The main ones will be the hackers
which will find out how to use the MS technique to take over your
computers. Yes, what they do is illegal, but that is not their concern.
But they will have no desire to help you get control back.