Windows Defender whitelisting certain spyware ?

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Steve H., Mar 11, 2007.

  1. Steve H.

    Steve H. Guest

    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
    Steve H., Mar 11, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Steve H.

    Moe Trin Guest

    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, Mar 12, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Steve H.

    Unruh Guest

    (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, Mar 12, 2007
    #3
  4. Steve H.

    Gus Guest

    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.
    Gus, Mar 12, 2007
    #4
  5. Steve H.

    Bit Twister Guest

    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, Mar 12, 2007
    #5
  6. 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.
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Mar 12, 2007
    #6
  7. Steve H.

    traveller 66 Guest

    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.
    traveller 66, Mar 12, 2007
    #7
  8. Steve H.

    Steve H. Guest

    "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.
    Steve H., Mar 13, 2007
    #8
  9. 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.
    George Orwell, Mar 13, 2007
    #9
  10. Steve H.

    Unruh Guest

    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.
    Unruh, Mar 13, 2007
    #10
  11. Steve H.

    Unruh Guest

    Sebastian Gottschalk <> 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.
    Unruh, Mar 13, 2007
    #11
  12. 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.
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Mar 13, 2007
    #12
  13. "Unruh" <> wrote in message
    news:et4coa$55n$...
    > (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, 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...
    Private Equity, Mar 13, 2007
    #13
  14. Steve H.

    Unruh Guest

    "Private Equity" <> writes:


    >"Unruh" <> wrote in message
    >news:et4coa$55n$...
    >> (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, 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.
    Unruh, Mar 13, 2007
    #14
  15. Steve H.

    Moe Trin Guest

    On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
    <45f5ffb7$0$28167$>, Steve H. wrote:

    >"Moe Trin" <> 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
    Moe Trin, Mar 13, 2007
    #15
  16. 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.
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Mar 13, 2007
    #16
  17. Steve H.

    Ron Lopshire Guest

    Moe Trin wrote:

    > On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
    > <45f5ffb7$0$28167$>, Steve H. wrote:
    >
    >>"Moe Trin" <> 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/2007/03/09/ms_wga_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 :)
    Ron Lopshire, Mar 14, 2007
    #17
  18. Steve H.

    Moe Trin Guest

    On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
    <W8TJh.127291$>, 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/2007/03/09/ms_wga_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
    Moe Trin, Mar 14, 2007
    #18
  19. 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.
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Mar 14, 2007
    #19
  20. Steve H.

    Ron Lopshire Guest

    Moe Trin wrote:

    > On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
    > <W8TJh.127291$>, 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 :)
    Ron Lopshire, Mar 15, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Au79
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    467
    Leythos
    Jan 28, 2007
  2. jabloomf1230

    Defender thinks nVidia file is spyware

    jabloomf1230, Sep 10, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,654
    Tony Sperling
    Sep 10, 2006
  3. Brian W
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    15,200
    Chris M
    Jan 31, 2010
  4. Texas Smoke

    Windows Defender/ unable to remove unwanted spyware

    Texas Smoke, Jun 30, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,906
  5. dfinc
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    403
    dfinc
    May 1, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page