What is Digg?102 Comments
- justice7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28does that mean i can take back my age old copy of Windows95 and say i don't agree to the terms and conditions?
- volcomjerk, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31I bought it too but my WGA said it was pirated. I had to call microsoft and waste 30 minutes of my time to get it cleared up.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28Consumers should have the right to know if their software is phoning home on a daily basis.
- r00ts, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26This isn't about how Microsoft wants to stop piracy but rather the means that they've used to stop piracy.
If I wanted to stop people from stealing items from my store by inserting unremovable GPS locators in every item and not telling them about it until they opened the packaging, would you feel it was justified? - threepio, on 10/12/2007, -9/+29Here's the deal:
I bought the machine. I bought the software. *I* get to decide whether I install an update or not. I may be a bad neighbor if I don't install patches that prevent worms, but stay the hell out of my user space. I don't give a ***** if it's Apple, Microsoft, Mozilla or Corel - don't you dare update that software without my permission. - doodlebumm, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27What about the people who have legit copies, but are having problems? Still boo-f***ing-hoo?
- trunkster, on 10/12/2007, -16/+31This won't fly, they have already provided a means to remove it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13you can uncheck that wga update.. it is called critical but you can uncheck it. They have said many times in the news that it is optional.. I figure they were doing that for this reason, to judge their legal responciility before making it mandatory.
- i440, on 10/12/2007, -24/+35Linux fanboys just waiting to bash Microsoft to pieces right now are coming this way!
Brace yourselves. - mntpng, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19MS fanboys are strange. When Sony installs software on your system without telling you what it does and provide no means to uninstall it, it's a BAD thing. When Microsoft fails to disclose what a piece of software does, and it phone home every day while you have no way to uninstall it and don't have a plan to, it's GOOD thing? Did you know that when you install WGA, it will delete all the save points prior to installing WGA so that you cannot rollback your system prior to installing WGA? Did Microsoft disclose that before installing WGA? Hell no. Also come this fall, if you don't install WGA, your computer will simply stop working regardless of whether your copy of XP is legitimate or not. Gee.. What a wonderderful way to treat your customer. If you're a MS fanboy and try to defend this, you're going to look like a fool but feel free to mod this down and be that way. It's up to you.
- jaymzz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Strangely one of my three legit copies is detected as "not genuine." It's easier to hack it than to talk to M$.
I stopped caring when I realized I will never adopt Vista because you know they will only keep doing this cr@p. Hopefully I can keep using my "pirated" copy of XP long enough for Linux to work for me. - armbar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14It would work, but you ideally wouldn't want to have the software installed on your PC in the first place.
- schwit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12No doubt. If MS wants to do a check at the beginning of the install so be it. But once a legal copy has been verified that should be the end of it.
Microsoft couldn't get away with this if they weren't a monopoly. - szembek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12threepio: You do realize that you can turn auto update off and then this problem is completely non-existent right? You do get to choose when you get updates. There is no basis for a lawsuit here.
- Brett, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"and not telling them about it until they opened the packaging," The point is they do tell you about it, and if you don't want to accept the terms and conditions they offer to take the product back.
-Brett - smujeremy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9It doesn't matter if they win or not, it is all about the amount of press it gets.
The lawsuit with Ubisoft and Sony definitely caused them to straighten up and actually had some affect on things. I say sue away. - wstrucke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8just because MS or AT&T or whoever decides to put stuff in an EULA or contract does not mean it can not be challenged. Courts can and will nullify anything that is illegal, or in this case, if it interprets it as violating people's rights. I'm not saying I agree with this charge or not, but in general -- have you ever actually tried to read AND understand every word in an EULA? I am not a lawyer -- it would take me an hour to figure out some of these agreements. I just hope there are people out there like these guys that are looking for problems like this and working them out.
- jcjones, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@justice7: I'm fairly certain that by installing the software (or, in the case of OEM computers, have the software pre-installed) is grounds for accepting the EULA. Although, I agree about Windows 95! "Sir, it took you 12 years to decide you weren't going to accept the EULA? Alright, I'll get that check in the mail for you right away."
- hiscity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The more important point is whether or not others can intercept the information from WGA that's intended for Microsoft as it cross the net. Can WGA be hacked? Can it be used to locate specific computers, something like an ID tag? Can the interaction be exploited? For instance, if there is a kill-unregistered-copies feature, can the same command be used to kill legit copies. Or can nuisance messages be activated by hackers via WGA? There may be a case for a suit if it can be shown that WGA places the user community at higher risk.
- Alchemeron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7And just like the Sony rootkit lawsuit, this will NEVER reach judgement and nothing will actually change. It's not really going to stop Microsoft or anyone else from creating similar softwares.
- cezz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8i agree in that not disclosing the risks associated with installing WGA, ie erasing restore points is itself grounds for a lawsuit in my opinion. The software is blatantly erasing your data on your drive that is helpfull if not crucial to the healthy opporation of your PC. This is tantamont to a virus in my opinion (which i've seen some that do the same thing).
- JimV, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7So with this lawyer's definition, anything that comes through "AUTOMATIC" updates is illegal? I would imagine the fact that you enable automatic updates implies acceptance of any license agreement of the said updates that come through. Plus couldn't MS just say that the WGA tool is a part of their (MS's) OS?
- s0ny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5No. I manage a small computer network of Macs and Windows computers. I have ALWAYS had automatic updates disabled on our Windows Server 2003 box. Its the first thing I do when I setup the computer. Now on Monday I logged in, and what do I see in my little task bar...ooh, a yellow exclamation mark telling me updates have been downloaded and installed and I should restart my computer.
Its one thing to install something through automatic updates when people WANT automatic updates. Its another thing to forcibly change their settings and do whatever the hell you please. And if they force me to install this or force my computer to shutdown, then our whole network will soon be run on Macs. - mattwestm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I believe the EULA says that Microsoft can install software on your computer without your permission.
"2.3 Internet-Based Services Components. The Software contains components that enable and facilitate the use of certain Internet-based services. You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the Software and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the Software that will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation Computer." - szembek, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Yeah, just don't use auto-update if you don't want windows installing programs at will. If you don't care, then don't sue. This doesn't compare at all with the Sony situation.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Umm... no. Just no.
- HarleyQuinn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Applications that phone home WITHOUT your consent is not a good thing. Many of us take bandwidth for granted. Pile on hundreds of applications on millions of computers -- add that to all the spam and other crap, and it is just bad. Factor in bandwidth at large corporate networks that may still have 56k or stressed T1 pipes to remote offices. Now if Microsoft or other companies wants to start reimbursing me part of my bandwidth costs great. True, this traffic is small, but where do you draw the line.
- Niteryder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Well this needed to be done, Ballmer the market predator is annoying. Microsoft has basically hacked every ones machine and is making millions of market research as to what applications people are licensing and how those applications works. This violates the terms of which these licenses were sold under to the intended party and gives Microsoft an unfair advantage in the marketplace.
I purchased this machine with Microsoft license for its operating system, that was a good faith purchase.
It does not require me to have it checked, since it is already accounted for from time of purchase.
I also pay my service provider for the Internet connection and Microsoft does not provide me with money for that while it uses my CPU cycles to harvest informations, I does not pay for my electric bill to power those cycles, it does not pay my phone bill to provide it access.
it assumes because it generates $500 billion dollars a year that it can deny me the right of purchase, rightful and proper use under the doctrine of reasonable man, it assumes it has the right to slander and defame me with the label software pirate without show of cause or show of motive or show of misrepresented intent, because it can not.
Simply put it backdoored and hacked my property (computer), with all of its proper credentials from public place of purchase. Microsoft should immediately cease and never again engage in such behavior and congress of the United State should not be a place where it can force criminal legislation to thwart legal purchase with illegal behavior there after.
I am very disappointed that this has come to this after 38 years of computing and engineering and always working from a point of trust/trust - Butros, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Read Mark Minasi's free eBook "The Software Conspiracy" (It's a quick read trust me). It'll change the way you think about EULA's, and how the law sees software companies and their customers.
http://www.softwareconspiracy.com/ - s0ny, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Uhh, excpet that Microsoft is going to start disabling computers that dont have WGA installed. Not sure how that figures into the lawsuit but you shouldnt be able to force users to download software that was not originally installed when you purchased the software. Disable future upgrades - ok, disable windows - not ok. Thank god macs dont have to deal with this crap.
Sorry for the link to /.
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/29/1657241 - doodlebumm, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9Most EULAs are unintelligible enough to fall into this category, but this update was obviously disguised. Just look at the title of the update - "Windows Genuine Advantage." It should have been called "What-we-think-is-a-pirated-copy-of-windows system assassin."
- NospmisRemoh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The legality of what they have done may be a bit grey, but ethically this is underhanded.
It is no secret that Microsoft has had lots of security problems over the past couple of years. It used to be that you didn't need to worry about these sorts of things as long as you didn't download and run bad things. But, times have changed and some of the problems can get you by just viewing images (e.g. WMA). As a result it is generally a good idea to run auto updates so you don't have to keep up with the news stories just to survive on the internet.
There is some expectation that the stuff Microsoft puts in the auto-update is to address security concerns only. Most people don't have time or the technical ability to look at every item and decide weather or not it is a good thing they just assume security fixes must be good. Therefore sneaking something like this into auto-update is a very bad thing.
This could just as easily be some program that monitors your web activity and reports what sites you visit back to Microsoft. They could write that off as "protection" from bad websites and say that they plainly included a EULA with the web monitoring software and therefore did nothing illegal. - karelm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Even though Microsoft "fixed the daily check in" it still checks in every so often. Honestly it should only check in once when you activate you copy of windows if it is deemed a legal copy once why constantly check in. Also what other info could the WGA tool be passing to Microsoft. CPU SN, Installed apps, Hardware Config. who know personally I think that Microsoft should publish what info is pass along to them. Just my opinion.
- Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It doesn't tell you what you are installing for auto updates. Up until now, it was OK to trust Microsoft to do the right thing. Even with "Check Settings" enabled, the user must click "Advanced" to see the updates. Further information must be read in order to tell what each update does. I'm not in favor of stealing MS Windows, But Microsoft pulled a Pearl Harbor with this one.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"The only reason this piece of software would be installed automatically is if you specified that you want software updates to be installed automatically."
That's not the point. People installed it under the impression that it didn't phone home everyday. Microsoft has an obligation to inform people when software phones home or deletes system restore points. I never saw a EULA when WGA was installed on my system. Now we findout they might turn off your system if you don't download WGA.
"Surely by choosing to keep your copy of windows updated, you've agreed to ensure that the copy of windows on your machine is current and up to date, and if the most current and up to date version of windows include WGA, then where has the crime been committed?"
That is one of the most ridiculous assertion I've read. You make it sound like there is an obligation to run Windows update, which there isn't. Even if there was that does not excuse Microsoft from it's responsibility to properly information people installing these updates what will be done to their system. I am sure that had Microsoft announced that WGA phones home everyday and deletes System Restore points for dates piror to its installation people probably would have opted not to install it. Especially since past versions have been fairly innocuous. Lets not forget the possible of Microsoft shutting people off if they don't install this or if a pirate copy is detected (some of which have been errorneous). - wallclimber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1by piratearggghhh:
"...It doesn't report you to the government, it doesn't install something that opens up a vulnerability like the root kit fiasco, etc."
============================================
Just curious, but how do you KNOW it doesn't do these things? I'd say it very likely does open up a vulnerability...it just hasn't been exploited yet.
Time will tell. People have been watching for a "tipping point" where MS products will begin to lose their massive hold on the world's computers. This may well be it. I am hopeful.
I don't want to see MS disappear, and I don't care if people choose to use Windows, but I do want to see more OS choices available from PC makers, and more competition. Oh yes, and more cross platform, standard formats so it won't matter anymore what OS a person or business uses, they can still share information with each other. I just want to see a better balance.
A better balance and more competition won't happen until MS does something to shake up the average user...
...after this fiasco, there could be a whole lotta shakin' goin' on very soon :) - joshjoneswas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yea. I predicted the lawyers must have been on them when I read the Digg posting yesterday on MS issuing directions to disable WGA. I love it!
- xst4t1kx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There have been plenty of people that have had various issues with windows and their means of validation. If/when this happens plenty of legit copies of windows will probably get locked down but there will also be plenty of people doing damage control to help as many as possible convert to non-MS operating systems.
- Smily, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@thebritt
where is that? system32? - piratearggghhh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Because I've been to Redmond and spoken directly with MS Windows security engineers in depth for my research. They collect aggregate data to see what are the hot spots in terms of piracy, often times using geniune advantage. The biggest security threat is not the everyday user but illegal foreign duplication plants that have ways to get legit serial numbers (which I can't discuss). A lot of this stuff is overblown and they're aware that being too aggressive with anti-piracy can hurt them if they're targeting the general public. At the same time, they're just trying to protect their IP, which every business does. The company that has way more personal info IMO is google.
- jwoelich, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2How does WGA fall into an "upgrade or fix" category? What's it "upgrading"? What's it "fixing"?
- Winters, on 10/12/2007, -14/+15Ahh who cares, I'm glad they are getting heat for it. I wish I could digg this twice. Hah
- NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10That's like saying, "I shot someone, but I patched the hole real good, so you can't charge me!"
- Hubris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As someone who deals with HP on a lot of hardware, when our company replaces 'all the parts' in a device and it fails to work, we usually engage HP to do a warranty replacement. It's a judgement call, but it does happen.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Microsoft's Jim Desler seems to be a bit of a dolt.
First, spyware, by definition, is not always maliscious. However, it does seek to monitor system status or "activity."
The Microsoft software does not do this. Checking to see if you have a valid license is not spying on you.
"Second, WGA installs without the user's consent if automatic updates are turned on, which is MS's recommended (and I believe default) setting."
If you've turned on automatic updates, you've waived your consent right.
"Last, WGA doesn't simply seek to inform the user if his copy of Windows is not properly licensed. It seeks to keep the user from applying updates."
How is this even relevent to spyware? - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Generally its difficult doing anything through the means microsoft provides on their tech website.
Eg. Old system HD on new motherboard:
Solution: Change IDE drivers to "standard" before swapping motherboard
MS Solution: "Try using a motherboard of the same type as the original machine" (wha?)
Eg. WGA notifications
Solution: Run the WGA remover program available from some anti WGA sites.
MS Solution: 3 page long registry editing process that would possibly razz the registry of anyone who didn't know exactly what they were doing. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's "fixing" piracy.
- PsyX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If I want my computer, which runs a legit version of XP Pro, to not recieve the WGA update or any updates from Microsoft for that matter, then that's my choice. I have purchased the software from the manufacturer. As long as I don't disassemble the code or steal the code, they have absolutely no say in what I choose to install on it.
Besides, if you never installed the WGA in the first place, how is the WGA to act as a power switch ?
Seems more like a scare tactic than anything else. - Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Microsoft's Jim Desler seems to be a bit of a dolt.
First, spyware, by definition, is not always maliscious. However, it does seek to monitor system status or activity.
Second, WGA installs without the user's consent if automatic updates are turned on, which is MS's recommended (and I believe default) setting.
Last, WGA doesn't simply seek to inform the user if his copy of Windows is not properly licensed. It seeks to keep the user from applying updates.
Why do they let people who are so uninformed speak on behalf of the Company?
I'm not advocating Microsoft be forced to allow users to deploy their software for free. But on the other hand, we're not all stupid, and many resent half-truths and misinformation. -
Show 51 - 100 of 102 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is