What is Digg?137 Comments
- potato23, on 10/12/2007, -1/+45The problem is that it's not like they would give you an OPTION of allowing them to spy on you or not, it would just be agreeing to the terms of the software you just bought. Who is going to buy microsoft office and then click the 'deny' button on the user agreement? If you click that button it doesn't install the software.
And the fact that nobody reads the user agreements simply adds to the unfairness of the situation. Some people may never know they're being monitored/censored/spied on until it's too late. Your problem or not, it's still taking advantage of the average user. - phpirate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+43Removing privacy, to get privacy?
- deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -2/+41That makes it doubleplusgood.
- lico05, on 10/12/2007, -0/+29With a name like "Computer Spyware Protections Act" I bet it'll get somewhere. People are more interested in the name of Bill, rather than it's contents. Just like voter propositions.
- radixus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24What company, government, organized group doesn't want to get access to your private information.
But honestly I don't think I will ever hold up. - DannyPage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24>People are more interested in the name of the Bill, rather than it's contents. Just like voter propositions.
Or Digg Articles. - 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24> OBKenobi wrote: "If this bill passes, I'm (going to) ... become a freedom fighter in the South American jungles."
Why not consider becoming a freedom fighter here in the United States. I'm beginning to think that we need it more. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24If this bill passes, I'm switching to Linux. Or OS X. If that doesn't work, I'll give up technology permanently and become a freedom fighter in the South American jungles. Drug smuggling is a more honorable profession than what MS is doing! Way to go, MS!
Is this why the US government has protected MS so much over the years, giving them only a token slap on the wrist for their past anti-competitive crimes just to quiet the critics?
The US government wants a corporation in charge that's willing to play along with the agenda of the US government. Europeans, Asians and other "foreigners" and "terrorists," I suggest you reconsider how reliant you should be on software made by monopolistic corporations such as Microsoft. - BrokenClock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17It's already being passed in California. Gov. Schwarzenegger is expected to sign it into law soon.
- xalax, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I hope they at least lube the fingers before they jam it in my butt
- hunchback, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Where do you want to go today? (nevermind, wherever it is, we'll know ...)
- 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Haven't we seen this logic before? It's the same as the "removing freedom in order to keep freedom" logic used by the government to justify what they call the w4r 0n t3rr0r.
In any event, this is nothing a halfway decent firewall won't handle. They can't have what they can't get. - J6stik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I'm sure that if people start hearing about how Microsoft can see all of their internet traffic by using Office, then all of the people that care about that will just switch to Open Office or some other opensource suite/program. I think Microsoft is smart enough to think that far ahead and realize that would probably be a bad idea.
- fishymusic1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Bill Gates, the anti-Christ...
- kevinmoore, on 06/13/2009, -2/+12The article mentions Apple too, but you probably didn't read that far (or chose to ignore it).
- p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15That's exactly what 'Macrosoft' needs. Abusing their consumers anew.
Hackers - start your engines! - syowr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Does it explicitly state that clicking "I Accept" to and EULA does not = clear and conspicuous consent? If not you are gonna get bent over by this law.
I say you because I don't live in the U.S.
However I still find it fun to watch your Govt get walked about by the nose by all these "special interest" groups (aka: corps buying politicans votes). - deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"Windows XP is actually extremey secure"
No. The Win32 API is riddled with flaws that allow easy buffer overflow, among other things.
http://www.google.com/search?q=win32 api insecure
Note: There should be pluses between the search terms, but for some time now, Digg strips 's. Do we need to escape pluses for them to show up? - OneZeroZeroOne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10God, are people this stupid?
It starts out as having to give consent for them to do it.
Then in 5 years another bill comes down the line, that eases the restrictions. ie: in the name of fighting terrorism, any company that has installed this kind of "service" on your computer is authorized and, in fact, mandated to disclose any "suspicious" information or activity to the government.
Before long every piece of MS software comes bundled with this "service" and a single, bloated EULA. "In order to use any part of this software you must agree to the entire EULA."
Since we've come this far, well, why not mandate that ALL pieces of software contain these types of "services." In fact, why not mandate that ALL electronic devices be capable of dumping a log of everything the user has ever done with them?
You know what? Road rage is very dangerous and scary...every vehicle must now be equiped with internal video cameras and emotion detectors. If extreme emotion is detected, a video feed of you is captured and forwarded to the local police so that you can be prosecuted for losing your temper while driving.
The slippery slope then gets even more slippery and most of it starts with "If you don't have anything to hide, then you shouldn't have any problem with this..." which is complete *****.
Please, stand up for your rights. - Saintlink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Give away privacy for "protection"? How about 'hell no?!
- richiejp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"But what can we do? Not buy software from now on?".
I think your on to something there. - mikm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12No, it is not. The article says that any activity would only be allowed with explicit user consent.
If you give police consent to search your house, you can't argue that they violated your 4th amendment rights when they find marijuana in your dresser. - TheRepublic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8It's true Symantec purchased Sygate, thus the complete deletion of the Sygate firewall entirely.
- tijer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I love the way you guys elect representatives that ignore the constitution on a daily basis - while still complaining that your rights are being violated.
Who cares if its against the constitution? - mighty_mouth, on 10/12/2007, -11/+19I think it will hold up. It's not like the bill allows MS or Comcast or BigEvilCorporation to spy on you or search your computer without your permission. *You have to give your permission* before they can do it. Where's the problem with that?
[And, yes, I know that no one actually reads the gobbledygook that they call EULAs. But if you don't read it, it's YOUR problem, not BigEvilCorporation's problem.] - dWhisper, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12My favorite part is that fact that the reporter shows off his bias by tossing it in there... there's no actual evidence that this is a Microsoft lobby at all. He might have well used M$ throughout. This would apply just as much to ISP's, security companies, corporate software marketers (even open source ones), and just about anyone else that tossed together an EULA. Articles about "what could" happen are about as factual as a he-said she-said exchange in a blog.
Microsoft has done a lot of stupid things over the years, but they are not the root of all computer evil. I'm getting tired of these articles that toss them in there to try and make a point. - BrokenClock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Sygate was bought by Symantec.
- Gyga, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I understand quantum physics now. Invasion of Privacy = privacy. 2=1. The earth is flat. It all makes sense.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9:::shameless Linux plug:::
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7im thinking seriously about joining the pirate party... its seems that all the parties involved in these schemes whether its government or bigevil corp have big incentives to spy on everything that moves.
- 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Interesting comment...you accuse digg people of going overboard by responding without reading the article - I DID read the article, and most of the responses here are with merit. I didn't, however, see any contribution from you that would substantiate your criticism. Care to elaborate?
- VStrider, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Posted by astrotrain:
"Make sure you have your firewalls up and set to notify you about ANY outbound traffic. ;)"
You're silly. Where do you think your firewall gets the traffic information? That's right, it uses microsoft routines or polls microsoft's version of netstat. If they want to hide something, they can. It doesn't matter if you're using your latest symantit morton or zonewarner l773 edition.
But yeah, MS wouldn't do that since anyone could see the source and ...oh, wait! - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9>No, it is not. The article says that any activity would only be allowed with explicit user consent
right. exactly. it will ask, "if you want to get your work done today so you can get paid and keep your family out of the poor house-please click on the "accept button." - 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@Vstrider -> You're silly. Where do you think your firewall gets the traffic information? That's right, it uses microsoft routines or polls microsoft's version of netstat.
There is winpcap, which is an open-source packet capture library, that can be used in conjunction with other software, like snort. Fortunately, this is something over which Microsoft has no control. - Genma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6just another example of officials using criminals to justify their own criminal acts. never fail to jump on a chance to gain more control when you can scare the people into giving up more of their rights. the fact that the house is even considering this is ridiculous, how low can they go. someone please explain to me how they can logically do a damn thing about malware by having access to our files and traffic. woops false positive, sorry we just found some mp3s and videos, answer the door your subpoena is on the way, carry on nothing to see here...
this reminds me of peter griffin buying volcano insurance - they'll be writing on the bottom, he's signing it, he's signing it, I can't believe he's signing it... - Woodpecker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Heh. I don't think it would matter if it was in violation of the constitution. If the people here in the US were a bit less apathetic about that document, Bush would be in the middle of impeachment trials. As it is, it'll go through, and only a small percentage of the population will know or care. But what can we do? Not buy software from now on?
- roguepixel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yeah but I am wondering, you gotta give them permisson by clicking the "accept button" but how many sites & services shaft you by not allowing you to use their product if you dont agree with the legal stuffs. I have no intention on letting people in to my computer files, and I shall be royally pissed if you don't get a choice when it comes to using the software.
- J6stik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9It took me a second to realize what you were referencing to, but when I got it, it made me laugh. :)
(It's from 1984, in case anyone else cares.) - mtrip, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You ever notice you can get at the true intentions of things these days by just inverting their meaning? "Computer Spyware Protections Act" "Patriot Act". etc...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Will they ever realize that they are supposed to be working for the people?
Forwarded to the EFF. - andburn1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5At least when Google's going to spy on you, the user agreement has a great big red "READ THIS, ITS NOT THE USUAL YADDA YADDA," and then has how theyll use it, and why they want it, then a link to the privacy policy and then a spy on me or dont spy on me button. The software installs regardless. Im always so pleased about how upfront and polite they are that I let them spy on me.
- 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4FTA: “The goal of this is not to allow any company to go through and scan your computer,” Jolley said. “If they are, it has to be for a specific purpose. If you don’t want them doing that, don’t agree to (the user’s agreement).”
Not a problem...rest assured that only an idiot would agree to such terms.
Let's extend this - let's have manufacturers make us sign similar agreements, so that they can send jackbooted thugs by periodically to make sure that we aren't "misusing" our property.
I get the feeling that certain companies have a very real level of contempt for the very source of their existence - their customers. I'm amazed that they'd try something like this, but then, I'll be even more amazed if people let them get away with it. - mlingojones, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Microsoft trying to violate my privacy? I'm shocked!
- mctk, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Here's the full article.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:Dpl-DbJAIc0J:webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2005-06HB/HB2083_int.rtf %22computer spyware protection act%22 Oklahoma&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a
FUD, anyone? From the act:
"Notifies the authorized user and obtains clear and conspicuous consent before undertaking the action or providing the service."
According to the article, MS could read anything on your hard drive. Sure, but unless you granted them "clear and conspicious consent" to do that, they themselves would be violating this very law. - Tufriast, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Uh, clear and conspicious consent: we run your computer, and therefore have right to look at yer stuffs.
I think they've even used that line before when trying to use their "Windows Genuine Advantage" program crap.
I am just sick of companies doing things like this these days, really...M$ doesn't give two rips about security, otherwise it'd be the most secure OS out there. They do not lack the funds to make security, privacy, or anything else doable. They care about making money.
So stop thinking businesses will protect you. Because they never have, and never will. - JWood, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You can if they don't have a warrant and you don't give them permission.
- forgeflow, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13Its crap like this that will push more and more people to choose Linux as their OS.
- DougPenn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Riiight, that must be why RIAA is serving lawsuit after lawsuit to people who share music on their drives. And the MPAA is serving cable providers with cease and desist orders for their customers who torrented movies and TV shows.
- jabon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Is Microsoft trying to drive people to Linux?
- kloud213, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Is it just me or couldnt we just stick with XP to avoid this, never install another service pack and be done with it. i know im not gonna get vista till it's at least out for a year. and if your really that unhappy go to linux or mac.... or goto law school and do something about it.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 131 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is