Stealth Updates are just wrong

[Kerry Brown]

After reading the many posts in this newsgroup, blogs from Microsoft, blogs
from Microsoft critics and fans, magazine articles, I have come to the
conclusion that Microsoft has overstepped the boundary of trust here. I know
they legally have the right to update files with out notice because of the
EULA. This does not excuse what they have done. They have an option to
"Never check for updates". To me this includes updates for Windows Update.
If it doesn't this should be stated clearly on that screen. The only thing
that will make this clear to them is a public outcry. Please add your
comments here for or against. It may not do any good but it will help to
keep the issue in the public eye. Please don't turn this into an
anti-Microsoft thread. Keep comments about the issue at hand and why you
think it is right or wrong. Flaming Microsoft will get the issue ignored.
Reasoned debate and comments are needed.

 

[Saucy]

After reading the many posts in this newsgroup, blogs from Microsoft,
blogs from Microsoft critics and fans, magazine articles, I have come to
the conclusion that Microsoft has overstepped the boundary of trust here.
I know they legally have the right to update files with out notice because
of the EULA. This does not excuse what they have done. They have an option
to "Never check for updates". To me this includes updates for Windows
Update. If it doesn't this should be stated clearly on that screen. The
only thing that will make this clear to them is a public outcry. Please
add your comments here for or against. It may not do any good but it will
help to keep the issue in the public eye. Please don't turn this into an
anti-Microsoft thread. Keep comments about the issue at hand and why you
think it is right or wrong. Flaming Microsoft will get the issue ignored.
Reasoned debate and comments are needed.

"Public outcry"? Have you had your coffee this morning Mr. Brown?



You can turn off automatic updating fully or partially. Here's the list:

- Install update automatically (recommended)

- Download updates but let me choose whether to install them

- Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them

- Never check for updates (not recommended)

That pretty much covers the gamut, doesn't it?

Have a nice day,
Saucy

 

[ThoraD]

I agree, I want to update what I choose, when I choose. The first time AVG
told me some of my core files had changed I nearly got a heart attack.
ThoraD

 

[Synapse Syndrome]

"Public outcry"? Have you had your coffee this morning Mr. Brown?



You can turn off automatic updating fully or partially. Here's the list:

- Install update automatically (recommended)

- Download updates but let me choose whether to install them

- Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them

- Never check for updates (not recommended)

That pretty much covers the gamut, doesn't it?

No.

ss.

 

[Tom Lake]

You can turn off automatic updating fully or partially. Here's the list:

- Install update automatically (recommended)

- Download updates but let me choose whether to install them

- Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them

- Never check for updates (not recommended)

Even if you do all that, certain files are still upgraded automatically.

Tom Lake

 

[MICHAEL]

* Kerry Brown:

After reading the many posts in this newsgroup, blogs from Microsoft, blogs
from Microsoft critics and fans, magazine articles, I have come to the
conclusion that Microsoft has overstepped the boundary of trust here. I know
they legally have the right to update files with out notice because of the
EULA. This does not excuse what they have done. They have an option to
"Never check for updates". To me this includes updates for Windows Update.
If it doesn't this should be stated clearly on that screen. The only thing
that will make this clear to them is a public outcry. Please add your
comments here for or against. It may not do any good but it will help to
keep the issue in the public eye. Please don't turn this into an
anti-Microsoft thread. Keep comments about the issue at hand and why you
think it is right or wrong. Flaming Microsoft will get the issue ignored.
Reasoned debate and comments are needed.

Bravo!!

I agree, Kerry.


-Michael

 

[Kerry Brown]

"Public outcry"? Have you had your coffee this morning Mr. Brown?



You can turn off automatic updating fully or partially. Here's the list:

- Install update automatically (recommended)

- Download updates but let me choose whether to install them

- Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them

- Never check for updates (not recommended)

That pretty much covers the gamut, doesn't it?

This update was pushed out to all Windows computers (XP and Vista for sure,
Windows Server maybe) regardless of what you had set Windows update to do.
In other words even if you had set "Never check for updates" this update was
downloaded and installed without any notification.

 

[Erwin Moller]

"Public outcry"? Have you had your coffee this morning Mr. Brown?



You can turn off automatic updating fully or partially. Here's the list:

- Install update automatically (recommended)

- Download updates but let me choose whether to install them

- Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them

- Never check for updates (not recommended)

That pretty much covers the gamut, doesn't it?

No,

I am afraid you missed the point in the discussion.
Windows Update WILL update (that is downloading AND installing a bunch
of files WITHOUT your approaval), whatever you choose from the above....
Please read around a little in this group to find many posts addressing
this behaviour.

Regards,
Erwin Moller

 

[Erwin Moller]

After reading the many posts in this newsgroup, blogs from Microsoft,
blogs from Microsoft critics and fans, magazine articles, I have come to
the conclusion that Microsoft has overstepped the boundary of trust
here. I know they legally have the right to update files with out notice
because of the EULA. This does not excuse what they have done. They have
an option to "Never check for updates". To me this includes updates for
Windows Update. If it doesn't this should be stated clearly on that
screen. The only thing that will make this clear to them is a public
outcry. Please add your comments here for or against. It may not do any
good but it will help to keep the issue in the public eye. Please don't
turn this into an anti-Microsoft thread. Keep comments about the issue
at hand and why you think it is right or wrong. Flaming Microsoft will
get the issue ignored. Reasoned debate and comments are needed.

Short answer: It is wrong.

I do have automatic updates on, but this is a matter of principle.

What would be acceptable is this:
--> WU NEVER updates itself, unless the owner of the PC has given
his/her permission to do so.
If you choose to have 'automatic updates' on, WU should be able to
update itself.

When your OS starts downloading and changing the system all by itself,
be it legal of not in some countries via EULA, is simply bad behaviour,
not to mention possible system instability.

While I cannot imagine it, but suppose a nuclear plant runs on M$
software: then that software starts updating itself without permission
of the plantowners.
This is farfetched, I admit, because no owner of a nuclear plant, in
his/her right state of mind, would pick Vista as their controlling OS.


Regards,
Erwin Moller

 

[Synapse Syndrome]

After reading the many posts in this newsgroup, blogs from Microsoft,
blogs from Microsoft critics and fans, magazine articles, I have come to
the conclusion that Microsoft has overstepped the boundary of trust here.
I know they legally have the right to update files with out notice because
of the EULA. This does not excuse what they have done. They have an option
to "Never check for updates". To me this includes updates for Windows
Update. If it doesn't this should be stated clearly on that screen. The
only thing that will make this clear to them is a public outcry. Please
add your comments here for or against. It may not do any good but it will
help to keep the issue in the public eye. Please don't turn this into an
anti-Microsoft thread. Keep comments about the issue at hand and why you
think it is right or wrong. Flaming Microsoft will get the issue ignored.
Reasoned debate and comments are needed.

I think it's great!! LOL

ss.

 

[Saucy]

This update was pushed out to all Windows computers (XP and Vista for
sure, Windows Server maybe) regardless of what you had set Windows update
to do. In other words even if you had set "Never check for updates" this
update was downloaded and installed without any notification.

Are you sure Microsoft actually did this? What update(s) specifically was
'pushed'? A lot of blanket statements get said on this newsgroups by Linux
advocates that are just way out in left field. I'm skeptical that there's
been such a mystery update.

Saucy

 

[Adam Albright]

Short answer: It is wrong.

I do have automatic updates on, but this is a matter of principle.

Another principle Microsoft conveniently overlooks; is it is MY
computer and accordingly I ultimately should have the right to decide
what software and updates of same gets installed or NOT.

Suggested viewing: "I Robot" 2004 release starting Will Smith set in
near future circa 2035 where robots have taken over many of the
mundane everyday tasks humans rather not do and nearly everybody has
one at home. These robots are governed by three laws:

#1) they cannot harm a human being or, through inaction, allow a human
being to come to harm.

#2) they must do whatever they're told by a human being as long as
such orders don't conflict with law one.

#3) they have to defend themselves as long as such defense doesn't
conflict with laws one or two.

The plot begins with the creator of these robots supposedly jumping
out a window from a high floor at the headquarters that builds these
robots. It turns out one of his robots "murdered" him by design as a
wake up call to the human race before it was too late just as a newer
version of the robots is set to take over everything and enslave the
human race.

See any parallels?

It is bad enough Microsoft already dominates the software market as
far as operating systems, preventing competition. Now they seem intent
on controlling YOUR computer as well. I don't think so. Time to pull
the plug.

 

[Kerry Brown]

Microsoft admits this was done.

http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/2007/09/13/how-windows-update-keeps-itself-up-to-date.aspx

 

[Dave Cox]

After reading the many posts in this newsgroup, blogs from
Microsoft, blogs from Microsoft critics and fans, magazine
articles, I have come to the conclusion that Microsoft has
overstepped the boundary of trust here. I know they legally have
the right to update files with out notice because of the EULA.
This does not excuse what they have done. They have an option to
"Never check for updates". To me this includes updates for Windows
Update. If it doesn't this should be stated clearly on that
screen. The only thing that will make this clear to them is a
public outcry. Please add your comments here for or against. It
may not do any good but it will help to keep the issue in the
public eye. Please don't turn this into an anti-Microsoft thread.
Keep comments about the issue at hand and why you think it is
right or wrong. Flaming Microsoft will get the issue ignored.
Reasoned debate and comments are needed.

For 90% (just my guesstimate) of the users out there........My bet is
it's better they don't know or have the option to choose what
updates should be installed.

The majority of users can barely check email let alone decide which
critical core system files should be updated.

One outdated or insecure pc can rack havoc on millions of people.

I read this group everyday and almost all the issues are self-
inflicted. People making changes trying to get Vista to function like
XP or trying to get their 5+ year old unsupported apps to work or
turning off system services or just making uneducated changes to
their system or not knowing how a simple file structure works. (I
could go on and on)

Does Vista have legitimate issues......of course it does and it
always will, just like XP still does to this day. that is why we have
updates, they must be installed....behind the scene or not.

 

[dean-dean]

This was put forth yesterday regarding Windows Update updating its own
software (updating itself) recently, to clarify concerns regarding how the
update was installed, and the lack of user input if Automatic Updates was
turned on. That is, if Automatic Updates was turned on, the update went
ahead and installed without a thumbs up or down from the user:

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/w...tion-of-windows-update-automatic-updates.aspx

http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/2007/09/13/how-windows-update-keeps-itself-up-to-date.aspx

In its history, Vista has had two such updates from the originally
installed files for Windows Update, versions 7.0.6000.374 and 7.0.6000.381.
On my computer, with Automatic Updates turned off, having "Never check for
Updates" chosen in Settings, I actually was offered a choice to install. Of
course, unless the update is installed, Windows Update won't work, at least
in terms of searching for further updates. Normal use of Windows Update, in
other words, is blocked until this update is installed.

Anyway, I clicked on Check for Updates in the Windows Update control panel
window, and it said software had to be installed before I could check for
updates, and that Windows Update would install the software, close, and then
reopen, with no changes made to my personal settings, or something to that
effect. It showed up in the history window as Windows Update software
7.0.6000.381 after I chose Install. (It can't be uninstalled).

In Vista, it updates the following System32 files to version 7.0.6000.381:

wucltux.dll
wuauclt.exe
wuaueng.dll
wups2.dll
wuapi.dll
wudriver.dll
wups.dll
wuapp.exe
wuwebv.dll

 

[Adam Albright]

For 90% (just my guesstimate) of the users out there........My bet is
it's better they don't know or have the option to choose what
updates should be installed.

The majority of users can barely check email let alone decide which
critical core system files should be updated.

Of course you're the exception, right?

ROTFLMAO!

You fanboys are a delusional bunch if anything. You pretend you are
expert and you're not. You pretend you know everything and you don't.
You constantly look down your nose at what you foolishly consider the
average user all the while you demonstrate what a klutz you are
yourself by posting nonsense in this newsgroup, just like you did now.
Amazing. Truly amazing!

Well I have more faith in my fellow human beings than you do. Duh!

One outdated or insecure pc can rack havoc on millions of people.

I read this group everyday and almost all the issues are self-
inflicted. People making changes trying to get Vista to function like
XP or trying to get their 5+ year old unsupported apps to work or
turning off system services or just making uneducated changes to
their system or not knowing how a simple file structure works. (I
could go on and on)

Pure bullshit. Tell me oh wise one how it is I that cause Windows
Explorer to choke, spin, and sputter along at 1/10th the speed of
other shells moving/copying the SAME files? Please, tell me, I'll wait
for more pearls of your "wisdom". Put your brainy answer right here
for all to see, I await you considering expertise with baited breath.

BTW, how's the weather there up on Mt. Olympus? Us mere morals never
get to walk on that hallowed ground like your Windows gods. <snicker>

Let's see, on the pompous windbag scale your post ranked an 8!

 

[Saucy]

Microsoft admits this was done.

http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/2007/09/13/how-windows-update-keeps-itself-up-to-date.aspx

Thanks for the link. I read the blog.

OK, the blog admits to the terrible crime. Maybe they shouldn't have done
that, but in my estimate it is completely inconsequential. The updater fixed
itself, no reboot required. And I think they are now aware they should have
explained it. While I empathize with the concern for privacy, but I think
there was no harm intended (quite the contrary) and this one should just be
let go ..

Saucy

 

[Adam Albright]

Microsoft admits this was done.

http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/2007/09/13/how-windows-update-keeps-itself-up-to-date.aspx

If I ever seen a statement cleared by a company's legal department,
the above is it.

Instead of dancing all around the issue Microsoft should SAY it
updated whatever. Obviously the technology is already build into
Windows with it needlessly popping up all kinds of annoying
notification messages in the bottom right corner of the desktop like
reporting unused icons on your desktop, do you want to delete them and
nagging if your want to turn on UAC if it happens to be set to off.

So updating ANYTHING on the sneak and not informing the user it
happened is at best deceptive and worse something far more sinister.
The bottom line is why does Microsoft always end up doing things
behind user's backs and then sheepishly needing to trot out some
half-ass excuse why they do it?

As with everything else, Microsoft does NOT respect it's users, their
privacy or property and yes, MY computer is MY property and it does
not belong to Microsoft to do with as they please. My computer and all
it contains is MINE to do with as I please. Wish the boys of Redmond
would learn that.

 

[norm]

"Public outcry"? Have you had your coffee this morning Mr. Brown?



You can turn off automatic updating fully or partially. Here's the list:

- Install update automatically (recommended)

- Download updates but let me choose whether to install them

- Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them

- Never check for updates (not recommended)

That pretty much covers the gamut, doesn't it?

Have a nice day,
Saucy

No, it doesn't. The updates take place regardless of user choices for
those settings. That is the crux of this issue.

 

[norm]

After reading the many posts in this newsgroup, blogs from Microsoft,
blogs from Microsoft critics and fans, magazine articles, I have come to
the conclusion that Microsoft has overstepped the boundary of trust
here. I know they legally have the right to update files with out notice
because of the EULA. This does not excuse what they have done. They have
an option to "Never check for updates". To me this includes updates for
Windows Update. If it doesn't this should be stated clearly on that
screen. The only thing that will make this clear to them is a public
outcry. Please add your comments here for or against. It may not do any
good but it will help to keep the issue in the public eye. Please don't
turn this into an anti-Microsoft thread. Keep comments about the issue
at hand and why you think it is right or wrong. Flaming Microsoft will
get the issue ignored. Reasoned debate and comments are needed.

I agree with your statement as a whole. One reason for additional
concern, in my estimation, is that there is a track record of apology
for behavior of this ilk, and then a repeat of the behavior in some form
or another.