Stealth Updates are just wrong

[Richard Urban]

Updating Windows Update *via* Windows Update would be like trying to change
the oil in a car while driving it 65 MPH.

It just doesn't bother me at all.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

 

[Frank]

Adam Albright wrote:

My computer and all

it contains is MINE to do with as I please.

-------------------------------------------------------
I agree with all you've said except the above statement is simply not
factually correct. I can understand an individual, such as yourself,
with only one install, making that claim albeit not true.
Companies, with volume license agreements (such as we are) are subject
to unannounced, on site, license audits as clearly stated in our agreements.
I know of no IP that is mass produced for public consumption having a
license that grants the purchaser full ownership. Usage rights yes of
course, but not ownership.
The digital world we now live in has made that not possible.
Frank

 

[Paul Randall]

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

If this one is just 'let go', isn't that an invitation for malware designers
to use and enhance the technique? Kind of like enabling malware or a
malware tutorial?

-Paul Randall

 

[jonathan perreault]

same here, that's why i sometimes think we should sue for compensation but
that just my opinion

--
Jonathan Perreault

Personnal Advice To You:
#1: Do Not Undermine Windows's Work, Or It'll Undermine You As A User.
#2: Torture Windows (Any) Now Before It Tortures You

Best Comments From Users:
No Matter The Problem Even With Linux, It's Microsoft's And Windows's Faults

A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely
foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

 

[Synapse Syndrome]

Adam Albright wrote:

My computer and all

-------------------------------------------------------
I agree with all you've said except the above statement is simply not
factually correct. I can understand an individual, such as yourself, with
only one install, making that claim albeit not true.
Companies, with volume license agreements (such as we are) are subject to
unannounced, on site, license audits as clearly stated in our agreements.
I know of no IP that is mass produced for public consumption having a
license that grants the purchaser full ownership. Usage rights yes of
course, but not ownership.
The digital world we now live in has made that not possible.

Oh my God. Frank. Are you feeling okay? Have you been taking drugs?

ss.

 

[Frank]

Oh my God. Frank. Are you feeling okay? Have you been taking drugs?

ss.

:-D
Frank

 

[mayayana]

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.

That's open to debate.

The only thing
that will make this clear to them is a public outcry.

In 1999 it was discovered that Microsoft was reading
Reg. info. from the Win98 Registry when people visited
Windows Update. After a public outcry, MS promised
to stop doing that. ....Things have changed quite a bit
since then.

If you look at Microsoft's actions from XP onward you
can see a very systematic and patient transition from a
software platform to what Mr. Ballmer calls "software AND
service". MS is attempting to turn Windows into a subscription
service, including music/TV rental, contextual ads displayed
onscreen, etc. And they're trying to transition their software
customers, by tiny, almost indiscernible steps, into service
customers. So eventually you'll pay to use your software,
via cash and/or ads.

According to your post header you're using Vista. XP and
Vista are both spyware in that they undertake remote
communication without permission or notification. XP and
Vista have already moved a long way toward the services
model of Windows. So why are you using Vista if you want
privacy?

What will make a difference is if you stop buying the product.
Your "public outcry" is like cows griping that the farmer is milking
them: Why should the farmer care, so long as the cows stay
in the barn?

 

[Guest]

I Agree With You 100%, Just FYI.

 

[Saucy]

If this one is just 'let go', isn't that an invitation for malware
designers to use and enhance the technique? Kind of like enabling malware
or a malware tutorial?

-Paul Randall

Hi .. many malware designers already know how "phone home". That's not the
issue, we already know malware can be designed to open your computer to the
manipulations of a third party. What the issue is .. is OK for Microsoft to
have updated Windows Update without explicit permission? The answer is no. A
Microsoft team commited a faux pas. But I say: they know better now (as
people complained) .. it was no big deal .. forget about it.

Saucy

 

[Christopher R. Lee]

A slightly different aspect of this controversy is that when ou switch your
computer on, it's because you want to use it. In practice, you can't know
how long MS will take to download its stuff and let you work at a reasonable
speed . If you don't have a fast connection, this can take a long time, and
MS is obviously not aware that such a situation could exist.

Similarly, when you want to switch off, MS tells you not to, because it
needs to install updates. Safety- and economy-minded users want to switch
off at the mains. MS tells them that this is not allowed.

Regards

 

[Bill Yanaire]

What would you know? You are an Ubuntu evanglist now. Just FYI.

 

[Neil Gould]

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 that this practice is wrong. However, more of a concern is that it
is possible to do this at all. The implication is that there is a "back
door" that is deliberately held open, and it will only be a matter of time
before it is exploited by someone other than Microsoft. Even if there is
some good reason to have this vulnerability -- although I doubt that there
is -- it certainly doesn't help to increase user confidence in the
integrity of their computers, networks, and the security of the sensitive
data that might be held on them. So, at this point, I would find no
comfort in any statement that this practice will be discontinued.

Regards,

 

[Paul Randall]

Hi .. many malware designers already know how "phone home". That's not the
issue, we already know malware can be designed to open your computer to
the manipulations of a third party. What the issue is .. is OK for
Microsoft to have updated Windows Update without explicit permission? The
answer is no. A Microsoft team commited a faux pas. But I say: they know
better now (as people complained) .. it was no big deal .. forget about
it.

Saucy

Better to plug the hole than state in EULA there is no hole (you can turn
off this feature) while exploiting the hole. Easy to see why user's ethics
degenerate to Microsoft's level.

-Paul Randall

 

[Saucy]

Better to plug the hole than state in EULA there is no hole (you can turn
off this feature) while exploiting the hole. Easy to see why user's
ethics degenerate to Microsoft's level.

-Paul Randall

Well, I concede you could be right there. Perhaps Microsoft should issue a
patch that deep-sixes this behaviour entirely - just an idea.

Saucy

 

[Kerry Brown]

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 ..

Dishonesty should never be completely inconsequential. I am always
suspicious when someone does something for my own good. I want the choice
what is good for me. All Microsoft has to do is tell me that they will be
updating Windows Update whenever they want. I then have a choice whether to
use Windows or not. In this case they told me I had control over the update
process when they knew this to be untrue. That is dishonest. It doesn't
matter what the motive is dishonesty is wrong.

 

[Saucy]

Dishonesty should never be completely inconsequential. I am always
suspicious when someone does something for my own good. I want the choice
what is good for me. All Microsoft has to do is tell me that they will be
updating Windows Update whenever they want. I then have a choice whether
to use Windows or not. In this case they told me I had control over the
update process when they knew this to be untrue. That is dishonest. It
doesn't matter what the motive is dishonesty is wrong.

I wouldn't necessarily say it is dishonest. 'Probably more of a faux pas.

Saucy

 

[Spanky deMonkey]

Maybe you need to call the DOJ and yell and scream about Microsoft
practices. Just FYI. I hope they pull your MSDN subscription, Just FYI.
That reminds me, I have a friend who still works at Microsoft and I'll give
him a call and ask him what they can do about getting you cancelled. Just
FYI.

Just FYI.

Remember to capitalize the first letter of each word. Just FYI.

 

[Charlie Tame]

* Kerry Brown:

Bravo!!

I agree, Kerry.


-Michael

As do I, however we are approaching the last straw here methinks...

 

[MICHAEL]

* Saucy:

I wouldn't necessarily say it is dishonest. 'Probably more of a faux pas.

I really shouldn't be, but I am amazed at what people willingly seem to
accept and how readily they offer up their hind quarters.

Your obvious attempt to deflect blame away from Microsoft is
simply pathetic.

I'm sure when you bend over, your elbows can touch the ground.


-Michael

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

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.

Well said, Kerry.

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett