Microsoft monitors your internet activity via Vista/IE7

[Chad Harris]

That explains why your'e so limited on here. It explains why you're getting
the democracy you deserve in the US.

I noticed you can't debunk any of my claims--and MSFT does turn over your
searches back to 18 months to the gov and the US is warantlessly wiretapping
your phones, any calls across their switches, absorbing and monitoring your
email and keystrokes vs. ISPs.

Any moron can take out their little willy and piss on a particular
newspaper. Any moron can call names. What is scarce here is documentation.
Namecalling is plentiful particularly by those who never help with questions
on Vista or other software or hardware.


LOL I guess you're into the rareified righ winged WSJ editorial page that
was total shit under the Bancrofts and is about toget worse under Murdoch.

It's the best paper in the world, and what Meddlin' Murdoch hopes he can
compete with by soon putting the entire WSJ on the web free.

How 'bout that successful Iraq war? LOL How 'bout that tough ass Gungho
Iraq (although he can't explain any objectives there) Romney whose sons are
braving bombs and gun fire in Iowa.

FRANK RICH: NEW YORK TIMES Sunday 8/12/07

Shuffling Off to Crawford, 2007 Edition


THE cases of Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch were ugly enough. So surely
someone in the White House might have the good taste to draw the line at
exploiting the murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. But
nothing is out of bounds for a government that puts the darkest arts of
politics and public relations above even the exigencies of war.

As Jane Mayer told the story in last week's New Yorker, Mariane Pearl was
called by Alberto Gonzales with some good news in March: the Justice
Department was releasing a transcript in which the long-incarcerated Qaeda
thug Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to the beheading of her husband. But
there was something off about Mr. Gonzales's news. It was almost four years
old.

Condoleezza Rice had called Ms. Pearl to tell her in confidence about the
very same confession back in 2003; it was also reported that year in The
Journal and elsewhere. What's more, the confession was suspect; another
terrorist had been convicted in the Pearl case in Pakistan in 2002. There is
no known corroborating evidence that Mohammed, the 9/11 ringleader who has
taken credit for many horrific crimes while in American custody, was
responsible for this particular murder. None of his claims, particularly
those possibly coerced by torture, can be taken as gospel solely on our
truth-challenged attorney general's say-so.

Ms. Pearl recognized a publicity ploy when she saw it. And this one wasn't
subtle. Mr. Gonzales released the Mohammed transcript just as the latest
Justice Department scandal was catching fire, with newly disclosed e-mail
exchanges revealing the extent of White House collaboration in the United
States attorney firings. Had the attorney general succeeded in enlisting
Daniel Pearl's widow as a player in his stunt, it might have diverted
attention from a fracas then engulfing President Bush on his Latin American
tour.

Though he failed this time, Mr. Gonzales's P.R. manipulation of the war on
terror hasn't always been so fruitless. To upstage increasingly contentious
Congressional restlessness about Iraq in 2006, he put on a widely viewed
show to announce an alleged plot by men in Miami to blow up the Sears Tower
in Chicago and conduct a "full ground war." He said at the time the men
"swore allegiance to Al Qaeda" but, funnily enough, last week this case was
conspicuously missing from a long new White House "fact sheet" listing all
the terrorist plots it had foiled.

The Gonzales antics are, of course, in the tradition of an administration
with a genius for stirring up terror nightmares at politically opportune
times, like just before the Democratic convention in 2004. The Sears Tower
scenario came right out of the playbook of his predecessor, John Ashcroft.
In 2002, Mr. Ashcroft waited a full month to announce the Chicago arrest of
the "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla - suddenly commandeering TV cameras in the
middle of a trip to Moscow so that this tardy "news" could drown out the
damning pre-9/11 revelations from the F.B.I. whistleblower Coleen Rowley.
Since then, the dirty bomb in the Padilla case has evaporated much like Mr.
Gonzales's Sears Tower extravaganza.

Now that the administration is winding down and the Qaeda threat is at its
scariest since 2001, one might hope that such stunts would cease. Indeed,
two of the White House's most accomplished artificial-reality Imagineers
both left their jobs last month: Scott Sforza, the former ABC News producer
who polished up the "Mission Accomplished" spectacle, and Peter Feaver, the
academic specialist in wartime public opinion who helped conceive the
35-page National Security Council document that Mr. Bush unveiled as his
Iraq "Plan for Victory" in November 2005.

Mr. Feaver's document used the word victory six times in its table of
contents alone, and was introduced by a speech at the Naval Academy in which
Mr. Bush invoked "victory" 15 times while standing on a set bedecked with
"Plan for Victory" signage. Alas, it turned out that victory could not be
achieved merely by Orwellian incantation, so the plan was scrapped only 13
months later for the "surge." But while Mr. Feaver and his doomed effort to
substitute propaganda for action may now be gone, the White House's public
relations strategies for the war, far from waning, are again gathering
steam, to America's peril.

This came into sharp focus last weekend, when our military disclosed, very
quietly and with a suspicious lack of accompanying White House fanfare, that
it had killed a major terror culprit in Iraq, Haythem Sabah al-Badri. Never
heard of him? Usually this administration oversells every death of a
terrorist leader. It underplayed Badri's demise for a reason. The fine print
would further expose the fictional new story line that has been concocted to
rebrand and resell the Iraq war as a battle against Osama bin Laden's Al
Qaeda - or, as Mr. Bush now puts it, "the very same folks that attacked us
on September the 11th."

To understand how, revisit the president's trial run of this new narrative,
when he announced the surge in January. Mr. Bush had to explain why his
previous "Plan for Victory" had gone belly up so quickly, so he came up with
a new premise that absolved him of blame. In his prime-time speech, the
president implied that all had been on track in Iraq after the country's
December 2005 elections until Feb. 22, 2006, when one of the holiest Shiite
shrines, the gold-domed mosque in Samarra, was blown up. In this revisionist
history, that single terrorist act set off the outbreak of sectarian
violence in Iraq now requiring the surge.

This narrative was false. Shiite death squads had been attacking Sunnis for
more than a year before the Samarra bombing. The mosque attack was not a
turning point. It was merely a confirmation of the Iraqi civil war that Mr.
Bush refuses to acknowledge because American voters don't want their troops
in the middle of one.

But that wasn't the only new plot point that the president advanced in his
surge speech. With no proof, Mr. Bush directly attributed the newly
all-important Samarra bombing to "Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents,"
cementing a rhetorical sleight of hand he had started sketching out during
the midterm election season.

In fact, no one has taken credit for the mosque bombing to this day. But
Iraqi government officials fingered Badri as the culprit. (Some local
officials told The Washington Post after the bombing that Iraqi security
forces were themselves responsible.) Since Badri is a leader of a tiny
insurgent cell reportedly affiliated with what the president calls "Al Qaeda
in Iraq," Mr. Bush had the last synthetic piece he needed to complete his
newest work of fiction: 1) All was hunky-dory with his plan for victory
until the mosque was bombed. 2) "Al Qaeda in Iraq" bombed the mosque. 3)
Ipso facto, America must escalate the war to defeat "Al Qaeda in Iraq,"
those "very same folks that attacked us on September the 11th."

As a growing chorus of critics reiterates, "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is not those
very same folks. It did not exist on 9/11 but was a product of the Iraq war
and accounts for only a small fraction of the Sunni insurgency. It is not to
be confused with the resurgent bin Laden network we've been warned about in
the latest National Intelligence Estimate. But this factual issue hasn't
deterred Mr. Bush. He has merely stepped up his bogus conflation of the two
Qaedas by emphasizing all the "foreign leaders" of "Al Qaeda in Iraq,"
because that might allow him to imply they are bin Laden emissaries. In a
speech in Charleston, S.C., on July 24, he listed a Syrian, an Egyptian, a
Tunisian, a Saudi and a Turk.

Against the backdrop of this stepped-up propaganda blitz, Badri's death nine
days later was an inconvenient reminder of the hole in the official White
House narrative. Mr. Bush couldn't do his usual victory jig over Badri's
demise because there's no way to pass off Badri as a link to bin Laden. He
was born in Samarra and was a member of Saddam's Special Republican Guard.

If Badri was responsible for the mosque bombing that has caused all our woes
in Iraq and forced us to stay there, then the president's story line falls
apart. Far from having any connection to bin Laden's Qaeda, the Samarra
bombing was instead another manifestation of the Iraqi civil war that Mr.
Bush denies. No wonder the same White House "fact sheet" that left out Mr.
Gonzales's foiled Sears Tower plot and, for that matter, Jose Padilla, also
omitted Badri's name from its list of captured and killed "Senior Al Qaeda
Leaders." Surely it was a coincidence that this latest statement of official
Bush administration amnesia was released on Aug. 6, the sixth anniversary of
the President's Daily Brief titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."

And so the president, firm in his resolve against "Al Qaeda in Iraq," heads
toward another August break in Crawford while Al Qaeda in Pakistan and
Afghanistan remains determined to strike in America. No one can doubt Mr.
Bush's triumph in the P.R. war: There are more American troops than ever
mired in Iraq, sent there by a fresh round of White House fictions. And the
real war? The enemy that did attack us six years ago, sad to say, is likely
to persist in its nasty habit of operating in the reality-based world that
our president disdains.

 

[Chad Harris]

If there are black choppers over your house, the best thing they could do is
toast you and everything in it. The world would be a much better place.

CH

 

[Mike]

If there are black choppers over your house, the best thing they could do is
toast you and everything in it. The world would be a much better place.

Nope, sorry. False alarm. They thought it was your house. They
realized you are here spilling all their secrets. Like a good little
boy I gave them your address. They are coming for you now.

Mike

 

[Mike]

Well before you start jumping up and down like a loon, maybe you will
sober up if you knew that Microsoft has CONFIRMED it allowed the super
secret National Security Agency (NSA) to work on the development of
Vista.

Right, the very same agency that the idiot Bush ordered to spy on who
knows how many innocent American citizens without benefit of search
warrant or court supervision crawled into bed with Microsoft. Why?

"For the first time, the giant software maker is acknowledging the
help of the secretive agency, better known for eavesdropping on
foreign officials and, more recently, U.S. citizens as part of the
Bush administration's effort to combat terrorism. The agency said it
has helped in the development of the security of Microsoft's new
operating system -- the brains of a computer -- to protect it from
worms, Trojan horses and other insidious computer attackers."

Sounds like a good idea to me. Maybe they had, you know, some insight
into what tricks and techniques hackers are using. It's called expert
consulting.

cite Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR200701080135
2.html

Can anyone say backdoor?

Can anyone say paranoid?

Mike

 

[Mike]

..

 

[Mike]

Actually few people would agree with you but any pissant can do the 3 year
old name calling thing.

I notice you are incapable of

1) helping anyone
2) documenting or making any point

What have you documented? A bunch of paranoid ramblings.

Mike

 

[Adam Albright]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Maybe they had, you know, some insight
into what tricks and techniques hackers are using. It's called expert
consulting.

You truly are a world class idiot. If the NSA had any "experts", 9-11
would have never happened.

Fact: While the NSA routinely listened to terrorist "traffic" on
telephone and Internet networks the dummies didn't think it was
important to hire enough interpreters to translate WHAT they heard.

 

[Ian Betts]

Hi Jethro--

Let me help you with this concept. **MSFT IS NOT monitoring your internet
activity, unless y ou mean Windows Live search. They are monitoring that,
saving it, and reporting it to the US government--i.e. DOJ among other
agencies. But your Government in the UK and our government in the US sure
as hell are. MSFT also attends frequent secret meetings in Washington DC
when summoned by US DOJ on retaining your now called Windows Live aka MSN
searches. They also lied to their employees about this for years, and
this was the subjected of a coupld heated discussions in the Remond
cafeteria with MSFT employees and Ballmer and Gates present during the
last couple years. This is well documented on Softie blogs in the past.

1) Microsoft *does not monitor *your internet activity. They do however,
at the US government's (DOJ, CIA, and several alphabets) monitor and save
and transmit your MSN search activity to the govenrment and retain it for
about two years.

The government has your ISP monitor your internet activity via Trojans
that are difficult to detect but actually easy to foil scriptwise like
"Magic Lantern" and its sequels

The US govenment also has a "no fly watch list" that has balooned to
about 70,000 full of babies' and childrens' names, as well as dead people,
and thousands of innocent people on the list. They have no due process or
recourse in removing their name prior to being detained or not allowed to
fly. Days after 60 minutes made a fool of the imb ecile DOJ assinged to
run the program she cleaned out her desk when numerous flaws were pointed
out for which she had no explanation. She is typical of the level of
incompetence in combatting so-called terrorism in the U.S. and its
incompetent moron president.

2) I understand you're in the land of a million cameras--that'd be the UK
where your every move in public is video taped. No matter--the US is
monitoring you as well.

3) Your ISP is reporting your surfing activity and monitoring it for a
consortium that includes the US government.

4) The cowards in the US Congress have been cowed by the fear mongerer
Bush into passing legislation before they left for their August holiday
that has given Bush unfettered wire tapping ability. The cowards will not
revise this. The intelligence czar McConnell got it unprecedented
polticking in negotiating against the spineless US Congress to wiretap
each and every phone call whether it is domestic (they just aren't
saying), mediated through US switches, or involved anyone, ("suspected" of
terrorism or not whose calls go through US switches or who talks with
anyone in the U.S. Your government in the UK is fully on board with
whatever Bush wants done.

The National Intelligence Director and the Clown with no federal
litigation experience Gonzales now have complete carte blanch to do
whatever they hell they want to wiretap you in the UK and us in the US.
Welcome to 2007.
One curious note is that in the legislation passed out of fear and
intimidation last week, the phone companies were not given the blanket
immunity liability they requested.

It is quite humerous that although ATT, Comcast, Bell South, and Murdoch's
operations in the UK adamantly said they were never involved in warantless
wiretapping, they are making a big point of requesting liability immunity
for the very transgressions they swear they didn't commit. It begs the
question why they need liability for what they falsely claim they haven't
done and aren't doing.

August 11, 2007
Editorial NEW YORK TIMES

The Need to Know

Like many in this country who were angered when Congress rushed to
rubber-stamp a bill giving President Bush even more power to spy on
Americans, we took some hope from the vow by Congressional Democrats to
rewrite the new law after summer vacation. The chance of undoing the
damage is slim, unless the White House stops stonewalling and gives
lawmakers and the public the information they need to understand this
vital issue.

Just before rushing off to their vacations, and campaign fund-raising,
both houses tried to fix an anachronism in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, which requires the government to get a warrant to
eavesdrop on conversations and e-mail messages if one of the people
communicating is inside the United States. The court that enforces the law
concluded recently that warrants also are required to intercept messages
if the people are outside the United States, but their communications are
routed through data exchanges here.

The House and Senate had sensible bills trying to fix that Internet-age
problem, which did not exist in 1978. But that wasn't enough for Mr. Bush
and his aides, who whipped up their usual brew of fear to kill off those
bills. Then they cowed the Democrats into passing a bill giving Mr. Bush
powers that go beyond even the illegal wiretapping he has been doing since
the 9/11 attacks.

The new measure eviscerates the protections of FISA, allowing the attorney
general to decide when to eavesdrop - without a warrant - on any telephone
call or e-mail message, so long as one of the people communicating is
"reasonably believed" to be outside the country. The courts have no real
power over such operations.

The only encouraging notes were that the new law has a six-month
expiration date, and that leaders of both houses of Congress said they
would start revising it immediately. But there's a big catch: most
lawmakers have no idea what eavesdropping is already going on or what Mr.
Bush's justification was in the first place for ignoring the law and
ordering warrantless spying after 9/11.

The administration has refused to say how much warrantless spying it has
been doing. Clearly, it is more than Mr. Bush has acknowledged, but
Americans need to know exactly how far their liberties have been breached
and whether the operation included purely domestic eavesdropping. And why
did Mr. Bush feel compelled to construct an outlaw eavesdropping
operation - apart, that is, from his broader effort to expand presidential
power and evade checks and balances?

It's not that FISA makes it too hard; the court approves virtually every
warrant request. It's not an issue of speed. The law allows the government
to initiate surveillance and get a warrant later if necessary.

Instead of answering these questions, the administration has done its best
to ensure that everyone stays confused. It has refused repeated requests
by Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee, for documents relating to the president's order
creating the spying program, and the Justice Department's legal
justifications for it.

When this issue resurfaces, Mr. Bush will undoubtedly claim executive
privilege, as he has done whenever he has been asked to come clean with
Americans about his decision-making. But those documents should be handed
over without delay for review by all members of Congress. We also agree
with the American Civil Liberties Union, which has petitioned the FISA
court, which normally works in secret, to make public its opinion on the
scope of the government's wiretapping powers.

If Mr. Bush wants Americans to give him and his successors the power to
spy on them at will, Americans should be allowed to know why it's
supposedly so necessary and how much their freedoms are being abridged. If
Congress once again allows itself to be cowed by Mr. Bush's
fear-mongering, it must accept responsibility for undermining the
democratic values that separate this nation from the terrorists that Mr.
Bush claims to be fighting.


August 11, 2007 NEW YORK TIMES

Reported Drop in Surveillance Spurred a Law

By ERIC LICHTBLAU, JAMES RISEN and MARK MAZZETTI
WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 - At a closed-door briefing in mid-July, senior
intelligence officials startled lawmakers with some troubling news.
American eavesdroppers were collecting just 25 percent of the
foreign-based communications they had been receiving a few months earlier.

Congress needed to act quickly, intelligence officials said, to repair a
dangerous situation.

Some lawmakers were alarmed. Others, jaded by past intelligence warnings,
were skeptical.

The report helped set off a furious legislative rush last week that,
improbably, broadened the administration's authority to wiretap terrorism
suspects without court oversight.

It was a surprising victory for the politically weakened White House on an
issue that had plodded along in Congress for months without a clear sign
of urgency or resolution. A flurry of talk in the last three weeks on
intelligence gaps, heightened concern over terrorist attacks, burdensome
court rulings and Congress's recess helped turn the debate from a slow
boil to a fever pitch.

For months, Democrats had refused to give the administration new
wiretapping powers until the White House agreed to turn over documents
about the National Security Agency program to eavesdrop on some Americans'
international communications without warrants.

The White House refused to back down, even after Congressional subpoenas
were issued. The administration ultimately attracted the support it needed
to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act from moderate Democrats
who felt pressed to act before the recess.

For the White House and its Republican allies, the decision by the
Democratic-controlled Congress to act quickly was critical to safeguarding
the country this summer as intelligence officials spoke of increasing
"chatter" among Qaeda suspects.

To many Democrats who opposed the action, it was a reflection of fear
mongering by the White House, and political capitulation by some fellow
Democrats.

"There was an intentional manipulation of the facts to get this
legislation through," said Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, a Democrat
on the Intelligence Committee who voted against the plan.

The White House, Mr. Feingold said Friday in an interview, "has identified
the one major remaining weakness in the Democratic Party, and that's its
unwillingness to stand up to the administration when it's making a power
grab regarding terrorism and national security."

"They have figured out that all they have to do is start talking about an
imminent terrorist threat, back it up against a Congressional recess, and
they know the Democrats will cave," he added.

Representative Jane Harman, Democrat of California, said the White House
"very skillfully played the fear card."

"With the chatter up in August," Ms. Harman said, "the issue of FISA
reform got traction. Then they ran out the clock."

A White House official said the push was driven by genuine concerns by
Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, for the government's
ability to conduct terrorist surveillance.

"There was no real argument on the need for a fix" between Democrats and
Republicans, the White House official said. "He's a straight shooter."

The prelude to approval of the plan occurred in January, when the
administration agreed to put the wiretapping program under the oversight
of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The court is charged with
guarding against governmental spying abuses. Officials say one judge
issued a ruling in January that allowed the administration to continue the
program under the court's supervision.

A ruling a month or two later - the judge who made it and its exact timing
are not clear - restricted the government's ability to intercept
foreign-to-foreign communications passing through telecommunication
"switches" on American soil.

The security agency was newly required to seek warrants to monitor at
least some of those phone calls and e-mail messages. As a result, the
ability to intercept foreign-based communications "kept getting ratcheted
down," said a senior intelligence official who insisted on anonymity
because the account involved classified material. " We were to a point
where we were not effectively operating."

Mr. McConnell, lead negotiator for the administration in lobbying for the
bill, said in an interview that the court's restrictions had made his job
much more difficult.

"It was crazy, because I'm sitting here signing out warrants on known Al
Qaeda operatives that are killing Americans, doing foreign
communications," he said. "And the only reason I'm signing that warrant is
because it touches the U.S. communications infrastructure. That's what we
fixed."

In April, Mr. McConnell began talking with lawmakers in classified
meetings about that "intelligence gap" and alluded to it publicly, too. At
the time, the administration proposed sweeping measures to "modernize" the
foreign surveillance law, a much broader proposal in some respects than
what Congress approved.

The proposal was considered dead on arrival by some Democrats, who argued
that the administration was overreaching and asking Congress to legislate
blindly without access to documents on the legal history and operations of
the program.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales' s political problems, including
questions about truthfulness in testimony on the eavesdropping, helped
stall any action, in part because the administration wanted him to have
oversight of the broadened wiretapping authorities.

When the administration proposed its revisions in April, "everyone kind of
laughed at us," said a Justice Department official who insisted on
anonymity. "We got bludgeoned. People just said: 'Are you kidding? We're
not even going to consider it.' "

The administration's classified briefings on the "intelligence gap" grew
more urgent. In May, members of the Intelligence Committees began hearing
about specific cases in which eavesdroppers could not intercept certain
communications, said Representative Heather A. Wilson, Republican of New
Mexico.

By June and early July, Ms. Wilson said Friday in an interview, the scope
of what intelligence officials were missing had grown "frighteningly
large."

"I begged my colleagues to act," she said. "They did nothing for six
weeks. They weren't going to act unless they were forced to. So we started
raising the pressure."

Some Democrats reacted skeptically to the closed-door briefings by Mr.
McConnell and other intelligence officials. Intelligence Committee members
acknowledged that they learned in May that the secret court ruling had
caused some problems, but it was not until last month that the
administration reported the gaps.

"They changed that story," a Democratic Congressional aide said, amid talk
about a backlog in warrant applications.

By mid-July, Mr. McConnell's briefings, coupled with the release of a new
National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism, set the tone for a series of
talks between the White House and Mr. McConnell's office and Democratic
Congressional leaders.

After learning of the intelligence problems, Senator John D. Rockefeller
IV, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, contacted the White House to discuss repairing them. On July
12, the White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, discussed the
problem with the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, a senior
White House official said.

At first, some Democratic leaders favored amending the surveillance law in
September. Mr. McConnell pressed for an immediate repair.

Two weeks later, the administration lowered its sights, slimming its
original 66-page proposal to 11 pages and eliminating some of the
controversial plans like broad immunity from lawsuits for
telecommunications companies that aided eavesdropping.

Congressional Democrats effectively agreed to try to forge a narrow bill
to address the foreign problem that Mr. McConnell identified. But they
were at odds over a critical detail, the court oversight.

Democratic leaders did not demand that the security agency seek individual
court warrants for eavesdropping. But they did want the court to review
and approve the agency procedures soon after surveillance began.

The administration, however, wanted the attorney general and the director
of national intelligence to approve the surveillance, with the court
weighing in just to certify that no abuses occurred, and only long after
the surveillance had been conducted.

The talks intensified in the days before the recess last weekend,
highlighted by proposals and counterproposals in calls between Mr.
McConnell and the Democratic leadership.

By Aug. 2, the two sides seemed relatively close to a deal. Mr. McConnell
had agreed to some increased role for the secret court, a step that the
administration considered a major concession, the White House and
Congressional leaders said.

But that night, the talks broke down. With time running out, the Senate
approved a Republican bill that omitted the stronger court oversight. The
next day, the House passed the bill.


CH

I stopped my sub on several groups because of this American paranoia craze.
Most of you are brought up under that delusion about having a god given
right do what you like, called "a corruption of the bill of rights".

Sure after 911 and the Bush crusade, governments all over the world are
making hay on peoples fear. Big business wants more wars cause they are
profitable and politicos make life legacies on the glory.

So why should anyone really sit all day watching you silly messages on here.
Are you a threat or just a treat to give up all a laugh.






--
Ian

With patience there is always a way.

Please Reply to Newsgroup so all can read.
Requests for assistance by email can not and will be deleted.

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?JethroUK=A9?=]

That is very, very similar wording as i remember, but it was on (checked) by
default and i 'un'checked it and i feel sure it was connected to internet
usage

Glad someone else seen this i'm beginning to loose my marbles )

 

[Adam Albright]

I stopped my sub on several groups because of this American paranoia craze.
Most of you are brought up under that delusion about having a god given
right do what you like, called "a corruption of the bill of rights".

Apparently you never heard of or read the U. S. Constitution.

Sure after 911 and the Bush crusade, governments all over the world are
making hay on peoples fear. Big business wants more wars cause they are
profitable and politicos make life legacies on the glory.

So why should anyone really sit all day watching you silly messages on here.
Are you a threat or just a treat to give up all a laugh.

A better question is why are you just another newsgroup a-hole?

 

[Ian Betts]

Apparently you never heard of or read the U. S. Constitution.

A better question is why are you just another newsgroup a-hole?

Your questions are as stupid as most of your messages, inane and not helping
one bit, just power for the course here by trolls.

--
Ian

With patience there is always a way.

Please Reply to Newsgroup so all can read.
Requests for assistance by email can not and will be deleted.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

only today i seen somewhere (i/explorer>tools>options maybe?) that
Microsoft monitors/reports your internet activity by default unless you
'un'check this option - which i did

Haven't been able to find this option since - does anyon else now where
it lives?

No such option. You've imagined it.

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

 

[Chad Harris]

There must be a ton of "expert consulting" going on. When Mark Minasi
toured NSA, CIA, and all the stupid alphabet agencies, they weren't even
backing up their servers off site. The morons were putting their backup
servers literally on top of their main servers. It's a story Minasi tells
often.

Stories of leaked data are plentiful, so the lol "expert" consulting has had
little impact.

None of your points have anything to do with MSFT's pussying out and
allowing their searches to be turned over to the government. No wonder
despite Dr.Gary Flake's addition to MSFT with a huge salary and a tilte MSN
so called "Windows Live" search is so far behind Google in use and ability
that it's barely on the radar.

No one is "jumping up and down like a loon." I've just stated facts that
are easily verified and I've verified all of them.

If the NSA has been involved in the development of Vista, no wonder it's so
easily hacked and so many security patches have to be issued for it every
"Black Tuesday" of the month that are beginning again to screw up the
functionality of Vista month after month. If MSFT had "you know" (is that
your synonym for the Valley Girl California use of "like" all the time)
"insight into the tricks hackers use" why is Vista so easily hacked and are
so many security patches necessary for the endless security flaws in
Vista--and again patches with exponential reports that they are screwing up
Vista once applied?

The more the NSA and other agencies spy, the more it does nothing to deter
terrorrists who can easily work around whatever is done. 911 happened
largely because of the incompetence of Bush retreating to Texas and ignoring
clear warnings without translating most of the information that would have
prevented it until 912 and after. It's no accident that the D.C. Circuit
suppressed the law suit filed by
Sibel Edmonds to expose this:

http://www.justacitizen.com/

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9774.htm

FRANK RICH: Shuffling Off to Crawford, 2007 Edition
NYT Sunday 8/12/07

THE cases of Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch were ugly enough. So surely
someone in the White House might have the good taste to draw the line at
exploiting the murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. But
nothing is out of bounds for a government that puts the darkest arts of
politics and public relations above even the exigencies of war.

As Jane Mayer told the story in last week's New Yorker, Mariane Pearl was
called by Alberto Gonzales with some good news in March: the Justice
Department was releasing a transcript in which the long-incarcerated Qaeda
thug Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to the beheading of her husband. But
there was something off about Mr. Gonzales's news. It was almost four years
old.

Condoleezza Rice had called Ms. Pearl to tell her in confidence about the
very same confession back in 2003; it was also reported that year in The
Journal and elsewhere. What's more, the confession was suspect; another
terrorist had been convicted in the Pearl case in Pakistan in 2002. There is
no known corroborating evidence that Mohammed, the 9/11 ringleader who has
taken credit for many horrific crimes while in American custody, was
responsible for this particular murder. None of his claims, particularly
those possibly coerced by torture, can be taken as gospel solely on our
truth-challenged attorney general's say-so.

Ms. Pearl recognized a publicity ploy when she saw it. And this one wasn't
subtle. Mr. Gonzales released the Mohammed transcript just as the latest
Justice Department scandal was catching fire, with newly disclosed e-mail
exchanges revealing the extent of White House collaboration in the United
States attorney firings. Had the attorney general succeeded in enlisting
Daniel Pearl's widow as a player in his stunt, it might have diverted
attention from a fracas then engulfing President Bush on his Latin American
tour.

Though he failed this time, Mr. Gonzales's P.R. manipulation of the war on
terror hasn't always been so fruitless. To upstage increasingly contentious
Congressional restlessness about Iraq in 2006, he put on a widely viewed
show to announce an alleged plot by men in Miami to blow up the Sears Tower
in Chicago and conduct a "full ground war." He said at the time the men
"swore allegiance to Al Qaeda" but, funnily enough, last week this case was
conspicuously missing from a long new White House "fact sheet" listing all
the terrorist plots it had foiled.

The Gonzales antics are, of course, in the tradition of an administration
with a genius for stirring up terror nightmares at politically opportune
times, like just before the Democratic convention in 2004. The Sears Tower
scenario came right out of the playbook of his predecessor, John Ashcroft.
In 2002, Mr. Ashcroft waited a full month to announce the Chicago arrest of
the "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla - suddenly commandeering TV cameras in the
middle of a trip to Moscow so that this tardy "news" could drown out the
damning pre-9/11 revelations from the F.B.I. whistleblower Coleen Rowley.
Since then, the dirty bomb in the Padilla case has evaporated much like Mr.
Gonzales's Sears Tower extravaganza.

Now that the administration is winding down and the Qaeda threat is at its
scariest since 2001, one might hope that such stunts would cease. Indeed,
two of the White House's most accomplished artificial-reality Imagineers
both left their jobs last month: Scott Sforza, the former ABC News producer
who polished up the "Mission Accomplished" spectacle, and Peter Feaver, the
academic specialist in wartime public opinion who helped conceive the
35-page National Security Council document that Mr. Bush unveiled as his
Iraq "Plan for Victory" in November 2005.

Mr. Feaver's document used the word victory six times in its table of
contents alone, and was introduced by a speech at the Naval Academy in which
Mr. Bush invoked "victory" 15 times while standing on a set bedecked with
"Plan for Victory" signage. Alas, it turned out that victory could not be
achieved merely by Orwellian incantation, so the plan was scrapped only 13
months later for the "surge." But while Mr. Feaver and his doomed effort to
substitute propaganda for action may now be gone, the White House's public
relations strategies for the war, far from waning, are again gathering
steam, to America's peril.

This came into sharp focus last weekend, when our military disclosed, very
quietly and with a suspicious lack of accompanying White House fanfare, that
it had killed a major terror culprit in Iraq, Haythem Sabah al-Badri. Never
heard of him? Usually this administration oversells every death of a
terrorist leader. It underplayed Badri's demise for a reason. The fine print
would further expose the fictional new story line that has been concocted to
rebrand and resell the Iraq war as a battle against Osama bin Laden's Al
Qaeda - or, as Mr. Bush now puts it, "the very same folks that attacked us
on September the 11th."

To understand how, revisit the president's trial run of this new narrative,
when he announced the surge in January. Mr. Bush had to explain why his
previous "Plan for Victory" had gone belly up so quickly, so he came up with
a new premise that absolved him of blame. In his prime-time speech, the
president implied that all had been on track in Iraq after the country's
December 2005 elections until Feb. 22, 2006, when one of the holiest Shiite
shrines, the gold-domed mosque in Samarra, was blown up. In this revisionist
history, that single terrorist act set off the outbreak of sectarian
violence in Iraq now requiring the surge.

This narrative was false. Shiite death squads had been attacking Sunnis for
more than a year before the Samarra bombing. The mosque attack was not a
turning point. It was merely a confirmation of the Iraqi civil war that Mr.
Bush refuses to acknowledge because American voters don't want their troops
in the middle of one.

But that wasn't the only new plot point that the president advanced in his
surge speech. With no proof, Mr. Bush directly attributed the newly
all-important Samarra bombing to "Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents,"
cementing a rhetorical sleight of hand he had started sketching out during
the midterm election season.

In fact, no one has taken credit for the mosque bombing to this day. But
Iraqi government officials fingered Badri as the culprit. (Some local
officials told The Washington Post after the bombing that Iraqi security
forces were themselves responsible.) Since Badri is a leader of a tiny
insurgent cell reportedly affiliated with what the president calls "Al Qaeda
in Iraq," Mr. Bush had the last synthetic piece he needed to complete his
newest work of fiction: 1) All was hunky-dory with his plan for victory
until the mosque was bombed. 2) "Al Qaeda in Iraq" bombed the mosque. 3)
Ipso facto, America must escalate the war to defeat "Al Qaeda in Iraq,"
those "very same folks that attacked us on September the 11th."

As a growing chorus of critics reiterates, "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is not those
very same folks. It did not exist on 9/11 but was a product of the Iraq war
and accounts for only a small fraction of the Sunni insurgency. It is not to
be confused with the resurgent bin Laden network we've been warned about in
the latest National Intelligence Estimate. But this factual issue hasn't
deterred Mr. Bush. He has merely stepped up his bogus conflation of the two
Qaedas by emphasizing all the "foreign leaders" of "Al Qaeda in Iraq,"
because that might allow him to imply they are bin Laden emissaries. In a
speech in Charleston, S.C., on July 24, he listed a Syrian, an Egyptian, a
Tunisian, a Saudi and a Turk.

Against the backdrop of this stepped-up propaganda blitz, Badri's death nine
days later was an inconvenient reminder of the hole in the official White
House narrative. Mr. Bush couldn't do his usual victory jig over Badri's
demise because there's no way to pass off Badri as a link to bin Laden. He
was born in Samarra and was a member of Saddam's Special Republican Guard.

If Badri was responsible for the mosque bombing that has caused all our woes
in Iraq and forced us to stay there, then the president's story line falls
apart. Far from having any connection to bin Laden's Qaeda, the Samarra
bombing was instead another manifestation of the Iraqi civil war that Mr.
Bush denies. No wonder the same White House "fact sheet" that left out Mr.
Gonzales's foiled Sears Tower plot and, for that matter, Jose Padilla, also
omitted Badri's name from its list of captured and killed "Senior Al Qaeda
Leaders." Surely it was a coincidence that this latest statement of official
Bush administration amnesia was released on Aug. 6, the sixth anniversary of
the President's Daily Brief titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."

And so the president, firm in his resolve against "Al Qaeda in Iraq," heads
toward another August break in Crawford while Al Qaeda in Pakistan and
Afghanistan remains determined to strike in America. No one can doubt Mr.
Bush's triumph in the P.R. war: There are more American troops than ever
mired in Iraq, sent there by a fresh round of White House fictions. And the
real war? The enemy that did attack us six years ago, sad to say, is likely
to persist in its nasty habit of operating in the reality-based world that
our president disdains.

CH

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?JethroUK=A9?=]

No such option. You've imagined it.

For sure i haven't - Jane (earlier post) referred to it as 'Customer
Experience Improvement Program' which sounds very much how i remember it
albeit not exactly as/where she described

It was switched on by default and i switched it off (took the tick out) & it
was re: internet activites

 

[Ian Betts]

There must be a ton of "expert consulting" going on. When Mark Minasi
toured NSA, CIA, and all the stupid alphabet agencies, they weren't even
backing up their servers off site. The morons were putting their backup
servers literally on top of their main servers. It's a story Minasi tells
often.

Stories of leaked data are plentiful, so the lol "expert" consulting has
had little impact.

None of your points have anything to do with MSFT's pussying out and
allowing their searches to be turned over to the government. No wonder
despite Dr.Gary Flake's addition to MSFT with a huge salary and a tilte
MSN so called "Windows Live" search is so far behind Google in use and
ability that it's barely on the radar.

No one is "jumping up and down like a loon." I've just stated facts that
are easily verified and I've verified all of them.

If the NSA has been involved in the development of Vista, no wonder it's
so easily hacked and so many security patches have to be issued for it
every "Black Tuesday" of the month that are beginning again to screw up
the functionality of Vista month after month. If MSFT had "you know" (is
that your synonym for the Valley Girl California use of "like" all the
time) "insight into the tricks hackers use" why is Vista so easily hacked
and are so many security patches necessary for the endless security flaws
in Vista--and again patches with exponential reports that they are
screwing up Vista once applied?

The more the NSA and other agencies spy, the more it does nothing to deter
terrorrists who can easily work around whatever is done. 911 happened
largely because of the incompetence of Bush retreating to Texas and
ignoring clear warnings without translating most of the information that
would have prevented it until 912 and after. It's no accident that the
D.C. Circuit suppressed the law suit filed by
Sibel Edmonds to expose this:

http://www.justacitizen.com/

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9774.htm

FRANK RICH: Shuffling Off to Crawford, 2007 Edition
NYT Sunday 8/12/07

THE cases of Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch were ugly enough. So surely
someone in the White House might have the good taste to draw the line at
exploiting the murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. But
nothing is out of bounds for a government that puts the darkest arts of
politics and public relations above even the exigencies of war.

As Jane Mayer told the story in last week's New Yorker, Mariane Pearl was
called by Alberto Gonzales with some good news in March: the Justice
Department was releasing a transcript in which the long-incarcerated Qaeda
thug Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to the beheading of her husband. But
there was something off about Mr. Gonzales's news. It was almost four
years old.

Condoleezza Rice had called Ms. Pearl to tell her in confidence about the
very same confession back in 2003; it was also reported that year in The
Journal and elsewhere. What's more, the confession was suspect; another
terrorist had been convicted in the Pearl case in Pakistan in 2002. There
is no known corroborating evidence that Mohammed, the 9/11 ringleader who
has taken credit for many horrific crimes while in American custody, was
responsible for this particular murder. None of his claims, particularly
those possibly coerced by torture, can be taken as gospel solely on our
truth-challenged attorney general's say-so.

Ms. Pearl recognized a publicity ploy when she saw it. And this one wasn't
subtle. Mr. Gonzales released the Mohammed transcript just as the latest
Justice Department scandal was catching fire, with newly disclosed e-mail
exchanges revealing the extent of White House collaboration in the United
States attorney firings. Had the attorney general succeeded in enlisting
Daniel Pearl's widow as a player in his stunt, it might have diverted
attention from a fracas then engulfing President Bush on his Latin
American tour.

Though he failed this time, Mr. Gonzales's P.R. manipulation of the war on
terror hasn't always been so fruitless. To upstage increasingly
contentious Congressional restlessness about Iraq in 2006, he put on a
widely viewed show to announce an alleged plot by men in Miami to blow up
the Sears Tower in Chicago and conduct a "full ground war." He said at the
time the men "swore allegiance to Al Qaeda" but, funnily enough, last week
this case was conspicuously missing from a long new White House "fact
sheet" listing all the terrorist plots it had foiled.

The Gonzales antics are, of course, in the tradition of an administration
with a genius for stirring up terror nightmares at politically opportune
times, like just before the Democratic convention in 2004. The Sears Tower
scenario came right out of the playbook of his predecessor, John Ashcroft.
In 2002, Mr. Ashcroft waited a full month to announce the Chicago arrest
of the "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla - suddenly commandeering TV cameras in
the middle of a trip to Moscow so that this tardy "news" could drown out
the damning pre-9/11 revelations from the F.B.I. whistleblower Coleen
Rowley. Since then, the dirty bomb in the Padilla case has evaporated much
like Mr. Gonzales's Sears Tower extravaganza.

Now that the administration is winding down and the Qaeda threat is at its
scariest since 2001, one might hope that such stunts would cease. Indeed,
two of the White House's most accomplished artificial-reality Imagineers
both left their jobs last month: Scott Sforza, the former ABC News
producer who polished up the "Mission Accomplished" spectacle, and Peter
Feaver, the academic specialist in wartime public opinion who helped
conceive the 35-page National Security Council document that Mr. Bush
unveiled as his Iraq "Plan for Victory" in November 2005.

Mr. Feaver's document used the word victory six times in its table of
contents alone, and was introduced by a speech at the Naval Academy in
which Mr. Bush invoked "victory" 15 times while standing on a set bedecked
with "Plan for Victory" signage. Alas, it turned out that victory could
not be achieved merely by Orwellian incantation, so the plan was scrapped
only 13 months later for the "surge." But while Mr. Feaver and his doomed
effort to substitute propaganda for action may now be gone, the White
House's public relations strategies for the war, far from waning, are
again gathering steam, to America's peril.

This came into sharp focus last weekend, when our military disclosed, very
quietly and with a suspicious lack of accompanying White House fanfare,
that it had killed a major terror culprit in Iraq, Haythem Sabah al-Badri.
Never heard of him? Usually this administration oversells every death of a
terrorist leader. It underplayed Badri's demise for a reason. The fine
print would further expose the fictional new story line that has been
concocted to rebrand and resell the Iraq war as a battle against Osama bin
Laden's Al Qaeda - or, as Mr. Bush now puts it, "the very same folks that
attacked us on September the 11th."

To understand how, revisit the president's trial run of this new
narrative, when he announced the surge in January. Mr. Bush had to explain
why his previous "Plan for Victory" had gone belly up so quickly, so he
came up with a new premise that absolved him of blame. In his prime-time
speech, the president implied that all had been on track in Iraq after the
country's December 2005 elections until Feb. 22, 2006, when one of the
holiest Shiite shrines, the gold-domed mosque in Samarra, was blown up. In
this revisionist history, that single terrorist act set off the outbreak
of sectarian violence in Iraq now requiring the surge.

This narrative was false. Shiite death squads had been attacking Sunnis
for more than a year before the Samarra bombing. The mosque attack was not
a turning point. It was merely a confirmation of the Iraqi civil war that
Mr. Bush refuses to acknowledge because American voters don't want their
troops in the middle of one.

But that wasn't the only new plot point that the president advanced in his
surge speech. With no proof, Mr. Bush directly attributed the newly
all-important Samarra bombing to "Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni
insurgents," cementing a rhetorical sleight of hand he had started
sketching out during the midterm election season.

In fact, no one has taken credit for the mosque bombing to this day. But
Iraqi government officials fingered Badri as the culprit. (Some local
officials told The Washington Post after the bombing that Iraqi security
forces were themselves responsible.) Since Badri is a leader of a tiny
insurgent cell reportedly affiliated with what the president calls "Al
Qaeda in Iraq," Mr. Bush had the last synthetic piece he needed to
complete his newest work of fiction: 1) All was hunky-dory with his plan
for victory until the mosque was bombed. 2) "Al Qaeda in Iraq" bombed the
mosque. 3) Ipso facto, America must escalate the war to defeat "Al Qaeda
in Iraq," those "very same folks that attacked us on September the 11th."

As a growing chorus of critics reiterates, "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is not those
very same folks. It did not exist on 9/11 but was a product of the Iraq
war and accounts for only a small fraction of the Sunni insurgency. It is
not to be confused with the resurgent bin Laden network we've been warned
about in the latest National Intelligence Estimate. But this factual issue
hasn't deterred Mr. Bush. He has merely stepped up his bogus conflation of
the two Qaedas by emphasizing all the "foreign leaders" of "Al Qaeda in
Iraq," because that might allow him to imply they are bin Laden
emissaries. In a speech in Charleston, S.C., on July 24, he listed a
Syrian, an Egyptian, a Tunisian, a Saudi and a Turk.

Against the backdrop of this stepped-up propaganda blitz, Badri's death
nine days later was an inconvenient reminder of the hole in the official
White House narrative. Mr. Bush couldn't do his usual victory jig over
Badri's demise because there's no way to pass off Badri as a link to bin
Laden. He was born in Samarra and was a member of Saddam's Special
Republican Guard.

If Badri was responsible for the mosque bombing that has caused all our
woes in Iraq and forced us to stay there, then the president's story line
falls apart. Far from having any connection to bin Laden's Qaeda, the
Samarra bombing was instead another manifestation of the Iraqi civil war
that Mr. Bush denies. No wonder the same White House "fact sheet" that
left out Mr. Gonzales's foiled Sears Tower plot and, for that matter, Jose
Padilla, also omitted Badri's name from its list of captured and killed
"Senior Al Qaeda Leaders." Surely it was a coincidence that this latest
statement of official Bush administration amnesia was released on Aug. 6,
the sixth anniversary of the President's Daily Brief titled "Bin Laden
Determined to Strike in U.S."

And so the president, firm in his resolve against "Al Qaeda in Iraq,"
heads toward another August break in Crawford while Al Qaeda in Pakistan
and Afghanistan remains determined to strike in America. No one can doubt
Mr. Bush's triumph in the P.R. war: There are more American troops than
ever mired in Iraq, sent there by a fresh round of White House fictions.
And the real war? The enemy that did attack us six years ago, sad to say,
is likely to persist in its nasty habit of operating in the reality-based
world that our president disdains.

CH

Go and peddle your mad ideas on a political list, not here.



--
Ian

With patience there is always a way.

Please Reply to Newsgroup so all can read.
Requests for assistance by email can not and will be deleted.

 

[dean-dean]

I believe that after the second or third time you use IE initially, you get
a pop-up window asking if you want to join the Customer Experience
Improvement Program. There is no way to turn it off or on in IE's Options,
that I can see.

On the other hand, Windows Media Player has the option in Tools > Options,
on the Privacy tab. Windows Media Center has the option in Tasks > Settings

General > Privacy.

Windows Customer Experience Improvement Program and Resulting Internet
Communication in Windows Vista
http://technet2.microsoft.com/Windo...cc1f-4785-9bc2-6ac16d6ab4081033.mspx?mfr=true

If CEIP is on, then this is true: "Data for the Windows Customer Experience
Improvement Program is collected over time and sent periodically, about
every 19 hours, although data is not collected or sent if the computer is on
battery power, and no attempt to send data is made if the computer is not
connected to a network[!]."

While the titles look like real snoozers, you can see a fairly comprehensive
list as to the use of a program's various functions and how it might send
info to Microsoft:

Windows Vista Privacy Notice Highlights
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/privacy/vistartm.mspx

Windows Vista Privacy Statement
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/privacy/vistartm_full.mspx

Windows Vista Privacy Supplement
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/privacy/vistartm_detail.mspx

Microsoft Internet Explorer Privacy Statement
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/ie7/privacy/ieprivacy_7.mspx

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?JethroUK=A9?=]

For sure i haven't - Jane (earlier post) referred to it as 'Customer
Experience Improvement Program' which sounds very much how i remember it
albeit not exactly as/where she described

It was switched on by default and i switched it off (took the tick out) &
it was re: internet activites

Notice also 'Dean - Dean' posted similar settings for same 'Customer
Experience Improvement Program.' for Media Center

For sure i have seen it, it is switched on (default) and it is tracking your
Internet usage as part of M/S 'Customer Experience Improvement Program.'

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?JethroUK=A9?=]

I believe that after the second or third time you use IE initially, you get
a pop-up window asking if you want to join the Customer Experience
Improvement Program. There is no way to turn it off or on in IE's
Options,
that I can see.

It seems i wasn't dreaming after all since Jane (earlier post) also knows of
'Customer Experience Improvement Program' with fault finder which sounds
very much how i remember it albeit not exactly as/where she described

I didn't get a pop-up, I was fishing around & I feel quite sure I saw it, it
was related to internet usage & I switched it off

On the other hand, Windows Media Player has the option in Tools > Options,
on the Privacy tab. Windows Media Center has the option in Tasks >
Settings

General > Privacy.

Windows Customer Experience Improvement Program and Resulting Internet
Communication in Windows Vista
http://technet2.microsoft.com/Windo...cc1f-4785-9bc2-6ac16d6ab4081033.mspx?mfr=true

If CEIP is on, then this is true: "Data for the Windows Customer
Experience
Improvement Program is collected over time and sent periodically, about
every 19 hours, although data is not collected or sent if the computer is
on
battery power, and no attempt to send data is made if the computer is not
connected to a network[!]."

While the titles look like real snoozers, you can see a fairly
comprehensive
list as to the use of a program's various functions and how it might send
info to Microsoft:

Windows Vista Privacy Notice Highlights
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/privacy/vistartm.mspx

Windows Vista Privacy Statement
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/privacy/vistartm_full.mspx

Windows Vista Privacy Supplement
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/privacy/vistartm_detail.mspx

Microsoft Internet Explorer Privacy Statement
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/ie7/privacy/ieprivacy_7.mspx

only today i seen somewhere (i/explorer>tools>options maybe?) that
Microsoft monitors/reports your internet activity by default unless you
'un'check this option - which i did

Haven't been able to find this option since - does anyon else now where
it
lives?

 

[Spirit]

Lets see, the USA with a population of 300,000,000+ has about 210,000,000
internet users. Now exactly who is it that reads and keeps up with all our
internet accesses?

 

[Mike]

Lets see, the USA with a population of 300,000,000+ has about 210,000,000
internet users. Now exactly who is it that reads and keeps up with all our
internet accesses?

Why, George Bush of course. You know, he does so much cocaine that he
gives new meaning to the term "speed reading"!

BaDaBing!

Mike