D
deebs
Forgive me Jeff - mea maxima culpa
I always assume intelligence on part of the reader
I always assume intelligence on part of the reader
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
J
Jeff
lol-
So a tad of a dig-thats fine;
again with SPP; MSFT is assuming criminal intent.
Jeff
So a tad of a dig-thats fine;
again with SPP; MSFT is assuming criminal intent.
Jeff
Q
Quanta
Jeff said:Ah,
That's fine.
And most people won't care; but what's happening here is indicative of a
major change in business;(and in society-in general-but that's for other
ng's-lol)
A change in attitude; a change in business practice; and yes; a
fundamental change in one's rights.
When it becomes the customer's responsibilty; to constantly prove that
they are NOT criminals; something is drastically wrong.
MSFT takes the position; with SPP; that their customer's are inherently
criminal.
This is a critical point, and why Vista will be trashed by the European
Union. In the EU, they assume that companies want to get your personal
info. In the US, we assume the government does. Now we get both. Aren't
we lucky? And where is the Bill of Rights and Constitution---totally
trashed!
M
**__MIke__**
No, your external IP i.e. the IP of your router or whatever device serves as
the endpoint of your local network. Take a look at the properties of your
own post, it's in there. It has to be; when your system communicates with
another there has to be someway for it to send information back to you. That
way is your IP address.
In the case of a randomizer it is the ip address of the randomizer's server
which in turn has your real IP address and forwards packets to it. You
*trust* the randomizer comany to keep your real IP address secret. However
since you are routing all of your traffic through their server, they can
track everything you do. In effect you are saying, "instead of trusting
several companies with little bits of my browsing practices, I'm going to
trust one comany with all of it."
This is true with *ALL* (Windows, Linux, Unix, etc) operating systems that
provide internet connectivity. Just visit this webpage to check:
http://checkip.dyndns.org/
-Mike
the endpoint of your local network. Take a look at the properties of your
own post, it's in there. It has to be; when your system communicates with
another there has to be someway for it to send information back to you. That
way is your IP address.
In the case of a randomizer it is the ip address of the randomizer's server
which in turn has your real IP address and forwards packets to it. You
*trust* the randomizer comany to keep your real IP address secret. However
since you are routing all of your traffic through their server, they can
track everything you do. In effect you are saying, "instead of trusting
several companies with little bits of my browsing practices, I'm going to
trust one comany with all of it."
This is true with *ALL* (Windows, Linux, Unix, etc) operating systems that
provide internet connectivity. Just visit this webpage to check:
http://checkip.dyndns.org/
-Mike
D
deebs
Hush now - it is better not to challenge some delusional factors
M
**__MIke__**
"So, um, who's in control of the computer now?"
It's 2006, the network is the computer, which in turn is in control of you!
That's why you're being forced to read to the end of this stupid post. Don't
stop reading now, it's already too late.
-Mike
It's 2006, the network is the computer, which in turn is in control of you!
That's why you're being forced to read to the end of this stupid post. Don't
stop reading now, it's already too late.
-Mike
E
Eddy
Yes and no. First off the it's the anonymizer company's business to keep
your IP secret. It wouldn't last long handing out the IP address of its
customers. And furthermore, it gets cute. Some guys use more than one
anonymizer from more than one company. It starts getting harder for anyone
trying to track. Try figuring out who so-in-so is .. he double anonymizes
his post.
But this is beside the point. WGA Notifications contacts and reports WITHOUT
your permission, save the day you installed Windows. Essentially it is
qualitively different than visiting a website. Then you choose to visit a
website. They log you.
But with WGA N, you are reported on regularly whether you choose to or not
and your personably identifiable IP address is log and probably associated
with the report if not more. Makes me feel creeped.
your IP secret. It wouldn't last long handing out the IP address of its
customers. And furthermore, it gets cute. Some guys use more than one
anonymizer from more than one company. It starts getting harder for anyone
trying to track. Try figuring out who so-in-so is .. he double anonymizes
his post.
But this is beside the point. WGA Notifications contacts and reports WITHOUT
your permission, save the day you installed Windows. Essentially it is
qualitively different than visiting a website. Then you choose to visit a
website. They log you.
But with WGA N, you are reported on regularly whether you choose to or not
and your personably identifiable IP address is log and probably associated
with the report if not more. Makes me feel creeped.
M
**__MIke__**
"WGA Notifications contacts and reports WITHOUT
your permission, save the day you installed Windows"
I'm no WGA advocate, but I'd disagree. Everyone knows what WGA does, it's no
secret. You install it and continue to use the software, you give your
consent. You use Vista, you give your consent. WGA notifications can be
disabled by deleting a couple of files.
Again, I agree with you that it sucks, but this "without my permission"
stuff is a load of crap. We all know the deal, we all continue to use the
software. Now if very few people bought Vista or a Vista computer because of
this, then things would change - but M$ (and, I think, all of us) know that
people will buy Vista. You don't walk into a bar on Saturday night and
complain that they turned up the jukebox up without your permission because
you can leave the bar and never comeback. With Vista, you have your chance
to never go to the bar in the first place.
The question is: will you or won't you go to the bar? (M$ is betting you
will and they're probably right)
-Mike
your permission, save the day you installed Windows"
I'm no WGA advocate, but I'd disagree. Everyone knows what WGA does, it's no
secret. You install it and continue to use the software, you give your
consent. You use Vista, you give your consent. WGA notifications can be
disabled by deleting a couple of files.
Again, I agree with you that it sucks, but this "without my permission"
stuff is a load of crap. We all know the deal, we all continue to use the
software. Now if very few people bought Vista or a Vista computer because of
this, then things would change - but M$ (and, I think, all of us) know that
people will buy Vista. You don't walk into a bar on Saturday night and
complain that they turned up the jukebox up without your permission because
you can leave the bar and never comeback. With Vista, you have your chance
to never go to the bar in the first place.
The question is: will you or won't you go to the bar? (M$ is betting you
will and they're probably right)
-Mike
J
Jeff
That's good Mike;that your no proponent.
But you do need to get some facts straight-one in particular.
WGA Notifications;when it first came out;was;installed WITHOUT one's
explicit consent.
It WAS phoning home without the user's permission; and was installed in
secret. It was only AFTER people found out;that it was changed from a
"critical" update to a "highly recommended" one.;so that now people do know
about it;and can avoid it altogether;if they wish.-(which I might add; is no
easy feat;MSFT still trys to fool people;and infers that its installation on
your machine is"highly recommended" or your system may suffer.)
Also you seem to forget the basic tenet here.
That being; with SPP in Vista, MSFT is implying;and YES; saying;by reason
of methodology and functionality;that their customers are; inherently
criminal.
If not; one initial check would suffice;as to the legitimacy of one's leased
o.s. Not ever time you connect to the net.
That in itself; should concern people;ahh; but it doesn't.
And yes; people do still have choices; and there are other o.s. out
there. And people; more than MSFT thinks; will forgo this tenet;and not go
to their bar.
Jeff
But you do need to get some facts straight-one in particular.
WGA Notifications;when it first came out;was;installed WITHOUT one's
explicit consent.
It WAS phoning home without the user's permission; and was installed in
secret. It was only AFTER people found out;that it was changed from a
"critical" update to a "highly recommended" one.;so that now people do know
about it;and can avoid it altogether;if they wish.-(which I might add; is no
easy feat;MSFT still trys to fool people;and infers that its installation on
your machine is"highly recommended" or your system may suffer.)
Also you seem to forget the basic tenet here.
That being; with SPP in Vista, MSFT is implying;and YES; saying;by reason
of methodology and functionality;that their customers are; inherently
criminal.
If not; one initial check would suffice;as to the legitimacy of one's leased
o.s. Not ever time you connect to the net.
That in itself; should concern people;ahh; but it doesn't.
And yes; people do still have choices; and there are other o.s. out
there. And people; more than MSFT thinks; will forgo this tenet;and not go
to their bar.
Jeff
E
Eddy
I'm beginning to think ways around it and I love Windows .. but I have this
rule: it's my computer - not without my consent. I don't want my machine
making regular reports to Microsoft no matter how benign Microsoft claims it
is. Sorry, but I don't. And I think it is a reasonable line to draw. Like
said, I am not a criminal and should not be treated as if I am. Even the
police need a warrant to search my house.
rule: it's my computer - not without my consent. I don't want my machine
making regular reports to Microsoft no matter how benign Microsoft claims it
is. Sorry, but I don't. And I think it is a reasonable line to draw. Like
said, I am not a criminal and should not be treated as if I am. Even the
police need a warrant to search my house.
M
**__MIke__**
No doubt, the XP critical update of WGAN was wrong and a serious blunder.
People know about Vista in advance though. I use Linux and Unix, but I also
use, and will continue to use Windows.
I don't think any reasonable logic leads to M$ saying all their customers
are criminals. I think it leads to them in effect saying: our software is
commonly pirated,; it is often pirated via cloning after it's been
activated; the only way to have any hope of combatting piracy is to have it
"reactivate" on a regular basis; some people won't like it, but most will
put up with it. -- All of wich is true.
-Mike
People know about Vista in advance though. I use Linux and Unix, but I also
use, and will continue to use Windows.
I don't think any reasonable logic leads to M$ saying all their customers
are criminals. I think it leads to them in effect saying: our software is
commonly pirated,; it is often pirated via cloning after it's been
activated; the only way to have any hope of combatting piracy is to have it
"reactivate" on a regular basis; some people won't like it, but most will
put up with it. -- All of wich is true.
-Mike
B
Barry Watzman
The IP address is not personally identifiable, unless you have a
contract with your ISP for a static IP address (which very few of us
do). Your IP address can change, and next week you may have a new IP
address and someone else may have the IP address that you are currently
using. Your ISP assigns IP addresses from a pool, and the assignment,
at least in principle, is only temporary.
However, the MAC address is permanent, and I think that MS will have
that also.
contract with your ISP for a static IP address (which very few of us
do). Your IP address can change, and next week you may have a new IP
address and someone else may have the IP address that you are currently
using. Your ISP assigns IP addresses from a pool, and the assignment,
at least in principle, is only temporary.
However, the MAC address is permanent, and I think that MS will have
that also.
B
Barry Watzman
There would have to be an initial activation by phone. Or,
alternatively, MS is making available to corporate customers the ability
to maintain their own activation server on their local network (not
necessarily connected to the internet). Once activated, it is not
actually required that the computer "phone home" successfully at every
bootup, although the computer will attempt to do so (failure is ok).
However, there might be some long period of time (or number of bootups)
after which they would require another successful activation, either
over the network or by phone. That question is not clear.
alternatively, MS is making available to corporate customers the ability
to maintain their own activation server on their local network (not
necessarily connected to the internet). Once activated, it is not
actually required that the computer "phone home" successfully at every
bootup, although the computer will attempt to do so (failure is ok).
However, there might be some long period of time (or number of bootups)
after which they would require another successful activation, either
over the network or by phone. That question is not clear.
B
Barry Watzman
No, wrong. That is a private IP address. At some point before it hits
the internet, it has to go through a translation process and be
reassigned a unique, public IP address. The servers that you
communicate with over the internet never see 192.168.0.x. Only your
local router or gateway ever sees that.
the internet, it has to go through a translation process and be
reassigned a unique, public IP address. The servers that you
communicate with over the internet never see 192.168.0.x. Only your
local router or gateway ever sees that.
J
Jeff
Mike,
Reasonable logic would say;
When did the onus of responsibilty; to have to constantly prove
innocence; fall to the consumer?
All in all; as you state; most people won't care. That is; unless; and
until; they get a false positive; and the system errently shuts them down to
a reduced functionality.
But again; functionally; SPP is based on the premise of criminal intent.
Jeff
Reasonable logic would say;
When did the onus of responsibilty; to have to constantly prove
innocence; fall to the consumer?
All in all; as you state; most people won't care. That is; unless; and
until; they get a false positive; and the system errently shuts them down to
a reduced functionality.
But again; functionally; SPP is based on the premise of criminal intent.
Jeff
E
Eddy
It is not so much that they are treating their customers as if they are
criminals that bothers me. What bothers me is that Microsoft is commiting a
criminal act against me (in spirit). They are bullying the customer - taking
control of the computer and having it make contact without specific
permission save when the OS gets installed. It can't be turned off. To all
intents and purposes it is a hijack - and hijacking, that last time I
checked is a criminal act. Microsoft will get around any responsibility
though by pointing to the EULA. "Oh but you agreed .. blah blah". Sure, but
there's not much choice so to speak. Windows is the only way to 95% of the
retail software out there. No Windows, no retail software.
WGAN is a mistake and, to me, an offence .. and Microsoft should x-nay it
pronto.
criminals that bothers me. What bothers me is that Microsoft is commiting a
criminal act against me (in spirit). They are bullying the customer - taking
control of the computer and having it make contact without specific
permission save when the OS gets installed. It can't be turned off. To all
intents and purposes it is a hijack - and hijacking, that last time I
checked is a criminal act. Microsoft will get around any responsibility
though by pointing to the EULA. "Oh but you agreed .. blah blah". Sure, but
there's not much choice so to speak. Windows is the only way to 95% of the
retail software out there. No Windows, no retail software.
WGAN is a mistake and, to me, an offence .. and Microsoft should x-nay it
pronto.
C
Clint
The MAC address, AFAIK, is attached to the network card, which is often not
a fixed component of a given computer. It also has no relation to the
person using the computer, therefore it's not identifying the person. In
the case of a computer in a library, there could be 200 people in one day
use a computer with a fixed MAC address or IP address. How would you prove
which one person made a post, or downloaded a file?
Personally, my thoughts are if you don't like what MS is doing with the
Vista "phone-home" or EULA, don't buy it. Pretty simple. Build your own OS
if you don't like what they've done with theirs. They're not forcing you to
use it. Use a Mac. Use a *nix.
Clint
a fixed component of a given computer. It also has no relation to the
person using the computer, therefore it's not identifying the person. In
the case of a computer in a library, there could be 200 people in one day
use a computer with a fixed MAC address or IP address. How would you prove
which one person made a post, or downloaded a file?
Personally, my thoughts are if you don't like what MS is doing with the
Vista "phone-home" or EULA, don't buy it. Pretty simple. Build your own OS
if you don't like what they've done with theirs. They're not forcing you to
use it. Use a Mac. Use a *nix.
Clint
Barry Watzman said:The IP address is not personally identifiable, unless you have a contract
with your ISP for a static IP address (which very few of us do). Your IP
address can change, and next week you may have a new IP address and
someone else may have the IP address that you are currently using. Your
ISP assigns IP addresses from a pool, and the assignment, at least in
principle, is only temporary.
However, the MAC address is permanent, and I think that MS will have that
also.
If the screws keep getting tighter, does that mean I'm getting screwed?
I've read the new EULA. It's very vague. How does one "assign to a
device". Write the device a love note? Holler the devices' name from a
roof-top. Have one's secretary point? It doesn't make any sense.
And while the EULA say I can "reassign" [how's that done?] "one time". It
doen't say I can do it more than once. It says I can do it one time. The
EULA doesn't cover if I should do it two times. It doesn't say either
way.
It's a crazy unworkable EULA that probably should be ignored. Buy your
copy, use it on one computer at a time and ignore the rest. Be
circumscript should you have to phone in.
And how can the report of an IP address not be "personal information"?
To all intents and purposes, the IP address does ID a person. Sheesh.
Do you realize how many times in a week your Windows Vista will check on
you and even report on you? Every time you boot and maybe then some.
Everytime you update and maybe then some. Every time WGA Notifications
decides and it *will* be including a personally identifiable IP address.
And with a new restriction per every few months, who knows what is coming
down the Microsoft pipe? Forced upgrades? Lock you out from your private
files? (whoops .. they already will do that) What else do you have
planned for your customers, Microsoft? Why not just give us all the
possible restrictions you have planned right now and so we can decide if
we even want to stay on the Microsoft train?
Most of us, like me, are little froggies in a slowly heating pot of
water. It's beginning to steam now, but we don't want to get out 'cause
the dancing bunnies are so pretty.
We're all so apathetic. Lame easy pushovers who accept everything that is
shoved at them. 'Especially me.
Microsoft, do want me to spit or swallow?
B
Barry Watzman
You can always install a non-MS firewall that restricts outgoing as well
as incomming connections, and that blocks Microsoft's attempts to "phone
home". You will have to unblock it for initial activation, but after
that you will be ok at least for a relatively long while.
as incomming connections, and that blocks Microsoft's attempts to "phone
home". You will have to unblock it for initial activation, but after
that you will be ok at least for a relatively long while.
M
Mario Rosario
Barry Watzman said:The IP address is not personally identifiable, unless you have a contract
with your ISP for a static IP address (which very few of us do). Your IP
address can change, and next week you may have a new IP address and
someone else may have the IP address that you are currently using. Your
ISP assigns IP addresses from a pool, and the assignment, at least in
principle, is only temporary.
However, the MAC address is permanent, and I think that MS will have that
also.
I don't think they can differentiate 10 machine built identically. The only
difference is the MAC address. That's not a very strong "finger print".
Someone can still get around the EULA.
S
Steve Urbach
No, your external IP i.e. the IP of your router or whatever device serves as
the endpoint of your local network. Take a look at the properties of your
own post, it's in there. It has to be; when your system communicates with
another there has to be someway for it to send information back to you. That
way is your IP address.
You are correct about my post.
So it really begs the question on why Remote assistance can't get it
right :/
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.