why MS AntiSpyware MUST BE FREE

[Tito Luyo Murata]

"While spyware usually takes advantage of a user's trusting nature to get
installed on a PC--something that should not be considered Microsoft's
fault--some software surreptitiously installs itself using flaws in the
operating system. A user should expect that Microsoft would clean their
systems from those hazards for free."

Extract from CNET News.Com
Microsoft's anti-spyware pickle
http://news.com.com/Microsofts+anti-spyware+pickle/2061-1009_3-5520009.html

Greetings
dotNetPeru
Tito Luyo Murata
Lima, PERU

 

[codemastr]

"While spyware usually takes advantage of a user's trusting nature to get

installed on a PC--something that should not be considered Microsoft's
fault--some software surreptitiously installs itself using flaws in the
operating system. A user should expect that Microsoft would clean their
systems from those hazards for free."

While I agree that it should be free, I think it is for another reason,
"conflict of interest." This is a legal term that basically means you have
two interests that are opposed to eachother. For example, MS produces
Windows. MS has an interest in making Windows secure (if it's the most
secure OS out there, more people will buy it). MS also produces AntiSpyware.
MS has an interest in leaving Windows *insecure* because that means more
sales of AntiSpyware (if spyware is eradicated, there is no need for this
product). Therefore, MS would have a vested interest in both making Windows
secure, and leaving it insecure, which clearly conflict each other.

In any case though, yeah some spyware is a result of flaws in Windows, but I
think most is the result of user stupidity, "You must click YES to view this
site" and the user clicks "yes". Well that's not MS's fault, that's a stupid
user. I don't know how many people have BonziBuddy installed because "the
monkey looked cute." So maybe some is MS's fault, but most of it is lack of
user education about the risk of spyware.

 

[Tito Luyo Murata]

Great Point: Conflict of Interes

I think even if M$ think to charge a fee to M$ AntiSpyware, people, some
organization or including government could make legal actions against M$
(one more).
I know many of spyware uses "social ingeneering" abusing of the trusting
nature of the people (an of course the ignorance of many people), but it is
not an excuse to M$.

 

[Guest]

I think you are being a little harsh when you lay all the
blame for spyware at the user's door. Some programs can
be installed without your knowledge or consent. See the
article concerning this at
http://www.benedelman.org/news/010205-1.html

 

[Tito Luyo Murata]

Not me, I only reply to previous post about SOME Spyware that exploits the
trust of people who never reads agreement that explicity says users that
will be a spyware to be installed.
I agree with you totally: There is a VAST quantity of spyware that install
theirself without knowledge or consent of the user.
Therefore M$ have the major responsability for the flaws of their Operation
System.

 

[Guest]

Yes, sorry, I replied to the wrong message....meant to
reply to codemastr's post...and I agree that MicroSoft
has the major responsibility and therefore should be
providing anti-spyware free of charge.

 

[codemastr]

I think you are being a little harsh when you lay all the
blame for spyware at the user's door. Some programs can
be installed without your knowledge or consent. See the
article concerning this at
http://www.benedelman.org/news/010205-1.html

If you read my post, I never placed "all" the blame on the user, I placed
some. I agree, some of it is the result of software flaws, but most of it is
the fact that users don't take the time to learn things. When was the last
time you read an EULA? Most EULAs state whether or not the software contains
adware. Users see a popup on a dialog that says "click here to remove
spyware" that looks like a Windows message box, without noticing the word
"Advertisement" in the righthand corner. Users click "yes" to boxes that say
"you must accept to view this website". Even in that URL you posted, it
still comes down to the user. Yes, media player is making it VERY easy to
trick the user, but in the end, the user is still clicking "yes." And also,
the user can disable automatic license downloading.