Microsoft Sued Over WGA 460
Hope Thelps writes "The Seattle PI is reporting on a lawsuit being brought against Microsoft in response to their WGA spyware. Groklaw is also covering the story. Although there are a lot of similarities to Sony's rootkit, the actual harm done is less concrete. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out."
Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a commendable sentiment, but I can find no fault in calmly asserting one's vision of a just outcome prior to a court's finding. The "game" in this case is fundamentally adversarial, with various parties pushing for particular outcomes. Members of the public can and often should be party to cases in that sense, so long as they don't tamper with the court to achieve a particular outcome via unethical means. Threatening a judge or a witness would be unethical; voting for a judge who you think would do a good job would be ethical.
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Informative)
His stated opinion was not about frustration with MS -- it was about frustration with this particular action by MS.
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
So Windows and Office take zero effort to develop? They don't have to pay their developers, testings, artists and managers?
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)
I could be wrong, and highly so, but I think a lot of people view giving out vouchers for software isn't the same as paying cold hard cash. While I see your point about the cost of development one has to remember a few things that can offset and subsidize the actual penalty:
1) The software might very easily be accounted for at full retail price with no breaks. No crime in and of itself, not implying that doing so is. Point is that on any other volume transaction, most vendors will allow for a price break as an example. For all I know, Microsoft does this even under penalty conditions but factualy I do not know.
2) Consider the fact that some software may not be redeemed by the people receiving the penalty award. Not Microsofts fault by any means, again not implying that Microsoft has to ensure "people harmed" stand up and be counted for their compensation; ineptitude falls on the shoulder of ther responsible afterall. I am asking you to consider how much penalty does Microsoft actually pay with this method. Keep in mind that even in a cash settlement this can still go on, however when it comes to cash you'll find most people don't let that slide by without paying closer attention to getting their piece of the pie.
3) The biggest reason why giving away software under these conditions is that, ultimately, Microsoft is allowed to legally propogate software which in the long run has a high probability of actually generating more customers to purchase newer versions of software down the road - thus subsidizing the original penalty. You can't do this with a cash settlement to my knowledge.
All the arguing, debating and nit-picking aside, there is a reason that they say, "If you have a problem teaching someone math, put $(CURRENCY_SIGN) in front of the numbers. People always understand money."
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, you are wrong. The millions is the amount they could have made if MS had the chance to sell the schools the software, instead of being forced to give it away free. This is different than Verizon being forced to give away free phones, because you end up signing a contract and paying Verizon money. The school never has to upgrade if it doesn't want to.
1) The softw
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Funny)
In other news Jack Kevorkian sues dev of "killall" (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, Jack Kevorkian sued the developers of the POSIX-compliant 'NUX commandline program "killall", citing that the application didn't really kill "all" the programs on the computer but instead should be renamed to "killnothingbut". This intellectual Advantage(TM) of Kevorkian stemmed from his introduction of the oft'quoted uber-leet commandline tool "kevork" which injects null pointers into the code and data segments of all programs that are non-responsive to the "TERM" and "KILL" flags. Kevorkian was unable for comment on whether this is a closed or open-source application, though it was rumoured by his assistant that it is a simple library replacement with a namely-fassioned symlink to killall that the library determines based at runtime with argv.
Sincerily,
John "kill'em'all" Dahmer
the suers will likely lose (Score:4, Informative)
Re:the suers will likely lose - Possibly not? (Score:3, Informative)
This is what will be used against this case. If this case continues and the court allows it in, then it will quickly change from illegal program to one of validity
Re:the suers will likely lose - Possibly not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the suers will likely lose - Possibly not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, I recently acquired a work laptop that had to be re-imaged. The laptop came with a WinXp Pro license but it was from an OEM [Fujitsu]. Now I don't have the Fujitsu CD anymore so I used my own XP Pro cd. Guess what happens? It won't let me activate it. I had to call MSFT and explain to them [after doing the 10 6-digit number thing TWICE] that I was a legitimate user who had to use generic install media.
I bet you there are scores of similar people who fight against the anti-piracy stuff to use software that they did indeed pay for.
Besides, if MSFT is dropping this that and the other thing from Vista, maybe they don't have time to be messing with DAILY WGA updates? How about they use my hard earned money to improve the damn OS and not try to lock paying customers out of it.
Tom
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft feels that there is a significant problem with OEM licenses being stolen, via methods such as copying down a code at a store, library, school, or other public location. Since most OEM Windows XP licenses are pre-activated by the system builder, they see that there is rarely a need for the key to be activated with non-manufacturer specific install media. (Generic OEM licenses, that is, OEM licenses not custom made for a specific manufacturer are activatable at least once, as some of these are sold in retail channels.) Furthermore, they probably figure that in the event of a crash, most users opt to use recovery CDs instead of reinstalling the operating system directly.
The only reason Microsoft made you call them is because you did not use the Fujitsu CD. From MS's point of view, there are very few cases where a typical user would need to use a generic OEM media to install Windows (because of the recovery disks and/or partitions that come with most systems).
They probably would not be doing this if they did not view it as successful in deterring piracy. If the number of precieved foiled piracy attempts exceeds the number of calls for OEM serials that they allow to activate, then the program to them will be successful and will continue.
After all, if people weren't actually copying down CD keys from the sides of computers, this wouldn't have happened.
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
Where "you" is an expert user, who is in the minority. The majority of actual users, when they "reset" their system, want it back the way it came, and that's what this gives you.
I realise that a lot of these things bug the hell out of those of us that don't use these inane "tools" that come with OEM systems (and re
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, it doesn't help prevent piracy much really. It stops a few of the people who just don't really know what they are doing (say someone who had their PC upgraded by the kid next door or something) but that's about it. The real pirates have a myriad of ways of going around such a thing, not the least of which being to simply not ever use it or to use a hacked version of it. In the grand scheme of things, the only thing WGA has really achieved is to cost MS a bit more to deploy it than they've gained on those few people who actually bought legitimate copies because of it and annoy everyone (not just pirates, but, legitimate users as well.)
Ya know, if no one out there in the world pirated software, I betcha this stuff wouldn't be in...
Yeah, and if everyone drove slowly those speed limit signs wouldn't be up. We're humans, not robots.
But hey, guess the obvious is too easy for retards like you to see...bet you run illegal copies of software too.
Obvious? Yeah, uhm, I looked at the timestamps, and this post came before yours:
Amen to that! Maybe someday Microsoft will realize that WGA doesn't prevent piracy; it's just another thing to annoy legitimate users.
What's obvious to most of us "nerds" is that it has caused a lot of problems for a lot of people, violated privacy, and just in general been an annoyance whether you have a legal copy or not. If you had read any of the previous articles on the subject of the WGA, you would see quite a number of stories where someone has had to deal with the WGA determining that their 100% legitimate copy was illegitimate and they had to go through a long hassle with microsoft to get a new key and everything to get it to work. But, I guess that's only obvious to us nerds.
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's my take on it anyway. I've heard s
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/
It discusses the history of WGA, the licensing, the server-side communication, etc, as well as what they changed in the update that was released on the 27th.
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
What a crock. So they didn't tell anyone originally that it daily phoned home. Now they think they can say it won't and that people will believe them even when it says
It is important to note that WGA Validation still periodically checks to determine whether the version of Windows is genuine.
And why in the world would it have to do so. You check once, it's either valid or it's not. Since at the time of my writing this, we don't have to relicense Windows XP every so often, so if it is legitimate now, it will be legitimate later.
I used to do all the updates that they sent out. Now, I don't trust MS even on their updates and since Tuesday have been setting it to ignore. If they go ahead and shut me down later this year because of it, fine. They've lost one more paying customer. Yes, I paid. I legally purchased a copy of Windows XP. Now they stand to lose a customer because of their own silliness. The same is true of the RIAA/MPAA. The more you treat your customers poorly, the less customers you have. This isn't even Business 101 stuff. This is 1st-grade-lemonade-stand type stuff.
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Waste of time (Score:5, Insightful)
Not hidden, not spyware (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not hidden, not spyware (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not hidden, not spyware (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not hidden, not spyware (Score:4, Informative)
I would have seen that behavior on one of hundreds of PCs. I have not.
You're either posting for FUD, or your machine isnt' configured how you think it is.
Or the problem is between the keyboard and the chair.
Re:Not hidden, not spyware (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not hidden, not spyware (Score:2)
Re:Not hidden, not spyware (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not hidden, not spyware (Score:3, Informative)
sc config wuauserv start= disabled
Follow this with either net stop wuauserv or a reboot. (Yes, there was a space after the equal sign, and it needs to be there.)
For businesses where disabling automated updating is not feasible, deploy SUS throughout the domain. Note that the client's update settings are irrelevant if SUS is properly deployed. This may be one of the causes of some of these otherwise inexplicable updates.
Disclaimer: IANA
Re:Not hidden, not spyware (Score:5, Insightful)
In the case of Windows Updates, I would argue that it is even more out of the user's control. For alot of malware, you have to click "yes install" at some point. For Windows Updates, the recommended state is to "automatically download and install in the background." In theory a user could examine each and every update to figure out what they all do, but in practise the actual purpose of each update is heavily obfuscated. Worse yet, in the case of WGA, once you allow it to install (it seems innocent enough at first), it is used against you to force further installations.
Frankly the tactic Microsoft is using in their updates is not ethical. Everyone is told to do their Windows Updates (for security reasons), and Microsoft is exploiting this to slip in some other software that the user does not necessarily need. Worse yet, this software sends back information to Microsoft HQ without user permission. If this does not count as spyware, I don't know what does.
I hope this lawsuit makes Microsoft wake up to the illegitimacy of their tactics.
Re:Not hidden, not spyware (Score:3, Insightful)
If MS wants to make WGA validation required for any updates that add features (WMP 11, DirectX 10, etc), then I'm all for it. They add something to the product, they get to pick the terms under which they make it available to existing users. It's not in line with the free software philosophy, but
Re:Not hidden, not spyware (Score:2, Insightful)
Hopefully.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hopefully.... (Score:2)
Re:Hopefully.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hopefully.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hopefully.... (Score:3, Informative)
17 usc 117 provides you with all the legal right you need to make all copies needed to actually *use* the application...you don't need a license from microsoft to "copy" windows to run it.
i'm not a lawyer, but i can read.
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.-- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program pr
Re:Hopefully.... (Score:2)
Re:Hopefully.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hopefully.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hopefully.... (Score:3, Informative)
>license may be removed by the copyright owner if you violate the EULA, which is
>akin to land in a fiefdom that can be removed if you cross the rules of the
>owning lord.
Copyright owner can only grant you licenses (and remove only such licenses) to rights which they have. Those rights are specifically mentioned in copyright law and only those rights apply. They can't make up their own additional rights they want to lice
Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
I understand if you absolutely have to use Windows for work, but even at home you can dual-boot. Before people trot out the games argument - yes, I know, but it really depends where your priorities are at. Games aren't my prioritiy, I might buy a Wii for that.
But instead, people will bitch and complain endlessly and keep using
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
(-1, Moron): How can you find slashdot and complete miss that dialup ISPs use PPP, and Linux distros almost always come with pppd?
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:99% bullshit... (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps samba has gotten much better since I last used it, but setting connecting to or creating Windows shares was far easier with Windows than with Linux.
Well, on my computer at home with GNOME 2.14 I seem to recall Right click folder -> Sharing and the Sharing admin panel, which sets up Samba appropriately. Browsing network shares was simply a matter of clicking the network bit in Nautilus (and it actually didn't keep hanging like explorer, but YMMV -- some Windows networks I tried worked horribly)
The Issue Of Money (Score:2, Interesting)
Turn & drop trowsers please (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft's Response (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, actually he claims to have disputed the allegations, but then he said what's quoted above, and finally (to the press corp's horror and astonishment), proceeded to shove his entire foot, ankle, and leg (up to his knee), firmly down his own throat.
Let's break this down:
[x] Deceptive software...check!
[x] Installed without user's consent...check! (Well, basically with as much consent as any other spyware package, so I think there's a good case to be made for this point.)
[x] Malicious purpose...check! It beams data back to the mothership every day and can be used to remotely break the computer. I think that qualifies as "malicious."
So apparently by Microsoft's own admission, WGA is spyware.
I'd personally argue for a more expansive definition of spyware (or malware, or scumware, etc...), but even given the relatively constrained definition proposed by Microsoft itself, WGA seems to qualify.
I recall a full disclosure and ... (Score:2, Informative)
We can argue the merits of the actual software that is installed.
Re:I recall a full disclosure and ... (Score:3, Informative)
I could have elected not to install it and had my machine function as before.
It misrepresented itself as a critical security update, according to reports, so what do you think the average user would do? (assuming that they run updates at all).
Re:I recall a full disclosure and ... (Score:5, Informative)
Let's see... I just ran Microsoft Update, then I clicked "Custom". It tells me:
No mention of WGA. So I click "Details" and lo and behold, it's the WGA Validation Tool that I must install. My only option is "Download and Install Now". There is no skip, ignore, anything. So as far as I can tell, in order to continue receiving updates, I must install this spyware. I don't feel that that qualifies as an "optional" install.
Re:I recall a full disclosure and ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Allowing me to update the software so that it behaves the way I had a reasonable expectation to believe it behaved when I purchased it is arguably not a service. When security flaws allow attackers to take over my computer, one could argue that Microsoft would be negligent by not fixing the flaws.
you must have originally purchased the software i nthe first place?
I DID purchase the software in the first place, thank you v
Re:Microsoft's Response (Score:3, Interesting)
If WGA really is a hook by which a computer can be disabled, then it is only a matter of time, before some nasty hacker or terrorist figures out how to use this hook and turns millions of Windows systems into doorstops.
A good reason to buy a Mac and perhaps use Windows only in a virtual window when a Windows only program MUST be run. The virtual PC can be permanently barred from using any routable network address and thus not need all those updates at all
How do Microsoft Programmers sleep at night? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How do Microsoft Programmers sleep at night? (Score:2)
The ones who got in early and are now in middle to upper manager may be rolling in dough, but the programmers doing the gruntwork are not.
Re:How do Microsoft Programmers sleep at night? (Score:4, Funny)
Microsoft programmers sleep during the day. At night they go out and prey upon the living.
Is the bias necessary? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is the bias necessary? (Score:2, Funny)
Turn around boys, we missed one!
No harm, no foul (Score:2, Troll)
No shit, there's no harm done at all.
I see considerable harm... (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Any program that uses up system ressources without performing a task explicitly requested by the user is harmful in the sense that it slows down the computer. This is one of the main complaints with spyware/adware: they slow down your computer for no purpose (or at least no purpose that you, the user, are interested in).
3. WGA appears to effectively give someone else (specifically Microsoft) control over your machine (for instance the recently announced "remote shutoff" function). To the user, a program that limits their control of the computer (and gives someone else more control) is harmful. Note that the argument "but Microsoft would only shut off illegitimate versions of Windows" doesn't make any difference. Even if that's true, there is still a loss of control for the user. This is harmful to the user.
To the same extent that any other piece of so-called "spyware" is harmful (installed in a tricky way; sends info back to some company; wastes CPU cycles and disk space; etc.), WGA should also be considered "harmful."
The problem with WGA is that is not an update, security-patch, or feature upgrade. It does *nothing* for the user, and only installs in order to give Microsoft more control/leverage over your machine. From the user perspective, it is a net negative, hence harmful.
Re:I see considerable harm... (Score:3, Informative)
Hang about - presumably this is going on all over the world, right?
How does it stand in those parts of the world with Data Protection laws?
For instance, in the UK, the Data Protection Act is supposed to ensure that data is:
* fairly and lawfully processed;
* processed for limited purposes;
jokes? I love jokes (Score:5, Funny)
I'm confused (Score:3, Funny)
DOH!
Oh... was I supposed RTFA? But wait... this is slashdot.
WGA unable to detect bad keys with legit COAs (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:WGA unable to detect bad keys with legit COAs (Score:4, Informative)
Re:WGA unable to detect bad keys with legit COAs (Score:3, Informative)
Now, a few years down the road WGA is going to force me to reinstall--now that I have many important business apps installed.
You don't have to if you have a legal copy. You can always change the product key of an installed instance of XP using the registry and msoobe.exe. More info here: http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-1035_11-5034890.h tml [com.com]
PC came w/OEM XP, but corporate re-install (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:WGA unable to detect bad keys with legit COAs (Score:3, Funny)
Re:WGA unable to detect bad keys with legit COAs (Score:3, Insightful)
Remove WGA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Remove WGA (Score:5, Interesting)
As covered in a blog posting [zdnet.com] by Ed Bott, the KB article Microsoft gave is a rush job and will confuse non-techies that may attempt it. He provides corrections but Microsoft is (at best) silly to have not had a third party verify the instructions.
Also realize that contrary to the warning in the Microsoft KB article, if you choose not to install the WGA notifications "update" or remove it, Microsoft Update will force you to run another WGA test before granting you access to their Windows Update website. They won't even allow access to critical updates through the web interface in my testing with the web-based (ActiveX?) test. From what I understand, the access to the promised critical updates are only provided with their built-in update provider which has been responsible for all the WGA notification auto-installs. In other words, you can't win either way.
As it stands, I've disable auto updates from System Properties->Updates and disabled the "security center" service from Control Panel->Admin Tasks->Services so it doesn't bother me about disabled auto-updates anymore. I have multiple Dell machines with OEM installations of Windows XP so I'm not concerned about failing WGA but I am concerned about all the reported crashes [edbott.com] involving WGA across forums and blog around the internet and the private information [groklaw.net] sent to Microsoft.
Playing support-geek for family and friends only gets tougher with this stupid anti-piracy program. I'm disabling auto-updates and security center on every system while deleting WGA. Instead, once a month I ask my friends and family to run AutoPatcher [autopatcher.com] on their systems for all critical and optional updates. I've told them that they may not be able to use WGA protected software such as Windows Defender, IE7 Beta, or WMP11 and any other Microsoft download. All of them don't care for that stuff as they have better freeware or open-source alternatives. So far so good.
Before anyone chimes in and says that people should switch to Linux, I'd say I agree in theory but not in reality. Educational software, scanner and digital camera software utilities, unique features presented in official IM clients such as VoIP and picture sharing, many Photoshop features, easy movie editors a la Roxio and Premiere, and desktop publishing software (i.e. Pagemaker) are not available for Linux nor do these people care to learn anything new after years of experience in many cases. For now there are workarounds and people will use them. If Microsoft implements a kill switch [zdnet.com] and starts nuking WGA-less but legal installations then many of these people will probably trash their computers and buy Apple before going to Linux.
Lastly, this doesn't hurt pirates one bit. Within hours the latest WGA crack [demonoid.com] is available and it works or people just disable auto-updates and go towards AutoPatcher. For protected apps, cracked [demonoid.com] copies [demonoid.com] are available [demonoid.com]. So who loses? The general public who follows all the rules. I'm glad someone filed the lawsuit and I hope people will sign up as parties when the chance is given.
Re:Remove WGA (Score:3, Funny)
(I actually prefer this article on removing WGA [debian.org], or this one [freebsd.org], but I freely admit that they're not for newbies.)
Good... (Score:3, Informative)
How is this evil at all? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How is this evil at all? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How is this evil at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, false positives. Also, doesn't it phone home every day or something? You'd think you'd only need to check once.
Major Spware Argument (Score:5, Insightful)
NOT SPYWARE (Score:5, Funny)
WGA removal utility? (Score:5, Informative)
I CANNOT vouch for the legitimacy of that utility (so scan it first, try it on a staging machine, etc., YMMV, Batteries not included, and all that jazz). I just did a quick search for utilities for removing WGA, but being a Linux user I don't have much use for it myself. There are reviews of it on legitimate sites (for example, PC World) but then they've also unknowingly recommended scumware in the past as well.
Re:WGA removal utility? (Score:5, Informative)
1) Kill wgatray.exe in process in Task Manger
2) Restart in safe mode
3) Delete WgaTray.exe from Windows\System32 and Windows\System32\dllcache
4) Lauch RegEdit and Delete HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon\Notify\WgaLogon
5) Reboot
Re:WGA removal utility? (Score:3, Funny)
maybe he meant he's been using windows for free for over 10 years.
Won't work! (Score:4, Funny)
While the Lawyers Fight it Out (Score:4, Interesting)
I would be curious to know how many Windows XP users are no longer able to validate their OS. I bought Windows XP Pro OEM when it first came out. 3 motherboards, 3 video cards, 4 harddrives, I forget how many CD/DVD-RW's, and 3 slipstreams, my Windows has been apparently installed on too many computers(?). I am told that this cannot happen, but oh well. I now use Mac and Slackware Linux.
In Soviet Russia...... (Score:3, Funny)
Wait... why does this make them evil? (Score:3, Insightful)
BUT... step back for a second. Forget the fact that they're a mega-conglomerate. Forget the fact that it's some giant company who you think might be out for world domination, one PC at a time.
Instead, I think of it like this:
You create a piece of software (Those of you who say what about "Sourceforge" or "freshmeat", back off for a few minutes... we're not talking OSS right now, we're talking commercial). You want some level of appreciation. You want to make sure that when people pay the $XXX for the software you made (And let's face it, we're talking a BUSINESS here, not a charity - you'll charge however much is possible, to keep it selling and get as much profit as possible).
You also are not a bumbling idiot, you've used emule, bittorrent, google, and astalavista. You are, or know, that "Guy who has everything" for software. You've needed some minor piece of software, and could find / engineer a crack / keygen for it. You get it for free. If you DO have scruples, you know too many who don't.
So you want to protect your software from the evils of "Oh, I can get it for free". Without protection, a couple days and it's spread around the net. You protect it, congratulations, you've bought yourself a week before a serial / crack is released. SO you lock it down good and tight. And hey, if there's something people without scruples love, it's the idea that "They say we can't, so we'll prove them wrong!". Besides, according to crackers / OSS fanatics / the immoral, ALL software should be free, you should be doing this in your spare time, and hoping that you'll get enough donations to live off of if we don't pay for it! (Wait.... they stole the software, but expect the owner to live off of donations, while they're not paying for it anyways?!).
Solution: You use pre-packaged solutions to lock down your software, good and tight. It runs various checks against files for alteration. It might even dial home when run to make sure it's legit, disabling if not. Hell, I'd do it if I wrote still. Does that make you evil? NO! It means you want to protect your investment (Time, effort, energy, money, employees). But somewhere, somebody out there will find a way to defeat it. You've not bought "infinite protection", instead you've bought another month to come up with a better way of protecting your money (Goal here is to delay it as long as possible. Outright prevention is impossible, but delaying is entirely doable).
So you use software to dial home and verify authenticity, check itself and other files to make sure that they're running and not tampered with, restore each other if necessary, and quite possibly re-confirm that they're authentic from the dial home. Does that make you an evil beast who deserves to die? Hell no.
But wait, it's Microsoft. Oh, SCREW THIS! They're too big, make too much money, they're evil! Need to die. Who the hell do they think they are, trying to protect their stuff? They don't need the extra money, I feel good sticking it to them! Imagine, trying to make people pay for their stuff or make people feel bad for having stolen it.
THE NERVE.
Re:Wait... why does this make them evil? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unacceptable behaviour isn't justified by saying that the perpetrator was acting in his own best interests rather than out of a desire to hurt people.
If the electricity company thinks I'm fiddling the meter to get out of paying them what I should then there are some acts that are acceptable for them to resolve that and some that aren't. I'd say that entering my premises on the pretext of fixing a dangerous defect in the system and while they're here hiding a camera that relays images to them would be unacceptable.
You may well not like the analogy or you may draw the line of acceptable versus unacceptable at a different point to me, but either way the issue isn't resolved by saying that they're not evil and they're just out to protect their own interests. We have to make judgments on what is and isn't acceptable in pursuit of those interests.
To me, Microsoft have gone way over the line. You may disagree. But don't try to reduce it to a comic book battle of good versus evil and then accuse me of calling them evil.
Re:Wait... why does this make them evil? (Score:3, Insightful)
When I buy a piece of software, I want to be able to use it without being hassled to repeatedly prove that I'm not a crimina
"the actual harm done is less concrete" (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh yes it is. I don't understand this thinking. Why, "harm" has to mean something really tangible, like breaking a leg or something ? I think not. The harm here does not cause some physically concievable defect - yet. But thing is, they did not tell the people what this WGA does (i.e. calling home every so often), they just told it when some people have found it out. Ok, I know how EULAs work, and how they probably could prove in court that they have every right to change their software as they see fit, still, when it is about using our computers to send _any_ information to _anyplace_ without asking us first, or if not asking then at least telling us about it, is just outrageous. I don't care what they send, I don't care how much or how small amount of information is in it, I don't care who they send it to, it just should not happen without asking us and letting us approve of disapprove the action.
WGA eats resources (Score:5, Interesting)
I sometimes use my university's wireless network (whenever I bring my laptop). Since the university's IT lab has no way of knowing who is using what laptop[1], they redirect all initial traffic to a portal where you must log in (using the username + password you use on all other university computer systems). Point being, you get a network connection, but must log in to actually get where you want.
Since I installed WGA[2] (at the point I was rather indifferent to it), every time I use the university's network I get 50 entries in the Application Log (error source: crypt32; description: "Failed auto update retrieval of third-party root list sequence number from: with error: [timeout/server cannot perform operation/error code]"). This happens before I have a chance to log in on the university network, which of course means that my laptop can't yet access said site. More annoying, though, is that svchost -k netsvcs starts eating memory like crazy; peaking at over 90 MBs and then falling down to 70-80 (used to stay at 20-30). This only happens when I use the laptop at the university; at home (where obviously no login is required) the process stays at 20-30 MB.
I personally think that some "advantage" component that, when unable to access some site, causes a process to eat up 3-4 times the memory it usually does, taking up an extra 10% of the computer's physical memory in the process, is rather a DISADVANTAGE. I don't know how much memory spyware typically consumes, so I can't reflect on the comparison between WGA and spyware. 50 MB seems a rather hefty price for failing to communicate with some server, though.
Maybe they should rename it WGD?
[1] I guess a) setting up individual users' connections, including keys, is too much work, b1) collecting MAC addresses is too much work, b2) Joe Average won't be able to figure out his computer's wireless' MAC anyway, and c) there are potential security leaks if wireless cards, or laptops, are stolen/sold to non-university users (both a and b1).
[2] Troubles started at that point. Could be something else, I SUPPOSE, but I think it is unlikely.
Re:About time (Score:3, Informative)
OK, I guess that's not going to happen anytime soon. Oh well, I can dream, right?
Re:About time (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyways, good for whoever's launching the suit. They have no right to add in spyware to their OS. IANAL, but it seems to me that they can't modify the EULA for Windows and have the changes retroactively effect existing users. Naturally the WGA stuff has it's own EULA (as do several other updates), but wh
Re:About time (Score:3, Interesting)
A. The have it as a critical update, and not only that they have released it as such twice off the standard patch days. I deactivated my critical updates alert because of this cause I got tired of it going "You have critical updates not installed, bla bla bla, your computer is at risk" just for the WGA.
B. You have to restart to apply it.
Common! you already make people with servers restart enough with required patches because your OS is
Re:There is so much wrong with WGA ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sadly, the only people who will win in the end. (Score:2)
Re:What is WGA? (Score:3, Funny)
You know because that Pirated version doesn't crash as well as the good version.