Read the Fine Print

nihilist_1137 writes: "This story is about how MS changed its EULA and you just gave them control of your computer. In the section on Windows XP Professional, 'Internet-Based Services Components' paragraph says in part, 'You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the Product that will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation Computer.'"

Comments

Maybe the users want it

[shaunak]

"may provide upgrades or fixes to the Product that will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation Computer."

If you would consider the average user for a moment. He does not give a damn about most issues you would start campaigns for. All she/he cares for is whether he can watch movies, listen to music and basically create word documents. So would he not like automatic fixes of bugs? From his point of view, it would be convenient.
It's about time you took note of the average userbase Microsoft are aiming for with XP.

Re:Maybe the users want it

[mikethegeek]

" The other big issue is the DRM software Microsoft, or its partners/subsidiaries, will install. Even with prompting, if you don't upgrade, then you have no access to a content provider's new media. All in all, this sounds like a giant headache for everyone that isn't Microsoft."

The only winning move is not to play. Media that requires or uses "DRM" should be vociferously boycotted and allowed to rot unsold on the shelves just like what was done to Divx.

If DRM enabled media sells, we will be stcuk with it. The DMCA makes it easy for IP cartel jackboots to squash those who try to undo DRM, and the SSSCA will make it equally illegal to essentially make a system that give true "root" access to the system owner.

Once again, Slashdotters want to have it both ways

[mblase]

We've been complaining on this site for months, if not years, about Microsoft's security. They have a bug? We want a patch right away. We complain about downloading patches? Microsoft makes the system able to download and install them itself. All the user has to do is set up auto-install of new updates.

But that's not good enough, because too many users/sysadmins are too stupid to turn this on or check it regularly. So we complain that Microsoft isn't doing enough -- that they need to make the OS download security upgrades automatically, whether or not the stupid user asks for it or not. This, we argued, is the only way Microsoft can stay ahead of security holes and make sure we take them up on the patches.

So Microsoft does this. But because doing so requires the user to agree to let Microsoft access and update their system, they have to add it to the EULA.

And then Slashdot complains that MS is taking too much control.

The mind boggles.

strawman

[coltrane99]

(1) I have not seen any credible posts demanding that auto-download and install of patches be on by default on Windows systems. There have been buggy patches before for Windows, could be again.
(2) Slashdot isn't a unitary entity. If you make the mistake of expecting every J. Random Poster's comment taken together to represent a coherent position on anything, you will be disappointed.

A Bridge too far?

[mikethegeek]

" Several readers were also worried that Microsoft's broad assertion of its right to access their computers would force their companies into noncompliance with government security guidelines and various privacy laws. This concern was exacerbated by additional PUR language in the same Windows XP section. In terms of "Security Updates," users grant Microsoft the right to download updates to Microsoft's DRM (Digital Rights Management) technology to protect the intellectual property rights of "Secured Content" providers. It says Microsoft may "download onto your computer such security updates that a secure content owner has requested that MS, Microsoft Corporation, or their subsidiaries distribute." In other words, it would seem Microsoft's idea of a security update is one that protects the property rights of vendors, not the security of customers' systems."

What Microsoft is preparing us for is the next step: No root access to a machine.

This is scary ass stuff. Note that MS's EULA gives them the right to change these license terms on a whim. Your license with MS is one sided, MS can change anything they like, and you have no rights other than those MS chooses to grant you.

Running a business on such a system to me would see m an unwarranted risk, especially given MS's pathetic record when it comes to security related bugs and holes.

What MS is saying is that they have "root" access to your machine and can read anything or install anything at will.

This is clearly over the line. NO OTHER industry in the USA can sell a product and attatch the kinds of "strings" to it's use, while disclaiming any and all liability for defects as the software industry.

MS and other proprietary software vendors have had it totally their way for too damn long. We need some sort of law limiting what can be in a EULA, restoring the "first sale" doctrine, and at the very least, a right to "opt out" of new license changes made AFTER the sale.

The best solution is to use Linux or other OSS software. Sooner or later, Microsoft and their goons will go a step too far, and the business world will realize the danger of allowing such meglomaniacs THAT kind of control over their information system arteries.

If this little nugget isn't it, WHAT will be?

This can be done without the EULA.

[Crixus]

I think the most important issue here is that MS can have its OS's download and perform upgrades WITHOUT having to have this kind of language in the EULA.

All it would need to do is have an automatic wizard pop up ever week (or month) or so and ask your PERMISSION to check for and download the latest updates. The Wizard can even provide a lengthy explanation of what it's about to do for those who want more information.

That is all that's required for REAL updates.

This language in the EULA sounds like it might be giving them EXTRA permission to do other things. Checking version numbers of WHAT software? As someone else pointed out, will this include OfficeXP? Is it checking for pirated warez?

So despite all of the people up here screaming that ONCE AGAIN the /. crowd will do anything to bash MS, there is something to be concerned about here.

Rich...

Re:Hmmm

[sqlrob]

Any company large enough to require a volume license will almost certainly have some manner of firewall.

Ever hear of port 80? Web services?

MS doesn't need a big hole. SOAP would do fine.

Uproar is not over the current mechanics...

[Karl Cocknozzle]

...But over the wording of a license agreement that allows MS to do anything they want to your computer.

Is this such a bad thing? OK so you have to trust Microsoft here but how else can Windowsupdate work?

Windowsupdate scans your computer for required updates and, depending on your settings, it downloads the appropriate updates and presents a notification on the taskbar that they need to be installed. One click and the updates are installed.

There's no justification for needing legal authority to install anything, as the system functions today. To "need" this level of authority, Microsoft would have to argue that THEY, not you, are in fact installing the software in question. In my opinion, (not a lawyer) that's crazy.

In order for the software to be installed, you (a person of sound mind and body) have to take the active step of saying "Yes." You're doing it. It's one-click installation, but you made the choice.

Unless future versions of Windows Update will automatically install things? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Got Code Red Part 44 after the Code Red Part 43 patch auto-installed? "Sorry, you agreed we could install anything we want, including buggy, poorly-tested code."

After all, Microsoft would never release a patch that opened up new holes in the feature it was supposed to fix. (Or in other random products.) Anyone claiming contrary will be burned as a witch.

FUD and idioticy

[SilentChris]

I can't believe this drivel even made it onto Slashdot. This paragraph (and the paragraphs around it, which the article is clearly not referencing for shock value) talk about a feature that has to be *turned on* to be used. In fact, the OS asks you early on if you even want to enable Automatic Updating, and IT administrators (like myself) can easily turn it off on a whole host of machines simply by using Group Policy: remove the option to automatically update.

This is a tech "shock" article, designed to get zealots in an uproar, and it should not even be bothered to be read.