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

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?

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.