Slashdot Mirror
More MS EULA Fun
gray code writes: "The Register is reporting that Microsoft has placed an interesting wrinkle in the EULA of WinXP SP1 and Win2k SP3 that asks for the same remote admin rights as the Windows Media Player patch that raised such an uproar. I think I'll be leaving my Win2k box at SP2, thank you very much." Update: 08/04 15:05 GMT by T : Helix150 writes that a separate EULA for W2K's SP3 "contains this nasty bit: 'You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET Framework component of the OS Components to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval.' Hmmm..."
Microsoft is required to make this revision in their EULA in order for Automatic Updates to work. If it makes you wary (as if you actually use the OSes) then disable it. Control Panel > Automatic Updates > uncheck Keep My Computer Up to Date. (In Windows XP, the same thing can be found in the System configuration applet of the Control Panel.) Feel free to read the links on that property page to discover what Automatic Updates does, and in newer incarnations, Scheduled Updates.
I believe the fact that this is disablable makes it moot. Such functionality, I think, is almost required for any OS that will play the role of desktop OS. I personally haven't seen the behaviors that take place with Windows 2000 SP3, but Windows XP did alert me the first time it started and before it checked for any updates, permitting me to disable the feature entirely or select from a couple of notification options.
I'm not sure it is acceptable to assume that an end user will actively participate in the maintenance of the software on their system to ensure, above all else, security. Windows had the Windows Update icon sitting in the Start Menu since Windows 98, and it went ignored. As mentioned before, Automatic Updates was released as a part of Windows XP last October. It was also released as an individual update to Windows 2000 over a month ago.
And before we crucify Microsoft alone for including this "heinous" behavior, check Apple. Mac OS has performed automatic updating since Mac OS 9. I don't know about any other software, but I would love to see some form of update checking and/or installation method for servers, especially the variety that are intended to be installed, turned on, and forgotten, like email notifications or schedulable updates. I'd also like to see a move to create a standard through which updates can be propogated for any software. Some software already scan, like Adobe Acrobat Reader, Macromedia ShockWave, and I think QuickTime. If there were one place, maybe things could be more organized and more user friendly.
In any case, justification is pointless. I know people don't like the idea. But, it can be disabled, and if you don't like it, I suggest doing so and updating manually.
The EULA states that they have the power to essentially seek & destory digital rights management circumvention techniques....
I don't think they are out to destory a persons personal files.
Why don't you have a look at the EULA itself, then make your judgements.
Knowledge talks, Wisdom listens
I agree that most users never read the EULA anyway, which is their fault, but they might just read it if it were understandable. How about saying no to the EULA box and mailing Microsoft for clarification on what exactly the EULA means? Surely this is within one's rights as a customer, or is it against the law in the USA now (unpatriotic?) to ask to understand what the EULA is requiring of you?
I have no "warez" on my machine or MP3's for that matter, and I do use my Windows machine to "make money" but I don't think I want to allow Microsoft access to my computer for other reasons. The reasons include Microsoft changing the OS to a subscription model without my consent, Microsoft having access to company and private information which would constitue a breach of my and my company's privacy (small company, no corporate versions) and Microsoft modifying the OS to exclude me using competitor's software without warning me in advance.
I think this is a case for the EU commission on privacy and legality of contracts here in Europe. I don't know about the USA though (OI assume that obviously such contracts are legal in the USA).
Actually, to a great extent, no. The Constitution does not solely restrict the government. If this were true, slavery would be perfectly legal as long as the enslaver was a private party. We certainly do have rights against corporations, not only freedom from slavery but also freedom of privacy and others. Keep that in mind.
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
Yes, (s)he does.
I would love to see some form of update checking and/or installation method for servers, especially the variety that are intended to be installed, turned on, and forgotten, like email notifications or schedulable updates."
Hmmmmm, so you're experienced at running servers, are you? And you'd love to see some organisation you know little about randomly updating your servers with whatever code they like, whenever they feel like it?
Are security and reliability really your top priorities?
You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET framework component of the OS Components to any thirdparty without Microsoft's prior written approval.
How about that, wonder what they are trying to hide? SP3 must contain some of theAlmost everyone probably has -something- to hide. No, maybe not a porn stash or illegal copies of things, but most people have at least one thing they wouldn't want others to know about. An expectation of privacy isn't really that sinister. Heck, how many of you folks use envelopes instead of the (much cheaper to send) post cards? What? You don't want them all to be able to easily read your mail? Even though most postal carriers would probably never bother? What? You don't want to release your medical history to the world? Even though we often practically force presidential candidates & misc. other politicians to do so?
Besides, complacency isn't the answer. MS isn't currently collecting people's first-born; but reserving the right to would (and should!) raise a few eyebrows. It's not that I think they have sinister intentions right now, it's just that I don't trust them to come up with a way to profit at my expense... something not exactly foreign to them, according the to DOJ...
I don't think that they need that clause in the EULA to do what they want to do; all they need to say is that by using their updating software, you grant them the right to make certain changes to the system for the purpose of installing that software & that if you don't like that, you can just turn it off and prevent it from connecting to MS for updates, but that this may not be a good idea.
BTW, yes it really does bother some people to know that MS has a backdoor on their system, just as much as it would bother them to have sub7, netbus, or BO installed. While we may (think) we know exactly what it's doing, given MS' track record on security, it might as well be BO -- at least you can password protect an installation of that...
Just remember an old legal proverb: only a fool signs a contract because he thinks it's unenforcable.
I think I'll be leaving my Win2k box at SP2, thank you very much.
I don't think the mainstream public really cares about what's in a EULA. Hell, I generally don't either. But just think of the implications of people refusing to install patches and security updates because they're accompanied by EULAs with bizarre "big brother" clauses.
Now, with that said did any of you bother to read the article? Here is the offending text:
"You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically downloaded to your computer,"
A little sensationalistic to call this "remote admin rights" isn't it? Basically, this just gives them the legal legroom required to make their automatic updates feature work, which is a good thing. It means more patched machines out there - less of that Nimda shit.
Nobody's spying on your MP3 collection. There's nothing to see here, folks.
If this automatically downloads and installs future patches, does this mean that you do not have to agree to any new EULAs? Since you won't be clicking "I agree" on them, do they count?
-
The OS Product or OS Components contain components that enable and facilitate the use of certain Internet-based
services. You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its
components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades
or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically
downloaded to your computer.
Could this be construed to allow Microsoft to access your machine even with Windows Update off? Corporate users, especially sysadmins, should bring that clause to the attention of their attorneys. It's probably unwise for corporate users to install this update without obtaining legal advice.Microsoft claims the right. There is a difference between them claiming it and them actually having it.
Trying to stop them is not only futile but also illegal.
They can put any provision they want into a EULA, and it doesn't mean squat until it's been challenged and upheld in court. Even if some dumb EULA provision is upheld after a court challenge, if you go against it, it's still just a violation of a User Agreement, not a violation of the law. It would be up to Microsoft to go after every single violator that they want punished. They can't get the gummint to enforce their contract except one case at a time.
TyZone
"It's no big deal, everybody is doing it"
"No, Microsoft is the only who does [nasty things]"
"Then don't use it, geeez."
First of all, even if you only "go with manual updates" Microsoft still has the right to ignore all settings you made and install one update or another (DRM) anyway.
What will you do? Sue them?
It would be up to Microsoft to go after every single violator that they want punished
Nope, it would be the other way around. MS can do anything it wants to your computer, just by piggybacking it within some security update. Then it will be up to you to seek justice in court and to prove that EULA is illegal.Sure you are.
The law says you have the right to do certain things with the copyrighted works you own, such as make backups for personal use, etc. But the copyright owners don't have an obligation by law to make that possible, and that's exactly the "loophole" they're using against us right now.
Well, we're just applying exactly the same principle to Microsoft: they may have the right to remotely perform installs and upgrades to your system, but you don't have an obligation to make that possible. By putting the appropriate firewalls in place, you're simply not giving them the technological means to do what they have a "right" to do.
Now, I agree that in practice it'll work out such that the big corps like Microsoft will have the right to do whatever they please and you won't have the right to do jack shit, but that's a different discussion...
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.