Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Denies the Windows Kill Switch
WindozeSux writes "Microsoft has denied that WGA will kill pirated copies of Windows. According to Waggener Edstrom,"Microsoft anti-piracy technologies cannot and will not turn off your computer." Microsoft also says that WGA is a necessary part of its campaign to catch those illegally using Windows XP which leads one to think what WGA really does then."
This was obvious from day one. In any deployment of software there will be bugs, and I've read plenty of incidents of WGA not recognising valid installations (or people using invalid keys for valid purchases). Even if the failure rate was 0.001%, that's still thousands of machines "killed" incorrectly. If just one of these happened to be a prominent journalist, IT decision maker or similar, the fallout for MS would be far worse than anything they'd gain by the action.
So, another hyped story killed with a modicum of common sense (and I'm certainly not the first to point this out). I thought IT communities were meant to be filled with rational people?
The question is why not kill pirated copies of Windows?
I'm just speculating here, just my best guesses (so mods, keep that in mind):
1. They can't (intentionally) kill working copies now. If they killed too many legit copies from too many "false positives", they'd be slapped with a class action that would make the current EU anti-trust pale by comparison.
2. While they can't kill windows, they can divide it into two classes (legit and cracked), and thus allow the legit ones to have all the eye candy and other accessories... not that too many people really care all that much about Power Calculator.
3. It is a test program for a future version of Windows, where they can very reliably kill cracked versions of the product, once they fine-tune their ability to tell a cracked version from a legit one.
I can only hope, however, they don't bog thier products down with so much "detection code" that the app is 90% slower... like recent versions of Norton Systemworks.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Oh no... the people who already don't buy windows will hate Microsoft even more.
I'm sure they are trembling in fear.
Once a record of what is stored on your computer exists at MS, it can be subpoenaed by RIAA, the government, or virtually any company involved in a law suite about virtually anything.
It doesn't matter what MS says about your privacy. If they have your information, they can't protect it from subpoena.
The only safe windows box is one that has no connection to the internet.
If MS would offer whitebox builders the same price that they offer to the big OEMs like Dell and Gateway, they'd probably see a lot less for-profit piracy. As it stands, the small shops can put together good quality hardware and come out slightly ahead of the big companies, but the moment they add in software (including Windows and Office), they end up being forced to offer the complete system at a very uncompetitive price.
I doubt that even the tinest fraction of Windows users (who do not post to Slashdot) have given a second thought to WGA or even heard any one of the paranoid rumors which fill these pages.
No, this spin is just... beyond. This is one of the funniest (and saddest) things I've ever read (emphasis mine):
In other words, WGA isn't a means of cracking down on piracy, it's a useful tool that companies can use to save money! This message has obvously been brought to you by the same type of people who try to tell everyone that Digital Rights Management is a wonderful thing because it allows you to access content.
Jesus, are people really that naive? Why can't they just say what it is—a tool to keep people who haven't paid them lots of money from using their stuff. At least I could be on board with their motives. (Being paid for stuff I do is nice.) Am I the only one who is insulted not so much by WGA's existence as I am by how stupid they think we are in pitching it?
They might not be a nice company, but I hope they manage to make every single user pay for Windows, soon. I doubt they will, though, because I think they'd rather people use Windows illegally than use an alternative operating system.
FTA: "No, Microsoft antipiracy technologies cannot and will not turn off your computer," said a spokeswoman with Waggener Edstrom, Microsoft's public relations firm.
Ah, but will it disable my installation of Windows? That's the part I care about.
She did not answer the question. She did not deny that WGA can diasble your installation of Windows. Why do we listen to PR flaks so uncritically?
Don't get me wrong. I have an iBook G4. Even though the geek in me prefers using linux, OSX is IMHO what a desktop OS should be. But... Apple have taken an open source OS added some stuff and then closed it. They remove posts of forums which point out bugs/problems with their products etc. I do not think Apple hold much of a higher moral ground and if they had MS's market share they would probably be doing similar things and everyone would be making posts like "My next PC will be a Wintel". Corporations are not your friend, so why take any sides? Use them as much as they use you.
...... In a perfect world, copy and licensing protections wouldn't have to exist......
In the real, imperfect world, Apple's solution of making the hardware and software together, for each computer gives them the freedom not to have to go through all of this stupid, wasteful activation crap. It is pretty hard to make a free copy of a whole computer. This is only one good reason to prefer their computers over Windows. Apple makes it easy to replace an existing hard drive with a bigger and/or faster model and then re-installing the OS back thereon, together with all users and settings. No need for a user to phone Apple or have an internet connection.
Once MS makes it hard enough for ordinary, honest users to keep their own computers running, perhaps more and more people will begin to see the advantage of a company that makes the whole widget, all as a seamlessly operating thing that "just works". What other product is there, whose continuing functionality is at the whim of its producer, other than a computer running Windows XP or later? It seems that the attitude of MS is that THEY own your computer and therefore can "license" its use to you on terms they decide, since you are just renting it from them. Why should a car owner have to get permission from the manufacturer to replace or modify the engine or some other part of the car? Apple's model is that the user OWNS the vehicle, MS makes people passengers in a taxi, where MS, the taxi driver decides the route and fee to a destination or whether you are even allowed to go there at all. As a home owner, you are allowed to make minor structural modifications to your living space or repaint the whole place in weird colors, but as a renter, you better get permission from the landlord first. MS sees itself as the landlord of every computer running Windows.
All theory is gray