Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Installs New Software Without Permission
Futurepower(R) writes "Even though I have Automatic Updates turned off, on August 28, 2007, between 3:49 and 3:51 AM PDT, Microsoft installed new files on my Windows XP computer." Nine files are updated on Vista and on XP SP1, a different set of on each, relating to Windows Update itself. Microsoft-watch.com's Joe Wilcox and ZDnet's Adrian Kingsley-Hughes confirm the stealth update.
Block M$ from having an interwebs connection and update from windiz, works even if they decided to ignore your settings.
They fitted George Orwell's coffin with rollers so he could turn over more easily years ago.
That's the proprietary software world for you.
The solution is simple, install Ubuntu.
Under cygwin, you can type:
/cygdrive/c/windows/system32/wuapi.dll | grep 7\.0\.6
strings
If you get back something like:
7.0.6000.381
7.0.6000.381 (winmain(wmbla).070730-1740)
7.0.6000.381
then Microsoft has secretly updated you.
My blog
because a large majority of people dont patch windows and i need to test my software with the least common demoninator to ensure it works on all systems
TFAs only mention XP and Vista, but I have Windows 2000 (it will be the last Windows I ever own, and I'm just keeping it running until my end-of-year trip to the USA, when I'll buy a Macbook) and was surprised when I woke up one day this week (either the 11th or 12th of September) and found my computer showing the "got restarted and waiting for somebody to log in" screen. Before I had a UPS, that happened now and then, but since getting a UPS, that shouldn't happen unless we get a major power failure that lasts longer than the several minutes my UPS's battery gives me. That hasn't happened since I got my UPS, and I noticed that other things around the house showed no signs of power loss, despite my computer having been restarted. /., I thought I might have discovered what happens, but TFAs only talk about XP and Vista.
When I logged in, Windows Update informed me that it had installed updates. That's hard to understand, since I've had Windows Update configured for a long time now to ask me before installing anything. When I saw the item on
So was what happened to my computer (running Win2K) the same thing? Did others with old versions of Windows have the same experience?
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
Not quite. Almost all distros of linux have *no* EULA. The license" you refer to (licenses, actually) govern redistribution. Because of said redistribution rights, the moment you receive Linux from someone exercising those rights you can now do whatever you want with linux. The moment you choose to distribute it to someone else, the license comes into effect.
This is generally very different from the "licensing" you talk about with Windows. In fact, even though it is all based on the same copyright law, these are, for the user, very different things.
I do in fact own Linux as much as copyright law allows. Something that the Windows EULA never allows.
This was definitely without my permission, and raises the question about who has control over my computer, me or Microsoft. If Microsoft can put files on my computer without my knowledge, then it is really Microsoft's computer, which is control that I find extremely objectionable.
the article says that computers configured to update via WSUS were not affected. I can confirm that my computer wasn't updated. Most companies that pay attention to their updates probably use WSUS to manage them.
-- "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings" -Optimus Prime
Rubbish.
It's just as accurate to say you own a copy of Linux as it is to say you own a copy of a book.
In neither case do you own the copyright for the item in question, but you do own the copy you have.
You own books, don't you?
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
I've usually heard it as, "In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."
--
Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
Well... you are wrong. The license to the software (not to its distribution medium) says that you are virtually renting it. You are paying a fee for using it, but you do not own it. From the EULA:
3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP. Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this EULA. The Software is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Software. The Software is licensed, not sold.
The reason behind this is to prevent the first sale right defense (you bought it, you own it, you can do whatever you want with it) so it makes illegal to reverse engineering, and all the rest.
Conclusion: no, you do not have first sale doctrine rights.
btw, reading the eula on windows XP I found something I believe more disturbing: 2.1 Digital Rights Management.... A list of revoked DRM Software is sent to your computer whenever you download a license for Secure Content from the Internet. You therefore agree that Microsoft may, in conjunction with such license, also download revocation lists onto your computer on behalf of Secure Content Owners. ...
I know that this is done for DRM purposes, but it is phrased so wide open, that allows them to revoke software that I have in my computer under the excuse that they are protecting secure content, this can be easily abused.
In one of TFA the author mentions looking through at least the Vista license and failed to find anything in the license giving MS permission to perform updates without user consent. So, no, it's not in the license, and they did not have permission.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Sorry for replying to my own post, but further reading suggests this isn't nearly as bad as TFSummary makes out. If you follow the links to the stories on the other sites, and read the comments and links given there, a lot of people are suggesting that this is only updating Windows Update files when you visit the Windows Update site, and not in fact a push of arbitrary changes at all. There's so much hype and FUD flying around this discussion that it's hard to see the wood for the trees.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Well, I can anyhow. You've apparently bought into the entirely retarded idea that criminal organizations are free to impose any sort of demands on you at a whim and you're somehow magically bound by them.
The fact is that nobody is bound by the deluded crap MS puts in their EULAs unless they choose to bind themselves.
Ratchet back the aggression level there.
And there are plenty of cases that hold that you are free to enter into a license agreement with a company when you pay them money for software. See the long list of "shrinkwrap agreement" cases. For example, ProCD v. Zeidenberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg ("The issue presented to the court was whether a shrink wrap license was valid and enforceable. Judge Easterbrook wrote the opinion for the court and found such a license was valid and enforceable."). In other words, software companies make their product available according to the license. If you buy it, you've voluntarily chosen to enter into those terms and you are bound by them.
It's the same as buying a car. Yes, you are free to go buy a car from a dealer with no terms and conditions attached if you can negotiate that deal with the dealer. Or, if the dealer says "look, this is a brand new concept car that's not available for sale yet -- you can buy it, but you have to keep it in a closed garage and you can't take the bib and diaper off it until we tell you" then that's also a completely legal contract if you agree to buy that car. You don't get to tell the dealer "yes, I'll follow your terms" and then turn around and say "I own the car, I can do whatever I want." You entered into an agreement with the dealer and you are bound by it.
The courts have said the same is true for software. If you don't like the license terms then don't buy the software. You can argue that copyright should trump contract, but that's not how the law has worked so far. Maybe your argument is even the better one -- but it's just not how the US courts have worked. Find a client and try to change the law.