Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lawsuit Claims WGA Is Spyware

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the advantage-microsoft dept.

twitter writes "Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA), Microsoft's euphemistically named digital restrictions scheme, is the target of another spyware and false advertising lawsuit. 'Microsoft this week was sued in a Washington district court for allegedly violating privacy laws through Windows XP's Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) copy protection scheme. Similar to cases filed in 2006, the new class action case accuses Microsoft of falsely representing what information WGA would send to verify the authenticity of Windows and that it would send back information [daily IP address and other details that could be used to trace information back to a home or user]. The complaint further argued that Microsoft portrayed WGA as a necessary security update rather than acknowledge its copy protection nature in the update. WGA's implementation also prevented users from purging the protection from their PCs without completely reformatting a computer's system drive.' There were at least two other lawsuits launched in 2006 over WGA. According to the Wikipedia article, none of them have been resolved. The system is built into Vista and Windows 7."

5 of 360 comments (clear)

  1. Nothing will happen by sconeu · · Score: 4, Informative

    Except that MS has to hand out vouchers for more MS products, giving them an even bigger market share.

    [see Sony Rootkit settlement for details]

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:Nothing will happen by azrider · · Score: 4, Informative

      So, can a corporation have free speech? No, because it doesn't have a mouth.

      See the first case that SCOTUS will hear (one month before the normal start of their session). It is a "free speech" issue regarding campaign finance (do corporations, unions and PACs) have the right to air political ads without claiming them as a "donation in kind", triggering matching funds.

      The argument being presented in support claims that campaign donations (from those corporations, unions and PACs) are free speech and therefore cannot be legally constrained.

      Even though they are not able to vote, they are still able to influence elections. Some say that their influence is corrosive.

      --
      And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
      John 8:32(King James Version)
  2. Re:What did you think it was, a fluffy bunny? by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Informative

    And if you want Red Hat without the paid support, just get Cent OS. (http://www.centos.org/) about the only way I know to get Windows for free is with less than legal methods (http://thepiratebay.org/). So if you don't need the support, there are other options.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  3. Re:What did you think it was, a fluffy bunny? by hedwards · · Score: 4, Informative

    The problem is that, if I'm remembering correctly, is that they don't really give you a choice in the matter. Basically use our WGA or don't get our patches. If I'm remembering correctly, refusing to use the WGA would make it impossible to use the Microsoft update to properly keep things up to date. I can't recall specifically whether that included security patches or not.

  4. can't speak for others...[microsoft tax] by Anne+Honime · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... but when I bought my computer, I asked for vista to be removed and the price refunded. Hoped from shop to shop until I found one that agreed (in fact I was ready for a trek, but the 3rd shop in the street was the good one). He got the deal, and I bought the refund worth of RAM to top of the computer capacity. I was pleased, and so was the seller.

    My laptop is an Asus eeepc 900A linux 'edition'. Again, I carefully reviewed the options before buying.

    Speak with your wallet.