Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Will Never Again Sneakily Force Windows Downloads on Users (betanews.com)

A reader shares a report Windows users in Germany were particularly unimpressed when Microsoft forcibly downloaded many gigabytes of files to upgrade from Windows 7 and 8 to Windows 10. Having held out for 18 months, and losing its case twice, Microsoft has finally agreed to stop its nefarious tactics. After a lengthy battle with Germany's Baden-Wurtenberg consumer rights center, Microsoft made the announcement to avoid the continuation of legal action. A press release on the Baden-Wurtenberg website reveals that Microsoft has announced it will no longer download operating system files to users' computers without their permission: Microsoft will not download install files for new operating systems to a user system's hard disk without a user's consent. The consumer rights center hoped for this resolution to be reached much sooner, but Microsoft's decision will please the courts and could have a bearing on how the company acts in other countries.

200 comments

  1. And... by Type44Q · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And we made sure of this because we locked up the fuckers responsible.

    Right??

    1. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't put people in jail over civil suits. What they did wasn't criminal. It was only an annoyance.

    2. Re:And... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      While I agree with the sentiments, you can't lock up an entire company's work force. Because everyone involved is only partially involved, and each individual could point to a thousand others that each contributed to boneheaded decisions, to the point that no one person is culpable.

      The fix, is if this was "criminal" offense, would be to go after the CxO and Board of Directors and actually lock THEM up for the group think decisions of the company they are supposed to oversee. IF you actually started going after the top people, the culture underneath would change. Until that actually happens ... don't expect any real changes.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re: And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was criminal. They need to go to jail, and they need to be tortured to catch everyone involved. Only then will things be right again.

    4. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That seems weird because other countries put traitors in front of a firing squad. Has America gone soft on crime?

    5. Re: And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was criminal. They need to go to jail, and they need to be tortured to catch everyone involved. Only then will things be right again.

      Yep.. I'm onboard with that.... They need to be heavily punished as a real deterrent to further bad behavior.. Skinned alive on Twitch, then dumped feet first in to a slow meat grinder.

    6. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I wrote over top of YOUR data or some banks data, I would sure as hell be put in jail.

    7. Re:And... by tomhath · · Score: 1, Informative

      Hillary lost. Get over it.

    8. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But M$ is not a person...

    9. Re:And... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      That seems weird because other countries put traitors in front of a firing squad. Has America gone soft on crime?

      Firing squads are still used in Utah, although only if the condemned prisoner requests it. Otherwise the default is lethal injection. Utah may switch to firing squads as the default method if lethal drugs continue to be unavailable. The last execution by firing squad in Utah was in 2010.

      If I was to be executed in Utah, I would definitely go with the firing squad. Lethal injections are for sissies.

    10. Re: And... by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      i love the humor.

    11. Re:And... by megamind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Windows update has been relabeled to "version control" and install files have been renamed to "for your benefit security patches". Germans should wise up and realize nothing they do or say will stop Microsoft from doing whatever they want.

    12. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary who? The elections are over, we're talking about the current president now.

    13. Re:And... by nukenerd · · Score: 5, Informative

      Interfering with someone's computer without their permission is a criminal offence in Europe. In the UK it comes under the Computer Misuse Act. It just seems that no-one (other than, in Germany, the Baden-Wurtenberg consumer rights center) has the bottle to pursue this.

      From this :-

      CMA 1990 introduced the following three new offences into UK criminal law:

              unauthorised access to computer material;
              unauthorised access with intent to commit a further offence;
              Unauthorised acts with intent to impair, or with recklessness as to impairing, operation of computer, etc (as amended by the Police and Justice Act 2006).

      I would consider converting Windows 7 to Windows 10 shows an intent to impair.

    14. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we should all establish a corporation of ourselves and do everything in the name of the corporation so we can avoid jail also.

    15. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree with the sentiments, you can't lock up an entire company's work force. Because everyone involved is only partially involved, and each individual could point to a thousand others that each contributed to boneheaded decisions, to the point that no one person is culpable.

      Ah, let's try that for murder for hire.

      I didn't aim the gun says the man who pulled the trigger.
      I didn't load the gun says the man who aimed the gun.
      I didn't pull the trigger says the man who loaded the gun.

      The fix, is if this was "criminal" offense, would be to go after the CxO and Board of Directors and actually lock THEM up for the group think decisions of the company they are supposed to oversee. IF you actually started going after the top people, the culture underneath would change. Until that actually happens ... don't expect any real changes.

      But if they were responsible, you'd have to identify a particular offense they committed. Sadly, that isn't established for computers in a very rigorous way. What standards do we have? What regulations? What requirements? Oh wait, yeah.

      None.

    16. Re:And... by meerling · · Score: 0

      Wow! Talk about being way the f### off topic!
      So, are you a troll?

      Don't get me wrong, I'm hoping for that result before christmas, but this still isn't the place to post that junk.

    17. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, calm down, pathetic asshole. It's not that big a deal.

    18. Re:And... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      I don't think you understand my actual position. A corporation is a legal entity (a "person") under the law, therefore if a criminal law has been broken, then we have the right to seek justice accordingly. The problem is, that in cases like that there is no way to lock up a corporation in Jail. But you can lock up the people responsible for overseeing the company (the CxO and Board) who are supposed to direct the corporation.

      A committee shouldn't absolve those at the top from the course of action they were overseeing.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    19. Re: And... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      I'm rather partial to a woodchipper, myself. Feet first, of course.

    20. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yet if i had done this to someones computer. I would be in jail.

    21. Re: And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not Twitch. Amazon is as bad as MS is.

    22. Re:And... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      you can't lock up an entire company's work force.

      Strawman: one need do nothing of the sort.

    23. Re: And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's think about this for a sec; while you can't "lock up" a corporation what is the purpose of sending someone to jail? If we agree it is 'Depriving them of certain freedoms' why not do that to the corporations instead? A year or two of being banned from trading should do the trick!

    24. Re:And... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 4, Funny
      They are not human, but, in law, they are a person. This puts them in much the same category as the undead, and evil spirits - to which they show a close resemblance.

      I'm with the meat grinder guy.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    25. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone physically steals your computer, preventing you from using it, they are punishable by law. If M$ installs a new OS or other updates, that prevent you from using it, without permission, why is it any different? Why is it not a case of hostage/ransom?

    26. Re:And... by Mattcelt · · Score: 1

      Interfering with someone's computer without their permission is a criminal offence in Europe.

      Interfering with animals without their permission is a criminal offence in most states of the US. Should computers be any different?

    27. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It never converted. It just preloaded the files needed to do so.

    28. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They pre-downloaded files. They didn't erase files to do that. So yeah, if they had erased files then you may be able to press criminal charges. However, that is not what happened here.

    29. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, register as an LLC?

    30. Re: And... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Animals can't give permission...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    31. Re:And... by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Pfft. Real men ask for the guillotine. If you gotta go, may as well go in pieces!

    32. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't put people in jail over civil suits. What they did wasn't criminal. It was only an annoyance.

      In my country any theft over $20 gives me the right to a jury trial. The cost of bandwidth here is ~$80/mo for 5mbit/1mbit. You do the math.

    33. Re: And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Animals can't give permission...

      Is that you dating strategy?

    34. Re: And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany could embargo Microsoft and outlaw the sale of their products and services. Hit'em right in the wallet, the only thing they'll listen to.

    35. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I was to be executed in Utah, I would definitely go with the firing squad. Lethal injections are for sissies.

      There's always marriage.

    36. Re:And... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Apparently the currently preferred method of 'wax off' is nitrogen, I will not detail it, look it up if you feel the need, just make sure it is not interrupted in the brain damage stage. For people with the extremely disturbing fetish need to kill other people, well, why not practice on yourself before trying it on others ;).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    37. Re:And... by Archimonde · · Score: 1

      You can lock up the guy or a team who made a decision like that. Not that I'm saying that we should lock up people for that though. But somebody did make a decision that those updates will download even without the consent of the user. And someone did make an implementation of that. Programming like that is made by hand, not really by some independant AI.

      In general, yes, decisions are done in every company and there are people standing behind those. And if those decisions are bad enough the same people should be responsible for them.

      --
      Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
    38. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fuckers at Microsoft cost a lot of money at customer side due to lost data and work time needed to recover from their Windows10 -malware attack. The force update was from customer point of view no different than any other ransomware or DoS attack. Microsoft managemetn needs to pay for its deliberate attack on Windows users.

    39. Re:And... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Even Congress isn't stupid enough to try that w/o solid evidence of a criminal act. In spite of all the whiny rants about Russia, you really don't have any more evidence than those who pissed and moaned about Benghazi.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    40. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So unlawfully accessing my computer and making colossal changes and making it impossible to revert repeatedly, bypassing all my security measures, disabling them in the process, and dumping unknown data into a black box is a "civil offense"?

    41. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you ignore the entire fucking debacle over people being forcibly upgraded to it?

    42. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US, you can spend money in order to improve the quality of your jail cell accommodations, such that it becomes the equivalent of being confined to a hotel room. In other words, white collar criminals are treated *so* softly that it could be said that the deterrents to unethical behaviour is simply not there (i.e., because the criminal reaps a large sum, are jailed in relative comfort, and then "retire" quietly).

      In order to adequately deter white collar crime, the punishment needs to visibly demonstrate an undesirable consequence. To this end, a modern version of the gibbet might be a good solution, initially with empty gibbets mounted along Wall St. and town halls.

      A consideration is that with a change of government, there might be opportunists wanting to remove the gibbets, seeking to protect white collar criminals. The solution is to enshrine gibbets in law, such that the intent to remove gibbet legislation is punishable by gibbet.

    43. Re:And... by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      If anything criminal is done, follow this proceedure. Start at the top. If they claim ignorance, get them to hand over whoever had authority to authorize the decisions that approved the action, and they must show they were reasonably ignorant of the actions taken (emails or other communication between subordinates that they were hiding info from their bosses should suffice). If they can't provide the necessary party, then they are the ones who will be held responsible. If the company puts in a reward structure that results in thousands of employees breaking the law, then each employee and whoever created and approved the reward structure shall face the necessary legal penalties.

      Additionally, the corporation will reimburse customers affected any profits from the activity x 10 + the costs of actually fixing the problem or reimbursing the purchase price. The Corporation will also pay the lawyers fees of any class action lawsuit brought against them separate on top of any settlement.

      This combination of penalties should put an end to corporations acting badly.

    44. Re: And... by Thundercat007 · · Score: 1

      Actually it was criminal. They pushed an update/upgrade that failed ALOT in the beginning. Before Never10 it for updated my VM, for amusement I went through the process.... failed. Lost everything on my VM. This situation happened to many others including business owners. Wiped out many hard drives with no way to recover (unless you consulted a data recovery specialist).

    45. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Malware is illegal. They are criminals and should be in prison.

    46. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just preloaded the files needed to do so.

      Stealing bandwidth, stealing electricity and placing additional wear on to the storage media of the user in the process.

    47. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firing squads are still used by the U.S. military. And in Utah you have to volunteer for firing squad and the state can't force it on you (as of 2004).
      It's not clear how a death sentence in a federal treason case would be handled as we have never executed someone for treason under federal law. (It's happened under state laws numerous times)

  2. They gonna put a rainbow in the sky? by the_skywise · · Score: 1

    Next time they'll just send it out piecemeal anyway

    1. Re: They gonna put a rainbow in the sky? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right, systemd is the death of a thousand cuts.

      I think it was installed by the NSA to vastly increase the attack surface. Linux was getting too hard for them to hack.

  3. Yeah right... by ponraul · · Score: 2, Insightful

    honest injun we wont!

  4. Finally, an admission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So where do users who were sneakily forced go to get reparations?

    1. Re:Finally, an admission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask their parents for more money?

    2. Re:Finally, an admission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may be hard for a lot of them. At least in my family, my parents were the ones who got Windows 10 without asking for it, and they are in their 60es.

      Us young ones (around 40) knew how to avoid malware, and Windows 10 was no different.

  5. Trust Us by FerociousFerret · · Score: 5, Funny

    You can trust us this time. Honest! We have changed.

    1. Re:Trust Us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microshaft, change? Maybe. Have thr fires of Hell frozen over yet?

      Any (ex)users with brains are out of reach of any future updates from MS. By this point in time they have moved to Mac or Linux. Only the masses remain, the morass of humanity that use computers like toasters and know little else.

    2. Re:Trust Us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing hasn't changed, the dumbass idiots who use computers. 95% of them will click "NO" every time Windows wants to download a security update, meaning their Wal-Mart brand PCs won't get updated, and thus making them more prone to spread infections elsewhere.

    3. Re:Trust Us by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      So, they're supposed to blindly accept any "security update"? From the same company that forced other unwanted crap upon them? Well, the fact is that more people have received those kind of crap updates from MS than those who've been infected. So, tell us Einstein, which is actually worse?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    4. Re:Trust Us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing hasn't changed, the dumbass idiots who use computers. 95% of them will click "NO" every time Windows wants to download a security update

      Clearly with good reason, as all the Get Windows 10 updates proved.

      They were just ahead of everyone else.

    5. Re:Trust Us by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      One thing hasn't changed, the dumbass idiots who use computers. 95% of them will click "NO" every time Windows wants to download a security update, meaning their Wal-Mart brand PCs won't get updated, and thus making them more prone to spread infections elsewhere.

      Microsoft has an annoying habit of having interesting ideas of what does and does not constitute a security update which do not match what everybody outside of Microsoft might consider such, which has as its end result being that users develop a (healthy) distrust. Look at how Win10 got released...and oh, yeah, if you didn't go into your settings, it'd 'helpfully' use your bandwidth to help spread Win10.

  6. But I was told by the Microsoft fanboys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that it was for my own good that Microsoft shoved Windows 10 down my throat! That one time when they made the "X" button act like "Install" was perfectly fine too, because the message said "We will automatically install Windows 10 unless you explicitly change it"!

  7. They just agree to stop and that's it? by HalAtWork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are no demands to make up for all of the inconvenience, wasted time, overages on bandwidth, etc?

    Slap on the wrist...

    1. Re:They just agree to stop and that's it? by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Agreed to stop it, 1.5-years after they stopped giving away Windows 10 too. Seems like win-win for Microsoft, drag the case out so long its irrelevant then agree to stop the behaviour.

    2. Re:They just agree to stop and that's it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, a slap on the wrist requires a slap. Here it's not even that.

  8. A little too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    By now there probably aren't that many people left to force an upgrade to Windows10. They need to stop these automatic updates and reboots. Rebooting a PC without explicit permission from the owner of that PC is as criminal as what Sony did with their rootkit. Microsoft may own the IP in the OS but they don't own my PC.

    1. Re:A little too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would be willing to accept automatic updates if it was limited to security updates only.

    2. Re:A little too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you don't update at all then? Because Windows 10 doesn't HAVE separate security updates. It is a single cumulative (with sometimes a separate one for Flash). So you cannot go pick and choose your updates. It is all or nothing.

    3. Re:A little too late by meerling · · Score: 1

      No it isn't.
      You may hate them both, but in no way are they equivalent transgressions.

    4. Re:A little too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a little soft in the head? Where does he/she state that they are even using Windows 10? Yes, we know it is all or nothing, which is why they stated they wanted just security updates.

    5. Re: A little too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A prerequisite would obviously be for the security updates to be separate. Which they could be.

  9. I totally read that as... by Ann+O'Nymous-Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Microsoft Will Again Sneakily Force Windows Downloads on Users

    because let's be real, they've got a track record.

    1. Re:I totally read that as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry... that comes later when.

    2. Re:I totally read that as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft loves jamming huge things down the people's throat without their consent.

  10. Is this across the board? by ErichTheRed · · Score: 2

    I wonder if this will be implemented globally, or whether there will be a "Windows 10 G" edition. Windows N and Windows KN editions for South Korea and the EU were created to remove Media Player and force the user to make a browser choice before IE is turned on by default.

    Some people were beyond pissed when this happened, so maybe they'll just cut their losses and do it across the board. The sneaky upgrade dialog was the thing I wasn't happy about, but I'm sure there are some people out there who are very privacy-minded, and any files they didn't explicitly ask for are a no-go for them. I work with people all over the world, and the EU and Germany in particular has some of the strictest privacy laws. 99% of the information harvesting that your average one-trick web startup gets away with in the US is just forbidden by law there. Facebook and Google are constantly lobbying to have the rules not apply to them because their business model falls apart without full access to people's data.

    1. Re:Is this across the board? by avandesande · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not sure where you are getting this from, TFA just mentions files for a new operating system. Since MS has stated there will never be a 'Windows 11' they aren't really giving up much here.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
  11. good for zero days exploiters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As much as I disagree with forced patches, it has kept the 0 day rate down lately.

    1. Re:good for zero days exploiters by meerling · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there are plenty of people and companies that are many years, and sometimes a decade or more out of date on OS and security patches. It's sad, especially when they then get upset over how they got infected by a virus or other malware that's now eating their network when everyone else that wasn't running antique software was immune to. You don't want to know how many hundreds of thousands of machines I've seen that happen to.

    2. Re:good for zero days exploiters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't want to know how many hundreds of thousands of machines I've seen that happen to.

      Hundreds of thousands? I doubt that.

    3. Re:good for zero days exploiters by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Maybe he works in a data center that didn't bother with updates. Nuke a whole server farm at once!

    4. Re:good for zero days exploiters by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      I've been at a uni where all the comps were terminals that when you logged in loaded up a fresh image of Windows--in fact, they switched to doing things that way while I was there.

      From the first day I got access to the system, it was wanting updates, and when I left it still was.

  12. Define "Permission" and "Consent" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft has announced it will no longer download operating system files to users' computers without their permission: Microsoft will not download install files for new operating systems to a user system's hard disk without a user's consent.

    Define "Permission" and "Consent". Isn't this the same company that defined the red X close button to mean "Ok, Install Windows 10"?

    Windows 10 Upgrade Activates By Clicking Red X Close Button In Prompt Message

  13. Next Step by avandesande · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sue to extend this to system updates so MS is forced to restore the previous functionality that was available to users.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:Next Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would never win. Those are updates not upgrades.

    2. Re:Next Step by tomhath · · Score: 1

      No. The next step will be to change the description from "new operating system" to "monthly update of your existing operating system, including user experience optimizations".

    3. Re:Next Step by meerling · · Score: 1

      Don't give them ideas!

  14. Literally unbelievable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Literally unbelievable.

    As in literally cannot be believed.

  15. Payback by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    Germans complain about Microsoft and come back proclaiming "Peace for our time".

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Payback by Sindar+By+Choice · · Score: 0

      Oblique and in charge.

  16. Good start, but not enough by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They said (emphasis mine):

    Microsoft will not download install files for new operating systems to a user system’s hard disk without a user's consent.

    How about you just don't upload or download anything without the user's consent?

    1. Re:Good start, but not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't Microsoft plan to make Windows 10 the last operating system? Future changes are only as patches to Windows 10?

      So, naturally, Microsoft will never download install files for new operating systems, because there are no new operating systems to talk about.

    2. Re:Good start, but not enough by Altrag · · Score: 1

      They have your consent -- its buried in that EULA you didn't read but still clicked Accept on.

      GWX was perhaps questionable. I'm not sure if the win7/8 EULAs were expansive enough to cover a full upgrade to the latest version, but they all cover MS' butt with regards to downloading and installing updates, and I'm sure the win10 EULA is even more stringent on that given that MS no longer gives you an opt-out to their updates. They're just forced on you whether you like it or not (and I totally wouldn't mind that to be honest, if it wasn't for the automatic reboots. I've actually set my active hours to when I'm not working so that I can maximize my chance of telling windows to fuck off before it arbitrarily reboots itself and loses everything I had going at the time.)

    3. Re:Good start, but not enough by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Where's my signature. Where's my actual name applied to the bottom of the EULA?

      That's what I thought. I never signed that contract of adhesion.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:Good start, but not enough by dcw3 · · Score: 1
      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    5. Re:Good start, but not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you haven't implicitly accepted all parts of the EULA, then Microsoft expects you to stop using your unauthorized copy of Windows and remove it from your computer. Those are the rules of abiding by the Windows EULA.

    6. Re:Good start, but not enough by admin7087 · · Score: 1

      In Germany, a EULA presented in this way is not enforceable and most of them are invalid and void anyway, because they contain clauses that are not compatible with consumer rights, contract law, or other regulations. Contract law in the EU is very different from US contract law. The corporations are just betting regularly that nobody will sue them or otherwise invalidate the contract, which sadly is the case.

      My general advice is to read the EULA, print it out, and send the company any changes you would like to make to it. Change anything you disagree with to an alternative suggestion of mutual benefit. If only 5% of customers or even less would do that, this EULA nonsense would stop very quickly.

    7. Re:Good start, but not enough by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Their EULA can't go about violating the law. I am quite free to ignore those terms at my leisure.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  17. Now that the damage is done... by GerryGilmore · · Score: 1

    ... they pinky-swear that they have changed. Bullshit! If they ever have a chance to do anything similar and it will make them money, they'll do it. I've been MS-free for years and it's been a real joy to convert so many family and friends to it. Plus, BTW, I no longer get calls from them about the latest thing that Windows is doing. Great!!

  18. How I interpret this... by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

    From now on, our subsidiary [name yet to be revealed] that "isn't Microsoft" will instead force downloads on users for us^H^Hthem.

    --
    Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
  19. The general lack of resistance by Dirk+Becher · · Score: 1

    has convinced them to do it in the full open.

  20. SubjectIsSubject by p0p0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft will not download install files for new operating systems to a user system's hard disk without a user's consent.

    They really need a clear definition of "consent" because from what I remember just hitting the "X" on the upgrade Window instead of "Cancel" was actually considered consent by MS. It's purposefully misleading and you know they'll do it again with Windows 11 or whatever bullshit name they call it.

    1. Re:SubjectIsSubject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They really need a clear definition of "consent"

      Agreed. This can be a big loophole. If Microsoft changes the Windows EULA so that when you accept it, you also consent to receive future downloads from Microsoft, will such "consent" count? Also, if you refuse a download from Microsoft, can Microsoft nag you intrusively and repeatedly, to annoy you into submission?

  21. Yea right by burtosis · · Score: 5, Insightful
    More like

    Microsoft will never sneakily force updates on users through large downloads and only in Germany

    FTFY

  22. Hang the CxO set on the Washington Mall?? by laurencetux · · Score: 1

    doing a reverse of lives are money thing then as they have cost people MILLIONS then a case could be made they are "serial killers".

    hey i would be nice and load their jumpsuits with a buncha gold coins first.

  23. Meaningless commitment by Immerman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I seem to recall them claiming (a year or so ago?) that Windows 10 would be the last version of Windows, it's rolling updates from here on out. In which case this announcement is a completely meaningless way to duck punishment - they promise to no longer download files for a new operating system... because they will no longer release new operating systems. Just massive updates to their only one.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    1. Re:Meaningless commitment by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1, Funny

      [...] they will no longer release new operating systems. Just massive updates to their only one.

      Ah, yes. The "Highlander" approach.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Meaningless commitment by AntiSol · · Score: 1

      I came here to say the same thing. The "new operating systems" wording is a nice little loophole if you're planning on going to a rolling release model.

    3. Re:Meaningless commitment by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Ditto. The old adage, if over time you replace all the parts of a ship, at what point isn't it the same ship?
       
      It's almost like Windows saw this coming and made Windows 10 in response.

      Having held out for 18 months....

      Humm......no, I know that MS can't work quite that fast....

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    4. Re:Meaningless commitment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're saying

      There can be only ONE version of ONE dot Oh
       
      (*lightning*)

    5. Re:Meaningless commitment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for windows 10 you need to s/ship/shit/ here

    6. Re:Meaningless commitment by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Being a /. reader, I of course haven't read the details.. but I suspect a lot of that hinges on what the courts consider to be a "new version." Is the anniversary update or the creators update considered new versions? They're both fairly massive updates (both in terms of download size and feature changes.) Or does it only count as a new version when the marketing department decides to change an already-arbitrary number to a new arbitrary number? Or does each build count as a new version and this blocks legitimate security updates from being pushed as well?

    7. Re:Meaningless commitment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    8. Re: Meaningless commitment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could have adopted that model starting with a windows 7 "security patch"

      The real reason they have windows 10 is that windows 8 sucked so much they needed to waste a version number in between to put some psychological distance behind them. Plus they love to copy apple and apple has been on 10.x for a while now so that must be the "in" thing to do

    9. Re:Meaningless commitment by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      The last is not necessarily a bad thing with Win10's update behavior being what it is. The problem is that, in order to 'fix' the 'problem' of users not installing security updates, they've gone and made all updates install themselves and not even make sure you get proper warning before rebooting the system to install. Not only that, but I suspect the current regime at Microsoft would happily insist that all of those were 'legitimate security updates' if that lets them get around the pesky issue of having to ask users' permission, especially when one of the 'security holes' fixed is users wanting privacy.

  24. Exactly - Show me where this is in the EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly - Show me where this is in the EULA

    If it is in the EULA that Microsoft will not do this, I'll believe this.

    If it isn't in the EULA, then it is just talk.

  25. What about windows 10 S store only will the EU by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    What about windows 10 S store only will the EU come down or that or the new windows 10 update that disables ReFS unless you upgrade at an added cost to windows workstation?

    1. Re:What about windows 10 S store only will the EU by Altrag · · Score: 2

      They probably won't have to. Unless MS has a dazzling, amazing plan for bolstering their store offerings, Win10S is likely to be close to DOA. Windows' main ability to keep users is the fact that so many users are already running Windows and won't (or far more often, can't) switch all of their apps to a competitor.

      If MS kills their own compatibility benefits, it undermines a lot of the reason people have stick with their platform through all of the shit they pulled with Vista's compatibility disaster, Win8's UI disaster and now Win10's privacy concerns (not quite to disaster level like those other two since it doesn't really affect day-to-day work for the most part, but there's still a lot of awareness and distrust of it.)

      I don't know if MS is just so egotistical that they assume all developers would rebuild all of their apps with UWP, or if they're so naive as to think their users don't care about non-UWP apps, or if they're so blind that they think their store has wide enough app coverage, but in any of those cases my guess is that they're wrong and they're risking their core business on a walled garden without many flowers.

      Basically, if I'm going to be essentially switching to a new platform and forced to give up all of my apps anyway, why would I choose Windows over Apple or Linux? Sure some people will stick with Windows purely out of familiarity even if they lose access to their non-Store software, but that's not nearly as big of an incentive to stick with MS as you know.. not losing access to that software.

  26. No problem by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft will not download install files for new operating systems to a user system’s hard disk without a user's consent.

    UPDATED EULA VERSION

    By using the software you hereby consent to ....
    ....
    .... [ 25 pages later ]
    ....

    Your computer automatically downloading and installing updates for bugfixes, security patches, and operating system upgrades with no further notification required, with no guarantee of visible a UI indication, options dialog, or other opportunity being provided defer, pause, cancel, undo, revert, or to opt-out of this process of automatic self-updating.

    1. Re:No problem by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      EULAs are pretty much unenforceable in civilized countries. And in Germany, too.

      Germany has something in their consumer protection laws that is worded like "if there's anything in your contract that could be considered special or unusual, you have to stress it and the customer has to explicitly agree to explicitly that". And not only is it a computer illiterate judge that gets to determine what's "unusual" in terms of computer related contracts, on top of that you have a lot of consumer protection laws that include the "cannot waive this right" clause.

      In other words, forget it, pal.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:No problem by mrbester · · Score: 2

      Non-binding in EU countries. Thanks for playing, though.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    3. Re:No problem by Altrag · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty strong claim. I'm not sure how many countries have ever brought a EULA to trial.

      Certainly parts of a EULA that contradict local laws are generally invalid in pretty much every jurisdiction, and almost all EULAs include a clause stating that when that happens, it only invalidates the contradictory parts rather than the entire EULA (so that they don't have to write a separate one for every town and hamlet that has their own local bylaws on the issue.)

      But they almost certainly tailor EULAs to the level of a country (in the EU's case maybe there's just one for the whole EU? Unsure.) And unless your country has explicitly said EULAs in general are not valid in any situation, you should operate under the assumption that any EULA you agree to (by whatever means) is at least going to have to be argued in front of a judge if you want to claim that its unenforceable. Which means if you're planning to fight something like the Windows EULA, you'd best be prepared to battle Microsoft's army of lawyers.

    4. Re:No problem by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      In most countries, contracts where you get loaded additional bullshit onto it after the sale are void. And that's basically what an EULA is. The sale happens before you get even informed what the EULA consists of, let alone agree to it.

      And no, the click-through bullshit is not a substitute.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  27. What about the US? by Sindar+By+Choice · · Score: 0

    Would American customers of Microsoft or any other tech giants like Google or Apple be afforded the same consumer protections?
    Probably not.

  28. I hope this is not just Germany by bravecanadian · · Score: 1

    Because sneaky upgrades were seriously annoying.

  29. All the headline is missing are crossed fingers by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    Also, does this apply globally, or just in Germany?

    1. Re:All the headline is missing are crossed fingers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the headline is missing are quote fingers

  30. enforce this worldwide or just the Germain domain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this only applicable to the German domain users or worldwide..??!!?

  31. How about full screen upgrade popups? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On Windows 10, and it routinely does a full screen nag pop-up that covers the game I'm playing asking when I want to schedule my upgrade to the next windows 10 release?

    No way to tell it to STFU...

    Any ideas?

    1. Re:How about full screen upgrade popups? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you're not going to like this answer but the only way to get M$ to do exactly what you want is to not use it.

  32. Never again by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

    Until the next time.

  33. Pig fuckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's be honest, Microsoft and pig fuckers are one and the same. Since...like, Win95.

  34. I miss the old days... by DaveMikulec · · Score: 1

    Where's my Bill Gates / Borg avatar. Come on Slashdot, you're slipping.

    --
    "Shall we play a game?" -W.O.P.R.
  35. My windows 7 just got updated to 10 few days ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was no way to stop that crap.

  36. Thanks, Microsoft! by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    A good laugh is always welcome!

  37. No, we won't do it again by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    Mainly because we've already force-upgraded everyone who didn't nuke their machine.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  38. And not to steal user info on the table?? by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 0

    You do know that GWX sent 24 hours of your computer usage to Microsoft just after it installed. I would hope they decide not to steal that type of info again.

    Yes I have the file that seriously wanted out, HOSTS file kept it in place for 7 days.

    1. Re:And not to steal user info on the table?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I was really starting to miss those APK posts.

      Wait, no I wasn't.

  39. Stopping "sneaky updates" by Kelxin · · Score: 1

    What they agreed to is stopping updates without knowledge. This says nothing about not forcing people to upgrade / update without their consent. If they REALLY wanted to fix the system, they would enable every version of Windows 10 to block certain updates / upgrades and go back to the single update system instead of the update packages.

    1. Re:Stopping "sneaky updates" by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> If they REALLY wanted to fix the system

      Look at the last 35 years. Why on earth would you believe Microsoft suddenly want to fix anything for our benefit?

  40. Typical Windows users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows users agree to the EULA (without even reading it?!) and know that they're putting their entire OS at Microsoft's mercy... and then complain when Microsoft does exactly what they should have seen coming all along?

    You know what? Stay on Windows. We don't want you retards infecting other communities.

    1. Re:Typical Windows users by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      hehe well there is no need to agree to the new eula to get it automatically installed anyways.

      people didn't "see" it coming because trying to forcibly install it and break applications of users, especially business users. is generally seen as such a big dick move that businesses change providers.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  41. Best way to avoid Microsoft stealthing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't use Microsoft.

    You know that at best they will uphold the letter and not the spirit. Oh, these aren't operating system updates, these are Microsoft application updates. Oh, you didn't realize that clicking any button when the consent dialog is up implies consent? Oh, you consented to downloading a file from the internet, don't you know that we take that as consent to download operating system updates? Microsoft drives laws against bad practices because they keep inventing new ones or stealing old ones from spammers and hackers.

  42. Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first time I was unable to use my machine to work because the damned thing was endlessly updating and rebooting I got pissed. The second time it happened, I thought "God, I must be a unluck mofo, really". The third time it happened, I decided would be the last. Using a Linux desktop ever since... and a Win7 VM that is off most of the time.

    MS must understand that the space between people-that-needs-to-do-work and work-that-needs-to-be-done is sacred. The OS can't be in the way. EVER. Under NO circumstances a damned patch should have priority above what the user wants or needs to do.

    I've been a MS user since the DOS 3.3 days. Now it's over thanks to Windows 10 and I'm not going back.

  43. "I'm sorry, Missy..." by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    "I faithfully promise upon my heart and soul that under no circumstances will I stick my hand up your dress ever again until the next time. And I truly mean what I say, Missy.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  44. Too little, too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You were never trustworthy, MS.

  45. What a coincidence !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I Too , Will Never Again Force Windows on Any Machine.

    I won't even consider it. I realize what I did was wrong.

    It's been a fabulous learning experience, for both of us.

  46. Way too little way too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After being a supporter and investing thousands upon thousands of dollars in Microsoft and their products since the early 80s think DOS every version of Windows and office and server versions of windows etc. etc. they have lost another customer forever I am Moving everything I can to macOS and Linux and sticking with Windows 7 without telemetry updates to run some of my expensive software that only runs on Windows that I can't really seem to give up. t
    Total Disregard for their customers and their privacy using technology that was considered Malware are viruses Until they decided keyloggers and data collection without authorization was OK if they did it. I have two words for Microsoft and they are not good morning.

  47. Bullsh*t - this isn't the first time they did it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft has done this crap for decades. This isn't their first rodeo.

    They try this every ~10 years. Just wait. It will come back.

  48. EULA are not that strong in germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firstly you cannot give up right, secondly since they are one sided they are not considered contract, and consumer protection being as it is you cannot make something which goes against consumer protection and privacy and whatnot. You can bet your ass off that changing EULA will not happen as they would be dinged for changing it unilaterally, and as adobe found out, be forced to STILL leave the user resell/use the software even after the EULA change. In other word, I am rather sure they will make sure it does not happen again ever. because next time, it will be fine in percentage of their gross sale which will hit them.

  49. in germany? by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 1

    being microsoft i assume that means only in germany. do you think they will adhere to that policy world wide? no expectations no disappointments for me.

  50. Working for Microsoft is UGLY. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "... could have a bearing on how the company acts in other countries."

    "could have"

    Many people think that Microsoft is a software and hardware company. It isn't. It's an abuse company. It only uses software and hardware to deliver abuse.

    My opinion, and the opinion of many, many others.

    1. Re:Working for Microsoft is UGLY. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Many people think that Microsoft is a software and hardware company. It isn't. It's an abuse company. It only uses software and hardware to deliver abuse.

      My opinion, and the opinion of many, many others.

      No idea what you mean. I certainly didn't spend a whole day and seventeen attempts to update windows the other day because <unknown error which wasn't displayed but caused microsoft-built 'laptop' to repeatedly overheat, switch off and thus rewind the update>. Sure, why would I want the fan to come on, or have the option to control whether it's on, or even when the option's been un-hidden and enabled, have it come on. Far better to switch off and show a giant thermo meter on the screen.

      Anyway, yeah - I love m$ so from my perspective, your slur is unfair.

    2. Re:Working for Microsoft is UGLY. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Abuse comes in a soft or hard option.

  51. Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made

    Quote: "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC."

  52. Ya got that right! by s1d3track3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Microsoft Will Never Again Sneakily Force Windows Downloads on Users

    Ya got that right! - Ex-Windows user

  53. Coporate Justice? by TiggertheMad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act

    TLDR? From the first paragraph of the wikipedia summary:The law prohibits accessing a computer without authorization, or in excess of authorization.

    Putting file on a computer for the purpose of an unrequested upgrade certainly seems to be 'in excess of authorization', especially when you factor in the several million counts of it. The people who authorized this decision are CRIMINALS.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Coporate Justice? by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      Except that by accepting the license terms you have granted them authorization.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    2. Re:Coporate Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing, though... users accepted the Windows 7/8 licence agreements when they installed those operating systems. Microsoft downloaded the Windows 10 upgrade files to their systems, without any indication nor authorization, long before any Windows 10 licence agreement was presented to them.

      Sounds very much to me like millions of breaches of the CFAA.

    3. Re:Coporate Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so. I think you'll find the license terms include actions only that are reasonably necessary. Downloading an upgrade you haven't asked for does fit in that remit.

    4. Re:Coporate Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually sympathise with Microsoft a little on this though, for so long they've had so much flack about having an insecure operating system, but most the bad press on that comes from people using ancient versions that shouldn't be supported anymore (i.e. a 15 year old copy of Windows XP).

      So Microsoft has a choice, do nothing and keep the reputation of not taking security seriously, or do everything they can to nudge people into installing updates.

      Effectively nowadays most of Microsoft's reputation for poor security simply isn't fair, it's unfounded on much of their latest stuff, they get the odd serious vulnerability but no more so than FOSS operating systems do with things like Heartbleed.

      Nowadays the only ones to blame are users, and if people are going to fight them on stuff like this then fine, just stop blaming Microsoft for people wilfully trying to evade updates to their OS that make it more secure. I know this will not go down well with the FOSS crowd here but it is reality - rather than rage at me, stop, take a step back, and consider how you'd feel if people had an old insecure version of Linux installed, refused to update it, and then spread hate about Linux all over the internet for being insecure based on an old known insecure version that they're refused to update.

      We have to start making people take responsibility for security themselves now, ALL OS vendors are doing a fairly decent job of it nowadays, it's rarely their fault anymore. The solutions are there, as with WannaCry, the only ones affected are those too fucking lazy/incompetent/stupid to maintain a sufficiently modern and secure enough OS.

    5. Re:Coporate Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if they hide somewhere in the EULA that they are entitled to enter your house and take your property at any time they want, you think that makes it legal and that a court will recognize that you gave them explicit permission for that?

      If they break *criminal law*, they can be prosecuted, regardless of what they wrote in their cute little probably-not-even-legally-binding EULA.

    6. Re:Coporate Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that you're expected to accept the licensing agreement in its entirety or reject it in its entirety and remove all installations of Windows from your computer.

    7. Re:Coporate Justice? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      The windows 7 license agreement already included language authorizing them to access your machine...

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    8. Re:Coporate Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Germany is in Europe, where the EULA is a "contract after the fact" which makes it invalid.

      So no, nobody accepted the EULA.

    9. Re:Coporate Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think you need to read the Windows 7/8 license agreements again. It never gave them permission to upgrade your Windows operating system without further consent or authorization. In fact, it says:

      This agreement only gives you some rights to use the features included in the software edition you licensed.

      REF: http://download.microsoft.com/...

    10. Re:Coporate Justice? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Actually if you declined the terms, by say closing the window or clicking "not now", it installs anyway. After you specifically declined to authorize.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Coporate Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And since when does a civil contract trump law?

    12. Re:Coporate Justice? by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      I'll reply here instead of the same comments at this level.

      Folks need to remember you own your computer, but not the Windows OS. By accepting the Windows EULA, you are agreeing to a lease of their software. You don't own it, never have, never will. Since the OS is property of MS, it stands to reason (law is a different question) that they would have access to their own stuff.

      Now, if they used that access to get PII without consent, then MS would be up shit creek.

    13. Re:Coporate Justice? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      That's all the rights they give *you*...

      Section 5b says:

      To enable the activation function and validation checks, the software may from time to time require updates or additional downloads of the validation, licensing or activation functions of the software. The updates or downloads are required for the proper functioning of the software and may be downloaded and installed without further notice to you.

      So under the excuse of "license checks" they may download and execute arbitrary code on your machine without notifying you. Windows 10 includes new license checking code, so you've given them the right to download and install it silently under this clause.

      Section 7a says:

      a. Consent for Internet-Based Services. The software features described below and in the Windows 7 Privacy Statement connect to Microsoft or service provider computer systems over the Internet. In some cases, you will not receive a separate notice when they connect. In some cases, you may switch off these features or not use them.

      It may connect to microsoft or their affiliates, and may not notify you of doing so. You can only switch this off "in some cases" - ie they are leaving the door open for services which cannot be turned off.

      Section 7b:

      We may also share it with others, such as hardware and software vendors.

      Gives them the right to share collected data with "others"

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    14. Re:Coporate Justice? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      It's possible to make an agreement with a home removal company giving them the right to enter your house and take your property, and people make such agreements all the time. Entering a residence and removing property is perfectly legal when authorization has been granted either by the owner of the residence or a legal authority with appropriate jurisdiction.

      Who's to say you couldnt enter an agreement with microsoft giving them the right to enter your property and take anything they want? The fact that you agreed to a set of terms without properly reading or understanding them is your fault.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    15. Re:Coporate Justice? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      All the time... Because MANY things in law are based on authorization to do something... A contract can grant such authorization.

      Taking items from a shop is illegal, its commonly referred to as shoplifting or stealing. But if you comply with the terms set out by the shop owner (usually payment an arbitrary amount depending what you want to take) then the shop authorizes you to take certain goods, which is therefore no longer illegal.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  54. I believe them... Not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Riiight. They'll stick to that agreement _in_Germany_ for at least a year.
    And then "Game On"....

  55. Don't worry Americans by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    When American companies fuck you up the ass, the EU will come along and sort it out eventually.

    1. Re:Don't worry Americans by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if anything showed us the kind of teeth EU has for corporate globalists, its the HSBC scandals. If it is anything like window dressing, I'm sure they'll think twice.

  56. How hard is it to spell things right? by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    The German state is called "Baden-Württemberg"!

  57. Re:My windows 7 just got updated to 10 few days ag by stooo · · Score: 2

    >> There was no way to stop that crap.

    Of course there is !
    1) push the power button for about 5 sec.
    2) plug in LinuxMint USB drive
    3) start up, click install
    4) Crap is stopped.

    --
    aaaaaaa
  58. The check is in my mouth by Walter+White · · Score: 1

    And I promise I won't come in the mail.

  59. Actually, you do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't put people in jail over civil suits.

    In the case of Davino Watson, ICE held him for three years for deportation despite the fact that he is a U.S. citizen. They also denied him access to a lawyer claiming that this was a civil matter, not a criminal one.

    When agents finally learned the truth and released him, he sued. An appeals court just denied his meagre $82,500 judgement stating that the statute of limitations had expired WHILE HE WAS STILL IN CUSTODY.

    What they did wasn't criminal.

    They don't put many executives in jail for criminal acts. How many Sony executives went to jail for using root kits on their audio CDs? Answer:0

    How many Wall Street bankers went to jail after causing the 2007 financial meltdown? Answer:35 Compare that with over 1000 bankers jailed after the savings & loan crisis.

    The bottom line is that money buys justice in the United States.

    1. Re:Actually, you do. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      As it points out in your Atlantic link, you can thank Eric Holder and his ilk.

      the so-called Holder Doctrine, a June 1999 memorandum written by the then–deputy attorney general warning of the dangers of prosecuting big banks—a variant of the “too big to fail” argument that has since become so familiar. Holder’s memo asserted that “collateral consequences” from prosecutions—including corporate instability or collapse—should be taken into account when deciding whether to prosecute a big financial institution.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    2. Re:Actually, you do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eww. If a large financial institution could fail from prosecution - then it desperately need to fail. Something is rotten in there.

      Also - nothing should be allowed to grow "too big to fail" in the first place - as a simple antitrust measure.

  60. Oily weasel FTW by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Microsoft will not download install files for new operating systems to a user system's hard disk without a user's consent.

    Cue oily-weasel style redefinition of the words/phrases/concepts "download", "new", "operating systems", "user", <the concept of ownership>, "hard disk" in 3, 2, .....

    (*) "consent" has already been heavily flexed as a concept so will likely be last to receive a refresh.

  61. ..and what they really mean is... by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    >> "it will no longer download operating system files to users' computers without their permission"

    Translation: we will simply add yet more opaque/vague terminology to the already far too long EULA so no-one actually reads it all, where clicking through implies consent.

  62. time to tear a page out of basic training by epine · · Score: 1

    "We can't make you do anything, but we can make you wish you had." – Army saying
            – Stephen E. Ambrose

    Unfortunately, our justice system routinely falls far short of this mark when dealing with corporations.

    For Microsoft, the jump to Windows 10 represented a one-time only change of business models.

    And even as the legal dust settles, we didn't make them wish they hadn't done what they done.

    Why can't corporations also be lowly worms under the law?

    ____

    JUDGE Who said that? Who the fuck said that? Who's the slimy little communist shit twinkle-toed cocksucker down here, who just signed his own death warrant? Nobody, huh?! The fairy fucking godmother said it! Out-fucking-standing! I will P.T. you all until you fucking die! I'll P.T. you until your assholes are sucking buttermilk.

    Judge grabs Poettering by the shirt.

    JUDGE Was it you, you scroungy little fuck, huh?!

    POETTERING Sir, no, sir!

    JUDGE You little piece of shit! You look like a fucking worm! I'll bet it was you!

    POETTERING Sir, no, sir!

    MICROSOFT Sir, I said it, sir! Sergeant steps up to Microsoft.

    JUDGE Well ... no shit. What have we got here, a fucking comedian? Private Microsoft? I admire your honesty. Hell, I like you. You can come over to my house and fuck my sister.

    Judge punches Microsoft in the tenders. Microsoft sags to his knees.

    JUDGE You little scumbag! I've got your name! I've got your ass! You will not laugh! You will not cry! You will learn by the numbers. I will teach you. Now get up! Get on your feet! You had best unfuck yourself or I will unscrew your head and shit down your neck!

    MICROSOFT Sir, yes, sir!

    JUDGE Private Microsoft, why did you join my beloved Private Sector?

    MICROSOFT Sir, to kill, sir!

    JUDGE So you're a killer!

    MICROSOFT Sir, yes, sir!

    JUDGE Let me see your war face!

    MICROSOFT Sir?

    JUDGE You've got a war face? Aaaaaaaagh! That's a war face. Now let me see your war face!

    MICROSOFT Aaaaaaaagh!

    JUDGE Bullshit! You didn't convince me! Let me see your real war face!

    MICROSOFT Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!

    JUDGE You didn't scare me! Work on it!

    MICROSOFT Sir, yes, sir!

  63. They fought it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft had the gall to actually fight for the ability to force new OS versions. So in additional to being ridiculously unethical, they apparently they haven't learned a thing from that debacle and want to keep doing it again in the future.

  64. hopelessly insecure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Windows OSs weren't so insecure and poorly designed to begin with, they wouldn't have all these problems where they constantly have to update for security and worry about their users being exposed due to not updating.

  65. damned either way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "blah blah blah, Microsoft isn't doing enough to improve security blah blah blah"
    "blah blah blah, where does Microsoft get off upgrading MY windows to improve it's security blah blah blah"

    Whatever

  66. EULAs in Germany by henni16 · · Score: 2

    One legal reason why most software EULAs aren't enforceable in Germany:
    If someone buys Windows from some retailer, the buyer enters into a contract with that retailer.
    Any additional crap one party wants to enforce has to be made part of that contract; if the EULA isn't made explicitly a part of that contract, it's not enforceable:
    If the seller hides a piece of paper with additional terms the customer doesn't know about somewhere in the box, then those terms aren't enforceable afterwards; and putting a sticker on the box a la "by opening the box, you agree to the unknown terms hidden inside" has been ruled to be a waste of sticker materials.

    But the most important bit:
    If the customer doesn't buy directly from MS (i.e. if MS isn't that retailer), then MS is not a party in that deal and has no say whatsoever regarding its terms
    The customer enters into a contract with the retailer and nobody else.
    There's no business relationship being established between the customer and MS just because MS happens to be the manufacturer of a product which the customer bought from somebody else.

    1. Re:EULAs in Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and this is probably one of the reasons why Microsoft wants to change the Windows business model from "selling a product" (where what you said applies... no one can impose additional and arbitrary licensing terms after you already bought something) to "selling a service" (where they can, at any time they feel you've broken one of their terms, simply block your Windows 10 subscription).

  67. "Never Again" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haha. I'll believe that. Microsoft is the butt of the software community and they stink.

  68. Never... by CptLoRes · · Score: 1

    Never is a very long time..

  69. Up/Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Upload to
    Download from

  70. In Germany by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    "Microsoft Will Never Again Sneakily Force Windows Downloads on Users".... in Germany.

  71. This ranks right up there with: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love you
    The check is in the mail
    I won’t come in your mouth

    Yes, surely MS means it.

  72. Rule #37 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rule #37 of understanding Microsoft: The phrase "Microsoft Will Never Again" does not mean what you think it does. (Note: see "annoying paper-clip and "Cortana")