When I hear you say "get over it" I don't hear you, I hear the voice of the corn growing lobby that is making a killing and getting fat off of government subsidies, and who would throw a royal hissy fit if they had to compete in the market on their own merits.
I don't think it should be considered spoofing if the one who proposes to use someone "else's" identity on a caller ID has the consent of whoever's ID they're using.
For example, prank call services have the consent of the pranker, and Google Voice would presumably have consent as well.
In these days it often has little to do with ethics or morality, but everything to do with bargaining power and leverage.
If a company can bully their workers into getting certified on their own time by threatening to turn their jobs over to already certified folks, then that is just what they will do.
In one case, a city tried to implement its own network, and then got sued by the local ISP just long enough for them to beat the city to the punch.
In another case, an ISP threw such a tantrum about competition that it went to the state capital and whined the lawmakers into outlawing municipal networks.
I'm just saying it seems rather silly to put MS in the position of walking on egg shells around rootkits to prevent a BSOD that they're not even responsible for causing.
It's more like you take a device into the factory for an upgrade, but unknown to you, someone swiped it, and installed a spy chip inside. When the factory technician opens it up and tries to install the new parts, the spy chip short circuits the whole thing and the device blows up in his face.
Microsoft isn't responsible for what a rootkit decides to do.
If I were microsoft, I'd update away, and consider malware infections the same way I would unauthorized tampering with system files by the user. Just update the kernel, and be damned with anything that was played with. For much the same reason that opening a device is usually grounds for voiding the warranty, since the manufacturer can't reasonably be required to support end user tinkering.
The notion that vendors should go out of the way to actually SUPPORT malware is absurd, let alone the notion that black hats should be dictating terms to OS creators.
Slashdot Mirror
The industry only cares about profits.
Often times I've wanted to catch and kill one of the geese that parks by the bus lot.
When I hear you say "get over it" I don't hear you, I hear the voice of the corn growing lobby that is making a killing and getting fat off of government subsidies, and who would throw a royal hissy fit if they had to compete in the market on their own merits.
I don't think it should be considered spoofing if the one who proposes to use someone "else's" identity on a caller ID has the consent of whoever's ID they're using.
For example, prank call services have the consent of the pranker, and Google Voice would presumably have consent as well.
When leaving only gets you dragged back and beaten twice as hard for escaping, it's not really an option.
Escape is a gutsy move, sure to piss off the captors and it may even cost you your life.
The lion's share of the burden rightly falls on outsiders who are not as easy to catch, and are in a much better position to summon the cavalry.
It would never get built because the local telco and/or cableco would sue them into submission.
In these days it often has little to do with ethics or morality, but everything to do with bargaining power and leverage.
If a company can bully their workers into getting certified on their own time by threatening to turn their jobs over to already certified folks, then that is just what they will do.
It's not even confined to the federal level.
In one case, a city tried to implement its own network, and then got sued by the local ISP just long enough for them to beat the city to the punch.
In another case, an ISP threw such a tantrum about competition that it went to the state capital and whined the lawmakers into outlawing municipal networks.
RTFS
Not to mention Microsoft would be tickled pink.
I would not be surprised if such a spyware program didn't have linux or osx versions.
They still mop up handsomely collecting settlements.
Don't laugh, they already drug that excuse out quite well to keep ACTA under wraps.
They are a corporation.
Hopefully Comcast isn't given a blank cheque to keep screwing with torrent connections.
I would presume that normally, any further tampering post settlement would represent a new claim of action that you could sue for.
I suspect that's the point of releasing it late into the game.
That's a privacy issue, not an ownership issue.
Since patents, registered copyrights, and trademarks are all public record, they don't need a warrant anyway.
Not to mention the speed of light introducing a mondo huge delay.
I support conscription only AFTER we pull our troops back home.
You could argue that Sony's refusal to permit access to PSN unless you kill OtherOS by an update is a breach of contract.
Better or worse than Microsoft brick-banning modded XBox 360's?
I'm just saying it seems rather silly to put MS in the position of walking on egg shells around rootkits to prevent a BSOD that they're not even responsible for causing.
But it's not intentional.
It's more like you take a device into the factory for an upgrade, but unknown to you, someone swiped it, and installed a spy chip inside. When the factory technician opens it up and tries to install the new parts, the spy chip short circuits the whole thing and the device blows up in his face.
Microsoft isn't responsible for what a rootkit decides to do.
If I were microsoft, I'd update away, and consider malware infections the same way I would unauthorized tampering with system files by the user. Just update the kernel, and be damned with anything that was played with. For much the same reason that opening a device is usually grounds for voiding the warranty, since the manufacturer can't reasonably be required to support end user tinkering.
The notion that vendors should go out of the way to actually SUPPORT malware is absurd, let alone the notion that black hats should be dictating terms to OS creators.
Thankfully however, we have the FDIC.
An unfortunate side effect that full disclosure also gets them royally pissed at you for "exposing" their flaw.