Interesting, that is the same KB # of the one which was applied to Windows 8.1 to do the same thing. I figured they'd be different.
Basically from reading the description before I uninstalled it, it was replacing much of the update system to include metrics, and all sorts of stuff which was basically only there to push people to Windows 10 and measure how we'll they're doing.
Essentially Microsoft has swapped out huge parts of the core OS expressly for their own benefit.
I'm on a machine which is only a few months old, and was specifically bought with Windows 8.1 to get it before the next version. And now I'm going o have to disable Windows updates entirely, or read every damned update to see what it is instead of "an important update for the stability and security of Windows" when in fact it's "a bullshit update designed to take control of your system and give it to Microsoft".
How this is even legal, I have no idea. And don't say EULAs, because I think that's a bit of legal bullshit which shouldn't be allowed.
This is more about making life easier for Microsoft than it is about giving a damn about users.
When I forcibly uninstalled the update to Windows 8.1 which started pushing Windows 10 at me, one of the things it said it was doing was adding a piece to monitor and evaluate how well system updates are going. Basically gather metrics on how bad they're doing.
Microsoft has decided that it's their computer, that if they feel an update needs to be applied they will, and that if it breaks for some users that's an unfortunate side effect of having your customers doing your beta testing... but thanks for doing our beta testing.
The trend with computers and electronic devices is for the license to say "you don't own this, and you don't get a say in what we do to it". And people are going to start pushing back when they suddenly find themselves with a broken computer because Microsoft forced an update on them.
Microsoft isn't going to pay to fix it, they're not going to pay for the loss of productivity. They're simply going to say "bummer", and keep doing it.
Which if you or I did that we'd be charged criminally under the computer fraud and abuse act or something similar.
But they have an EULA which says they're allowed to.
Do you have any idea of what happens when the IT guy at that level raises an objection?
I'm speculating that people in suits and sunglasses show up and remind you that your secrecy agreement means you will serve time in a federal facility, and that they will otherwise make life hard on you.
I doubt it was 'ignored', I rather suspect it was acted on rather firmly with a "shut the hell up".
At that level, protection for whistle blowers is practically non-existent. Hell, several levels below this, protection for whistle blowers is practically non-existent.
Modern governments don't give a fuck about the law, or the truth. This is now an almost universal thing.
And, conversely, one can try to spin this as a Democrat or Republican thing.
I think that's pointless bullshit.
I think we've entered an era where all politicians, and probably most corporations, are blatantly doing things to avoid oversight, ignore the rules, or pretend it didn't happen.
I'm pretty much of the opinion they're all crooked lying bastards, they're all gaming the system, and they're all actively doing stuff slightly off the books.
And they're all using national secrecy and presidential decrees and anything they can find to hide it, gloss over it, or pretend it never happened.
It's society who pays the price so these assholes can act as if the rules don't apply to them. But make no mistake about it, it's safer to assume they're all doing it than naively think this is an isolated case.
I have never understood the blatant lies coming out of the Russian military or their proxies
Really? Because it's pretty simple... it plays well with the local media and to the people who want to believe it, it muddies the waters, and allows you to pretend reality is different than it actually is.
The people doing this may well know they're lying, but by keeping up the facade either your domestic audience keeps believing you're the good guys, or you hope to deflect and pretend it never happened.
If you don't think similar things happen around the world, you're a fool.
The American "truthers" demanding to see Obama's birth certificate, shill "institutions" putting out "research" for anybody paying for something to match their position, and any number of things.
It's called propaganda. It's been around forever. And it's a widely used tactic to simply talk over the facts and make your bullshit seem plausible.
And if you deny something loudly enough for long enough, or loudly proclaim there is some uncertainty, or throw out alternative explanations, some fraction of people will believe you. And even if some people don't, you keep ignoring them and saying it must have been something else.
You seem to not understand this is often a deliberate strategy.
It's used in politics, diplomacy, and in the corporate world. If you can make the truth murky, the facts are whatever the fuck you want them to be.
The problem is a lot of people either only get "truth" from state controlled media, or are otherwise pre-disposed to want to believe the bullshit. And many will selectively choose to only listen to the sources which support the things they already believe.
And yet idiot judges have decided that your personal electronics containing all your personal files and data aren't covered by the 4th amendment because... well, I have no idea why actually.
The amendment is pretty clear. The case law, not so much.
Face it, America (and the rest of the world) are slowing having rights taken away.. usually by governments who claim they have to take away our freedoms to protect our freedoms.
The fascists are slowly winning, an deciding free means whatever the fuck they tell us it means.
Everybody who claims to defend your rights but supports crap like this is a lying bastard. And there's a surprising amount of them.
It's like "won't someone think of the children" or "because terrorism".
They want to present a bogeyman argument which says "if we can't spy on everything people do there will be unsolved murders, child porn, and terrorists" and make it out like only people in favor of those things would oppose outlawing encrypted phones.
Any US prosecutor who wants that is a clueless idiot with no concept of the 4th amendment, and should be disbarred and charged criminally -- or simply shot.
Because he doesn't give a damn about the law.
Governments and law enforcement want a police/surveillance state so they can do anything they want. But it's time to tell them we don't trust them, and don't wish to live in that kind of world.
This shit is fundamentally incompatible with a free society.
They take someone who has already failed as a CEO and decide that failing there means an improved chance of success over there.
And then they end up with a CEO who has failed at another place.
And then another board decides that having failed twice as a CEO, they're either a really good candidate to be CEO, or should at least sit on the board to pick the next CEO.
Bah, C-level position at a company like Oracle... even if they fired her she'll probably walk out with a few tens of millions of "shareholder value" for her troubles.
Because, you know, hiring unqualified people at the C level doesn't mean when you fire them you don't pay them the severance.
I'll make an open offer to any fortune 500 company.... I'll incompetently manage your company for 25% of what you're paying your current CEO and 25% of the severance, provided total compensation is no less than $20 million USD.
That way when you fire me for being incompetent, you can tell the shareholders you did it far more affordable than having to fire a "real" CEO who was just as incompetent.
It's interesting that Mary Ann Davidson was an accountant and then became the CSO at Oracle.
Dear god, are you kidding?
So the qualifications for Oracle's CSO are... what exactly?
That said, you would think that before gearing up to run that extra mile, customers would already have ensured they've identified their critical systems, encrypted sensitive data, applied all relevant patches, be on a supported product release, use tools to ensure configurations are locked down -- in short, the usual security hygiene -- before they attempt to find zero day vulnerabilities in the products they are using."
So basically Oracle is interested in license revenue than security?
After reading this, it is my considered opinion (and therefore legally protected speech) that Mary Ann Davidson could well be a moron who isn't qualified for her current position.
But it gives the appearance of doing something, even if it doesn't have a hope in hell of doing anything.
I'm sure this is considered largely a PR move to show you're tackling the issue. But if anybody believes this will have any impact, they're kidding themselves.
Where I live, they mandated that taxis have an on-board camera with a circular buffer of 24 hours. It had been done in response to allegations a cab driver had assaulted a women... they later found other evidence for it from another source.
They pushed through the law requiring this, against the objections of the cab drivers who though they were being spied on.
When a cab driver was subsequently robbed, and the suspect caught on camera, the cab drivers were all in praise of it.
It turns out, the mandated cameras made it safer for everybody.
Imposing regulations on cab drivers can work, and despite claims to the contrary, isn't always about protecting the interests of cab drivers.
The licensing, inspection, background checks and safety inspections aren't the only benefits to be had.
Stop listening to Uber who keeps saying the lie that regulations the cab drivers have to follow are something the Uber drivers shouldn't be subjected to... claims that cities are defending the interests of cab companies in enforcing their laws are complete bullshit.
Uber never has been, and never will be the underdogs... and this never has been, and never will be, about protecting entrenched players.
It's about cities being able to regulate industry players to a minimum standard.
So, if in my city Uber drivers are willing to get commercial licenses, hold the proper insurance and drivers license, and have the same video devices installed for the safety of everybody (you know, like an actual legal cab company)... I'm sure people would say they're welcome. But Uber claiming they shouldn't have to is bullshit.
As long as Uber insists that they aren't subject to laws, they continue to be lying bastards in my book. They're just a company whose business model is in trying to insist laws regarding taxi companies don't apply to them.
In a world where we're just consumers, expected to do as corporations expect, and in which they feel that revenue was their natural right... we're just a natural resource which has suddenly decided it doesn't want to play.
Once the corporatization of the internet happened, this became more about shareholder value.
And in the modern context, shareholder is more important than pretty much anything. Because people like to believe shareholder value drives the economy, instead of being driven by it.
Who cares if there are no jobs as long as they're paying dividends or stock prices keep climbing? The value to the stock market is more important than those pesky humans.
Well, in an age where governments feel inclined to protect the revenues of corporations than protecting their citizens... these companies will do the same kind of crap the *AAs did, and convince politicians that their revenue models need to be entrenched in law, and will attempt to equate ad blocking with theft.
Corporations have a sense of entitlement, and anything which dips into their revenue they demand be outlawed.
Mark my words, they'll try to have the technology blocked, and claim the EULA compels us to actually see their ads to keep the revenues up.
And now all of these companies will try to claim we're "stealing" revenue from them by not viewing ads.
Sorry, but we're under no obligation to watch your damned ads. We don't owe you the ability to display stuff on our screens, nor do we owe you the revenue associated with this.
Boo fucking hoo, the mean old internets are stopping allowing you to make money for embedding crap in our web pages and providing a vector for malware.
That's simply tragic.
But you can bet the lobbyists are hard at work telling the politicians this is a vital part of the economy and if people are allowed to block ads world will end.
Even if we trusted that vendors weren't lazy, incompetent, and indifferent to security (and that is a big if)... why should we be entrusting them with our biometric data in the first place?
Corporations want to sell a product, sell advertising, and don't give a damn about your security or privacy. You should also assume they'll hand any of this crap over to governments if they demand it.
Sorry, but until such time we get to use the CEO as a pinata for bad security, assume there simply is none. Because that's where we're at right now.
With no penalties for crap security, they're not going to implement good security. Stop treating them as if they have.
I'd wager that if you bought 20 products which claim to have security features, likely all 20 of them are easily defeated or bordering on non-existent in terms of actual security.
Just so you understand: that's probably the speed going into the country. It sure as hell isn't what people are getting, because for the most part people don't have it, because the idea of having something like a computer is pretty uncommon.
That's not an "average" by any stretch. It's the best they can do for a limited number of places.
The average Cuban lives in quite a bit of poverty, doesn't have the internet coming into their home, likely doesn't have a phone, lives in what we'd call some pretty terrible conditions, has to hitch hike to and from work, often travels in buses and vehicles we'd consider deathtraps and which are entirely different from the modern Chinese made buses the tourists travel in.
Your average Cuban isn't thinking of YouTube and Netflix and Linux ISOs... they're thinking about what they need to do to get their next meals.
People who are trained as engineers would rather work as bartenders on a resort because they can make some pretty fantastic money in tips.
Let's be 100% explicit here: this poorest connected country isn't where you were ten years ago. A very very limited group of people have something almost approaching what you had ten years ago. The average Cuban lives in what most Westerners would consider squalor in a lot of ways.
Many Cubans live in cinder-block homes with chickens scratching around int he front yard. Those people sure as hell don't have the internet at any speed.
The first time I was in Cuba, I remarked to our tour guide that they must have some amazing mechanics to keep those cars running. He smiled, and said "we call those people religious people, they get up every morning and pray the car starts".
As you said, the body of an old Chevy (bondo and all), the transmission from a Chinese car, the engine from a Peugot, and who knows what else... it's all been mashed together to keep the illusion going.
These are cars which have been kept running with ingenuity, necessity, and whatever the hell they have laying around they can work with.
But they sure as heck aren't pristine, original collector cars. They're pretty amazing to see, but half million dollar cars? No bloody way in hell.
They're a testament to Cuban ingenuity, but wouldn't be road legal in many countries.
Hmmm... so if the Amazon tribes put it on pointy things, and can then "inject" it, are they venomous?
I realize it's a scientific distinction, but it really sounds like a small matter of semantics.
If it's chemically the same as poison, and administered via something pointy it becomes venom, that's an awfully small distinction. It sounds like if I put it in your drink, I've administered poison, but if I stab you with it it's venom.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting, that is the same KB # of the one which was applied to Windows 8.1 to do the same thing. I figured they'd be different.
Basically from reading the description before I uninstalled it, it was replacing much of the update system to include metrics, and all sorts of stuff which was basically only there to push people to Windows 10 and measure how we'll they're doing.
Essentially Microsoft has swapped out huge parts of the core OS expressly for their own benefit.
I'm on a machine which is only a few months old, and was specifically bought with Windows 8.1 to get it before the next version. And now I'm going o have to disable Windows updates entirely, or read every damned update to see what it is instead of "an important update for the stability and security of Windows" when in fact it's "a bullshit update designed to take control of your system and give it to Microsoft".
How this is even legal, I have no idea. And don't say EULAs, because I think that's a bit of legal bullshit which shouldn't be allowed.
This is more about making life easier for Microsoft than it is about giving a damn about users.
When I forcibly uninstalled the update to Windows 8.1 which started pushing Windows 10 at me, one of the things it said it was doing was adding a piece to monitor and evaluate how well system updates are going. Basically gather metrics on how bad they're doing.
Microsoft has decided that it's their computer, that if they feel an update needs to be applied they will, and that if it breaks for some users that's an unfortunate side effect of having your customers doing your beta testing ... but thanks for doing our beta testing.
The trend with computers and electronic devices is for the license to say "you don't own this, and you don't get a say in what we do to it". And people are going to start pushing back when they suddenly find themselves with a broken computer because Microsoft forced an update on them.
Microsoft isn't going to pay to fix it, they're not going to pay for the loss of productivity. They're simply going to say "bummer", and keep doing it.
Which if you or I did that we'd be charged criminally under the computer fraud and abuse act or something similar.
But they have an EULA which says they're allowed to.
Do you have any idea of what happens when the IT guy at that level raises an objection?
I'm speculating that people in suits and sunglasses show up and remind you that your secrecy agreement means you will serve time in a federal facility, and that they will otherwise make life hard on you.
I doubt it was 'ignored', I rather suspect it was acted on rather firmly with a "shut the hell up".
At that level, protection for whistle blowers is practically non-existent. Hell, several levels below this, protection for whistle blowers is practically non-existent.
Modern governments don't give a fuck about the law, or the truth. This is now an almost universal thing.
And, conversely, one can try to spin this as a Democrat or Republican thing.
I think that's pointless bullshit.
I think we've entered an era where all politicians, and probably most corporations, are blatantly doing things to avoid oversight, ignore the rules, or pretend it didn't happen.
I'm pretty much of the opinion they're all crooked lying bastards, they're all gaming the system, and they're all actively doing stuff slightly off the books.
And they're all using national secrecy and presidential decrees and anything they can find to hide it, gloss over it, or pretend it never happened.
It's society who pays the price so these assholes can act as if the rules don't apply to them. But make no mistake about it, it's safer to assume they're all doing it than naively think this is an isolated case.
Bush sure as hell did it too.
Really? Because it's pretty simple ... it plays well with the local media and to the people who want to believe it, it muddies the waters, and allows you to pretend reality is different than it actually is.
The people doing this may well know they're lying, but by keeping up the facade either your domestic audience keeps believing you're the good guys, or you hope to deflect and pretend it never happened.
If you don't think similar things happen around the world, you're a fool.
The American "truthers" demanding to see Obama's birth certificate, shill "institutions" putting out "research" for anybody paying for something to match their position, and any number of things.
It's called propaganda. It's been around forever. And it's a widely used tactic to simply talk over the facts and make your bullshit seem plausible.
And if you deny something loudly enough for long enough, or loudly proclaim there is some uncertainty, or throw out alternative explanations, some fraction of people will believe you. And even if some people don't, you keep ignoring them and saying it must have been something else.
You seem to not understand this is often a deliberate strategy.
It's used in politics, diplomacy, and in the corporate world. If you can make the truth murky, the facts are whatever the fuck you want them to be.
The problem is a lot of people either only get "truth" from state controlled media, or are otherwise pre-disposed to want to believe the bullshit. And many will selectively choose to only listen to the sources which support the things they already believe.
And yet idiot judges have decided that your personal electronics containing all your personal files and data aren't covered by the 4th amendment because ... well, I have no idea why actually.
The amendment is pretty clear. The case law, not so much.
Face it, America (and the rest of the world) are slowing having rights taken away .. usually by governments who claim they have to take away our freedoms to protect our freedoms.
The fascists are slowly winning, an deciding free means whatever the fuck they tell us it means.
Everybody who claims to defend your rights but supports crap like this is a lying bastard. And there's a surprising amount of them.
It's like "won't someone think of the children" or "because terrorism".
They want to present a bogeyman argument which says "if we can't spy on everything people do there will be unsolved murders, child porn, and terrorists" and make it out like only people in favor of those things would oppose outlawing encrypted phones.
Any US prosecutor who wants that is a clueless idiot with no concept of the 4th amendment, and should be disbarred and charged criminally -- or simply shot.
Because he doesn't give a damn about the law.
Governments and law enforcement want a police/surveillance state so they can do anything they want. But it's time to tell them we don't trust them, and don't wish to live in that kind of world.
This shit is fundamentally incompatible with a free society.
Give me your fucking papers, comrade.
Except nobody ever bothers with that.
They take someone who has already failed as a CEO and decide that failing there means an improved chance of success over there.
And then they end up with a CEO who has failed at another place.
And then another board decides that having failed twice as a CEO, they're either a really good candidate to be CEO, or should at least sit on the board to pick the next CEO.
If there's anything the Internet of Insecure Devices needs is a Microsoft platform.
Sorry, but bloated insecure platforms aren't what the IoT needs.
More accurately, the world doesn't need the IoT. It's purely about marketing clowns trying to cash in on something nobody actually needs.
This sounds like a terrible idea.
Now now, Sony is mostly consumer electronics involving tech ... both Oracle and Sony can still suck equally.
Bah, C-level position at a company like Oracle ... even if they fired her she'll probably walk out with a few tens of millions of "shareholder value" for her troubles.
Because, you know, hiring unqualified people at the C level doesn't mean when you fire them you don't pay them the severance.
I'll make an open offer to any fortune 500 company .... I'll incompetently manage your company for 25% of what you're paying your current CEO and 25% of the severance, provided total compensation is no less than $20 million USD.
That way when you fire me for being incompetent, you can tell the shareholders you did it far more affordable than having to fire a "real" CEO who was just as incompetent.
Dear god, are you kidding?
So the qualifications for Oracle's CSO are ... what exactly?
So basically Oracle is interested in license revenue than security?
After reading this, it is my considered opinion (and therefore legally protected speech) that Mary Ann Davidson could well be a moron who isn't qualified for her current position.
LOL ... hasn't this been settled since the 70s? Ass, grass, or cash.
I've seen the bumper sticker and everything.
The 70s were a bit of a blur since I was barely in grade school by the end of them.
But surely nobody expects the editors to do any, you know, editing.
That would be preposterous.
Somewhere, that headline is it's own punchline.
I'm picturing George Burns or Jackie Mason delivering that to uproarious laughter.
The good news is, it might be able to explain the joke to the rest of us.
Of course none of this will work.
But it gives the appearance of doing something, even if it doesn't have a hope in hell of doing anything.
I'm sure this is considered largely a PR move to show you're tackling the issue. But if anybody believes this will have any impact, they're kidding themselves.
Well ... this is great if no two things can have the same hash.
But as soon as it starts blocking my picture of my dinner as kiddie porn, having Facebook and Twitter block it becomes fairly meaningless.
I mean, are people using Google, Twitter, and Facebook for this stuff?
Where I live, they mandated that taxis have an on-board camera with a circular buffer of 24 hours. It had been done in response to allegations a cab driver had assaulted a women ... they later found other evidence for it from another source.
They pushed through the law requiring this, against the objections of the cab drivers who though they were being spied on.
When a cab driver was subsequently robbed, and the suspect caught on camera, the cab drivers were all in praise of it.
It turns out, the mandated cameras made it safer for everybody.
Imposing regulations on cab drivers can work, and despite claims to the contrary, isn't always about protecting the interests of cab drivers.
The licensing, inspection, background checks and safety inspections aren't the only benefits to be had.
Stop listening to Uber who keeps saying the lie that regulations the cab drivers have to follow are something the Uber drivers shouldn't be subjected to ... claims that cities are defending the interests of cab companies in enforcing their laws are complete bullshit.
Uber never has been, and never will be the underdogs ... and this never has been, and never will be, about protecting entrenched players.
It's about cities being able to regulate industry players to a minimum standard.
So, if in my city Uber drivers are willing to get commercial licenses, hold the proper insurance and drivers license, and have the same video devices installed for the safety of everybody (you know, like an actual legal cab company) ... I'm sure people would say they're welcome. But Uber claiming they shouldn't have to is bullshit.
As long as Uber insists that they aren't subject to laws, they continue to be lying bastards in my book. They're just a company whose business model is in trying to insist laws regarding taxi companies don't apply to them.
In a world where we're just consumers, expected to do as corporations expect, and in which they feel that revenue was their natural right ... we're just a natural resource which has suddenly decided it doesn't want to play.
Once the corporatization of the internet happened, this became more about shareholder value.
And in the modern context, shareholder is more important than pretty much anything. Because people like to believe shareholder value drives the economy, instead of being driven by it.
Who cares if there are no jobs as long as they're paying dividends or stock prices keep climbing? The value to the stock market is more important than those pesky humans.
Well, in an age where governments feel inclined to protect the revenues of corporations than protecting their citizens ... these companies will do the same kind of crap the *AAs did, and convince politicians that their revenue models need to be entrenched in law, and will attempt to equate ad blocking with theft.
Corporations have a sense of entitlement, and anything which dips into their revenue they demand be outlawed.
Mark my words, they'll try to have the technology blocked, and claim the EULA compels us to actually see their ads to keep the revenues up.
And now all of these companies will try to claim we're "stealing" revenue from them by not viewing ads.
Sorry, but we're under no obligation to watch your damned ads. We don't owe you the ability to display stuff on our screens, nor do we owe you the revenue associated with this.
Boo fucking hoo, the mean old internets are stopping allowing you to make money for embedding crap in our web pages and providing a vector for malware.
That's simply tragic.
But you can bet the lobbyists are hard at work telling the politicians this is a vital part of the economy and if people are allowed to block ads world will end.
Bloody parasites.
Even if we trusted that vendors weren't lazy, incompetent, and indifferent to security (and that is a big if) ... why should we be entrusting them with our biometric data in the first place?
Corporations want to sell a product, sell advertising, and don't give a damn about your security or privacy. You should also assume they'll hand any of this crap over to governments if they demand it.
Sorry, but until such time we get to use the CEO as a pinata for bad security, assume there simply is none. Because that's where we're at right now.
With no penalties for crap security, they're not going to implement good security. Stop treating them as if they have.
I'd wager that if you bought 20 products which claim to have security features, likely all 20 of them are easily defeated or bordering on non-existent in terms of actual security.
Just so you understand: that's probably the speed going into the country. It sure as hell isn't what people are getting, because for the most part people don't have it, because the idea of having something like a computer is pretty uncommon.
That's not an "average" by any stretch. It's the best they can do for a limited number of places.
The average Cuban lives in quite a bit of poverty, doesn't have the internet coming into their home, likely doesn't have a phone, lives in what we'd call some pretty terrible conditions, has to hitch hike to and from work, often travels in buses and vehicles we'd consider deathtraps and which are entirely different from the modern Chinese made buses the tourists travel in.
Your average Cuban isn't thinking of YouTube and Netflix and Linux ISOs ... they're thinking about what they need to do to get their next meals.
People who are trained as engineers would rather work as bartenders on a resort because they can make some pretty fantastic money in tips.
Let's be 100% explicit here: this poorest connected country isn't where you were ten years ago. A very very limited group of people have something almost approaching what you had ten years ago. The average Cuban lives in what most Westerners would consider squalor in a lot of ways.
Many Cubans live in cinder-block homes with chickens scratching around int he front yard. Those people sure as hell don't have the internet at any speed.
The first time I was in Cuba, I remarked to our tour guide that they must have some amazing mechanics to keep those cars running. He smiled, and said "we call those people religious people, they get up every morning and pray the car starts".
As you said, the body of an old Chevy (bondo and all), the transmission from a Chinese car, the engine from a Peugot, and who knows what else ... it's all been mashed together to keep the illusion going.
These are cars which have been kept running with ingenuity, necessity, and whatever the hell they have laying around they can work with.
But they sure as heck aren't pristine, original collector cars. They're pretty amazing to see, but half million dollar cars? No bloody way in hell.
They're a testament to Cuban ingenuity, but wouldn't be road legal in many countries.
Hmmm ... so if the Amazon tribes put it on pointy things, and can then "inject" it, are they venomous?
I realize it's a scientific distinction, but it really sounds like a small matter of semantics.
If it's chemically the same as poison, and administered via something pointy it becomes venom, that's an awfully small distinction. It sounds like if I put it in your drink, I've administered poison, but if I stab you with it it's venom.
I'd at least expect a different chemistry.