# More Microsoft spyware coming soon



## Mumbodog

.

http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000681.html



> The release of Windows 7 'Update for Microsoft Windows (KB71033)' will change the current activation and anti-piracy behavior of Windows 7 by triggering automatic 'phone home' operations over the Internet to Microsoft servers, typically for now at intervals of around 90 days. ... These automatic queries will repeatedly - apparently for as long as Windows is installed - validate your Windows 7 system against Microsoft's latest database of pirated system signatures (currently including more than 70 activation exploits known to Microsoft). If your system matches - again even if up to that time (which could be months or even years since you obtained the system) it had been declared to be genuine - then your system will be 'downgraded' to 'non-genuine' status until you take steps to obtain what Microsoft considers to be an authentic, validated, Windows 7 license. ... KB71033... is scheduled to deploy to the manual downloading 'Genuine Microsoft Software' site on February 16, and start pushing out automatically through the Windows Update environment on February 23. ... [F]or Microsoft to assert that they have the right to treat ordinary PC-using consumers in this manner - declaring their systems to be non-genuine and downgrading them at any time - is rather staggering


http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/ge...vation-technologies-update-for-windows-7.aspx

I am thinking the author got the KB number wrong, most likely 971033

.

.


----------



## valis

that doesn't look like a valid KB number. You may want to toss a 9 in front of it and see what you get.


----------



## valis

than again, maybe it is.........it's not being treated as a true KB and it's completely voluntary to use.

article by MS.



> Although the Update will not be directly offered through Windows Server Update Services (WSUS), which is used by enterprise customers to manage the distribution of software updates in their IT environment, a WSUS administrator can import this update into WSUS through the Microsoft Update catalog.* I'd like to stress that the Update is voluntary, which means that you can choose not to install it when you see it appear on Windows Update.* I also want to stress that installing this update will not jeopardize your privacy; although the update contacts Microsoft's servers to check for new threats as I outline below, the information we receive from PCs during these checks does not include any personally identifiable information or any other information that Microsoft can use to identify or contact you. This update follows the same stringent and secure set of privacy principles and policies as other downloads. The update can also be uninstalled at any time.


----------



## Mumbodog

Well its not exactly voluntary when 99.9% of W7 PCs are set to automatic windows updates.......

.


----------



## valis

I'm just posting what I read on the MS team blog.


----------



## Mumbodog

valis said:


> I'm just posting what I read on the MS team blog.


Yeah, they always spin it.

.


----------



## Mumbodog

.
More

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1759

.


----------



## JohnWill

Hard to blame Microsoft from trying to protect their cash cow.


----------



## Mumbodog

JohnWill said:


> Hard to blame Microsoft from trying to protect their cash cow.


No, but we can complain about it! ; -)

.


----------



## namenotfound

How exactly isn't this an invasion of privacy?


----------



## hewee

Get a list of all your MS Updates etc.

WinUpdatesList - Displays the list of all Windows updates (Service Packs and Hotfixes) installed on your local computer.

You can then make up a list and save it.


----------



## JohnWill

namenotfound said:


> How exactly isn't this an invasion of privacy?


Use Linux, problem solved. You chose to license Windows, comes with the package. Besides, you can decline it or uninstall it with no negative consequences. How is this not as accommodating as they could possibly be?

I've had issues with some of the previous activation schemes, but this one is about as benign as they could make it and still do anything about the piracy.


----------



## Mumbodog

Its just the fact that MS wants to install something on my legitimate installation of Windows that could for some unknown reason suddenly deactivate my license, causing me to jump through hoops to get it activated again, bunch of crap imho. 

Probably move to a MAC soon.

.


----------



## valis

nobody is stopping you. 

Heck, you could move to linux today. I've got a few of those boxes myself.


----------



## JohnWill

Mumbodog said:


> Its just the fact that MS wants to install something on my legitimate installation of Windows that could for some unknown reason suddenly deactivate my license, causing me to jump through hoops to get it activated again, bunch of crap imho.
> 
> Probably move to a MAC soon.
> 
> .


Well, they could do that without telling the world about the application, so even if they didn't announce this, I guess you should abandon Windows and move to something else. I'm not sure you you delude yourself into thinking that Apple couldn't do the same thing, but that's another topic.


----------



## Mumbodog

JohnWill said:


> Well, they could do that without telling the world about the application, so even if they didn't announce this, I guess you should abandon Windows and move to something else. I'm not sure you you delude yourself into thinking that Apple couldn't do the same thing, but that's another topic.


I am one of the few that actually read about the update(s) prior to installing, so your point is moot.

Thanks for your input.

.


----------



## paisanol69

Mumbodog said:


> Well its not exactly voluntary when 99.9% of W7 PCs are set to automatic windows updates.......
> 
> .





namenotfound said:


> How exactly isn't this an invasion of privacy?





Mumbodog said:


> I am one of the few that actually read about the update(s) prior to installing, so your point is moot.
> 
> Thanks for your input.
> 
> .


...considered an invasion of privacy?

If you set your computer to automaticly download and install updates, then its on your own shoulders, whatever gets downloaded. If you dont have enough interest to control what gets installed on your computer, then dont whine when MS comes out with something designed to combat theft and piracy of their product. Take some responsability for your computer.

MS has made it more than clear what this update is for, and have given you the option of installing it or not. If they wanted to really spy on you, they would not have given you the option.

If you want to carp about spying, then get after Adobe, and Google!


----------



## valis

thank you, paisanol.........perfetto.............


----------



## namenotfound

@ paisanol

The way you arranged those quotes, it looks like I'm having a conversation with Mumbodog. However, he was having a conversation with JohnWill. My comment was independent of everyone else, and was commenting on only what MS was doing. I feel like what I said was taken out of context, when you arrange the quotes like you did :-/

Anyway, I use Windows very rarely, so it doesn't really matter to me. But I'm concerned for the 80% of Windows users out there. Mainly because not all OEM's are created equally, and some _do_ use pirated copies of Windows which go unknown to the customer who buys a new computer and thinks their copy of Windows is legal. Those are the ones that could suffer from this the most.


----------



## JohnWill

namenotfound said:


> But I'm concerned for the 80% of Windows users out there. Mainly because not all OEM's are created equally, and some _do_ use pirated copies of Windows which go unknown to the customer who buys a new computer and thinks their copy of Windows is legal. Those are the ones that could suffer from this the most.


Those are the very Windows copies that Microsoft is trying to track down! Are you really saying that Microsoft should subsidize the illegal copies just because an OEM has figured out a way to pirate Windows?  Tell me this is not what you're trying to say!


----------



## namenotfound

JohnWill said:


> Those are the very Windows copies that Microsoft is trying to track down! Are you really saying that Microsoft should subsidize the illegal copies just because an OEM has figured out a way to pirate Windows?  Tell me this is not what you're trying to say!


No no, what I'm saying is that Microsoft should come up with something more along the lines of the following:

Track down which OEM's are giving out pirated software under the disguise of legit copies, and force them via lawyers to send their customers legit copies, which the OEM pays for. It shouldn't be the burden for the customer who didn't realize the copy of Windows they had wasn't legit.

If Microsoft just disables Windows for those customers, then forces them to pay for a license to Windows (they already paid hundreds on their new computer, afterall...), that's not right. Microsoft should hold OEM's responsible, not the customer who otherwise would have had no idea.

Now, for those individuals that knowingly download pirated copies of Windows, then yes disable those copies. They knew it was illegal and still did it. But don't punish the people that thought their copy was legit.


----------



## JohnWill

How do you propose that Microsoft track down these OEM's if they don't identify them through the customers? Do they have *Pirate* stamped on their forehead?

Let me ask you this. Do you think if someone steals a car and sells it to you that you get to keep the car when the authorities track it down? _*Hint*: The answer is no._ If you receive counterfeit bills unknowingly, then try to spend them and they are detected, what happens? The government confiscates the money and you get nothing.

How does Microsoft identify those that illegally directly downloaded the copies vs. the ones that were sold by a crooked OEM with a system? What uniquely identifies the downloaded copies vs. the downloaded copy that the OEM installed? You post an impossible dilemma for the software publisher.

Your plan is typical of the new morality in this country, the criminal has all the rights, and the injured party has none.


----------



## Mumbodog

paisanol69 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Mumbodog
> Well its not exactly voluntary when 99.9% of W7 PCs are set to automatic windows updates.......
> 
> .
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by namenotfound
> How exactly isn't this an invasion of privacy?
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Mumbodog
> I am one of the few that actually read about the update(s) prior to installing, so your point is moot.
> 
> Thanks for your input.
> 
> .
> 
> ...considered an invasion of privacy?
> 
> If you set your computer to automaticly download and install updates, then its on your own shoulders, whatever gets downloaded. If you dont have enough interest to control what gets installed on your computer, then dont whine when MS comes out with something designed to combat theft and piracy of their product. Take some responsability for your computer.
> 
> MS has made it more than clear what this update is for, and have given you the option of installing it or not. If they wanted to really spy on you, they would not have given you the option.
> 
> If you want to carp about spying, then get after Adobe, and Google!


Computers are set to automatically download by default from OEM's, and a majority of Windows users don't have a clue about changing it.

I really didn't hear any whining in this thread, throwing out the whining card is a typical Microsoft protectionist attitude.

Kind of like being offended when someone slams a Chevrolet, you take it personal because you own one and think it is the greatest car ever built.

Irresponsible and selective out of context quoting, good job!

Its spyware anyway you stack it, at least you have a sense of humor in you last line, : -)

.


----------



## paisanol69

namenotfound said:


> @ paisanol
> 
> The way you arranged those quotes, it looks like I'm having a conversation with Mumbodog. However, he was having a conversation with JohnWill. My comment was independent of everyone else, and was commenting on only what MS was doing. I feel like what I said was taken out of context, when you arrange the quotes like you did :-/
> 
> Anyway, I use Windows very rarely, so it doesn't really matter to me. But I'm concerned for the 80% of Windows users out there. Mainly because not all OEM's are created equally, and some _do_ use pirated copies of Windows which go unknown to the customer who buys a new computer and thinks their copy of Windows is legal. Those are the ones that could suffer from this the most.


my post made you feel , however all I was doing in my post, was using the sites "multiquote" feature to address a point you and another member had made wrt to this upgrade being spyware. I did not intend to make it appear as if you and that member were having a direct conversation, and I hope this response clears that up to your satisfaction.


----------



## paisanol69

Mumbodog said:


> Computers are set to automatically download by default from OEM's, and a majority of Windows users don't have a clue about changing it.
> 
> I really didn't hear any whining in this thread, throwing out the whining card is a typical Microsoft protectionist attitude.
> 
> Kind of like being offended when someone slams a Chevrolet, you take it personal because you own one and think it is the greatest car ever built.
> 
> Irresponsible and selective out of context quoting, good job!
> 
> Its spyware anyway you stack it, at least you have a sense of humor in you last line, : -)
> 
> .


your first post was a good one, wrt to making others aware of this MS update, so that we, AS COMPUTER OWNERS, can make an informed choice having, this update installed on our personal computers..thank you for the link

I did not quote anything out of context, in the post you are referring to, and if you would stop being being defensive, you would have realized the point I made in that post, since my first remark after the quotes was:


> How could this be an invasion of privacy..


there, is that clear enough for you??



> I really didn't hear any whining in this thread, throwing out the whining card is a typical Microsoft protectionist attitude.
> 
> Kind of like being offended when someone slams a Chevrolet, you take it personal because you own one and think it is the greatest car ever built.


what would you call it then, when a member submits the following in a post...



> Its just the fact that MS wants to install something on my legitimate installation of Windows that could for some unknown reason suddenly deactivate my license, causing me to jump through hoops to get it activated again, bunch of crap imho.


and then go on to state the following in another post:



> I am one of the few that actually read about the update(s) prior to installing, so your point is moot.


Have I quoted you out of context again, in you mind, or has your reading comprehension improved ?

I consider what you posted to be nothing but a whine, since you stated that it wouldnt affect you personally. Or have I mis-understood the point you were making, and in fact were you actually defending software piracy? If I wanted to quote you out of context, I could very easily go over to CD, and quote mine a few of your statements in the piracy thread, and post them here in this thread. At least that way, you would have been correct when you made the


> Irresponsible and selective out of context quoting, good job!


 remark!:down:


----------



## tomdkat

namenotfound said:


> No no, what I'm saying is that Microsoft should come up with something more along the lines of the following:
> 
> Track down which OEM's are giving out pirated software under the disguise of legit copies, and force them via lawyers to send their customers legit copies, which the OEM pays for. It shouldn't be the burden for the customer who didn't realize the copy of Windows they had wasn't legit.
> 
> If Microsoft just disables Windows for those customers, then forces them to pay for a license to Windows (they already paid hundreds on their new computer, afterall...), that's not right. Microsoft should hold OEM's responsible, not the customer who otherwise would have had no idea.
> 
> Now, for those individuals that knowingly download pirated copies of Windows, then yes disable those copies. They knew it was illegal and still did it. But don't punish the people that thought their copy was legit.


:up: I agree. Microsoft has the financial resources to focus on OEMs distributing pirated copies of Windows on their systems. If a pirated copy of Windows is detected on someone's computer, at the very least Microsoft should investigate how it got there. If someone unknowingly purchased a PC from one of these "bad" OEMs, they would tell Microsoft that copy of Windows came pre-installed on the "blah" brand machine they got from some store.

I think namenotfound is right on the money here.

What shocks me is the point about OEMs installing pirated copies of Windows on their machines and selling them. 

Peace...


----------



## loserOlimbs

Mumbodog said:


> Its just the fact that MS wants to install something on my legitimate installation of Windows that could for some unknown reason suddenly deactivate my license, causing me to jump through hoops to get it activated again, bunch of crap imho.
> 
> Probably move to a MAC soon.
> 
> .


To a Mac? Apple would deactivate your license for installing third part software on a legite machine, because you installed software that allows you to run apps Apple doesn't want you to have access to.

If your concern is Big Brother, then Linux is really the only option.

This to me does sound bad at first read, but really is a reasonable move. How else do you find illegal softeware then check what you can?

There are many users out there who get a cracked Windows install (Corporate license for example) and run free with what passes authentication through MS for years. Maybe Microsoft catches it and deactivate it, sounds fair.

On the other hand, maybe it is a poor consumer who bought a $200 machine off eBay with an illegal license. It is the responsibility of the consumer to at least have a vague idea of how to buy, and inspect a machine, just like a car.

Check the PCs "title" by running theactivation, make sure you have the sticker on the case.


----------



## namenotfound

loserOlimbs said:


> To a Mac? Apple would deactivate your license for installing third part software on a legite machine, because you installed software that allows you to run apps Apple doesn't want you to have access to.


What?

There is a TON of third party applications for the Mac. What have you been smoking, that you think Apple will deactivate your license for installing one of them? That sounds like something only someone who has never used a Macintosh in their life would say.


----------



## tomdkat

loserOlimbs said:


> To a Mac? Apple would deactivate your license for installing third part software on a legite machine, because you installed software that allows you to run apps Apple doesn't want you to have access to.


I'm confused by this too. Please elaborate.

Peace...


----------



## valis

and I'm watching.............


----------



## paisanol69

tomdkat said:


> :up: I agree. Microsoft has the financial resources to focus on OEMs distributing pirated copies of Windows on their systems. If a pirated copy of Windows is detected on someone's computer, at the very least Microsoft should investigate how it got there. *If someone unknowingly purchased a PC from one of these "bad" OEMs, they would tell Microsoft that copy of Windows came pre-installed on the "blah" brand machine they got from some store.*
> I think namenotfound is right on the money here.
> 
> *What shocks me is the point about OEMs installing pirated copies of Windows on their machines and selling them.*
> 
> Peace...


...further investigation by MS, after detecting an illegal copy of their software is being used, besides just penalizing the user of said software. I don't know how this could be accomplished by MS, since it is obvious that this is going on all over the world.

However, (and I have bolded some of your post in the quote above) leaving aside the fact that this MS update is not spyware, since you don't have to install it on your computer,and the very nature of spyware, is to install itself WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE....,

anyway, on to the bolded portion of your quoted post..I don't know how the younger folks are being raised these days, if said folks feel it is microsofts' problem when a person purchases an item that is later found to be "not as represented", in the sale of that item.

In other words, if I purchase a computer from an OEM, and it is later determined by MS that my operating system is an invalid , or pirated copy, then my problem is not with MS, IT IS WITH THE CHEATING CROOK THAT SOLD ME THE COMPUTER, and is it up to me to report that fact to the proper authorities, because I HAVE BEEN ROBBED. The proper authorities have the means, and indeed, are being paid, to investigate that type of fraud.

now if MS can somehow continue to pursue those who sold that pirated copy of their software, good for them, and I agree that they should make that effort, but their primary goal is to stop illegal copies from being used, and to discourage illegal downloading of the OS at the same time.


----------



## tomdkat

paisanol69 said:


> ...further investigation by MS, after detecting an illegal copy of their software is being used, besides just penalizing the user of said software. I don't know how this could be accomplished by MS, since it is obvious that this is going on all over the world.


If MS has the ability to contact individuals about pirated copies of Windows, they will have the ability to investigate cases involving machines sold with pirated copies of Windows pre-installed. MS is a *billion* dollar company. They could throw a few *million* at the investigation part and possibly have great success, especially if they can get some OEMs pre-installing pirated copies of Windows on their machines. Hell, MS could have the OEM pay for the pirated copies of Windows installed on the systems they sold and then validate the licenses identified by MS to be illegal.



> anyway, on to the bolded portion of your quoted post..I don't know how the younger folks are being raised these days, if said folks feel it is microsofts' problem when a person purchases an item that is later found to be "not as represented", in the sale of that item.


These days, most people will do anything to absolve themselves of responsibility for most things so it will definitely be MS's problem. 



> In other words, if I purchase a computer from an OEM, and it is later determined by MS that my operating system is an invalid , or pirated copy, then my problem is not with MS, IT IS WITH THE CHEATING CROOK THAT SOLD ME THE COMPUTER, and is it up to me to report that fact to the proper authorities, because I HAVE BEEN ROBBED. The proper authorities have the means, and indeed, are being paid, to investigate that type of fraud.


I agree that your problem is with the computer manufacturer but I don't think you problem _isn't_ with Microsoft as well. I guess that would be determined through how the illegitimate license became legit. I mean MS made the OS you're ultimately using and the computer manufacturer simply installed that software on the machine before they sold it to you. I guess the real question is: who is responsible for the Windows license for a pre-installed copy of Windows? Regardless, I do agree with you that the computer manufacturer who installed the pirated copy of Windows is one party you would have issues with since THEY put you in this position, in the first place.



> now if MS can somehow continue to pursue those who sold that pirated copy of their software, good for them, and I agree that they should make that effort, but their primary goal is to stop illegal copies from being used, and to discourage illegal downloading of the OS at the same time.


That's cool. It's up to MS to prioritize their fight against piracy of their software and I'll be the first to admit they have a SERIOUS fight before them. I don't think highly of their software but I wholeheartedly feel they should be paid for it by those who use it.

Peace...


----------



## JohnWill

This sounds like requiring car manufacturers to be responsible for tracking down stolen cars, clearly this is not the case. 

I'm stunned that so many people think that it's Microsoft's responsibility to find software pirates. By extension, it should be any software maker's responsibility to do the same thing, large or small.

Truthfully, I think Microsoft dedicates quite a few resources to tracking down illegal distributors of it's software, but it obviously can't find every Tom, Dick, and Harry that's pirating one of their software packages!

There is no simple solution to this issue, as long as people are looking for the absolute best deal, regardless of the reputation of the vendor in question, it'll keep happening.


----------



## Mumbodog

JohnWill said:


> This sounds like requiring car manufacturers to be responsible for tracking down stolen cars, clearly this is not the case.


Poor comparison, if someone was somehow duplicating their cars at low cost and selling them, then it would make some sense.

If someone broke into Microsoft's warehouse or a retailer like Best Buy and stole legit copies of the software, then yes the authorities would get involved.

Unauthorized duplication and cracking of software licensing/protection is a whole different problem.

If you suspect your software is pirated you can go here,

https://reporting.bsa.org/usa/home.aspx

and here
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/reporting/default.aspx

some pay a bounty if you report a large company that is pirating Windows software, and they are found guilty.

.


----------



## tomdkat

JohnWill said:


> This sounds like requiring car manufacturers to be responsible for tracking down stolen cars, clearly this is not the case.


How so? I don't think anyone is stating Microsoft HAS to track down pirates but clearly they choose to do so. In the case of an OEM installing pirated copies of Windows on its machines before selling them, going after the OEMs is in Microsoft's best interest in reducing the number of pirated Windows installations. I don't think those buying machines from OEMs pre-installing pirated copies of Windows are choosing those brands because they have a pirated copy of Windows pre-installed. I think people are buying the least expensive machine they can get and don't know that their copy of Windows is illegal until Microsoft informs them of this, somehow.

Using the stolen car analogy, I'm thinking a better fit is if a part manufacturer finds out a car manufacturer is using stolen parts in the cars they sell, instead of purchased parts. Do you think the part manufacturer would not try to seek out the car manufacturer using its stolen parts?



> I'm stunned that so many people think that it's Microsoft's responsibility to find software pirates. By extension, it should be any software maker's responsibility to do the same thing, large or small.


If piracy is of that importance to them, they certainly should go after the pirates.



> Truthfully, I think Microsoft dedicates quite a few resources to tracking down illegal distributors of it's software, but it obviously can't find every Tom, Dick, and Harry that's pirating one of their software packages!
> 
> There is no simple solution to this issue, as long as people are looking for the absolute best deal, regardless of the reputation of the vendor in question, it'll keep happening.


Yep, I agree.

Peace...


----------



## loserOlimbs

namenotfound said:


> What?
> 
> There is a TON of third party applications for the Mac. What have you been smoking, that you think Apple will deactivate your license for installing one of them? That sounds like something only someone who has never used a Macintosh in their life would say.


I was speaking more generally on how poorly treats its customers, and developers. To brick a iPod/ iPhone or likely even iPad for being jail broken is a very poor service. Its not that it might not work, but instead Apple makes patches to kill the device. Other problems include refusing to allow programs on the app store because they contain the work Android...

And yes, I have used Macs, fixed them and supported them in a corporate environment... never again, horrible customer support, and the service was just as bad. Never used the genius bar, but their phone support was on the "too bad it doesn't work, why don't you spend another $150 per machine instead".


----------



## tomdkat

loserOlimbs said:


> I was speaking more generally on how poorly treats its customers, and developers. To brick a iPod/ iPhone or likely even iPad for being jail broken is a very poor service. Its not that it might not work, but instead Apple makes patches to kill the device. Other problems include refusing to allow programs on the app store because they contain the work Android...


I don't agree with the jail breaking part but I do agree with you on blocking apps for political reasons. That's not cool and surprised me that Apple would do that in today's era of "openness".

Peace...


----------



## loserOlimbs

tomdkat said:


> I don't agree with the jail breaking part but I do agree with you on blocking apps for political reasons. That's not cool and surprised me that Apple would do that in today's era of "openness".
> 
> Peace...


It doesn't surprise me... and that makes me mad because they have released some great products, both historically and recently. Sure they are overpriced most of the time, but generally because there is not a true competitor, like in the PowerPC days and when Photoshop ran light years better on a Mac...


----------



## tomdkat

What surprises me about Apple's choices to be restrictive about apps that can run on the i(devices) is that's somewhat contradictory to their being so open about embracing open source products in OS X. It just seems odd they would be cool with using open source products in OS X yet not allow certain apps on their i(devices).

Peace...


----------



## JohnWill

loserOlimbs said:


> I was speaking more generally on how poorly treats its customers, and developers. To brick a iPod/ iPhone or likely even iPad for being jail broken is a very poor service. Its not that it might not work, but instead Apple makes patches to kill the device. Other problems include refusing to allow programs on the app store because they contain the work Android...


So you don't mind if apple protects it's products, just Microsoft?


----------



## loserOlimbs

I don't get it either, and with their history Apple would be last choice to go back to for anything. Which reminds me, Amiga is still trying to make their comeback... just in case MS and Linux should fall through we can go either to a true Unix environment, or back to Amiga.


----------



## loserOlimbs

JohnWill said:


> So you don't mind if apple protects it's products, just Microsoft?


I mind, but there is reasonable, and then there is Apple.

MS's solution is fairly safe, warns you exactly what it does.... and cripples the OS.
Apple instead lets you guess will connecting to iTunes this week catch my $500 phone on fire?

If there were a real reason Apple didn't let the iPhone/pod be unlocked, other than to run only what Apple wants you to, I wouldn't mind as much. To make things worse, the phone is not crippled, disable or allowed to be repaired, its nuked, tanked, "bricked"... its dead!


----------



## namenotfound

loserOlimbs said:


> I was speaking more generally on how poorly treats its customers, and developers. To brick a iPod/ iPhone or likely even iPad for being jail broken is a very poor service. Its not that it might not work, but instead Apple makes patches to kill the device. Other problems include refusing to allow programs on the app store because they contain the work Android...


So first you referred to a *Mac* when you said Apple deactivates a licenses for having 3rd party software, now you're talking about the iPod/iPhone/iPad, which is NOT a Mac. You seem to be all over the place with your statements 

Also, if you're going to complain about Apple for trying to patch Jailbroken devices, then you should also complain about Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony for doing the same patches to the Wii, Xbox360, and PS3 to try to prevent people from installing homebrew apps on those devices.


----------



## JohnWill

I sure wouldn't want to be in the software business if you guys were making the laws!


----------



## Mumbodog

I just saw the KB971033 update on my W7 PC, it comes through as an Important update, but is unchecked.

So no it is not pushed out in the "Optional" category.

Looks like it is another out of cycle patch Tuesday.

KB-977863
KB-971033
KB-976264
KB-976662
KB-979306


.


----------



## paisanol69

Mumbodog said:


> I just saw the KB971033 update on my W7 PC, it comes through as an Important update, *but is unchecked.*
> So no it is not pushed out in the "Optional" category.
> 
> Looks like it is another out of cycle patch Tuesday.
> 
> KB-977863
> KB-971033
> KB-976264
> KB-976662
> KB-979306
> 
> .


... If I am reading your post correctly...Then what you are saying is that unless you "select " it for downloading, from the list of available downloads, it does not install itself? ( I am in the Netherlands, so I'm not sure if I am reading your post correctly, since the MS updates are in Dutch here  )

If that is the case, then is is most DEFINATELY an optional update, dependent upon you deciding that you want it to be installed, since you must tick the box to get it installed. That means for those who don't bother to investigate what MS installs on their machines ( those that have their automatic update set for "fully automatic function" ) then this update would not be installed, correct?



Mumbodog said:


> *Well its not exactly voluntary *when 99.9% of W7 PCs are set to automatic windows updates.......
> 
> .





Mumbodog said:


> *Computers are set to automatically download by default from OEM's*, and a majority of Windows users don't have a clue about changing it.
> 
> .................
> 
> .


does this mean that you understand now, that this is a VOLUNTARY update, and so should not be considered as spyware??


----------



## Mumbodog

paisanol69 said:


> ... If I am reading your post correctly...Then what you are saying is that unless you "select " it for downloading, from the list of available downloads, it does not install itself? ( I am in the Netherlands, so I'm not sure if I am reading your post correctly, since the MS updates are in Dutch here  )
> 
> If that is the case, then is is most DEFINATELY an optional update, dependent upon you deciding that you want it to be installed, since you must tick the box to get it installed. That means for those who don't bother to investigate what MS installs on their machines ( those that have their automatic update set for "fully automatic function" ) then this update would not be installed, correct?


That is the way it showed up on both of my W7 PC's, unchecked.

I never use fully automatic, never have, so I cannot speak to what it would do in that mode. One would assume it is the same, unchecked.

.


> does this mean that you understand now, that this is a VOLUNTARY update, and so should not be considered as spyware??


just because it is voluntary, does not mean it is not spyware, if you install it, it will spy on you, and report home on every boot cycle.

.


----------



## JohnWill

Mumbodog said:


> just because it is voluntary, does not mean it is not spyware, if you install it, it will spy on you, and report home on every boot cycle.


Gee, if you install a webcam and then leave it open to the internet, it'll spy on you too for anyone that stumbles across it. You guys are making mountains out of molehills here!


----------



## valis

I guess since it phones home it technically qualifies as malware, but as Microsoft tells you it's going to, I don't think it qualifies as spyware. 

Regardless, if you got nothing to hide, what's the bother about?


----------



## Mumbodog

JohnWill said:


> Gee, if you install a webcam and then leave it open to the internet, it'll spy on you too for anyone that stumbles across it. You guys are making mountains out of molehills here!


Gee, what a lousy comparison.

.


----------



## Mumbodog

valis said:


> I guess since it phones home it technically qualifies as malware, but as Microsoft tells you it's going to, I don't think it qualifies as spyware.
> 
> Regardless, if you got nothing to hide, what's the bother about?


Malware is Malicious Software, so I don't think it is, Spyware, it spy's on you whether you know you installed it or not.

Nothing to hide, everything to protect.

.


----------



## JohnWill

News flash, many companies, including Microsoft, have been "spying" on you for years.


----------



## Mumbodog

JohnWill said:


> News flash, many companies, including Microsoft, have been "spying" on you for years.


News flash, I have been blocking them for years.


----------



## JohnWill

Mumbodog said:


> News flash, I have been blocking them for years.


Or so you think.


----------



## valis

big brother is always watching.........just gotta learn to accept it..........


----------



## valis

Mumbodog said:


> Malware is Malicious Software, so I don't think it is, Spyware, it spy's on you whether you know you installed it or not.
> 
> Nothing to hide, everything to protect.


but in this case you know you installed it.......you were told by the mfg that it was going to do this; at least I was.........so again, what's the big deal?

I got a huge problem with adobe; starting with 8.0 pro, they had a built-in phone home system that they DIDN'T tell me about......installed it on a subnet at work, and about an hour later network traffic is dead. I use a static ip network, so I could at least track down where it was coming from, but it honestly looked like a jabbering nic.....it was sending out requests 30 times a minute........and we obviously use proxies, so it was going no further........turns out Adobe had a little app called update.exe _completely_ buried in the common apps folder, about 3 levels down.

Wrote a reg hack and pushed that out via gpo to fix it, but that still torqued me. If you do it, fine, cool by me, it's your product, do what you want. But if it's gonna cause deleterious effects on MY network, I'd like to know about it, please.


----------



## Mumbodog

JohnWill said:


> Or so you think.


Unlike you, I know! Go back to your thinking.

Its called a linux firewall.


.


----------



## Mumbodog

valis said:


> but in this case you know you installed it.......you were told by the mfg that it was going to do this; at least I was.........so again, what's the big deal?
> .


The big deal is it does not tell you it is going to spy on you, it says nothing in the Windows update info. 99.9% of MS users don't read tech articles like we do. Spyware, any way you shake it baby.

Not really a big deal, I think people should be informed so they can make decision to install it or not.

.


----------



## valis

Mumbodog said:


> The big deal is it does not tell you it is going to spy on you, it says nothing in the Windows update info. 99.9% of MS users don't read tech articles like we do. Spyware, any way you shake it baby.
> 
> Not really a big deal, I think people should be informed so they can make decision to install it or not.


no, windows lets you know that it's going to do that, so I don't think it qualifies as spyware. You are correct that the majority of the populace (aka, _endusers_) have no clue what is going on with their pc. But then again, the majority of people out there simply by NOT being tech savvy, don't have anything to worry about. They don't have the knowledge or know-how to get a cracked version of anything, and besides, they are too busy coloring inside the lines to worry about it.


----------



## Mumbodog

valis said:


> no, windows lets you know that it's going to do that


prove it.


----------



## valis

dude, don't need to.

You want to be paranoid, be paranoid. You want to think you are beating big brother, beat big brother. I think I said it in this thread, linux is still free, so make the switch and stop whining.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1759


> What's noteworthy to me is* the degree to which Microsoft is going out of its way to disclose the details of this update* and to allow anyone who is skeptical of it to opt out with no negative consequences.


again, linux is free. Hell, I've got two boxes running it right now.


----------



## Mumbodog

valis said:


> dude, don't need to.
> 
> You want to be paranoid, be paranoid. You want to think you are beating big brother, beat big brother. I think I said it in this thread, linux is still free, so make the switch and stop whining.
> 
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1759
> 
> again, linux is free. Hell, I've got two boxes running it right now.


dude, if your going to make statements like the previous one, you need to, otherwise it is just your incomprehensible nonsensical ramblings.

So if someone disagrees with you its whining? How childish you are to throw out the whine card

Wow linux is free, I never knew that, what a profound statement.


Just to clarify, I don't use Linux
as my OS, just my firewall box.



.


----------



## JohnWill

I think you need to change the tinfoil in your hat, the radiation is getting to you.


----------



## valis

JohnWill said:


> I think you need to change the tinfoil in your hat, the radiation is getting to you.


seconded and carried.


----------



## valis

Mumbodog said:


> dude, if your going to make statements like the previous one, you need to, otherwise it is just your incomprehensible nonsensical ramblings.
> 
> So if someone disagrees with you its whining? How childish you are to throw out the whine card
> 
> Wow linux is free, I never knew that, what a profound statement.
> 
> 
> Just to clarify, I don't use Linux
> as my OS, just my firewall box.


but nothing to say of the zdnet comment?


----------



## Mumbodog

Oh no JohnWill and Valis are ganging up on me, what shall I do.










.

.


----------



## valis

I dunno, maybe answer the comment in the zdnet blog?

Or just hush up and go about your business.....


----------



## valis

either way, enjoy. I've bigger fish to fry, and better things to do. As I stated, I don't think it's spy or malware, although a case could be made for the former (certainly not the latter). 

MS has made it abundantly clear what this update does, and if that doesn't suit you, who am I to change your mind.

Enjoy, mumbo, and stay out of trouble, eh?


----------



## Mumbodog

valis said:


> I dunno, maybe answer the comment in the zdnet blog?
> 
> Or just hush up and go about your business.....


I will answer what i wish to answer, thanks for the advise though.

.


----------



## valis

de nada..........sorta what we're here for.........


----------



## Mumbodog

Valis, this is not the debate board.




.


----------

