Here is even more on the subject.
Thx, Albert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dallas Vogels" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Albert Ruel" <[log in to unmask]>; "Evan Ruel" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Microsoft's New License Agreement allows Them To controll
Your Computer
arg. This sickens me, and it's only the tip of the ice burg. To give a
monopoly full control of the product you have already bought from them
should be voluntary. To sneak it in under the average persons radar is an
abuse of power, not to mention the inherent security risks. Here are some
more articles on microsoft regarding privacy issues:
http://www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/story/html/92308
http://www.msnbc.com/news/770511.asp?cp1=1
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/27/125227&mode=thread&tid=109
Did you know that microsoft wants the Pentagon to use their proprietary
software over open-source solutions? Imagine a company with the worst
security track record of any computer company arguing with the Pentagon to
use their products, it's kind of ironic. The article can be found here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60050-2002May22.html
Cheers,
Dallas
At 02:40 PM 03/07/2002 -0700, Albert Ruel wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Kelly Pierce" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 2:07 PM
>Subject: Microsoft's New License Agreement allows Them To controll Your
>Computer
>
>
>The Register
>
>30 June 2002 Updated: 09:50 GMT
>
>Biting the hand that feeds IT
>
>
>MS security patch EULA gives Billg admin privileges on your box
>
>By Thomas C Greene in Washington
>
>Posted: 30/06/2002 at 05:56 GMT
>
>If you caught our recent coverage of the Windows Media Player trio of
>security holes you may have followed a link to the TechNet download site
>for a patch, or you might have activated Windows Update. If you did the
>former (though, oddly, not if you did the latter), you would have been
>confronted with an End User License Agreement (EULA) stating, most
>ominously, that:
>
>"You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software
>protected by digital rights management ('Secure Content'), Microsoft may
>provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be
>automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related
>updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and
>use other software on your computer. If we provide such a security
>update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site
>explaining the update."
>
>"Reasonable efforts to post notices" somewhere on the Web. I think it's
>clear from the wording that MS has absolutely no intention of bringing
>this behavior to our attention.
>
>Instead, Microsoft has just assumed the right to attack your computer and
>surreptitiously install code of its choosing. You will not be warned; you
>will not be offered an opportunity examine the download or refuse it. MS
>will simply connect remotely and install what it will, or install it
>secretly when you contact them.
>
>This means MS will have administrator privileges on your personal
>computer. What they feed you may be infected with viruses; it may break
>your applications, corrupt data files, destroy weeks or months or even
>years of work, but you'll have no recourse if it does. By downloading
>this WMP critical security patch, which you must do to operate WMP
>safely, you'll agree to give Billg deed and title to your personal
>property and to leave Microsoft immune from legal retaliation if they
>damage your machine.
>
>The pusillanimity of wrapping what amounts to a digital land-grant into a
>needed, critical security patch is matched only by the arrogance of
>assuming that Windows is now such a fundamental linchpin of a human life
>worth living that no retaliation in the courts or at the retail counters
>is conceivable. (And that's not to mention 'informal' retaliation by
>outraged IP warriors, which we fully expect to see.)
>
>We've heard the Billg rubbish about Trustworthy Computing until we're
>sick to death of the trivial incantation. Ironically, Microsoft has just
>taken steps to make the Internet immensely more untrustworthy than it
>already is. When we know that arbitrary code will be secretely installed
>on our connected boxes by software vendors who are not accountable for
>the damage they may do, any issue of trust is obliterated.
>
>May I suggest my (personally) favorite solution to that problem?
>
>Linux.
>
>http://www.suse.com/index_us.html
>
>
>VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
>To join or leave the list, send a message to
>[log in to unmask] In the body of the message, simply type
>"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
> VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
>http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html
The Forest Industry Network
http://www.forestindustry.com
Ph: +1 250 758 0665
Fx: +1 250 758 8665
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 01/07/2002
VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask] In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html
|
