Ken, Unfortunately, I think you are contradicting yourself. You say that you "disagree with the opportunism that Microsoft uses to pry into my computer under the guise of giving me a critical update" ...however, there is nothing illegal in what Microsoft is doing. It was all there in an license agreement somewhere that you signed, albeit in tiny print down at the bottom somewhere. Spyware isn't illegal, as long as it's declared...if I sell you a program that emails me personal information about you, but you downloaded and installed it knowingly (especially if you signed a license agreement) then what I am doing is perfectly legal. Free market...if you don't like my product, don't buy it or use it.
However, you take the view (as do many others, including myself) that Microsoft is, perhaps, morally wrong in doing this. In using a critical update delivery system to check your software license. In installing software that phones home at intervals, so big brother can keep a close eye on you. How do you know that Microsoft isn't keeping a close eye on what programs you have installed? On how much open source software you're using, to feed into their own development work / priorities? This is their legal right, as long as it was hidden in that agreement somewhere, but it is worthy of condemnation. It violates a user's right to privacy, simply because for many users without the knowledge and experience to use Linux, Microsoft has the monopoly product. It's the only game in town. If you have the freedom to criticize this, even though it is perfectly legal, then you have the freedom to criticize Microsoft's product as well. Whether or not we take the option of switching away from Microsoft products, and exercising our free market rights, we are still capable of criticizing the product. You compared an OS to money, but that's not accurate...no one trades windows CDs to pay for things. And if you buy an operating system and someone steals it, I agree...you should be able to prove ownership before you can demand it back. But you should *not* have to prove ownership every single time the company asks for it, on a daily basis, without even knowing that you are doing so. The makers of the things that were stolen from you did not have the right to come into your home and check to see if you legally owned those products, every day. Perhaps it has now become legal for them to do so, because you have signed an agreement that permits them to do this, but I would not allow anyone into my house on a daily basis in that manner, even if they promised not to touch my other possessions or even take note of anything but their own product. And MS has made no such promise, incidentally. In the end, I think the question is not "this is legal, so we can't fault them for it" ...it would be legal for you to legally authorize me into your home to check to see if the shirt I sold you is still legally yours. But I think it is reprehensible for an operating system to be "sold" to end users, when all they are selling is the right to use that operating system on one computer, one set of hardware, with no modifications...in effect, renting. And for a company to use disguised tactics to monitor end users in their use of the software is similarly worthy of criticism. The question is why we are not criticizing and condemning their practices. They can either be forced to change in response to market demands (if you make those demands) or they can continue as they are, because people shrug their shoulders and resign themselves to it. I'm making the switch, actually, and would have done it a while ago if I'd had the time. That's my response. But whether or not users are switching, you *always* have the right to criticize a crappy product or a crappy process that violates your privacy, whether or not it's legally done. Dave. ------------------- Dave A. Chakrabarti Projects Coordinator CTCNet Chicago [EMAIL PROTECTED] (708) 919 1026 ------------------- Ken Callaghan wrote: > While I disagree with the opportunisism that Microsoft utilises to pry > into my computer under the guise of giving me a critical update, I > really don't have a problem with Microsoft jealously guarding their > software. Why shouldn't it be proper to prove you own the software > before you re-install it? Comparing it with ownership of a house is not > the same thing. A house cannot be copied inexpensively to a CD. Why not > compare it to counterfeit currency? We would be annoyed at counterfeit > currency being handed to us in payment of a bill or as change from a > shop principly because I work hard to be able to have genuine money, yet > someone else lives off the rest of us and hands over worthless pieces of > paper to pay the same bills that I have to pay with my hard-earned cash. > > I am not pro-Microsoft, but I am not anti-Microsoft either, other than > them employing devious means as outlined by Jesse, and Microsoft should > realise that such tactics don't help their public image problems. What I > cannot accept is that Microsoft has no right to check for counterfeit > software. They do have a right, and as a person with not a single item > of unlicensed software on my system, I hope they put a stop to people > getting software illegally fo rthe price of a CD when I and others have > to pay for the privilege. > > And yes there are times we have to prove we own things. When my house > was burgled I had to prove that the recovered items were mine before I > could have them back. The burglar was not happy when I could do so > because then it was proof that he was in my house! > > One of my clients was shocked to find that every computer on their suite > had non-genuine copies of Windows installed. This was traced back to the > hardware provider who in turn traced it back to an employee who had > taken the money for the licenses but installed Windows on every machine > from the one disk. Quite frankly, routing out this sort of thing will > help clean up the industry > > And when on the subject, if we become annoyed at Microsoft checking out > whether software is valid or not, we must remember that manufacturers of > other items do exactly the same thing. It's illegal to copy books, CDs, > patented designs and works of art. So let's not scream and shout too > loudly at Microsoft and save our breath for those times we really want > them to listen, otherwise our genuine grievances will get lost in the > background. > > Ken Callaghan > Digital Communities Belfast Project Manager > > > > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. > If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the > message. > Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. > This message has been scanned for viruses and spam by SurfControl RiskFilter > - E-mail. > > > _______________________________________________ > DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list > DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org > http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide > To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE > in the body of the message. > _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
