I oversaw a recent conference where some officials from MS were touting these exact benefits(?) of win2k SP3 and XP SP1 but going on to say that the user has final say in disabling the service in the background. However they did announce that this user capability would be removed in all future software releases from Redmond.
That was left hanging with no follow up, except to say that it would make for a happier and more content user base that would not have to contend with continual patches and fixes. Sure.
I wouldn't want some appliance maintenance crew coming into my home when I'm at work without my knowledge and I wouldn't want MS to do the same when I'm not at my computers. Just because MS says something to this affect in their EULA (End User License Agreement) does not make it right or even legal.
In the spring of 2002 the group vice president of platforms Jim Allchin (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/jim/default.asp) at MS disclosed in the DOJ hearings that the windows software was so flawed that it's disclosure could threaten US national security http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,5264,00.asp
In Canada here our government is following suit as legislation is moving forward to force all ISP's to keep a record of all user traffic for 6 months. To put this into perspective one ISP said the users have 1 - 3 gigs of traffic a month and over 6 months this would amount to 6 - 18 gigs of data. Multiply this number by the user base and you end up requiring terabytes (1000 gigs) of storage space just in case the local security officials want to have a gander at someone's activities. Imagine AOL backing up the data from 30 million plus subscribers :>
Blocking cookies might be useful, but you can also block Active X and .Net both of which heavily power the windows update and all of the MS network of sites. However .Net will be embedded in the new windows 2003 so it might be difficult there. Also XML is heavily used for data exchange and if you want to block it then don't use any browser that supports it, Lynx comes to mind :)
And every embedded device from your cell phone, home phone, refrigerator, kids toy's, to auto repair tools, can be monitored.
Now if you excuse me I have to take a look at the computer in our F-250 pickup, it has a bad chip I think...
Peter Kaulback
-- "Confusion is mightier than the sword." -- Abbie Hoffman
In the hour of 10:59 PM 11/03/2003 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] spoke this:
Clint and others,
Well, I think it was in a recent article in InfoWorld, by Brian Livingston or similar high tech guru, that a really MAJOR eye-opener got revealed. If you can get to the web sites for InfoWorld, ComputerWorld, and other similiar computer news sites, you might want to subscribe to gettting emails from such individuals, since the info they end up knowing is absolutely mind bodgling.
Seems that when you install SP1 for XP or SP3 for 2K, you give, as part of the legal gobbaldygook, unconditional right for MS to automatically update the OS withOUT you having to give any ok to what it decides to do in the background.
So what this amounts to is that even if you get the SP from some other location, it will not matter since to install it, you have to agress to the licensing info, and this is one of the issues contained in the SP licensing info.
There is a MORE ominous issue on the horizon, and it has to do with the homeland security act issues. It seems that one of the parts of the act was to give the government the right to dictate to all ISPs, under threat of legal action, that all members of the ISP had to be fully and completely monitored of all activities involving the ISP - not only internet sites visited but all emails sent and received as well as news groups the person was visiting. And this was to be done without ever informing the person(s) being monitored, in the name of national security operations.
I THINK this part was shot down - but how much longer before this country is truly living under Big Brother's ever watchful eyes. Just think, every living and working space will have a TV, BUT the TV will be watching you, not you watching it. Doublespeak is commonly found in use these days all over the place, and getting to be more and more widespread.
Ralph
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > If you block ALL cookies, there are many sites you can't get to, > and functions are disabled. I tried doing that with the MS > websites, and I could not longer access them. Cookies should > NOT be necessary, and they are NOT necessary just to use a > website! Some of the news & sports websites put cookies on > your HD the second their homepage loads! I realize that cookies > are necessary for some 'personalized site features', but when a > site has no personalized web features, they have no business > doing it. There is NO reason for that, just for a visit to their > homepage! > > It's not really a cookie thing that's at issue here, it's MS > *scanning your PC* for personal data, that they > are doing. Even if you blocked all cookies and still could get > to the update site, this would not stop the site from getting > your PC to send personal data back to MS (contrary to their lying > statement that this "NEVER" happens). I have my cooking option > set to "high", and it's a real pain at that setting getting to > many websites. I have to constantly change the setting, since > double-clicking the red - and selecting "always accept cookies > from this site" doesn't work half the time. I empty the cookies > that do manage to get in my temp net files a few times a week, > and only leave those I need. Also blocking all cookies will not > stop spying unscrupulous sites from placing items in the registry > and the downloaded program files folder (like Xupiter and Alexa). > I get 'malicious things in those areas just from a SPAM email, > and my security settings are always max'd out. > > Yeah that's a good idea to say "NO" to those error warnings, I do > the same. However you *should* worry about MS spying, it is > going to become a major problem. What I'm going to start doing, > is getting any Windows OS updates from ELSEWHERE, other than > the "Windows update site". It can be done. I'm not about to > have these 'cyber terrorists' suck info off of my computers into > their "massive collection jar". That's inexcusable. What is > really horrible about it, and the real point for me, is these > jerks have the unmitigated GALL to actually put that comment > on their webpage while the update site is 'scanning your PC', > that reads "This is done WITHOUT sending any information > back to M$"!!!!!!! I always doubted that statement, now I see > with good cause. Those jerks are going to get themselves in > such a legal mess greater than the one they are already in, > that they will go bankrupt. It will be a $100 billion corporate > class action lawsuit case (plus criminal charges) the likes of > the legal system has NEVER seen in history. Since Gates > has 60 Billion and counting, it would take about 100 billion to > get anyone's attention. That case will uncover atrocities that > will stun the world, you mark my words. I bet they have > dedicated storage area for EACH and every one of us!!! > "Big Brother" is an understatement, this is like a UPC barcode > stamped on a billion people that use their products. This > must be stopped. This makes what AOL does look like a > simple "passing hello". It's never bothered me before, > but I'm finding more and more cases regarding M$ spying and > privacy violations, and you just cannot trust a company that > does that. The majority of us have absolutely nothing to hide, > however IMO, that's not the point. I feel as though I'm being > "electronically raped". That *is* what they are doing to users. > I bet they are getting all this personal info, selling it to > spammers and telema*keting firms so they can harass us. > My 2 cents. ;-) > > No, I didn't read the full article yet, I was waiting to see if > anyone else did, and was able to get it ok. I'm not familiar > with that payment service, so I'm a bit leery of it's > legitimacy......even though it's only 2 bucks, they could do > something with your CC number. > > On a note about SpyBot; I've found that it misses many things > that AdAware finds, AND, AdAware can miss many things that SpyBot > finds! So, I use both. Good idea to use both of them. > -Clint > > God Bless Us All > Clint Hamilton, Owner > Want to exchange links with us? > http://OrpheusComputing.com �
============= PCWorks Mailing List ================= Don't see your post? Check our posting guidelines & make sure you've followed proper posting procedures, http://pcworkers.com/rules.htm Contact list owner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Unsubscribing and other changes: http://pcworkers.com =====================================================
