On 01/06/2011 11:19 AM, Joshua Lutes wrote: > I don't believe that there are many people who legally purchase the software > and then can't use it at all ever. What is the false positive rate? Does > Microsoft really have no recourse for those falsely identified? What is the > true positive rate?
It used to be quite high in the beginning (maybe a percent or so). The question is, what false positive rate is acceptable? If you're the one who's critical information is inaccessible because of MS's mistakes, then even 0.00001% is unacceptable. From an enterprise POV, having any kind of kill switch in the software that I don't control is very very bad, and potentially disastrous. >> * Because it is repugnant the way they cripple their software and call it a >> feature. >> > > Repugnant, eh? Anyway, it is only crippled if you didn't actually purchase > their software. If you did legitimately purchase it from a legitimate > source then you are safe. No, it's crippled if MS makes a mistake and thinks you didn't purchase it legitimately. You are certainly not guaranteed to be safe from anything. >> * Because it erodes privacy. >> > > What information does it collect other than that you have an authorized copy > of Microsoft Windows? It seems like this information would be collected > when you downloaded the updates regardless. I don't want my OS phoning home on a regular basis. I should be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. >> * Because it circumvents democracy by allowing Microsoft's code to dictate >> the terms of the agreement regardless of what legal rights are granted to >> consumers. > > > I doubt this. Maybe I just don't understand the claim being made. Well WGA allows MS to go beyond what copyright law allows. the WGA makes an EULA do things beyond what contract law and copyright law allow. Same for DRM. Maybe you can understand it in the DRM context. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
