At 05:46 PM 8/15/2002 -0400, Matt Daggett wrote: >http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26517.html > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25956.html
This was in response to a request for a source for the information given in a previous post: >Also if anyone is thinking about installing Win2K SP3 better real the EULA >very closely. I basically gives Bill the ability to remotely install/remove >applications/drivers. I've done two things. (1) I went to the URLs given. They are references to articles asserting what Mr. Dagget reported. The language of the articles is not sober, they are polemic. (2) Then I used Windows Update to obtain W2000 SP3. I read the user agreement carefully. It contained no provision similar to what was reported. It is possible that it *did* contain such a provision, but that Microsoft removed it upon complaint. The provision itself, as reported, was rather vague in import. It could be interpreted to mean only that the software can do what it has long done, with user consent. This was the provision: >"You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the >version of the OS Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and >may provide upgrades or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically >downloaded to your computer." with a few caveats and protections, I support, actually, that being part of the user agreement. Unpatched operating systems on computers connected to the internet are a security hazard that affects everyone, since these computers can be and have been used for DOS attacks, etc. Yes, the same technology could be used for a sinister purpose. But the action agreed to is fairly narrow: "may ... check the version," and "may provide upgrades or fixes ... that will be automatically downloaded to your computer." This does not allow Microsoft to, for example, check to see what other non-Microsoft software you have installed on your computer. And any user running firewall software can easily disable internet access for the update program. It is not explicit that such actions may be performed without immediate user notification. Maybe so, maybe not. Usually, however, OS patches require a system reboot to complete installation. Perhaps Microsoft would report the desireability of this reboot to the user. I trust Microsoft in certain ways and not in others. I do not trust them to always act in my best interest. But I do trust them to -- not without error -- follow their own privacy policy and, obviously, to provide an operating system that does the job with reasonable safety and security. The provision described would help that. If they have taken it out, that would probably mean that they will continue to warn and allow users to opt out, at least, of any update or update process. ************************************************************************ * Tracking #: 49746EBDF829634A8114D18D1679FDF39DE4F533 * ************************************************************************ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
