backtop


Print 46 comment(s) - last by gtnbuckeye.. on Jul 7 at 11:40 AM

More trouble brewing in Redmond

Just when you thought that Microsoft's WGA problems were over with the release of an updated version of the utility and instructions on how to remove older versions completely, things have taken a turn for the worse. A Los Angeles resident is now suing the software giant saying that it violated spyware laws.

Brian Johnson is seeking class-action status for his claims that Microsoft was too light on the details when it delivered its WGA anti-piracy utility to Windows based machines. As detailed in the suit, "Microsoft effectively installed the WGA software on consumers' systems without providing consumers any opportunity to make an informed choice about that software."

A spokesman for Microsoft dismissed the charges and responded that the WGA utility is installed only after the user gives permission to do so. The Seattle Post Intelligencer reports:

Microsoft's Desler disputed that assertion and said the suit shouldn't obscure what he called the "real issue," software piracy. "The WGA program was carefully developed to focus on what is really an industrywide problem in a manner that is lawful, and provides customers with the confidence and assurance that they're running legitimate software," he said.

For those of you still want to get rid of the WGA utility and don't want to jump through hoops by editing the registry, a new utility has been released to make the process much easier.





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

about time too.
By ForumMaster on 6/30/2006 1:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
maybe ms will finally stop their unacceptable behavior now. personally, i have a legit copy of windows, but did not install this crap. i already know that my copy is legit, why run an extra service that takes up resources? screw ms and their ways. i need to get linux.




RE: about time too.
By Morpth on 6/30/06, Rating: 0
RE: about time too.
By masher2 on 6/30/2006 2:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly, the idea of a man suing over his own decision to intentionally install a piece of software is laughably ludicrous, and further highlights current abuses of our legal system.


RE: about time too.
By kattanna on 6/30/2006 2:22:00 PM , Rating: 3
actually if you have your system set for automatic updates it would have installed itself on its own. And since it wasnt a truly "critical" update, ie security fix or such, there was no need for it to be there.

at worst though, it will make people leary of setting their systems to use automatic updates, which would be more harmfull in the long run.



RE: about time too.
By masher2 on 6/30/2006 2:33:13 PM , Rating: 1
> "actually if you have your system set for automatic updates it would have installed itself on its own..."

Through the implied consent you gave by turning on that feature. The definition of "automatic" in conjunction with "update" is pretty damn clear to me....what about you?

> "it wasnt a truly "critical" update, ie security fix or such..."

Nowhere does Microsoft define "critical update" in a manner which disallows WGA. The definition is in the eye of the beholder. Furthermore, one could certainly argue that WGA does provide "security", by safeguarding users against purchasing pirated copies of Windows.

I realize how desperately the anti-Microsoft crowd wants to assign blame for nonexistent problems, but really one has to ask-- what's the issue here? I've used a lot of high-end software that automatically "phones home" each and every time you start it up. If you don't like it-- don't use it. Its a free country. You're free to avoid products you don't like, and companies are (or should be) free to design products as they wish, and protect them in any manner they so desire.




RE: about time too.
By bob661 on 6/30/2006 2:41:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its a free country. You're free to avoid products you don't like, and companies are (or should be) free to design products as they wish, and protect them in any manner they so desire.
What if you choose to use a particular software but do not want to choose to have that software phone home everytime it launches? Shouldn't we have the "freedom" to make that choice also?


RE: about time too.
By masher2 on 6/30/06, Rating: 0
RE: about time too.
By Lord 666 on 6/30/2006 3:52:45 PM , Rating: 1
>I've used a lot of high-end software that automatically "phones home" each and every time you start it up. If you don't like it-- don't use it. Its a free country. You're free to avoid products you don't like, and companies are (or should be) free to design products as they wish, and protect them in any manner they so desire.

>Essentially you're wanting to force someone else to produce a product to fit your needs. It's a free market. If no one wants to provide your needs, you fill them yourself, or go without.

Masher, the issue here is WGA Notifications is something new and introduced long after people have purchased and installed Windows XP legally or illegally. At one point it met peoples needs and was not spyware, but it now has changed. For those who own legal copies, but WGA has false positives (I am one of them because of being a hardware enthusist) it begs to question how far MS is pushing contractual law let alone anti-spam laws. I don't have an issue with software phoning home, but to have this mechanism installed 5 years after release and create false positives is absurd, counter productive, and against established public policy.

If you do purchase a kit to become genuine, Microsoft attempts to inseminate a legit key, but they also warn your entire system might have to be reloaded. Should people be allowed to sue for time and effort to re-load an OS because of WGA malfunctions?


RE: about time too.
By masher2 on 6/30/2006 11:38:19 PM , Rating: 1
> "At one point it met peoples needs and was not spyware, but it now has changed."

Only for those people who chose to install WGA-- either directly, or by proxy, through agreeing to automatic updates. Furthermore, if you don't like it, its

As for it being "spyware", I consider that a highly specious twisting of the definition.

> "but WGA has false positives..."

I'd imagine 99% of the "false positives" are people who bought from a cut-rate vendor who resold the same OEM copy multiple times. And .9% of the remaing are just the usual anti-Microsoft suspects, posting false information to message boards, hoping to fan the flames.

I'm sure false positives can happen...but I'm equally sure its an extraordinary rare case. I know of one company in particular which had 80,000 machines validated at a whack. All without a single false positive.

> If you do purchase a kit to become genuine, Microsoft attempts to inseminate a legit key, but they also warn your entire system might have to be reloaded. Should people be allowed to sue for time and effort to re-load an OS because of WGA malfunctions?

Let me get this straight. You're buying a "kit" because you found out you're using pirated software. And since people who THOUGHT they were getting a legal copy are eligible for a free kit, that also means you're pretty sure you knew were breaking the law the whole time.

So instead of jail time and a $250,000 fine, you get an offer to buy measly $99 kit....and you're upset over the (rare) chance you might have to reload the OS?

Truth, sir, is stranger than fiction.



RE: about time too.
By RMTimeKill on 6/30/2006 3:59:58 PM , Rating: 2
Well your first problem is you wanted to buy a chevy... 3 wheels or not... you can keep it...


RE: about time too.
By kattanna on 6/30/2006 3:17:11 PM , Rating: 4
LOL...first off..im not anti microsoft. in fact, if anything, im a fanboy. I remember all to well the world of PC's before windows. command line hell..every piece of software had its own unique interface making going back and forth a nightmare..but lets move on...

quote:
Nowhere does Microsoft define "critical update" in a manner which disallows WGA


hmm..lets check...

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=824684

• Critical Update

Definition: A critical update is a broadly released fix for a specific problem that addresses a critical, non-security-related bug.

Additional Information: Critical updates are available for customers to download and are accompanied by a Microsoft Knowledge Base article.


• Security Update

Definition: A security update is a broadly released fix for a product-specific, security-related vulnerability. Security vulnerabilities are rated based on their severity. The severity rating is indicated in the Microsoft security bulletin as critical, important, moderate, or low.

Additional Information: Microsoft security updates are available for customers to download and are accompanied by two documents: a security bulletin and a Microsoft Knowledge Base article. For more information about the format of Microsoft Knowledge Base articles for Microsoft security updates, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:


hmmm..a little piece of code thats SOLE purpose is to check to see if your running a pirated copy. it doesnt seem to fit eithe one of those definitions.

and please masher..you dont seem dumb or gullible enough to me to buy that that they are doing it to protect the consumer.


anyways..to me its all a moot point because i dont really care as i run legit software...i just hope my main point doesnt get lost in all this

quote:
at worst though, it will make people leary of setting their systems to use automatic updates, which would be more harmfull in the long run.




RE: about time too.
By masher2 on 6/30/2006 11:44:04 PM , Rating: 2
> "hmmm..a little piece of code thats SOLE purpose is to check to see if your running a pirated copy. it doesnt seem to fit eithe one of those definitions. "

It most certainly does. It plugs a security vulnerability in Windows. The vulnerability of a pirated copy being able to masquerade as legit. A pirated copy that could easily have other, more sinister changes as well, unbeknownst to the user.

Now, you might not like that definition, but that doesn't change its validity.

> and please masher..you dont seem dumb or gullible enough to me to buy that that they are doing it to protect the consumer.

They're doing it primarily to protect their Intellectual Property...a point that changes nothing. Where is it written that changes to Windows have to only benefit the consumer?

However, that does not imply that WGA is *harming* the consumer. Far from it. Millions of people ARE being helped by WGA. They're receiving free copies of Windows to replace pirated versions. And they're finding out which of their vendors are trustworthy and which are not.


RE: about time too.
By Martin Blank on 6/30/2006 4:58:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nowhere does Microsoft define "critical update" in a manner which disallows WGA.


Would you like to put some money on that one?

Critical Update

Definition: A critical update is a broadly released fix for a specific problem that addresses a critical, non-security-related bug.

Additional Information: Critical updates are available for customers to download and are accompanied by a Microsoft Knowledge Base article.

Source: http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=824684

The average person would not associate a pirated key with a bug. I know of few technical people who would do so, including those who are quite familiar with Microsoft and its patching practices. What bug does WGA address?

quote:
Furthermore, one could certainly argue that WGA does provide "security", by safeguarding users against purchasing pirated copies of Windows.


WGA does nothing to stop the purchase of pirated copies of Windows. It may help to find out that the copy was not legitimately sold, but that's an economic and issue associated with licensing and proper use, not a security issue associated with fixing bugs.

It can be more easily argued that the presence of a program which contacts an outside entity -- whether or not that entity is Microsoft -- without the user's knowledge is a security risk. Further, it has not been established whether this process could be used for more nefarious purposes by redirecting the information.


RE: about time too.
By mindless1 on 7/1/2006 2:02:33 AM , Rating: 2
Complete nonsense.

Turing on the feature does NOT give MS consent to do whatever they want to your system. Likewise, going to a website that has a java app, and knowing it does run, does not mean you give that website blanket authorization to install a virus on your system.

Nowhere is there ever a situation where MS gets to do whatever they want unless previously, explicitly denied.

One could not argue that WGA provides "security" because even if they had bought a pirated copy of windows, that would have to have happened ALREADY.

You must be intentionally trolling to so completely argue nonsense concepts that are clearly wrong.

The issue is quite clear. There is no possible thought that YOU have, that matters to anyone else when it comes to whether they are going to run code that does what they do not want on equipment THEY own.

If we don't like that, MS is an unauthorized user of the system and those responsible should be in prison. You're free to disagree and it doesn't make even the tiniest bit of difference because it is not YOUR system.

You are the only one arguing against it being a free country, and we know we are not free to avoid products because of the monopoly.

Companies are not free to protect products AFTER they were purchased. carte blanche addendums to contracts after their acceptance do not stand up in court and it doesn't matter if you think otherwise because again, it's not your system nor your money.


RE: about time too.
By masher2 on 7/1/2006 4:33:31 PM , Rating: 3
> "Turing on the feature does NOT give MS consent to do whatever they want to your system..."

It gives them consent to alter it in any way they so choose, as long as -- in their opinion-- they are correcting bugs or increasing security. Period.

You obviously don't like those cold, hard facts. They exist, however, and no amount of bleating laments will change that.

> "One could not argue that WGA provides "security" because even if they had bought a pirated copy of windows, that would have to have happened ALREADY"

So? A patch that detects malware or damage to system files can be downloaded after the fact as well, and that certainly falls into the realm of "providing security". In fact, Microsoft has already distributed such tools in the past, without a peep from anyone. You're going to have to do better than this.

> "MS is an unauthorized user of the system and those responsible should be in prison..."

Never troubled to learn much about our legal system, did you?

> "Companies are not free to protect products AFTER they were purchased..."

Not unless you give them permission to do so. Which you clearly did, by virtue of allowing AUTOMATIC UPDATES. Whatever did you think that phrase meant?

> "You must be intentionally trolling to so completely argue nonsense concepts ..."

Try not to live up to your name, Mindless1.





RE: about time too.
By jtesoro on 7/2/2006 10:43:28 AM , Rating: 2
The bottom line is that what Microsoft did with WGA and AutoUpdates betrayed some level of trust that a lot of people put into these features. While there is a benefit that WGA gives to consumers, having it surreptitiously "phone home" so often seems to have gone too far.

For myself, I've switched off the automatic installation of downloaded updates.


RE: about time too.
By masher2 on 7/2/2006 10:47:59 AM , Rating: 2
> " While there is a benefit that WGA gives to consumers, having it surreptitiously "phone home" so often seems to have gone too far..."

I suppose you don't realize that automatic update itself has to "phone home" to see if updates are available. How else do you expect such software to work? And no one seems to be upset by it pinging a Microsoft server on a daily basis. Why is that?

Similarly, WGA checks a database of compromised product keys. Quite obviously it has to get them from somewhere. Did you think telepathy or smoke signals were involved?


RE: about time too.
By jtesoro on 7/2/2006 11:35:28 AM , Rating: 2
I said that some people think that WGA is phoning home too often. Why you bring telepathy and smoke signals into this discussion is beyond me.


RE: about time too.
By wallijonn on 7/3/2006 1:39:48 PM , Rating: 2
"no one seems to be upset by it pinging a Microsoft server on a daily basis. Why is that?"

It isn't so much as pinging on a "daily" basis (how often do updates come out, once a month?) but rather that it phones each and every time you log in. So if you have many accounts, each and every time you log in, even to a restricted account, it will phone home.

So lets say that you are installing a new peripheral or program, and let's say that it takes three reboots to get it working right. That's three times that it will phone home. (How many people are still allowing Creative's Help program to phone home? Creative's driver update program never worked, but it's still trying to phone home... )


RE: about time too.
By gtnbuckeye on 7/7/2006 11:40:55 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm...but if we have a legitimately installed/licensed copy of Windows, what "security" or "critical non-security" flaw is this "update" meant to "fix". If the software ISN'T PIRATED, there is no "security vulnerability" argument, or even "critical, non-security, specific problem" argument. It is just more software put on my PC in a deceptive fashion.

If Microsoft wants to put this update on all of the PIRATED installs out there, you could certainly make this arguement, but your argument doesn't hold for puting it on non-pirated installs of Windows. Microsoft is stuck with the problem of not knowing which systems to put it on...that's part of the reality of their business, so tough cookies.

It's against Microsofts own definitions for Windows Update to install this update if it doesn't address a known "security vulnerability" (with the accompanying KB article and security rating of the vulnerability, of course), or a "critical, non-security related, specific" problem (which is a stretch of the definition here). The "problems" that these updates are to meant patch (at least in your argument) DON'T EXIST on a legitimate Windows install, so a legitimate install should never need these "updates" installed, automatically or otherwise. Right?

I'm sure you could argue that "well, they've downloaded 'updates' before that you may not have needed, and nobody complained", which may be true. The fact would be that they were out-of-line to do so then, just as they are now. You've pointed out how Microsoft has the ability to enforce or not enforce their end of the "license agreement" as they see fit (i.e.- the "opportunity" to purchase legit software licenses, instead of court, fines, jail time, etc.), do you believe that we as consumers do not have that same right to "drop the hammer" as we deem necessary for breach of contract?

In case you need to see it again, from the definitions above (off Microsofts site):

• Critical Update

Definition: A critical update is a broadly released fix for a specific problem that addresses a critical, non-security-related bug.

Additional Information: Critical updates are available for customers to download and are accompanied by a Microsoft Knowledge Base article.


• Security Update

Definition: A security update is a broadly released fix for a product-specific, security-related vulnerability. Security vulnerabilities are rated based on their severity. The severity rating is indicated in the Microsoft security bulletin as critical, important, moderate, or low.

Additional Information: Microsoft security updates are available for customers to download and are accompanied by two documents: a security bulletin and a Microsoft Knowledge Base article. For more information about the format of Microsoft Knowledge Base articles for Microsoft security updates, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:


RE: about time too.
By BladeVenom on 6/30/2006 2:57:40 PM , Rating: 2
Except in this case the software maker has a monopoly. So you really don't have a choice.


RE: about time too.
By masher2 on 6/30/2006 3:07:23 PM , Rating: 1
> "Except in this case the software maker has a monopoly. So you really don't have a choice"

Nonsense, you have plenty of choice. There are dozens of operating systems available for PCs. Even if you limit consideration to Intel-compatible PCs, you still have several options.

In any case, this is all beside the point. Even if Windows was the only OS available, you still don't have a right to demand Microsoft write it to suit your own personal needs. Not to mention the fact that it would be an impossible task, since different people have conflicting demands.



RE: about time too.
By mindless1 on 7/1/2006 2:08:44 AM , Rating: 2
Yes we do have the right to demand MS write to our own personal needs, that's what a free market, rather than a monopoly, causes.

When the owner of a system doesn't want something running on their system, a 2nd party does not have the right to add it. The owner can reject any introduction of further software without any care if you think they should run another software.

You want to claim the user agrees to run it but clearly that is absolutely, positively, completely ludicrous in the case of users who expressly state the opposite.


RE: about time too.
By masher2 on 7/1/2006 4:38:07 PM , Rating: 2
> "Yes we do have the right to demand MS write to our own personal needs, that's what a free market, rather than a monopoly, causes..."

Let me speak more precisely. Yes, in a free market you have the right to demand anything. What you lack, however, is the means to enforce those demands. Your freedom allows you to stand on a soapbox, bang your first, and squawk demands all day long. It does not require anyone-- not even your own mother-- to pay any attention.





RE: about time too.
By gramboh on 6/30/2006 3:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
Not necessarily, you have a choice not to use a computer. It is not a basic right.

The above poster is absolutely correct in that the consumer's freedom of choice in the market is to choose not to use a product if it doesn't meet your needs.

If you have needs (e.g. business purposes) that require Microsoft products, then you must either accept the product or choose another business/personal direction.

I understand your point because the reality is, most people in the world (especially business) have to use Microsoft products (myself included). The question then is whether WGA is a legal violation, which I doubt.


RE: about time too.
By Shivian on 6/30/2006 7:53:10 PM , Rating: 2
I just think it would be funny if they lose. Not sure there is a real case but if M$ has to pay out tonnes of dosh for the heartache this causes then that just highlights how stupid the legal system is.


RE: about time too.
By jtesoro on 6/30/2006 11:23:51 PM , Rating: 2
Due to the timing of Autoupdates, I was able to avoid WGA being installed automatically. The thing is, I needed to download something from Microsoft which needed validation.

I'm not sure, but I think I got around the phone home issue by validating manually. Using Firefox at the Microsoft download site, I was asked to install a WGA plugin first. There was, however an "Alternate validation method" at the bottom of the page. I tried that instead and I believe this method doesn't install anything, so no phone home issue!

As a further thought, you might be able to block WGA by using a firewall such as ZoneAlarm. Just unblock it temporarily if you need to download something from the Microsoft web site.


Stupid Lawsuits
By brshoemak on 6/30/2006 1:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
Let me gaze into my crystal ball to see the future....

Microsoft Loses!

Plaintiffs - Each are rewarded with a free copy of Windows Defender Beta per the terms of the settlement agreement

Lawyers - Each receives $70 gaz-jillion dollars and the souls of the first born at Microsoft

Everyone Wins!!!




RE: Stupid Lawsuits
By Scrogneugneu on 6/30/2006 1:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder where your inspiration comes from...

*cough*Western Digital*cough*


RE: Stupid Lawsuits
By tuteja1986 on 6/30/2006 2:43:41 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry he will getting more as soon as he wins the court case. He will go to all kinds of places with the $$$$ he gets from winning :)


RE: Stupid Lawsuits
By Shivian on 6/30/2006 7:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
The souls of M$'s first born have already been claimed by someone I thought?


I think....
By Wonga on 6/30/2006 2:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
This guy needs to get out more. Who on earth would spend their short time on this earth worrying about how Microsoft was too vague with their description of the WGA update?




RE: I think....
By masher2 on 6/30/2006 2:52:53 PM , Rating: 2
> "Who on earth would spend their short time on this earth worrying about how Microsoft was too vague with their description of the WGA update?"

Someone who wants money, of course. Why do honest work if you can hit it big by playing class-action bingo?


RE: I think....
By Wonga on 6/30/2006 6:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, I guess so...


RE: I think....
By Jedi2155 on 6/30/2006 2:56:26 PM , Rating: 2
$$$$


absurdity
By ilovemycubs on 6/30/2006 6:06:25 PM , Rating: 2
Furthermore, one could certainly argue that WGA does provide "security", by safeguarding users against purchasing pirated copies of Windows.

PLEASE tell me just how this would possibly do what you say? It's not like you go window shopping for a used computer, and if you bought it new from a national retailer you have a course of action to take if it was fake. Seriously, if you know you have a pirated copy or a corporate serial, why would you ever download this in the first place? How long will it be before they enable WGA to perform a HDD format or at least to wipe the Windows install? On that note, how can MS sell WinXP in "developing" markets for around $5, yet here where they obviously have a much larger consumer base they charge $199? And they wonder why people hack their software and create virus targeting them?




RE: absurdity
By masher2 on 6/30/2006 11:47:25 PM , Rating: 2
> " if you bought it new from a national retailer you have a course of action to take if it was fake..."

Only if you KNOW its not a genuine copy. And-- without WGA-- you'll never know that, now will you?

> "How long will it be before they enable WGA to perform a HDD format..."

I'd tell you...but I'm fairly sure you're too busy checking your lawn for black helicopters to ever read my reply.


RE: absurdity
By masher2 on 6/30/2006 11:49:13 PM , Rating: 2
> "how can MS sell WinXP in "developing" markets for around $5, yet here where they obviously have a much larger consumer base they charge $199?"

You charge what the market will bear. And, by the way, nearly all copies of Windows, even in the US, are sold for a tiny fraction of that $199 cost. How many people ever buy Windows retail...you pay the $25 OEM cost, and that's that.



RE: absurdity
By kondor999 on 7/2/06, Rating: -1
RE: absurdity
By INeedCache on 7/3/2006 11:04:36 AM , Rating: 2
It never ceases to amaze me at the hubris of those who pirate XP and find endless rationalizations for doing so. You may be forced to use Windows at a place of business due to your employer saying so. But, if you're using it at home, it's by your choice. Yes, your choice. Don't give me any of that predatory, quasi-legal bull****. It's by choice, since there are other OSs out there to use, and some for free. If you want to complain about Microsoft, that's fine, you have the right. Just don't tell me that you have no choice, because that isn't so. You can wiggle and waggle it anyway you want, but you know, I know, we all know there are choices, and if you are using windows at home, you made the choice. Step up and assume some responsibility for your actions.


RE: absurdity
By kondor999 on 7/4/06, Rating: -1
Fan bays.
By smokenjoe on 6/30/2006 3:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
Err I dont think you guys realize that this is spyware. Dispite the legal mumbo jumbo on windows site that no one but nerds reads the statment that normal people get through advertising is that Critical Updates protect the person from malitious software not as in this case open yourself up to more of it and to provacy risks. This is a massive security risk to the user instead of a benifit. This is in short a Root kit and was in no way part of the original software I paid for. Any compromise of a computers security and privacy needs to be with full disclosure- Microsoft has to know the law they fight others malware. They had to hear of Sonys problems etc with this kind of thing not very smart. If they gave info first it would be a whole difftent matter instead of deception.




RE: Fan bays.
By Araxen on 6/30/2006 3:37:00 PM , Rating: 2
Even nerds don't read the EULA.


Good for him
By qnetjoe on 6/30/2006 4:24:45 PM , Rating: 2
First Let me say good for this guy!

Let think about this. We already know that WGA can disable an install of windows. Some of us buy legit copies of window, and having WGA disable our computers because of our geekdom (a.k.a. being hardware enthusiasts) is wrong not to mention is a violation of MS’s EULA.

The next argument comes from whether or not WGA is a critical update. I say is it is not. Having a pirated copy is not critical; it can be easily fixed and activation is more than enough to protect us. Also, WGA is a BETA (final version to be in vista) and some updates require WGA.

The third and final issue is privacy and the right to use. I saw a posts about other software phoning home. Every product on the market (except MS) has a solution that allows non connected computers to validate their license through use a dongle or other means.

Finally, I just some option with the beta’s of vista so blotted and this insane idea of forcing WGA onto customers; This maybe linux’s time to shine on the desktop. My engineering dept already has moved to linux it maybe time to move everyone else to.






RE: Good for him
By Wonga on 6/30/2006 6:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
This is really a storm in a teacup.

I think Microsoft has gone about this the right way - no, seriously! I've seen many computers in my time which have pirated versions of Windows on them, often without the owners knowledge (I found out after trying to access the Windows Update site). All this does it inform the user they are running dodgy software, it aint shutting the machines down!

The numbers of Windows installs that are genuine which report as being pirated must be very very low (and you'd probably find out long before this patch, during the activation period most likely), so geniune users need not be concerned!

So, what we have is Microsoft telling people their Windows is dodgy and no personal information being collected either. What's the big deal? The way I see it, the pirates are getting a break here by still getting to use Windows.

This patch aint exactly using up any resources worth thinking about and doesn't even affect anyone running genuine software, so people need to chill out, take off their tin foil hats and worry about something else, like how to enjoy their lives.


More info
By SexyJames on 6/30/2006 3:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't give consent to install WgaTray. Automatic Update did it for me. And I didn't even give consent to turn Automatic Update on, it came like that. Didn't see any point of turning it off.

My firewall was what alerted me about it, but I quickly looked on the internet and it told me that it was part of an automatic update, so I let it do its business. I heard its a security risk or something, could somebody explain more about it?




"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov













botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki