Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

[Kerry Brown]

"NT Canuck" <optional_ntcanuck@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u0aXLaO%23HHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Kerry Brown wrote:
>
>> I just spent a few hours searching microsoft.com for some documentation
>> that clearly shows that you need to disable both Windows Updates and BITS
>> to make sure you don't get any unexpected updates. I couldn't find any.
>> If you read between the lines and read several articles spread across
>> technet and msdn and the knowledge base you may come to this conclusion.
>> Can you or anyone point me to a public document that clearly shows how to
>> disable all updates? This is at best incompetence and at worst deliberate
>> misdirection. For me it has broken the trust I had with Microsoft
>> updates. I no longer trust them to do what I tell them to as I now know
>> they will ignore that if they decide it is in my best interest. I want to
>> decide what is best for me. I also want to know that when I check a box
>> that says to turn something off it is off.
>
> Someone said update control is in here somewhere.
> http://technet2.microsoft.com/windo...4eac-4cc3-86fc-a54e67de9c121033.mspx?mfr=true
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...d1-e1cd-4f38-ad1e-d993e05657c9&DisplayLang=en
>
> technet document..
> "this is because those files are updated
> via a separate channel."
>
> There seems to have been a separate channel (not wsus)
> that was used for those stealth updates ...
> Just great, stealth updates and now secret channels.
>


Windows Server Update Services is a service to run on a server to replace
using the Microsoft servers for client updates on a network. The server is
configured to download the updates from the Microsoft servers then deploy
them to the clients as approved by the network administrator. I have
customers who use WSUS. I use it on my test network to test updates for
customers before they approve them for their networks. I haven't had time to
see yet if the update in question was deployed by WSUS. I imagine it was but
the WSUS process is very open to the network administrator. As far as I know
they have complete control over what gets deployed to the clients but I also
thought this about the normal update channel so who knows.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Without any evidence, it is a myth at best.

"But it doesn't turn into a myth because he denies..."
But it can when there is no evidence of it having been said other than
commonly misquoted.
Find something that gives a specific time place, verifiable source such as a
transcript etc.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar


"ceed" <ceed.spameater@dysthe.net> wrote in message
news:xn0fbaia4zyd30004ceedsaid@news.individual.net...
> It may be myth or it may not. The jury is still out on that one.
> There's no written proof that he said it, you are right there. But it
> doesn't turn into a myth because he denies having said it. I would have
> wanted to deny that also..
>
> Take a look here:
>
> http://tickletux.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/did-bill-gates-say-the-640k-line/
>
> --
> //ceed

 

[Frank]

norm wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>
>> norm wrote:
>>
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>
>>>> norm wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no idea what I am, but you still remain a hypocrite.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well norm, I don't think so.
>>>> If you calling me a hypocrite is the best you can come with, and
>>>> that's your best shot, sorry, but it is not near good enough.
>>>
>>>
>>> Good enough for what? You?
>>
>>
>> Not good enough to mean anything to anyone except you. It's only your
>> uneducated and unsubstantiated personal opinion. You speak only for
>> yourself, right?
>
> "It's only your uneducated and unsubstantiated personal opinion". As
> opposed to what from your quarter?

You're the one making the accusation, remember? Prove your
accusation...if you can. Otherwise, you're a liar.

You can attempt to walk this around
> in circles all you want.

Nah, you're the one doing the wheel act, not me.

What is unsubstantiated? You stated (quite
> strongly) that you believe in God.

So?

With that belief comes responsibility
> for one's words and actions.

Oh, so now you're my confessor? I don't think so. You're trying to
assume a position of importance not granted to you. Now you're looking
the fool.

Your words and actions belie such a belief.

Ha! Who the hell do you think you are? I'll be the determiner of my
beliefs and my actions related to those beliefs, not you!

> You are a hypocrite by definition.

Now you're statement are becoming hypocritical. You're one really
confused person!

The other possibility is that you do
> not believe in God, even though you state that you do.

Now you wandering into make-it-up land!

In that case, you
> are simply a liar.

You don't really have anything substantial to say do you other than
you're pissed cause you can't win this argument cause you're wrong.
Live with it! You're wrong!
>
>>
>>>
>>>> And only coming up with a cut/paste dictionary definition doesn't
>>>> make me one nor does you calling me one make me one cause I'm not a
>>>> hypocrite by your's or anyone else's definition.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure you are.

That statement's not working cause it's just not true. Nor can you make
it true.
>>
>>
>> hahaha...sorry norm, but that's just not true. Your opinion is owned
>> only by you and it's totally meaningless especially to me, the person
>> you're trying to hang it on.
>> Try again
>>
>>>
>>>> And just because you want it to doesn't mean it does.
>>>> Too bad!
>>>> Try harder.
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't need to.

Then you lose! Plain and simple.
>>>
>> Then you give up and concede that you're wrong, right?
>> Otherwise your argument just fell completely apart.
>>
>>>> Frank
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and one other thing.
>>>> You have no idea who I am either!
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure I do. You are a hypocrite, by anyone's definition.
>>
>>
>> Wrong again. You're the only one pushing the definition...and without
>> any proof..other than you say so...so by "anyone's definition'...is
>> simply not true is it?
>> Try harder.
>> Frank
>>
>> And you still have no idea who I am.
>
> You are correct. I have no idea who you are. I know what you are. A
> hypocrite, and if not that, a liar.

Purporting to prove I am something I'm not by simply saying it doesn't
make it true.
In fact, knowing the truth, that I'm not a hypocrite, now makes you both
a liar and a fool.
You need to try harder if you still want to dance with me cause so far
you're not keeping up!
Frank

 

[Frank]

ceed wrote:

> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>
> |"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more than
> |640kb memory" That is a well known myth with no basis in fact.
>
> It may be myth or it may not. The jury is still out on that one.
> There's no written proof that he said it, you are right there. But it
> doesn't turn into a myth because he denies having said it. I would have
> wanted to deny that also..
>
> Take a look here:
>
> http://tickletux.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/did-bill-gates-say-the-640k-line/
>


Well the way the quote is quoted on the referenced URL is:

“640K ought to be enough for anybody”.

Which is vastly different from saying:

"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more than
640kb memory".

Frank

 

[Adam Albright]

On 17 Sep 2007 04:58:36 GMT, "ceed" <ceed.spameater@dysthe.net> wrote:

>Adam Albright wrote:
>
>|On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:42:21 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
>|<jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote:
>|
>||Ford can't.
>||There is NOTHING in any agreement that even vaguely gives Ford that
>||right assuming I and not Ford own the vehicle.
>||If Ford did, I would seek a competent attorney.
>|
>|Yet your being some unabashed fanboy and Microsoft apologist you
>|willing give them rights to your first born or whatever else they
>|want. If you only had the intelligence to understand how stupid that
>|is, but we both know you don't.
>
>I still don't get this "fanboy" term. It doesn't really tell me
>anything other than that you do not trust (and/or like) people who
>likes Vista or MS for that matter. It seems very personal for some
>reason. Why is it so bad that some people, like me, get Vista to work?
>Is it because it's not fair since you don't?
>
>In your world I guess I would be a fanboy, but I think it's a good
>thing because it means I get return on my Vista investment. But you use
>the term as an insult. I just do not get the logic behind that.
>
>And now you will probably call me all kinds of nasty things again
>including fanboy. It is kind of amusing that someone like you who
>obviously knows a lot about computers and software wastes so much time
>being mad.

You think fanboy is nasty? It's just a descriptive term they clearly
shows the unhealthy obsession some have with Microsoft often
illustrated by how they defend them blindly without thinking what
they're defending. I suggest you lighten up. If you can't have fun and
take the banter that's common in newsgroups maybe you shouldn't
participate.

 

[Adam Albright]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 22:43:32 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:

>norm wrote:

>> "It's only your uneducated and unsubstantiated personal opinion". As
>> opposed to what from your quarter?
>
>You're the one making the accusation, remember? Prove your
>accusation...if you can. Otherwise, you're a liar.

Ok fool. You've called me a drunk countless times. PROVE IT right
here, right now, or you just admitted you are a liar.

>Oh, so now you're my confessor? I don't think so. You're trying to
>assume a position of importance not granted to you. Now you're looking
>the fool.

You still are too stupid to understand nobody comes off as a bigger
fool than you do, Frankie numbnuts.

>You don't really have anything substantial to say do you other than
>you're pissed cause you can't win this argument cause you're wrong.
>Live with it! You're wrong!

Speaking of substance, it was YOU that needed to tell us you have
property in Southern Europe, you claim to run a business, have
multiple stockbrokers and you claim you are wealthy and recently
you've began to claim you are hansom. All shameless bragging and
surely signs of a nut case off his meds. That's all you are Frankie, a
certifiable nut case.

>You need to try harder if you still want to dance with me cause so far
>you're not keeping up!


You dance for us just fine Frankie, the fool that you are.

 

[Adam Albright]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:54:56 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
<jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote:

>This clearly shows your need to bash while ignoring content that goes
>against whatever you want.
>Your need to insult while providing absolutely NOTHING of value to the
>subject is noted yet again.

You're describing yourself if anyone wishing to invest a little time
using Google will confirm.
>
>"constantly denying there's a problem"
>Another statement made by you void of facts since it is simply FALSE.

You really, I mean REALLY are such a pompous ass. Really!

 

[Bob I]

Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law that
says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to charge rates
above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't black and white,
and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.

John John wrote:

> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting on the
> EULA legalities. But...
>
> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone sign an
> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim indemnity. For
> example, charging interest rates above a certain amount is illegal
> (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are illegal. If
> you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that you will charge me
> 120% interest, and if I sign the loan agreement and accept your terms,
> you are still guilty of loansharking and if I were to take you to court
> you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted your contract you would
> still lose because the contract violates the law, it is an illegal
> contract.
>
> John
>
> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>
>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.
>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you have
>> already agreed to and been notified even though notification may not
>> have been what customers want.
>>

 

[MICHAEL]

* Jupiter Jones [MVP]:
> This clearly shows your need to bash while ignoring content that goes
> against whatever you want.
> Your need to insult while providing absolutely NOTHING of value to the
> subject is noted yet again.
>
> "constantly denying there's a problem"
> Another statement made by you void of facts since it is simply FALSE.

After being involved in this group since June 2006 and reading many
of your posts, I also find you to be arrogant and just another Microsoft
hyper-shill. You may try to fool some of the newer visitors to this group, but
you certainly don't fool me. I've known Charlie for years, and he is a
supporter of Microsoft. However, unlike you, he is able to make an honest
assessment of the good, the bad, and the ugly that Microsoft has done.
You simply look away and/or make excuses for them.... constantly.

Charlie has you down pat, and there is no doubt about that.


-Michael

 

[Adam Albright]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:55:51 -0400, MICHAEL <u158627_emr2@dslr.net>
wrote:

>* Jupiter Jones [MVP]:
>> This clearly shows your need to bash while ignoring content that goes
>> against whatever you want.
>> Your need to insult while providing absolutely NOTHING of value to the
>> subject is noted yet again.
>>
>> "constantly denying there's a problem"
>> Another statement made by you void of facts since it is simply FALSE.
>
>After being involved in this group since June 2006 and reading many
>of your posts, I also find you to be arrogant and just another Microsoft
>hyper-shill. You may try to fool some of the newer visitors to this group, but
>you certainly don't fool me. I've known Charlie for years, and he is a
>supporter of Microsoft. However, unlike you, he is able to make an honest
>assessment of the good, the bad, and the ugly that Microsoft has done.
>You simply look away and/or make excuses for them.... constantly.
>
>Charlie has you down pat, and there is no doubt about that.
>
Charlie isn't the only one that knows Jupiter's type. His type infests
newsgroups all across Usenet. While the "cause" they so viciously try
to defend changes depending on the newsgroup, the defender always has
the same unmistakable traits. Characters like Frank and Jupiter are
easy to spot and suffer from the Don Quixote or tilting after
windmills syndrome.

Simply said they have a foolish need to confront and engage in
conflict with an imagined opponent or threat rather than engage in
meaningful discussion. This idiom alludes to Miguel de Cervantes's Don
Quixote, Spanish novel written in the seventeenth century. The title
character, Don Quixote, attacks a group of windmills with his lance at
full tilt when he mistakes them for a group of ferocious giants.

Here the cause is obviously to defend Microsoft's honor or practices
no matter how wrong or foolish they may be and to deny any problems
exist with Vista. Anyone exposing Microsoft failings is attacked,
often viciously and without cause by Don Quixote types.

For sure a silly and foolish exercise since anyone with any
intelligence at all knows Windows regardless of version is rift with
all kinds of bugs and performance issues. Don Quixote types simply
can't stand anybody factually pointing out flaws in their beloved
object of hero worship and thus act very foolishly trying to defend
what they think is being attacked. Of course they never know their
actions are seen as hilarious by nearly everyone else.

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
> This clearly shows your need to bash while ignoring content that goes
> against whatever you want.
> Your need to insult while providing absolutely NOTHING of value to the
> subject is noted yet again.
>
> "constantly denying there's a problem"
> Another statement made by you void of facts since it is simply FALSE.
>

JJ, why are you in such denial about coming across to other posters as
stuck up? Whether you see yourself that way or not, others, many others
here do see it that way and are voicing their opinions. You will
probably never be taken seriously here unless you change that perception.

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

 

[Frank]

Adam Albright wrote:

-----drunken diatribe deleted as a public service-----

Dance for us georgie-boy...lol!
Frank

 

[Frank]

Adam Albright wrote:

>
> You think fanboy is nasty? It's just a descriptive term they clearly
> shows the unhealthy obsession some have with Microsoft often
> illustrated by how they defend them blindly without thinking what
> they're defending. I suggest you lighten up. If you can't have fun and
> take the banter that's common in newsgroups maybe you shouldn't
> participate.
>
I suggest you lighten up and try and fix the one little install of Vista
business you badly screwed up.
Or else stop complaining and go back to XP, like the rest of the losers
have done.
Frank

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Charlie and a few others also have shown they need to stoop to personal
attacks and name calling at times.
A very few other do little else.
Neither of which are necessary or appropriate.
But I guess you accept it and turn away since it suits you.

"...just another Microsoft hyper-shill."
"You may try to fool some of the newer..."
Since I am not attempting to fool you, it is good you are not fooled by
something you imagine.
Not at all trying to fool anyone, but name calling to avoid the issues seems
the thing for a few critics.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar


"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:OtUKarT%23HHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> After being involved in this group since June 2006 and reading many
> of your posts, I also find you to be arrogant and just another Microsoft
> hyper-shill. You may try to fool some of the newer visitors to this
> group, but
> you certainly don't fool me. I've known Charlie for years, and he is a
> supporter of Microsoft. However, unlike you, he is able to make an honest
> assessment of the good, the bad, and the ugly that Microsoft has done.
> You simply look away and/or make excuses for them.... constantly.
>
> Charlie has you down pat, and there is no doubt about that.
>
>
> -Michael

 

[ceed]

Frank wrote:

|ceed wrote:
|
|| Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
||
|> |"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more
|than > |640kb memory" That is a well known myth with no basis in fact.
||
|| It may be myth or it may not. The jury is still out on that one.
|| There's no written proof that he said it, you are right there. But
||it doesn't turn into a myth because he denies having said it. I
||would have wanted to deny that also..
||
|| Take a look here:
||
||
||http://tickletux.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/did-bill-gates-say-the-640k-line/
||
|
|
|Well the way the quote is quoted on the referenced URL is:
|
|“640K ought to be enough for anybody”.
|
|Which is vastly different from saying:
|
|"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more than
|640kb memory".
|
|Frank

If you never need more then what you have ought to be enough, right?

--
//ceed

 

[ceed]

Adam Albright wrote:

|File copying/moving is one such area.

Now that is a real problem with Vista. You're absolutely right. I have
overcome it by using TeraCopy which basically takes over the whole
copy/move job in Vista (and XP for that matter).

--
//ceed

 

[Frank]

ceed wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>
> |ceed wrote:
> |
> || Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
> ||
> |> |"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more
> |than > |640kb memory" That is a well known myth with no basis in fact.
> ||
> || It may be myth or it may not. The jury is still out on that one.
> || There's no written proof that he said it, you are right there. But
> ||it doesn't turn into a myth because he denies having said it. I
> ||would have wanted to deny that also..
> ||
> || Take a look here:
> ||
> ||
> ||http://tickletux.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/did-bill-gates-say-the-640k-line/
> ||
> |
> |
> |Well the way the quote is quoted on the referenced URL is:
> |
> |“640K ought to be enough for anybody”.
> |
> |Which is vastly different from saying:
> |
> |"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more than
> |640kb memory".
> |
> |Frank
>
> If you never need more then what you have ought to be enough, right?
>

hahaha...or we can always be American about...if enough is just
right...then too much has to be better!
Frank

 

[Charlie Tame]

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
> Charlie and a few others also have shown they need to stoop to personal
> attacks and name calling at times.
> A very few other do little else.
> Neither of which are necessary or appropriate.
> But I guess you accept it and turn away since it suits you.
>
> "...just another Microsoft hyper-shill."
> "You may try to fool some of the newer..."
> Since I am not attempting to fool you, it is good you are not fooled by
> something you imagine.
> Not at all trying to fool anyone, but name calling to avoid the issues
> seems the thing for a few critics.
>


You seem to have confused "Name calling" with honesty.

The vast majority of Windows users do not and probably will not read the
EULA at all, at least not all the way through. Of those folks who do
read it many will not understand the finer "Legal" points built into the
wording. Even fewer will read the document with a view to nit picking
the "May be nefarious" passages from it, yet it seems that is the only
way to go. To read the EULA several times with the thought in mind "How
does this wording mean Microsoft can screw me?"

I don't suggest for one moment that is Microsoft's "Intent", merely that
if we take your view of the agreement we must read in that manner.

Else we take things at face value, and believing Microsoft to be, in
general, a reputable company we do tend to take things at face value.

In use, the "Settings" appear to mean you have 3 choices, Download and
install Updates, Download and ask, Download nothing until specifically
requested. There is nothing in that dialog to suggest other "Updates" or
communication of any kind.

There are notes in various places on the MS websites to the effect that
users with special needs (For example System Admins who need to test on
lab machines first) may prefer to turn auto updates off. This is a
sensible precaution for both MS and the Admin to take. I have yet to see
anything suggesting that this in fact does not stop all updates, and yet
the subject of MS Auto Updates has long been an issue discussed with
"Privacy" concerns in mind. MS even go to the trouble of stating that
they respect privacy and no identifiable information is "Intentionally"
collected. From this we can reliably conclude that MS can make
themselves aware of user privacy concerns WRT network traffic and
actually do make themselves aware of those concerns. It requires no
great leap of imagination to deduce that user concerns about what is
going out to MS would be equally valid WRT what is coming in...

Also, whatever the real intent behind this mechanism is, one must ask
the question why, when the update system already identifies when the
update system itself needs updating, MS chose to do this stealthily. The
updates do not appear to be "Security" related, in which case I could
understand MS having a desire to "Push" updates to cover some really
drastic security flaw. Maybe it would still be wrong, but it would be
"Understandable".

It has been suggested that for "Update" to update itself would be like
trying to change the oil in a vehicle whilst driving it, or something
similar to that. This is nonsense, all that would be necessary in that
case is a download followed by a system restart to do the install. This
happens all the time when drivers and other things demand it. In any
case I see no reason for even that to be necessary.

So this warrants an explanation from Microsoft and soon, because without
such their entire "Trustworthy Computing" flagship will become their
Titanic. This comes at an even worse time with three letter agencies
being suspected of planting "Trojans" and various other data collection
systems on machines. The fact here is that to persuade the open source
community to do such would require an awful lot of "Bought silence" from
an awful lot of people. For a corporation like MS it would take very few
yet at the same time cover 80-90% of the computers in use.

IMHO (and that is all it is) MS have to offer some explanation other
than "It's in the contract" or they present themselves as a huge target
for criticism, rumors and loss of future business. No animosity involved
whatsoever, they simply need to explain this, EULA or not, because it is
(or at least seems) to be quite unnecessary.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"You seem to have confused "Name calling" with honesty"
Not at all an unexpected excuse to justify a need for name calling while
ignoring the issues.
It has no place with those secure in their positions and desiring to keep on
topic.

"...if we take your view of the agreement we must read..."
That is not what I said.
However if there are concerns as there are for some now, then they need to
reread the applicable parts to see what was actually agreed.
In this respect, it is no different than other agreements.
People may skim over initially, but they are still responsible for what
initially missed.
If a contract is clear from a legal standpoint, it is irrelevant if the
person did not read thoroughly if they had the chance.

There are two issues:
1. What is legal
For this I believe the license covers it and there is little that anyone can
do from a legal standpoint.
2. What is right with their customers interests.
This is where trust is made and lost because it goes beyond legality.
It is based on trust based at least partly on a customers understanding
based on several things such as a quick view of the license, what is said by
the company and other sources.


"...appear to mean you have 3 choices..."
And I addressed this in another post in which your response was little more
than an attack.
That seems to be covered in the license even though it is not what you,
myself or others like.
Trust with Microsoft/Windows update has been brought up before and it will
again, your previous attack not withstanding.
Similar as you can in your Product Group at Microsoft with your contacts.

Now, are you making your opinion heard at Microsoft or are you simply
complaining here where there is no expectation or requirement that Microsoft
get your message?

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar


"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:OwCRt8Z%23HHA.5948@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> You seem to have confused "Name calling" with honesty.
>
> The vast majority of Windows users do not and probably will not read the
> EULA at all, at least not all the way through. Of those folks who do read
> it many will not understand the finer "Legal" points built into the
> wording. Even fewer will read the document with a view to nit picking the
> "May be nefarious" passages from it, yet it seems that is the only way to
> go. To read the EULA several times with the thought in mind "How does this
> wording mean Microsoft can screw me?"
>
> I don't suggest for one moment that is Microsoft's "Intent", merely that
> if we take your view of the agreement we must read in that manner.
>
> Else we take things at face value, and believing Microsoft to be, in
> general, a reputable company we do tend to take things at face value.
>
> In use, the "Settings" appear to mean you have 3 choices, Download and
> install Updates, Download and ask, Download nothing until specifically
> requested. There is nothing in that dialog to suggest other "Updates" or
> communication of any kind.
>
> There are notes in various places on the MS websites to the effect that
> users with special needs (For example System Admins who need to test on
> lab machines first) may prefer to turn auto updates off. This is a
> sensible precaution for both MS and the Admin to take. I have yet to see
> anything suggesting that this in fact does not stop all updates, and yet
> the subject of MS Auto Updates has long been an issue discussed with
> "Privacy" concerns in mind. MS even go to the trouble of stating that they
> respect privacy and no identifiable information is "Intentionally"
> collected. From this we can reliably conclude that MS can make themselves
> aware of user privacy concerns WRT network traffic and actually do make
> themselves aware of those concerns. It requires no great leap of
> imagination to deduce that user concerns about what is going out to MS
> would be equally valid WRT what is coming in...
>
> Also, whatever the real intent behind this mechanism is, one must ask the
> question why, when the update system already identifies when the update
> system itself needs updating, MS chose to do this stealthily. The updates
> do not appear to be "Security" related, in which case I could understand
> MS having a desire to "Push" updates to cover some really drastic security
> flaw. Maybe it would still be wrong, but it would be "Understandable".
>
> It has been suggested that for "Update" to update itself would be like
> trying to change the oil in a vehicle whilst driving it, or something
> similar to that. This is nonsense, all that would be necessary in that
> case is a download followed by a system restart to do the install. This
> happens all the time when drivers and other things demand it. In any case
> I see no reason for even that to be necessary.
>
> So this warrants an explanation from Microsoft and soon, because without
> such their entire "Trustworthy Computing" flagship will become their
> Titanic. This comes at an even worse time with three letter agencies being
> suspected of planting "Trojans" and various other data collection systems
> on machines. The fact here is that to persuade the open source community
> to do such would require an awful lot of "Bought silence" from an awful
> lot of people. For a corporation like MS it would take very few yet at the
> same time cover 80-90% of the computers in use.
>
> IMHO (and that is all it is) MS have to offer some explanation other than
> "It's in the contract" or they present themselves as a huge target for
> criticism, rumors and loss of future business. No animosity involved
> whatsoever, they simply need to explain this, EULA or not, because it is
> (or at least seems) to be quite unnecessary.

 

[~greg]

"PA Bear" >
> Then perhaps you should take the time to read the entire thread. Is our time less valuable than yours?


definitely.