Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
> If someone feels the agreement is invalid, perhaps they need to contact
> an attorney specializing in software licensing.
> In this case I believe you would find that the clause in the license is
> the notification.
> That clause does nor circumvent the law.
>

It's MS's contract, therefore their legal responsibility to enforce it
in the courts. Too much owness has already been put on the paying customer!

--
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:

> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:14:10 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:
>
>
>>Adam Albright wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:34:00 -0700, Andrés Vargas
>>><AndrsVargas@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The guy *Adam* just became angry because of the easy way Bruce explained
>>>>things. Without further arguments, the only way for him is to take the
>>>>conversation away of the logic and begin a discussion based in feelings.
>>>
>>>
>>>Angry? I'm only pointing out the lunacy of what some here consider
>>>legal or factual. That is always damn funny.
>>>
>>
>>Got any case law or recent court decisions to back up your statement(s)
>>If you do then post them...or else you're just a stupid big mouth know
>>nothing fool!
>>Well...?
>
>
> Explain case law to a stupid feces throwing monkey like you Frank?
>
> Don't be silly.
>

Ummm...so you don't huh?
That's what I thought.
Well...in that case...you LOSE...hahaha...!
You're a fake, a phony and an as*hole too boot!
Frank

 

[Frank]

norm wrote:

> ...However, you have avowed (on occasion in very
> strong terms) that you believe in God, so I will restate what I said
> above as this:
> And you, as an avowed believer in God, certainly do not present yourself
> as such in this group.

Oh really? Now you're going to sit in judgment of me? So you must be
without sin to be able to cast the first stone right?

> Regardless of being a Christian or not, your actions and statements
> still belie your belief.

They do? What beliefs are those, huh?

You are still a hypocrite.

And which of the deadly sins are you guilty of committing?
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you think people don't notice your behavior?
>>>>
>>>> I sure as hell hope they do! Otherwise why would I post in a public
>>>> ng, huh?
>>>
>>>
>>> Pitiful need for attention, I take it?
>>
>>
>> Nice try but no cigar. If you want to be heard, public forums are the
>> place to be, right?
>> Or do you prefer being alone and talking to yourself?
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The
>>>>
>>>>> word "hypocrite" seems an apt description for you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and what is it that I've professed to that would make you say
>>>> such a thing?
>>>
>>>
>>> If you are not Christian, why do you make the statements you do in
>>> the course of your "arguments"?
>>
>>
>> Please point out where I've used the term "Christian" as a point of
>> argument, ok?
>
> Per my corrected comment above, you might not have used the term
> "Christian" but you certainly have used God's name in your "arguments"
> and accusations of someone being a godless atheist.

Yeah and alias is proud of being an atheist, right?
So...?

Your belief and your
> actions appear to be on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Which spectrum is that norm...the one you made up?
>
>>
>> Or could it be that you will use any
>>
>>> "weapon" whether you subscribe to a belief or not to continue your
>>> little game to gain the attention you need?
>>
>>
>>
>> Careful, you're about to fall on your own sword.
>
> Again, I think not.
>
Oh, I think you've already done it!
>>
>> Then again, why bother to
>>
>>> ask anything of you?
>>
>>
>> You tell me? Seeing as how you're the one doing the questioning.
>>
>> There will be nothing of substance forthcoming
>>
>>> anyway.
>>
>>
>> Ahhh...the final try at an insult! Sorry norm, but engaging you in any
>> substantive discussion now seems out of reason and reach.
>
> So says the master of insults. As you have so many times asked others, I
> in turn ask you. How can it be an insult if it is the truth?

Remember what RR said..."the truth is only a reality that can be
manipulated".
Who do you answer to norm?
Frank

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:05:43 -0600, Bruce Chambers
<bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote:

>Silicon neuron wrote:
>>
>>
>> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'
>> knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.
>>
>>
>
>
> Actually, this is *not* being done _without_ user consent. Just the
>opposite. Every user of each operating systems has been given advance
>notice that such things could happen, and has consented to it.
>
>Read the Vista EULA. Section 7 makes it clear that this could happen:
>
>========================================================================
>
>7. INTERNET-BASED SERVICES. Microsoft provides Internet-based services
>with the software. It may *change* or cancel them at any time.
> a. Consent for Internet-Based Services. The software features
>described below and in the Windows Vista Privacy Statement connect to
>Microsoft or service provider computer systems over the Internet. *In
>some cases, you will not receive a separate notice when they connect.*
>You may switch off these features or not use them. For more information
>about these features, see the Windows Vista Privacy Statement at
>http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=20615. By using these features,
>you consent to the transmission of this information. Microsoft does not
>use the information to identify or contact you.
>
>========================================================================
>(Emphasis mine)

That patently FAILS to give Microsoft a unilateral right to download
and install software without the user's permission. NOR does it
intrinsically grant Microsoft any such right. If it does, the very
next sentence puts the quietus on Microsoft's "right", since it gives
the user the right to turn said services OFF, and makes no provision
for Microsoft to turn them back on without the user's permission. Once
the user turns them off, they should STAY off untill HE turns them
back on. This includes updates to the Windows update mechanism
itself, which may be installed at any time according to the user's
leisure. It is not so important that Microsoft has to violate its own
license, as well as our privacy, to install these "necessary upgrades"
against our will.

I remember one of those "necessary upgrades" Windows Update always
used to sneak into my upgrade cycle. I knew that upgrade was poison
to my OS, and would kill it the minute I attempted to boot back into
XP after running Windows Update, and I tried my darndest to make sure
it did not sneak in somehow during a regular upgrade cycle.

But Microsoft STILL insists that it is a NECESSARY upgrade for my
Apple, and I have it hidden. Yet WU periodically trys to insert it
into the list of proposed updates.

THAT'S why we DON'T WANT to use Windows Update automatically.

IF Microsoft is STILL delivering upgrades to your computer when you
supposed you had turned them OFF, they are obviously violating your
rights under the said clause.

Now they are trying to weasel out of their responsibility to HONOR
THEIR OWN LICENSE, by saying, "It really doesn't mean what most would
think it means", as if Microsoft uses some special dialect of English
in their written EULAs which only they can comprehend.

Microsoft has used this tactic on more than one occasion when they
wanted to get out of their responsibility to honor their own license
when it was no longer expedient for them.

[the rest is not important]


> Do I approve of this practice? Not really. I'd prefer to know about
>each and every change as it happens, just on the off chance that, if a
>problem occurs, I've better information on which to base my
>troubleshooting. But I'm an exception most people simply don't want to
>know about technical details of how the OS is working.

So, because "most people don't mind being violated without their
knowledge or permission", it's ok to do it?

And you don't think any other thinking man wants as much information
as possible to use as a basis for trouble-shooting his own daily
problems? You are little different than any other man, sir, so you
aren't the "exception" you imagine yourself to be.

Don't sell the "hoi poloi" so short, my friend. Some day, they might
be your saviors.

Anything can happen in this Quantum Universe

Donald Mcdaniel

 

[Curt Christianson]

Kids!!

--
HTH,
Curt

Windows Support Center
www.aumha.org
Practically Nerded,...
http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm

"Frank" <fb@nospan.crm> wrote in message
news:Orl11JC%23HHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Adam Albright wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:14:10 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:
>
>
>>Adam Albright wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:34:00 -0700, Andrés Vargas
>>><AndrsVargas@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The guy *Adam* just became angry because of the easy way Bruce explained
>>>>things. Without further arguments, the only way for him is to take the
>>>>conversation away of the logic and begin a discussion based in feelings.
>>>
>>>
>>>Angry? I'm only pointing out the lunacy of what some here consider
>>>legal or factual. That is always damn funny.
>>>
>>
>>Got any case law or recent court decisions to back up your statement(s)
>>If you do then post them...or else you're just a stupid big mouth know
>>nothing fool!
>>Well...?
>
>
> Explain case law to a stupid feces throwing monkey like you Frank?
>
> Don't be silly.
>

Ummm...so you don't huh?
That's what I thought.
Well...in that case...you LOSE...hahaha...!
You're a fake, a phony and an as*hole too boot!
Frank

 

[ceed]

Adam Albright wrote:

|Explain case law to a stupid feces throwing monkey like you Frank?
|
|Don't be silly.


This is just too funny: I can point my newsreader at a random post in
this group and it will most likely be you throwing dirt (in this case
feces) mostly at Frank who seems to enjoy pushing your buttons.
Personally I would be tired of it by now, but by all means, let Frank
have his fun. You are offering him as much as he wants on a silver
plate.

I have learnt a lot of new combination of insulting words and terms
from you, but that's about it

--
//ceed

 

[Adam Albright]

On 16 Sep 2007 11:53:48 GMT, "ceed" <ceed.spameater@dysthe.net> wrote:

>Adam Albright wrote:
>
>|Explain case law to a stupid feces throwing monkey like you Frank?
>|
>|Don't be silly.

>This is just too funny: I can point my newsreader at a random post in
>this group and it will most likely be you throwing dirt (in this case
>feces) mostly at Frank who seems to enjoy pushing your buttons.

Really? Then the inescapable conclusion is you're as screwed up
mentally as Frank is. Pity.

 

[ceed]

Adam Albright wrote:

|On 16 Sep 2007 11:53:48 GMT, "ceed" <ceed.spameater@dysthe.net> wrote:
|
||Adam Albright wrote:
||
|>|Explain case law to a stupid feces throwing monkey like you Frank?
|>|
|>|Don't be silly.
|
||This is just too funny: I can point my newsreader at a random post
||in this group and it will most likely be you throwing dirt (in this
||case feces) mostly at Frank who seems to enjoy pushing your buttons.
|
|Really? Then the inescapable conclusion is you're as screwed up
|mentally as Frank is. Pity.

No I'm not, it's just so tempting to pull your leg. Won't do it anymore
though since you seem to get really upset. I'm just a boring computer
user like you, although without the strong opinions and temper.

--
//ceed

 

[norm]

Frank wrote:
> norm wrote:
>
>> ...However, you have avowed (on occasion in very strong terms) that
>> you believe in God, so I will restate what I said above as this:
>> And you, as an avowed believer in God, certainly do not present
>> yourself as such in this group.
>
> Oh really? Now you're going to sit in judgment of me? So you must be
> without sin to be able to cast the first stone right?
There is no judgement to be made. You provide ample evidence that your
proclamation of belief and your actions do not jibe.
>
>> Regardless of being a Christian or not, your actions and statements
>> still belie your belief.
>
> They do? What beliefs are those, huh?
>
> You are still a hypocrite.
>
> And which of the deadly sins are you guilty of committing?
Did I accuse you of committing a deadly sin? No. I called you a
hypocrite. Bit of stretch on your part for the sake of argument.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think people don't notice your behavior?
>>>>>
>>>>> I sure as hell hope they do! Otherwise why would I post in a public
>>>>> ng, huh?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pitiful need for attention, I take it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Nice try but no cigar. If you want to be heard, public forums are the
>>> place to be, right?
>>> Or do you prefer being alone and talking to yourself?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The
>>>>>
>>>>>> word "hypocrite" seems an apt description for you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, and what is it that I've professed to that would make you say
>>>>> such a thing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you are not Christian, why do you make the statements you do in
>>>> the course of your "arguments"?
>>>
>>>
>>> Please point out where I've used the term "Christian" as a point of
>>> argument, ok?
>>
>> Per my corrected comment above, you might not have used the term
>> "Christian" but you certainly have used God's name in your "arguments"
>> and accusations of someone being a godless atheist.
>
> Yeah and alias is proud of being an atheist, right?
> So...?
The issue is not whether alias is an atheist or not. The issue is that
you are a hypocrite.
>
> Your belief and your
>> actions appear to be on opposite ends of the spectrum.
>
> Which spectrum is that norm...the one you made up?
The spectrum of proclaiming belief on one hand and your actions on the
other.
>>
>>>
>>> Or could it be that you will use any
>>>
>>>> "weapon" whether you subscribe to a belief or not to continue your
>>>> little game to gain the attention you need?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Careful, you're about to fall on your own sword.
>>
>> Again, I think not.
>>
> Oh, I think you've already done it!
>>>
>>> Then again, why bother to
>>>
>>>> ask anything of you?
>>>
>>>
>>> You tell me? Seeing as how you're the one doing the questioning.
>>>
>>> There will be nothing of substance forthcoming
>>>
>>>> anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ahhh...the final try at an insult! Sorry norm, but engaging you in
>>> any substantive discussion now seems out of reason and reach.
>>
>> So says the master of insults. As you have so many times asked others,
>> I in turn ask you. How can it be an insult if it is the truth?
>
> Remember what RR said..."the truth is only a reality that can be
> manipulated".
> Who do you answer to norm?
> Frank
I don't answer to you. Spin it any way you want. You are no less a
hypocrite regardless of your arguments or your new questions. You
proclaim your belief in God and you act in direct opposition to that
belief.
hyp·o·crite /?h?p?kr?t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[hip-uh-krit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs,
principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a
person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude,
esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her
public statements.
[Origin: 1175–1225 ME ipocrite < OF < LL hypocrita < Gk hypokrits a
stage actor, hence one who pretends to be what he is not, equiv. to
hypokr(nesthai) (see hypocrisy) + -tés agent suffix]

Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin
hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or
feelings

--
norm

 

[FIsc]

On 13 sep, 18:05, Bruce Chambers <bchamb...@cable0ne.n3t> wrote:
> Silicon neuron wrote:
>
> > Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'
> > knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.
>
> Actually, this is *not* being done _without_ user consent. Just the
> opposite. Every user of each operating systems has been given advance
> notice that such things could happen, and has consented to it.
>
> Read the Vista EULA. Section 7 makes it clear that this could happen:
>
> ========================================================================
>
> You may switch off these features or not use them.

And what about this part? If it was done without user consent even
when automatic updates were not accepted, isn't this in breach with
their own rules?

 

[Adam Albright]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 09:59:07 -0700, FIsc <Linda.De.Coster@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 13 sep, 18:05, Bruce Chambers <bchamb...@cable0ne.n3t> wrote:
>> Silicon neuron wrote:
>>
>> > Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'
>> > knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.
>>
>> Actually, this is *not* being done _without_ user consent. Just the
>> opposite. Every user of each operating systems has been given advance
>> notice that such things could happen, and has consented to it.
>>
>> Read the Vista EULA. Section 7 makes it clear that this could happen:
>>
>> ========================================================================
>>
>> You may switch off these features or not use them.
>
>And what about this part? If it was done without user consent even
>when automatic updates were not accepted, isn't this in breach with
>their own rules?


Microsoft is infamous for proclaiming "rules" only to break the rules
themselves. Classic example and what's getting a lot of noise now is
UAC and standard user. For YEARS Windows and every Microsoft product
was by DESIGN written to run as administrator. Until Vista, Windows
installed itself with one user, will full administrative rights unless
you changed it. Now the boys of Redmond bellow loudly that's not a
good idea, yet it was Microsoft that not only started the practice but
encouraged it. The biggest hypocrites of all are found at Microsoft!

 

[~greg]

"PA Bear" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message news:OKuvyL69HHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> I'm sorry that I don't have time to read this whole thread,
>> so I hope that these two questions haven't been asked
>> in it before.
>
> Then perhaps you should take the time to read the entire thread. Is our time less valuable than yours?


Of course I didn't mean that at all.

And I did read down the branches in this thread, to certain levels.

But there are certain catch-phrases that usually accurately tell me
that it would be a waste my time to go further down a branch.
Things like unix vs windows.
And all insults.

In this case it was just that I didn't happen to be interested,
at that particular moment anyway, in "EULA".

But I see now that I should at least have gone further down
that particular branch, because, in it, you come closest
to answering my very badly expressed questions,
with:
--Disable the Windows update service.
--You will need to enable the service before any Windows
--Update function is used.

and

--I don't know if it is written anywhere.
--Even if it was some would have to see for themselves.
--Disable the service on a clean Install, or whatever suits
--needs, of Windows
--and verify for yourself.

Have to wait " 'till tuesday" to test.


Of course there are a few other services involved:
("Background Intelligent Transfer Service", just to mention one)
and ActiveX controls
(I've never known a site that used more of them.
I hate it that Windows doesn't tell Which activeX control
is wanting to run!)
which, for me, should not be activated from the outside,
since I normally run as a user, not administrator.


But again, and I don't know how better to say it:
I just can't beleive that Microsoft would go around all the services.
I think we agree about that.
It sounds like urban-myth.

~~~

>> Whenever I get Windows updates, Microsoft turns on
>> their auto-updates thingy. And I always have to remind
>> myself to turn it off.
>
> Are you saying that if you disable Automatic Updates
> and then update via Windows Update website,
> Automatic Updates is re-enabled
> or the Automatic Update /service/ is turned on?


I am sorry, I don't know.
It might have been Norton Internet Security.
Or it might have been a complete illusion.

I will pay much closer attention next time,
and then report back here what I'm talking about,
(if it turns out to be worth telling.)


I appologize.

~greg

 

[~greg]

> But I see now that I should at least have gone further down
> that particular branch, because, in it, you come closest
> to answering my very badly expressed questions,


I meant of course Jupiter Jones [MVP].

(but perhaps you (~PA Bear)
had his posts in mind?)

 

[~greg]

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message news:%23Jp15N89HHA.3696@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "Whenever I get Windows updates, Microsoft turns on their auto-updates thingy."
> Perhaps on your computers, not mine.
> I leave Automatic Updates off on some computers and it has remained off after updates.
> There is something other than just the update process turning it back on


Might have been Norton Internet Security.
(I'm pretty sure they turn back on
their own auto-update feature after some updates anyway.)

~

I just wrote a response to "~PA Bear" that was
more meant for you. Sorry.

~greg.

 

[Charlie Tame]

FIsc wrote:
> On 13 sep, 18:05, Bruce Chambers <bchamb...@cable0ne.n3t> wrote:
>> Silicon neuron wrote:
>>
>>> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'
>>> knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.
>> Actually, this is *not* being done _without_ user consent. Just the
>> opposite. Every user of each operating systems has been given advance
>> notice that such things could happen, and has consented to it.
>>
>> Read the Vista EULA. Section 7 makes it clear that this could happen:
>>
>> ========================================================================
>>
>> You may switch off these features or not use them.
>
> And what about this part? If it was done without user consent even
> when automatic updates were not accepted, isn't this in breach with
> their own rules?
>


Well done, everybody else seems to have missed that despite old Jonesy
using it in an attempt to bolster his case.

That phrase does not say what specifically you can turn off BUT it sure
does imply that you can turn all of it off.

Now, on many occasions I have seen the "Windows is checking if you have
the latest version of the updating software" or whatever and I wait and
it says I need to install some ActiveX to proceed with the process. I
see nothing wrong with this and see no reason why, suddenly, MS decided
to not ask that question and do it anyway. When I say check for updates
it's obviously going to check that the updater on my machine is the
current version, why go sneaking about the back door UNLESS you have
something to hide?

You can't always leave auto install on, if a restart is needed and shuts
down an industrial process control you're in trouble, bt most people
could and probably should, however sneaking about in the background is
NOT going to encourage that

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

It is not what I would expect but that is not the same as what is legal.
Do not confuse what we want or expect with what is legal because quite often
they are not the same.

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


"FIsc" <Linda.De.Coster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189961947.056766.186490@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 13 sep, 18:05, Bruce Chambers <bchamb...@cable0ne.n3t> wrote:
>> Silicon neuron wrote:
>>
>> > Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without
>> > users'
>> > knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.
>>
>> Actually, this is *not* being done _without_ user consent. Just
>> the
>> opposite. Every user of each operating systems has been given advance
>> notice that such things could happen, and has consented to it.
>>
>> Read the Vista EULA. Section 7 makes it clear that this could happen:
>>
>> ========================================================================
>>
>> You may switch off these features or not use them.
>
> And what about this part? If it was done without user consent even
> when automatic updates were not accepted, isn't this in breach with
> their own rules?
>

 

[Charlie Tame]

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
> It is not what I would expect but that is not the same as what is legal.
> Do not confuse what we want or expect with what is legal because quite
> often they are not the same.
>


You would not take that attitude if a car manufacturer made a misleading
statement about their products. You might accept a recall notice and
comply with it, but if Ford turned up at midnight and started towing
your car away to repair it I doubt you would be quite so happy with the
deceptive language.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

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.

You already know that but see it convenient to ignore that fact in a vain
attempt with this irrelevant comparison.

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


"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:uLmJtbJ%23HHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> You would not take that attitude if a car manufacturer made a misleading
> statement about their products. You might accept a recall notice and
> comply with it, but if Ford turned up at midnight and started towing your
> car away to repair it I doubt you would be quite so happy with the
> deceptive language.

 

[FIsc]

On 16 sep, 20:43, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupi...@hotnomail.com>
wrote:
> It is not what I would expect but that is not the same as what is legal.
> Do not confuse what we want or expect with what is legal because quite often
> they are not the same.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Serviceshttp://www3.telus.net/dandemar
>

Microsoft indicates themselves a user can refuse to have automatic
updates installed.

When a computer is accessed without the proper consent of the user
isn't this what hackers do and isn't this considered to be illegal?

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

You have been notified in the license.

"...isn't this considered to be illegal?"
If you want an actual legal opinion, as has been stated many times before,
you need to consult a lawyer specializing in licensing law.

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


"FIsc" <Linda.De.Coster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189973002.415659.36580@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> When a computer is accessed without the proper consent of the user
> isn't this what hackers do and isn't this considered to be illegal?