Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable, sayscritic

[Frank]

Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable,says critic

Alias wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>> Alias wrote:
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Aldred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...anti_piracy_practice_unacceptable_says_critic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The article for those running Windows and are afraid to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> click on urls in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Usenet messages:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials on Win 7. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe that when I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> installed it there was a requirement to have my copy of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the OS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authenticated. I suspect that this check is carried out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a regular basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone know if this is so, and if this is a similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process to the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced above?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes and get used to it or look into alternatives.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LIAR! More of your MS hatred and FUD spreading? What a POS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying linturd troll you are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a lie, pal. You will be checked every 90 days or more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at Microsoft's pleasure. Live with it and get used to it if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you use Windows.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes an outright lie from you...as expected. You stupid pile
>>>>>>>>>>>> of useless lying linturd FUD. The OP is specifically
>>>>>>>>>>>> referring to WSE.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, he was referring to the genuine check.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Re-read the article you fucking idiot
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't care about being checked for Genuine MS...but I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>> sure you're now screwed!...LOL!
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oops!...Hahahah!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LIAR!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> but I do object to having to prove I bought something over
>>>>>>>>>>> and over and over again.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Especially when you didn't "buy" but stoled it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Course, you're stupid and I'm smart so it makes
>>>>>>>>>>> sense that you don't care.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can afford real Genuine MS software whereas you're doomed to
>>>>>>>>>> use free (open sores shit) or pirated crap.
>>>>>>>>>> Now who is the "smart one" you *DUMB FUCK*
>>>>>>>>>> Oops!...LOL!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh dear, Frank is doing his leaping logic dance again. Just
>>>>>>>>> because one objects to MS' spyware and intrusive WGA/WAT
>>>>>>>>> doesn't logically lead to my using pirated software. It just
>>>>>>>>> shows how desperate Frank is to "win".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually, you've pointed out what a desperate loser you are!...LOL!
>>>>>>>> Oops!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More leaping logic
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...om your part
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... how surprising, NOT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You got that one right!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now Frank trots out his grade school "I know you are but what am
>>>>> I?" tactic. Pretty lame, Frank.
>>>>>
>>>> Yawn.
>>>
>>> If you're bored with yourself, imagine how others feel.
>>
>> What an ironic statement from our resident troll.
>
> More leaps of logic from our logic impaired resident moron.
>
Projecting again?

 

[Frank]

Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable,says critic

Alias wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>> Alias wrote:
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> John Aldred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...anti_piracy_practice_unacceptable_says_critic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The article for those running Windows and are afraid to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> click on urls in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Usenet messages:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials on Win 7. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe that when I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> installed it there was a requirement to have my copy of the OS
>>>>>>>>>>>>> authenticated. I suspect that this check is carried out on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a regular basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone know if this is so, and if this is a similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>> process to the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced above?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Once installed, it only updates the definitions as there is
>>>>>>>>>>>> no need to re-verify that your copy of Windows is Genuine.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Didn't read the article, eh?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Didn't comprehend the article, did you troll.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The reason the definitions are updated is
>>>>>>>>>>> to make sure it's genuine again and again and again.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The OP is referring specifically to WSE you *DUMB FUCK*!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The OP is ME, jerk off, and the article is about WAT.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The OP I answered referred to WSE cock sucker.
>>>>>>>> You stupid pile of useless lying linturd shit!
>>>>>>>> Go have babba, your male sheep lover, butt-fuck you some more.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is only one OP in a thread, n00b.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, the one I was responding to you sheep-fucking n00b!
>>>>>> oops!
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet even more leaping logic.
>>>>
>>>> In your delusional dreams.
>>>>
>>>> You've got a problem, Frank.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I keep responding to a POS asshole lying loser like you.
>>>> Oops!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> No, you can't think logically.
>>>
>> Oh, the fucking irony of that statement!
>
> No irony at all.

Compete and total irony.

You're logic impaired as you demonstrate with almost
every post.

Projecting again sheep-fucker?
Oops!...LOL!

 

[cj@heaven.org]

Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable, says critic

>OT.
>I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials on Win 7. I believe that >when I
>installed it there was a requirement to have my copy of the OS
>authenticated. I suspect that this check is carried out on a >regular basis.

>Does anyone know if this is so, and if this is a similar process to >the one
>announced above?

>--
>John Aldred

Don't Know. But I have wondered why when downloading MS security essentials in WIN7 it can determine
my copy is legit 100 times faster than Microsoft Update does and at th same time not install any
WGA to do it.

 

[Roland Schweiger]

Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable, says critic

// This will make Alias run around
// in circles forever!
// You can compile it with CSC.EXE


using System;


class AliasInLoop
{
static void Main()
{
int alias;
int x;
alias = 0;
x = 0;

for (x=1; x!=0; x+=2)
{
Console.WriteLine("Alias is a {0}", alias);
}
}
}

 

[Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com]

Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable,says critic

On 2/15/2010 1:24 PM, relic wrote:
>
> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hlc2ut$jj0$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...anti_piracy_practice_unacceptable_says_critic
>>
>>
>> The article for those running Windows and are afraid to click on urls
>> in Usenet messages:
>>
>>
>> The Internet advocate who blasted Microsoft in 2006 over the daily
>> "phone home" habits of its anti-piracy software took the company to
>> task again today for a new practice that will examine consumers'
>> Windows 7 PCs every 90 days to make sure they're running legitimate
>> copies of the OS.
>>
>> Lauren Weinstein, the co-founder of People For Internet Responsibility
>> (PFIR), urged Windows 7 users not to accept the option update to
>> Windows Activation Technologies (WAT) when Microsoft begins seeding it
>> to the Windows Update service later this month.
>>
>> "The approach that Microsoft is now taking doesn't seem to make sense,
>> even for honest consumers," Weinstein argued in a post to his blog.
>> "Microsoft will trigger forced downgrading to non-genuine status if
>> they believe a Windows 7 system is potentially pirated based on their
>> 'phone home' checks that will occur at (for now) 90 day intervals
>> during the entire life of Windows 7 on a given PC, even months or
>> years after purchase.
>>
>> On Thursday, Microsoft announced the WAT update would identify pirated
>> copies of Windows 7 that had been illegally activated using any of
>> more than 70 "cracks," or activation exploits. After users install the
>> update, the WAT software will regularly connect with Microsoft's
>> servers -- the "phone home" functionality that Weinstein called out --
>> to download new crack "signatures," which would then be used to
>> reevaluate the copy of Windows 7.
>>
>> The repeated validation is new to Windows, confirmed Joe Williams, the
>> general manager of Microsoft's Genuine Windows group, who said that
>> neither Windows XP or Vista had reevaluated already-activated Windows
>> PCs on a regular schedule. Machines that had had significant hardware
>> component replacements were the exception: Swapping out a motherboard,
>> for instance, would typically trigger another activation validation.
>>
>> Williams defended the change. "We want to make sure we're protecting
>> our customers," he said, against newly-developed activation cracks
>> that may have slipped by Microsoft, or simply not been in use, when
>> the PC was originally activated. "And we're a commercial enterprise,
>> and it is important that our [intellectual property] is protected."
>>
>> Weinstein countered that Microsoft was overstepping its bounds by
>> demanding validations in perpetuity. "Say you've used your system for
>> a year. Is it reasonable for Microsoft to say, 'We changed our mind
>> and now you're not genuine'?" asked Weinstein in an interview today.
>> "It's one thing to validate when you originally get the system, but to
>> do that months or years later, and [for] Microsoft [to] say, 'Now
>> we're going to say your Windows is not genuine,' ...it becomes a
>> matter of ownership. At what point is one free of this constant
>> checking?"
>>
>> Weinstein called the new Microsoft WAT update an "unacceptable
>> intrusion" and more. "For Microsoft to assert that they have the right
>> to treat ordinary PC-using consumers in this manner, declaring their
>> systems to be non-genuine and downgrading them at any time, is rather
>> staggering," he said.
>>
>> He recommended that users reject the download of the WAT update. To do
>> that, users may have to reset Windows Update so that it does not
>> automatically download and install every update.
>>
>> Microsoft's Williams suggested the same if users don't want Microsoft
>> re-validating Windows. "We're pretty insistent that this is a
>> voluntary update," he said. "And any customers who don't want WAT can
>> uninstall the update after it's installed." The uninstall option is
>> new for Microsoft's anti-piracy software; in the past, once installed,
>> it could not be removed.
>>
>> Weinstein may be best known to Windows users for uncovering the secret
>> "phone home" characteristics of WAT's predecessor, Windows Genuine
>> Advantage (WGA), when Microsoft launched an update in June 2006. The
>> hue and cry over the feature drove Microsoft to first deny Weinstein's
>> charge that WGA was spyware, then to retreat from the constant
>> communication.
>>
>> Today, Williams argued that the WAT update was not similar to the 2006
>> incident. "This is different," he said. "Why we took grief then was
>> because of a lack of disclosure, not the functionality of the feature."
>>
>> Weinstein disagreed, saying that it was the feature itself that was
>> objectionable. "The approach represented by this kind of escalation,
>> into what basically amounts to a perpetual anti-piracy surveillance
>> regime embedded within already-purchased consumer equipment, is
>> entirely unacceptable," he said.
>>
>> Microsoft has not announced a date when it will begin issuing the WAT
>> update via Windows Update -- only that it will happen this month --
>> but has said it will post the update on its manual download site Feb. 17.
>
> Be legit and it's not a problem.
>
>
I'm legit but still do not like the idea of anyone reporting on me or
what is on my PC behind my back.

 

[Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com]

Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable,says critic

On 2/15/2010 1:41 PM, Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>> relic wrote:
>>>
>>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:hlc2ut$jj0$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...anti_piracy_practice_unacceptable_says_critic
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The article for those running Windows and are afraid to click on
>>>> urls in Usenet messages:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Internet advocate who blasted Microsoft in 2006 over the daily
>>>> "phone home" habits of its anti-piracy software took the company to
>>>> task again today for a new practice that will examine consumers'
>>>> Windows 7 PCs every 90 days to make sure they're running legitimate
>>>> copies of the OS.
>>>>
>>>> Lauren Weinstein, the co-founder of People For Internet
>>>> Responsibility (PFIR), urged Windows 7 users not to accept the
>>>> option update to Windows Activation Technologies (WAT) when
>>>> Microsoft begins seeding it to the Windows Update service later this
>>>> month.
>>>>
>>>> "The approach that Microsoft is now taking doesn't seem to make
>>>> sense, even for honest consumers," Weinstein argued in a post to his
>>>> blog. "Microsoft will trigger forced downgrading to non-genuine
>>>> status if they believe a Windows 7 system is potentially pirated
>>>> based on their 'phone home' checks that will occur at (for now) 90
>>>> day intervals during the entire life of Windows 7 on a given PC,
>>>> even months or years after purchase.
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, Microsoft announced the WAT update would identify
>>>> pirated copies of Windows 7 that had been illegally activated using
>>>> any of more than 70 "cracks," or activation exploits. After users
>>>> install the update, the WAT software will regularly connect with
>>>> Microsoft's servers -- the "phone home" functionality that Weinstein
>>>> called out -- to download new crack "signatures," which would then
>>>> be used to reevaluate the copy of Windows 7.
>>>>
>>>> The repeated validation is new to Windows, confirmed Joe Williams,
>>>> the general manager of Microsoft's Genuine Windows group, who said
>>>> that neither Windows XP or Vista had reevaluated already-activated
>>>> Windows PCs on a regular schedule. Machines that had had significant
>>>> hardware component replacements were the exception: Swapping out a
>>>> motherboard, for instance, would typically trigger another
>>>> activation validation.
>>>>
>>>> Williams defended the change. "We want to make sure we're protecting
>>>> our customers," he said, against newly-developed activation cracks
>>>> that may have slipped by Microsoft, or simply not been in use, when
>>>> the PC was originally activated. "And we're a commercial enterprise,
>>>> and it is important that our [intellectual property] is protected."
>>>>
>>>> Weinstein countered that Microsoft was overstepping its bounds by
>>>> demanding validations in perpetuity. "Say you've used your system
>>>> for a year. Is it reasonable for Microsoft to say, 'We changed our
>>>> mind and now you're not genuine'?" asked Weinstein in an interview
>>>> today. "It's one thing to validate when you originally get the
>>>> system, but to do that months or years later, and [for] Microsoft
>>>> [to] say, 'Now we're going to say your Windows is not genuine,'
>>>> ...it becomes a matter of ownership. At what point is one free of
>>>> this constant checking?"
>>>>
>>>> Weinstein called the new Microsoft WAT update an "unacceptable
>>>> intrusion" and more. "For Microsoft to assert that they have the
>>>> right to treat ordinary PC-using consumers in this manner, declaring
>>>> their systems to be non-genuine and downgrading them at any time, is
>>>> rather staggering," he said.
>>>>
>>>> He recommended that users reject the download of the WAT update. To
>>>> do that, users may have to reset Windows Update so that it does not
>>>> automatically download and install every update.
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft's Williams suggested the same if users don't want
>>>> Microsoft re-validating Windows. "We're pretty insistent that this
>>>> is a voluntary update," he said. "And any customers who don't want
>>>> WAT can uninstall the update after it's installed." The uninstall
>>>> option is new for Microsoft's anti-piracy software; in the past,
>>>> once installed, it could not be removed.
>>>>
>>>> Weinstein may be best known to Windows users for uncovering the
>>>> secret "phone home" characteristics of WAT's predecessor, Windows
>>>> Genuine Advantage (WGA), when Microsoft launched an update in June
>>>> 2006. The hue and cry over the feature drove Microsoft to first deny
>>>> Weinstein's charge that WGA was spyware, then to retreat from the
>>>> constant communication.
>>>>
>>>> Today, Williams argued that the WAT update was not similar to the
>>>> 2006 incident. "This is different," he said. "Why we took grief then
>>>> was because of a lack of disclosure, not the functionality of the
>>>> feature."
>>>>
>>>> Weinstein disagreed, saying that it was the feature itself that was
>>>> objectionable. "The approach represented by this kind of escalation,
>>>> into what basically amounts to a perpetual anti-piracy surveillance
>>>> regime embedded within already-purchased consumer equipment, is
>>>> entirely unacceptable," he said.
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft has not announced a date when it will begin issuing the
>>>> WAT update via Windows Update -- only that it will happen this month
>>>> -- but has said it will post the update on its manual download site
>>>> Feb. 17.
>>>
>>> Be legit and it's not a problem.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Never heard of false positives, eh? And do you *like* having your
>> computer checked by Microsoft every 90 days?
>>
> Who exactly are you trying to fool, fool? You're like a little boy who
> when he closes his eyes thinks no one can see him.
>
> You are a known and admitted liar, cheat, and a thief and a bigoted
> atheist asshole POS loser who is afraid of me and unable to defend the
> honor of his supposed family.
> Oops!
Wow such an informative email full of useful helpful info.

 

[a@b.c]

Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable, says critic

On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:27:41 -0500, "Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com"
<Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com> wrote:

>On 2/15/2010 1:24 PM, relic wrote:
>>
>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:hlc2ut$jj0$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...anti_piracy_practice_unacceptable_says_critic
>>>
>>>
>>> The article for those running Windows and are afraid to click on urls
>>> in Usenet messages:
>>>
>>>
>>> The Internet advocate who blasted Microsoft in 2006 over the daily
>>> "phone home" habits of its anti-piracy software took the company to
>>> task again today for a new practice that will examine consumers'
>>> Windows 7 PCs every 90 days to make sure they're running legitimate
>>> copies of the OS.
>>>
>>> Lauren Weinstein, the co-founder of People For Internet Responsibility
>>> (PFIR), urged Windows 7 users not to accept the option update to
>>> Windows Activation Technologies (WAT) when Microsoft begins seeding it
>>> to the Windows Update service later this month.
>>>
>>> "The approach that Microsoft is now taking doesn't seem to make sense,
>>> even for honest consumers," Weinstein argued in a post to his blog.
>>> "Microsoft will trigger forced downgrading to non-genuine status if
>>> they believe a Windows 7 system is potentially pirated based on their
>>> 'phone home' checks that will occur at (for now) 90 day intervals
>>> during the entire life of Windows 7 on a given PC, even months or
>>> years after purchase.
>>>
>>> On Thursday, Microsoft announced the WAT update would identify pirated
>>> copies of Windows 7 that had been illegally activated using any of
>>> more than 70 "cracks," or activation exploits. After users install the
>>> update, the WAT software will regularly connect with Microsoft's
>>> servers -- the "phone home" functionality that Weinstein called out --
>>> to download new crack "signatures," which would then be used to
>>> reevaluate the copy of Windows 7.
>>>
>>> The repeated validation is new to Windows, confirmed Joe Williams, the
>>> general manager of Microsoft's Genuine Windows group, who said that
>>> neither Windows XP or Vista had reevaluated already-activated Windows
>>> PCs on a regular schedule. Machines that had had significant hardware
>>> component replacements were the exception: Swapping out a motherboard,
>>> for instance, would typically trigger another activation validation.
>>>
>>> Williams defended the change. "We want to make sure we're protecting
>>> our customers," he said, against newly-developed activation cracks
>>> that may have slipped by Microsoft, or simply not been in use, when
>>> the PC was originally activated. "And we're a commercial enterprise,
>>> and it is important that our [intellectual property] is protected."
>>>
>>> Weinstein countered that Microsoft was overstepping its bounds by
>>> demanding validations in perpetuity. "Say you've used your system for
>>> a year. Is it reasonable for Microsoft to say, 'We changed our mind
>>> and now you're not genuine'?" asked Weinstein in an interview today.
>>> "It's one thing to validate when you originally get the system, but to
>>> do that months or years later, and [for] Microsoft [to] say, 'Now
>>> we're going to say your Windows is not genuine,' ...it becomes a
>>> matter of ownership. At what point is one free of this constant
>>> checking?"
>>>
>>> Weinstein called the new Microsoft WAT update an "unacceptable
>>> intrusion" and more. "For Microsoft to assert that they have the right
>>> to treat ordinary PC-using consumers in this manner, declaring their
>>> systems to be non-genuine and downgrading them at any time, is rather
>>> staggering," he said.
>>>
>>> He recommended that users reject the download of the WAT update. To do
>>> that, users may have to reset Windows Update so that it does not
>>> automatically download and install every update.
>>>
>>> Microsoft's Williams suggested the same if users don't want Microsoft
>>> re-validating Windows. "We're pretty insistent that this is a
>>> voluntary update," he said. "And any customers who don't want WAT can
>>> uninstall the update after it's installed." The uninstall option is
>>> new for Microsoft's anti-piracy software; in the past, once installed,
>>> it could not be removed.
>>>
>>> Weinstein may be best known to Windows users for uncovering the secret
>>> "phone home" characteristics of WAT's predecessor, Windows Genuine
>>> Advantage (WGA), when Microsoft launched an update in June 2006. The
>>> hue and cry over the feature drove Microsoft to first deny Weinstein's
>>> charge that WGA was spyware, then to retreat from the constant
>>> communication.
>>>
>>> Today, Williams argued that the WAT update was not similar to the 2006
>>> incident. "This is different," he said. "Why we took grief then was
>>> because of a lack of disclosure, not the functionality of the feature."
>>>
>>> Weinstein disagreed, saying that it was the feature itself that was
>>> objectionable. "The approach represented by this kind of escalation,
>>> into what basically amounts to a perpetual anti-piracy surveillance
>>> regime embedded within already-purchased consumer equipment, is
>>> entirely unacceptable," he said.
>>>
>>> Microsoft has not announced a date when it will begin issuing the WAT
>>> update via Windows Update -- only that it will happen this month --
>>> but has said it will post the update on its manual download site Feb. 17.
>>
>> Be legit and it's not a problem.
>>
>>
>I'm legit but still do not like the idea of anyone reporting on me or
>what is on my PC behind my back.

As today's zdnet article notes, the phoning home is controlled very
simply by a task openly listed in the task manager, which you can
either delay or probably delete, If you can turn it off, its not that
bad.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1803

 

[Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com]

Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable,says critic

On 3/4/2010 17 PM, a@b.c wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:27:41 -0500, "Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com"
> <Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/2010 1:24 PM, relic wrote:
>>>
>>> "Alias"<aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:hlc2ut$jj0$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...anti_piracy_practice_unacceptable_says_critic
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The article for those running Windows and are afraid to click on urls
>>>> in Usenet messages:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Internet advocate who blasted Microsoft in 2006 over the daily
>>>> "phone home" habits of its anti-piracy software took the company to
>>>> task again today for a new practice that will examine consumers'
>>>> Windows 7 PCs every 90 days to make sure they're running legitimate
>>>> copies of the OS.
>>>>
>>>> Lauren Weinstein, the co-founder of People For Internet Responsibility
>>>> (PFIR), urged Windows 7 users not to accept the option update to
>>>> Windows Activation Technologies (WAT) when Microsoft begins seeding it
>>>> to the Windows Update service later this month.
>>>>
>>>> "The approach that Microsoft is now taking doesn't seem to make sense,
>>>> even for honest consumers," Weinstein argued in a post to his blog.
>>>> "Microsoft will trigger forced downgrading to non-genuine status if
>>>> they believe a Windows 7 system is potentially pirated based on their
>>>> 'phone home' checks that will occur at (for now) 90 day intervals
>>>> during the entire life of Windows 7 on a given PC, even months or
>>>> years after purchase.
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, Microsoft announced the WAT update would identify pirated
>>>> copies of Windows 7 that had been illegally activated using any of
>>>> more than 70 "cracks," or activation exploits. After users install the
>>>> update, the WAT software will regularly connect with Microsoft's
>>>> servers -- the "phone home" functionality that Weinstein called out --
>>>> to download new crack "signatures," which would then be used to
>>>> reevaluate the copy of Windows 7.
>>>>
>>>> The repeated validation is new to Windows, confirmed Joe Williams, the
>>>> general manager of Microsoft's Genuine Windows group, who said that
>>>> neither Windows XP or Vista had reevaluated already-activated Windows
>>>> PCs on a regular schedule. Machines that had had significant hardware
>>>> component replacements were the exception: Swapping out a motherboard,
>>>> for instance, would typically trigger another activation validation.
>>>>
>>>> Williams defended the change. "We want to make sure we're protecting
>>>> our customers," he said, against newly-developed activation cracks
>>>> that may have slipped by Microsoft, or simply not been in use, when
>>>> the PC was originally activated. "And we're a commercial enterprise,
>>>> and it is important that our [intellectual property] is protected."
>>>>
>>>> Weinstein countered that Microsoft was overstepping its bounds by
>>>> demanding validations in perpetuity. "Say you've used your system for
>>>> a year. Is it reasonable for Microsoft to say, 'We changed our mind
>>>> and now you're not genuine'?" asked Weinstein in an interview today.
>>>> "It's one thing to validate when you originally get the system, but to
>>>> do that months or years later, and [for] Microsoft [to] say, 'Now
>>>> we're going to say your Windows is not genuine,' ...it becomes a
>>>> matter of ownership. At what point is one free of this constant
>>>> checking?"
>>>>
>>>> Weinstein called the new Microsoft WAT update an "unacceptable
>>>> intrusion" and more. "For Microsoft to assert that they have the right
>>>> to treat ordinary PC-using consumers in this manner, declaring their
>>>> systems to be non-genuine and downgrading them at any time, is rather
>>>> staggering," he said.
>>>>
>>>> He recommended that users reject the download of the WAT update. To do
>>>> that, users may have to reset Windows Update so that it does not
>>>> automatically download and install every update.
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft's Williams suggested the same if users don't want Microsoft
>>>> re-validating Windows. "We're pretty insistent that this is a
>>>> voluntary update," he said. "And any customers who don't want WAT can
>>>> uninstall the update after it's installed." The uninstall option is
>>>> new for Microsoft's anti-piracy software; in the past, once installed,
>>>> it could not be removed.
>>>>
>>>> Weinstein may be best known to Windows users for uncovering the secret
>>>> "phone home" characteristics of WAT's predecessor, Windows Genuine
>>>> Advantage (WGA), when Microsoft launched an update in June 2006. The
>>>> hue and cry over the feature drove Microsoft to first deny Weinstein's
>>>> charge that WGA was spyware, then to retreat from the constant
>>>> communication.
>>>>
>>>> Today, Williams argued that the WAT update was not similar to the 2006
>>>> incident. "This is different," he said. "Why we took grief then was
>>>> because of a lack of disclosure, not the functionality of the feature."
>>>>
>>>> Weinstein disagreed, saying that it was the feature itself that was
>>>> objectionable. "The approach represented by this kind of escalation,
>>>> into what basically amounts to a perpetual anti-piracy surveillance
>>>> regime embedded within already-purchased consumer equipment, is
>>>> entirely unacceptable," he said.
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft has not announced a date when it will begin issuing the WAT
>>>> update via Windows Update -- only that it will happen this month --
>>>> but has said it will post the update on its manual download site Feb. 17.
>>>
>>> Be legit and it's not a problem.
>>>
>>>
>> I'm legit but still do not like the idea of anyone reporting on me or
>> what is on my PC behind my back.
>
> As today's zdnet article notes, the phoning home is controlled very
> simply by a task openly listed in the task manager, which you can
> either delay or probably delete, If you can turn it off, its not that
> bad.
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1803
>
Thanks for the link.

Jeff