🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:11:19 -0500, "Todd" <todd44@quest.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:28:59 -0800, Oliver Costich
><olc-caNOSPAM@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>I'm not saying they WILL do these things, but you gave them PERMISSION
>>>to do them. Few people realize how much control they have relinquished
>>>to M$.
>>
>>Explain to me exactly how they do that? I use a firewall and haven't
>>seen any unnecessary traffic from MS. If you mean that downloading a
>>program can put things on your computer, then any software on any OS
>>can do the same thing.
>
>If you download a program that erases your files and disables your
>computer, you would be furious about what this "virus" did to you.
>However, you gave M$ PERMISSION to download the worst possible virus
>on your computer. The difference is in the PERMISSION.
>
>As to snooping through your firewall, you gave M$ PERMISSION to use
>the worst possible trojan on your computer. Of course you wouldn't see
>it - it's part of Windows. :-) The details of exactly how they might
>do this are outside the scope of this newsgroup, but you might start a
>discussion in a security newsgroup. You might find out a lot of
>surprising information.

My friends who are computer security experts have told me of several
security flaws in Win2000/XP, including the one in the reference
monitor, but report nothing in the activation. If you can't explain it
or give a direct reference, you can't back up your claim. Be specific
or shut up.

>
>As I said, few people realize how much control they have relinquished
>to M$. Most people just click on the "accept" button, not realizing
>the full implications. Even those who try to decipher the extensive
>legalese may still not appreciate the full implications.

Maybe because your claims are bullshit.

I don't like their activation either but let's be honest about it.

>
>

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:45:42 GMT, olc-caSPAMMER@home.com wrote:

>If you can't explain it
>or give a direct reference, you can't back up your claim. Be specific
>or shut up.
>
>Maybe because your claims are bullshit.
>

Even a casual look around will provide a lot of information. Below are
a few quotes from JUST ONE ARTICLE at Futurepower. If you go through
the older newsgroup posts, as I suggested, you will find a LOT more
information discussed in detail. It would seem that you are totally
unaware of how much is out there.

If you can disprove ALL of the following SPECIFIC ITEMS that YOU
requested, then I'll listen, otherwise it is you that should shut up,
as you say. :-)

--------------------------------------- quotes follow -------

Windows XP connects to Microsoft's computers, or expects to be
allowed through the user's firewall in at least 16 ways.    Microsoft
Windows XP is dependent for its operation on other computers that the
user does not own and cannot control.

Microsoft has moved from making operating systems
that are independent to making operating systems that are dependent on
its
own computers, and dependent on having access through the firewall. 

Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create
with Visual Basic macros that identifies your computer. 

Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until
you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

Microsoft has invented a new protocol, for example, one that
bypasses present firewalls... To generate the above yourself, disable
Microsoft's
firewall and use the Zone Labs [zonelabs.com] ZoneAlarm firewall

When Windows XP tries to connect to Microsoft, ZoneAlarm will
display a dialog box asking whether that is okay. If you say no to
some of
the requests, some functions of Windows XP will not work (such as
networking).

An article from Microsoft called Managing Automatic Updating and
Download Technologies in Windows XP [microsoft.com] mentions 11 ways
in which Windows XP components automatically download software from
Microsoft computers. 

Microsoft
has a history of using bug fixes and security fixes to change the
operating system settings. 

Managers are being
allowed to believe that Windows XP is secure under conditions in which
it isn't secure. 

You cannot know now to what contract provisions you will be held
in the future.   Microsoft has changed the terms of the contract to
which users are bound by including the new contract with some security
and other bug fixes.

Recent security patches require that the user agree to a
contract that gives Microsoft administrator privileges over the user's
computer 

Microsoft EULA requests root rights 

The EULA contract says that if a
user wants to patch his or her system against a bug that would allow
an attack over the Internet, he or she must give Microsoft legal
control over the computer.

From the EULA: 

"These security related updates may disable your ability to copy
and/or play
Secure Content and [my emphasis] use other software on your computer"

"These updates may disable your ability to
use other software on your computer." 

Microsoft can control the
user's computer without notice and whenever it wants.

Since Microsoft can change the contract at any time and without
control by the user, Microsoft can bind users to contracts that it
invents
in the future. This is a new development in contract law. A user is
bound to
a new contract if he or she wants bug fixes and security fixes. But
this
gives the user no control, since once security flaws are widely known,
every
computer must have the fixes or remain vulnerable. 

Those who supply computer services involving
Windows XP Corporate version can no longer keep the names of their
customers
private. The policy of forced disclosure abandons a tradition of
business
privacy that is thousands of years old.

When you use
Microsoft Windows XP, you are prevented by the license from using
valuable software that competes with Microsoft's. 

Since it is the educated people who have computers, Passport
accounts help Microsoft build a database of the personal lives of
educated
people. Microsoft knows when they connect and from what IP address
(which
tends to show the area), for what kind of help they ask, and
information
about what they are doing with their computers, including what music
they
like. 

Palladium gives Microsoft the ability to prevent users from
seeing their own documents and data.   Not only has Windows XP
definitely
gone further in the direction of allowing the user less control over
his or
her own machine, but with Palladium, Microsoft apparently intends to
finish
the job: Microsoft will have ultimate control over the user's
computer;
users won't even be able to read their own data without permission
from Microsoft.