🚀 go-pugleaf

William Rini wrote:

> But the fact remains....still no evidence of it being true.  You can't
> seem to get over that hurdle with anything other than weak "Well it
> could happen..." arguments.  

I don't have any hurdle to get over just because you define one.  I have 
never said that the Registration Wizard does or does not send 
unauthorized information to Microsoft.  Other people on the thread have 
said, however, that early version of the Wizard (before the uproar) 
didn't ask before sending the information.  The discussion about the 
Registration Wizard, however, clearly leads to discussion about what 
security problems might exist with MSN.  It's generally a good practice 
to think about security *before* you attach all your computers to a 
network, and not to wait until someone proves that someone has violated 
your security before thinking about it.

As another example, consider Internet access through MSN.  What do you 
think the chances are that they keep track of that?  No-one can really 
accuse them of anything since they're not stealing data off your hard 
disk or anything, and yet in my opinion they're using information about 
me without my permission -- very valuable information.  Several people 
have testified that Microsoft uses personal information about its 
customers in ways they never authorized.  Don't go on about how local 
ISPs or whatever could be doing the same thing.  I'm much more familiar 
with how standard Internet connections through an ISP work and I feel 
there's a lot less potential for abuse.


> Nobody is asking you to buy windows, nobody is asking you to use MSN,
> nobody is trying to make you do anything.  This whole thead is about
> the truth of the original posters supposed story.  

It's perfectly normal and accepted for a thread to shift its topic of
discussion over the course of time.  Nobody is telling you *not* to use
MSN, so what are you worried about?  I have every right not to use MSN,
and I also have every right to explain why I don't by mentioning possible
security holes.  It's not true that Nobody is *asking* me to use MSN.
Every computer store I go in has got MS propoganda blaring from every 
speaker and screen non-stop.  There are fewer and fewer non-MS choices, 
less shelf-space devoted to MS competitors, etc.


> YOU and the rest of
> the MS bashers have turned it into you soapbox for your paranoid
> fantasies and conspiracy theories.  None of which have any validity
> other than the fact that the technology exists.  If you don't like MS
> then voice your paranoia in a "I HATE MS" thread.  

Suppose, for example, that I knew of a way that anyone could easily view
password-protected Excel files, but I didn't actually know if anyone had
exploited that method or not.  Do you think I'd be wrong to mention that
people's password-protected Excel files are vulnerable to attack?  Don't
think that my concerns about security are just limited to Microsoft.  I
don't like AOL or Prodigy or eWorld either, among others. It's just that
Microsoft is clearly more aggressive than the other companies (based on
their market-domination practices), and in a much stronger position to
exploit security weaknesses given that they wrote the operating system and
a lot of the application software. 


> Here are some real points you have failed to satisfy to make a real
> case for anything you or the rest of your MS bashing buddies have
> said.
> 
> 1.  Is MS so far out on the technology spectrum that they can create a
> program that IBM, Apple, etc. could not figure out if it was
> transmitting the secrets of your HD?

You don't have to be "so far out on the technology spectrum" to do that.
It's actually rather easy, especially if it's a proprietary 
communications protocol and not an open standardized one.


> 2.  Don't every single one of the commercial online services have the
> same capability as does MS to read your drive, as well as your online
> habits and sell the marketing info?

Yes, although as I mentioned above I believe Microsoft has the greatest
potential for abuse.  But hooking directly to the Internet is not the same
as any of the commercial online providers.  I can choose from any number
of Internet providers and I can choose from many different web browsers,
ftp clients, etc. all of which are interchangable and compatible with each
other, and most of which I can get the source code for. I can put my
system behind a firewall or proxy server, create packet filters to make
sure that no packets are going to destinations or ports that I don't want
them to go to, etc.  In short, there are a lot of tools I can use to
control and examine what goes in and out of my system because it's an
open, standardized, distributed system rather than a closed, proprietary,
centralized one.


> 3.  MS could just as easily get marketing info when it gives away it's
> Win95 version of Money (that's right for two months they will be
> giving away the product for free in an effort to gain market share).
> Couldn't they just require a fully completed request form?  I'll give
> you that more info could be obtained right from reading your HD, but
> how the hell is MS going to explain how they got that info when they
> go to try and sell it (as you claim they would)?

I don't think they'd try to sell it, since they would benefit from it most
themselves.  My opinion is that they'd use it to further monopolize the 
markets they already dominate, and attempt to dominate new markets.
And the point is that people wouldn't voluntarily give away a lot of the 
information Microsoft could easily grab from your hard disk (like which 
pirated software you have)


> Sorry Steve your story just doesn't add up.  If I made the same sorts
> of wild comments about Linux or Mac, I'm sure you would be defending
> their product as strongly as you are bashing MS. 

No, not really.  I have exactly the same reservations about using 
Apple's eWorld with Macs.  I still feel that Microsoft is less 
trustworthy, however, given their more aggressive marketing practices.  I 
also feel the consequences of Microsoft exploiting illegally-obtained 
information would be far worse than Apple exploiting such information.  
What could Apple do?  Get a 30% market share instead of 10%?  Microsoft, 
on the other hand, could eliminate the little competition that's left, 
which I find very scary.

I also think you'd have a hard time making these kinds of comments about
Linux, since there's so many people working on different parts of it, most
of whom have never even met each other (BTW I don't run Linux and I'm not
a big Linux advocate, though I have recommended it to a few friends).  You
could pick on a particular piece of software, but then again about 99% of
Linux software has source code available and it would be easy to check. 


--
Steve Kanefsky