If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
And then the unannounced updates will be forced onto your system anyway?
But wait, in the original articles, automatic updating WAS TURNED OFF! It still stinks. Hmmm, software installed on your computer without your cognizance, notification, or permission sounds a lot like a definition of Malware. Why didn't Windows Defender catch it? 8-) Val "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote in message ... Disable the Windows update service. You will need to enable the service before any Windows Update function is used. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services http://www3.telus.net/dandemar "The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'" wrote in message ... It specifies in section 7 that "You may switch off these features or not use them." How am I supposed to shut this "feature" off?!? -- 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 |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
On second (or maybe fourth) thought, I think MS can be charged with a crime,
at least in my state (SD): Note item (6) http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/Di...atute=43-43B-1 43-43B-1. Unlawful uses of computer system. A person is guilty of unlawful use of a computer system, software, or data if the person: (1) Knowingly obtains the use of, accesses or exceeds authorized access to, a computer system, or any part thereof, without the consent of the owner; (2) Knowingly obtains the use of, accesses, or exceeds authorized access to, a computer system, or any part thereof, without the consent of the owner, and the access or use includes access to confidential data or material; (3) Knowingly copies or obtains information from a computer system, or compromises any security controls for the computer system, or uses or discloses to another, or attempts to use or disclose to another, the numbers, codes, passwords, or other means of access to a computer system without the consent of the owner; (4) Knowingly disrupts, denies, or inhibits access to software or data without the consent of the owner; (5) Knowingly disrupts, denies, or inhibits access to a computer system, without consent of the owner; (6) Knowingly modifies, changes, or alters software or data, without the consent of the owner; (7) Knowingly obtains use of, alters, accesses, or exceeds authorized access to, destroys, disables, or inhibits access to a computer system, as part of a deception for the purpose of obtaining money, property, or services from the owner of a computer system, or any third party; (8) Knowingly destroys or disables a computer system, without consent of the owner; or (9) Knowingly destroys or disables software or computer data, without consent of the owner. Source: SL 1982, ch 300, § 3; SL 1984, ch 282, § 1; SL 2002, ch 109, § 27. And the penalty? Class 4 felony http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/Di...atute=43-43B-3 43-43B-3. Penalties for unlawful use of computer systems. Violations of the provisions of § 43-43B-1 are punishable as follows: (1) For a violation of subdivision (1), a Class 1 misdemeanor; (2) For a violation of subdivision (2) or (3), a Class 6 felony; (3) For a violation of subdivision (4), a Class 5 felony; (4) For a violation of subdivision (5) or (6), a Class 4 felony; (5) For a violation of subdivision (8) or (9), a Class 3 felony; (6) For a violation of subdivision (7), a Class 2 felony. Source: SL 1982, ch 300, § 4; SL 1984, ch 282, § 3; SL 2002, ch 109, § 29. "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote in message ... Disable the Windows update service. You will need to enable the service before any Windows Update function is used. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services http://www3.telus.net/dandemar "The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'" wrote in message ... It specifies in section 7 that "You may switch off these features or not use them." How am I supposed to shut this "feature" off?!? -- 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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
If the Update Service is disabled, No.
That is not the same as turning off Microsoft/Windows Update -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services http://www3.telus.net/dandemar "Val" wrote in message ... And then the unannounced updates will be forced onto your system anyway? But wait, in the original articles, automatic updating WAS TURNED OFF! It still stinks. Hmmm, software installed on your computer without your cognizance, notification, or permission sounds a lot like a definition of Malware. Why didn't Windows Defender catch it? 8-) Val |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
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. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services http://www3.telus.net/dandemar "Val" wrote in message ... On second (or maybe fourth) thought, I think MS can be charged with a crime, at least in my state (SD): Note item (6) http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/Di...atute=43-43B-1 43-43B-1. Unlawful uses of computer system. A person is guilty of unlawful use of a computer system, software, or data if the person: (1) Knowingly obtains the use of, accesses or exceeds authorized access to, a computer system, or any part thereof, without the consent of the owner; (2) Knowingly obtains the use of, accesses, or exceeds authorized access to, a computer system, or any part thereof, without the consent of the owner, and the access or use includes access to confidential data or material; (3) Knowingly copies or obtains information from a computer system, or compromises any security controls for the computer system, or uses or discloses to another, or attempts to use or disclose to another, the numbers, codes, passwords, or other means of access to a computer system without the consent of the owner; (4) Knowingly disrupts, denies, or inhibits access to software or data without the consent of the owner; (5) Knowingly disrupts, denies, or inhibits access to a computer system, without consent of the owner; (6) Knowingly modifies, changes, or alters software or data, without the consent of the owner; (7) Knowingly obtains use of, alters, accesses, or exceeds authorized access to, destroys, disables, or inhibits access to a computer system, as part of a deception for the purpose of obtaining money, property, or services from the owner of a computer system, or any third party; (8) Knowingly destroys or disables a computer system, without consent of the owner; or (9) Knowingly destroys or disables software or computer data, without consent of the owner. Source: SL 1982, ch 300, § 3; SL 1984, ch 282, § 1; SL 2002, ch 109, § 27. And the penalty? Class 4 felony http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/Di...atute=43-43B-3 43-43B-3. Penalties for unlawful use of computer systems. Violations of the provisions of § 43-43B-1 are punishable as follows: (1) For a violation of subdivision (1), a Class 1 misdemeanor; (2) For a violation of subdivision (2) or (3), a Class 6 felony; (3) For a violation of subdivision (4), a Class 5 felony; (4) For a violation of subdivision (5) or (6), a Class 4 felony; (5) For a violation of subdivision (8) or (9), a Class 3 felony; (6) For a violation of subdivision (7), a Class 2 felony. Source: SL 1982, ch 300, § 4; SL 1984, ch 282, § 3; SL 2002, ch 109, § 29. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
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. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
"Silicon neuron" wrote in message ... http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070913/#story1 By Scott Dunn Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users' knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates. 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. Whenever I get Windows updates, Microsoft turns on their auto-updates thingy. And I always have to remind myself to turn it off. So if someone wasn't aware of this, then they could easily get the impression, on the next update-tuesday, that Microsoft was patching files even though he (thought he) had turned off auto-updates, - being unaware that it had been silently turned on. (That's a question, phrased as the answer; But I don't suppose that is the issue here.) In any case, there is a difference between Windows update, and the update service. I keep the whole service disabled (for a couple of reasons) and enable it by script only when I feel like getting Windows updates (--because Microsoft wont give updates unless that service is running.) Then I turn that service off, again, too. If Microsoft is actually going around all services, then that is very bad thing indeed. It would make it indistinguishable from maleware. A root-kit, or something. And there are laws against that kind of thing. Just because MS happen to be a particular kind of software, an OS, should not make any difference in this. Or that's what I think anyway. ~greg |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
Frank wrote:
Alias wrote: dennis@home wrote: "Frank" wrote in message ... Adam Albright wrote: Hey bub, trying to play attorney now? A EULA technically isn't a contract You're the idiot! The EULA is an agreement...an agreement is a legally binding contract. How fukkin dumb are you mr genius? Frank Your not in the UK then.. Fortunately for Europe and unfortunately for California, Frank lives in Southern California, the center of scams, fraud and spam. Well, that's just another one of your stupid personal insults and another outright lie from you. Not an insult, a fact. Not a lie, a fact. its probably not legal in the UK as its conditions added after the sale which you can't do. Now you've done it, you used logic and facts and Frank will do what he always does: insult you and call you a liar. Thinking he's cute and clever, he will throw in some blustering for good measure. Try reading my answer to him you dimwitted moron liar. Frank More lies, insults and bluster. What would Jesus say of your boorish behavior, Frankie Boy? -- Alias To email me, remove shoes |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
Your Automatic Update settings do NOT control the automatic updating of the
Windows Update software, Val. -- ~PA Bear Val wrote: And then the unannounced updates will be forced onto your system anyway? But wait, in the original articles, automatic updating WAS TURNED OFF! It still stinks. Hmmm, software installed on your computer without your cognizance, notification, or permission sounds a lot like a definition of Malware. Why didn't Windows Defender catch it? 8-) Val "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote in message ... Disable the Windows update service. You will need to enable the service before any Windows Update function is used. "The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'" wrote in message ... It specifies in section 7 that "You may switch off these features or not use them." How am I supposed to shut this "feature" off?!? -- 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 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
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? 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? -- ~PA Bear ~greg wrote: "Silicon neuron" wrote in message ... http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070913/#story1 By Scott Dunn Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users' knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates. 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. Whenever I get Windows updates, Microsoft turns on their auto-updates thingy. And I always have to remind myself to turn it off. So if someone wasn't aware of this, then they could easily get the impression, on the next update-tuesday, that Microsoft was patching files even though he (thought he) had turned off auto-updates, - being unaware that it had been silently turned on. (That's a question, phrased as the answer; But I don't suppose that is the issue here.) In any case, there is a difference between Windows update, and the update service. I keep the whole service disabled (for a couple of reasons) and enable it by script only when I feel like getting Windows updates (--because Microsoft wont give updates unless that service is running.) Then I turn that service off, again, too. If Microsoft is actually going around all services, then that is very bad thing indeed. It would make it indistinguishable from maleware. A root-kit, or something. And there are laws against that kind of thing. Just because MS happen to be a particular kind of software, an OS, should not make any difference in this. Or that's what I think anyway. ~greg |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
Alias wrote:
Frank wrote: Alias wrote: dennis@home wrote: "Frank" wrote in message ... Adam Albright wrote: Hey bub, trying to play attorney now? A EULA technically isn't a contract You're the idiot! The EULA is an agreement...an agreement is a legally binding contract. How fukkin dumb are you mr genius? Frank Your not in the UK then.. Fortunately for Europe and unfortunately for California, Frank lives in Southern California, the center of scams, fraud and spam. Well, that's just another one of your stupid personal insults and another outright lie from you. Not an insult, a fact. Not a lie, a fact. its probably not legal in the UK as its conditions added after the sale which you can't do. Now you've done it, you used logic and facts and Frank will do what he always does: insult you and call you a liar. Thinking he's cute and clever, he will throw in some blustering for good measure. Try reading my answer to him you dimwitted moron liar. Frank More lies, insults and bluster. What would Jesus say of your boorish behavior, Frankie Boy? Why don't you try asking Him yourself if you're so very interested in His opinion, mr atheist? |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:47:02 -0700, "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. Jupiter, you're already seen as a big enough idiot without now trying to play attorney and removing all doubt. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
Frank wrote:
Alias wrote: Frank wrote: Alias wrote: dennis@home wrote: "Frank" wrote in message ... Adam Albright wrote: Hey bub, trying to play attorney now? A EULA technically isn't a contract You're the idiot! The EULA is an agreement...an agreement is a legally binding contract. How fukkin dumb are you mr genius? Frank Your not in the UK then.. Fortunately for Europe and unfortunately for California, Frank lives in Southern California, the center of scams, fraud and spam. Well, that's just another one of your stupid personal insults and another outright lie from you. Not an insult, a fact. Not a lie, a fact. its probably not legal in the UK as its conditions added after the sale which you can't do. Now you've done it, you used logic and facts and Frank will do what he always does: insult you and call you a liar. Thinking he's cute and clever, he will throw in some blustering for good measure. Try reading my answer to him you dimwitted moron liar. Frank More lies, insults and bluster. What would Jesus say of your boorish behavior, Frankie Boy? Why don't you try asking Him yourself if you're so very interested in His opinion, mr atheist? How can I ask someone who no one can prove even existed and who died hundreds of years ago? You believe in channeling too? I asked YOU what YOU think he would think. Course to understand that, you would have to be capable of logic and understanding a simple question. -- Alias To email me, remove shoes |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
Alias wrote:
How can I ask someone who no one can prove even existed and who died hundreds of years ago? Well, you're the one asking the question so it's up to you to find the answer. You believe in channeling too? Channeling what? I asked YOU what YOU think he would think. Again, ask Him directly. If you don't believe in Him then why on earth would you care what He thinks, huh? Course to understand that, you would have to be capable of logic and understanding a simple question. Sorry pal! You're not that smart or quick, mentally speaking. Try again, ok? Frank |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
Frank wrote:
Alias wrote: How can I ask someone who no one can prove even existed and who died hundreds of years ago? Well, you're the one asking the question so it's up to you to find the answer. I was asking YOU. You believe in channeling too? Channeling what? Figures you wouldn't understand. Look it up. I asked YOU what YOU think he would think. Again, ask Him directly. If you don't believe in Him then why on earth would you care what He thinks, huh? I asked you what YOU think. Is that question too complicated for you? Course to understand that, you would have to be capable of logic and understanding a simple question. Sorry pal! You're not that smart or quick, mentally speaking. Try again, ok? Frank You've just proved how slow you are. What's pathetic is that you don't even realize it. -- Alias To email me, remove shoes |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
Alias wrote:
Frank wrote: Alias wrote: How can I ask someone who no one can prove even existed and who died hundreds of years ago? Well, you're the one asking the question so it's up to you to find the answer. I was asking YOU. You believe in channeling too? Channeling what? Figures you wouldn't understand. Look it up. I asked YOU what YOU think he would think. Again, ask Him directly. If you don't believe in Him then why on earth would you care what He thinks, huh? I asked you what YOU think. Is that question too complicated for you? Course to understand that, you would have to be capable of logic and understanding a simple question. Sorry pal! You're not that smart or quick, mentally speaking. Try again, ok? Frank You've just proved how slow you are. What's pathetic is that you don't even realize it. hahaha...for an avowed atheist, you sure don't know how to argue your point...even if you had one. You've been hammered like this many times before concerning religion, haven't you? I bet it really hurts! Frank |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|