Slashdot Log In
EPIC Makes Privacy Case Against Windows XP To FTC
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Jul 26, 2001 05:13 PM
from the force-nor-fraud- dept.
from the force-nor-fraud- dept.
jeffy124 writes: "EPIC has posted their complaint submitted to the FTC regarding Windows XP. Do note that it is a pdf file and will require a pdf reader of some kind." Hotmail, Passport (adult and child versions), Hailstorm, email harvesting, and deceptive privacy policies in general all play a role here; there's plenty in here that ought to spark questions about Microsoft business practices even among die-hard free-marketeers.
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: EPIC Urges FTC To Investigate Google Services 111 comments
snydeq writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a 15-page complaint asking the FTC to force Google to stop offering online services that collect data until the presence of adequate privacy safeguards is verified. The EPIC also wants Google to disclose all data loss or breach incidents, citing several incidents where data held by Google was at risk, the most recent of which occurred earlier this month with its Google Docs. The EPIC complaint [PDF] also listed other security flaws in Gmail and Google Desktop, a desktop indexing program, and urged Google to donate $5 million to a public fund that will support research into technologies such as encryption, data anonymization and mobile location privacy."
EPIC has raised privacy concerns about Google before, and about Windows XP as well.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Re:What's disgusting... (Score:2)
Oh pipe down everyone (Score:2)
The case against MS for free-marketeers (Score:2)
This makes me nothing less than evil amongst many of my so-called friends, but I believe the equations are more complicated.
To start, sure, the Sherman act and many other laws are probably unfortunate. The free market may be more moral, provide for better outcomes, etc. etc. But once we have injected enough government interference into a free market, you can't let up on that interference selectively and expect good results. Look at the S&L problems of the late 80s, for example.
Next, we all want to believe that the rule of law is important. The laws may be unfortunate and wrong, but at least they should apply equally. Microsoft has repeatedly shown its intent to blantantly IGNORE the law and fight the law with its corporate power. This gives them an unfair advantage compared to companies that do not ignore the law. So the correct course of action is to fight the law, not to hope that it isn't applied and fight against its application.
Next, I am not at all convinced that the law should apply basically identically to people and then to the corporate "persona". In many cases we grant a weird and selective immunity to people operating under the corporate persona. I'm not sure exactly how this applies to the MS situation because I haven't had time to think about it...
Next, consumers have gotten used to the government protection and now expect it and are not interested in acting as their own advocates. Without the guise of government protection, you'd expect that more devices to correct the market would appear - devices such as Underwriter's Laboratories, Consumer Reports, consumer reporters on the nightly news, etc. WITH the guise of government protection, and with the ability of corporations to protect themselves through their own power, the consumer basically has no advocates or guides, and the situation is pretty pathetic.
Regardless of how one feels about the law itself, one should see how clearly and obviously MS has been anti-consumer. As such, it's important to separate free-market advocacy and MS advocacy. You may not like what the government is doing, but MS is still acting quite despicably. Someone has got to punish them somehow. It's a pretty sad situation if the states have to be the ones to do it instead of the consumers. But it's a pretty sad situation right now anyway.
Re:ReiserFS (Score:2)
Would converting her to reiserfs fix the poweroff/fsck problem?
Thanks for the suggestion ::grin::. Basically all we had to do was teach her to use Logout/Halt. The problem is over.
Also, I've tried StarOffice (on Mandrake 8) but the fonts really suck. Any help here?
I am not familiar with the Mandrake distributions. We use Red Hat 7.x with the latest KDE and whichever fonts get installed with it. StarOffice brings a few fonts of its own, if memory serves me. For all our documents we use only Helvetica/Sans Serif and Times Roman/Serif fonts. I'll look into it and see if one of my guys knows how to set other fonts in StarOffice.
(The reason we only use those two fonts is because I read somewhere that those are the two easiest on the eyes. I found that out through one of my customers in Switzerland.)
Thanks for the tip on Insight ::grin::
Cheers!
EEscaping the Windows XP tar pit (Score:5)
This is disgusting. I'm an advocate of laissez faire capitalism. This move by Microsoft and Windows XP is downright criminal because it abuses those users who know the least. A knowledgeable user won't fall for this. A newby, on the other hand...
Can we offer alternatives? I think so. For the last couple of years I'd advised people to go either of two routes (including my customers):
Buy a Macintosh
If you're a newbie there still isn't a computer as easy to use as the Mac. It's more attractive than a PC, it doesn't break as often (i.e. DLL or hardware conflicts), and it requires overall less attention than Windows systems do. All the common applications are available in it, and it delivers better performance for a smaller configuration (i.e. a Mac running MS Office requires half the RAM as a PC for accomplishing the same task).
Use Linux Systems While it's common to hear "my application X only runs under Windows!" I found that either a filter/converter exists for the application or that they can use StarOffice and carry on. There have been very few instances in which a given piece of software was Windows-specific (i.e. QuickBooks Pro); in those instances we suggest deploying a single Windows system used for that activity and sharing all resources from the Samba network.
I have two anecdotes related to this.
The CEO of a company we rolled out refuses to move off Windows/Outlook/Office. Every mayor virus and worm out there has hit him alone since we converted the rest of the network (30+ people). Yes, we installed VirusScan and Norton Utilities and everything else. On Monday he called to ask for a quote for converting his system to Linux. He's seen that we can fix everyone else's system without even having to physically go to their office, they have almost no downtime, and they can do their business with Linux/Solaris applications.
The other anecdote is about my 66 year old Mother. She's as computer illiterate as they come, having retired a few years ago and having had admin assistants all her professional life to take care of things for her. She wanted a computer so I gave her one of my old Compaq Presarios. The catch? We installed Linux + KDE + Netscape. She's happy web surfing, exchanging e-mail, visiting newsgroups, etc. We set an idiot-proof configuration for her, and if she wants a new program we install it remotely (i.e. we recently installed StarOffice and Mozilla 0.9.2 in her system). She knows about Windows, but she uses Oscar for Instant Messaging off the AOL web site, and everything else she needs as an Internet surfer is readily available to her. Flash, Java, etc. etc. are all readily available to her.
(I was ready to buy her an iBook if this little mental experiment didn't work. It never came to that. The only problem we had with this was that, at first, she kept forgetting to shut the system down so we had a long fsck on every startup.)
Based on our experiences, we can safely say that the best way to escape the Windows XP tar pit is by educating the users. Don't rant against Windows. Take the time to explain to others why there are better options out there. Show them what the alternatives look like. Give people credit and assume they're smarter than you thought. You'll be surprised at how well they understand what you told them.
Cheers!
ERe:One World, One Web, One Program (Score:2)
Feel free to draw your own conclusions.
--
So that makes you a hypocrite as well (Score:2)
Not going to make a bit of difference... (Score:2)
The FTC hasn't done crap about protecting free trade in recent years, and I don't see that it's reasonable to expect them to do an about-face now.
--
Re:Use Windows 2000 instead (Score:2)
--
Marketroids & John Tesh (Score:2)
But they'd LOVE to hear Tesh -- just ask Steff. You need to submit them to something that will give them pain. I really pissed one marektroid off with a Sex Pistols tape, so that should give you a clue.
I owned a Jesus & Mary Chain tape around that time. Maybe I should have played that next . . .
Geoff
One World, One Web, One Program (Score:4)
Re:Escaping the Windows XP tar pit (Score:2)
These systems include OS 9 & X, so they're easy for beginners, and also have standard Unix development tools.
I agree that x86 based system are available for a lot cheaper, but then you have to deal with the whole Windows thing.
doubt it.. (Score:2)
Here is why.
First they said, yes M$ has a monoploy, but they are not really planning on doing anything about it. More of a slap on the wrist than anything else.
Next, they ruled that the boyscouts could discriminate against gays, because they are a private organization. (gays are second class citizens in the US now).
Next they ruled that they could discriminate cause they are a religious organization against gays (gays are second class citizens in the US now).
They are thinking still of passing an ammendment to the constitution to prevent 'desicration of the us flag'. (yes this is in congress again) Oh please don't they have better things to do than this? And this will accomplish what? How many flag burnings are there a year to justify this? And so what if they do. It is just a flag! A symbol. It is not like they are defacing the statue of liberty, by spray painting her pink or blue or something.
They have not stepped in even though AT&T and AOL/Time Warner are talking about merging their cable systems (talk about mega crap cable). All the channels you don't want at a price you can't afford.
People always want to blame the gays and lesbians first for ruining our country, but the truth is it is the politicians who don't know s*** about anything that are taking away our freedoms first and letting big companies step all over little people as well.
You have no privacy, you have no rights to freedom, you have no right in your own home. Welcome to America, land of the used to be free....
Yeah I'm pissed off at the state of america.
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Re:doubt it.. (Score:2)
Oh most states are throwing out there sodomy laws, and the few that do have them many apply to both same sex and opposite sex couples. (not all though).
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Re:doubt it.. (Score:2)
Homosexuality is a consensual act between two adults (or teens in some cases). It is not like pedophelia where one is abused unwillingly or bestiality where one is an animal that does now know what is going on.
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Re:doubt it.. (Score:2)
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Re:doubt it.. (Score:2)
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Re:doubt it.. (Score:2)
They are appointed. They are appointed by people who feel the same way that they do. So if a supreme court justice leaves who do you think will be appointed to a new position? Someone who woudl be interested in a chance to oerturn roe vs wade or make it against federal law to be gay or something stupid. The administration would appoint he nes justice. So how can you say that they are impartial?
The boy scouts recieve federal money as well as from religious organizations. They were not claiming that it was against their 'religious' beliefs, but against their interpretaion of the boyscout charter, which states that the boyscouts must be 'morally straight'. People confuse morally straight with gay-homosexual/straight.
"The Court said that yes, the Constitution protects the religious views".. no it said First Ammendment Rights, it did not specify which part fo the first ammendment. (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZS .html)
This was about freedom of 'expressive association' or allowance for bigotry. I don;t care what you call it they are discriminating! And it is allowed. What if their religion said no african americans allowed or no whites? Would that be okay? Be careful this is defined in the constitution as one of the ammendments.
"It's nice that you have the ability to sit back in a country that was created for you and presented to you and condemn the very principals that made us what we are", yes sit back and worry that these freedoms that made us free are being taken away. Currently most states have laws against burning the flag. You HAD the right to burn a flag. You HAD the right to..
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Re:doubt it.. (Score:2)
I'd have to disagree here. The boyscouts KICKED out someone who loved to be a boyscout. ANd now they have the right to continue to do so. So what will be next for them? THey can now kick people out cause they THINK that they are gay, or they act gay.
Yes I agree with the flag burning issue. But If you look at my initial post I did mention "They are thinking still of passing an ammendment to the constitution to prevent 'desicration of the us flag'. (yes this is in congress again) ". This is todays administration. Part fo the administration is democratic. It's stupid reall. DEmocrats / Republicans - I think the US gov is being stupid right now.
Had Clinton or Bush or Congress decided to pass a federal law or add an ammendment to the constitution to prevent discrimination against sexual orientation the Salvation Army, and Boy Scouts would be violating fed law. But they wont. Cause it is okay to discriminate against gays. Oh and look at the results from the US census. There is almost 1/2 million gay couples. This is only the couples, what about the single gay person?
You talk about the will of the people. HOw many states have removed there sodomy laws? How many have offerred domestic partner benifits? LOTS! THE will of the people is soon becoming that gays are normal people with normal rights.
We are everywhere, were here, were queer and we ain't going anywhere! ANDWE WANT OUR RIGHTS!
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Re:PDF file (Score:2)
Probably some existing technology clause in the DMCA...
You're kidding right? (Score:2)
Re:What's _really_ disgusting... (Score:2)
--
Scariest quotes that jump out at me (Score:3)
"... users cannot receive support services for products without registering for Microsoft Passport. The user's product identification number [not provided with XP activation but provided with XP registration] is then linked to his or her personally identifiable Passport information."
" 'If in the future Passport sends email on behalf of participating web sites, you will be able to follow instructions contained in the email to choose whether or not you'd like to receive additional email.' There appears to be no means by which users currently can limit the exchange of their email addresses with the Microsoft Network and no limitations on the unsolicited commercial email that may result from the collection of email addresses in this fashion." Yikes; built-in opt-out spam!
(I de-moronized the quotes by hand. Slightly scary thing: The original document was written with Microsoft Word, then converted with Acrobat PDFWriter.)
A lasting piece of the action (Score:5)
When several projects I've been on asked Oracle for a price quote, we were asked for our business plan. Oracle wanted to charge one (large) ISP for every dialup customer account! (Another project chose Sybase for a similar reason.)
Bill Gates, MSFT's chief strategist, must have recently asked himself, "Billions of dollars are spent online every year, from computers running our operating system. Why can't
The scary thing is, MSFT is providing some value to the online vendors. They've got lots of allies for shoving this down our throats.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Re:No, it's a bundling issue (Score:2)
For that price, the Macintosh will look very enticing. For that price, they'll seriously question whether they really need that new computer anyway.
If Microsoft has to lower its price as a result, then they never really had a true monopoly to begin with. In my opinion, the only monopoly they have is a monopoly on Microsoft software.
Re:No, it's a bundling issue (Score:2)
Re:No, it's a bundling issue (Score:2)
Microsoft does not hold a monopoly on operating systems, web browsers or office suites. They only hold a monopoly of their own software. If you only want an OS to run your server, you have a dozen viable choices. But if you want Windows2K, there is only one place to get it. The only reason it makes any difference is because people *want* Windows.
Re:No, it's a bundling issue (Score:3)
I say repeal the Sherman act! But only one day two of my new regime. On day one I would repeal all of the myriad laws that limit competition and hinder voluntary economic transactions. Then on day two we wouldn't need the Sherman act...
If Microsoft is in trouble because they had too big of a market share while doing what is otherwise legal for every other business, then I want to know how much marketshare is too much? 50%? 60%? 90%? 99%? They say the sign of a real monopoly is the ability to set any price. But Microsoft can't do that. It can't price WinXP to the OEM's at $1000 (which, by the way, is still cheaper than most commercial Unices).
Re:No, it's a bundling issue (Score:2)
In the case of monopolies, especially monopolies in so-called increasing returns markets (markets where large market share tends to lead to even larger market share despite the existance of higher quality products), there are really two choices - you can let them use that monopoly to leverage other monopolies essentially without competetion, or you can restrict them from doing so.
I do sort of agree with you that in the long run, the effects may actually be the same. In the unrestricted case, the monopolist will obtain even more monopolies because he can leverage his existing ones, monopoly prices will rise, but people will continue to pay them because they are heavily "locked in". Superior products will languish because they don't interoperate with the monopolist's products. But at some point, prices will rise so much and the quality of their products will be so poor compared to the competition's that eventually (hopefully) people will begin buying into the competition even though it is a painful transition.
In the restricted case, a monopolist is restricted only to monopolies he obtains through competetion, as opposed to monopoly leverage. There will still be lock-in and rising prices, but only in that one market (if the restriction is enforced).
The difference is that in the partially restricted system, the "swings" in price and quality should be less and competetion should be greater and more consistent because the number of monopolies is limited and they can only be obtained by putting out a superior product and competing with others.
No, it's a bundling issue (Score:3)
One of the major points of the Sherman act is that you can't use a legally obtained monopoly in one market to gain an unfair advantage (and hence, most likely another monopoly) in another.
Apple (or any other non-monopoly) can get away with bundling other software and services and it would not be deemed anticompetitive because they only have 5% of the market for the original product.
The fact is that the rules are different for a monopoly because of the Serman act. A monopoly must be much more careful what they bundle than a non-mononopoly.
The wierd thing is that although there is no great groundswell of support for repealing the Sherman act, yet many people want to let Microsoft off the hook as some kind of "benevolent" monopoly. The problem is that you can't (or at least shouldn't) apply the law selectively.
Re:One World, One Web, One Program (Score:2)
Wrong, wrong, wrong (Score:3)
The complaint charges that MS ties support to product registration. Yeah, so does my toaster warranty, and my VCR, and my TV, and my washer and dryer, etc
You are misinformed. Legally, your toaster, VCR, TV, washer AND dryer are ALL under warrany whether you "register" or not. The law provides something called an "implied warranty", which means that an item you buy must be fit for the purpose for which it was sold. Specific duration warranties are provided for different types of products. The only way that a manufacturer can circumvent the implied warranty is by making a specific deal with the buyer - the customer must KNOW that he/she is making such a deal. Manufacturers would all like to circumvent the implied warranty in order to further their bottom line, but the only way they can do this is - you guessed it - product "registration". The "registration" is usually set up to sound like a good deal, it normally sounds like you are getting a good warranty when you "sign up", but if you do research, 9 out of 10 times you just signed yourself into a more limited warranty than you already had under law. So as long as you didn't make any specific warranty arrangement with your dealer, the dealer is legally required to exchange your product if it has manufacturing defects.
Why is this very different from Microsoft's passport arrangement? Because when you install XP, you've no doubt clicked on an "I agree" somewhere, which means that you're agreeing to an alternate warranty arrangement, under which you MUST supply personal information in order to have manufacturing defects repaired.
This is just one part of Microsoft's attempt to turn the Internet into a huge Microsoft proprietary network, like the Compuserves of yesteryear. Smart tags, Passport etc are all just parts of the plan - and by and large, they are succeeding.
-----
Re:Heres the scary part (Score:3)
That's the whole point.
You can probably make an educated guess as to what 'Net-enabled features' means - but 99% of the computer-buying public (ie. the very users that MS is targeting) won't. They will read that, and assume that they need Passport to USE the internet (after all, it came up when they told the computer that they wanted to use the internet.)
This is exceptionally scary.
Re:doubt it.. (Score:3)
Next, they ruled that the boyscouts could discriminate against gays, because they are a private organization. (gays are second class citizens in the US now).
Homosexual people are NOT second-class citizens in this country. Yes, there are some morons who think homosexuality is somehow wrong but they are a fast-shrinking minority.
That issue aside, just as it is important that the state protect ones right to practice ones sexual orientation, it is just as important to me that a private organization has the freedom to make and enact its own rules.
I don't want to live in a society where the majority is able to cram its opinion down everyones throats. The down side to this is that the lunatic fringe is able to practice what it wants to but the up side is that if there is a small minority that is right about something, they are not automatically silenced because of being considered the lunatic fringe.
This freedom is very important to me and I'm willing to pay whatever price it takes.
Re:What's disgusting... (Score:3)
I will say though, it gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to see a few relatively unknown foundations (mostly non-profit?) fire a shot across the bow like this.
Re:Heres the scary part (Score:4)
you need pasport to use 'net-enabled' features such as auto update, any MS product that uses the internet.
Windows XP and The Average User (Score:3)
"38. The Windows XP operating system leaves the user with little choice but to employ Passport. As soon as the user starts a computer and uses a modem, a dialog box appears on the screen stating: "You've just connected to the Internet. You need a Passport to use Windows XP Internet communications features (such as instant messaging, voice chat and video), and to access Net-enabled features. Click here to set up your Passport."
Am I reading this correctly as MS not allowing an internet connection at all without a Passport?
Actually, no. What the paper is saying is that the setup of Windows XP to use the Internet automatically (this is where the problem lies as the user has no control over its appearance) presents you with a screen that requires you to setup a Passport account in order to use Microsoft's Internet services (ie. multimedia, IM etc). It doesn't stop you from installing your own software. The scary part about this is that the average user (as opposed to technically adept "geeks" like most of the Slashdot audience here) don't know this, and this gives Microsoft an(other) unfair advantage over its competitors. Paragraph 44 of the complaint [epic.org] also shows this.
What people have to learn is that the more that people want to have everything taken care for them (the iMac's software was preinstalled because people wanted to take it out of the box, plug it in and use it), the less control they will have other what they can do with their computer. Giving the power to set up your PC to someone else (especially corporations) and they will mean that it will be less suited to what you want and more to what Microsoft (or Compaq or whoever the company is) wants. The answer is simple: stop treating the computer like it's a glorified, Internet-accessible TV. Computers are complex machines that can be custom-built for various purposes (eg. servers, graphics computers). They are meant to be interactive. You reap what you sow, and the less effort you put into setting up your computer, the less you'll get out of it. The reason that XP is able to exercise this level of control over your computer is that people will not make the effort to take that control.
Although I will protest against having to register an account just to download some software (this means you too, FilePlanet [fileplanet.com]).
Self Bias Resistor
Re:Heres the scary part (Score:3)
So you're already online.
I'd say you just need a passport for, oh, instant messaging, voice chat and video (i.e. MSN Messenger).
'Net-enabled features' is vague, but it doesn't say 'everything to do with the Internet'.
The Request for Relief (Score:3)
And I wonder what other redress for injury could be ordered.
I'm sure many folks will volunteer suggestions.
;-)
News Story (not PDF) (Score:4)
I submitted this earlier but I guess the editors wanted to wait until they could get a copy of the complaint (understandable). The story about it is at CRN [crn.com] earlier today.
Sure, call me a karma whore, but there are some quotes/explanation from the executive director of EPIC.
--------
Canadians Gov't in bed with Microsoft (Score:5)
Re:PDF file (Score:3)
The thing that angers me the most about Dmitri's imprisonment is how much actual work he had to do to break Adobe's so-called "secure solution".
I don't live in the U.S so I don't really have a problem doing this:
#define key "encrypted" /* this is no joke according to Dmitri's presentation */
while((c = get_byte()) {
 byte = c;
 for(i = 0; i < strlen(key); i++)
byte ^= key[i];
}
Slightly better than rot13. But not that much... The only real work was figuring out the key. Oh they made that _really_ hard.....
--
Garett
PDF file (Score:4)
Too bad it's not a secure PDF file, I was looking forward to trying Elcomsoft [elcomsoft.com]'s software that Dmitri wrote.
Re:Why do people think govt should manage OS's? (Score:3)
Umm.. Linux.. duh..
People are content with Windows.
What you mean is that people don't know anything other than Windows. In fact, most people don't even realize what Windows is. As a computer technician/support specialist, I often hear questions like "My Microsoft is broken" or "I have this screen that says 'Starting Windows 95'. I bought Microsoft, not Windows!" Additionally, I would venture that 40% of the problems I encounter have something to do with lock-ups, blue screens, or Windows errors. I am quite convinced that none of those users are content with this problem.
I don't think that any slashdotter thinks the government should "manage OS's." Rather, they want the rights of the consumers to be protected. Microsoft has a monopoly. In order to fix this monopoly they must be closely monitored or the will step on too many feet.
There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and BSD. We don't believe this to be a coincidence.
Windows Circumvention Device (Score:3)
I wonder when Microsoft is going to have Linux declared a Windows Circumvention Device and have Linus jailed under the DMCA.
What's disgusting... (Score:5)
I don't blame it on the government, or even on Microsoft. I blame it on us, the consumers. That we shrug our shoulders and say, "Eh, what are you gonna do" and keep straight down this path. Do we think that, someday, magically, they are going to stop doing this stuff? Of course not. As long as we keep voting with our dollars, they'll keep this sort of nonsense up.
Re:Heres the scary part (Score:4)
misleading... (Score:4)
The Windows XP operating system leaves the user with little choice but to employ Passport. As soon as the user starts a computer and uses a modem, a dialog box appears on the screen stating: "You've just connected to the Internet. You need a Passport to use Windows XP Internet communications features (such as instant messaging, voice chat and video), and to access Net-enabled features. Click here to set up your Passport."
Wow, this sounds as bad as This [slashdot.org] story from earlier. What the heck are "Net-enabled features" in this context? Reminds me of those lame ass banner ads that look like error messages "Click here to optimize your system." Or junk (snail) mail that is printed with a font to appear to be handwritten.
Marketing people are slime, they should all be forced to spend large amounts of time with John Tesh.
An embarrasment to MS's critics (Score:4)
The complaint charges that MS ties support to product registration. Yeah, so does my toaster warranty, and my VCR, and my TV, and my washer and dryer, etc.
It implies that users get tricked into signing up for Passport. Is a Passport registration necessary for non-MS Internet sites? If not, then what is the big fuss? It suggests you sign up; you tell it no, and that is it. None of this tracking seems to be mandatory if one doesn't choose to use their second rate online sites.
Their online sites monitor user activity and sell that information for marketing purposes. What "free" online service doesn't?
All of this stuff is in the various license click-throughs. At least they ask. Doubleclick never asked if they could profile me across the whole net.
On a side note, who doesn't lie when portals ask for personal information? I tell one I am a hog farmer, the next that I am an exotic dancer, etc.
So why is MS evil here again? Oh, that's right, that whole evil incarnate thing.
They complain that the product manufacturer requires registration as a condition of support, then they complain about a suggested Passport registration, then about practices standard in the portal industry, finally complaining about potential security problems at a largely non-functional MS mega-portal.
On that note, if security becomes a major problem at Hailstorm, it won't be the FTC that stops it. It will be the companies that pay for credit card fraud. We would get a ringside seat on VISA vs. Microsoft. I wonder who would win.
Re:What's _really_ disgusting... (Score:3)
Just as an example, anyone who installs linux due to dissatisfaction with M$ software should notify Microsoft of the fact, and that they chose Linux over Microsoft due to: [insert list of reasons here]. At the very least, you can then proceed to bash microsoft (a favored pastime) with a completely clear conscience
At best, if enough people prove to microsoft that they're actually <gasp> losing money!, there may be a slight chance of improvement. Case in point: Smarttags. If the outcry (and possible litigation) had not been so prevalent and widespread, It would still be slated for release in XP. Of course, they could just be waiting for a more favorable climate to release them;)