5820305
story
Comments: 360 +- Your Rights Online: Lawsuit Claims WGA Is Spyware on Monday September 07, @05:43PM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicms.gif); width:75px; height:55px;
microsoft
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicos.gif); width:66px; height:49px;
os
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicwindows.gif); width:49px; height:65px;
windows
twitter writes "Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA), Microsoft's euphemistically named digital restrictions scheme, is the target of another spyware and false advertising lawsuit. 'Microsoft this week was sued in a Washington district court for allegedly violating privacy laws through Windows XP's Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) copy protection scheme. Similar to cases filed in 2006, the new class action case accuses Microsoft of falsely representing what information WGA would send to verify the authenticity of Windows and that it would send back information [daily IP address and other details that could be used to trace information back to a home or user]. The complaint further argued that Microsoft portrayed WGA as a necessary security update rather than acknowledge its copy protection nature in the update. WGA's implementation also prevented users from purging the protection from their PCs without completely reformatting a computer's system drive.' There were at least two other lawsuits launched in 2006 over WGA. According to the Wikipedia article, none of them have been resolved. The system is built into Vista and Windows 7."
Related Stories
Microsoft Dodges Class Action In WGA Lawsuit 256 comments
It doesn't much signify whom one marries, for one is sure to find out
next morning it was someone else.
-- Will Rogers
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Nothing will happen (Score:5, Informative)
Except that MS has to hand out vouchers for more MS products, giving them an even bigger market share.
[see Sony Rootkit settlement for details]
Re:Nothing will happen (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that MS has to hand out vouchers for more MS products, giving them an even bigger market share.
[see Sony Rootkit settlement for details]
Yeah, and that's what's broken about the way the law handles corporations.
Corporations should face jailtime for any crime or activity that would result in a person being incarcerated. Jail for a person means the loss of most freedoms and it also means they are separated from the rest of society. "Jail" for a corporation should mean that all assets are frozen and all business activities are forced to halt for the same number of days that a real person would have been incarcerated. If the lost sales result in bankruptcy, that's too bad, just like if a person with a few years to live commits a violent crime and gets locked up for a long time and dies in prison, that's also too bad.
This to me would be the proper treatment of "corporations have the same rights as real individuals." A good alternative might be to keep the limited liability nature of a corporation for any failures or accidents, but to remove it and allow for personally prosecuting and imprisoning any and all members of upper management who knowingly support an illegal action wherever intent can be proven.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> Corporations should face jailtime for any crime or activity that would result
> in a person being incarcerated.
This is a civil lawsuit. Individuals who lose civil lawsuits are not incarcerated. They are ordered to pay compensation just as corporations are.
> This to me would be the proper treatment of "corporations have the same
> rights as real individuals."
Corporations do not have the same rights as natural persons in the USA.
> A good alternative might be to keep the limited liability natu
Re:Nothing will happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations do not have the same rights as natural persons in the USA.
That is a deliberately misleading statement. Shame on you for using it.
Corporations have rights as persons. The distinction of "natural persons" is silly. It should be that persons are human beings. Period. Calling corporations "persons" (but not "natural persons") leads to a class system were some "persons" (corporations) have rights/indemnities that actual human persons do not.
That is [management going to jail for crimes the company commits] already the law in the USA.
Not really. There are situations where that happens, but tell me, how many Ford executives went to prison for the Pinto? Or that guy that owns the peanut factory that was responsible for killing people a year or so ago? Or Gates and Ballmer over MS's anti-trust conviction?
Sure, an executive might go to jail, but unless their crime involves financial misconduct, the odds of them going to jail is infinitesimal. And even in the case of financial misconduct, if their misconduct only ruins the lives of their human customers it's no big deal, only if they defrauded either the "market", the company itself, or rich people, do actual humans go to jail for the crimes of their company.
The fact is, corporations get to have their cake and eat it too. They get rights as persons, but they don't have the responsibilities and liabilities of persons. The notion that people are "natural persons" and corporations are just "persons" is absurd.
Parent
Re:Nothing will happen (Score:5, Informative)
See the first case that SCOTUS will hear (one month before the normal start of their session). It is a "free speech" issue regarding campaign finance (do corporations, unions and PACs) have the right to air political ads without claiming them as a "donation in kind", triggering matching funds.
The argument being presented in support claims that campaign donations (from those corporations, unions and PACs) are free speech and therefore cannot be legally constrained.
Even though they are not able to vote, they are still able to influence elections. Some say that their influence is corrosive.
Parent
Re:Nothing will happen (Score:5, Interesting)
I completely agree with your point of view.
Therefore, the solution should not be vengeful actions on persons until evidence is gathered on the questionable conducts.
Instead, the only suitable course would be to put an end to the failed experiment called "corporate personhood". A corporation is by the laws of nature not the same as a person. Therefore what works on a human being (rights, responsibilities, awards, punishments) are totally meaningless to corporations, or at least have their very definitions entirely twisted.
If corporations are to be granted human-like rights, there should be a separate constitution for them so that laws made to enforce responsibilities and rights of corporations would be well-defined.
For example, currently corporations can donate to political courses just like individual persons can. This makes no sense because corporations' concern (mostly, profit maximization, either short term or long term) is entirely different - in fact a lot of the time are totally at odds with individual persons' concerns. Do corporations need to eat? No. Do they have a health that can deteriorate if they ingest something poisonous? No. Can they have children that they care a lot? No. Do they have concerns about privacy? Yes, but if you snoop on them like they do on you, it'll be labeled as industrial espionage.
There are numerous examples to show that corporations will do whatever it can when they can get away with it. It's just "corporate nature". What a wonderful world it'd be if these desires weren't usually in conflict with desires of real persons.
Parent
Re:Nothing will happen (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't speak for the person to whom you were replying but I can give you my response to this. I'm rather indifferent to executives. There is one thing I really don't like about them, however. I really don't like that they can either get away with, or receive only a slap on the wrist, for doing things that would cause the average person to be locked up for a very long time if he/she did the same.
Some people are a bit petty, so they will call that jealousy or envy because that's the only way they can understand it, but really it's an issue of rule of law. If the concept of rule of law is tossed out, so that the law doesn't apply equally to everyone, then the society we know and many of the freedoms it protects get tossed out with it. It's a slow process of erosion that can take generations to happen, but I see something like that beginning to happen here and it really should be recognized for what it is.
Not sure about the GP, but my original post accounted for this and I don't believe there is a flaw in it (as in, if there is one I don't see it). Keep the limited liability nature of a corporation, that way if a venture fails or an accident happens then the members of the corporation are not personally liable. However, if they make decisions that they know will result in real harm to real people, and if it can be proven that they knew this would happen, then you remove the "corporate veil" and you personally prosecute every member of management who was a part of the decision-making.
I don't believe that prosecuting people who knowingly and intentionally cause harm to unwilling third parties threatens anyone's rights in any way. In fact, I believe it strengthens them, specifically it strengthens the rights of those third parties to not be harmed against their will. The only thing I am personally calling for is the removal of one technique for intentionally harming other people with impunity. Do you believe that your objection to the GP applies here? I don't think it does but if I am overlooking something I would be glad to have it pointed out.
Parent
Re:Nothing will happen (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, they can't eat cake, because they don't really exist. It's the same reason you can't really punish them.
It's called a metaphor. Very seldom does it actually rain cats and dogs. Do you find you have trouble talking with people at times?
So, can a corporation have free speech? No, because it doesn't have a mouth. Can a corporation carry a gun? No, because it doesn't have any hands to hold it with. Etc.
Bull Shit. The reason we have lobbyists running so rampant in Washington is that the Supreme Court decided that corporations are people, and because people, not "natural persons", have the right to free speech, then so to do corporations.
And back to your lack of English comprehension, free speech doesn't require a mouth. The newspapers have the right of free speech (and actually *are* mentioned by name in the Constitution, which would be unnecessary if the Constitution meant for corporations to be included as persons).
Ah, now we get to it. You don't like executives and think they should go to jail when a large group of people all get together and make an agreement to undertake a risky venture and said venture goes south.
I said no such thing. When a bunch of people take a risk and they fail and they suffer the consequences, I don't hate them. In fact, although they failed, I applaud them for trying (assuming their venture wasn't completely idiotic or deliberately detrimental to others).
On the other hand, when executives make decisions which will knowingly and unnecessarily lead to significant bodily harm, and even death, like the Pinto. Then yes, fuck them hard. They belong in jail for the remainder of their lives.
Stated again, with the Pinto example, the executives knew the car had a defect that would absolutely lead to the deaths and severe injury to their customers. They knew small children would burn to death, but they green lighted the project because those deaths were cheaper than either fixing the car or scrapping it altogether. Men who make such decisions do not deserve to interact with society unless they're wearing orange jump suits and cleaning the side of the highway.
Yes, that's how it used to be before incorporation, and the trouble with that system is that no one will take charge of those risky ventures because they'd be afraid of going to jail.
I'm not talking against incorporation. I'm talking against treating corporations as people and giving them rights which they were never meant to have. I made this very clear in my post. Your local community college will be glad to enroll you in remedial reading comprehension classes. It's rather inexpensive.
You talk about class and rights, but really you're just feeling vengeful and envious of people you don't even know, and I think you're pretty hypocritical in feigning concern for the little guy when under your system he'd be mired in poverty right now.
Are there unicorns in the world you live in?
Parent
Re:Nothing will happen (Score:4, Interesting)
"Jail" for a corporation should mean that all assets are frozen and all business activities are forced to halt for the same number of days that a real person would have been incarcerated.
The problem is that you'd be punishing a lot more people than those at Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't just sell operating systems for home computers; they sell and support a large number of business applications to a HUGE number of businesses. If Microsoft "went offline" for even just a few months, there'd be huge ripples throughout all sectors of the economy. Imagine if a critical security flaw were found in Windows, or IIS, or SQL Server and Microsoft couldn't patch it because they were "in jail". Just because you might not use MS products doesn't mean you don't do business with someone who does. It would be a disaster.
Parent
So? (Score:4, Insightful)
So if my accountant holds up a liquor store, can I keep him out of jail because I can't do my taxes without him?
If Microsoft is too big to fail, the answer is to cut it up until the pieces are small enough.
Parent
Re:So? (Score:5, Funny)
You must have had a fun childhood. "Mister whiskers wouldn't fit in the peanut butter jar .... and now he does!"
Parent
Re:Nothing will happen (Score:5, Insightful)
You're suggesting that they patch critical security flaws right away. The only difference here is the quality of their excuse.
Then maybe they shouldn't break the law. Or am I thinking too hard again?
Parent
Re:Nothing will happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has had monopolistic practices, but they are not (by definition) a monopoly.
Naturally that depends on what your definition of monopoly [wikipedia.org] is, but one common definition seems to be:
In economics, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
Microsoft consistently fits this definition. Though Europe seems to be a bit more consistent in enforcing it, probably because MS's lobbying is far less effective across the pond.
Parent
Re:Nothing will happen (Score:5, Insightful)
If my interpretation is wrong, then yes, obviously that definition doesn't make any sense.
Parent
Re:Nothing will happen (Score:5, Insightful)
"If Microsoft was in "jail," it would affect many parts of the economy"
Indeed, the economy would bloom, and the computer market would develop at unheard of speeds because the biggest obstacle to any new computer technology just got removed from the equation.
Parent
Re:Nothing will happen (Score:4, Informative)
This to me would be the proper treatment of "corporations have the same rights as real individuals." A good alternative might be to keep the limited liability nature of a corporation for any failures or accidents, but to remove it and allow for personally prosecuting and imprisoning any and all members of upper management who knowingly support an illegal action wherever intent can be proven.
This is ALREADY the nature of the law, no need to change it. What needs to be done is to actually enforce the law this way, with one exception. It shouldn't be limmited to upper management, it should be for ANYONE in the company.
Parent
Re:Nothing will happen (Score:5, Insightful)
It shouldn't be limmited to upper management, it should be for ANYONE in the company.
Because clearly Suzy the receptionist, Bill the janitor and Jake the help-desk guy have not only in-depth knowledge of, but extensive influence over, the decision making process of executive management and therefore deserve to share their fate.
I suppose you think when people are executed any relatives they have closer than a second cousin should go down with them as well ?
Parent
Re:Nothing will happen (Score:5, Interesting)
Better solution:
Require the Lawyers to be paid in the EXACT same way as the class.
So if the reward is coupons, then the lawyers get 30% of the coupons.
Parent
Amusing name (Score:5, Insightful)
The naming scheme of this add-on somehow reminds me of how certain countries like to add attributes such as "people's" and "democratic" to their official state designations...
Re:Amusing name (Score:4, Insightful)
Usually less amusing to those countries' citizens, though...
Parent
Re:Amusing name (Score:4, Insightful)
When I was in the military, the most prominent college available on base (stationed overseas) was called "The University of Maryland University College"
It's as much of a university as, say, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic.
Parent
Re:Amusing name (Score:4, Funny)
The naming scheme of this add-on somehow reminds me of how certain countries like to add attributes such as "people's" and "democratic" to their official state designations...
I've always looked at it as a slur against the Writer's Guild of America [wga.org].
W
Parent
What did you think it was, a fluffy bunny? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not Spyware. You agreed to install it. "This agreement may be modified at any time without notice to you and you agree to be bound by its terms. Suck it. Sincerely, Your EULA." As to it phoning home every day, well duh. But what did you expect?
This is Microsoft's official position, afterall -- You're all a bunch of filthy criminals. You can't be trusted. That's why we hide everything in hidden dialog boxes and pop up a dozen warnings in order to delete Internet Explorer from the desktop. You're too stupid to even understand what "delete" means, so we're going to go out on a limb and guess you're pretty trusting of anything that says WARNING! CAUTION! ARE YOU SURE? REALLY? HONESTLY? We're not convinced. Action cancelled. Don't you want to buy an upgrade every year? We want to move to a licensing model that sends us cash yearly. Don't you want to support American business? I mean, what if the Iranians develop an operating system! When you don't install WGA, you're supporting terrorism.
To sign away your rights, click next.
Re:What did you think it was, a fluffy bunny? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:What did you think it was, a fluffy bunny? (Score:5, Funny)
if I'm remembering correctly,
If I'm remembering correctly,
I can't recall specifically
Why don't you look up the answer and get back to us, Mr. Memory?
Parent
Re:What did you think it was, a fluffy bunny? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not Spyware. You agreed to install it.
And if you agree to install AntiVirus Pro 2009 it doesn't count as spyware either?
Parent
Re:What did you think it was, a fluffy bunny? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just because you agreed doesn't negate it being spyware.
And from what i gather the issue is that its doing things that are NOT in the eula.
Parent
Re:What did you think it was, a fluffy bunny? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:What did you think it was, a fluffy bunny? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good luck getting that from microsoft.
Then you wanted support AFTER your contract expired. You got none. That's expected.
This is not the "whine about Red Hat when you don't want to pay for their service" topic.
It's "Microsoft WGA is spyware."
Hijack another topic please. Not on slashdot.
E
Parent
Re:What did you think it was, a fluffy bunny? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? You were unable to download new RPMs and install them because your support was cut off? That's horrible. That's a serious bug. And --
Oh, really? I see. That's not what you were talking about. You wanted RedHat to continue to monitor your system and provide you with instant fixes through their premium update channel, which you had paid for, even after you stopped paying for it. So now you're upset that you have to wait for official releases like the rest of the plebes.
You really might want to read thosee licenses you keep agreeing to some time. You're not _buying_ jack.
Parent
I've tried to tell people about this sort of thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, most consumers get that "deer in the headlights" look when you try to explain what WGA and similar systems actually do. In many cases, people simply don't care what's being sent to Microsoft, as there's a sense of implicit trust in large corporations. I have no idea where this trust comes from, but it's definitely real. I assume it's largely because the majority of users are largely ignorant of how their systems function, choosing to focus only on what's immediately presented by the OS (applications). There's no psychology degree on my wall, so I'm not qualified to guess further on the topic.
This continuous erosion of privacy gets noticed in the I.T. world, but the general public remains almost completely in the dark. Major media outlets don't carry headline stories about these issues, possibly because their "tech journalists" are barely more educated than their readership on these topics. I have no idea how this can be fixed, but I'd love to hear some suggestions.
Re:I've tried to tell people about this sort of th (Score:5, Funny)
Kill everyone and start again?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell them that terrorists and pedophiles are using the information gathered, or that your browsing habits will affect this season's X Factor outcome..
Those topics usually get some attention.
Remove WGA (Score:5, Insightful)
I was successfully able to remove WinXP's WGA from my system.... I installed Linux.
No more sales for Microsoft, and no more nagging from software thinking I've got a pirate copy of something just because I upgraded some hardware.
Re:Remove WGA (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
can't speak for others...[microsoft tax] (Score:5, Informative)
... but when I bought my computer, I asked for vista to be removed and the price refunded. Hoped from shop to shop until I found one that agreed (in fact I was ready for a trek, but the 3rd shop in the street was the good one). He got the deal, and I bought the refund worth of RAM to top of the computer capacity. I was pleased, and so was the seller.
My laptop is an Asus eeepc 900A linux 'edition'. Again, I carefully reviewed the options before buying.
Speak with your wallet.
Parent
Another entry in the Drinking Game! (Score:5, Funny)
The Windows 7 drinking game [today.com] so far includes:
* One shot for every "ethnic" face in an install graphic.
* An extra shot if it's pasted over the head of a white person.
* One shot for every white face pasted over the head of a non-white person.
* One shot for every program with the Office 2007 "ribbon" toolbar stuck on it completely inappropriately.
* One shot for every exciting "new" feature that's been in Mac OS and Linux for the past five years.
* An extra shot if the exciting "new" feature's been in Mac OS and Linux for the past ten years.
* One shot every time you reboot during the install.
* One shot every time the system asks to reboot just because it feels like it.
* Two shots every time it reboots even though you said "no."
* Drain the bottle if there's an actual feature that makes Windows 7 so much better than sticking with XP that you'll spend actual money to get it.
* Spitting your mouthful and cursing when Windows Genuine Advantage decides your full-price copy is actually a bootleg.
* A bitter mouthful every time the system blue-screens.
Go free market! (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately Microsoft will probably win this because there's a difference between spyware and an abusive contract. To the best of my knowledge, abusive contracts are perfectly legal, which is why MS got over on IBM so bad. These license agreements which you click before using software have been legally upheld in court, so Microsoft may be doing something immoral, but it's still legal. The only thing that makes spyware illegal is that they bypass a contract and install without the user's permission.
I love to blame Microsoft as much as anyone here but I think this is a case where the lack of legislation is, in a legal sense, to blame. Companies have no legal obligation to behave ethically. I would love to see a law which prohibits these ridiculous lawyer-speak click-contracts. There has to be a better way to protect both the company and consumer.
It does sound as if their main case is that the WGA contract is misleading and dishonest, and if that's true, they may have a case. I wouldn't know because I've never read it and don't intend to. I don't use Windows.
Obligatory car analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't mind that my car has a license plate. I don't even mind having to register with the authorities or prove that the car is indeed my own. What really pisses me off is the cameras and systems that track where I'm going by using the information on that license plate, and tying it to my behaviour patterns.
I'm not a law breaker and I'm not paranoid*, I just don't want my behaviour modified by stealthy incursions into my privacy that could result in profiling and ultimately curtailing my choices in where I go, what I see and what I do. WGA is, I believe, just part of a trend that increasingly encourages powerful public institutions to think of people as objects, as statistics, and the effect of treating people as objects is the source of pretty much all I consider crime in the world.
(*I walked by a construction site the other day and the roofer told me that I wasn't paranoid - in morse code. Clever, aren't they?)
Parent
Reasons to hate WGA (Score:4, Funny)
WGA is like a body cavity search, but without the rubber glove
I cannot wait until ReactOS goes 1.0 (Score:4, Informative)
ReactOS [reactos.org] is still being developed. Some day (maybe in five years) it will reach the golden 1.0 standard. It should replace Windows XP and then we can forget about those WGA updates.
WGA has too many false positives and can ruin wallpaper settings (turning the screen to black) and do other annoying things. Plus I keep seeing it installed even if updates are turned off. Currently my system is genuine but if a Firewall software blocks Internet access it thinks it is not genuine. Until I allow the firewall and then hit validate, then everything is OK.
I doubt a majority of Windows users will migrate towards Vista or Windows 7 because of legacy software issues and legacy hardware that cannot run Vista or 7. ReactOS will fill that hole quite nicely when it is done with Windows XP compatibility and no WGA gotchas.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So, the whole privacy thing to me is kinda mute (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:So, the whole privacy thing to me is kinda mute (Score:5, Insightful)
Look in your pocket... I'm betting you have a cell phone.
Nope, I just checked all my pockets, no phone there. You lose.
Your phone connects to a tower to "talk" - they know which numbers are connected to what towers at any time of the day.
A connection to a cell tower is required for a cell-phone to work. Sending random data back to Microsoft is not required for Windows to work. See the difference?
Parent
Re:I don't get why this is a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Legit users, of course, don't have to worry because Windows will never stop working for them (there are some exceptions [msdn.com], but those are typically solved quickly)
I bet you also believe that 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear', right?
I don't give a flying monkey crap about Microsoft's profits; I care about my software randomly not working because some crappy 'validation' software decides that I'm a criminal. More than that, I care about the whole concept of being treated as a criminal until proven innocent by a company that I've paid money to for the product I'm using.
You may be happy to bend over for big corporate profits, but I'm increasingly fed up with this crap -- not just from Microsoft but from other companies who decide to prevent software I've purchased from running until I beg them to fix their god-damn piece of crap 'validation'/'activation'/DRM bullshit -- to the extent that I'm now doing my best to completely eliminate Windows and commercial software which contains this kind of shit from my home.
Parent
Re:I don't get why this is a problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Path of least resistance will win time and time again, which for me is Ubuntu/Arch/Debian/Suse/CentOS etc.
Parent
One word: Oracle (Score:5, Insightful)
I know of great place to get the latest version of Oracle Enterprise addition for any platform, no license keys, no activation required, no trial periods, no protection at all. Just download it for your favorite platform and install it.
technet.oracle.com [oracle.com]
Last time I checked, Oracle is pretty profitable, even though they have no copy protection of any kind. Apparently, the ACTUALLY trust their customers somewhat which puts them in a pretty rare class these days.
Microsoft is only shooting themselves in the foot:
Parent
Re:I don't get why this is a problem (Score:5, Interesting)
According to the WGA FAQ [microsoft.com]
That was an interesting FAQ. I especially like this part:
Q: What happens when WGA Notifications communicates with Microsoft when a PC is booted up? A: The pilot version of this software periodically contacts Microsoft after validation; however, this feature has been removed from the final version of WGA Notifications.
That seems to contradict your statement:
So why is "phoning home" okay? Why not do it once and be done with it? ... Either way, Microsoft has not kept this a secret, and even promised to reduce checking to once every two weeks [zdnet.com]
If WGA does send information to Microsoft, even if it is only every two weeks, and their FAQ specifically says they do not, I'd say that is the very definition of spyware.
Of cource, Microsoft has their own definition of spyware:
Q: Some people are saying that WGA is spyware. Is this true? A: Broadly speaking, spyware is deceptive software that is installed on a userâ(TM)s computer without the user's consent and has some malicious purpose. WGA is installed with the consent of the user and seeks only to notify the user if a proper license is not in place. If the user declines the EULA, WGA Notifications will not be installed on userâ(TM)s machine. Once installed, WGA Notifications becomes a permanent part of Windows XP software, and therefore cannot be uninstalled.
Let's see: spyware is deceptive software (check), installed on a userâ(TM)s computer without the userâ(TM)s consent (debatable, it is installed as a critical update via automatic updates. Microsoft strongly encourages the use of automatic updates to keep your system secure. If this were an optional update, I might buy that it is opt-in. Microsoft then tells you that the system will be crippled in small ways if you don't install it. There is no option to opt-out. Technically, it is opt-in, but only technically.) , and has some malicious purpose. (Depends on what you consider malicious. From Microsoft's point of view, it is not malicious. However, I'm sure that most spyware authors do not consider their software malicious.)
Parent
Re:Another idiotic lawsuit.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent