Windows Defender whitelisting certain spyware ?

Someone on another BBS I'm on declared that Microsoft might secretly
whitelist certain spyware companies. This is total BS, right ? I cannot
imagine Microsoft doing this and the resulting scandal.

Steve

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
<45f479cf$0$8927$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Steve H. wrote:

>Someone on another BBS I'm on declared that Microsoft might secretly
>whitelist certain spyware companies. This is total BS, right ? I cannot
>imagine Microsoft doing this and the resulting scandal.

This is a troll, right? You've had your head up-and-locked and haven't
bothered to read the End User License Agreement that _you_ agreed to when
you got windoze, and haven't bothered to know what the words "Digital
Rights Management" mean. That's funny.

In case you're not trolling, point your news reader to the news groups
"alt.privacy" and "alt.spyware". Or just hit google and find a copy of
the microsoft EULA - or pick up any computer magazine and find the
discussion about the spyware - it's not called that, because you agreed
that microsoft has the right to install it and can do anything they want
with the information they get from your computer.

Old guy

ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:

>On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
><45f479cf$0$8927$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Steve H. wrote:

>>Someone on another BBS I'm on declared that Microsoft might secretly
>>whitelist certain spyware companies. This is total BS, right ? I cannot
>>imagine Microsoft doing this and the resulting scandal.

>This is a troll, right? You've had your head up-and-locked and haven't
>bothered to read the End User License Agreement that _you_ agreed to when
>you got windoze, and haven't bothered to know what the words "Digital
>Rights Management" mean. That's funny.

>In case you're not trolling, point your news reader to the news groups
>"alt.privacy" and "alt.spyware". Or just hit google and find a copy of
>the microsoft EULA - or pick up any computer magazine and find the
>discussion about the spyware - it's not called that, because you agreed
>that microsoft has the right to install it and can do anything they want
>with the information they get from your computer.

Ie, it is not a secret, it is something you agree to (well, that is
actually doubtful that you agree to it, since it is part of contract of
adhesion, and you have no opportunity to actually negotiate it, or even
know what its terms are before purchase.)
Ie, what it rather is that Microsoft Claims the right to disable any part
of the operating system at its whim. Whether this would stand up in court
is dubious, but would you want to be the one to take on Gate's billions in
a legal fight. Might makes right in this case, especially when the
govenment is totally unwilling to take on blatant and declared illegal
actions by that company.

Ie, by using and installing Vista, you have given away the keys to your
computer to MS, or to whatever other agents can determine how MS can
disable your system.

> Old guy

Unruh wrote:
> ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
>> <45f479cf$0$8927$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Steve H. wrote:
>
>>> Someone on another BBS I'm on declared that Microsoft might secretly
>>> whitelist certain spyware companies. This is total BS, right ? I cannot
>>> imagine Microsoft doing this and the resulting scandal.
>
>> This is a troll, right? You've had your head up-and-locked and haven't
>> bothered to read the End User License Agreement that _you_ agreed to when
>> you got windoze, and haven't bothered to know what the words "Digital
>> Rights Management" mean. That's funny.
>
>> In case you're not trolling, point your news reader to the news groups
>> "alt.privacy" and "alt.spyware". Or just hit google and find a copy of
>> the microsoft EULA - or pick up any computer magazine and find the
>> discussion about the spyware - it's not called that, because you agreed
>> that microsoft has the right to install it and can do anything they want
>> with the information they get from your computer.
>
> Ie, it is not a secret, it is something you agree to (well, that is
> actually doubtful that you agree to it, since it is part of contract of
> adhesion, and you have no opportunity to actually negotiate it, or even
> know what its terms are before purchase.)
> Ie, what it rather is that Microsoft Claims the right to disable any part
> of the operating system at its whim. Whether this would stand up in court
> is dubious, but would you want to be the one to take on Gate's billions in
> a legal fight. Might makes right in this case, especially when the
> govenment is totally unwilling to take on blatant and declared illegal
> actions by that company.
>
> Ie, by using and installing Vista, you have given away the keys to your
> computer to MS, or to whatever other agents can determine how MS can
> disable your system.
>
>> Old guy
Since we bought Microsoft os there is no law that says we must give
control to it. Therefore there would be nothing certainly immoral ,or
unlawful to controlling our own computers and whatever we choose to run
on them. Surely there are computer geniuses out there who want to make
few bucks by giving back control of our os and computers.

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:06:35 -0500, Gus wrote:

> Since we bought Microsoft os there is no law that says we must give
> control to it.

Next time you get your updates and are provided with the popup to
accept the licence, READ IT.

When you click Accept/OK, Micro$not gets to do whatever terms YOU
agreed/Accepted.

Yes, there is no law that says we must give control to it.
Just do not click the Accept/OK.

Or change OS Vendors. :)

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:06:35 -0500, Gus wrote:

> Unruh wrote:
>> ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
>>> <45f479cf$0$8927$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Steve H. wrote:
>>
>>>> Someone on another BBS I'm on declared that Microsoft might secretly
>>>> whitelist certain spyware companies. This is total BS, right ? I cannot
>>>> imagine Microsoft doing this and the resulting scandal.
>>
>>> This is a troll, right? You've had your head up-and-locked and haven't
>>> bothered to read the End User License Agreement that _you_ agreed to when
>>> you got windoze, and haven't bothered to know what the words "Digital
>>> Rights Management" mean. That's funny.
>>
>>> In case you're not trolling, point your news reader to the news groups
>>> "alt.privacy" and "alt.spyware". Or just hit google and find a copy of
>>> the microsoft EULA - or pick up any computer magazine and find the
>>> discussion about the spyware - it's not called that, because you agreed
>>> that microsoft has the right to install it and can do anything they want
>>> with the information they get from your computer.
>>
>> Ie, it is not a secret, it is something you agree to (well, that is
>> actually doubtful that you agree to it, since it is part of contract of
>> adhesion, and you have no opportunity to actually negotiate it, or even
>> know what its terms are before purchase.)
>> Ie, what it rather is that Microsoft Claims the right to disable any part
>> of the operating system at its whim. Whether this would stand up in court
>> is dubious, but would you want to be the one to take on Gate's billions in
>> a legal fight. Might makes right in this case, especially when the
>> govenment is totally unwilling to take on blatant and declared illegal
>> actions by that company.
>>
>> Ie, by using and installing Vista, you have given away the keys to your
>> computer to MS, or to whatever other agents can determine how MS can
>> disable your system.
>>
>>> Old guy
> Since we bought Microsoft os there is no law that says we must give
> control to it. Therefore there would be nothing certainly immoral ,or
> unlawful to controlling our own computers and whatever we choose to run
> on them. Surely there are computer geniuses out there who want to make
> few bucks by giving back control of our os and computers.

Good point.

"Moe Trin" <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote in message
news:slrnevbbrv.s0j.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us...
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in
> article
> <45f479cf$0$8927$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Steve H. wrote:
>
>>Someone on another BBS I'm on declared that Microsoft might secretly
>>whitelist certain spyware companies. This is total BS, right ? I cannot
>>imagine Microsoft doing this and the resulting scandal.
>
> This is a troll, right? You've had your head up-and-locked and haven't
> bothered to read the End User License Agreement that _you_ agreed to when
> you got windoze, and haven't bothered to know what the words "Digital
> Rights Management" mean. That's funny.
>
> In case you're not trolling, point your news reader to the news groups
> "alt.privacy" and "alt.spyware". Or just hit google and find a copy of
> the microsoft EULA - or pick up any computer magazine and find the
> discussion about the spyware - it's not called that, because you agreed
> that microsoft has the right to install it and can do anything they want
> with the information they get from your computer.
>
> Old guy

The question was serious. Thanks.

In article <uhjJh.27$Hr5.3@newsfe03.lga>, Gus <@rockymtn.net> wrote:

--Snipped--

> Since we bought Microsoft os there is no law that says we must give
> control to it. Therefore there would be nothing certainly immoral ,or
> unlawful to controlling our own computers and whatever we choose to run
> on them. Surely there are computer geniuses out there who want to make
> few bucks by giving back control of our os and computers.

Hell, they have done it for free.

Go here and download (for free) whatever flavor of Linux suits your fancy:

http://distrowatch.com/

Take your windoze CDs back to your vendor & tell them you are rejecting the M$ license terms and you want your money back.

Gus <@rockymtn.net> writes:

>Unruh wrote:
>> ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
>>> <45f479cf$0$8927$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Steve H. wrote:
>>
>>>> Someone on another BBS I'm on declared that Microsoft might secretly
>>>> whitelist certain spyware companies. This is total BS, right ? I cannot
>>>> imagine Microsoft doing this and the resulting scandal.
>>
>>> This is a troll, right? You've had your head up-and-locked and haven't
>>> bothered to read the End User License Agreement that _you_ agreed to when
>>> you got windoze, and haven't bothered to know what the words "Digital
>>> Rights Management" mean. That's funny.
>>
>>> In case you're not trolling, point your news reader to the news groups
>>> "alt.privacy" and "alt.spyware". Or just hit google and find a copy of
>>> the microsoft EULA - or pick up any computer magazine and find the
>>> discussion about the spyware - it's not called that, because you agreed
>>> that microsoft has the right to install it and can do anything they want
>>> with the information they get from your computer.
>>
>> Ie, it is not a secret, it is something you agree to (well, that is
>> actually doubtful that you agree to it, since it is part of contract of
>> adhesion, and you have no opportunity to actually negotiate it, or even
>> know what its terms are before purchase.)
>> Ie, what it rather is that Microsoft Claims the right to disable any part
>> of the operating system at its whim. Whether this would stand up in court
>> is dubious, but would you want to be the one to take on Gate's billions in
>> a legal fight. Might makes right in this case, especially when the
>> govenment is totally unwilling to take on blatant and declared illegal
>> actions by that company.
>>
>> Ie, by using and installing Vista, you have given away the keys to your
>> computer to MS, or to whatever other agents can determine how MS can
>> disable your system.
>>
>>> Old guy
>Since we bought Microsoft os there is no law that says we must give

No, you did not buy it. You bought a license to use it. They will claim you
agreed with teh terms of that license ( and in fact you probably had to
explicitly agree to it at some point in on the initial startup).


>control to it. Therefore there would be nothing certainly immoral ,or
>unlawful to controlling our own computers and whatever we choose to run
>on them. Surely there are computer geniuses out there who want to make

Just a violation of that agreement at which point your only legal recourse
( well that is what they will claim) is to erase it from your disk and
destroy all copies you have.


>few bucks by giving back control of our os and computers.

And risk the legal wrath of Microsoft. The main ones will be the hackers
which will find out how to use the MS technique to take over your
computers. Yes, what they do is illegal, but that is not their concern.
But they will have no desire to help you get control back.

Sebastian Gottschalk <seppi@seppig.de> writes:

>Bit Twister wrote:

>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:06:35 -0500, Gus wrote:
>>
>>> Since we bought Microsoft os there is no law that says we must give
>>> control to it.
>>
>> Next time you get your updates and are provided with the popup to
>> accept the licence, READ IT.
>>
>> When you click Accept/OK, Micro$not gets to do whatever terms YOU
>> agreed/Accepted.

>Maybe you should learn to differ between clicking the OK button of a
>primitive text and lawfully agreeing to some Terms Of Service. Not even
>mentioning that signing a contract is something beyond.

It is of course a nice legal point. Whether or not you will be willing to
fund a court challenge on the legality of that contract against the MS
lawyers is probably the key question.

"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:et4coa$55n$1@aioe.org...
> ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in
>>article
>><45f479cf$0$8927$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Steve H. wrote:
>
>>>Someone on another BBS I'm on declared that Microsoft might secretly
>>>whitelist certain spyware companies. This is total BS, right ? I cannot
>>>imagine Microsoft doing this and the resulting scandal.
>
>>This is a troll, right? You've had your head up-and-locked and haven't
>>bothered to read the End User License Agreement that _you_ agreed to when
>>you got windoze, and haven't bothered to know what the words "Digital
>>Rights Management" mean. That's funny.
> ...
>>In case you're not trolling, point your news reader to the news groups
>>"alt.privacy" and "alt.spyware". Or just hit google and find a copy of
>>the microsoft EULA - or pick up any computer magazine and find the
>>discussion about the spyware - it's not called that, because you agreed
>>that microsoft has the right to install it and can do anything they want
>>with the information they get from your computer.
>
>
> Ie, by using and installing Vista, you have given away the keys to your
> computer to MS...

and we actually have to PAY Microsoft to take away our User Rights?!
shouldn't Microsoft pay us for that? Many companies pay me for my
information...

"Private Equity" <privateequity@yahoo.com> writes:


>"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
>news:et4coa$55n$1@aioe.org...
>> ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in
>>>article
>>><45f479cf$0$8927$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Steve H. wrote:
>>
>>>>Someone on another BBS I'm on declared that Microsoft might secretly
>>>>whitelist certain spyware companies. This is total BS, right ? I cannot
>>>>imagine Microsoft doing this and the resulting scandal.
>>
>>>This is a troll, right? You've had your head up-and-locked and haven't
>>>bothered to read the End User License Agreement that _you_ agreed to when
>>>you got windoze, and haven't bothered to know what the words "Digital
>>>Rights Management" mean. That's funny.
>> ...
>>>In case you're not trolling, point your news reader to the news groups
>>>"alt.privacy" and "alt.spyware". Or just hit google and find a copy of
>>>the microsoft EULA - or pick up any computer magazine and find the
>>>discussion about the spyware - it's not called that, because you agreed
>>>that microsoft has the right to install it and can do anything they want
>>>with the information they get from your computer.
>>
>>
>> Ie, by using and installing Vista, you have given away the keys to your
>> computer to MS...

>and we actually have to PAY Microsoft to take away our User Rights?!
>shouldn't Microsoft pay us for that? Many companies pay me for my
>information...

Try it. Send them a bill.

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
<45f5ffb7$0$28167$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Steve H. wrote:

>"Moe Trin" <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote

>> Steve H. wrote:

>>>Someone on another BBS I'm on declared that Microsoft might secretly
>>>whitelist certain spyware companies. This is total BS, right ? I cannot
>>>imagine Microsoft doing this and the resulting scandal.

>> In case you're not trolling, point your news reader to the news groups
>> "alt.privacy" and "alt.spyware". Or just hit google and find a copy of
>> the microsoft EULA

>The question was serious. Thanks.

Sorry - didn't mean to kick over the ant-hill, but the bottom line is
that you need to read the EULA, and then figure out if that agreement
is what you want. You may be thinking about the stink that was raised
when Sony was caught installing spyware in late 2005 (google for the
key "Sony+spyware" if you've forgotten). The difference in the Sony
case was that there was no notice, and no consent of any kind. Microsoft
is also a major player in the Digital Rights Management arena, and the
difference is that they tell you they are doing this - but few people
bother to read the agreements they are accepting when they install or
update their windoze computers.

Not reading agreements is fairly common. Few people read (let alone
understand) the contracts for such things as the loans used to buy cars
or houses, and even the relatively straight-forward agreement for starting
telephone, electrical or water service at their residence, renting a car,
or shipping a package (or person) across a state line.

Old guy

Moe Trin wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
> <45f5ffb7$0$28167$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Steve H. wrote:
>
>>"Moe Trin" <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote
>
>>>Steve H. wrote:
>
>>>>Someone on another BBS I'm on declared that Microsoft might secretly
>>>>whitelist certain spyware companies. This is total BS, right ? I cannot
>>>>imagine Microsoft doing this and the resulting scandal.
>
>>>In case you're not trolling, point your news reader to the news groups
>>>"alt.privacy" and "alt.spyware". Or just hit google and find a copy of
>>>the microsoft EULA
>
>>The question was serious. Thanks.
>
> Sorry - didn't mean to kick over the ant-hill, but the bottom line is
> that you need to read the EULA, and then figure out if that agreement
> is what you want. You may be thinking about the stink that was raised
> when Sony was caught installing spyware in late 2005 (google for the
> key "Sony+spyware" if you've forgotten). The difference in the Sony
> case was that there was no notice, and no consent of any kind. Microsoft
> is also a major player in the Digital Rights Management arena, and the
> difference is that they tell you they are doing this - but few people
> bother to read the agreements they are accepting when they install or
> update their windoze computers.

I am sure that MS has their collective asses covered by their EULAs, but
I still consider these to be /dirty tricks/.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03...a_phones_home/

http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/431032

No one would expect that clicking on Cancel would establish an internet
connection. MS has responded that it is no big deal.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3c8exj

The information that is sent, of course, is not the issue. Being above
board is.

Ron :)

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
<W8TJh.127291$_73.117328@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net>, Ron Lopshire wrote:

>Moe Trin wrote:

>> Sorry - didn't mean to kick over the ant-hill, but the bottom line is
>> that you need to read the EULA, and then figure out if that agreement
>> is what you want. You may be thinking about the stink that was raised
>> when Sony was caught installing spyware in late 2005 (google for the
>> key "Sony+spyware" if you've forgotten). The difference in the Sony
>> case was that there was no notice, and no consent of any kind. Microsoft
>> is also a major player in the Digital Rights Management arena, and the
>> difference is that they tell you they are doing this - but few people
>> bother to read the agreements they are accepting when they install or
>> update their windoze computers.
>
>I am sure that MS has their collective asses covered by their EULAs,

They have lots of lawyers to make it not worth your time/expense to try to
get them into court

>but I still consider these to be /dirty tricks/.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03...a_phones_home/
>
> http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/431032
>
>No one would expect that clicking on Cancel would establish an internet
>connection. MS has responded that it is no big deal.

Yeah, I'm waiting for the next virus du Jour to go through and reset the
WGA "globally unique identifiers (GUIDs)" code so that it returns some
specific number for every system it infects. Microsoft then discovers
that all the systems calling home have the same serial numbers - must be
pirated copies, so disable them all!!! Anyone want to start a betting
pool of when this is going to happen? You _know_ that microsoft is
aware of the possibility and has some additional mechanism hidden in the
code to try to alleviate the resulting disaster. Hope everyone has good
backups. Hope everyone else has read the EULA and realizes that microsoft
is under NO obligation to anyone who has installed windoze or _any_
application, other than to return the purchase price when you return the
software in an undamaged condition. If any of your data is suddenly toast,
that's tough bananas. Virus damage is explicitly listed as voiding even
that "warranty".

>The information that is sent, of course, is not the issue. Being above
>board is.

Hey - they put the information in the privacy statements. Is it _their_
fault that no one reads the statements? I _was_ going to clean the
heads on my VCR by sticking into the washing machine until I found the
warning in the user guide not to get it wet. I guess that means I've got
to send it out to the dry cleaners. Sure glad I read that user guide
from cover to cover.

Old guy

Moe Trin wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
> <W8TJh.127291$_73.117328@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net>, Ron Lopshire wrote:
>
>>Moe Trin wrote:
>
>>The information that is sent, of course, is not the issue. Being above
>>board is.
>
> Hey - they put the information in the privacy statements. Is it _their_
> fault that no one reads the statements? I _was_ going to clean the
> heads on my VCR by sticking into the washing machine until I found the
> warning in the user guide not to get it wet. I guess that means I've got
> to send it out to the dry cleaners. Sure glad I read that user guide
> from cover to cover.

LOL. Thanks for your thoughts, Moe.

These guys evidently read the EULA and decided to pass, at least until
they understand it. [bg]

U.S. Government Agencies Banning Microsoft Vista

http://www.nist.org/news.php?extend.215

One of my favorite disclaimers is for Mold & Mildew Cleaners:

"Use only in well-ventilated areas ..."

If it were well-ventilated, there would not be any mold and mildew in
the first frickin' place.

Ron :)

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
<C7cKh.12979$Jl.7879@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>, Ron Lopshire wrote:

>Moe Trin wrote:

>> Hey - they put the information in the privacy statements. Is it _their_
>> fault that no one reads the statements? I _was_ going to clean the
>> heads on my VCR by sticking into the washing machine until I found the
>> warning in the user guide not to get it wet. I guess that means I've got
>> to send it out to the dry cleaners. Sure glad I read that user guide
>> from cover to cover.
>
>LOL. Thanks for your thoughts, Moe.

Gotta put things into perspective

>These guys evidently read the EULA and decided to pass, at least until
>they understand it. [bg]
>
>U.S. Government Agencies Banning Microsoft Vista

You'd think that the government would have learned by now. But every PHB
knows that you should be using windoze for two reasons - first "it's what
I use" (that must be important), and second, it gives you someone to sue
when the excrement hits the air handlers.

>One of my favorite disclaimers is for Mold & Mildew Cleaners:
>
> "Use only in well-ventilated areas ..."
>
>If it were well-ventilated, there would not be any mold and mildew in
>the first frickin' place.

I can sorta understand that one - the cleaner is usually toxic in some
concentrations (from parts per gazillion up to "neat") over some amount
of time (seconds to centuries). But most of the warnings are totally a
"cover your ass" type of thing, so that when some idiot kills/injures
themselves doing something totally stupid, the defense lawyers can point
to the written warning and say "we told you not to do that".

A problem is that the current situation is like crying "Wolf". A lot of
the warnings seem to be boiler plate. Thus, I'm warned not to use a
battery operated remote control if the electrical cord set is frayed.
Huh? This usually causes people to not bother reading the "Important
Facts" - though they really should do so, for entertainment reasons. Just
think why they had to include each warning - what some Darwin candidate
must have done to get the warning not to put this appliance in the bath
tub. The mind boggles.

Old guy