Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:09:28 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
Big brother Microsoft is snooper than I thought
,----[ Quote ]
| In short, Microsoft is admitting to pulling even more information from
| your PCs -- such as your IP address and date and timestamp data "relating
| to systems' booting and continued operations." In addition, Jones shows
| how Microsoft essentially tricks users into agreeing to all this without
| giving them any chance to say no to the entire process.
`----
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5029665134.html
Gah, PJ should just stay out of technical matters, it's clear she doesn't
understand them.
Well, Erik, whatever beef you have with PJ, isn't really usefully argued
here. Try posting your comments on her blog instead. Or are you posting
here, just in case she actually sees it and rebuts your assertions?
here are some examples:
* She confuses "locale" (what language you've chosen) with "location" (or
"where you are located" to use her words)
* She doesn't understand that any kind of connection over the internet
allows both recipients to see the others IP address and various data
provided by TCP/IP (such as uptime timestamp), and believes that Microsoft
is intentionally sending this information. It's just a by-product of a
TCP/IP connection.
Your IP address *alone* will not give much info, but correlated with all
the items that MS collects, does give useful data.
At least this responder to her had some sense:
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20060608002958907&title=IP%20address%20and%20time%20stamp%20is%20a%20big%20deal%3F&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=0#c449339
Of course the responders to him still don't get it. The Microsoft
spokesperson was saying that because you make a connection, that Microsoft
(or anyone you connect to) has access to certain information such as IP and
timestamp. They assume, instead, that he means that the program is sending
it's IP address, which it's not. It's just an http get to retrieve a
configuraiton file.
As stated there are 2 programs involded. Besides, startup event
notofication is much more coherent data than just a random web-site visit.
What I find truly amazing is that the very same people that comlain about
the Microsoft EULA including clauses to authorize windows update to
download patches are now complaining that such clauses are NOT included
about a simple config file download.
It doesn't make the EULA any less palatable. The LACK of an unpalatable
EULA is even *worse*.
It just goes to show that no matter what, everyone will over react.
Like you are doing, here? Don't you admin any networks? A competent
Windows admin would rightly be just as annoyed with this "feature", and
even more so, IMO, if hundreds of the machines under his charge
starteed contacting MSHQ daily.
Regards,
WS
|
|
