Comments on: Windows is spyware

Microsoft is now updating Windows without your being aware of it? And after you told it not to? That's what spyware does.

[deerfield88]

Drama Queen

[joliett]

What a lot of BS

Without microsoft we would be typing on a royal or a commodore.

[pmchefalo]

The Kindest Thing to Describe You is ... Foolish

When you activated Windows you were given a choice: to use Windows Update or not. When you chose to use it, you also authorized Microsoft to update Windows Update. This is true whether or not you agreed to accept CRITICAL updates automatically. When/if you updated to Microsoft Update (highly recommended for the non-control freak) you agreed again to Microsoft updating its updating capability. If Windows Update didn't update itself automatically, I suspect that the updating process would be slow and troublesome, and maybe useless. At a minimum, you would have to agree to its updates again and again (and then you would complain about that, like people complain about UAC in Vista.)

When Windows update checks for updates, it writes a message in the event log. When it updates itself, it writes messages in the event log TELLING you it updated itself. It leaves the updated files in plain view, with versions and signatures.

Spyware does not operate this way. In fact, this is the INVERSE of spyware. Spyware does none of those things.

I'm not completely happy with WGA, because its implementation was poor, and has bothered some folks with completely valid licenses with temporary connectivity problems, etc. It also has screwed up machines that were allowed updates at first, then denied them after tuning revealed them to have license flaws, even if the flaws were corrected. However, Windows Update and especially Microsoft Update has generally been a valuable feature, with few problems.

Try to get over yourself, and make a real contribution. You're acting like a fool.

[Doug Woodall]

Nothing new here

Nothing different here. License aggrements can mean anything they want it to.
And I never had to worry about privacy when I used my C-64 to get online. Tee Hee, it had a 300 baud modem!

[eCurmudgeon]

Microsoft wants to control your updates.

So now that explains why Microsoft killed Autopatcher. Autopatcher users could turn off automatic updates completely, and so stealth updates would be more difficult.

As for releasing update CDs -- impractical, given the production time involved and the urgency of so many of the security updates. It would just give the malware authors more time to do their mischief if we had to wait for the mailman to deliver.

[g3po2]

Another perspective...

Judging from some of the other comments made by readers, it seems to me that some people don't understand some of the ramifications of allowing Microsoft to get away with force-feeding Windows users with updates.

So let us play a very brief version of the game: "What If?"

What if some disgruntled Microsoft employee decided to wreak havoc on Windows users? The mechanism described in your article is an ideal vehicle to deliver disaster.

What if a cyber-crook becomes a Microsoft employee and exploits this "feature" to pocket huge sums of money?

What if a terrorist goes to work for Microsoft? Fill in the blanks...

What if a government makes a deal with Microsoft, or plants a spy as a Microsoft employee, for the purpose of invading the privacy of people?

Some of your critics should perhaps reread George Orwell. Every time the public allows these "little, unimportant things" to happen, more freedom is lost.

[tenc21]

The same old song...

As usual, I find consistency lacking in this blogger's postings and in one of the comments as well.

Just one side comment on the previous comment by "joliett"--and what is wrong with typing on a royal or commodore? [are you some kind of computer snob?]

Both Michael and commenter g3po2 are doomsday prophets--anyone can pose any number of "what-ifs." The crux of these dire warnings are how likely are the predicted disasters and are the methods or processes hailed as salvation tools the appropriate and effective solutions.

If as Michael has stated that this is the "last straw" by Microsoft, why, being such a security nut, had he stuck with them for so long? It is not as though there were no alternatives, and it's not that Microsoft hadn't failed miserably before in terms of security. To respond to g3po2's "what if" scenarios involving all sorts of disgruntled employees, cybercrooks, terrorists and government plotters, who needs these malevolent characters when Microsoft all by itself has done a pretty good job of screwing up everyone's computers without any resort to intentional malicious actions.

If Microsoft and Windows is this all-powerful evil enterprise, why would anyone think a simple disabling of an automatic patch update process defeat them? Why even continue to use it? [of course, there'd be no "defensive computing" for a good functional OS--Michael isn't that "foolish," he needs Windows to be bad to have material for his blog]

[john55440]

The sky is falling! (Anti-MS Hysteria)

At best, this article is an illogical, extreme, overreation to a very minor issue.

[ramm19]

Well, I wasn't aware of this, but as the previous commenter said, it's a bit of an overreaction...

david @ <a href="http://www.myspywareremoval.org">spyware removal blog</a>