Am 10. Jan, 2004 schw=E4tzte Richard L. Proctor so:
> On Thursday 08 January 2004 9:50 pm, Derek Neighbors wrote:
> > To be fair, to date Microsoft has not (to my knowledge) used or abused
> > either one of these items, but certainly they put them in their EULA fo=
r
> > a reason.
>
> The only way they can access your computer is if you have no firewall, i=
f so,
Not true. There are a great many ways to automagically 'phone home'.
Also, due to the EULA they can knock on your door and demand access. That
might not be a concern for us at home, see my post about search warrants :)=
,
but I don't want them going through the computers at my doctor's office or
at my credit union, etc.
> then you might consider looking into security. You do give them permissi=
on
> to access your computer "if" you are connected to their update services.
>
> Out of curiosity, what makes you think that just because Microsoft has a=
EULA
> that would abuse it, and how do you know that up2date or yast, or what =
ever
> other services you may connect to, don't already do this, but just tell=
you
> about it?
It doesn't matter if they would abuse it, the EULA gives them permission to
do so. In my view, that's unacceptable. Even if you were certain they
wouldn't use it, would you give them permission to confiscate everything yo=
u
own?
As for up2date, yast, et al. It is true that I don't know for certain they
don't do something wrong. For the Free Software implementations, though, I'=
m
certain they've been audited enough to be fairly certain. Also, they haven'=
t
demanded permission do break into my boxen *and* I can block any break in
attempts without violating any contracts.
rms was at my house. I didn't give him free range on my computers.
ciao,
der.hans
--=20
# https://www.LuftHans.com/ http://www.AZOTO.org/
# If determining good culture is left up to busybodies and politicians,
# we will be left with culture fit only for busybodies and politicians.
# -- Jeff Taylor, Reason
(text/plain)