Linux in business

On Jan 21, 2004, at 7:55 PM, der.hans wrote:

> Am 21. Jan, 2004 schw=E4tzte Chris Gehlker so:
>
>> Accept that I would have to genuinely believe that the EULA gives=20
>> their
>> vendors and I don't believe that. I have heard the argument that the
>> Windows EULA conflicts with the duty of small organizations that I=20
>> deal
>> with to maintain the privacy of their clients, donors, and patients.
>> They strike me as fanciful at best. I note that none of the lawyers
>> associated with FOSS, folks like Eban Moglen, have even dignified =
this
>> theory with a comment.
>
> Good point. I can't think of any articles and a quick search didn't=20
> turn up
> anything.
>
> I believe the m$ EULA has points that violate HIPPA requirements, but =
I
> haven't seen any actual legal opinions on that.

All I could find in the various MS EULA's available was the following:

"CONSENT TO USE OF DATA. You agree that
Microsoft and its affiliates may collect and use technical
information gathered as part of the product support
services provided to you, if any, related to the Software.
Microsoft may use this information solely to improve our
products or to provide customized services or technologies
to you and will not disclose this information in a form
that personally identifies you."

I did find a couple of 'Web Journalists' who speculated that by=20
agreeing to this a person with medical data on their computer could be=20=

in violation of HIPPA and a few other privacy laws. These 'journalists'=20=

essentially all said something along the lines of 'If you agree that=20
they can collect this data, who knows what other information they may=20
collect while they are there?' It's the kind of reasoning I have come=20
to expect from 'Web Journalists.' The point isn't that MS could put=20
spyware in Windows. Of course they could. The point is that nothing in=20=

this agreement authorizes them to do so.

If there is some other language in their EULA that's relevant to this=20
discussion, please point it out.=