XP - whats for me?

The largest thing inside MS's XP is it's software piracy prevention, detection and reporting features.

Your paying $300 + dollars for an upgrade so that MS can spy on you. Sell your name on a list of software pirates to be prosecuted by attorneys. Interfere in your everyday privacy.

That is what 30% of XP is.

Questions!

Should it be legal for MS to force all users of Windows to submit to inhouse spying even if it is in their EULA and they agreed?

Do you think forcing all other countries on the planet who use Windows to play MS's game a good trade practice? Especially since we have a new monument in Asia to keep the Pueblo company.

If you are a Republican and you are against gun control including gun registration then why are you for having MS spy on you and your family then sell a list of software you have installed to anybody they please for any purpose?

Do you believe MS should have the license to essentially take over the internet with .NET and replace the current world powers who are regulating it's functionality?

Do you believe foreign powers such as China will eventually outlaw all Mircrosoft products from their country to prevent the US and Microsoft from dominating the internet and making the world an American's only club?

Is it? Exactly how is XP spying on us again?

<madness snipped>

As per charlies typical tricks, he doesn't clarify what he means by 'XP'. Is it Windows XP? Office XP?

He says this without even understanding that XP's activation doesn't require a name to be used at all.

A random figure pulled out of thin air.

Is that a sentance?

Nobody is spied upon. The question is irrelevant because it's not true.

Do you see MS owning domain name registrars? Do you see them owning internet backbones like Sprint or Worldcom or AT&T? Do you see them owning ICANN or NSI? Do you see any way for them to usurp this power without owning all such bodies? I certainly don't.

It wouldn't be much of an internet if each country cuts themselves off from the rest of the world, now would it?

Oh come on, you can't seriously mean that. Where was Microsoft on the internet map 5 years ago and where are they now? Nowadays the majority uses IE. Soon we will see IIS take over apache as the dominant web server on big sites, which means non-ms browsers will become less and less useful. This already happened in the UK, where MS built a governement website wich is accessable only with IE on Windows.

The same conts for mobile devices. Where was microsoft in the mobile devices market 3 years ago? Now they have a special server for mobile devices (Mobile Information Server), they have browsers for pocket devices, apps for pocket devices and soon that part will be taken over bij MS as well.

As soon as MS controls most major ways to both use the internet and publish on the internet, it is time for the next step: to take over network providers. Why do you think MS holds interests in every major broadband provider? And in most major cable networks? I am afraid of a total MS monopoly on communication. You'd better too. There is too much at risk not to be afraid.

...has that been spell-checked?

LOL

You're confusing several issues. The first is that the technology used to access the internet is different from the technology which runs the internet, and the companies which do so.

Second, your facts are wrong about the UK website, many Macintosh and even linux users have been able to access it, the problem is with the 128 bit security which the site requires, not because of any specific MS extensions.

3 years ago they had most of those things as well. I have a Circa 1997 CE machine which has IE on it.

AOL owns most of the cable networks, and MS doesn't own an interest in that, AT&T owns the majority of the rest, and MS doesn't own any major interest in that either. Where are you getting your facts?

Thin air? Most of the facts in this newgroup seems to appear from there.

It senses when connected to the internet by attempting to contact MS servers upon installing any software and gives HQ a copy of all installed software shown in registry.

If their vague 'security add-in' means SSL, then Links with 128-bit SSL is most firmly denied. The site was developed by MS, hence they will obviously abuse that power; how much clearer can it be? Not that I'm too disappointed, considering the entirely fscked attitude our govt. has towards the internet; yell 'paedophile' or 'terrorist' and they seem entirely happy to turn the country into an online police state.

You Do Not know that for sure any more than I do! Maybe you could explain to the world including China what an NSAKEY

Then perhaps you should look them up before making claims about it.

Here is one of the foremost and respected authorities in cryptography's take on it (Bruce Schneier):
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram- 9909.html#NSAKeyinMicrosoftCry...

Perhaps, but if MS is going to spy on you, they don't need activation to do it. They have ample opportunity to add it to a service pack or Office or any other product. Focusing on Activation as 'spyware' is stupid, since MS, or any other company, wouldn't be so stupid as to add it's spying to such a controversial piece of software if it were to do it.

Except, as proven by you above, the vast majority of it is hearsay and