Woman Wins $10,000 Lawsuit Against Microsoft Over Windows 10 Upgrades (seattletimes.com) 443
An anonymous reader shares this story from the Seattle Times:
A few days after Microsoft released Windows 10 to the public last year, Teri Goldstein's computer started trying to download and install the new operating system. The update, which she says she didn't authorize, failed. Instead, the computer she uses to run her Sausalito, California, travel-agency business slowed to a crawl. It would crash, she says, and be unusable for days at a time. "I had never heard of Windows 10," Goldstein said. "Nobody ever asked me if I wanted to update."
When outreach to Microsoft's customer support didn't fix the issue, Goldstein took the software giant to court, seeking compensation for lost wages and the cost of a new computer. She won. Last month, Microsoft dropped an appeal and Goldstein collected a $10,000 judgment from the company.
Microsoft denies any wrongdoing, and says they only halted their appeal to avoid the cost of further litigation.
When outreach to Microsoft's customer support didn't fix the issue, Goldstein took the software giant to court, seeking compensation for lost wages and the cost of a new computer. She won. Last month, Microsoft dropped an appeal and Goldstein collected a $10,000 judgment from the company.
Microsoft denies any wrongdoing, and says they only halted their appeal to avoid the cost of further litigation.
Cue the lawsuits. (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess is now a lot of people are going to be suing MS over this. While they deny they did any wrong doing, the court saw it otherwise.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
My guess is that MS will just roll out a quick update, with a revised EULA.
Re:Cue the lawsuits. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Automatic updates and upgrades might or might not be part of a previous EULA.
Re:Cue the lawsuits. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But you can be made to agree that your PC has to be kept up to date automatically, if only to allow for fast distribution of security fixes that only need to be developed and tested for one version.
That would reduce the number that could drag MS to court to those whose PC has actually been fucked up by the update/upgrade instead of now having to deal with everyone with "I never heard of an update!"
Re:Cue the lawsuits. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
At the very least this wouldn't fly in Europe. Consumer protection laws pretty much nullify most click-through contracts, especially if they include clauses that contain stuff the average person would not expect to be in such contracts, which would certainly include "may FUBAR your computer".
Once in a while, the computer cluelessness of judges actually works in your favor...
Re: (Score:3)
Please stop spreading aliteracy. Read some books, kid.
There really needs to be a mod option for "ironic".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Cue the lawsuits. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cue the lawsuits. (Score:5, Interesting)
It just said tomorrow it will upgrade to windows 10, if you don't access this dialog by then, it will go on automatically.
If I was gone over the weekend, as I usually leave my computer on in case I need to remote in, by the time I was back, it would have upgraded without any interaction.
The level of lack of respect from Microsoft is truly incredible.
Re:Cue the lawsuits. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not funny, that's actually what the new Windows 10 Upgrade dialog looks like, happened to me personally.
An important thing is they removed the "Decline" option AND wrote the software so it could continue if you do not accept.
You cannot "automatically" be committed to a new contract or agreement, you have not explicitly agreed with.
The courts do the right thing to throw that out.
Re:Cue the lawsuits. (Score:4, Informative)
You accept the EULA when it first boots up into the new OS. If you decline it reverts you back. The problem is the massive waste of time this is, plus reverting to the original OS is not foolproof and screws up now and then. Sort of like being signed up to a book of the month club without your permissions; it's a pain in the ass to mail back all those unwanted books.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My guess is that MS will just roll out a quick update, with a revised EULA.
You MS fanboys are amazing. You even try to justify MS bricking hardware.
We paid for Win7, so leave my OS the hell alone.
Win7 is still supported, so upgrading it should be completely optional. Again, leave my paid-for and still-supported OS the hell alone.
Re: (Score:2)
You MS fanboys are amazing. You even try to justify MS bricking hardware.
Well, take it from a non-fanboy[*] then: you're still full of it.
They're not bricking hardware.
[*]: On a scale from 1-10, I rate Microsoft Software as herpes.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not bricking hardware.
Yet.
Re:Cue the lawsuits. (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not bricking hardware.
Near enough for consumers. I am a computer repair tech and one of my Windows 10 appts last year was for someone where the Windows update failed, but so did the rollback. As far as your average consumer is concerned, that reboot loop might as well be a brick.
Re:Cue the lawsuits. (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless the term changed definition when I wasn't looking, "bricking" something is typically permanent - your hardware is now useless as anything other than a doorstop. Usually because a firmware update goes wrong so that you can't even reinstall it.
When a Windows update borks... you just take it to your chosen techie to do a fresh install and your hardware works fine again. They can probably even salvage our data without too much trouble.
Re:Cue the lawsuits. (Score:5, Informative)
just take it to your chosen techie
This doesn't happen anywhere close to 100% of the time. As often as not, they will buy another computer - especially if it's an early Windows 7 PC (which is where the upgrade fails most often). That's why I say is near enough to bricked for consumers.
Re:Cue the lawsuits. (Score:5, Interesting)
Explain this to me:
I buy a piece of hardware in good faith that it contains a genuine FTDI USB-serial chipset. The manufacturer also believes that their vendor has used the correct chipset, but actually, the cut-price manufacturer has swapped in a counterfeit chip.
I let Win10 take control of my computer, and in due course it applies all updates as per the MS requirements.
At some point in the future FTDI releases a driver update that *bricks* counterfeit chipsets. This update is applied to my computer by MS without my approval or knowledge, since updates on Win10 are no longer under my control.
So WTF just happened?
How is this better for me?
PS: Anyone skeptical can Google and learn a bit, my scenario as presented above is 100% valid and based on recent events.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm familiar with the counterfeit FTDI USB to serial adapters. I have one or two floating around here at work. You can roll back the driver and then, in the Windows update window block that driver update. Or, at least you can do that in Win 10 Pro. I'm not sure about the home version crippleware. I've done the same process to fix Synaptics touchpads, who's version 19 drivers are completely broken in Windows 10.
In theory, you can sue the manufacturer who sold you the USB-serial adapter, if it's worth yo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are committed to updating Windows 7 until 2020, a promise they made when they released the OS. Windows 10 looks like it will go out until 2025. They aren't saving any resources, they're migrating you to an advertising / windows app garden.
Re:Cue the lawsuits. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's fine by me. I actually upgraded to Windows 10 voluntarily (I write Windows software, so I need to be up-to-date) and don't buy the spyware boogieman stories (it's simple to turn most of that crap off), but frankly, Microsoft's heavy-handed tactics to trick people into upgrading without their explicit consent has been absolutely inexcusable, and shouldn't be rewarded.
I was... moderately hopeful that we were seeing a new Microsoft, embracing open source, less hostile to others, slightly more humble now that they're not the only dominant player in the industry. Nope, instead, we see a new "fuck you, paying customer, we know what's best for you" attitude. They've always played hardball with competitors. Customers, if not treated *well*, per se, were at least left the hell alone once they had Windows installed. Now, they're being actively harassed and pushed into Microsoft's monetization plan.
What's baffling to me is that Microsoft took what should have been a golden PR opportunity (free Windows upgrade), and turned it into a PR disaster.
Re: (Score:2)
instead, we see a new "fuck you, paying customer, we know what's best for you" attitude.
That works for the only tech company with a market cap bigger than Microsoft's.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a different type of customer.
A lot of Microsoft customers do actual work on their computers.
Re:Cue the lawsuits. (Score:5, Funny)
"A lot of Microsoft customers used to do actual work on their computers."
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
"'simple' to turn most of that crap off"
For a power user, maybe. For a standard user, not really. Plus "most" isn't good enough. Besides a validity check on the installation plus Windows Updates, I see no reason why Microsoft needs to know anything about my machine.
Re:Cue the lawsuits. (Score:4, Informative)
And your answer is relevant how? MS has no God-given right to their users' telemetry data. They may politely ask their customers to volunteer such information (as they did with that Office improvement dialogue thingy, as far as I remember). But the way they are clawing for it shows they do not understand who they are and what they produce. There are many environments where it is undesirable or even illegal to simply throw around data so detailed as what I have seen in Windows telemetry to a third party over the internet.
And do not forget that those issues that need fixing are not God-given, either. They are defects. Some in Microsoft's products, some in someone else's products. It is not the customers' job to help fix them. If anything, the whole tech industry should be infinitely grateful for the incredible leniency it receives regarding product faults. Imagine the smoldering ruins in Redmond and Cupertino (and some other places) if Microsoft and Apple had to operate under the same regulatory regime as GM and Volkswagen. I know, we as consumers get to play with shiny toys that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive and incredibly boring. Still I think especially Microsoft urgently needs to be reminded that they do not rule over a lawless wasteland but operate under the same laws as everyone else.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I used to do quite a bit of Windows dev work also. I have Windows 7 in a virtual machine just for that. I haven't been doing nearly as much lately mostly by choice. I do most of that Windows dev work with VS2008 even though I have VS all the way up to 2012. The reason I use 2008 is because newer versions just seemed to get slower and harder to use.
When I read the article the other day about MS C++ compiler adding in telemetry info into programs compiled with it as a default option without any notice that it
Re: (Score:3)
When I read the article the other day about MS C++ compiler adding in telemetry info into programs compiled with it as a default option without any notice that it was doing it and having to explicitly turn it off, I was glad I hadn't continued getting new versions of VS.
Bloody hell, I'd not heard of that.
Seems that we're now only one step away from The Ken Thompson Hack [c2.com], that's if we're not already secretly there already.
Re: (Score:3)
What's baffling to me is that Microsoft took what should have been a golden PR opportunity (free Windows upgrade), and turned it into a PR disaster.
You really believe it's free? How naive. There's always a price to pay. Ask the greeks about that "free" trojan horse.
Re:Cue the lawsuits. (Score:5, Informative)
(it's simple to turn most of that crap off)
Pray, tell, how do you turn all of it off?
Short of buying a Windows Server to run as a domain controller, and only use Windows Enterprise Edition for the desktops and laptops, and constantly research, write and push your own group policy objects to whack the latest mole, I don't think you can.
Turning most of the spyware off is like removing most of the human droppings from your soup.
Re:Cue the lawsuits. (Score:5, Informative)
It's not just the spyware either, it's the updates. You can't control updates like you can on 8.1 and below. They auto-install and push really hard to reboot your machine afterwards. You can't block them in advance.
Even if Windows 10 did work on my hardware, the update rollercoaster with no way off doesn't sound like much fun.
Re:Cue the lawsuits. (Score:5, Informative)
Same applies to Windows 7. This isn't limited to Windows 10.
No, in Windows 7, you can turn off automatic updates, and uninstall the telemetry patches.
In Windows 10, you cannot turn off automatic updates, nor disable much of the telemetry that comes with the base OS, and not as patches.
Re:Cue the lawsuits. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's fine by me. I actually upgraded to Windows 10 voluntarily (I write Windows software, so I need to be up-to-date) and don't buy the spyware boogieman stories (it's simple to turn most of that crap off), but frankly, Microsoft's heavy-handed tactics to trick people into upgrading without their explicit consent has been absolutely inexcusable, and shouldn't be rewarded.
It's absolutely amazing to me that you are quick to label their trickery as "inexcusable", and yet you actually trust them when the button on the crapware interface says "off".
Re: (Score:3)
This is an important point. Microsoft has shown without any confusion that they can no longer be trusted. "Well he does beat his wife, sure, but he's still available to babysit if you gave him a chance!"
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a retired sysadmin, did Windows/Linux sysadmin for quite a few years prior to 2010, when I retired, at that time I decided I was done with MS products.. Having said that I decided to play around with this new Windows 10 thingie from MS. I took a spare drive for my laptop and, using the product key for Windows 7 Pro that came with the Dell laptop, I installed the released build of 10 Pro. Since I'd heard all of the horror stories about telemetry, I did the install in what I refer to as a "castrated" stat
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like a great use for Small Claims Court. In the UK it's always at your local court, you don't need a lawyer and it only costs 35 quid (about $3 at today's exchange rate).
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a great use for Small Claims Court. In the UK it's always at your local court, you don't need a lawyer and it only costs 35 quid
It is, but queue the people from the US who say that since it's in the EULA you can't do that. Never mind those of us in commonwealth countries that don't use the same legal system or anything.
(about $3 at today's exchange rate)
Talk about persistent whining from people who've never actually lived under actual low currency exchange rates next to one of the largest economies in the world. FYI: A low dollar for the UK right now is a great thing, especially for your export sectors. And especially to forge trade alliances with other countries
Re:Cue the lawsuits. (Score:5, Interesting)
My guess is now a lot of people are going to be suing MS over this. While they deny they did any wrong doing, the court saw it otherwise.
The class action lawsuits. Some lawyers are going to get rich.
Re:Cue the lawsuits. (Score:5, Interesting)
Most people would probably be better off filing at small claims court in situations like this. With class action suits, it seems that the lawyers end up with a bunch of money, and the people that were actually wronged get coupons for free stuff they never wanted . At small claims court, you don't need a lawyer, and you will probably win a fair bit more actual money provided you can show actual damages like this person did. It might be a bit more difficult if you aren't using your computer to run a business, but I'm sure that you could claim any expenses from taking your computer in and getting it fixed, plus money for all that hardship.
If my 11 year old washing machine nets me $50.. (Score:5, Interesting)
...then the forced upgrades ought to be worth at least that.
Not a couple of weeks ago, I got a card in the mail saying there had been some kind of settlement over front loading washing machines. I went to the web site, clicked some options (it seemed legit; they asked for no personal information, and you had to enter two validation codes from the card) and it seems I'm to get $50 for some defect or other related to mold and my washing machine, a machine which never stopped working and I still use (there is some mold on the door seal, I just wipe it off periodically, other than that it cleans just fine).
If my desktop computer which worked acceptably began downloading a new operating system and then quit working right after, shouldn't I be entitled at least $50 in a class action? My guess is Microsoft didn't quit this lawsuit because it just didn't feel like litigating that day, they did to halt the contagion of a precedent of four or five figure legal decisions over their Win 10 upgrade.
For a lot of use cases, it's not hard to see high costs: new machine, new application version(s) to be installed, data migrated, loss of use, $10k isn't entirely out of range in many business use cases.
I just kind of hope MS ends up with one of those disclaimers in their financial report explaining how they are setting aside $500 million to handle lawsuits resulting from their forced and negligent forced upgrades.
Re:If my 11 year old washing machine nets me $50.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Except this woman won her lawsuit. Microsoft dropped their appeal. The precedent has been set. You might need to prove exactly what the forced Windows 10 "upgrade" cost you, but you can cite this case along with your proof. (BTW, you can't just "quit" a lawsuit if you are the defendant, but you could try to arrange a settlement to avoid setting legal precedent.)
Microsoft denies any wrongdoing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft denies any wrongdoing (Score:4, Insightful)
MS has some deep pockets. Their given reason makes no sense. They could outspend any litigant.
Of course it makes sense. They think it's going to cost them less. Where would the sense be in spending millions if the case can be put away for thousands?
Just because someone has billions, doesn't mean it "makes no sense" for them to avoid spending millions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Normally they do that to avoid admitting to wrong doing, in this case I tend to think they felt they'd lose on appeal and be forced to admit wrong doing without doubt, where in this case it's wrong doing but the doubt that it might have been over turned on appeal.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course it makes sense. They think it's going to cost them less. Where would the sense be in spending millions if the case can be put away for thousands?
Just because someone has billions, doesn't mean it "makes no sense" for them to avoid spending millions.
Unless by leaving a precedent set of a customer successfully suing and winning, you invite LOTS of others to follow on. This is especially the case when there is such a large pool of potential candidates and a general dislike for the practices that precipitated the suit. You might want to look at how IBM and Newegg handle similar situations. No quarter is given in order to discourage followers.
Bailing out early on the first suit might cause you to have to spend a lot more on others later. Unless you
"upgrade" repairs (Score:5, Interesting)
As an IT company who has repaired literally hundreds of failed updates, as well as failed roll backs to the previous operation system (using Microsoft's own "revert me to my previous operation system" restore option, which had maybe a 60% success rate), the cost to consumers has likely been staggering in the aggregate.
While profitable to my company, I can't help but feel like there needs to be a very quick verdict against Microsoft, ruling several hundred dollars to anyone who can show (Via invoice or other means) that they had to pay money to repair the damage/inconvenience Microsoft directly caused as a result of their underhanded tactics to upgrade the world to Windows 10.
If this were a mistake made by some fledgling software company it might be excusable as an oversight, but this is a many decades old software company, with many legal experiences under their belt... this should never have happened and there should be actual repercussions.
Rinse and repeat (Score:5, Insightful)
If a few thousand other people who have similarly suffered also sued Microsoft it would send a message. Money talks. Publicity talks. Rinse and repeat and these kinds of things will no longer happen.
Re:Rinse and repeat (Score:5, Insightful)
More likely large corporations will just have their tame legislators change the laws so that people don't dare bring such suits.
Re: (Score:3)
"What the HELL makes you think this will "no longer happen"?"
Because the shareholders will be $1 billion "poorer".
This windows 10 thing has gotten out of hand (Score:3)
Having personally witnessed that it is entirely possible to upgrade a windows machine to windows 10 without a single incident, and also entirely possible (and easy) to disable all of the metrics and info that the software wants to send about you, I am thinking that these stories that we hear about Windows 10 and how awful it is are overblown.
It is often the case that we only hear about it when things go wrong, and so it is perhaps that we are led to conclude that this is the general state of affairs, but so few people report when things go right that we cannot make a meaningful and objective evaluation without trying it for ourselves.
Windows 10 is not anywhere nearly as bad as what these stories paint it to be. While it's true that by default it does want to do certain things that no sane person would want in a desktop OS, these things are actually extremely easy to disable... even at installation time, if you decide to not use the express settings.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
entirely possible (and easy) to disable all of the metrics and info that the software wants to send about you
I'm impressed. I tried to do this, but Windows 10 continued sending thousands of encrypted packets per day to different Microsoft servers. I have no idea what's in those packets. You apparently were able to decrypt them, inspect their contents, and determine they were benign. Would you mind sharing your analysis?
Remember the Ford Pinto? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ford execs decided it was cheaper to let people burn, and pay the cost in court, than it was to fix the issue.
The memo cost them a lot of goodwill, but they are still around.
MS is probably looking that memo over right now thinking the same thing.
Cost to pay pissed off citizens is cheaper than fixing Win10, so....
Re:lol (Score:5, Interesting)
What does one have to do with the other? If [cost of litigation] + [probabilit of losing] * $10.000 is greater than $10,000 then you obviously just pay the $10,000. Other than the case where $10,000 will bankrupt the company (in which case litigate since who cares about another debtor) the valuation of the company is irrelevant.
Of course there's also the "how many other people will try this" factor but again losing an appeal increases that risk so keeping on going isn't necessarily the best choice there either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What does one have to do with the other? If [cost of litigation] + [probabilit of losing] * $10.000 is greater than $10,000 then you obviously just pay the $10,000. Other than the case where $10,000 will bankrupt the company (in which case litigate since who cares about another debtor) the valuation of the company is irrelevant.
Of course there's also the "how many other people will try this" factor but again losing an appeal increases that risk so keeping on going isn't necessarily the best choice there either.
Regarding your math here, the courts have essentially made any attempt at a defense or dismissal ultimately not worth the time or money, unless you quite literally have money to burn. Fighting a traffic ticket is almost always not worth it even if you were falsely accused, which the end result is essentially a system that stops no government at any level from running amok in order to generate "revenue".
Anyone still labeling it a "justice" system should be slapped repeatedly.
Re:lol (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, that's not entirely true....
For example, if you get a speeding ticket in New Orleans, it is ALWAYS advantageous to show up to set a court date, and not pay automatically even IF you are guilty as hell.
What you do is set your date, then show up at date, and before the trial, the traffic DA will bring all the folks back and offer you a "plea deal", in which the charge will be dropped down to a non-moving violation charge, which will keep it off your insurance driving record, and you just pay a fine.
They are only interested in the revenue, but it is nice to not get your insurance involved.
Check with your city as that I'm sure things vary widely, but I am of the understanding that this is more common than not....
Re:lol (Score:4, Funny)
For example, if you get a speeding ticket in New Orleans, it is ALWAYS advantageous to show up to set a court date, and not pay automatically even IF you are guilty as hell.
That's interesting. I lived in NOLA for 4 years back in the late 80's, and heard the same thing. The reason was supposedly that cops would almost never show up for the court date, and you'd win by default. Had a guy on my hall arrested for jaywalking (in actuality, for bumping into a cop and apologizing in a New England accent), who did exactly this.
I'd figured in the intervening years, particularly with the post-Katrina police force, things would have changed. Chalk one up for the endurance of culture, I guess.
Re: (Score:3)
The flip side of that is that isn't never just one person suing you for $10,000. Now that she's won, a lot of other people will file similar lawsuits. This is why some companies never settle - as a deterrent to bogus suits.
Not that there's anything bogus about suing Microsoft over Win 10, and how they've handled the upgrades.
Re: lol (Score:5, Funny)
ms has fucked up it
Truer words were never spoken.
Re: (Score:3)
ms has fucked up it
Truer words were never spoken.
Oh No, that shit has been said a lot; WindowsME, Windows Vista, Windows 8.0/8.1 come to mind as a few examples among many.
Re: lol (Score:5, Funny)
Foggier words were never spoken.
Re: lol (Score:5, Funny)
imagibe some company
It's easy if you try
Re: (Score:3)
The bigger picture is often a gamble. In the short term just paying off this one individual may be the easy claim, where they are on record on just not bothering to fight it. However if this sparks a bunch of claims then Microsoft may change its tatic.
The Woman didn't "Win" the lawsuit. They settled to avoid setting a legal precedent.
Settling to avoid setting a legal precedent here would--for the exact reasons you cited--be a strong indication that they expected the precedent to not be in their favor. With the shift to requiring you accept upgrades and patches with Win10, and how the rollout is going, a binding precedent here could make it very risky to fight future suits; consider how MS has rolled out Win10, and the fact it now requires most users accept whatever patches it shoves out on patch day.
Now consider what it'd mean if, by f
Re:lol (Score:4, Insightful)
Even a billion dollar company has to justify wasteful decisions to its shareholders.
Re:lol (Score:5, Funny)
Even a billion dollar company has to justify wasteful decisions to its shareholders.
*cough* apple new campus *cough*
Re:lol (Score:5, Informative)
you still think its a campus...
It's a freaking space relay when finished it will fire a beam of energy into space to carry Jobs essence back to his homeworld.
Re: lol (Score:3)
Re:lol (Score:5, Funny)
How silly. It is a Scientific and Technological Advanced Research laboratory particle accelerator, and its mission is to re-establish the reality distortion field.
That and Tim Cook hopes it can give the next iPhone super speed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:lol (Score:5, Informative)
The "cost of further litigation" includes what would happen if they appealed and the appeals court found in the plaintiff's favor. Then the generic argument becomes fairly bullet-proof - anyone going to court with that argument is going to win.
It would unleash thousands of cookie-cutter pro-se and cheap-lawyer lawsuits, which they seriously don't want.
They don't have to worry about me, though. I've been MickeySoft free for almost 20 years. I have nobody to sue.
--
BMO
Re:Won't someone think of the finances? (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft made nearly $100,000,000,000 last year. It's the equivalent of someone who makes $50,000 a year spending 50 cents.
There's no point in tying up legal resources over such a small amount when you've secured a cheap settlement and no acknowledgement of any wrongdoing.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention get it out of the news faster.
You mean the corrupt financial models? (Score:3)
What happened to the funny and sometimes even insightful slashdot of old? Several hundred comments so far, and the word "liability" does not appear once? Well, I'll spare you the long rant about the devolution of slashdot and just make the obvious comment about how Microsoft works:
MS = innovative financial models, NOT innovative software. GREAT money. Good software? Not so much.
The financial innovation that this article is about involves liability evasion. You youngsters may not believe me, but there used t
Re: (Score:3)
I heard they were forcing detainees at Gitmo to read through all the Microsoft EULAs, Bush even justified it.
Re:That's the whole point! (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a huge difference though between providing a security update when an obscure bug, buffer overflow, or some other specific vulnerability is fixed, and an entire OS upgrade is relentlessly, essentially forced on the user.
Re: (Score:3)
>They're never going to get that trust back. Ever.
Sounds like there's no downside for Microsoft then - nobody has trusted them for years anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
The second was that I'd need some really persuasive evidence before I believe that Microsoft "only halted their appeal to avoid the cost of further litigation". My immediate assumption was that they were worried that a court judgment against them would open them to many similar claims, and considered 10,000usd a cheap way to reduce that possibility. (O
Re:That's the whole point! (Score:5, Informative)
My immediate assumption was that they were worried that a court judgment against them would open them to many similar claims
Read it again. She won the court case. MS appealed, and then dropped the appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
but the user can still reasonably expect their pc to work as intended afterwards, which was not always the case with Windows 10...
I've heard of family who updated, and afterwards their laptop wouldn't even boot....
Re:That's the whole point! (Score:5, Informative)
Depends what you mean (Score:3)
Except Windows 10 is not a security update: the computer in question had Windows 7, which is still in extended support and will still get "proper" security updates until 2020.
Yes, Windows 7 will get security updates in the form of patches that correct already known defects. Bandaids, in some sense.
Windows 10 has a list of actual security improvements, not just bandaids. Better ASLR and DEP, better support of harddrive encryption, more secure default browser, and other goodies. Microsoft maintains a page of Windows 10 security improvements [microsoft.com] over Windows 7/8. In theory, Windows 10's features mean a reduced attack surface. Maybe it still has issues but it is certainly more hardened
Re:That's the whole point! (Score:5, Insightful)
the problem is that the whole point of automatic updates is to keep those users up to date who otherwise would go "I had never heard of security updates and no one ever asked my if I want those updates".
...and you've demonstrated the issue right there by conflating "updates" and "security updates".
Last time I looked, although XP may be risky, using a properly patched Win 7 or 8 isn't a significant security risk, whereas installing any significant OS upgrade without proper testing, planning and backup is an unacceptable risk for people using their system for anything more serious than Minesweeper. Automatic updates should be reserved for urgent security updates of the "imminent remote pwnage" kind - anything less should be advisory & accompanied by warnings to back up and schedule the update for a 'quiet' time.
So, yeah, by abusing the automatic update process (and doing their best to prevent users from keeping it disabled) Microsoft is being hugely irresponsible and endangering the security of users' systems.
There's a problem with IT security in general in that those responsible treat security as an end in itself, and never weigh the benefits of their security measures against the potential loss and disruption caused by the "security measures" themselves. I'm not saying people should be complacent - just prioritize a bit.
(Plus, I really wish I could explain to the IT people at my employer why they shouldn't make their warning emails about phishing attacks look exactly like the sort of phishing attacks that they are warning against...)
F you. Win10 is spyware, not a security update (Score:5, Insightful)
> by abusing the automatic update process (and doing their best to prevent users from keeping it disabled) Microsoft is being hugely irresponsible and endangering the security of users' systems.
Security is concerned with three things: Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability (CIA). Those initials are used in the first few pages of any introductory security curriculum. You should have learned at least that much in your annual "Computer Security and You" training video.
The unauthorized Win10 installation risks the Integrity of the users' data and its Availability. Because it includes spyware, it definitely damages the Confidentiality. It doesn't just "endanger the security", it absolutely damages the security by damaging confidentiality. It is the OPPOSITE of the goals that security people strive for, the opposite of a security update.
> There's a problem with IT security in general in that those responsible treat security as an end in itself, and never weigh the benefits of their security measures against the potential loss and disruption caused by the "security measures" themselves.
Fuck you for trying to blame this malware on "IT security people". It's precisely the opposite of eveything we do.
Mod parent up, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows 10 has absolutely no business being characterized as a 'security update,' not only because the scope is way too big for that but because it reduces security!
Re: (Score:2)
You are not wrong. However there is a core trust in that agreement, and I feel microsoft really has broken that core trust.
Windows 10 is basically a surviellance malware, with built in phone-home that sends gobs and gobs of information back to its command and control nodes. These are some really fucking huge changes and far beyond the understanding of most users.
This is a blatant abuse of trust. Their company, deserves to be severely punished to the tune of billions as an example. TBH I feel like this sort
Re: (Score:3)
There's a huge difference between a security update to keep people safe on their supported copy of Windows, and forcing an upgrade from one still-supported operating system to an entirely different supported operating system.
That's not for the benefit of the users, or the people attacked by botnets. It's literally just a marketing ploy to say how high Windows 10 deployments are.
They could have pushed the SECURITY patches that Windows 7/8/8.1 has issued for it and FORCED those - much fewer people would have
Re: (Score:2)
There's a huge difference between a security update to keep people safe on their supported copy of Windows, and forcing an upgrade from one still-supported operating system to an entirely different supported operating system.
While true, it might be bit short-sighted. Reducing version fragmentation in your user base is an important step to effectively develop and roll out the actual security patches. Just look at the situation on Android: Userbase is fragmented into lots of vendor and model specific versions, all in various states of not being supported anymore. And there is also a reason why browsers in general moved to automated and even silent updates: The actual security fixes roll out much much faster when you only have to
Re: (Score:3)
whole point of automatic updates is to keep those users up to date
And her purchase with Microsoft gives her an up-to-date Windows 7 until January 14, 2020 with no software incompatibilities to worry about. No need to update to Windows 10 to be secure and up to date.
Re:Didn't get Win10 installed, but ... (Score:4, Informative)
I wasted about 20 hrs trying to prevent that crap from destroying my business. At $200/hr, can I sue?
Of course you can. In the US, you can sue anyone for any reason. If you can't find a lawyer to take up your case, you can always go pro se and represent yourself.
Whether you'll prevail and get any sort of a settlement is an entirely different question.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This business you have... does it not run at least a server with a domain? I wouldn't expect Enterprise Windows but anything business-critical I'd expect a server, backups, etc. even if not full redundancy.
Then, it's just a matter of joining the domain and never seeing the upgrades.
This is a site for IT, still, yes?
Re: (Score:3)
This is a site for IT, still, yes?
A site for many things. And sometimes people with small businesses, that might not come with an IT department and servers.
I think the major element in the whole discussion is that Microsoft has now become a malware vendor, and the OS has many locked into getting the malware, as well as W7 users getting forced updates. And since not everyone is behind a server farm or have a team of IT people protecting them, It is a little strange to try to say that a forced update that bricks the user's computer is thei
Re: (Score:3)
It's quite simple (and, yes, I've started my own business, been self-employed, and started up the IT in and supported dozens of schools and other places - tuition centres with 4 kids, charities, etc. - from zero or one computer to 1000+ computers over the last 15 years).
You can manage your computers. Or not.
If you want to have a home PC run your business, that's ALWAYS been the price you pay. You don't get domain joining, which means no user management, no RDP, no Bitlocker, no Hyper-V and a million and o
Re:New Computer (Score:4, Insightful)
A business person makes choices based on finances. Also, time costs money.
If buying a new computer (with any Windows version), and having the company data moved over, costs less than the labor of reinstalling Windows 7 on the current computer, buy a new computer. If this solution also takes half the time, it is an even better financial decision.
Re:New Computer (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
With this kind of logic, no damage above popping in last nights backup and hit the restore button should ever be awarded.
Also trying to repair has unknown time, cost, dama (Score:3)
Trying to roll back the existing non-functional computer computer and get it working right again also has an unknown outcome, involves an unknown amount of downtime, and unknown total cost. Telling her customers "I can take care of you in two hours, after my new computer is set up" is definitely less costly to her business than telling them "I don't know when I'll be able to get back to you. My computer is in the shop. Maybe it'll be fixed today, maybe tomorrow, maybe Wednesday".
Re: (Score:2)
No, she probably clicked the "upgrade later" button because it was the one closer to her intent. Had there been a "I don't want this fucking upgrade" button like Microsoft should have supplied, then there most likely wouldn't have been a lawsuit.
Dipshit fanboi.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, calling bullshit right there, windows 7 made damn sure you were aware of the pending windows 10 upgrade, so the fact that you are even saying that tells me 100% you clicked install now because you thought you'd get a settlement and you did.
Maybe. Or maybe it happened the way it almost happened to me. One day I was about to shut down my Win7 laptop when I noticed the little yellow flag in the "Shut down" button that means, "I'm going to apply updates that I haven't told you about before I shut down." Since I don't like to apply unknown updates, I aborted the shutdown and looked at the updates (Control Panel | Windows Update). There it was - an unsolicited upgrade to Windows 10. I unchecked the box and changed my update settings to "Let me know