Microsoft Will Never Again Sneakily Force Windows Downloads on Users (betanews.com) 200
A reader shares a report Windows users in Germany were particularly unimpressed when Microsoft forcibly downloaded many gigabytes of files to upgrade from Windows 7 and 8 to Windows 10. Having held out for 18 months, and losing its case twice, Microsoft has finally agreed to stop its nefarious tactics. After a lengthy battle with Germany's Baden-Wurtenberg consumer rights center, Microsoft made the announcement to avoid the continuation of legal action. A press release on the Baden-Wurtenberg website reveals that Microsoft has announced it will no longer download operating system files to users' computers without their permission: Microsoft will not download install files for new operating systems to a user system's hard disk without a user's consent. The consumer rights center hoped for this resolution to be reached much sooner, but Microsoft's decision will please the courts and could have a bearing on how the company acts in other countries.
And... (Score:5, Insightful)
And we made sure of this because we locked up the fuckers responsible.
Right??
Re: (Score:1)
You don't put people in jail over civil suits. What they did wasn't criminal. It was only an annoyance.
Re: And... (Score:2, Informative)
It was criminal. They need to go to jail, and they need to be tortured to catch everyone involved. Only then will things be right again.
Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made (Score:2)
Quote: "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC."
Coporate Justice? (Score:5, Insightful)
TLDR? From the first paragraph of the wikipedia summary:The law prohibits accessing a computer without authorization, or in excess of authorization.
Putting file on a computer for the purpose of an unrequested upgrade certainly seems to be 'in excess of authorization', especially when you factor in the several million counts of it. The people who authorized this decision are CRIMINALS.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that by accepting the license terms you have granted them authorization.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually if you declined the terms, by say closing the window or clicking "not now", it installs anyway. After you specifically declined to authorize.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll reply here instead of the same comments at this level.
Folks need to remember you own your computer, but not the Windows OS. By accepting the Windows EULA, you are agreeing to a lease of their software. You don't own it, never have, never will. Since the OS is property of MS, it stands to reason (law is a different question) that they would have access to their own stuff.
Now, if they used that access to get PII without consent, then MS would be up shit creek.
Re: (Score:2)
The windows 7 license agreement already included language authorizing them to access your machine...
Re: (Score:2)
That's all the rights they give *you*...
Section 5b says:
To enable the activation function and validation checks, the software may from time to time require updates or additional downloads of the validation, licensing or activation functions of the software. The updates or downloads are required for the proper functioning of the software and may be downloaded and installed without further notice to you.
So under the excuse of "license checks" they may download and execute arbitrary code on your machine without notifying you. Windows 10 includes new license checking code, so you've given them the right to download and install it silently under this clause.
Section 7a says:
a. Consent for Internet-Based Services. The software features described below and in the Windows 7 Privacy Statement connect to Microsoft or service provider computer systems over the Internet. In some cases, you will not receive a separate notice when they connect. In some cases, you may switch off these features or not use them.
It may connect to microsoft or their affiliates, and may not notify you of doing so. You can only switch this off "in some cases" - ie they are leaving the door open for services which
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible to make an agreement with a home removal company giving them the right to enter your house and take your property, and people make such agreements all the time. Entering a residence and removing property is perfectly legal when authorization has been granted either by the owner of the residence or a legal authority with appropriate jurisdiction.
Who's to say you couldnt enter an agreement with microsoft giving them the right to enter your property and take anything they want? The fact that you
Re: (Score:2)
All the time... Because MANY things in law are based on authorization to do something... A contract can grant such authorization.
Taking items from a shop is illegal, its commonly referred to as shoplifting or stealing. But if you comply with the terms set out by the shop owner (usually payment an arbitrary amount depending what you want to take) then the shop authorizes you to take certain goods, which is therefore no longer illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Abuse comes in a soft or hard option.
Re:And... (Score:5, Informative)
Interfering with someone's computer without their permission is a criminal offence in Europe. In the UK it comes under the Computer Misuse Act. It just seems that no-one (other than, in Germany, the Baden-Wurtenberg consumer rights center) has the bottle to pursue this.
From this [inbrief.co.uk] :-
CMA 1990 introduced the following three new offences into UK criminal law:
unauthorised access to computer material;
unauthorised access with intent to commit a further offence;
Unauthorised acts with intent to impair, or with recklessness as to impairing, operation of computer, etc (as amended by the Police and Justice Act 2006).
I would consider converting Windows 7 to Windows 10 shows an intent to impair.
Re: (Score:2)
Interfering with someone's computer without their permission is a criminal offence in Europe.
Interfering with animals without their permission is a criminal offence in most states of the US. Should computers be any different?
Re: And... (Score:2)
Animals can't give permission...
Re:And... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm with the meat grinder guy.
Re: (Score:2)
As it points out in your Atlantic link, you can thank Eric Holder and his ilk.
the so-called Holder Doctrine, a June 1999 memorandum written by the then–deputy attorney general warning of the dangers of prosecuting big banks—a variant of the “too big to fail” argument that has since become so familiar. Holder’s memo asserted that “collateral consequences” from prosecutions—including corporate instability or collapse—should be taken into account when decid
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While I agree with the sentiments, you can't lock up an entire company's work force. Because everyone involved is only partially involved, and each individual could point to a thousand others that each contributed to boneheaded decisions, to the point that no one person is culpable.
The fix, is if this was "criminal" offense, would be to go after the CxO and Board of Directors and actually lock THEM up for the group think decisions of the company they are supposed to oversee. IF you actually started going af
Hang the CxO set on the Washington Mall?? (Score:2)
doing a reverse of lives are money thing then as they have cost people MILLIONS then a case could be made they are "serial killers".
hey i would be nice and load their jumpsuits with a buncha gold coins first.
Re: (Score:2)
you can't lock up an entire company's work force.
Strawman: one need do nothing of the sort.
Re: (Score:2)
You can lock up the guy or a team who made a decision like that. Not that I'm saying that we should lock up people for that though. But somebody did make a decision that those updates will download even without the consent of the user. And someone did make an implementation of that. Programming like that is made by hand, not really by some independant AI.
In general, yes, decisions are done in every company and there are people standing behind those. And if those decisions are bad enough the same people shou
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand my actual position. A corporation is a legal entity (a "person") under the law, therefore if a criminal law has been broken, then we have the right to seek justice accordingly. The problem is, that in cases like that there is no way to lock up a corporation in Jail. But you can lock up the people responsible for overseeing the company (the CxO and Board) who are supposed to direct the corporation.
A committee shouldn't absolve those at the top from the course of action they were
Re: (Score:2)
If anything criminal is done, follow this proceedure. Start at the top. If they claim ignorance, get them to hand over whoever had authority to authorize the decisions that approved the action, and they must show they were reasonably ignorant of the actions taken (emails or other communication between subordinates that they were hiding info from their bosses should suffice). If they can't provide the necessary party, then they are the ones who will be held responsible. If the company puts in a reward struct
Re: And... (Score:1)
Re:And... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
That seems weird because other countries put traitors in front of a firing squad. Has America gone soft on crime?
Re: (Score:2)
That seems weird because other countries put traitors in front of a firing squad. Has America gone soft on crime?
Firing squads are still used in Utah, although only if the condemned prisoner requests it. Otherwise the default is lethal injection. Utah may switch to firing squads as the default method if lethal drugs continue to be unavailable. The last execution by firing squad in Utah was in 2010.
If I was to be executed in Utah, I would definitely go with the firing squad. Lethal injections are for sissies.
Re: (Score:2)
Pfft. Real men ask for the guillotine. If you gotta go, may as well go in pieces!
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently the currently preferred method of 'wax off' is nitrogen, I will not detail it, look it up if you feel the need, just make sure it is not interrupted in the brain damage stage. For people with the extremely disturbing fetish need to kill other people, well, why not practice on yourself before trying it on others ;).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Even Congress isn't stupid enough to try that w/o solid evidence of a criminal act. In spite of all the whiny rants about Russia, you really don't have any more evidence than those who pissed and moaned about Benghazi.
They gonna put a rainbow in the sky? (Score:2)
Meaningless commitment (Score:5, Interesting)
I seem to recall them claiming (a year or so ago?) that Windows 10 would be the last version of Windows, it's rolling updates from here on out. In which case this announcement is a completely meaningless way to duck punishment - they promise to no longer download files for a new operating system... because they will no longer release new operating systems. Just massive updates to their only one.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ah, yes. The "Highlander" approach.
Re: (Score:2)
I came here to say the same thing. The "new operating systems" wording is a nice little loophole if you're planning on going to a rolling release model.
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto. The old adage, if over time you replace all the parts of a ship, at what point isn't it the same ship?
It's almost like Windows saw this coming and made Windows 10 in response.
Having held out for 18 months....
Humm......no, I know that MS can't work quite that fast....
Re: (Score:2)
Being a /. reader, I of course haven't read the details.. but I suspect a lot of that hinges on what the courts consider to be a "new version." Is the anniversary update or the creators update considered new versions? They're both fairly massive updates (both in terms of download size and feature changes.) Or does it only count as a new version when the marketing department decides to change an already-arbitrary number to a new arbitrary number? Or does each build count as a new version and this blocks
Re: (Score:2)
The last is not necessarily a bad thing with Win10's update behavior being what it is. The problem is that, in order to 'fix' the 'problem' of users not installing security updates, they've gone and made all updates install themselves and not even make sure you get proper warning before rebooting the system to install. Not only that, but I suspect the current regime at Microsoft would happily insist that all of those were 'legitimate security updates' if that lets them get around the pesky issue of having
Yeah right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Finally, an admission (Score:1)
So where do users who were sneakily forced go to get reparations?
Trust Us (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So, they're supposed to blindly accept any "security update"? From the same company that forced other unwanted crap upon them? Well, the fact is that more people have received those kind of crap updates from MS than those who've been infected. So, tell us Einstein, which is actually worse?
Re: (Score:2)
One thing hasn't changed, the dumbass idiots who use computers. 95% of them will click "NO" every time Windows wants to download a security update, meaning their Wal-Mart brand PCs won't get updated, and thus making them more prone to spread infections elsewhere.
Microsoft has an annoying habit of having interesting ideas of what does and does not constitute a security update which do not match what everybody outside of Microsoft might consider such, which has as its end result being that users develop a (healthy) distrust. Look at how Win10 got released...and oh, yeah, if you didn't go into your settings, it'd 'helpfully' use your bandwidth to help spread Win10.
They just agree to stop and that's it? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no demands to make up for all of the inconvenience, wasted time, overages on bandwidth, etc?
Slap on the wrist...
Re: (Score:2)
A little too late (Score:1)
By now there probably aren't that many people left to force an upgrade to Windows10. They need to stop these automatic updates and reboots. Rebooting a PC without explicit permission from the owner of that PC is as criminal as what Sony did with their rootkit. Microsoft may own the IP in the OS but they don't own my PC.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You may hate them both, but in no way are they equivalent transgressions.
I totally read that as... (Score:4, Funny)
because let's be real, they've got a track record.
Is this across the board? (Score:3)
I wonder if this will be implemented globally, or whether there will be a "Windows 10 G" edition. Windows N and Windows KN editions for South Korea and the EU were created to remove Media Player and force the user to make a browser choice before IE is turned on by default.
Some people were beyond pissed when this happened, so maybe they'll just cut their losses and do it across the board. The sneaky upgrade dialog was the thing I wasn't happy about, but I'm sure there are some people out there who are very privacy-minded, and any files they didn't explicitly ask for are a no-go for them. I work with people all over the world, and the EU and Germany in particular has some of the strictest privacy laws. 99% of the information harvesting that your average one-trick web startup gets away with in the US is just forbidden by law there. Facebook and Google are constantly lobbying to have the rules not apply to them because their business model falls apart without full access to people's data.
Re:Is this across the board? (Score:5, Insightful)
good for zero days exploiters (Score:1)
As much as I disagree with forced patches, it has kept the 0 day rate down lately.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he works in a data center that didn't bother with updates. Nuke a whole server farm at once!
Re: (Score:2)
I've been at a uni where all the comps were terminals that when you logged in loaded up a fresh image of Windows--in fact, they switched to doing things that way while I was there.
From the first day I got access to the system, it was wanting updates, and when I left it still was.
Next Step (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Payback (Score:4, Funny)
Germans complain about Microsoft and come back proclaiming "Peace for our time".
Good start, but not enough (Score:5, Insightful)
They said (emphasis mine):
Microsoft will not download install files for new operating systems to a user system’s hard disk without a user's consent.
How about you just don't upload or download anything without the user's consent?
Re: (Score:2)
They have your consent -- its buried in that EULA you didn't read but still clicked Accept on.
GWX was perhaps questionable. I'm not sure if the win7/8 EULAs were expansive enough to cover a full upgrade to the latest version, but they all cover MS' butt with regards to downloading and installing updates, and I'm sure the win10 EULA is even more stringent on that given that MS no longer gives you an opt-out to their updates. They're just forced on you whether you like it or not (and I totally wouldn't mind
Re: (Score:2)
Where's my signature. Where's my actual name applied to the bottom of the EULA?
That's what I thought. I never signed that contract of adhesion.
Re: (Score:2)
YMMV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Their EULA can't go about violating the law. I am quite free to ignore those terms at my leisure.
Re: (Score:2)
In Germany, a EULA presented in this way is not enforceable and most of them are invalid and void anyway, because they contain clauses that are not compatible with consumer rights, contract law, or other regulations. Contract law in the EU is very different from US contract law. The corporations are just betting regularly that nobody will sue them or otherwise invalidate the contract, which sadly is the case.
My general advice is to read the EULA, print it out, and send the company any changes you would li
Now that the damage is done... (Score:2)
How I interpret this... (Score:2)
The general lack of resistance (Score:1)
has convinced them to do it in the full open.
SubjectIsSubject (Score:5, Insightful)
They really need a clear definition of "consent" because from what I remember just hitting the "X" on the upgrade Window instead of "Cancel" was actually considered consent by MS. It's purposefully misleading and you know they'll do it again with Windows 11 or whatever bullshit name they call it.
Yea right (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft will never sneakily force updates on users through large downloads and only in Germany
FTFY
What about windows 10 S store only will the EU (Score:2)
What about windows 10 S store only will the EU come down or that or the new windows 10 update that disables ReFS unless you upgrade at an added cost to windows workstation?
Re: (Score:3)
They probably won't have to. Unless MS has a dazzling, amazing plan for bolstering their store offerings, Win10S is likely to be close to DOA. Windows' main ability to keep users is the fact that so many users are already running Windows and won't (or far more often, can't) switch all of their apps to a competitor.
If MS kills their own compatibility benefits, it undermines a lot of the reason people have stick with their platform through all of the shit they pulled with Vista's compatibility disaster, Win
No problem (Score:5, Insightful)
UPDATED EULA VERSION
By using the software you hereby consent to ....
....
.... [ 25 pages later ]
....
Your computer automatically downloading and installing updates for bugfixes, security patches, and operating system upgrades with no further notification required, with no guarantee of visible a UI indication, options dialog, or other opportunity being provided defer, pause, cancel, undo, revert, or to opt-out of this process of automatic self-updating.
Re: (Score:2)
EULAs are pretty much unenforceable in civilized countries. And in Germany, too.
Germany has something in their consumer protection laws that is worded like "if there's anything in your contract that could be considered special or unusual, you have to stress it and the customer has to explicitly agree to explicitly that". And not only is it a computer illiterate judge that gets to determine what's "unusual" in terms of computer related contracts, on top of that you have a lot of consumer protection laws that
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pretty strong claim. I'm not sure how many countries have ever brought a EULA to trial.
Certainly parts of a EULA that contradict local laws are generally invalid in pretty much every jurisdiction, and almost all EULAs include a clause stating that when that happens, it only invalidates the contradictory parts rather than the entire EULA (so that they don't have to write a separate one for every town and hamlet that has their own local bylaws on the issue.)
But they almost certainly tailor EULAs to
EULAs in Germany (Score:3)
If someone buys Windows from some retailer, the buyer enters into a contract with that retailer.
Any additional crap one party wants to enforce has to be made part of that contract; if the EULA isn't made explicitly a part of that contract, it's not enforceable:
If the seller hides a piece of paper with additional terms the customer doesn't know about somewhere in the box, then those terms aren't enforceable afterwards; and putting a st
Re: (Score:2)
In most countries, contracts where you get loaded additional bullshit onto it after the sale are void. And that's basically what an EULA is. The sale happens before you get even informed what the EULA consists of, let alone agree to it.
And no, the click-through bullshit is not a substitute.
Re: (Score:2)
Non-binding in EU countries. Thanks for playing, though.
I hope this is not just Germany (Score:2)
Because sneaky upgrades were seriously annoying.
All the headline is missing are crossed fingers (Score:2)
Never again (Score:2)
I miss the old days... (Score:1)
Thanks, Microsoft! (Score:2)
A good laugh is always welcome!
No, we won't do it again (Score:2)
Mainly because we've already force-upgraded everyone who didn't nuke their machine.
And not to steal user info on the table?? (Score:1)
You do know that GWX sent 24 hours of your computer usage to Microsoft just after it installed. I would hope they decide not to steal that type of info again.
Yes I have the file that seriously wanted out, HOSTS file kept it in place for 7 days.
"I'm sorry, Missy..." (Score:2)
"I faithfully promise upon my heart and soul that under no circumstances will I stick my hand up your dress ever again until the next time. And I truly mean what I say, Missy.
Ya got that right! (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft Will Never Again Sneakily Force Windows Downloads on Users
Ya got that right! - Ex-Windows user
Don't worry Americans (Score:2)
When American companies fuck you up the ass, the EU will come along and sort it out eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if anything showed us the kind of teeth EU has for corporate globalists, its the HSBC scandals. If it is anything like window dressing, I'm sure they'll think twice.
How hard is it to spell things right? (Score:2)
The check is in my mouth (Score:2)
And I promise I won't come in the mail.
..and what they really mean is... (Score:2)
>> "it will no longer download operating system files to users' computers without their permission"
Translation: we will simply add yet more opaque/vague terminology to the already far too long EULA so no-one actually reads it all, where clicking through implies consent.
time to tear a page out of basic training (Score:2)
Unfortunately, our justice system routinely falls far short of this mark when dealing with corporations.
For Microsoft, the jump to Windows 10 represented a one-time only change of business models.
And even as the legal dust settles, we didn't make them wish they hadn't done what they done.
Why can't corporations also be lowly worms under the law?
____
JUDGE Who said that?
Re: (Score:2)
In Germany (Score:2)
"Microsoft Will Never Again Sneakily Force Windows Downloads on Users".... in Germany.
Re: (Score:3)
>> There was no way to stop that crap.
Of course there is !
1) push the power button for about 5 sec.
2) plug in LinuxMint USB drive
3) start up, click install
4) Crap is stopped.
Re: (Score:2)
>> If they REALLY wanted to fix the system
Look at the last 35 years. Why on earth would you believe Microsoft suddenly want to fix anything for our benefit?
Re: (Score:2)
hehe well there is no need to agree to the new eula to get it automatically installed anyways.
people didn't "see" it coming because trying to forcibly install it and break applications of users, especially business users. is generally seen as such a big dick move that businesses change providers.