Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

I don't know if it is written anywhere.
Even if it was some would have to see for themselves.
Disable the service on a clean Install, or whatever suits needs, of Windows
and verify for yourself.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar


"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"
<none@none.not> wrote in message news:fcgupq$e7s$1@aioe.org...
> Where does it state this, JJ? Where does it state that those files will
> not update on a machine if the WU service is disabled?
>
> --
> Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
> http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html
>
> "Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on free
> speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
> creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
> rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
> - Maura Corbett

 

[Frank]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:
>
>> Alias wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> How can I ask someone who no one can prove even existed and who died
>>> hundreds of years ago?
>>
>>
>> Well, you're the one asking the question so it's up to you to find the
>> answer.
>
>
> I was asking YOU.
>
>>
>> You believe in channeling too?
>>
>> Channeling what?
>
>
> Figures you wouldn't understand. Look it up.
>
>>
>> I asked YOU what
>>
>>> YOU think he would think.
>>
>>
>> Again, ask Him directly. If you don't believe in Him then why on earth
>> would you care what He thinks, huh?
>
>
> I asked you what YOU think. Is that question too complicated for you?
>
>>
>> Course to understand that, you would have to
>>
>>> be capable of logic and understanding a simple question.
>>
>>
>> Sorry pal!
>> You're not that smart or quick, mentally speaking.
>> Try again, ok?
>> Frank
>
>
> You've just proved how slow you are. What's pathetic is that you don't
> even realize it.

hahaha...for an avowed atheist, you sure don't know how to argue your
point...even if you had one.
You've been hammered like this many times before concerning religion,
haven't you?
I bet it really hurts!
Frank

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

If someone feels the agreement is invalid, perhaps they need to contact an
attorney specializing in software licensing.
In this case I believe you would find that the clause in the license is the
notification.
That clause does nor circumvent the law.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar


"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:%23B5TsZ59HHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting on the
>EULA legalities. But...
>
> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone sign an
> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim indemnity. For
> example, charging interest rates above a certain amount is illegal
> (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are illegal. If
> you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that you will charge me
> 120% interest, and if I sign the loan agreement and accept your terms, you
> are still guilty of loansharking and if I were to take you to court you
> would lose. Even if I signed and accepted your contract you would still
> lose because the contract violates the law, it is an illegal contract.
>
> John

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

"Whenever I get Windows updates, Microsoft turns on their auto-updates
thingy."
Perhaps on your computers, not mine.
I leave Automatic Updates off on some computers and it has remained off
after updates.
There is something other than just the update process turning it back on

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar


"~greg" <g_m@remove-comcast.net> wrote in message
news:FoSdnSZgqK8TQ3bbnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@giganews.com...
> I'm sorry that I don't have time to read this whole thread,
> so I hope that these two questions haven't been asked
> in it before.
>
> Whenever I get Windows updates, Microsoft turns on
> their auto-updates thingy. And I always have to remind
> myself to turn it off.
>
> So if someone wasn't aware of this, then they could
> easily get the impression, on the next update-tuesday,
> that Microsoft was patching files even though he
> (thought he) had turned off auto-updates,
> - being unaware that it had been silently turned on.
>
> (That's a question, phrased as the answer;
> But I don't suppose that is the issue here.)
>
> In any case, there is a difference between Windows update,
> and the update service.
>
> I keep the whole service disabled (for a couple of reasons)
> and enable it by script only when I feel like getting Windows
> updates (--because Microsoft wont give updates
> unless that service is running.)
> Then I turn that service off, again, too.
>
> If Microsoft is actually going around all services,
> then that is very bad thing indeed. It would make it
> indistinguishable from maleware. A root-kit, or something.
> And there are laws against that kind of thing.
> Just because MS happen to be a particular kind
> of software, an OS, should not make any difference
> in this. Or that's what I think anyway.
>
> ~greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 

[norm]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> How can I ask someone who no one can prove even existed and who died
>>>> hundreds of years ago?
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, you're the one asking the question so it's up to you to find
>>> the answer.
>>
>>
>> I was asking YOU.
>>
>>>
>>> You believe in channeling too?
>>>
>>> Channeling what?
>>
>>
>> Figures you wouldn't understand. Look it up.
>>
>>>
>>> I asked YOU what
>>>
>>>> YOU think he would think.
>>>
>>>
>>> Again, ask Him directly. If you don't believe in Him then why on
>>> earth would you care what He thinks, huh?
>>
>>
>> I asked you what YOU think. Is that question too complicated for you?
>>
>>>
>>> Course to understand that, you would have to
>>>
>>>> be capable of logic and understanding a simple question.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry pal!
>>> You're not that smart or quick, mentally speaking.
>>> Try again, ok?
>>> Frank
>>
>>
>> You've just proved how slow you are. What's pathetic is that you don't
>> even realize it.
>
> hahaha...for an avowed atheist, you sure don't know how to argue your
> point...even if you had one.
And you, as an avowed Christian, certainly do not present yourself as
such in this group. Do you think people don't notice your behavior? The
word "hypocrite" seems an apt description for you.

> You've been hammered like this many times before concerning religion,
> haven't you?
> I bet it really hurts!
> Frank


--
norm

 

[Alias]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> How can I ask someone who no one can prove even existed and who died
>>>> hundreds of years ago?
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, you're the one asking the question so it's up to you to find
>>> the answer.
>>
>>
>> I was asking YOU.
>>
>>>
>>> You believe in channeling too?
>>>
>>> Channeling what?
>>
>>
>> Figures you wouldn't understand. Look it up.
>>
>>>
>>> I asked YOU what
>>>
>>>> YOU think he would think.
>>>
>>>
>>> Again, ask Him directly. If you don't believe in Him then why on
>>> earth would you care what He thinks, huh?
>>
>>
>> I asked you what YOU think. Is that question too complicated for you?
>>
>>>
>>> Course to understand that, you would have to
>>>
>>>> be capable of logic and understanding a simple question.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry pal!
>>> You're not that smart or quick, mentally speaking.
>>> Try again, ok?
>>> Frank
>>
>>
>> You've just proved how slow you are. What's pathetic is that you don't
>> even realize it.
>
> hahaha...for an avowed atheist, you sure don't know how to argue your
> point...even if you had one.
> You've been hammered like this many times before concerning religion,
> haven't you?
> I bet it really hurts!
> Frank

Frank ducks and dodges again.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes

 

[Frank]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

norm wrote:

>
> And you, as an avowed Christian, certainly do not present yourself as
> such in this group.

Oh, and you're the definitive expert on Christians?

Do you think people don't notice your behavior?

I sure as hell hope they do! Otherwise why would I post in a public ng, huh?

The
> word "hypocrite" seems an apt description for you.

Oh, and what is it that I've professed to that would make you say such a
thing?
Frank

 

[Frank]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:
>
>> Alias wrote:
>>
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How can I ask someone who no one can prove even existed and who
>>>>> died hundreds of years ago?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, you're the one asking the question so it's up to you to find
>>>> the answer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was asking YOU.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You believe in channeling too?
>>>>
>>>> Channeling what?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Figures you wouldn't understand. Look it up.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I asked YOU what
>>>>
>>>>> YOU think he would think.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, ask Him directly. If you don't believe in Him then why on
>>>> earth would you care what He thinks, huh?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I asked you what YOU think. Is that question too complicated for you?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Course to understand that, you would have to
>>>>
>>>>> be capable of logic and understanding a simple question.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry pal!
>>>> You're not that smart or quick, mentally speaking.
>>>> Try again, ok?
>>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You've just proved how slow you are. What's pathetic is that you
>>> don't even realize it.
>>
>>
>> hahaha...for an avowed atheist, you sure don't know how to argue your
>> point...even if you had one.
>> You've been hammered like this many times before concerning religion,
>> haven't you?
>> I bet it really hurts!
>> Frank
>
>
> Frank ducks and dodges again.
>


I'm not the one dancing!
You must like the beat!
Frank

 

[... et al.]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

PA Bear wrote:

> Your Automatic Update settings do NOT control the automatic updating of the
> Windows Update software, Val.

Your WinXP's /Automatic_Update/ settings do NOT control the
/automatic_updating/ behavior of your WinXP's system-software.

My, my, why isn't this intuitively understood by everyone?

--
Nah-ah. I'm staying out of this. ... Now, here's my opinion.

Please followup in the newsgroup.
E-mail address is invalid due to spam-control.

 

[norm]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Frank wrote:
> norm wrote:
>
>>
>> And you, as an avowed Christian, certainly do not present yourself as
>> such in this group.
>
> Oh, and you're the definitive expert on Christians?
One doesn't have to be an expert, definitively or otherwise, to be a
Christian. Stay on task.
>
> Do you think people don't notice your behavior?
>
> I sure as hell hope they do! Otherwise why would I post in a public ng,
> huh?
Pitiful need for attention, I take it?
>
> The
>> word "hypocrite" seems an apt description for you.
>
> Oh, and what is it that I've professed to that would make you say such a
> thing?
If you are not Christian, why do you make the statements you do in the
course of your "arguments"? Or could it be that you will use any
"weapon" whether you subscribe to a belief or not to continue your
little game to gain the attention you need? Then again, why bother to
ask anything of you? There will be nothing of substance forthcoming
anyway. Enjoy.

> Frank


--
norm

 

[Dave T.]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Silicon neuron wrote:
> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070913/#story1
>
> By Scott Dunn
>
> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'
> knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.
>
> Many companies require testing of patches before they are widely installed,
> and businesses in this situation are objecting to the stealth patching.
>
>
> Files changed with no notice to users


Not totally true. This update came to me through normal update channels
on August 23. I have my Vista Home Premium configured to notify me but
not install, and it did just that. It was billed as an update to WU
software, and I consented to allow installation. Why was I asked for
permission, when according to the article, not one else was?

Dave T.

--
Thought for the day...Life is sexually transmitted.

 

[darkrats]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

I have Automatic Updates turned off always. I read a couple of articles that
showed how to find out if you had WU updated by stealth, and as far as I can
see no file changes were made on or about August 23 on my machine. Has
anyone in this newsgroup actually seen evidence that their computer was
updated with Automatic Updates turned off.


"Dave T." <davey@MyPlace.net> wrote in message
news:zC_Gi.8242$z_5.2453@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Silicon neuron wrote:
>> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070913/#story1
>>
>> By Scott Dunn
>>
>> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'
>> knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.
>>
>> Many companies require testing of patches before they are widely
>> installed, and businesses in this situation are objecting to the stealth
>> patching.
>>
>>
>> Files changed with no notice to users
>
>
> Not totally true. This update came to me through normal update channels on
> August 23. I have my Vista Home Premium configured to notify me but not
> install, and it did just that. It was billed as an update to WU software,
> and I consented to allow installation. Why was I asked for permission,
> when according to the article, not one else was?
>
> Dave T.
>
> --
> Thought for the day...Life is sexually transmitted.

 

[Andrés Vargas]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

The guy *Adam* just became angry because of the easy way Bruce explained
things. Without further arguments, the only way for him is to take the
conversation away of the logic and begin a discussion based in feelings.

Atte:
A proud GNU software user.
FreeBSD System Administrator.

"Frank" wrote:

> Adam Albright wrote:
>
> >
> > Explain to us how Microsoft KNOWS who clicked their mouse agreeing to
> > the EULA which is the ONLY so-called "proof" anyone agreed to the
> > terms of the license.
>
> Uhhh...how about the owner of the computer the software is installed on?
>
> Damn, Frank I know you're a real dim bulb, but
> > even you should see the fatal flaw in such half-ass reasoning and to
> > try to claim it becomes legally binding is laughable.
>
> Try running that bs line by any Municipal, County, State or Federal
> Court Judge.
>
> >
> > Worse, Microsoft doesn't provide any written version of the EULA in
> > the packaging Vista comes in and the only way you get to see it is if
> > you begin the install process THEN nobody that sold Vista to you will
> > take it back claiming it is "opened" software. Sounds like a catch 22
> > to me.
>
> Tell that to the Judge!
> >
> > Of course you being nothing but a moronic fanboy you probably wait on
> > your porch every evening hoping you see a pig fly past. Lots of luck
> > with that.
>
> For a supposed "genius, you're very good at doing stupid!
> Frank
>
>

 

[Adam Albright]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:34:00 -0700, Andrés Vargas
<AndrsVargas@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>The guy *Adam* just became angry because of the easy way Bruce explained
>things. Without further arguments, the only way for him is to take the
>conversation away of the logic and begin a discussion based in feelings.

Angry? I'm only pointing out the lunacy of what some here consider
legal or factual. That is always damn funny.

 

[Frank]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

norm wrote:

> Frank wrote:
>
>> norm wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And you, as an avowed Christian, certainly do not present yourself as
>>> such in this group.
>>
>>
>> Oh, and you're the definitive expert on Christians?
>
> One doesn't have to be an expert, definitively or otherwise, to be a
> Christian. Stay on task.


Careful norm, as you're about to hurt yourself.
I didn't say anything about 'being a Christian".
>
>>
>> Do you think people don't notice your behavior?
>>
>> I sure as hell hope they do! Otherwise why would I post in a public
>> ng, huh?
>
> Pitiful need for attention, I take it?

Nice try but no cigar. If you want to be heard, public forums are the
place to be, right?
Or do you prefer being alone and talking to yourself?
>
>>
>> The
>>
>>> word "hypocrite" seems an apt description for you.
>>
>>
>> Oh, and what is it that I've professed to that would make you say such
>> a thing?
>
> If you are not Christian, why do you make the statements you do in the
> course of your "arguments"?

Please point out where I've used the term "Christian" as a point of
argument, ok?

Or could it be that you will use any
> "weapon" whether you subscribe to a belief or not to continue your
> little game to gain the attention you need?


Careful, you're about to fall on your own sword.

Then again, why bother to
> ask anything of you?

You tell me? Seeing as how you're the one doing the questioning.

There will be nothing of substance forthcoming
> anyway.

Ahhh...the final try at an insult! Sorry norm, but engaging you in any
substantive discussion now seems out of reason and reach.

Enjoy.

I certainly do and thank you very much!

Frank

 

[Frank]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:34:00 -0700, Andrés Vargas
> <AndrsVargas@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The guy *Adam* just became angry because of the easy way Bruce explained
>>things. Without further arguments, the only way for him is to take the
>>conversation away of the logic and begin a discussion based in feelings.
>
>
> Angry? I'm only pointing out the lunacy of what some here consider
> legal or factual. That is always damn funny.
>

Got any case law or recent court decisions to back up your statement(s)
If you do then post them...or else you're just a stupid big mouth know
nothing fool!
Well...?
Frank

 

[Adam Albright]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:07:57 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:

>norm wrote:
>
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>> norm wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And you, as an avowed Christian, certainly do not present yourself as
>>>> such in this group.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, and you're the definitive expert on Christians?
>>
>> One doesn't have to be an expert, definitively or otherwise, to be a
>> Christian. Stay on task.

>Careful norm, as you're about to hurt yourself.
>I didn't say anything about 'being a Christian".

You're just a idiot Frank. Everybody knows it already.

 

[Adam Albright]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:14:10 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:

>Adam Albright wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:34:00 -0700, Andrés Vargas
>> <AndrsVargas@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The guy *Adam* just became angry because of the easy way Bruce explained
>>>things. Without further arguments, the only way for him is to take the
>>>conversation away of the logic and begin a discussion based in feelings.
>>
>>
>> Angry? I'm only pointing out the lunacy of what some here consider
>> legal or factual. That is always damn funny.
>>
>
>Got any case law or recent court decisions to back up your statement(s)
>If you do then post them...or else you're just a stupid big mouth know
>nothing fool!
>Well...?

Explain case law to a stupid feces throwing monkey like you Frank?

Don't be silly.

 

[norm]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Frank wrote:
> norm wrote:
>
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>> norm wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And you, as an avowed Christian, certainly do not present yourself
>>>> as such in this group.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, and you're the definitive expert on Christians?
>>
>> One doesn't have to be an expert, definitively or otherwise, to be a
>> Christian. Stay on task.
>
>
> Careful norm, as you're about to hurt yourself.
> I didn't say anything about 'being a Christian".
As far as I can see, you are correct about the "being a Christian"
statement, but you have never denied it in prior threads when called on
your statements of your belief. But I will admit I was wrong on that
part of the statement. However, you have avowed (on occasion in very
strong terms) that you believe in God, so I will restate what I said
above as this:
And you, as an avowed believer in God, certainly do not present yourself
as such in this group.
Regardless of being a Christian or not, your actions and statements
still belie your belief. You are still a hypocrite.
>>
>>>
>>> Do you think people don't notice your behavior?
>>>
>>> I sure as hell hope they do! Otherwise why would I post in a public
>>> ng, huh?
>>
>> Pitiful need for attention, I take it?
>
> Nice try but no cigar. If you want to be heard, public forums are the
> place to be, right?
> Or do you prefer being alone and talking to yourself?
>>
>>>
>>> The
>>>
>>>> word "hypocrite" seems an apt description for you.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, and what is it that I've professed to that would make you say
>>> such a thing?
>>
>> If you are not Christian, why do you make the statements you do in the
>> course of your "arguments"?
>
> Please point out where I've used the term "Christian" as a point of
> argument, ok?
Per my corrected comment above, you might not have used the term
"Christian" but you certainly have used God's name in your "arguments"
and accusations of someone being a godless atheist. Your belief and your
actions appear to be on opposite ends of the spectrum.
>
> Or could it be that you will use any
>> "weapon" whether you subscribe to a belief or not to continue your
>> little game to gain the attention you need?
>
>
> Careful, you're about to fall on your own sword.
Again, I think not.
>
> Then again, why bother to
>> ask anything of you?
>
> You tell me? Seeing as how you're the one doing the questioning.
>
> There will be nothing of substance forthcoming
>> anyway.
>
> Ahhh...the final try at an insult! Sorry norm, but engaging you in any
> substantive discussion now seems out of reason and reach.
So says the master of insults. As you have so many times asked others, I
in turn ask you. How can it be an insult if it is the truth?
>
> Enjoy.
>
> I certainly do and thank you very much!
>
> Frank
>


--
norm

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
> I don't know if it is written anywhere.
> Even if it was some would have to see for themselves.
> Disable the service on a clean Install, or whatever suits needs, of
> Windows and verify for yourself.
>

Thanks for the reply. For once, I'm not just trying to have a debate,
but I am actually asking for help in figuring out how to make sure this
kind of access to MS is not available on my machine in the future. My
AU service is on automatic startup, and my files have still not been
updated on my XP machine. Maybe the firewall software and the hardware
firewall I have are good enough. But any input is welcome, I'd still
like to learn more.

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett