If one were merely capturing the packets that Vista was sending to M$, surely that wouldn't qualify as reverse engineering or circumventing DRM. Comments?
Brad On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 21:48:23 -0700 "member greenarrow1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Only if we bench test but not talk about. This is what the problem > is > as you stated because if one tears apart anything you are violating > the EULA and license. The EULA back talks itself in areas allowing > you in one statement then denying you in another. One area of > concern > is WGA as it requests to change and modify the physical memory thus > creating a back door avenue for root kits. MS told me they fixed > this > months ago but I found it back again with the last WGA update so > whom > are they trying to fool. > > Besides Google has now been in contact with me about the info I > have. > As much as I do not really like Google privacy and rules at least > this > is a avenue for me for financial and lawyer support against Vista > and > MS. If Vista and MS do not violate anti-trust in certain software > and > software areas then we all might as well forget everything because > they have the higher ups in their pockets. Plus regardless of what > the EULA and license states and the user agrees does not mean the > EULA > does not violate federal or state privacy laws. The EULA leaves > that > open as to what MS can do with private info in the future and needs > court clarification. I want to know what law gives them the right > to > collect this data in the first place. Preventing piracy is not a > legal reason nor do I feel it would stand up in court. MS is a > big > backer of DRM and one of the reasons is their wanting control of > what > you do, the internet, and everything that you have on your > computer. > They want the user to be totally dependent on Microsoft. > > George > > On 7/3/07, Mario Torre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Il giorno lun, 02/07/2007 alle 22.42 -0700, member greenarrow1 ha > > scritto: > > > > > Maybe a little of both. If I told MS that portions of their > software > > > violate privacy laws they will come back and ask me how I derived > this > > > info. > > > > On a side note, we are currently violating the EULA ;), which > forbids > > users to reveal portion of itself... > > > > Mario > > -- > > Lima Software - http://www.limasoftware.net/ > > GNU Classpath Developer - http://www.classpath.org/ > > Fedora Ambassador - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MarioTorre > > Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF > > Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF > > > > Please, support open standards: > > http://opendocumentfellowship.org/petition/ > > http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Advocate mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate > > > > > > > > > -- > greenarrow1 > InNetInvestigations-Forensic > SuSe 10.2/TriStar/Apache > GoBoLinux > > _______________________________________________ > Advocate mailing list > [email protected] > http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate > > _______________________________________________ Advocate mailing list [email protected] http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate
