WGA sends info, whether you like it or not

[Shamrock]

http://www.aviransplace.com/2007/03/07/...-ms-even-if-you-choose-not-to-install/

Even has a screenshot. It sends registry info.

When you start WGA setup and get to the license agreement page but decided NOT to install the highly controversial WGA component and cancel the installation, the setup program will send your info and the fact that you choose not to install WGA back to their servers.

In addition to that it seems that the setup program send some information stored in your registry to http://genuine.microsoft.com/. While it does not specifically identify the user, it looks like it does send some identification of your computer and Windows version (see picture) to Microsoft servers.

 

[pcgeek11]

Some more paranoia food.

Evil Bill Gates Empire is coming to get you suckka.

WOW.

If this is bothersome Don't Start The WGA Set-up. You do have a choice.

pcgeek11

 

[Stumps]

most of us have known this for some time, even back when Microsoft hid WGA as a critical update with out telling anybody...and it sends more info than just your registry...

 

[nerp]

They're not going to send over your word documents or tax forms. I own legit windows. I'm not worried about this at all.

 

[nweaver]

The issue is this falls into the realm of spyware/malware. You say "No" and it send who knows what anyway. That is (imho) wrong, for any software to do. Of course, I don't use WGA, it's not in the repo's yet

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: nweaver
it's not in the repo's yet

 

[n0cmonkey]

I only use Windows for/at work. If they start grabbing the wrong bits of those systems Microsoft will have a lot to worry about.

And I'm sure they know this and they're staying to the "safe bits." Whatever. It's a non-issue for geeks.

 

[Smilin]

WGA will check in with MS to see if it ever needs disabled. If it causes problems MS needs a way to quickly shut it down everywhere. Beyond that you need to take off your tinfoil hat.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Smilin
WGA will check in with MS to see if it ever needs disabled. If it causes problems MS needs a way to quickly shut it down everywhere. Beyond that you need to take off your tinfoil hat.

But that's what protects us from the government implated RFIDs in our heads...

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Smilin
WGA will check in with MS to see if it ever needs disabled. If it causes problems MS needs a way to quickly shut it down everywhere. Beyond that you need to take off your tinfoil hat.

But that's what protects us from the government implated RFIDs in our heads...

No, they just want you to think that so you'll wear it. In fact it does the opposite:

http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: nweaver
The issue is this falls into the realm of spyware/malware. You say "No" and it send who knows what anyway. That is (imho) wrong, for any software to do. Of course, I don't use WGA, it's not in the repo's yet

That's probably the biggest concern, if Microsoft can get away with it legally, than so too will all other software.

 

[Shamrock]

I own legit windows too, it's just wrong. It's the principle of it. They should not be allowed to do that. It sends the data, EVEN IF YOU CHOOSE NO!

 

[stash]

How is it wrong on principle? The fact that you downloaded it is already recorded on an IIS log somewhere.

The sending of telemetry data is also specified under the WU privacy statement and has been since at least 2004: http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsSe...28-881d-754375b679121033.mspx?mfr=true

 

[Motorheader]

That's right up there with IE7 being a critical update.

 

[nerp]

Every time you swipe a credit card, sign up for a rewards card at a major retailer, apply for college, get a loan and take your garbage out, you're potentially forking over loads of personal information into the hands of people you don't know.

There is concern and then there is irrational concern.

 

[jlbenedict]

If people are so concerned, just disconnect your internet connection

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Smilin
WGA will check in with MS to see if it ever needs disabled. If it causes problems MS needs a way to quickly shut it down everywhere. Beyond that you need to take off your tinfoil hat.

But that's what protects us from the government implated RFIDs in our heads...

No, they just want you to think that so you'll wear it. In fact it does the opposite:

http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

You weren't supposed to tell people. Expect a knock on your door soon. :|

 

[ginfest]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Smilin
WGA will check in with MS to see if it ever needs disabled. If it causes problems MS needs a way to quickly shut it down everywhere. Beyond that you need to take off your tinfoil hat.

But that's what protects us from the government implated RFIDs in our heads...

No, they just want you to think that so you'll wear it. In fact it does the opposite:

http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

Gotta be one of the best "scientific" studies ever done
I'll always regret the fact that I didn't matriculate at MIT, they have always encouraged free-thinkers.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Smilin
WGA will check in with MS to see if it ever needs disabled. If it causes problems MS needs a way to quickly shut it down everywhere. Beyond that you need to take off your tinfoil hat.

But that's what protects us from the government implated RFIDs in our heads...

No, they just want you to think that so you'll wear it. In fact it does the opposite:

http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

way too funny, i love it!

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: stash
How is it wrong on principle? The fact that you downloaded it is already recorded on an IIS log somewhere.

The sending of telemetry data is also specified under the WU privacy statement and has been since at least 2004: http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsSe...28-881d-754375b679121033.mspx?mfr=true

do you get a chance to review that prior to WGA sending out info?

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Smilin
WGA will check in with MS to see if it ever needs disabled. If it causes problems MS needs a way to quickly shut it down everywhere. Beyond that you need to take off your tinfoil hat.

what if it was say...Sony, and they wanted to make sure they could disable their root kit quickly....


why would MS need to disable something I DECLINED TO INSTALL.

I don't really care about what is sent, it's the principle. I decline to install the software, it should kindly shut down. Does it tell you it's doing it?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: Smilin
WGA will check in with MS to see if it ever needs disabled. If it causes problems MS needs a way to quickly shut it down everywhere. Beyond that you need to take off your tinfoil hat.

what if it was say...Sony, and they wanted to make sure they could disable their root kit quickly....


why would MS need to disable something I DECLINED TO INSTALL.

I don't really care about what is sent, it's the principle. I decline to install the software, it should kindly shut down. Does it tell you it's doing it?

Comparing Sony rootkit and WGA. Bro, you're starting to sound a bit like a zealot here. It's unlike you.

What is there to shut down if it didn't install? You installed it at some point. It sounds like the fine print got you somehow somewhere.

The principle of it isn't causing a bit of harm to you or anyone else. I'm going to leave you now. Feel free to stomp around in circles in this thread all you want about your principles.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: Smilin
WGA will check in with MS to see if it ever needs disabled. If it causes problems MS needs a way to quickly shut it down everywhere. Beyond that you need to take off your tinfoil hat.

what if it was say...Sony, and they wanted to make sure they could disable their root kit quickly....


why would MS need to disable something I DECLINED TO INSTALL.

I don't really care about what is sent, it's the principle. I decline to install the software, it should kindly shut down. Does it tell you it's doing it?

Comparing Sony rootkit and WGA. Bro, you're starting to sound a bit like a zealot here. It's unlike you.

What is there to shut down if it didn't install? You installed it at some point. It sounds like the fine print got you somehow somewhere.

The principle of it isn't causing a bit of harm to you or anyone else. I'm going to leave you now. Feel free to stomp around in circles in this thread all you want about your principles.

It all starts somewhere...there is a top to that slippery slope. Did MS ask if it could send info (no, in fact you declined to send info by clicking "cancel"). Did Sony ask if you wanted hidden crap that made your computer more venerable? nope (although at least you knew MS was doing something).

 

[stash]

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: stash
How is it wrong on principle? The fact that you downloaded it is already recorded on an IIS log somewhere.

The sending of telemetry data is also specified under the WU privacy statement and has been since at least 2004: http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsSe...28-881d-754375b679121033.mspx?mfr=true

do you get a chance to review that prior to WGA sending out info?

Actually, yes. If you have evidence the privacy statement was doctored or otherwise falsified, you probably should post it. Otherwise stop with the FUD.

 

[stash]

It all starts somewhere...there is a top to that slippery slope. Did MS ask if it could send info (no, in fact you declined to send info by clicking "cancel"). Did Sony ask if you wanted hidden crap that made your computer more venerable? nope (although at least you knew MS was doing something).

Whew, thanks for throwing in that last part.

For a second there I thought you were seriously trying to compare sending telemetry data about something you declined to install and in fact was not installed to installing a root kit.

edit: so I'm curious why none of you are up in arms about the fact that your download was already recorded in the web server log. That data arguably has more potential to reveal personal information about you, because your IP can be traced back to a geographic area in many cases.

But instead I read that sending a log saying xyz was not installed is like installing a rootkit. Wow.