Best phone camera 2016/2017: Galaxy S7 vs iPhone 7 vs Google Pixel vs HTC 10 Evo vs OnePlus 3T vs…
Microsoft could and should have been more transparent with the introduction of WGA. I feel now that the description of the WGA download was misleading.
in the pca news section
'WGA collects a computer's IP address, Bios data, system version and local language and settings information, the suit says'...could someone explain what the problem is with this? You can already access a computers IP address, system version and language. I really think that some people a) have too much spare time and little to fill it and b) think that they are extras in the X-Files or The Matrix.
The usual spyware is installed surreptitiously, WGA certainly wasn't - there was almost a fanfare of trumpets announcing its creation in the "war against piracy".
The usual spyware is installed in relatively few computers - mainly those of the unwary or uncaring. MS WGA is being installed in all of modern Windows loaded computers - zillions and zillions of them. If MS was collecting information from each of these for nefarious purposes, can someone explain or even suggest what this could possibly be?
>WGA collects a computer's IP address, Bios data, system version and local language and settings information> . Possibly no one would have issue with this, however it is the possible wider issue and this what this is about
These alleged function are only illustrative of what it is believed to be able to do or does. The lawsuit is more specific in that it alleges >>WGA is spyware and that Microsoft misled consumers by labelling it as a critical security update>> the plaintiffs maintain Microsoft did not make users aware that WGA frequently contacted its central servers.
why so many people jump on the "Oh my God", now Microsoft is going to know everything about me" bandwagon.
Every time there's the slightest little panic about some new security "issue" the media are flooded with complaints from outraged citizens, desperate to point out that now somebody in some obscure office somewhere in Microsoft, or whichever company is involved, will know that they have a lunch date with that girl from Sales next Friday.
The word "Spyware" is bandied about as if our very existence depended on keeping our IP address secret - which it isn't anyway. If Microsoft wants its software to contact a central server each time I fire up my network it's fine by me, as long as none of the information contained in my data files is compromised - which it isn't - and as long as the software doesn't identify me personally - which it doesn't.
I've spoken to Microsoft people about this in the past, and they find the notion that the company is feverishly harvesting all our highly confidential information hilarious - they very reasonably ask the question that puzzles €dstowe, which is "why would we conceivably want to do a thing like that?" Microsoft have admitted that they might have been a tad dilatory when it came to a full explanation about the purposes/capabilities of the WGA, but that's hardly a justification for the outbreak of mass hysteria that has hit the more excitable sector of the userbase.
Frankly I'm more concerned about the price of duck-eggs in Waitrose.
Most of that information is available about your setup to every site you visit on the net anyway + your screen res.
Please don't misunderstand my views on WGA.
I am not puzzled by WGA itself and have no objection to it. The bit I don't understand about the whole thing is, like the FE, why people get their knickers in such a twist about it.
My last sentence in the later post of mine, above, is meant to question those who are worried about WGA and what they think that MS are intending doing with the information that they think can be collected from the feedback that WGA gives. Are they imagining Gates creating some kind of oppressive regime akin to those of the Communist bloc of the last century?
"Frankly I'm more concerned about the price of duck-eggs in Waitrose"
And the price this week is??
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.