[wordup] Microsoft Makes An Offer You Can't Refuse

[Adam Shand]

From: Richard Forno <rforno at infowarrior.org>
Source: http://www.infowarrior.org/articles/2002-09.html

Microsoft Makes An Offer You Can't Refuse

Richard F. Forno 
(c) 2002 - Permission granted to reproduce with appropriate credit.

Article #2002-09 

30 June 2002

This week, Microsoft released a much-needed security patch to fix critical
vulnerabilities in the Windows Media Player (WMP). Thanks to some
enterprising geeks taking the time to read the End-User License Agreement
(EULA) accompanying the fix, it became known that the patch did far more
than simply remedy the latest Microsoft security problem. In essence, the
WMP security 'fix' contains a Trojan Horse that few know about, since people
seldom read software licenses - but ultimately become bound by them by
installing and using the software.

Instead of users being in-charge of their computers and information, the
software giant wants to reverse that paradigm, using terms like 'Secure
Content' and 'Trustworthy Computing' as feel-good pseudonyms for
'enslavement' and 'indentured servitude.'

As this Register article notes, users desiring to close this latest security
holes in WMP must also agree to allow Microsoft to install Digital Rights
Management software (copy prevention controls) on their computers, and agree
that Microsoft may update such features from time to time or even disable
other software on their computers at some point. (That last point is rather
vague, and could mean disabling anything from viruses to software from
Microsoft competitors.)

It's like Ford issuing the recall for the Firestone tires shipped on its
vehicles, and maintaining a policy that any vehicle owner getting their
tires replaced (thus increasing their safety) must agree to use Ford-brand
gasoline and allow Ford to approve where, when, and on what roads they may
drive their vehicle. Otherwise, they are free to drive anywhere they like on
Firestone tires, but are on their own if something bad happens. The only
kicker is, this isn't conveyed to Ford customers in an easily-noticed and
understandable fashion before the work gets done....so owners are bound by
the new policy by unwitting default.

Remember that Microsoft has a history of re-writing the English language to
suit its own purposes and agenda. Once again, we are witnessing Microsoft as
the ultimate social engineer, this time crafting an elaborate and
potentially-criminal Catch-22 for its customers, capitalizing on its own
product and business shortcomings and heralded by its proprietary
interpretations of modern industry buzzwords like 'security',
'trustworthiness,' and 'secure content.'

Users should expect their software to be secure and robust at the time of
purchase, and for vendors to take responsibility for effectively fixing
problems as they are discovered, without attaching strings or legal
conditions or surreptitiously-modifying things. Unfortunately, as of this
week, for Windows users to receive this expected level of service, they must
begin relinquishing positive control of their computers and information, and
potentially submit to third-party restrictions on how they may legally use
their systems in the form of Digital Rights Management functionality.
(Richard Stallman's short essay "The Right To Read" comes to mind here.)

After all, just last week the entertainment industry was in support of
proposed legislation providing them legal protection while they disrupt and
attack (e.g., "hack and crack") anyone they deem is violating their
copyrights on peer-to-peer environments under an innocuous-sounding term of
'technical self-help.' Collusion with  - or the support of - Microsoft would
make that quite convenient. You can forget privacy and security as well;
your needs and desires are subordinate to those of the faceless industry
cartels and the re-election interests of various officials in Congress.

Consider similar 'protection' initiatives in neighborhoods controlled by
organized crime syndicates. Residents and shop owners are 'strongly
encouraged' to pay a recurring tribute to powerful people who in-turn insure
that homes and shops are 'safe' from crime. Those refusing or failing to pay
such tribute soon find themselves victims of increased criminal activity in
the neighborhood -- but strangely, upon paying their tribute, the crime
stops! 

The same can be said of Microsoft in the early days of Windows. Remember how
early versions Microsoft Windows tricked users of competing DR-DOS into
switching to MS-DOS by intentionally generating fake error messages and
random crashes when it ran on anything but MS-DOS? Ironically, upon running
Windows on MS-DOS after dumping DR-DOS, these particular problems vanished
immediately. 

Given this latest tidbit, coupled with the "Palladium" concept from last
week and various legislative proposals, one wonders if Microsoft isn't
purposely manufacturing problems (or capitalizing on their legacy of
exploit-prone software) to help facilitate such Draconian controls over
users and their information to protect its market and defacto technical
dominance, not to mention the ability of Hollywood cartels to influence
society by enacting an techno-legal dictatorship over all electronic
content, media, and devices?

A friend recently suggested that Microsoft is a prime example of 'capitalism
gone bad' - noting that the company embodies every manipulative, avaricious,
socially-indifferent negative stereotype of capitalism that Marx and Engels,
in what until now has been widely regarded as their paranoid schizophrenia,
envisioned over a hundred years ago.  Come to think of it, Microsoft seems
to have as its eventual goal the reversal of every advance in consumer
rights and fair trade philosophy that has been so laboriously won during the
last century and a half of true innovation, seeking to partner with whoever
is willing to join in its exploitative efforts.

Want your Windows system to have protection from hackers, crackers, and
crashes? Better fork over your tribute and sacrifice your independence to
Redmond - otherwise you stand an increased chance of experiencing 'problems'
of one sort or other, either from external cyber-criminals or Microsoft,
acting alone or on behalf of its partners in the entertainment industry.
Such actions might be what the legal community calls racketeering, or at the
very least, conspiracy to commit extortion.

Are we witnessing the rebirth of Microsoft as a 'family-oriented business'
-- with Steve Ballmer serving as both President and Capo de Tutti Capi?