edited 20060706 to update with this news:
"Microsoft WGA Attracts Copycat Worm and Second Lawsuit"
http://www.thechannelinsider.com/article/Microsoft+WGA+Attract...535_1.aspx

edited 20060703 to update with this news:
A Los Angeles US user has filed a suit in federal court, seeking class action status in Seattle against Microsoft alleging spyware among other things.For more on the suit, see
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/275780_msftsuit29.html

For a copy of the suit, see PDF file
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20060629/msftwgasuit.pdf

Microsoft's Jim Desler again trotted out the wierd claim that for something to be spyware, it must have a "malicious" purpose. Sorry, Jim, that's malware. Spyware simply means it spies on you or your information. It doesn't have to be "malicious" (evil or harmful intent) although it often is. Just look up the phrase "definition of spyware" on Google. He also seems to think that when "user consent" based on one set of disclosures is given for one thing it automatically means consent is given for anything else riding along in the package...including any undisclosed processes.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

edited 20060629 to update with this news:

A MAJOR change in Microsoft WGAP policy, includes Microsoft-sanctioned uninstall procedures, and release of revised version of WGAP program.

ref:
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+Heres+how+to+halt+WGA+alerts/210...nefd.pulse

"Add or Remove Programs" won't work, but installing the new version will automatically remove the older version of the software.

In addition, Microsoft provides step-by-step instructions to remove the OLD version at its website. Those instructions also uninstall the updated version, but Microsoft does not sanction that and you are left hanging in the wind if that screws up your system.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Edited 20060623 to add this pointer to a CNET news.com item:
http://news.com.com/Fighting+Microsofts+piracy+check/2100-1029...=nefd.lede
The above article includes comments from satisfied and dissatisfied users of the WGAP. As I originally predicted, multiple people are reporting that multiple legitimate OS installs are failing WGAP and causing operational and security problems and branding legitimately licensed users as thiefs.
OOOOOOOO
Edited 20060622 to add this news:
GAP report-back was changed from daily to bi-weekly, but the point is, it STILL tracks you and your system.
OOOOOOOO
Edited 20060608 to add this new news:
MICROSOFT'S GENUINE ADVANTAGE PROGRAM REPORTS BACK TO MICROSOFT DAILY
(confirmed by Microsoft)

According to article on CNET News
http://news.com.com/Microsofts+antipiracy+tool+phones+home+dai...tag=cd.top

"...checks in with Microsoft on a daily basis, the company confirmed Wednesday."

"This has alarmed some people, such as Lauren Weinstein, a civil liberties activist, who likened it to spyware in a blog posting."
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


In case you haven't read it yet, Microsoft has unveiled the next phase of their "Microsoft Genuine Advantage Program".

This is an OS update that will attempt to verify whether the copy of Windows products you have installed on your system(s) are CONSIDERED legitimate. If found wanting, the user will (at this time) receive ongoing display "nag" alerts stating:

"You might be the victim of software piracy. The copy of Windows installed on this computer is not considered to be genuine by Microsoft."

...until IT believes you are running legitimate copies of Windows programs.

At this time, you have the option of installing the update or not, but you won't be able to get non-critical security updates, nor will you be able to download IE7 until you install this GAP update. Microsoft indicates it won't be optional in the future.

Given Microsoft's long-term and so recently demonstrated problem-filled history with updates and software testing, I believe this program going to be very burdensome to the end-users and businesses. It's not transparent to the user, and it reportedly already has demonstrated implementation interaction problems with security software.

It represents a "guilty until proven innocent" philosophy, directly opposing the "innocent until proven guilty" maxim of the US judicial system.

Microsoft is pitching this with the rather amazing claims it will save millions of jobs globally and $400bn in business gains. I suspect the $400bn gain will be almost exclusively to Microsoft and will pale when compared to the LOSSES to customer businesses of dealing with this type of intrusive software, and problems resulting from the software or the containment process.

I predict a major hit to IT departments in dealing with problems associated with implementing this strategy, and dealing with employees/executives that go ballistic when they see this message on their computers.

Windows OS installs must already be certified at installation and on occassion when a system is recovered, re-installed, or reconfigured to various degrees. This program is expensive overkill.

I also predict there may be a lawsuit or two(thousand) against Microsoft because the warning "nag" will be interpreted that someone is doing something illegal, even when they aren't, and it is posted on the computer screen for your bosses, customers, and fellow-employees to see. This could ruin a person's career or damage one's business relationships. Even IF you can successfully explain what's really going on to your client or your computer-phobic boss, he or she won't appreciate having to deal with the situation, and the wasted time and aggravation will be "your" fault.

While I appreciate the need to protect Intellectual Property (I own a number of patents and copyrights) I believe this implementation to be redundant, draconian, a net-negative impact on business, and ill suited to this environment.

I also believe that by refusing under this plan to provide any security updates except "critical" updates, Microsoft is doing the computing and business communities a significant disservice. This practice allows additional entry points for malware, viruses, etc. to continue to propagate when they could have been stopped. "Critical" security threats aren't the only threats that cost businesses money to deal with and cause computing problems.

For more info:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=186701032
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2154885/microsoft-sneaks-piracy.
http://www.itweek.co.uk/itweek/news/2154729/microsoft-increases-checks

-edited to include another hyperlink reference

Hooray, yet another mindless Microsoft basher who rendered his entire post a conundrum in the first two lines.



What that means, chapo, is that if you have pirated software, you get nagged. Big deal, buy the freaking operating system. If I were a company, I'd employ anti-theft countermeasures. I have a Dell copy of Windows XP with the WGA plugin installed. Ah, legal stuff freaking rules.

Allow me to translate Pikl's post:

If you have nothing to hide, then what's the problem?

Well, the problem is that I've spent thousands of dollars on Microsoft's software, and yet they treat me like a criminal.

Do they have the RIGHT to do so? Surely. It's their software after all.

Are they ******** for doing so? Absolutely.

And John is absolutely on the right track -- the day one of my employees' computers won't work because MS's GAP plugin goes haywire is the day I become a really unhappy camper. And seriously consider moving employees to an operating system that doesn't automatically assume I'm a criminal.

I have nothing to hide, and I still don't want Microsoft screwing around in MY computer, nor do I want them wasting resources on garbage like this when they could obviously put it to better use elsewhere.

Finally, to all you folks out there who insist on pirating Windows (waiting for the justifications...they charge too much..it sucks...I'm poor...etc):

[censored]

As usual, it's a small percentage of selfish people spoiling things for the rest of us. Ah, the story of humankind...



Oh, and, I have to say, I have exactly as much respect for the studies about losses to piracy as I do for the turd I just dropped off in the toilet. They're deluded if they think every person who pirates software/movies/music would have bought it if they couldn't pirate it. Of course, I guess these sorts of things are produced by the PR/marketing departments, who are by definition deluded, so what do I expect...

[edited to remove profanity]

to punish the minority you must punish the majority...which obviously isnt fair but it's not going to change any time soon

I have to say (again) that I can't see the issue with this. If there are any documented cases of users with a legitimate copy of Windows having a problem with this warning, then that would be the time to complain. Assuming that doesn't happen (and I'm not saying that it definately won't), what's the issue? You bought your copy of Windows, you have no problem. You stole your copy of Windows, you have no right to complain.

Pickle-the FUP prohibits the use of obscene language, which I note you are somewhat fond of. Please edit your previous post in this respect and refrain from posting profanity in the future.

Beavis-same goes for you. Please edit your post. And let's keep this thread friendly please, people.

that little move will violate their own privacy policy along with certain privacy laws.

Good luck to them enforcing their rights in China and India.

They don't to understand that they do not have a monopoly on software programming talent. There will be yet another illegitimate patch to this issue by the end of the week.

Hooray, yet another mindless Microsoft groupie who rendered his entire post irrelevant with an ad hominem attack in the first sentence.

Dude, seriously, I like XP, too, but you have no idea who you're talking about. Albrich makes some excellent points, backs them up well, and is coming from a defensible position. I've learned quite a bit from his posts on PSUs alone.

You lose credibility when you could have made your point without swearing and attacking the poster.

*GASP!* More complaints over Microsoft trying to prevent theft. What are we going to do!?

Umm...I'm gonna buy Windows.

I will admit, an OS should not be that expensive. Honestly it should be cheaper than the majority of the games on the market IMO. It runs the computer.

Back on topic, I'm sure at first, yeah, MS is going to have some bugs in the update service, i.e. people with perfectly legitimate copies of Windows being "nagged," but as with any piece of software, it should be better over time. And for emphasis, I shall also say that if you bought your copy of Windows legally, what do you have to hide from?

WHY IS BILL GATES BOTHERING ME. I ONLY STOLE ONE COPY OF WINDOWS XP CORPORATE PRO. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY HE'S ON MY CASE ALL OF A SUDDEN. DYUH!

Cheers.

In case you haven't read it yet, GM has unveiled the next phase of their "General Motors Genuine Authorized Owner Program".

This is an update to your vehicle registration that will attempt to verify whether the title of the vehicle you own is CONSIDERED legitimate. If found wanting, the user will (at this time) receive ongoing display "nag" alerts stating:

"You might be the victim of car theft. The registration for this vehicle is not considered to be genuine by General Motors."

...until IT believes you properly registered your vehicle.

At this time, you have the option of installing the update or not, but you won't be able to get non-critical safety updates. GM indicates it won't be optional in the future.

Given GM's long-term and so recently demonstrated problem-filled history with reliability and crash testing, I believe this program going to be very burdensome to drivers and businesses. It's not transparent to the driver, and it reportedly already has demonstrated implementation interaction problems with airbag software.

It represents a "guilty until proven innocent" philosophy, directly opposing the "innocent until proven guilty" maxim of the US judicial system.

GM is pitching this with the rather amazing claims it will save millions of jobs globally and $400bn in business gains. I suspect the $400bn gain will be almost exclusively to GM and will pale when compared to the LOSSES to customer businesses of dealing with this type of intrusive software, and problems resulting from the software or the containment process.

I predict a major hit to automotive repair departments in dealing with problems associated with implementing this strategy, and dealing with employees/executives that go ballistic when they see this message on their cars.

Vehicle registrations must already be certified at purchase and on occasion when a driver is pulled over. This program is expensive overkill.

I also predict there may be a lawsuit or two(thousand) against GM because the warning "nag" will be interpreted that someone is doing something illegal, even when they aren't, and it is posted on the car for your bosses, customers, and fellow-employees to see. This could ruin a person's career or damage one's business relationships. Even IF you can successfully explain what's really going on to your client or your boss, he or she won't appreciate having to deal with the situation, and the wasted time and aggravation will be "your" fault.

While I appreciate the need to protect Intellectual Property (I own a number of patents and copyrights) I believe this implementation to be redundant, draconian, a net-negative impact on business, and ill suited to this environment.

I also believe that by refusing under this plan to provide any safety updates except "critical" updates, GM is doing the automotive and safe communities in general a significant disservice. This practice allows additional unsafe conditions to exist when they could have been stopped. "Critical" safety threats aren't the only threats that cost consumers money to deal with and cause driving problems.

*gasp*

That's an outrage1

Thank goodness for unreleased VLK's, and for x64, which doesn't even support WGA.

In case you haven't read it yet, ExxonMobil has unveiled the next phase of their "ExxonMobil Genuine Authorized Consumer Program".

This is an update to your vehicle operation permit that will attempt to verify whether the gasoline used in the vehicle you own is CONSIDERED legitimate. If found wanting, the user will (at this time) receive ongoing engine hesitation "nag" alerts stating:

"You might be the victim of refined gasoline theft. The gasoline for this vehicle is not considered to be genuine by ExxonMobil, and may have been obtained from Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmedinejad"

...until IT believes you properly validated the gasoline in your vehicle.

At this time, you have the option of changing out your vehicle fuel delivery system, installing ExxonMobil updates or not, but you won't be able to get non-critical safety updates. ExxonMobil indicates it won't be optional in the future.

Given ExxonMobil's long-term and so recently demonstrated problem-filled history with combustion reliability and crash testing, I believe this program going to be very burdensome to drivers and businesses. It's not transparent to the driver, and it reportedly already has demonstrated implementation interaction problems with vehicle fuel systems.

It represents a "guilty until proven innocent" philosophy, directly opposing the "innocent until proven guilty" maxim of the US judicial system.

ExxonMobil is pitching this with the rather amazing claims it will save millions of jobs globally and $400bn in business gains. I suspect the $400bn gain will be almost exclusively to ExxonMobil (actually that's their revenues per year) and will pale when compared to the LOSSES to customer businesses of dealing with this type of intrusive fuel validity checks, and problems resulting from the fuel checks or the containment process.

I predict a major hit to automotive repair departments in dealing with problems associated with implementing this fuel validation strategy, and dealing with employees/executives that go ballistic when they experience this engine hesitation in their cars.

Vehicle fuel must already be certified at purchase and on occasion when a driver stalls his engine. This program is expensive overkill.

I also predict there may be a lawsuit or two(thousand) against ExxonMobil because the warning "nag" will be interpreted that someone is doing something illegal, even when they aren't, and it is posted on the car for your bosses, customers, and fellow-employees to see. This could ruin a person's career or damage one's business relationships. Even IF you can successfully explain what's really going on to your client or your boss, he or she won't appreciate having to deal with the situation, and the wasted time and aggravation will be "your" fault.

While I appreciate the need to protect Intellectual Property (I own a number of patents and copyrights) I believe this implementation to be redundant, draconian, a net-negative impact on business, and ill suited to this environment.

I also believe that by refusing under this plan to provide any safety updates except "critical" updates, ExxonMobil is doing the automotive and safe communities in general a significant disservice. This practice allows additional unsafe conditions to exist when they could have been stopped. "Critical" safety threats aren't the only threats that cost consumers money to deal with and cause driving problems.

That was fun.

Interesting post from Matt-I can't actually work out if you're for or against it!

Of course, GM issues "keys" for their equipment which you have to use each time you use the device, in an attempt to ensure that unauthorised users cannot access it. If you do not have the key about your person, you will be unable to use the device without causing it serious damage, even if you did purchase it legally.

I can't recall anybody complaining about GM issuing these "keys" - perhaps we can begin the backlash here?

Analogies can be nice to illustrate a point, but comparing software to tangible items just doesn't work - at all. Not coincidentally, that's most of the reason why there are no easy answers to these problems.

(Other than, you know, people not stealing, and corporations not being heartless monstrosities)

It's interesting to note the above statement, which is a very similar headline to a recently aired news article that appeared on Tech Report entitled, "Microsoft nags software pirates." ( http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/9861 ). Really, it's appalling at the difference in tone of these two articles which convey the exact, same, news article.

Where one is FUD (this one) the other is spot-on. Whether or not you agree with the moral issues raised by Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage plugin is another thing entirely -- the main idea is that it's intent is to nag software pirates, or otherwise illegitimate copies of Windows. That seems far, far, FAR astray from merely the title of this articulated work.

Really, it appalls me. Let's bash Microsoft for nagging you for stealing their product. They aren't reporting you to the FBI, nor are they suing middle-class families for unquenchably large amounts of money (a la the RIAA and Sony), no, what Microsoft has done is very clearly much, much worse. They make you face popups when your system reboots from sleep and when you boot up! Oh noes, not popups!

I feel inclined to add, as a legitimate Windows user, that I have installed the Windows Genuine Advantage authentication plugin. My legitimate copy of Windows.... erm... still runs fine. That would make me a user of a legitimate copy of Windows XP who hasn't been nagged, which would thusly contradict your title. Hooboy. I can't wait for the next round of Microsoft bashery, someone will likely blame them for the extinction of the banana. And maybe the dinosaurs. Hell, why not blame them for cancer too?



Conveniently, all you have to do is download the plugin, restart, and you're done. But that's really sort of an irrelevant analogy, unless you can describe exactly how to create an illegitimate car?

PS: Sorry if I sound aggravated. I really sort of am.

In the future this will happen:


I hope not.

Beavis is right, tangible objects =/= software. As Ian said, though, it was kind of fun.

I'm against this for the same reason I'm against all DRM: It doesn't deter piracy in the least while creating problems for some legit consumers.

Ian said there will be a hacked patch within a week, and I'd say he's right. So all the people who know they are running a pirated version will be looking for it, while some people - admittedly not likely to be a large number - who have genuine copies will get the scarlet P.

In the meantime, if you want to continue using MS' product, you have to consent to an invasion of privacy. Realistically, Linux and other OS alternatives are not true alternatives for most people; therefore most people will need to continue to use Windows. So there's not much of an option. The "if you don't like it then run Linux" argument is not valid.

As John said, it's guilty unless proven innocent. Sure, this will bother a few pirates, maybe even a lot, but it will also cause problems for some people who did not pirate Windows, knowingly or unknowingly.

Um,FF users-Google-Windizupdate.

lmao, Harry Kim. Pity for those who steal Windows Vista. Not really. They shouldn't steal. I plan on buying Vista, though I will wait until they make a few updates, and fine tune any compatibility mode for programs intended to run on WinXP, just to be safe.

On the subject of "nagging" this is actually fairly nice of them toward the pirate community. They could report you, get your money and then some, and haul your ass into jail, but no. They've decided to nag you.

Equivilent: You walk into Wal-Mart. You are a klepto (note, this is to no one on HWA in particular, so no one get angry at me.) You walk over to, say, the electronics section, and nab a game, say, Quake 4 (first thing that came to mind). You tuck it into your coat and make for the exit. However, one of the security guards saw what you did. Let's check the possibilities.

1. They can be really really nice and "nag" you by saying "Hey you, hey you, hey you. Stop stealing. Cut that out. You really shouldn't do that. Hey, hey, hey, put that back. Right now. Do it. Pay for it if you want it. Hey! Listen. No more stealing, guy."

* * * OR * * *

2. They can grab you in a harsh manner, yell, "You're under arrest!" and haul you off to jail.

Obviously, scenario 2 is much more feasable, but scenario 1 seems much nicer, and forgiving. Microsoft = Scenario 1.

However, I still think you should buy their software. Stealing is undeniably illegal.