Microsoft the benevolent dictator
According to today’s SMH (”Microsoft wants to worm its way into your PC“, 15 Feb. 2008), Microsoft is currently investigating ways to take even greater control away from PC users with the introduction of so-called “friendly” worms that distribute software patches “surreptitiously”:
“Like the malicious worms that spread from computer to computer by self-replicating and automatically seeking out new computers to infect, the friendly worms will be used to distribute updates to users without forcing them to download anything from a central server.”
This is yet another reason why I don’t trust Microsoft and am slowly migrating all of my personal computers away from the platform. I have a huge problem with this. There is no such thing as a friendly worm. Worms inspect and do things to your computer without your knowledge or consent - they are not diagnostic tools. For Microsoft to advocate use of friendly worms is to advocate the erosion of choice from computer owners.
If a vulnerability exists on my machine and Microsoft has the ability to diagnose, locate and fix it, there is absolutely no need to do so without my approval. Computer users have a right to know what processes are running on their machine at all times, and have the ability to deactivate them if and when desired. At the end of the day it is our choice whether a patch is installed, not Microsoft’s.
The mere fact this is even being considered by such a powerful and influential company sends shivers down my spine and should be closely monitored by regulatory authorities.
Microsoft seems to have long held the opinion that they know what’s best for computer users. The benevolent dictator who knows what decisions computer users will make before we are even presented with the choice. The worry these days is that they have increasingly begun to relieve us of choice, as though it’s a burden.
Choice isn’t a burden, it’s a right.
February 23rd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I agree completely, except that one needs to remember that one doesn’t ‘own’ a Microsoft operating system in the classical sense. One owns a ‘license’ to use the operating system (pardon my American spelling).
As a licensee, you can only do with it what is prescribed in the license terms - this choice of which you speak is only the choice to either agree to any and all terms or un-install it.
[Reply]
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Hi Mike,
Long time no see, hope all is well
You’re too right re: licensing versus ownership - I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out.
This reminds me that I’ve never actually read the end user licensing agreement for XP or any of Microsoft’s other products. Methinks it’s about time I did.
My fear in all this is that Microsoft could start to change the licensing terms to the extent that these “friendly” worms - or other questionable business practices - are legitimised, and what was once a worthwhile purchase suddenly becomes something you choose to uninstall because the real price of running the software is too great.
It’s not fair, but it’s possible I suppose. That’s business when you control a 95% share of the desktop market - or whatever it is…
Cheers,
Mike
[Reply]