I kind of figured something like this would happen...

[Jonathan Hutchins]

----- Original Message -----
From: <KRFinch at dstsystems.com>
> We'll probably have to worry about this on some systems around here
because
> of the same laws that affect the banks.

> http://boston.internet.com/news/article.php/1485861

This could apply to insurance companies as well, but this is a "straw man"
argument.

The article says that the ELUA on some Microsoft products requires you to
allow Microsoft to access information on your computer, which could be in
conflict with Federal privacy regulations.  The thing is, it only requires
you to allow this access if you are using Microsoft's Automatic Update
feature.  Most large IT infrastructures don't allow direct updating by
outside providers like Microsoft anyway; they require that any updates be
applied and tested in a safe lab before they are released to the production
environment through IT distribution channels.  These organizations never
need the automatic update feature, so it's a moot point whether they allow
access.

It's a serious flaw that Microsoft has never considered allowing you to
re-direct Windows Update to internal servers, and allowing you to set up
internal servers to provide the updates.  Symantec does this for Norton
Anti-Virus updates - you can update from a Symantec site or you can set up
your own Update server.  More recent versions have internal "push" servers
that send updates as soon as they're available (and will even do push
installs of the software on new systems).

While the trend toward Microsoft demanding access is there, I don't believe
it will ever be absolute, simply because not every system is connected to
the Internet (GASP!).  Microsoft will have to make some provision for
systems that are ether purely stand-alone, media (CD/Floppy) access only, or
are behind impenetrable security barriers that do not allow access from the
public net.  That, or they'll have to concede those systems to a
competitor - something they're even less likely to do.