OT: SPYWARE/TROJAN and Off Topic!

[Inigo Montoya]

[quote]Originally posted by Norfleet:

It is paradoxically the case that the untrustworthy are safer than those you feel are trustworthy. The untrustworthy have demonstrated their untrustworthiness to you already, whereas those who appear trustworthy may simply be attempting to gain your trust so as to better betray you in the future. Knowing the motivations behind somebody's allegiance is always better, of course, but I favor the devil I know over the devil I do not.

I disagree. Let's say I'm thinking of leaving my child with a babysitter for the night. You would select the pedophile with the known track record for being untrustworthy with children because you know his motivations are to molest your child. I, on the other hand, would select my mother. You are certainly right, my mother could have been waiting all these years pretending to love me, but secretly harbouring devious motivations. But when I weigh the risks, the individual who has proven himself to be untrustworthy is not as you put it, "safer." You can leave your child with the pedophile, but I don't see how you think you are safer doing so.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Inigo Montoya:
But when I weigh the risks, the individual who has proven himself to be untrustworthy is not as you put it, "safer." You can leave your child with the pedophile, but I don't see how you think you are safer doing so.

Certainly he is. You know for certain he is a pedophile, so you absolutely do not leave your children with him. His state is known to you. Somebody else, on the other hand, COULD be a pedophile, but you do not KNOW this. His known untrustworthiness allows you to react appropriately with an informed decision. Knowledge of his motivations, furthermore, allows you to manipulate him using these motivations. A "trustworthy" individual whose motives are less well known is much harder to control.

[ April 08, 2004, 05:25: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

There is no need to get personal or drag pedophilia into a discussion. The question was posed, in however ungainly a manner and it was answered and cleared. I hope anyone who reads through this thread at least gets the facts straight.

No Illwinter is not using Spyware, they are using a tracking system for Multiplayer games to prevent piracy. They have every right and should use every measure they have at their disposal to combat it as it is their product that is being pirated, not yours. (though it may well be if you let your CD-Key slip). If you are playing SP there is no reason to worry about any sort of tracking measures.

Whatever your personal feelings of internet or life paranoia, tracking, piracy, should be, could be, would be, please don't try to drag IW's protection of their property into that perception.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
It's nice to see that you are willing to destoy the property of others on a whim, and aren't at all concerned about whether your behaviour is illegal.

Well, those who would take what is mine have it coming. It is better to destroy everything you own than allow it to be taken from you by the enemy.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
It's nice to see that you are willing to destoy the property of others on a whim, and aren't at all concerned about whether your behaviour is illegal.

Well, those who would take what is mine have it coming. It is better to destroy everything you own than allow it to be taken from you by the enemy.

---

You might want to make sure that your statements apply to the things you are talking about. There's a world of difference between destroying things you own, and destroying things other people own, which is illegal and immoral. Excuse me if I don't have much respect for someone who's admitted that they don't respect the property of others.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
There's a world of difference between destroying things you own, and destroying things other people own, which is illegal and immoral. Excuse me if I don't have much respect for someone who's admitted that they don't respect the property of others.

There is, of course, a minor point: The property in question is entirely mine, the code in question never intended for distribution. As such, any unauthorized individual found to be running it is automatically the enemy, having stolen it from me, and deserves his fate. Destruction of stolen item was deemed to be of paramount importance, and all else was deemed collateral damage. Being that the damage was inflicted upon those also complicit, I see nothing wrong with this.

Illwinter, perhaps, would not do exactly that, as the PR gained from destroying a user's computer would not really benefit them much, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they covertly gathered information for other commercial uses, or attempted to take control of your computer's resources to sell them off to others. Such behaviors ARE known to occur, and somebody pointed out, the target tends to be the average user, who will not notice the resource drain and data theft.

[PvK]

Originally posted by Zen:
...
They have every right and should use every measure they have at their disposal to combat it as it is their product that is being pirated, not yours.

No, perhaps they have the right to use every measure for which there is not a good reason they shouldn't. Protecting a product doesn't give carte blanche. Moreover, what the customers do have is their own computer, private information, and Internet access. Software vendors do not, I think, have the right to materially misrepresent what their software does, nor to use their customers' computers for whatever they feel like. I tend to think that if a program is going to "phone home" that it should be explained to the user what it's going to do, and the user should be allowed to refuse permission, without having to bring in their own third-party software to find out about it and stop it.

Now, what would be completely reasonable, would be to make a program which explains a "phone home" check is required to use whatever features, and then to obtain permission before doing so. This protects both the product from piracy, and the user's computer and Internet connection from unauthorized use. Of course, people can still suspect software of doing other stuff than it says it does, but generally those white hack hacker types will notice quickly if it does, and in that case the company responsible should be held accountable.

I know I won't ever buy Turbo Tax again after they included a hidden install of such stuff without telling.

I also have plenty of good faith in Illwinter, and don't think there's a real problem in this case. However in principle I think the program should explain and ask permission up front before phoning home.

PvK