<center>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</center>
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 thevery 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 ?

---------
Article reproduced and redistributed with permission from Richard F. Forno