6 ms·
It's all true and yet not true at the same time. Each item on the list has valid business requirements and is needed. For example, the backdoors are required b
by RyanZAG 11y ago
It's all true and yet not true at the same time. Each item on the list has valid business requirements and is needed.
For example, the backdoors are required by government, and Microsoft is not above the government and cannot really refuse if it is a legal requirement for national security. They're not exactly designed as backdoors either - mandatory security updates are necessary to prevent the spread of botnets. There is a valid argument that users should not be allowed to stop these essential security updates. Unfortunately, there are far more changes than only security updates.
DRM is pretty much required for Microsoft to be able to get into distributing media for a fee. The same applies to a lot of the rest - it's all for being competitive in a world where Apple and Google are doing the same thing.
However, that they are all legitimate doesn't actually change that it really is malware at the end of the day and this page is pretty much true.
- pjc50 11y agoif it is a legal requirement for national security. Is it legally required?
- TallGuyShort 11y agoIf it was, are you sure they would be allowed to tell you?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- chris_wot 11y agoSo let me get this straight... you think that a legal requirement should be secret?
- oldmanjay 11y agoIt's pretty clear that there was no statement of personal opinion on the morality of the national security directives contained in that post. Edit: clarity
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoNot should be, is. Stating what one thinks reality is like is not the same as making a moral statement about that reality.
- TallGuyShort 11y agoI don't think that at all - where did you get that? I'm referring to national security letters, which any regular reader of HN should know about and which require you to hand over information like this and keep it a secret. If Microsoft had government mandated backdoors, there's a good chance they'd be required to keep the intentions hush-hush as well.
- chris_wot 11y agoWeren't NSLs found unconstitutional?
- TallGuyShort 11y agoPossibly - not sure which cases have dealt specifically with national security letters and which have dealt with other aspects of the related programs. However there have definitely been cases which the government lost initially and then won on appeal, and as I've discussed on here before, I'm not convinced that inherently secret agencies will actually not do illegal things once they lose the case. They may still send letters to intimidate people and just won't be able to enforce it so easily. So the concept is still relevant IMO. We can't assume companies are allowed to disclose such backdoors if they exist.
- forgottenpass 11y agoEach item on the list has valid business requirements and is needed. So, the Yuppie Nuremberg Defense? [0] Regular malware-malare has a valid business reason for showing you ads and exfiltrating private data too. It's harder to defend because it isn't bundled with a featureset the user also likes. But nobody downloaded BonziBUDDY or hot screensaver packs because they wanted the ads. [0] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/quotes?item=qt0418062 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/quotes?item=qt0418062
- rando289 11y agoYup. http://mimiandeunice.com/2010/08/25/for-the-children/ http://mimiandeunice.com/2010/08/25/for-the-children/
- CyberDildonics 11y ago> Each item on the list has valid business requirements and is needed. Is that why Linux and FreeBSD both do the same thing?