4 ms·
Pretty sure by you having this malware submission feature enabled you have given a limited license for them to execute the binary. You're barking up the wrong t
by GhettoMaestro 7y ago
Pretty sure by you having this malware submission feature enabled you have given a limited license for them to execute the binary. You're barking up the wrong tree.
- 0xffff2 7y agoYou (the user) may not have the right to grant such a license.
- moomin 7y agoAssume for a second this is correct. What's to stop virus writers from embedding a ToS preventing Microsoft from running the code? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying it's really hard to work out how this is meant to work.
- 0xffff2 7y agoI don't think a virus is relevant here. I'm not a lawyer, but the idea of a "terms of service" for an unwanted and maliciously installed executable seems nonsensical. Virus authors can include whatever TOS they want, but the "user" hasn't agreed to the TOS practically by definition.
- GhettoMaestro 7y agoUnfortunately the law doesn’t view common sense answers like that as easily as you and I.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- GhettoMaestro 7y agoGood point. What about anti-virus or cloud-detonation services ? Sounds like there would be a similar type of challenges with those re licenses?
- TeMPOraL 7y agoPerhaps. It seems that this option is enabled by default, though. I imagine something about this is buried in the pile of agreements you have to click through when installing Windows. What's the status of current legal understanding of the reality that EULAs are bullshit and nobody ever reads them? Maybe I could win something from Europe via GDPR complaint if I compiled an executable containing my PII only for it to be exfilled by Microsoft?