Vista - New EULA for Retail Buyers

lol-
So a tad of a dig-thats fine;
again with SPP; MSFT is assuming criminal intent.

Jeff

"deebs" <deebs@false.false> wrote in message
news:uP51lew8GHA.940@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Forgive me Jeff - mea maxima culpa
>
> I always assume intelligence on part of the reader
>
> Jeff wrote:
>> Which part of the thread is this a reply too?
>>
>> "deebs" <deebs@false.false> wrote in message
>> news:eOGylWw8GHA.3552@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> Or so you believe?
>>>
>>> Go for Linux - will it make a change
>>>
>>> It is far, far better in my opinion to be open and realistic.
>>>
>>> There again, many may prefer to be delusional.
>>

"Jeff" <S.Cerevesiae@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ensdMVw8GHA.2364@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Ah,
> That's fine.
> And most people won't care; but what's happening here is indicative of a
> major change in business;(and in society-in general-but that's for other
> ng's-lol)
> A change in attitude; a change in business practice; and yes; a
> fundamental change in one's rights.
> When it becomes the customer's responsibilty; to constantly prove that
> they are NOT criminals; something is drastically wrong.
> MSFT takes the position; with SPP; that their customer's are inherently
> criminal.


This is a critical point, and why Vista will be trashed by the European
Union. In the EU, they assume that companies want to get your personal
info. In the US, we assume the government does. Now we get both. Aren't
we lucky? And where is the Bill of Rights and Constitution---totally
trashed!

No, your external IP i.e. the IP of your router or whatever device serves as
the endpoint of your local network. Take a look at the properties of your
own post, it's in there. It has to be; when your system communicates with
another there has to be someway for it to send information back to you. That
way is your IP address.

In the case of a randomizer it is the ip address of the randomizer's server
which in turn has your real IP address and forwards packets to it. You
*trust* the randomizer comany to keep your real IP address secret. However
since you are routing all of your traffic through their server, they can
track everything you do. In effect you are saying, "instead of trusting
several companies with little bits of my browsing practices, I'm going to
trust one comany with all of it."

This is true with *ALL* (Windows, Linux, Unix, etc) operating systems that
provide internet connectivity. Just visit this webpage to check:

http://checkip.dyndns.org/

-Mike

"Steve Urbach" <dragonsclaw@NOTmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:avadj2pqka7lagb7d4sqdjf4fvj3trvsa1@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:16:59 -0700, "**__MIke__**" <Mike@NoSpam.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The crappy new EULA aside, you *are* aware that your IP address *is*
>>included in *every* internet transmission made by your computer in any
>>operating system, right?
> Yup
> 192.168.0.x
>
>
> Stupid Remote assistance can't deal with NAT (routers).
> Duh? If IP is private range, Ask for the public IP (or better yet,
> snag it and instruct the user to have port "z" forwarded to the local
> IP, "y" of this machine.

Hush now - it is better not to challenge some delusional factors


"**__MIke__**" <Mike@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:z8adnf_si4XjLKvYnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> No, your external IP i.e. the IP of your router or whatever device serves
> as the endpoint of your local network. Take a look at the properties of
> your own post, it's in there. It has to be; when your system communicates
> with another there has to be someway for it to send information back to
> you. That way is your IP address.
>
> In the case of a randomizer it is the ip address of the randomizer's
> server which in turn has your real IP address and forwards packets to it.
> You *trust* the randomizer comany to keep your real IP address secret.
> However since you are routing all of your traffic through their server,
> they can track everything you do. In effect you are saying, "instead of
> trusting several companies with little bits of my browsing practices, I'm
> going to trust one comany with all of it."
>
> This is true with *ALL* (Windows, Linux, Unix, etc) operating systems that
> provide internet connectivity. Just visit this webpage to check:
>
> http://checkip.dyndns.org/
>
> -Mike
>
> "Steve Urbach" <dragonsclaw@NOTmindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:avadj2pqka7lagb7d4sqdjf4fvj3trvsa1@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:16:59 -0700, "**__MIke__**" <Mike@NoSpam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The crappy new EULA aside, you *are* aware that your IP address *is*
>>>included in *every* internet transmission made by your computer in any
>>>operating system, right?
>> Yup
>> 192.168.0.x
>>
>>
>> Stupid Remote assistance can't deal with NAT (routers).
>> Duh? If IP is private range, Ask for the public IP (or better yet,
>> snag it and instruct the user to have port "z" forwarded to the local
>> IP, "y" of this machine.
>

"So, um, who's in control of the computer now?"

It's 2006, the network is the computer, which in turn is in control of you!
That's why you're being forced to read to the end of this stupid post. Don't
stop reading now, it's already too late.

-Mike

Yes and no. First off the it's the anonymizer company's business to keep
your IP secret. It wouldn't last long handing out the IP address of its
customers. And furthermore, it gets cute. Some guys use more than one
anonymizer from more than one company. It starts getting harder for anyone
trying to track. Try figuring out who so-in-so is .. he double anonymizes
his post.

But this is beside the point. WGA Notifications contacts and reports WITHOUT
your permission, save the day you installed Windows. Essentially it is
qualitively different than visiting a website. Then you choose to visit a
website. They log you.

But with WGA N, you are reported on regularly whether you choose to or not
and your personably identifiable IP address is log and probably associated
with the report if not more. Makes me feel creeped.

"**__MIke__**" <Mike@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:z8adnf_si4XjLKvYnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> No, your external IP i.e. the IP of your router or whatever device serves
> as the endpoint of your local network. Take a look at the properties of
> your own post, it's in there. It has to be; when your system communicates
> with another there has to be someway for it to send information back to
> you. That way is your IP address.
>
> In the case of a randomizer it is the ip address of the randomizer's
> server which in turn has your real IP address and forwards packets to it.
> You *trust* the randomizer comany to keep your real IP address secret.
> However since you are routing all of your traffic through their server,
> they can track everything you do. In effect you are saying, "instead of
> trusting several companies with little bits of my browsing practices, I'm
> going to trust one comany with all of it."
>
> This is true with *ALL* (Windows, Linux, Unix, etc) operating systems that
> provide internet connectivity. Just visit this webpage to check:
>
> http://checkip.dyndns.org/
>
> -Mike
>
> "Steve Urbach" <dragonsclaw@NOTmindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:avadj2pqka7lagb7d4sqdjf4fvj3trvsa1@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:16:59 -0700, "**__MIke__**" <Mike@NoSpam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The crappy new EULA aside, you *are* aware that your IP address *is*
>>>included in *every* internet transmission made by your computer in any
>>>operating system, right?
>> Yup
>> 192.168.0.x
>>
>>
>> Stupid Remote assistance can't deal with NAT (routers).
>> Duh? If IP is private range, Ask for the public IP (or better yet,
>> snag it and instruct the user to have port "z" forwarded to the local
>> IP, "y" of this machine.
>

"WGA Notifications contacts and reports WITHOUT
your permission, save the day you installed Windows"

I'm no WGA advocate, but I'd disagree. Everyone knows what WGA does, it's no
secret. You install it and continue to use the software, you give your
consent. You use Vista, you give your consent. WGA notifications can be
disabled by deleting a couple of files.

Again, I agree with you that it sucks, but this "without my permission"
stuff is a load of crap. We all know the deal, we all continue to use the
software. Now if very few people bought Vista or a Vista computer because of
this, then things would change - but M$ (and, I think, all of us) know that
people will buy Vista. You don't walk into a bar on Saturday night and
complain that they turned up the jukebox up without your permission because
you can leave the bar and never comeback. With Vista, you have your chance
to never go to the bar in the first place.

The question is: will you or won't you go to the bar? (M$ is betting you
will and they're probably right)

-Mike

"Eddy" <_blank_@ddress.internet.net> wrote in message
news:usQm4Fx8GHA.3740@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Yes and no. First off the it's the anonymizer company's business to keep
> your IP secret. It wouldn't last long handing out the IP address of its
> customers. And furthermore, it gets cute. Some guys use more than one
> anonymizer from more than one company. It starts getting harder for anyone
> trying to track. Try figuring out who so-in-so is .. he double anonymizes
> his post.
>
> But this is beside the point. WGA Notifications contacts and reports
> WITHOUT your permission, save the day you installed Windows. Essentially
> it is qualitively different than visiting a website. Then you choose to
> visit a website. They log you.
>
> But with WGA N, you are reported on regularly whether you choose to or not
> and your personably identifiable IP address is log and probably associated
> with the report if not more. Makes me feel creeped.
>
> "**__MIke__**" <Mike@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
> news:z8adnf_si4XjLKvYnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> No, your external IP i.e. the IP of your router or whatever device serves
>> as the endpoint of your local network. Take a look at the properties of
>> your own post, it's in there. It has to be; when your system communicates
>> with another there has to be someway for it to send information back to
>> you. That way is your IP address.
>>
>> In the case of a randomizer it is the ip address of the randomizer's
>> server which in turn has your real IP address and forwards packets to it.
>> You *trust* the randomizer comany to keep your real IP address secret.
>> However since you are routing all of your traffic through their server,
>> they can track everything you do. In effect you are saying, "instead of
>> trusting several companies with little bits of my browsing practices, I'm
>> going to trust one comany with all of it."
>>
>> This is true with *ALL* (Windows, Linux, Unix, etc) operating systems
>> that provide internet connectivity. Just visit this webpage to check:
>>
>> http://checkip.dyndns.org/
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>> "Steve Urbach" <dragonsclaw@NOTmindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:avadj2pqka7lagb7d4sqdjf4fvj3trvsa1@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:16:59 -0700, "**__MIke__**" <Mike@NoSpam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The crappy new EULA aside, you *are* aware that your IP address *is*
>>>>included in *every* internet transmission made by your computer in any
>>>>operating system, right?
>>> Yup
>>> 192.168.0.x
>>>
>>>
>>> Stupid Remote assistance can't deal with NAT (routers).
>>> Duh? If IP is private range, Ask for the public IP (or better yet,
>>> snag it and instruct the user to have port "z" forwarded to the local
>>> IP, "y" of this machine.
>>
>

That's good Mike;that your no proponent.
But you do need to get some facts straight-one in particular.
WGA Notifications;when it first came out;was;installed WITHOUT one's
explicit consent.
It WAS phoning home without the user's permission; and was installed in
secret. It was only AFTER people found out;that it was changed from a
"critical" update to a "highly recommended" one.;so that now people do know
about it;and can avoid it altogether;if they wish.-(which I might add; is no
easy feat;MSFT still trys to fool people;and infers that its installation on
your machine is"highly recommended" or your system may suffer.)
Also you seem to forget the basic tenet here.
That being; with SPP in Vista, MSFT is implying;and YES; saying;by reason
of methodology and functionality;that their customers are; inherently
criminal.
If not; one initial check would suffice;as to the legitimacy of one's leased
o.s. Not ever time you connect to the net.
That in itself; should concern people;ahh; but it doesn't.
And yes; people do still have choices; and there are other o.s. out
there. And people; more than MSFT thinks; will forgo this tenet;and not go
to their bar.

Jeff





"**__MIke__**" <Mike@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:I_GdnROXa4-eWKvYnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "WGA Notifications contacts and reports WITHOUT
> your permission, save the day you installed Windows"
>
> I'm no WGA advocate, but I'd disagree. Everyone knows what WGA does, it's
> no secret. You install it and continue to use the software, you give your
> consent. You use Vista, you give your consent. WGA notifications can be
> disabled by deleting a couple of files.
>
> Again, I agree with you that it sucks, but this "without my permission"
> stuff is a load of crap. We all know the deal, we all continue to use the
> software. Now if very few people bought Vista or a Vista computer because
> of this, then things would change - but M$ (and, I think, all of us) know
> that people will buy Vista. You don't walk into a bar on Saturday night
> and complain that they turned up the jukebox up without your permission
> because you can leave the bar and never comeback. With Vista, you have
> your chance to never go to the bar in the first place.
>
> The question is: will you or won't you go to the bar? (M$ is betting you
> will and they're probably right)
>
> -Mike
>
> "Eddy" <_blank_@ddress.internet.net> wrote in message
> news:usQm4Fx8GHA.3740@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Yes and no. First off the it's the anonymizer company's business to keep
>> your IP secret. It wouldn't last long handing out the IP address of its
>> customers. And furthermore, it gets cute. Some guys use more than one
>> anonymizer from more than one company. It starts getting harder for
>> anyone trying to track. Try figuring out who so-in-so is .. he double
>> anonymizes his post.
>>
>> But this is beside the point. WGA Notifications contacts and reports
>> WITHOUT your permission, save the day you installed Windows. Essentially
>> it is qualitively different than visiting a website. Then you choose to
>> visit a website. They log you.
>>
>> But with WGA N, you are reported on regularly whether you choose to or
>> not and your personably identifiable IP address is log and probably
>> associated with the report if not more. Makes me feel creeped.
>>
>> "**__MIke__**" <Mike@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
>> news:z8adnf_si4XjLKvYnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> No, your external IP i.e. the IP of your router or whatever device
>>> serves as the endpoint of your local network. Take a look at the
>>> properties of your own post, it's in there. It has to be; when your
>>> system communicates with another there has to be someway for it to send
>>> information back to you. That way is your IP address.
>>>
>>> In the case of a randomizer it is the ip address of the randomizer's
>>> server which in turn has your real IP address and forwards packets to
>>> it. You *trust* the randomizer comany to keep your real IP address
>>> secret. However since you are routing all of your traffic through their
>>> server, they can track everything you do. In effect you are saying,
>>> "instead of trusting several companies with little bits of my browsing
>>> practices, I'm going to trust one comany with all of it."
>>>
>>> This is true with *ALL* (Windows, Linux, Unix, etc) operating systems
>>> that provide internet connectivity. Just visit this webpage to check:
>>>
>>> http://checkip.dyndns.org/
>>>
>>> -Mike
>>>
>>> "Steve Urbach" <dragonsclaw@NOTmindspring.com> wrote in message
>>> news:avadj2pqka7lagb7d4sqdjf4fvj3trvsa1@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:16:59 -0700, "**__MIke__**" <Mike@NoSpam.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The crappy new EULA aside, you *are* aware that your IP address *is*
>>>>>included in *every* internet transmission made by your computer in any
>>>>>operating system, right?
>>>> Yup
>>>> 192.168.0.x
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stupid Remote assistance can't deal with NAT (routers).
>>>> Duh? If IP is private range, Ask for the public IP (or better yet,
>>>> snag it and instruct the user to have port "z" forwarded to the local
>>>> IP, "y" of this machine.
>>>
>>
>

I'm beginning to think ways around it and I love Windows .. but I have this
rule: it's my computer - not without my consent. I don't want my machine
making regular reports to Microsoft no matter how benign Microsoft claims it
is. Sorry, but I don't. And I think it is a reasonable line to draw. Like
said, I am not a criminal and should not be treated as if I am. Even the
police need a warrant to search my house.


"Jeff" <S.Cerevesiae@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:%235poS6x8GHA.2248@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> That's good Mike;that your no proponent.
> But you do need to get some facts straight-one in particular.
> WGA Notifications;when it first came out;was;installed WITHOUT one's
> explicit consent.
> It WAS phoning home without the user's permission; and was installed in
> secret. It was only AFTER people found out;that it was changed from a
> "critical" update to a "highly recommended" one.;so that now people do
> know about it;and can avoid it altogether;if they wish.-(which I might
> add; is no easy feat;MSFT still trys to fool people;and infers that its
> installation on your machine is"highly recommended" or your system may
> suffer.)
> Also you seem to forget the basic tenet here.
> That being; with SPP in Vista, MSFT is implying;and YES; saying;by reason
> of methodology and functionality;that their customers are; inherently
> criminal.
> If not; one initial check would suffice;as to the legitimacy of one's
> leased o.s. Not ever time you connect to the net.
> That in itself; should concern people;ahh; but it doesn't.
> And yes; people do still have choices; and there are other o.s. out
> there. And people; more than MSFT thinks; will forgo this tenet;and not
> go to their bar.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
> "**__MIke__**" <Mike@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
> news:I_GdnROXa4-eWKvYnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> "WGA Notifications contacts and reports WITHOUT
>> your permission, save the day you installed Windows"
>>
>> I'm no WGA advocate, but I'd disagree. Everyone knows what WGA does, it's
>> no secret. You install it and continue to use the software, you give your
>> consent. You use Vista, you give your consent. WGA notifications can be
>> disabled by deleting a couple of files.
>>
>> Again, I agree with you that it sucks, but this "without my permission"
>> stuff is a load of crap. We all know the deal, we all continue to use the
>> software. Now if very few people bought Vista or a Vista computer because
>> of this, then things would change - but M$ (and, I think, all of us) know
>> that people will buy Vista. You don't walk into a bar on Saturday night
>> and complain that they turned up the jukebox up without your permission
>> because you can leave the bar and never comeback. With Vista, you have
>> your chance to never go to the bar in the first place.
>>
>> The question is: will you or won't you go to the bar? (M$ is betting you
>> will and they're probably right)
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>> "Eddy" <_blank_@ddress.internet.net> wrote in message
>> news:usQm4Fx8GHA.3740@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Yes and no. First off the it's the anonymizer company's business to keep
>>> your IP secret. It wouldn't last long handing out the IP address of its
>>> customers. And furthermore, it gets cute. Some guys use more than one
>>> anonymizer from more than one company. It starts getting harder for
>>> anyone trying to track. Try figuring out who so-in-so is .. he double
>>> anonymizes his post.
>>>
>>> But this is beside the point. WGA Notifications contacts and reports
>>> WITHOUT your permission, save the day you installed Windows. Essentially
>>> it is qualitively different than visiting a website. Then you choose to
>>> visit a website. They log you.
>>>
>>> But with WGA N, you are reported on regularly whether you choose to or
>>> not and your personably identifiable IP address is log and probably
>>> associated with the report if not more. Makes me feel creeped.
>>>
>>> "**__MIke__**" <Mike@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:z8adnf_si4XjLKvYnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> No, your external IP i.e. the IP of your router or whatever device
>>>> serves as the endpoint of your local network. Take a look at the
>>>> properties of your own post, it's in there. It has to be; when your
>>>> system communicates with another there has to be someway for it to send
>>>> information back to you. That way is your IP address.
>>>>
>>>> In the case of a randomizer it is the ip address of the randomizer's
>>>> server which in turn has your real IP address and forwards packets to
>>>> it. You *trust* the randomizer comany to keep your real IP address
>>>> secret. However since you are routing all of your traffic through their
>>>> server, they can track everything you do. In effect you are saying,
>>>> "instead of trusting several companies with little bits of my browsing
>>>> practices, I'm going to trust one comany with all of it."
>>>>
>>>> This is true with *ALL* (Windows, Linux, Unix, etc) operating systems
>>>> that provide internet connectivity. Just visit this webpage to check:
>>>>
>>>> http://checkip.dyndns.org/
>>>>
>>>> -Mike
>>>>
>>>> "Steve Urbach" <dragonsclaw@NOTmindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:avadj2pqka7lagb7d4sqdjf4fvj3trvsa1@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:16:59 -0700, "**__MIke__**" <Mike@NoSpam.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The crappy new EULA aside, you *are* aware that your IP address *is*
>>>>>>included in *every* internet transmission made by your computer in any
>>>>>>operating system, right?
>>>>> Yup
>>>>> 192.168.0.x
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stupid Remote assistance can't deal with NAT (routers).
>>>>> Duh? If IP is private range, Ask for the public IP (or better yet,
>>>>> snag it and instruct the user to have port "z" forwarded to the local
>>>>> IP, "y" of this machine.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

No doubt, the XP critical update of WGAN was wrong and a serious blunder.
People know about Vista in advance though. I use Linux and Unix, but I also
use, and will continue to use Windows.

I don't think any reasonable logic leads to M$ saying all their customers
are criminals. I think it leads to them in effect saying: our software is
commonly pirated,; it is often pirated via cloning after it's been
activated; the only way to have any hope of combatting piracy is to have it
"reactivate" on a regular basis; some people won't like it, but most will
put up with it. -- All of wich is true.

-Mike

"Jeff" <S.Cerevesiae@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:%235poS6x8GHA.2248@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> That's good Mike;that your no proponent.
> But you do need to get some facts straight-one in particular.
> WGA Notifications;when it first came out;was;installed WITHOUT one's
> explicit consent.
> It WAS phoning home without the user's permission; and was installed in
> secret. It was only AFTER people found out;that it was changed from a
> "critical" update to a "highly recommended" one.;so that now people do
> know about it;and can avoid it altogether;if they wish.-(which I might
> add; is no easy feat;MSFT still trys to fool people;and infers that its
> installation on your machine is"highly recommended" or your system may
> suffer.)
> Also you seem to forget the basic tenet here.
> That being; with SPP in Vista, MSFT is implying;and YES; saying;by reason
> of methodology and functionality;that their customers are; inherently
> criminal.
> If not; one initial check would suffice;as to the legitimacy of one's
> leased o.s. Not ever time you connect to the net.
> That in itself; should concern people;ahh; but it doesn't.
> And yes; people do still have choices; and there are other o.s. out
> there. And people; more than MSFT thinks; will forgo this tenet;and not
> go to their bar.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
> "**__MIke__**" <Mike@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
> news:I_GdnROXa4-eWKvYnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> "WGA Notifications contacts and reports WITHOUT
>> your permission, save the day you installed Windows"
>>
>> I'm no WGA advocate, but I'd disagree. Everyone knows what WGA does, it's
>> no secret. You install it and continue to use the software, you give your
>> consent. You use Vista, you give your consent. WGA notifications can be
>> disabled by deleting a couple of files.
>>
>> Again, I agree with you that it sucks, but this "without my permission"
>> stuff is a load of crap. We all know the deal, we all continue to use the
>> software. Now if very few people bought Vista or a Vista computer because
>> of this, then things would change - but M$ (and, I think, all of us) know
>> that people will buy Vista. You don't walk into a bar on Saturday night
>> and complain that they turned up the jukebox up without your permission
>> because you can leave the bar and never comeback. With Vista, you have
>> your chance to never go to the bar in the first place.
>>
>> The question is: will you or won't you go to the bar? (M$ is betting you
>> will and they're probably right)
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>> "Eddy" <_blank_@ddress.internet.net> wrote in message
>> news:usQm4Fx8GHA.3740@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Yes and no. First off the it's the anonymizer company's business to keep
>>> your IP secret. It wouldn't last long handing out the IP address of its
>>> customers. And furthermore, it gets cute. Some guys use more than one
>>> anonymizer from more than one company. It starts getting harder for
>>> anyone trying to track. Try figuring out who so-in-so is .. he double
>>> anonymizes his post.
>>>
>>> But this is beside the point. WGA Notifications contacts and reports
>>> WITHOUT your permission, save the day you installed Windows. Essentially
>>> it is qualitively different than visiting a website. Then you choose to
>>> visit a website. They log you.
>>>
>>> But with WGA N, you are reported on regularly whether you choose to or
>>> not and your personably identifiable IP address is log and probably
>>> associated with the report if not more. Makes me feel creeped.
>>>
>>> "**__MIke__**" <Mike@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:z8adnf_si4XjLKvYnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> No, your external IP i.e. the IP of your router or whatever device
>>>> serves as the endpoint of your local network. Take a look at the
>>>> properties of your own post, it's in there. It has to be; when your
>>>> system communicates with another there has to be someway for it to send
>>>> information back to you. That way is your IP address.
>>>>
>>>> In the case of a randomizer it is the ip address of the randomizer's
>>>> server which in turn has your real IP address and forwards packets to
>>>> it. You *trust* the randomizer comany to keep your real IP address
>>>> secret. However since you are routing all of your traffic through their
>>>> server, they can track everything you do. In effect you are saying,
>>>> "instead of trusting several companies with little bits of my browsing
>>>> practices, I'm going to trust one comany with all of it."
>>>>
>>>> This is true with *ALL* (Windows, Linux, Unix, etc) operating systems
>>>> that provide internet connectivity. Just visit this webpage to check:
>>>>
>>>> http://checkip.dyndns.org/
>>>>
>>>> -Mike
>>>>
>>>> "Steve Urbach" <dragonsclaw@NOTmindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:avadj2pqka7lagb7d4sqdjf4fvj3trvsa1@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:16:59 -0700, "**__MIke__**" <Mike@NoSpam.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The crappy new EULA aside, you *are* aware that your IP address *is*
>>>>>>included in *every* internet transmission made by your computer in any
>>>>>>operating system, right?
>>>>> Yup
>>>>> 192.168.0.x
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stupid Remote assistance can't deal with NAT (routers).
>>>>> Duh? If IP is private range, Ask for the public IP (or better yet,
>>>>> snag it and instruct the user to have port "z" forwarded to the local
>>>>> IP, "y" of this machine.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>