| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft Proposes End to End Trust Vision | |
|
||
| Time: 12:13 EST/17:13 GMT | News Source: Press Release | Posted By: Michael Dragone | ||
|
At RSA Conference 2008, Microsoft Corp. initiated a broad dialogue about the future of security and privacy on the Internet. In a fireside chat-style keynote address today, Microsoft Chief Research and Strategy Officer Craig Mundie proposed a vision known as End to End Trust, intended to give people greater choice and control over whom and what to trust online. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 308 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:52:32 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (99.224.112.94) at 4/8/2008 3:21:33 PM |
|
I see that trust in action every time I download a widget from MS and have to validate my copy of Windows.
|
| #2 By 92283 (64.180.201.131) at 4/8/2008 3:46:42 PM |
| They know better than to trust anything you say or do latch. |
| #3 By 82766 (122.107.17.90) at 4/9/2008 5:25:49 AM |
|
You're joking aren't you Latch?
If by widget, you mean a gadget for the Vista sidebar... then it just proves you've never used Vista. If by widget, you mean "any old damn program"... then that just means you're downloading files like service packs or hotfixes, which Microsoft deems are only "for" people with genuine installations of Windows. And that my friend, is VERY old news. Microsoft announced they were 'limiting' specific hotfixes and SP's BEFORE they released XP SP2 many years ago! To me, its extremely fair. Is any 'Apple upgrade' (otherwise known as a service pack in Microsoft speak) available for free and for any one to install? including their hacked/illegal/pirated/unpaid for installations? This post was edited by MyBlueRex on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 at 05:39. |
| #4 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 4/9/2008 6:40:22 AM |
|
#3: I believe he's referring to the Genuine Advantage ActiveX control.
Latch has admitted that he does not have a legitimate copy of Vista or XP. I believe he purchased a lower-end version of Vista, to which he then applied a crack to turn it into Ultimate. This is OK in his eyes, however, since he hates the product but requires it for work. He has never answered the question "Does he company know he connects to their network using illegal software?" |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 4/9/2008 8:41:53 AM |
|
#3: If by widget, you mean "any old damn program"... then that just means you're downloading files like service packs or hotfixes, which Microsoft deems are only "for" people with genuine installations of Windows.
And that my friend, is VERY old news. Microsoft announced they were 'limiting' specific hotfixes and SP's BEFORE they released XP SP2 many years ago! You might want to look again. It isn't just service packs that require validation. But anyway, it's not relevant which programs cause me to validate; it's the fact that you have to do it repeatedly. I have all the MS WGA/WPA crap and it's all good (so to speak), but I must still prove my install hadn't suddenly started flying the Jolly Roger. As for Apple, I couldn't care less about them and I'm not sure why the Defender of Redmond must always point to Apple or some other company when someone complains about MS. Really, I don't care what Apple does. If I had an Apple and a problem with Apple, I'd complain in an Apple forum. #4: Not quite. I have a paid copy of XP and a paid copy of Vista. The fact that I'm not using them on the exact PC's that MS dictates contravenes MS's license, but that's too bad and they can sue me if they like. |
| #6 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 4/9/2008 10:44:46 AM |
|
#5 What's your address?
On your other points... "it's the fact that you have to do it repeatedly" You are correct Sir! One validation should be enough. I just saw a thread where they are adding this to Office. <Dr. Smith>Oh the pain</Dr. Smith> "I'm not sure why the Defender of Redmond must always point to Apple or some other company when someone complains about MS." That's called the parker server control comparison tag. It has an attribute with a variety of flavors that automatically fill in default text: <not:parker needlesscomparison="Adobe"/> <not:parker needlesscomparison="Firefox"/> <not:parker needlesscomparison="Apple"/> and my personal favorite: <not:parker needlesscomparison="Apple" includeneedlesslinks="true"/> |
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 4/9/2008 1:22:32 PM |
| #6: That's pretty funny. I wonder how hard it would be to code a bot that wouldn't pass the Turing test, but would certainly convince you it was parkkker. |
| #8 By 82766 (202.154.80.82) at 4/9/2008 8:28:28 PM |
|
The fact that you're not following the licensing agreement (that you agreed to when you clicked the "I agree" button) and you're not using them on the PCs they are licensed for, is YOUR problem.
All businesses (in this case Microsoft) are easily within its legal rights to check and confirm. Any licensing issues arising from those checks are entirely valid. So don't complain about them! As for "rolling out the if Apple did it" explaination, its merely an example of "one rule for all". If Google does something, then why shouldn't Apple be allowed to do the same (patents, copyrights, etc excluding). If Microsoft does something, then why shouldn't Google or Apple be allowed to do it as well. One rule for all. That also applies to criticisim of business. If two businesses are "doing something that isn't nice" then don't criticise just ONE of them. Critise BOTH of them. Anything else just shows a double standard and utter bias. Yes Microsoft has had more than its fair share of legal cases etc etc... so they've been taken court, proved what they were doing wrong and paid for the crime. I would never, ever disagree there! Now Apple and Google are also using much the same 'monopoly' methods; iTunes automatically installing Safari and Firefox including Google search links... they are exactly the same issues as Microsoft including Microsoft search links, which they got taken to court over... why hasn't Apple or Google been "done" under the same laws? There is a complete double standard in the world!! moan off |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 308 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:52:32 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
