Re: Hard-coded?
which is the mechanism for pushing security updates.
But when they can no longer be trusted not to include spyware, can they really be called security updates?
Until recently I (a FATM Linux fanboi/user and MS hater) still at least trusted the updates to not need checking UNLESS there was one known to be causing a lot of problems. Only with the GWX and other nasty stuff since then have I been looking closely at the updates before installing. And even then, I don't trust them to only do what is suggested - how do we know one that states "A bug has been found in the way xxx filetype is handled, this fixes that bug" doesn't have a hidden "and adds code to send us a pile of data you'd rather keep private"
I have client data on my machines. I have a responsibility, defined in NZ law and other places as well as a simple reasonable expectation by my clients to do the best I can to protect their data. Now I have to wonder how much extra work I should be doing - whereas I would often let them do updates in the past (sometimes a great way to fix corrupted files where all else fails) now I have to think a lot more about those updates and whether or not they could constitute a breach in privacy. And I have to make sure my co-workers are aware of the same issue. Do we risk a privacy lawsuit by allowing updates to run on a machine while it's in our possession?
MS - you need to either 1) do some serious culling of your staff (preferably in the true farming sense - sending them off to a meatworks somewhere to be slaughtered) or 2) HURRY UP AND DIE!.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
