Dangerous Sony sofware for cameras

2005-11-23, imbsysop wrote:
> ...
> Just one example .. someone tell me why "Picassa" is trying to phone
> home even when "auto upgrade check" is set to "off" ?

Because Google's business is data collection? They are probably the
biggest data collectors in the world by now...and nobody worries

-peter
 >> Stay informed about: Dangerous Sony sofware for cameras 

Peter wrote:
> 2005-11-23, imbsysop wrote:
>> ...
>> Just one example .. someone tell me why "Picassa" is trying to phone
>> home even when "auto upgrade check" is set to "off" ?
>
> Because Google's business is data collection? They are probably the
> biggest data collectors in the world by now...and nobody worries


Not to mention, it is neither Google's nor Sony's business (as far as we
are aware) to install software that can be used to intentionally
circumvent the operating system's security features and install a
backdoor that can be taken advantage of. Google, so far, hasn't done
this. Yet Sony has.

Google makes sure that you can easily learn exactly what they do with
your computer and your info. Sony does not.

THAT is why I don't plan on buying Sony products anytime soon, yet don't
rail as harshly against Picasa.

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
 >> Stay informed about: Dangerous Sony sofware for cameras 

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:43:00 +0000, John Bean <waterfoot.TakeThisOut@gmail.com>
wrote:

>It's a decision that I think many people will make,
>including me. I'm sure Sony can live without my business,
>and I can certainly live without Sony - or any other vendor
>that adopts similar practices.
>
>Lots of people won't know or care about it but I'm not one
>of them.

Again, I agree with you 100% John.

Sony will probably never know that I've stopped buying their products
but I will know and it makes me feel good to be doing the right
thing'; something Sony did not do. The only other thing that made me
feel good was to write a letter to Sir Peter Bonfield, CBE Feng. He
was appointed this year as an independent member of the Board of Sony
Corporation. I have served on corporate Boards myself and I know that
independent Directors are supposed to deal aggressively with matters
like corporate ethics violations. This is especially true in the case
of a company like Sony Corporation where the Chairman of the Board is
an internal Direector and company CEO. If I were an independent Board
member for a company that had a systemic ethics problem (like Sony
apparently has), I would want someone to call it to my attention. That
is what I tried to do with my letter to Sir Peter. I'll probably
never hear back from him but, as you said in your post, at least I
feel like I did the right thing by writing it.
 >> Stay informed about: Dangerous Sony sofware for cameras 

On 23 Nov 2005 14:04:23 GMT, Peter <durians.nomail.RemoveThis@gmx.net> wrote:

>2005-11-23, imbsysop wrote:
>> ...
>> Just one example .. someone tell me why "Picassa" is trying to phone
>> home even when "auto upgrade check" is set to "off" ?
>
>Because Google's business is data collection? They are probably the
>biggest data collectors in the world by now...and nobody worries

probably correct .. by analogy, why do people bother so much about
the similar Sony problems ?
short answer: because Sony used lousy soft ?
 >> Stay informed about: Dangerous Sony sofware for cameras 

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:59:58 +0100, imbsysop <imbsysop.DeleteThis@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 23 Nov 2005 14:04:23 GMT, Peter <durians.nomail.DeleteThis@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>2005-11-23, imbsysop wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Just one example .. someone tell me why "Picassa" is trying to phone
>>> home even when "auto upgrade check" is set to "off" ?
>>
>>Because Google's business is data collection? They are probably the
>>biggest data collectors in the world by now...and nobody worries
>
>probably correct .. by analogy, why do people bother so much about
>the similar Sony problems ?
>short answer: because Sony used lousy soft ?

No; because Sony lied.
And we all know that NO ONE is allowed to lie.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Dangerous Sony sofware for cameras 

imbsysop wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2005 14:04:23 GMT, Peter <durians.nomail.TakeThisOut@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> 2005-11-23, imbsysop wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Just one example .. someone tell me why "Picassa" is trying to phone
>>> home even when "auto upgrade check" is set to "off" ?
>> Because Google's business is data collection? They are probably the
>> biggest data collectors in the world by now...and nobody worries
>
> probably correct .. by analogy, why do people bother so much about
> the similar Sony problems ?
> short answer: because Sony used lousy soft ?
>
The point is that you can remove Picassa, and you CAN'T remove Sony's
spyware. Unistall leaves the spyware intact (but useless), and attempts
to remove the spyware damage the OS.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter.TakeThisOut@charter.net
 >> Stay informed about: Dangerous Sony sofware for cameras 

"Bill Funk" <BigBill RemoveThis @pipping.com.com> wrote in message
news:c8b9o11i0ohvhmovinctqg6bamdlukms6j@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:59:58 +0100, imbsysop <imbsysop RemoveThis @yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 23 Nov 2005 14:04:23 GMT, Peter <durians.nomail RemoveThis @gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>>>2005-11-23, imbsysop wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> Just one example .. someone tell me why "Picassa" is trying to phone
>>>> home even when "auto upgrade check" is set to "off" ?
>>>
>>>Because Google's business is data collection? They are probably the
>>>biggest data collectors in the world by now...and nobody worries
>>
>>probably correct .. by analogy, why do people bother so much about
>>the similar Sony problems ?
>>short answer: because Sony used lousy soft ?
>
> No; because Sony lied.
> And we all know that NO ONE is allowed to lie.

LOL ! care to count the times that our friend Billie G gave the reality a
"little twist" ?
remeber win95 release and the "rootkit" they planted in the first versions
'cos dear Bill wanted "to take over" the Internet ?
people are mostly very short of memory ..
 >> Stay informed about: Dangerous Sony sofware for cameras 

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:01:15 -0700, Bill Funk
<BigBill RemoveThis @pipping.com.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:08:16 GMT, Mardon <mgb72mgb RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:12:18 +0000, John Bean <waterfoot RemoveThis @gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 02:06:36 GMT, Mardon
>>><mgb72mgb RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Any company that would install a rootkit on a
>>>>customer's PC without that customer's knowledge or consent is not the
>>>>kind of company with which I want to do business.
>>>
>>>I tend to agree, but would your choice to not give business
>>>to Sony extend to all Sony products or only those that have
>>>"Sony" written on the outside? Sony components (sensors,
>>>CRTs, ...) are to be found almost everywhere.
>>
>>I agree that a full-fledged boycott of all Sony products would require
>>that equipment containing embedded Sony chips not be purchased. But
>>I'm not trying to launch a boycott. What I describe in my previous
>>post is just a personal decision. Besides, not buying Sony branded
>>products is simple. It would be almost impossible to identify every
>>product that contains Sony parts and avoid all of them. I feel
>>certain that if a significant number of people do what I'm doing and
>>stop purchasing the Sony brand, it will still create more than enough
>>of a message to get Sony's attention and let them know that ethical
>>behavior is still important. I don't want to deal with a company that
>>demonstrates their kind of disregard for that principle.
>
>To be honest, I think Sony has alreaqdy gotten the message that they
>screwed up, big time.
>The question is, what will they do with this knowledge?

As Shelly Berman used to say in his child psychologist
routine, to the audience-planted question, "Doctor, my five year old
has starting picking people's pockets. What should I do?"

Berman's answer was, "Relax, madam -- he'll either outgrow it
or get more proficient at it."
 >> Stay informed about: Dangerous Sony sofware for cameras 

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:59:13 +0100, imbsysop <imbsysop DeleteThis @yahoo.com>
wrote:


>
>which may be an alltogether very different matter, being a juridic
>bickering between "law" people that have no clue about the actual
>technical background ... nor the real impact on the computer world.
>I think the matter was completely over-hyped.
>My only serious concern (as a would be IT manager) is that it has
>opened the eyes/world to other companies with less clumsy programmers
>or that may buy less clumsy software to do exactly the same thing to
>protect their "rights" aka installing rootkit stuff on people's
>computers at any occasion they see fit .. and that it will be one that
>won't harm the functioning of your computer gear ..

With any luck, some court, the higher the better, will kick
Sony's ass by declaring such "self-help" to be illegal. In the real
estate world, at least in California, landlords are severely limited
with regard to such self-help wrt non-paying tenants. They cannot
enter and change locks, turn off and lock water service, etc. I
strongly suspect that including permission for such self-help measures
in a rental or lease conttract would notget them off with a judge.

It would be truly good if some ball-bearing judge would slap
down any such clauses in software licenses as unenforcable.
 >> Stay informed about: Dangerous Sony sofware for cameras 

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:15:17 -0700, Bill Funk
<BigBill RemoveThis @pipping.com.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:10:48 -0500, Scott Schuckert <not RemoveThis @aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <gd77o1t011higq7tv6nbq4nnpfe887vlgh RemoveThis @4ax.com>, Bill Funk
>><BigBill RemoveThis @pipping.com.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sony/BMG put the rootkit on some music CDs for a reason: they wanted
>>> to cut piracy.
>>> There's no piracy to cut with their camera software, so there's no
>>> reason for Sony to do this.
>>> Doing this costs money; if there's no money to be saved/made, there's
>>> no reason for them to do it.
>>
>>You'd think so... but many manufacturers make you go through hoops to
>>install software that has no conceivable use without their hardware.
>>
>>I recall replacing a hard drive in a customers computer, and going nuts
>>trying to re-activate Olympus software. Couldn't find the activation
>>code, and had to give them everything but a DNA sample to convince them
>>he actually owned their camera.
>>
>>Now, I'm told this is often because the software (or parts of it) was
>>written by a third party that insisted on the restrictions. But it
>>still makes no sense to me.
>
>It's called licensing; often the company (Olympus, in this case) that
>distributes the software has no choice but to follow the licensing
>requirements of the licensing company, who will make such rules for
>reasons that are obvious (to protect their property).
>>
>>Short version: just because it's nonsense, doesn't mean it's not true.
>
> Slightly longer version: just because it seems to be nonsense doesn't
>mean it is nonsense.

Longer yet: in today's presumably consumer-driven world -- if
the consumer perceives that it's nonsense, it's nonsense.
 >> Stay informed about: Dangerous Sony sofware for cameras 

On 22 Nov 2005 17:00:43 -0800, enmicabesa DeleteThis @hotmail.com wrote:

>Original question concerned cameras, not delusions about worlwide
>conspiracies, try alt.conspiracies.

No, you try alt.sap.consumer.
 >> Stay informed about: Dangerous Sony sofware for cameras 

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:58:35 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy.DeleteThis@moltenimage.com>
wrote:

>kashe@sonic.net wrote:
>
>>>People always have some reason, however lame, for their behavior.
>>>Even law enforcement personnel need a court order to tap into the phone
>>>line of a suspected criminal to get information on his activities.
>>
>>
>> Incorrect. In the age of the National Security Letter, all
>> bets are off. Simply asserting "a connection to an investigation into
>> terrorist activities" will get the ball rolling. Granted it requires a
>> signoff by any one of 165 officials, there is absolutely no judicial
>> supervision. And any information gained, even absent any later
>> provable connection, all the information gained can be archved
>> forever.
>
>Well for that matter, I don't believe that a court order would be
>required to PERFORM the wiretap... but it is generally necessary if the
>evidence is to be admissible in court.

In most states, there are laws concerning tapping/listening
in/recording phone lines. Usually, these laws require one or both or
all parties to a converstaion to know about the tap/recording absent a
court order. In such states, a phonetap by LEOs without a court order
is illegal.

For example, in Arizona, without a court order, one of the parties to
a conversation must know about any recording/covert listening.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Dangerous Sony sofware for cameras 

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:58:35 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy.DeleteThis@moltenimage.com>
> wrote:
>
>> kashe.DeleteThis@sonic.net wrote:
>>
>>>> People always have some reason, however lame, for their behavior.
>>>> Even law enforcement personnel need a court order to tap into the phone
>>>> line of a suspected criminal to get information on his activities.
>>>
>>> Incorrect. In the age of the National Security Letter, all
>>> bets are off. Simply asserting "a connection to an investigation into
>>> terrorist activities" will get the ball rolling. Granted it requires a
>>> signoff by any one of 165 officials, there is absolutely no judicial
>>> supervision. And any information gained, even absent any later
>>> provable connection, all the information gained can be archved
>>> forever.
>> Well for that matter, I don't believe that a court order would be
>> required to PERFORM the wiretap... but it is generally necessary if the
>> evidence is to be admissible in court.
>
> In most states, there are laws concerning tapping/listening
> in/recording phone lines. Usually, these laws require one or both or
> all parties to a converstaion to know about the tap/recording absent a
> court order. In such states, a phonetap by LEOs without a court order
> is illegal.
>
> For example, in Arizona, without a court order, one of the parties to
> a conversation must know about any recording/covert listening.
>
Patriot Act and Homeland Security trump these laws, but judicial review
IS a part of the process before the evidence reaches court.
 >> Stay informed about: Dangerous Sony sofware for cameras