It doesn’t matter what fancy encryption software you use, what fancy firewall you employ, which fabbo technicians you employ to check through a Windows installation, if Microsoft can push an “update” onto that machine, they can insert whatever code they want.
End of story.
I would be interested to see a copy of the UK MOD’s EULA, maybe it’s different to everyone else’s (I would certainly hope so!!), if it’s the same and it includes the clause about checking for unauthorised software, and not being able to refuse updates from Microsoft, then it is compromised.
I imagine (I don’t know for sure, I didn’t design or create the build) it is, windows update is not part of the Windows image used on MOD machines.
Though to be fair even if they’ve just broken the EULA what could MS do about it really? I suspect that the Official Secrets Act trumps any End User License Agreement ;).
There doesn’t seem to be anything there that supports the accusation that the Laptops were unencrypted.
EDIT:
Ah:
As of January, those without full-disk encryption cannot leave secure Ministry of Defence (MoD) sites without “a strong operational reason” and a waiver from the department’s senior information risk owner.
…
“So far, some 10,000 of these have been encrypted. The remaining 2,000 laptops not covered by this programme without full-disk encryption are being taken out of service.”
What it doesn’t say is that unencrypted laptops aren’t allowed secure information anyway. It also says the laptops stolen were encrypted.
When any such incidents happens, if the machines had encrypted data, they will immediately say so. (In those articles, I know about 2 incidents where disks were not encrypted, but I can’t discuss those here).
I checked. There is no English UK, like there is in Linux. It’s just English. All they ask is How you got it, manufacturer pre-installed, or if you bought it, the language, and the Microsoft product. I chose Windows 7 Ultimate.
Though to be fair even if they've just broken the EULA what could MS do about it really? I suspect that the Official Secrets Act trumps any End User License Agreement
Then you should be even more scared because it means that your government is deliberately breaking a law that it is enforcing upon it’s own people, you have effectively lost democracy.
When a government becomes “above the law”, it is not representing the people, it is representing itself and it’s own interests.
growbag, I fear that we have in fact lost democracy. Oh, we still have the appearance of it. But what little we have left, is fading.
As to the quote, I have heard of time where Microsoft will go into government offices, inspect the systems, find it in violation of the EULA, and shut it down. When a company has more power than the government, that’s scary.
Does EULA’s have actual legal standing in English law? What precedent court cases have arisen allowing them to impose the conditions they do, and what End User have been prosecuted for breaking EULA terms?
Very often EULA’s contravene things like “sale of goods act” and other consumer protection legislation against unfair terms & conditions.
So I’m not really sure if UK government needs to bother about MS’s EULA at all; and as Blair got signed up by Billy G’s charm offensive when the gov.uk websites won awards with FOSS, MS are unlikely to sue a great customer who they want to keep on side.
Maybe because of all that Microsoft keeps it’s source closed.
To ensure that nobody is able to find out what Windows does.
For me making a software closed source shows me that they are trying to hide something!
I don’t want to support thinking of conspiracies, but it’s better to be careful.
And using Windows isn’t careful in any way!
But that’s just my opinion
Wow, that’s erm, extreme. Either the MOD allows MS to perform espionage on their systems, or Britain has lost it’s Democracy? Come on man!
By that metric are there any democracies in the world?
The EULA is no law either. It’s a contract agreement, and as has been said elsewhere MS’s EULA actually breaks UK statutory rights, so the test case for that, if it ever comes, will be really interesting. There’s another test case I’m looking forward too, recently DRM was codified, it’s a crime to circumnavigate disc protection, yet UK statutory rights also allow you to make a back up disc, something not possible in a lot of cases due to DRM. I’m going to be very interested in that test case also.
Regardless, law is layered. Some laws trump others because they supersede them. The EULA isn’t law, it’s perhaps protected by contract law, but contract law is trumped by the official secrets act. Though the official secrets act is a law, it’s not above the law, and it’s not all encompassing as recent test cases have born out.
But to be blunt, I have no problem with the osa trumping the EULA. The EULA is about protecting MS profits, the OSA is about protecting the lives and well being of British Citizens and Service personnel, by preventing secure information falling into hostile hands. I know which one I think is more important and which is more worthy of lawful protection.
Even so the law isn’t black and white. It depends on circumstance. For instance shooting someone dead for no reason is murder, shooting them dead in self defence isn’t. The circumstances of the MOD protecting secure data and an individual not wanting to be held to the EULA are completely different, and accepting them as different doesn’t mean law or democracy has broken down. I’d actually argue the opposite is true.
It is said that law is about interpretation. However, when Microsoft can shut down government offices, they have to much power. By the way, You said that the EULA is a contractual agreement. A contract is a legal and binding agreement.
If find your stance incredible. I find it incredibly naive. You claim to understand, but yet if you did, I wonder if your tune would change. I know mine did.
Perhaps this may help Home - Statute Law Database
I make it a point to know the laws around me. In my case, that’s the U.S. law, and Arizona law. I study Supreme Court cases, the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bills in the Senate and House, and again, statutes in my own state.
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:56:02 +0000, Jonathan R wrote:
> It is said that law is about interpretation. However, when Microsoft can
> shut down government offices, they have to much power. By the way, You
> said that the EULA is a contractual agreement. A contract is a legal and
> binding agreement.
Only insofar as the contract is actually legal. One cannot include terms
in an agreement that are themselves illegal and then expect the law to
enforce them.
A contract can’t require that you hand your first born child over to be a
slave to the other party in the agreement, for example. (OK, an extreme
example, but it makes the point pretty well).
Similarly, license agreements in particular are governed by local
governments (in the US, I’m told that this is at the state level - not
the federal level) because licensing is handled at the state level and
not the federal level.
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:09:14 +0000, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:56:02 +0000, Jonathan R wrote:
>
>> It is said that law is about interpretation. However, when Microsoft
>> can shut down government offices, they have to much power. By the way,
>> You said that the EULA is a contractual agreement. A contract is a
>> legal and binding agreement.
>
> Only insofar as the contract is actually legal. One cannot include
> terms in an agreement that are themselves illegal and then expect the
> law to enforce them.
>
> A contract can’t require that you hand your first born child over to be
> a slave to the other party in the agreement, for example. (OK, an
> extreme example, but it makes the point pretty well).
>
> Similarly, license agreements in particular are governed by local
> governments (in the US, I’m told that this is at the state level - not
> the federal level) because licensing is handled at the state level and
> not the federal level.
I should include my disclaimer that I’m not a lawyer and don’t even play
one on TV - anyone wanting legal advice should talk to an actual lawyer
rather than me.
I just have an interest in legal stuff so read a bit about it from time
to time.
They can’t shut down government offices, so what’s your point?
A contract is a legally binding agreement in the sense of “if” “but” and “perhaps”. Contracts can be easily broken, and if the contract has a clause that contradicts a superseding law, then it’s legally broken.
And there’s my point. The OSA easily supersedes contract law, and therefore the EULA. It’s all academic anyway, because the MOD wouldn’t have signed a contract that required them to allow network access to a third party anyway. So there’s no way they are bound to the same contract as everyone else.
Which aspect of it?
I see. So basically your argument is that I don’t agree with you, so therefore I must be ignorant.
I know the laws, as much as it’s possible for a non-legal professional to do so, and I also know the structure of the law. For instance I know that some laws supersede others.
Yeah, I could read the entirety of UK statute law, not sure what it has to do with anything though. Or you could come up with something a bit more compelling than “you’re naive”.
Hard to see how that’s relevant. Seems to be talking about an educational initiative Microsoft happens (or happened, since it’s a decade old now) to be taking part in, this initiative in fact. Was it supposed to prove something?
They can and have. Google it. Please check your facts.
I hope your not a lawyer. Your understanding on the law is dreadful. People get sued over breaking contracts, and contractual violation.
Hardly. If it was just a point of opinion, that’d be one thing, but it’s not.
Just that that’s the only law pertaining to Microsoft in U.K. law. But, I’ll bet you didn’t read it carefully, so naturally you don’t get it. We can, if you want, disect it line by line.
If you bothered to follow the legal positioning that resulted in Microsoft removing WinMail from Windows 7, and making Internet explorer disableable, you’d see that there was over 3 years of heated talks between Microsoft and those that UK policy. So it wasn’t a simple cut and dry process. It has been estimated that the litigation cost over 30 Million US dollars by the time settlement through UK courts concluded. I saw briefs during this long dragout process, that Microsoft finally conceded to the Mail and IE issues in exchange for their EULA being left intact. It was stated that if Microsoft couldn’t have the EULA then no agreement would be done and the UK market would be closed to Microsoft crippling 80% of users and businesses that rely on their software.
The extent of such crippling was a matter the courts could not conjecture so their ruling err’d on the side of caution.
The EULA is a contract which states that if you do not agree to it you can not install or use the software. The courts in the UK upheld this interpretation and the governments of the UK have installed and are using the OS so I guess they have agreed not to reverse engineer, modify, or by nature cause any circumvention into the way the OS is designed to run.
A contract, that means MS would have to sue the Government; not that “it is against the law to break it” as somone put it.
Realistically MS cannot do that, they have to negotiate. Blair’s government has been one of MS’s best buddies, since Billy signed Toady-ing Tony on board.
