Microsoft is not my conscience

Recently while trying unsuccessfully to view a video on a blog it came up that I was using an older version of Windows Media player. It was suggested that I upgrade Windows Media Player to view the video, but I declined. The reason for this is simple. I can no longer trust Microsoft not to cripple my machine with some form of Digital Rights Management (DRM). And I don't know enough about computers to roll back any damage Microsoft might do to my machine.

In a nut shell, DRM is software that restricts or prevents you from making digital copies of anything from music to videos to software to e-books. I do not agree with locking down a product that I legally purchase, especially when it restricts my Fair Use rights allowed under the law. However with the current moral standard that seems to be prevalent in today's society I can understand it.

However, Microsoft has taken DRM to an extreme. Starting with Vista (and it is rumored to be even earlier) Microsoft took it upon themselves to not only protect their own product, but to act as the copyright police over everything on the user's computer. For example, It appears that Microsoft doesn't believe there is any such thing as fair use for music or video files.

Early beta testers of Vista were frustrated to find legally purchased and licensed software disabled due to a DRM hook in the operating system. A friend testing Vista on several machines in the graphics department at a major television network suffered the software lockout problems with high end software packages. Vista would not allow the software to run, even with the original CDs.

He was also running a beta test on the computer in his office. That afternoon he went to rip his latest music CD to MP3. Vista refused to do it. To get around that he installed a free CD Ripper called Audio Grabber. This time the Vista operating system intercepted the attempt and stopped it, displaying a dialog box stating he did not have a license to do that. All the machines under going beta testing in his division were back on XP Pro by the end of that day.

I am told that these problems were corrected with the general release of Vista. But the point is the code that did these tricks was in the operating system at one time. For all we know it may still be laying dormant in the operating system. Who is to say that Microsoft won't turn it back on sometime in the future.

Windows 7 turned up similar problems. An article in Slashdot discusses numerous DRM headaches including disabling legally installed software, allowing other software vendors internet access through firewalls regardless of user settings, degraded quality on audio/video inputs and locking the user out of the registry file on his own computer.

Microsoft publicly acknowledges anti-piracy measures in Windows 7, in theory placed there to improve the customer experience.

"Counterfeit software delivers a poor experience and impacts customer satisfaction with our products, particularly if users do not know that their software is non-genuine."

Williams gave the example of one piracy exploit that caused more than a million reported system crashes on machines running non-genuine Windows Vista before Microsoft was able to resolve it.

"Customers running genuine Windows Vista Service Pack 1 are protected from that experience. And there is an even simpler reason: if you pay for something, you want to know that you got what you paid for," he said.

PC Authority: Microsoft outlines Windows 7 anti-piracy measures

What a complete load of crap. Again, I can understand Microsoft wanting to protect their own product. But that is where the line of understanding ends. How does degrading quality when I want to rip my bought and paid for music improve my user experience and satisfaction with their product?

The point of this rant is that Microsoft is not my conscience. Nor is Microsoft a law enforcement agency, federal judge, or my mother. Microsoft is my software vendor, nothing more. Not only that, but their software is running on my computer. Note the emphasis on the word "my."

When I tell my computer to do something, it doesn't need to check with Redmond, WA first. You see that is my computer so what ever I tell it to do, right or wrong, is my decision and my decision alone. The boys and girls at Microsoft don't get any say in the matter. When Microsoft takes it upon themselves to interfere in that decision, they cross a line into a roll that I cannot live with.

Unless Microsoft can loose their delusions of Godhood, my next machine will not be running any version of Windows newer then XP Pro. In preparation for this possibility, I am already researching Apples and testing Linux on an older laptop computer. 

The decision is purely up to Microsoft: Mind their own business or lose mine.

- 30 -

"I think Microsoft will have to change. I think that the business of Microsoft, the company of Microsoft, is going to continue to succeed. But I think the business model of Microsoft is going to have to change. "
- Tim O'Reilly

Everyone Hold Your Breath!

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a move the boggles the mind declared carbon dioxide a public health hazard.

For those of you that slept through all your biology and chemistry classes, carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary gas we humans give off when we exhale. Carbon Dioxide is also the primary gas that most plants need to survive and in the course of that survival turn it back into oxygen for us. It strikes me as counter intuitive to want to cut back on a gas that is vital to plant life, may of which we humans and other animals eat.

President Obama and most liberals in Congress are faithful disciples of Al Gore's church of Global Warming. To be a disciple, you have to accept on faith the dogma of global warming while ignoring the hard science and historical data behind cyclic changes in temperature and the climate in general.

This action by the EPA is designed by the current government leaders to lend legitimacy to their church. Because most of our Federal representatives know which way the wind blows when it come to voters and their church, they left the dirty work to a unelected agency. An agency that has enormous power of industry, private property and the population in general.

Now those same legislators can throw up their hands in a "it's a bureaucracy, what are you going to do?" gesture. I can answer that question, they can pull the funding to enforce this non-sense. Do not let your representatives lie to you. They do in fact hold all the cards. If they pass legislation saying that no funds may be spent on enforcing the CO2 con game, then it will not happen.

But don't hold your breath. The Church of Global Warming is a front for a far broader agenda then dealing with a little hot air. The Church of Global Warming is merely an excuse to force elitist agenda down our throats. That agenda is made up of things like:

• Forcing us into smaller, more crash dangerous personal vehicles like Smart Cars.
• Furthering the envy based war on SUVs and large pickup trucks.
• Stopping or hindering power plant, refinery and heavy industry construction.
• Penalizing people with energy inefficient housing.
• Fighting clean coal power plants.
• Generating an all new source for government revenue. (Think cap-and-trade, carbon taxes and environmental impact fees.)

Why can't the EPA limit itself to real hazards like dihydrogen monoxide?

In the mean time, everyone hold their breath until you can get an emissions permit from the EPA.

- 30 -

Just as there's garbage that pollutes the Potomac river, there is garbage polluting our culture. We need an Environmental Protection Agency to clean it up.
- Patrick Buchanan

So much stupidity and no time to write…

Los Angeles, CA - Based on bits and pieces of various news items I've managed to catch over the couple weeks I've managed to figure out a few things.

We have some moron in Congress wanting to tax executive bonuses at 90%. There is another set of morons wanting to go after bonuses already paid out to people working for companies that accepted government money. Some combination of those congressional idiots wants to stop payouts of bonus money earned under the terms of employment contracts.

I'm not all that happy about CEOs getting multi-million dollar bonuses from a failing company. The problem is the terms of the contracts requires they be paid. The government bailed the company out and it did not fail. Therefore all those employment contracts are still valid enforceable by the courts if need be.

If we would have let the companies fail, we wouldn't be having this little tiff, would we?

Other members of Congress are hot to trot to limit executive compensation of corporations accepting government money to a grand total of $500,000 per year. Charley Wrangle, in his infinite capacity for complete ignorance, is proposing a bill that would extend the proposed executive salary cap to every corporation, not just the corporations accepting government money.

Yet another group of USDA Grade A Congressional idiots believes they can pass a law allowing bankruptcy judges to rewrite the terms of home mortgages to make them more favorable to the home owner. 

What do all these things have in common? They've all been tried in the past. Mostly during the Great Depression. Those laws that actually passed into law were promptly turned over by the courts. The high taxes simply drove desperately needed capitol of shore.

Companies that took government money accepted their own special brand of Hell. They deserve what ever happens to them for getting into bed with the US Government. There is no such thing as a quid without a pro quo when businesses, states, cities and counties accept government handouts.

For the rest of US Business, those that remained free and clear of government money and the sticky strings that go with it, none of these proposed steps into totalitarianism will stand a constitutional test.

From unconstitutional takings to running afoul the equal treatment provisions, each and everyone of these asinine will be struck down almost as fast as Congress can pass them. I think there is a one of three chance that even the companies on the government bail out programs will find some relief from the courts.

Alas, I would love to spend an afternoon researching all these things, getting quotes and finding case law on the matter. But the current job simply has not allowed the time. In fact my current time sheet shows a total of 181.5 hours over the last ten days ending yesterday.

Maybe later…

- 30 -

"These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

- Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

Verizon Wireless Followup

I got this from the Verizon Wireless public relations department:

VERIZON WIRELESS STATEMENT ON CUSTOMER PROPRIETARY NETWORK INFORMATION (CPNI)

BASKING RIDGE, N.J. – Verizon Wireless issued the following statement today regarding the use of Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI):

“Verizon Wireless is taking another step to deliver the best service to its customers while providing the maximum protection for customer privacy. Verizon Wireless is currently sending its customers a notice that customer information will be shared within the Verizon family of companies to facilitate the offering of better service packages to consumers. Customers are given the option to forego the sharing of information among the Verizon companies.

“Specifically, the notice sent to customers is an advance notice that Verizon Wireless may share basic customer information with our parent companies. This notice, following rules set forth by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), gives customers who do not want that information shared with our telecommunications affiliates the option of telling us by ‘opting out.’ The FCC has rules which state specifically that opt-out is the way to share information and provide certain required language, which we followed.

“Verizon Wireless has a long-standing policy of guarding personal customer information. We have put this process in place so that we can ensure our customers’ privacy needs and expectations are met – even within the Verizon family of companies. We will continue to vigorously defend the privacy rights of our customers.”

For more information, visit Verizon’s Technology and Telecommunications Policy Blog at http://policyblog.verizon.com.

Hmmm...

They only intend to share my data with other Verizon companies. Funny, I don't remember reading any such language in that document outlining the program. And what is to keep those "partners" from selling it once they have it? It is still a bad idea because it opens the door the door for future releases of information.

In defense of Verizon Wireless, they did acknowledge my request for more information.

-30-

Privacy under what circumstance? Privacy at home under what circumstances? You have more privacy if everyone's illiterate, but you wouldn't really call that privacy. That's ignorance.
- Bruce Sterling

Verizon Wireless wants to sell your call records

Romulis, MI - An article in today's Slashdot pissed me off beyond belief. According to the article Verizon Wireless is making to sell your call detail records to their partners. These details will include date, time, length of call and calling or called phone number. A notice (Sideways PDF) was included in recently mailed statements.

Fortunately for us, someone working at Skydeck actually read the notice and posted it on their blog.

Two of us just received a notice from Verizon Wireless about CPNI. CPNI stands for Customer Proprietary Network Information: our call records, essentially. What numbers we called, how often, how long we spent on the phone, and how much it cost us. (It does not include our own names, numbers, or addresses.)

Verizon wants to share this data with third parties, and of course they need our permission: “you have a right, and we have a duty, under federal and state law, to protect the confidentiality of your CPNI.”

But that duty only goes so far: “Unless you provide us [Verizon Wireless] with notice that you wish to opt out within 30 days of receiving this letter, we will assume that you give the Verizon Companies the right to share your CPNI with the authorized companies as described above.”
Skydeck: Get Ready For More Advertising On Your Cell Phone

The fact that Verizon Wireless customers must take action to keep these assholes from selling their personal information is an obscene abuse of customer good will in my book. If you are a Verizon Wireless customer and object to having your call detail records sold here's what you do:

Call 1-800-333-9956 and follow automated attendant instructions. You will need your billing zip code and account password (if you use one).

Verizon Wireless just went from the best to somewhere near the worse in my book.

The eternal skeptic in me wondered if this was an elaborate scam designed to to pry my account information and password from me. Sadly, after calling Verizon Wireless customer service, I found it is all too true.

Those bastards!

-30-

This has been a learning experience for me. I also thought that privacy was something we were granted in the Constitution. I have learned from this when in fact the word privacy does not appear in the Constitution.
- Bill Maher

State Farm Insurance: Like a good neighbor until you have a claim

My friend Lea Hernandez had a fire a little over a year ago. Lea and her family got out safely. But the house and contents were destroyed. Worse then that she lost several beloved animals that no amount of money can ever replace. For those things that could be replaced, fortunately they have State Farm insurance.

Or at least they thought that was fortunate. It turns out that after the trauma and pain of losing almost everything they owned, State Farm Insurance was about to become their worse nightmare.

Reading through her blog and talking with her reveals one more State Farm Insurance insult after another. Let me quote a few of her more colorful experiences with the fine folks at State Farm Insurance:

-How have you paid for replacements so far?
WITH MONEY. Why the **** would he ask this?
-There were some items duplicated from the theft. Big deal, it was a mistake, we're not trying to double-dip, knock them off. But we can't do that, Dave. Daisy, Daisy.
-Oh noes, you had a huge table that "doesn't look damaged."
Dangit, I knew I should've paid for the scratch-and-gag upgrade on the pictures. What was I thinking, not making them a total sensory experience of stench, blackened hands, and tears? It couldn't have been THAT bad, there was only smoke in every damn inch of the house. Why couldn't we salvaged things from a fire that nearly killed me and the kids? Sheah.
-We have the right to inspect.
Then maybe you should've gotten your miserly asses over to the house MORE THAN ONCE in the TWO MONTHS it was vacant before demolition was started. I guess, in the copious notes you have, you're missing the statement from our first adjuster, "I'd start a Bobcat at the driveway and keep going until I got to the other side."
Lea's Journal: Today is made of suck!

And...

See the table? It's the big flat dusty thing in the center of the picture. That table was questioned on our claim because of its cost and apparent condition.
The issue seemed to be maybe we were still using that table because we'd waited almost a year to claim it and how did we buy a new one if we hadn't put in claims money? Did we realllllly throw it away?
Why, yes, we did! See, we have a picture!

The lesson here is YOU CANNOT BE OBSESSIVE ENOUGH when documenting a disaster. Without my being over every day taking pictures, I'd have never had this shot to wave about. Imagine my ridiculous Rocky-dance glee when I found it.
Lea's Journal: ATF: In Which My Huevos are Bigger than Their Cojones

According the Texas State web site, the adjusters representing State Farm Insurance are breaking the rules. They are not allowed to ask about things not related to the claim. Questions about how they paid for things like a new washer and drier are outside the legal limits as well. (Yo adjusters, I got your answer to that last one right here: She paid for it with Donations from people like me, you got a problem with that?)

Lea tells of other problems as well. Adjusters tell her of other people replacing Wal-mart underwear with Victoria Secret fineries and then, without saying there was wrong doing, using that story to pressure her to back off her claims. Adjusters claiming they called her or her husband when there is no message or record of the call on the caller ID.

The biggest problem is that State Farm Insurance foot dragging in this case left my friend Lea in a very bad spot at the moment. She needs to be paid for the rest of her losses and State Farm Insurance is playing games with her.

Lea is not the only victim of State Farm's claim service. She has a lot of company.

People with damage from Katrina are still fighting to get paid. State Farm Insurance is splitting hairs trying to claim flood damage even on properties that were damaged by winds. There are millions of dollars at stake here.

But a US District Court Judge sees it differently:

Judge L.T. Senter, Jr. ordered State Farm Fire & Casualty to pay $223,292 in damages to a Biloxi couple, who suffered the loss of their home in the devastating storm. The judge declined to award punitive damages in the case, but said the jury may choose to do so.

In an unusual move, the judge issued a directed verdict from the bench, then ordered a recess. He sent the jury to the jury room to begin deliberating punitive damages.

Norman and Genevieve Broussard say they lost their home when a tornado spawned by the massive hurricane slammed into it, leaving only a concrete slab.

The insurance company refused to pay, saying the home was destroyed by Katrina's storm surge, and that the policy did not cover water damage.
Consumer Affairs: Judge rules against State Farm in Katrina case

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood dropped all efforts to get State Farm to come around peacefully on Mississippi hurricane damage. He is now filing suit to get State Farm to cough up some money:

In January, Hood agreed to remove State Farm from his office’s suit against several other insurance carriers after the firm said it would pay some of the disputed claims. But the deal apparently fell apart after it failed to win backing from a federal judge.

Insurance companies refused to pay thousands of hurricane related claims, saying the damage was caused by the storm’s ferocious storm surge and therefore were not covered by the policy. Homeowners countered that their homes were knocked off their foundations by the hurricane’s winds, when the storm’s eye passed directly over the coast.

“We filed this lawsuit in an effort to help the more than 30,000 Gulf Coast policyholders who have suffered for nearly two years because of State Farm's inaction,” Hood said.
Consumer Affairs: Mississippi Sues State Farm Over Katrina Coverage

Well, State Farm Insurance has a solution to that problem:

Paraphrasing Richard Nixon, Mississippi won't have State Farm Insurance to kick around anymore.

Stinging from defeat in a Hurricane Katrina damage claim in Biloxi, the company says it will no longer insure homeowners and businesses in the state, where it is the largest single insurer with a 30 percent market share. Allstate pulled out of Mississippi's six coastal counties last year.

"It is no longer prudent for us to take on additional risk in a legal and business environment that is becoming more unpredictable," said Senior Vice President Bob Trippel, in a statement.
Consumer Affairs: Payback: State Farm Writes Off Mississippi

That should solve all the problems plaguing State Farm Insurance in Mississippi all right. Better they should deal in states with attorney generals that don't like to fight.

The State Farm Insurance jingle reads, "Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there."

Uhm... yeah. Right.

-30-

What the insurance companies have done is to reverse the business so that the public at large insures the insurance companies.
- Gerry Spence

Nextel/Sprint did what?

Daytona Beach, FL - According to numerous reports Sprint has finally found a way to deal with their most "squeaky wheel" consumers. Recently, Sprint fired those consumers that continually pestered Sprint's stunningly incompetent customer service to fix repeated and ongoing billing errors, technical problems, service issues.

That's right, as of the end of this July, many of those squeaky wheels will have to be with another carrier. Check it out:

If you persistently insist that Sprint fix their numerous errors you will be dropped as a customer, according to reader Michael. He's been having trouble with Sprint but instead of resolving his problem, they've decided to drop him as a customer according to a letter he received yesterday. The letter reads:

"Our records indicate that over the past year, we have received frequent calls from you regarding your billing or other general account information. While we have worked to resolve your issues and questions to the best of our ability, the number of inquiries you have made to us during this time has led us to determine that we are unable to meet your current wireless needs..."
The Consumerist: Sprint Drops You Because You Call Customer Service Too Much

What happened to the good old days where the consumer fired the company for bad service?

Never have liked Sprint/Nextel, never will.

-30-

A significant set of companies do not see customer care as strategic to their companies and will need to change.
- Sanjay Kumar

If this isn't a scam, why is it legal?

Morrisville, NC - A good friend of mine went through her credit card statements only to discovered that the interest on her Amazon sponsored credit card through Chase Bank had been jacked up to 22.24% annually. Puzzled, as she had in introductory rate of 5.9% that was still well within the allotted period she called to have the mistake corrected.

The telephone clerk explained that Chase had determined she was carrying "too much debt" so (apparently in order to insure it stays that way) they jacked her interest rate up by over 300%. The clerk claims she was sent a notice telling her that was coming, but my friend can't find it in any of the mail she received from them. If you knew this Lady you would know how she saves every little piece of paper, no matter how obscure, so I believe her.

I have several problems with this latest dump on the basic consumer. The first and foremost of which appears to be a mystery. No one seems to be able to define what yard stick Chase is using to decide who is carrying too much debt. My friend always makes more then the minimum payment and has a sterling on time pay record. Does someone get up in the morning and randomly draw names over their morning coffee?

Another problem is an arbitrary 14% plus jack in rates with little or no notice. What if the consumer wants time to move the debt to an account with a reasonable interest rate? What if Chase's debt load determination is in error? According to my friend, the Chase's clerk stated their findings are not up for debate.

Last, but clearly of major concern is this: Why would a credit card company set a consumer up to fail like that? Is the goal to keep that consumer in debt for the rest of his/her life? The new interest rate at the payments she has been making will keep her chained to this debt well into the middle of the next decade.

So if you are considering one of those generous interest rate credit card offers from Amazon.com, take a really good look at the fine print and consider this horror story.

Note: Chase absolutely refused to discuss the "too much debt interest rate" with me. The person with no name at the home office said they did not have time for bloggers and hung up on me.

- 30 -

You want 21 percent risk free? Pay off your credit cards.
- Andrew Tobias

Spam with a toxic link twist!

Columbia, SC - From today's e-mail was this plain Jane missive with the subject "You've received a greeting card from a friend!":

Good day.

Your friend has sent you a greeting card from postcardsfrom.com.

Send free ecards from postcardsfrom.com with your choice of colors, words and music.

Your ecard will be available with us for the next 30 days. If you wish to keep the ecard longer, you may save it on your computer or take a print.

To view your ecard, choose from any of the following options:

--------
OPTION 1
--------

Click on the following Internet address or
copy & paste it into your browser's address box.

http://69.132.108.x/?e0403eca36dcae987dxxxxxxxxxxx

--------
OPTION 2
--------

Copy & paste the ecard number in the "View Your Card" box at http://69.132.108.x/

Your ecard number is
e0403eca36dcae987d9000be022dxxxxxxxxxx

Best wishes,
Mailer-Daemon,
postcardsfrom.com

*last portion of the URL is an 8. I changed it to an 'x' to avoid anyone accidentally clicking on it and getting a case of the computer clap. If you want to see what it does, replace the 'x' with an '8' and you're in. I also changed the last 11 digits in the identifier so the harvesting web site would not validate my e-mail address for spam purposes.

If you follow the link in option 2 you get a web page with text that reads, "We are currently testing a new browser feature. If you are not able to view this ecard, please click here to view in its original format." The 'click here" links to an executable named ecard.exe.

Okay, so I know that most of you reading this are computer savvy enough to at most, check to see where the link leads and then delete this spam untouched. However we all know someone that would download and run that program so they could see their e-card.

With that in mind I started digging. There is in fact a postcardsfrom.com on the net. But they do not provide an e-cards service. Their IP address does not come anywhere near the numbers in the url. The WhoIs listing for that number comes back to Road Runner.

With that thought in mind, I set out to contact the fine folks at Road Runner so that they might shut this amateur script kiddie down before too much damage is done.

What a joke. I sent three e-mails to Road Runner's abuse address. They were all returned by an automated system demanding more information like the e-mail headers. After the third attempt it finally became clear to me that the system was designed to keep people from contacting the abuse department.

So I went to Road Runner's tech support page and did some on-line chatting with a tech support person named Cassandra. After explaining the entire situation to them, She referred me to their fraud department e-mail address.

I asked if she had anyway of of contacting their security department before the damage became wide spread. Her response was, "Cassandra D: If you have no further issues that we can assist you with, you may end the chat session by clicking on the X or End Session button and a chat transcript will be displayed for you. Once again thank you for choosing Time Warner Cable Road Runner!"

The e-mail to their fraud address just came back for the second time demanding more information. You gotta love it!

This garbage about corporations going out of their way to isolate themselves from their customers and the public at large has gone way too far. Do you think Road Runner bears any liability for any damage that occurs after my chat with Cassandra? That would be an interesting legal challenge.

I post this as a warning to be freely passed along, especially to anyone you know that would cheerfully click that link, download and run that program so they can see their e-card.

- 30 -

I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image.
- Stephen Hawking