Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: Re: Windows XP WPA code reverse-engineered ?
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:29:54 -0400
To: farber () cis upenn edu cc: lauren () pfir org, neumann () pfir org Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:21:09 -0700 From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com> Of potentially more interest than the specifics of which hardware modifications trigger an XP re-activation requirement, is the issue of under what circumstances Microsoft might refuse to *permit* a re-activation. MS presumably operates under the (probably largely valid) assumption that the majority of users operate "canned" systems and make few major hardware changes. However, there are certainly significant numbers of users, in both the consumer and business categories, who make frequent significant hardware alterations. Microsoft will need to determine, for example, the difference between a crooked computer store owner who wants to load one copy of XP onto lots of PCs over a period of time, vs. a legit user who is frequently modifying, upgrading, or otherwise changing their hardware (or, for that matter, who wants to retire one box completely in favor of a new one). One can imagine how MS might establish criteria for these sorts of determinations, but I wonder what will happen when they start saying, "You can't re-activate -- we don't *believe* you!" to customers who claim they are making changes to their own hardware that should not be equated with trying to cheat Microsoft? An interesting range of possible scenarios flow forth from that point... --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein lauren () pfir org or lauren () vortex com or lauren () privacyforum org Co-Founder, PFIR: People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/
Current thread:
- IP: Re: Windows XP WPA code reverse-engineered ? David Farber (Jul 10)