>>[snip]
>>>
>>>Many people have stated how bad the activation will be. SSNs, Mother's maiden name, Church Affiliation, blah, blah, blah. I think Mike Stewart posted something that pretty much shot down those arguments, for now.
>>
>>Better look again:
>>http://www.epic.org/privacy/consumer/MS_complaint.pdf
>>http://www.epic.org/privacy/consumer/MS_complaint2.pdf
>>
>>
>>>I've have not heard anyone propose a better solution to protect Microsoft. Should MS make you have the CD mounted when you turn on the machine? There scheme sounds OK to me. I'm sure some might be inconvienced here and there, but they need to relaize that it's the pirates who are to blame, not MS. Look at what they do at the mall. You have to walk through these 'scanners' that look for 'price' tags or something. I'm not a thief, why do I have to walk through them and feel like I'm not trusted? The same people who complain about MS activation should complain about these as well.
>>
>>Sorry, that is a non-sequiter. The tag scanners at the mall don't know who you are and don't require that you submitt your personal information, CC number, SSN, date of birth, mother's maiden name, age, to enter or leave the store.... You just walk through. You don't even know if they are on, and sometimes they aren't.
>
>Jerry,
>
>You missed it. The purpose of the scanners is to help protect the store from theft. The purpose of MS activation is to protect against theft. If you are not a thief you must still walk through the scanners. If you are not a thief, you must still activate your software. The store does not have a 'non-thief' lane where I can bypass the scanners. Should MS give me a "lane" if I say I'm not a thief?

I understood the analogy. I just don't think it characterizes the situation.
The scanner will send an alarm to employees if someone walks out with an active tag on an item of merchandise. But, the employees do not require patrons leaving the store to identify themselves as they are scanned. Microsoft's "scanning" is not the same as a retail store scanner.


>
>If you're against MS taking steps to prevent theft, why wouldn't you be against the store taking steps to prevent theft? What is the difference between the two? The store gets to pick their method (scanners, cops, cameras, etc.) so why can't MS?

And if they start frisking patrons guess how long folks will patronize the store?

I am not against MS taking steps to prevent thieft, as my previous posts will attest. I do not like the ethics of a pirate, Gates included. A dongole keyed to a CD would go a long ways... but in the long run any anti-pirating measures can be defeated which leads one to the following conclusion:

The product activation - registration stuff isn't as much about protecting WinXX software from pirating as it is a concealed attempt to acquire consumer information that can be datamined for for profit, and to make the internet propriatary property, taxing both ends of internet transactions.

>
>As far as the peronal information goes, you should check out thread #533752 message #544542 from August 16.
>>Dan