Longhorn's "Black Box"

Ev_

Diabloii.Net Member
Longhorn's "Black Box"

Longhorn's Black Box

With businesses, however, IT managers typically set the policy. If they wanted total information, they could configure systems so that they'd know not only that a user was running Internet Explorer, for example, but also that he or she was watching a video from ESPN.com. Or, they might find out not only that a worker was running Instant Messenger but also that he or she was talking to a co-worker about getting a new job.
$100 says Microsoft makes no improvement to their error handling and patching, and just uses this thing to enforce DRM crap.
 

DurfBarian

Diabloii.Net Member
They'll "give you the option" or not sending in the content of the e-mail you were writing when your machine crashed on you? How very gentlemanly of them.

Redmond must have really good drugs for the people there to think things like that are a good idea.
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
Ev_ said:
$100 says Microsoft makes no improvement to their error handling and patching, and just uses this thing to enforce DRM crap.
Only a fool would take your bet... It is like thinking that cleaning the Internet Exploiter cache actually destroys the evidence on your PC. "Microsoft Security" is a better oxymoron than my own (Military Intelligence).

I don't think this will be exclusively exploited for DRM/RIAA/MPAA purposes, or for employers to monitor workers - there's no way to fix the former, and there's plenty of tools to do the latter. That's just the gravy.

Instead, I expect it to support the original planning for remote deactivation capability - if M$FT "turns off" your Windoze ala UCITA, they need to have iron-clad rationale to protect against counter-suits. What better method than showing that you purposefully entered a bogus product ID prior to the 'accidental' crash?
 
*Plays on the net freely*


So will this be in all versions of Longhorn or just the "Corporate" version? I can see way too many problems with this system. Viruses/trojans/malware could exploit these 'security measures' and shut down an entire system. If this is part of the server edition you site could down at any moment(if your using Windows as your server you deserve it IMHO).


If this is in any way added to the OS on the home edition I see a huge backlash. People will put up with DRM/etc when it is an individual program, but when it is the OS people will get angry.

I say let Microsoft put it out, more switchers for Apple.
 

Ev_

Diabloii.Net Member
{KOW}Spazed said:
So will this be in all versions of Longhorn or just the "Corporate" version?
From the article, I get the impression that it's in all versions.
 

Rius666

Diabloii.Net Member
Ev_ said:
From the article, I get the impression that it's in all versions.
For consumers, the choice of whether to send the data, and how much information to share, will be up to the individual. Though the details are being finalized, Windows lead product manager Greg Sullivan said users will be prompted with a message indicating the information to be sent and giving them an option to alter it, such as removing the contents of the e-mail they were writing when the machine crashed. Also, such reporting will also be anonymous.
And consumers could have a tough time knowing just what information they were sending. Though they'll be able to see the contents of a document, they may not recognize the significance of the technical data--such as register settings--that's being sent.

Industry analyst Richard Doherty said he doubted Microsoft got enough feedback on how users might feel about such a feature. Even airplane pilots, Doherty said, have been able to keep from having their routine in-flight dialogue preserved. Microsoft's version of the black box, Doherty said "is begging for more real-world testing."

But Sullivan pointed out that businesses can already install third-party software to monitor workers' computer usage and some do.

He also said that in the present incarnation of Windows, companies have fairly fine control over what crash data they receive and what information gets sent on to Microsoft. With the new black box feature, he said, companies will simply have "more detailed management ability of the reporting infrastructure."

With the information it does get, Microsoft could, in theory, identify a problem the first time it appears and push down a patch so that no other person encounters the error. Microsoft also shares some data with other Windows developers to help them improve their products. However, Sullivan acknowledged that the day when an error only crops up one time and is fixed is still a long way off.Microsoft also plans to step up the amount of information Windows users get when they send an error report to the company. With Windows XP, the software leviathan has begun sending information back to consumers, though the data tends to be fairly generic. Microsoft is trying to get to a point where it can send back specific details on the problem and how to fix it.

"We're going to take steps toward that," Sullivan said. "It remains to see exactly how far down that path we get."
From what I understand with this paragraph, the consumer version will allow the consumer to determine what information, if any, the "black box" will send, how much information, and whether that information will be anonymous. The IT version is different where the IT MANAGERS will determine this amount of information instead of the employees.

Although I agree that this "black box" idea is iffy and infringes on privacy, the consumer shouldnt be too worried. Plus, looking at this from Microsoft's standpoint I can understand why they would do this to help prevent viruses/trojans/malware from flowing too far and identifying the problem early.
 

Steel_Avatar

Diabloii.Net Member
I'm not totally surprised, but nor am I worried. XP already has a similar feature; when an application crashes, you're given the option of sending an e-mail to Microsoft with details.
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
Rius666 said:
From what I understand with this paragraph, the consumer version will allow the consumer to determine what information, if any, the "black box" will send, how much information, and whether that information will be anonymous. The IT version is different where the IT MANAGERS will determine this amount of information instead of the employees.
So far as you know... after all, M$FT ethics and conduct has been exemplary, right?
You DO realize that even your home PC "phones home" to Redmond on a pretty frequent basis, don't you? While detailed crash information supposedly isn't transmitted unless you choose to, that doesn't mean the information isn't stored and prepared for easy retrieval. I'm sure this would only be in the event that M$FT technicians are called out to analyze why a cheapo Dell crashed trying to read that special CD.

Rius666 said:
Although I agree that this "black box" idea is iffy and infringes on privacy, the consumer shouldnt be too worried. Plus, looking at this from Microsoft's standpoint I can understand why they would do this to help prevent viruses/trojans/malware from flowing too far and identifying the problem early.
I'm sure you're correct, this would have nothing to do with invasive snooping and remote deactivation, using the cover of UCITA-style legalese and the EULA that is forced on you to justify whatever the heck Redmond feels like doing to you at the time. No, they're only thinking of YOU, the consumer - YOU are their primary focus, and making sure that your computer can weather troubles and Internet nasties has always been their top priority. This project has far less to do with sneaking DRM controls into your machine than making sure that your computer is "safe".

That's right, hordes of Microsoft employees are poised to leap at the bugs your very own computer transmits (particularly when most of those are due to Microsoft products design to play badly with others). Really. I've talked with them (well, tried to comprehend their English - my Mom is the one who speaks Urdu).

Their vigilance has been so noteworthy in protecting you in the past; you've trusted them with your passwords and credit card numbers in the past (Passport), you trust them to record everything you surf to and write (hidden Exploiter logging and Wurd headers), why not trust them to monitor what you do at every moment you're using your machine? After all, if you're not doing something "bad", you've got nothing to fear...

Just shush now... Go back to sleep, gentle consumer. Pappa Billy has everything under control, and he'll really protect your computer from all those nasties this time. Honest.
...And just remember, before you drift off to sleep...
NEVER BUY A MAC OR TRY LINUX UNLESS YOU'RE A GODFORSAKEN THIEVING COMMIE!!!

http://totalabstinence.com/members/kraktkorteks/
 
Top