[64661] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AOL fixing Microsoft default settings
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Golding)
Thu Oct 30 09:24:36 2003
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:20:56 -0500
From: Daniel Golding <dgolding@burtongroup.com>
To: Henry Linneweh <hrlinneweh@sbcglobal.net>,
Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20031028225912.31916.qmail@web80513.mail.yahoo.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--B_3150350456_156614
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
I=B9m not sure =B3outrage=B2 is the appropriate way to describe this. AOL is
probably looking at this from the support point of view.
They get a certain number of support calls complaining about messenger
service spam/trickery. The will get many fewer calls complaining that the
messenger service has been shut off. The end result is that they save
themselves a good bit of money, while helping out a large percentage of
their customer base who has the bad luck of being saddled with an inferior
OS =AD good for them! It would be a mistake to confuse AOL=B9s subscriber base
with NANOG=B9s subscriber base. That which would outrage some of us is seen a=
s
a great boon to other sets of users. There is no =B3one size fits all=B2 here.
When one connects to an online service (which AOL is, rather than being jus=
t
an ISP, although they do that too) or when one connects to a corporate LAN
with a VPN client, they have to accept that there may be some alterations o=
f
the local environment. This is a reality of today=B9s security situation as i=
t
intersects with inferior desktop OS=B9s. There are always other solutions for
those who feel that these sort of alterations are unpalatable.
--=20
Daniel Golding
Network and Telecommunications Strategies
Burton Group
From: Henry Linneweh <hrlinneweh@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:59:12 -0800 (PST)
To: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: AOL fixing Microsoft default settings
I agree that changing one's computer is not the ISP or even the Corp IT
departments
job, and could compromise valuable work and or personal information for the
individual
user, depending on their setup, security software etc and other
applications.
=20
I also would preceive that as a real threat to individual privacy for any
individual in
any country of the world who directly purchased and owns their own computer=
.
=20
For individuals who had their machines custom built to spec with software
configured
to meet a certain criterion this would be an outrage and considered hacking
and=20
tampering.
=20
-Henry
Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Fred Baker wrote:
>> > Personally, I don't ask my ISP or my IT department to randomly change =
the
>> > configuration of my computer. I am very happy for them to suggest chan=
ges,
>> > but *if* I agree, *I* want to install them when it is convenient for *=
me*,
>> > not when it is convenient for *them*.
>=20
> There is a difference. In most cases the corporate laptop is owned by the
> corporation, not the employee. Shouldn't the corporate organization be
> able to change its own computers whenever it chooses, regardless of the
> desire of its employees.
>=20
> On the other hand, the ISP does not own the customer's computer. And
> despite EULA which say it not sold only licensed to the customer, most
> people view their computer as their property not the ISP's.
--B_3150350456_156614
Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: AOL fixing Microsoft default settings</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE=3D"Verdana"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'>I’m not sure R=
20;outrage” is the appropriate way to describe this. AOL is probably l=
ooking at this from the support point of view. <BR>
<BR>
They get a certain number of support calls complaining about messenger serv=
ice spam/trickery. The will get many fewer calls complaining that the messen=
ger service has been shut off. The end result is that they save themselves a=
good bit of money, while helping out a large percentage of their customer b=
ase who has the bad luck of being saddled with an inferior OS – good f=
or them! It would be a mistake to confuse AOL’s subscriber base with N=
ANOG’s subscriber base. That which would outrage some of us is seen as=
a great boon to other sets of users. There is no “one size fits all&#=
8221; here. <BR>
<BR>
When one connects to an online service (which AOL is, rather than being jus=
t an ISP, although they do that too) or when one connects to a corporate LAN=
with a VPN client, they have to accept that there may be some alterations o=
f the local environment. This is a reality of today’s security situati=
on as it intersects with inferior desktop OS’s. There are always other=
solutions for those who feel that these sort of alterations are unpalatable=
. <BR>
<BR>
-- <BR>
Daniel Golding<BR>
Network and Telecommunications Strategies<BR>
Burton Group<BR>
<BR>
<HR ALIGN=3DCENTER SIZE=3D"3" WIDTH=3D"95%"><B>From: </B>Henry Linneweh <hrlin=
neweh@sbcglobal.net><BR>
<B>Date: </B>Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:59:12 -0800 (PST)<BR>
<B>To: </B>Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>, Fred Baker <fred@cisco=
.com><BR>
<B>Cc: </B>nanog@merit.edu<BR>
<B>Subject: </B>Re: AOL fixing Microsoft default settings<BR>
<BR>
I agree that changing one's computer is not the ISP or even the Corp IT dep=
artments<BR>
job, and could compromise valuable work and or personal information for the=
individual<BR>
user, depending on their setup, security software etc and other application=
s.<BR>
<BR>
I also would preceive that as a real threat to individual privacy for any i=
ndividual in<BR>
any country of the world who directly purchased and owns their own computer=
.<BR>
<BR>
For individuals who had their machines custom built to spec with software c=
onfigured<BR>
to meet a certain criterion this would be an outrage and considered hacking=
and <BR>
tampering.<BR>
<BR>
-Henry<BR>
<BR>
<B><I>Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com></I></B> wrote:<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0p=
x'><BR>
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Fred Baker wrote:<BR>
> Personally, I don't ask my ISP or my IT department to randomly change =
the<BR>
> configuration of my computer. I am very happy for them to suggest chan=
ges,<BR>
> but *if* I agree, *I* want to install them when it is convenient for *=
me*,<BR>
> not when it is convenient for *them*.<BR>
<BR>
There is a difference. In most cases the corporate laptop is owned by the<B=
R>
corporation, not the employee. Shouldn't the corporate organization be<BR>
able to change its own computers whenever it chooses, regardless of the<BR>
desire of its employees.<BR>
<BR>
On the other hand, the ISP does not own the customer's computer. And<BR>
despite EULA which say it not sold only licensed to the customer, most<BR>
people view their computer as their property not the ISP's.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0=
px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--B_3150350456_156614--
