For a few days, the US press has been made the echo of the anger of several Windows users after the latter realized that without their explicit assent, Windows Update had proceeded to the patch of certain files under XP and Vista..
One had any obviously hardly more to raise the polemic with good quickly the first allegations of espionage, the more so as the firm of Redmond trails a heavy liability on this subject that it is due to proven presence of informer or suspect behavior of WGA, before modification.
Bypass of the user choice for the good cause
To try to calm the spirits as fast as possible, Nate Clinton, chief of product Windows Update, published a ticket on a blog Technet where it brings some explanations on this business. Clinton recalls thus that in the absolute, it is proposed to the end-user under Windows, four possibilities so that it determines the behavior of the system of update Windows Update: the automatic installation of the updates, automatic remote loading but the choice of a later installation, the simple checking of the existence of updates and finally, any checking.
However, in this case, once is not habit, the choices of the user were quite simply ignored since it was a question of updating the service Windows Update itself, including side customer. Clinton specifies that if that had not been done, the users would not have been able to successfully check the existence of updates for their system via Windows Update, giving them distorts it impression of a sense of security with an allegedly up to date OS.
Need A seems it makes the force of law and without calling into question this choi
