Windows Update Comes with Extras You May Not Want

Microsoft last week began offering U.S. customers its free antivirus program via Windows' built-in update service, a move one major security firm said may be anticompetitive.
Last Monday, Microsoft started adding Security Essentials to the optional download list seen by U.S. users running Windows XP, Vista, or Windows 7 when they fired up the operating system's update service. The move followed an Oct. 19 kickoff of a similar program in the U.K.
"Commercializing Windows Update to distribute other software applications raises significant questions about unfair competition," said Carol Carpenter, the general manager of the consumer and small business group at Trend Micro, on Thursday.
"Windows Update is a de facto extension of Windows, so to begin delivering software tied to updates has us concerned," she added. "Windows Update is not a choice for users, and we believe it should not be used this way."
If Windows doesn't detect working security software on the PC, Microsoft adds Security Essentials to the Optional section of Microsoft Update, a superset of the better-known Windows Update, or to Windows Update if it has been configured to also draw downloads from Microsoft Update.
Microsoft made a point to say that it was not offering Security Essentials via Window Update, but only through the Microsoft Update service, which also offers patches for new versions of non-operating system software, notably Office and Windows Media Player.
But most users won't understand the distinction because of the way that Microsoft has intermingled the two services.
In Vista and Windows 7, for example, Windows Update is configured out of the box to also poll Microsoft Update. And although Microsoft Update was once optional in Windows XP, new PCs with new installations of the OS now use Microsoft Update as the default update service.
"We welcome competition on a level playing field," said Carpenter of Trend Micro. "What concerns us is a vendor using market leverage to drive its solution in some unfair way."
Microsoft defended the practice, saying it was giving customers a convenient way to acquire antivirus software.
"We are always looking for the most effective and efficient ways to ensure our customers are protected against viruses, spyware and other malicious threats," said Jeff Smith, director of marketing for Security Essentials, in an e-mail reply to questions. "By offering Security Essentials as an optional download for PCs that are unprotected, we make it easy for those who want and know they need protection, but for whatever reason have not gotten around to installing it."
When asked to respond to rivals' anticompetitive concerns, Smith reiterated that Microsoft was not forcing users to download its product. "[It's] an optional download that customers with no antivirus solution can elect to download and install," he said. "[This is] just one of many options available to customers to get security software."
Other security vendors, including Symantec and McAfee, declined to say whether they, like Trend Micro, viewed Microsoft's move as anticompetitive or unfair. Instead, they downplayed Security Essentials' effectiveness.
"It's clear that today's threat landscape requires more comprehensive protection than what Microsoft Security Essentials offers," said Symantec in a statement. "From a security perspective, this Microsoft tool offers reduced defenses at a critical point in the battle against cybercrime."
McAfee took the same tack.
"Options that provide an elementary level of security, including Microsoft Security Essentials, mostly rely on traditional protection mechanisms," McAfee said. "McAfee products offer not only more features but most importantly, McAfee products offer real-time protection using cloud-based intelligence to combat even the most sophisticated threats."
All three vendors scoffed at the idea that they're scared of free antivirus rivals, and by implication, Security Essentials. "We've competed against free for a long time," said Carpenter. "We've not seen [free products have] much impact on our market share."
This isn't the first time that security companies and Microsoft have butted heads.
In 2006, Symantec and McAfee complained to European Union antitrust regulators about Microsoft's decision to block them from accessing the kernel in the 64-bit version of Vista, and barring them from its new integrated security center. Microsoft bowed to the pressure , and later promised to produce APIs (application programming interfaces) that gave security vendors some access to the kernel and allowed them to mesh their product's on-screen status features with the security center.
Carpenter declined to says whether Trend Micro would consider legal action against Microsoft over the issue, but said that her company "was always looking at issues like this."
In a follow-up e-mail, Carpenter was clearer. "We're concerned that Microsoft may be using its OS-based market leverage to box out other choices. If that were to happen, it would not be good for consumers or the industry, and would warrant a second look."
Trend was aware of the Security Essentials offer in the U.K. that started last month, but Microsoft's decision to do the same in the U.S. caught it by surprise. "We work with Microsoft on a lot of levels," Carpenter said, but added that Microsoft had not told Trend Micro it was expanding the deal to the U.S.
Not all eligible U.S. users have seen the Security Essentials offer because Microsoft is rolling it out over the course of the month, the company said.
Users who decline the download and then want to block the offer from reappearing can do so by right-clicking on the Security Essentials item, then selecting "Hide update" from the drop-down menu.

Windows Update Comes with Extras You May Not Want

Microsoft last week began offering U.S. customers its free antivirus program via Windows' built-in update service, a move one major security firm said may be anticompetitive.
Last Monday, Microsoft started adding Security Essentials to the optional download list seen by U.S. users running Windows XP, Vista, or Windows 7 when they fired up the operating system's update service. The move followed an Oct. 19 kickoff of a similar program in the U.K.
"Commercializing Windows Update to distribute other software applications raises significant questions about unfair competition," said Carol Carpenter, the general manager of the consumer and small business group at Trend Micro, on Thursday.
"Windows Update is a de facto extension of Windows, so to begin delivering software tied to updates has us concerned," she added. "Windows Update is not a choice for users, and we believe it should not be used this way."
If Windows doesn't detect working security software on the PC, Microsoft adds Security Essentials to the Optional section of Microsoft Update, a superset of the better-known Windows Update, or to Windows Update if it has been configured to also draw downloads from Microsoft Update.
Microsoft made a point to say that it was not offering Security Essentials via Window Update, but only through the Microsoft Update service, which also offers patches for new versions of non-operating system software, notably Office and Windows Media Player.
But most users won't understand the distinction because of the way that Microsoft has intermingled the two services.
In Vista and Windows 7, for example, Windows Update is configured out of the box to also poll Microsoft Update. And although Microsoft Update was once optional in Windows XP, new PCs with new installations of the OS now use Microsoft Update as the default update service.
"We welcome competition on a level playing field," said Carpenter of Trend Micro. "What concerns us is a vendor using market leverage to drive its solution in some unfair way."
Microsoft defended the practice, saying it was giving customers a convenient way to acquire antivirus software.
"We are always looking for the most effective and efficient ways to ensure our customers are protected against viruses, spyware and other malicious threats," said Jeff Smith, director of marketing for Security Essentials, in an e-mail reply to questions. "By offering Security Essentials as an optional download for PCs that are unprotected, we make it easy for those who want and know they need protection, but for whatever reason have not gotten around to installing it."
When asked to respond to rivals' anticompetitive concerns, Smith reiterated that Microsoft was not forcing users to download its product. "[It's] an optional download that customers with no antivirus solution can elect to download and install," he said. "[This is] just one of many options available to customers to get security software."
Other security vendors, including Symantec and McAfee, declined to say whether they, like Trend Micro, viewed Microsoft's move as anticompetitive or unfair. Instead, they downplayed Security Essentials' effectiveness.
"It's clear that today's threat landscape requires more comprehensive protection than what Microsoft Security Essentials offers," said Symantec in a statement. "From a security perspective, this Microsoft tool offers reduced defenses at a critical point in the battle against cybercrime."
McAfee took the same tack.
"Options that provide an elementary level of security, including Microsoft Security Essentials, mostly rely on traditional protection mechanisms," McAfee said. "McAfee products offer not only more features but most importantly, McAfee products offer real-time protection using cloud-based intelligence to combat even the most sophisticated threats."
All three vendors scoffed at the idea that they're scared of free antivirus rivals, and by implication, Security Essentials. "We've competed against free for a long time," said Carpenter. "We've not seen [free products have] much impact on our market share."
This isn't the first time that security companies and Microsoft have butted heads.
In 2006, Symantec and McAfee complained to European Union antitrust regulators about Microsoft's decision to block them from accessing the kernel in the 64-bit version of Vista, and barring them from its new integrated security center. Microsoft bowed to the pressure , and later promised to produce APIs (application programming interfaces) that gave security vendors some access to the kernel and allowed them to mesh their product's on-screen status features with the security center.
Carpenter declined to says whether Trend Micro would consider legal action against Microsoft over the issue, but said that her company "was always looking at issues like this."
In a follow-up e-mail, Carpenter was clearer. "We're concerned that Microsoft may be using its OS-based market leverage to box out other choices. If that were to happen, it would not be good for consumers or the industry, and would warrant a second look."
Trend was aware of the Security Essentials offer in the U.K. that started last month, but Microsoft's decision to do the same in the U.S. caught it by surprise. "We work with Microsoft on a lot of levels," Carpenter said, but added that Microsoft had not told Trend Micro it was expanding the deal to the U.S.
Not all eligible U.S. users have seen the Security Essentials offer because Microsoft is rolling it out over the course of the month, the company said.
Users who decline the download and then want to block the offer from reappearing can do so by right-clicking on the Security Essentials item, then selecting "Hide update" from the drop-down menu.

Twitter Updates Android App Buy “android” Black Friday

If you are searching for the hottest android sales at stores such as Walmart and Target you have arrived at the right site. The Holiday season has arrived and now is the greatest time to buy android in department stores—there are excellent bargains at all major retailers on the hottest electronics of the season. We have put together the most recent headlines, bargains & info here so that you won’t need to spend countless hours looking for the hottest android deal around.

Latest Android news:

Twitter Updates Android App
Twitter on Wednesday released an updated version of its Android app that incorporates some features already available on the iPhone app and promises faster speeds.
Read more on PC Magazine via Yahoo! News

Android surpasses iPhone, BlackBerry in 3Q U.S. sales
Steve Jobs’s criticism aside, Google’s Android operating system continued to be the most popular smart phone platform in the third quarter, according to a report by NPD Group.
Read more on Washington Post

Twitter Updates Android App Buy “android” Black Friday

If you are searching for the hottest android sales at stores such as Walmart and Target you have arrived at the right site. The Holiday season has arrived and now is the greatest time to buy android in department stores—there are excellent bargains at all major retailers on the hottest electronics of the season. We have put together the most recent headlines, bargains & info here so that you won’t need to spend countless hours looking for the hottest android deal around.

Latest Android news:

Twitter Updates Android App
Twitter on Wednesday released an updated version of its Android app that incorporates some features already available on the iPhone app and promises faster speeds.
Read more on PC Magazine via Yahoo! News

Android surpasses iPhone, BlackBerry in 3Q U.S. sales
Steve Jobs’s criticism aside, Google’s Android operating system continued to be the most popular smart phone platform in the third quarter, according to a report by NPD Group.
Read more on Washington Post

Facebook Updates User ID Policy, Puts Six Month Block on Rogue Application Developers

Following an arguably overblown investigation into Facebook application developers sharing publicly-available user identification numbers with third parties, Facebook has made a few additional moves to clamp down on the problem. One is a policy update, another is punishment for those developers that purposefully sold this information — most had done it accidentally — and a third is confirmation of a change it previously proposed to how user IDs are handled.
Given that the user IDs are already publicly available, there was no privacy violation — contrary to how many news organizations covered the story. But selling user data to third parties is explicitly forbidden in Facebook’s developer terms. So Facebook’s actions here are likely motivated in part by the need to reassure the public that their (public) data is safe, while also setting an example to developers.
First, the policy change, from the company’s developer blog post on the matter:

Today, we are clarifying our policy to ensure that developers understand the proper use of UIDs in their applications. Our policy has always stated that data received from Facebook, including UIDs, cannot be shared with data brokers and ad networks. Moving forward, our policy will state that UIDs cannot leave your application or any of the infrastructure, code, and services you need to build and run your application. You can use services, such as Akamai, Amazon Web Services and analytics services as long as those services keep UIDs confidential to your application.

Second, developers will also need to adopt the new mechanism for making user IDs anonymous.

We realize that developers may sometimes need a way to share a unique identifier outside of their application with permitted third parties, such as content partners, advertisers or other service providers. We are adding a mechanism that developers must use to share anonymous identifiers for this purpose. We will release this functionality (available via the Graph API and FQL) early next week. We encourage developers to move to this mechanism quickly and will require it on January 1, 2011.

Ad networks on Facebook, the post notes, are also being required to delete any IDs in their possession in order to continue doing business on the platform; Facebook is also requiring that developers anonymize any IDs they send to these companies.
It is also banning some currently unknown developers for having purposefully brokered this data to third parties. It’s not naming names, but please let us know in comments if you have more information about who they are. From the post:

As we examined the circumstances of inadvertent UID transfers, we discovered some instances where a data broker was paying developers for UIDs. While we determined that no private user data was sold and confirmed that transfer of these UIDs did not give access to any private data, this violation of our policy is something we take seriously. As such, we are taking action against these developers by instituting a 6-month full moratorium on their access to Facebook communication channels, and we will require these developers to submit their data practices to an audit in the future to confirm that they are in compliance with our policies. This impacts fewer than a dozen, mostly small developers, none of which are in the top 10 applications on Facebook Platform.

Finally, Facebook says it has worked out a deal where one of the data brokers that was buying the data, Rapleaf, will delete all user IDs in its possession

Facebook Updates User ID Policy, Puts Six Month Block on Rogue Application Developers

Following an arguably overblown investigation into Facebook application developers sharing publicly-available user identification numbers with third parties, Facebook has made a few additional moves to clamp down on the problem. One is a policy update, another is punishment for those developers that purposefully sold this information — most had done it accidentally — and a third is confirmation of a change it previously proposed to how user IDs are handled.
Given that the user IDs are already publicly available, there was no privacy violation — contrary to how many news organizations covered the story. But selling user data to third parties is explicitly forbidden in Facebook’s developer terms. So Facebook’s actions here are likely motivated in part by the need to reassure the public that their (public) data is safe, while also setting an example to developers.
First, the policy change, from the company’s developer blog post on the matter:

Today, we are clarifying our policy to ensure that developers understand the proper use of UIDs in their applications. Our policy has always stated that data received from Facebook, including UIDs, cannot be shared with data brokers and ad networks. Moving forward, our policy will state that UIDs cannot leave your application or any of the infrastructure, code, and services you need to build and run your application. You can use services, such as Akamai, Amazon Web Services and analytics services as long as those services keep UIDs confidential to your application.

Second, developers will also need to adopt the new mechanism for making user IDs anonymous.

We realize that developers may sometimes need a way to share a unique identifier outside of their application with permitted third parties, such as content partners, advertisers or other service providers. We are adding a mechanism that developers must use to share anonymous identifiers for this purpose. We will release this functionality (available via the Graph API and FQL) early next week. We encourage developers to move to this mechanism quickly and will require it on January 1, 2011.

Ad networks on Facebook, the post notes, are also being required to delete any IDs in their possession in order to continue doing business on the platform; Facebook is also requiring that developers anonymize any IDs they send to these companies.
It is also banning some currently unknown developers for having purposefully brokered this data to third parties. It’s not naming names, but please let us know in comments if you have more information about who they are. From the post:

As we examined the circumstances of inadvertent UID transfers, we discovered some instances where a data broker was paying developers for UIDs. While we determined that no private user data was sold and confirmed that transfer of these UIDs did not give access to any private data, this violation of our policy is something we take seriously. As such, we are taking action against these developers by instituting a 6-month full moratorium on their access to Facebook communication channels, and we will require these developers to submit their data practices to an audit in the future to confirm that they are in compliance with our policies. This impacts fewer than a dozen, mostly small developers, none of which are in the top 10 applications on Facebook Platform.

Finally, Facebook says it has worked out a deal where one of the data brokers that was buying the data, Rapleaf, will delete all user IDs in its possession

Facebook Places To Change Status Updates Forever

The idea behind Facebook places is relatively simple; when you are at a location and surfing Facebook with your mobile device, the feature allows you to tag the location that you are in based on GPS tracking through your mobile device. The feature is one of a number of different similar products that have surfaced in recent years that are likely based on the model that FourSquare created.

The service allows you to announce where you are and give more relevance to your status updates. Instead of just announcing who you are watching perform and how great the concert is, Facebook places allows you to tell your friends exactly where you are, and what venue they are playing at.

Another use for the feature would be to announce where you are when you find a great deal. Obviously, retailers are drooling at the idea of Facebook users announcing huge sales at different department stores. Users will also be able to give their friends an idea of when they are in the same area, and make it easier for them to meet up.

The possibilities are endless with Facebook places. Although a number of similar products were already on the market when places launched, it appears that Facebook has cornered the market as far as Facebook users go. At this time the usage of the feature is relatively low, but Facebook undoubtedly plans to expand it over time as more users learn how to use the feature, and figure out its different uses.