IP: Re: Windows XP WPA code reverse-engineered ?

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

>To: farber@cis.upenn.edu
>cc: lauren@pfir.org, neumann@pfir.org
>Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:21:09 -0700
>From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>
>
>Of potentially more interest than the specifics of which hardware
>modifications trigger an XP re-activation requirement, is the issue of under
>what circumstances Microsoft might refuse to *permit* a re-activation.
>
>MS presumably operates under the (probably largely valid) assumption that the
>majority of users operate "canned" systems and make few major hardware
>changes.  However, there are certainly significant numbers of users, in both
>the consumer and business categories, who make frequent significant hardware
>alterations.  Microsoft will need to determine, for example, the difference
>between a crooked computer store owner who wants to load one copy of XP onto
>lots of PCs over a period of time, vs. a legit user who is frequently
>modifying, upgrading, or otherwise changing their hardware (or, for that
>matter, who wants to retire one box completely in favor of a new one).
>
>One can imagine how MS might establish criteria for these sorts of
>determinations, but I wonder what will happen when they start saying, "You
>can't re-activate -- we don't *believe* you!" to customers who claim they
>are making changes to their own hardware that should not be equated with
>trying to cheat Microsoft?
>
>An interesting range of possible scenarios flow forth from that point...
>
>--Lauren--
>Lauren Weinstein
>lauren@pfir.org or lauren@vortex.com or lauren@privacyforum.org
>Co-Founder, PFIR: People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
>Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
>Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/