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/