On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 16:49:56 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, BoB
<rhoward30@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Sorry if it sounds like I'm nit-picking.
>
> BoB

You're not "nitpicking"; you're just missing the point. My criticisms of
the integrated "self-update" features currently becoming more and more
popular were _in_general_; and in that sense tehy apply to ANY program with
such a "feature". Only if the program in quesiton does not *also* offer the
ability to update via more conventional means (such as downloading the new
version, or updated database, or whatever, via one's normal methods, then
installing it per best practice just like any other application), does the
inclusion of such a "feature" necessarily constitute a liability.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -