All software is reviewed under the same objective criteria, detection policies, and analysis process. Absolutely no exceptions were made for Claria.
in their official response letter to customers. Now what is funny is that some of the arguments of the letter are directly contradicted by the whitepaper describing their procedures, to which they link to in that very letter. Edd Bott has a nice breakdown of this in his blog. What this all really boils down to is the fact that:
Microsoft isn’t providing any details about the reasons for its decisions. And that’s the problem: No transparency. Microsoft doesn’t give customers any reason for them to trust Windows AntiSpyware to classify potentially unwanted software accurately and recommend actions that are in its customers’ best interests.
And I agree here with Ed completely. Of course this is nothing new. Microsoft never really gave customers any information about their motives, inner workings and such. But this is a different case. When you have a nearly monopolistic grip on the market you can get away with keeping your customers in the dark. However in Anti-Spyware market MS is not the dominating company. In this field, trust and reputation mean everything…
Of course the funniest line in the zdnet article is:
“We firmly believe that people should have complete control over what runs on their computers,” Microsoft added.