Technically MS does own the OS, the end user is just granted a license to use it. They do however not own the hardware it runs on, so there should be limits on what they can do, I agree that the idea that they can act as law enforcement without limits is chilling.

There are limits. The article describes them waiting on a federal court order giving them authority to execute their plan.

I also understand that they control what amounts to a substantial private police force. Which is exactly what government must do, not Microsoft

MS is absolutely responsible for the OS it has sold to customers, I expect them to make updates with security fixes and allow me to opt out of those updates if I want.

This also isn't heroics, but I knew, without a doubt, that people would read this headline and get angry because the government is supposed to be the hero. I'm not going to bother making the case for or against that, history can do it for me.

I'll add that it's absurd to compare them to law enforcement. They do not have any authority of using force here. They did not put hands on nor imprison the people running the botnet.

Who is the “they” that will let corporate heroes do offensive operations without due process? If it’s the government, wouldn’t the larger risk be that they just skip due process themselves? If it’s the companies, wouldn’t they then be held responsible for breaking the law?

> MS is also not responsible for the OS it has already sold to customers, that OS is not their property or concern outside of patches

My start-menu search just starting alerting me to all the "rewards points" I'm getting for using it, so this seems wrong to me