Skipping Norton Account Reminder

Norton Security | Norton Internet Security
21

Retired_Thinker:

 

It's much like asking people if they are good drivers.  Do you honestly think anybody would admit to being the single most dangerous thing on the road?  If people were offered the opportunity to build a Norton account in case they lost their key, every single one of them would say that they never lost their key. 

 

I am willing to bet that much of the time Norton online support is hunting up lost keys, which is an expensive and unnecesary use of their time, which you and I are paying for in the cost of our subscription.  I would rather see the money spent on research and development.

 

I'm sorry, I just find it silly to give your name and email address to the same people, for a forum to complain about having to give your name and email address.  

22

Freedom of choice?

 

I'm with Ben18 on this one. I came across this thread whilst looking for a solution to turn off the nag. Having also checked with Norton support, there is no option to turn off the nag. The obvious solution might be to just use a fake email address although I'm not sure whether any sort of confirmation is required?

 

I, like Ben18, am quite capable of looking after my own product key, without help from anyone else. A simple disclaimer from Norton advising that users will not be entitled to technical support if they are unable to produce a valid product key might suffice?

 

The principle is whether a user should be able to buy and use a software product without being forced to give any personal information. If that user chooses to give that same information anywhere else including this forum's registration, then that should be their prerogative. If delphinium or anyone else thinks that is silly, they are perfectly entitled to their opinion.

 

There may be tens of thousands of users with exactly the same preference reading this thread who remain silent because can't be bothered to post a reply or don't want to give their email address to do so. Thank goodness for people like Ben18 and myself willing so sacrifice their anonymity on behalf of the masses! ;)

 

One of the things I've always disliked about McAfee security software, for example, is that you are forced to create an account, just to download any updates. Even if someone had no objection to providing said information, there are a variety of situations where this may be a nuisance for some users. People sometimes forget passwords. Circumstances and email addresses might change from one year to the next. Some users change ISP and lose access to old email accounts. The point still remains; some people would simply rather not give their personal details out.

 

So in summary; Norton will not allow you to disable their nag until you provide an email address as they have decided it's in each and every user's best interests. If you don't like it; go elsewhere (just not McAfee because they're even worse (in more ways than one)). Perhaps someone can advise of alternative security software which doesn't require any personal details.

 

A good starting point might be to look at some other highly rated/regarded suites recently reviewed by PC Pro here: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/labs/173/security-suites/products.html

 

The voice of reason.

 

This post does not necessarily reflect the authors sober opinion and should be ignored by anyone of sound mind and independent judgement. Please do not flame the author or call them silly as the author will be deeply hurt. If you do not wish to receive any further communication, please read another post or click on the unsubscribe link below. This message has been scanned for illness by MonkeyScan 2009 (no registration required). Any views expressed in this post are those of the individual sender and Norton accept no liability for such views except where the poster specifically states them to be those of Norton (that could be fun).

23
Stu wrote:

Let me try to step in than. Or am I one of "them" as well?

let's try again and please tell me in short what is the main problem. Too many arguments are posted here and I'm affraid no one really knows anymore what is exactly the main issue.

 

Ben , can you help me out here?


The issue is that I am obliged to provide my details for a purpose I do not understand. I cannot smootly use the product I bought without setting up the account. It came a a surprise since it was not in the previous versions and not a single test of NIS 2009 I read, including those sponsored by Symantec, mentioned it. Uninstalling NIS to get a refund was a nightmare. So have been basically punished because I trusted Symantec. I am upset because as a loyal customer to Symantec since 2003, I thought I deserved more transparency.

 

I am not against buying online nor giving my details as long as I understand why I have to do so and I think we should all be concerned the same way. I am not into the conspiracy theory for a second but the Facebook EULA story that just broke out should make us more cautious about the level of trust corporations doing business online are entitled to.

 

 

Symantec declares the Account serves only one purpose - i.e a convenient online storage of the registration for the sole benefit of the customer  - and this is not consistent with the fact that it is compulsory. There is no clear explanation as to why is this compulsory. Since it is adverstised as being for the sole benefit of the customer, it should be an option. I can store this on a shelve in my office.

 

Had Symantec transparently explained that the account is actually an anti-piracy tool as some on this forum claimed, so they need up to the name of the stree where I live for that purpose and why it has to work that way, I would have obvioulsy reacted differently. I would support any Symantec anti-piracy reasonable initiative because I think they are entitled to protect their product the way they deem advisable. But Symantec never said it is an anti-piracy thing.

 

I will not mention that that an automatic renewal of your license might happen against your desire if your credit card details are filled in the account because I am not sure of it. But I am afraid that the account is a marketing thing which could result in our details being sold to third parties or used by Symantec for commercial purposes. In the End User License Agreement, Symantec declares they have the right to do so. 

 

 If this is true, I am shocked that in order to use NIS 2009, a Symantec's customer has not only to pay the full price of the license but in addition must accept to be enlisted against his/her desire in a marketing operation which has not been properly advertised as it is, but was rather introduced as something existing only to help the customer.  It is all about trust and transparency. Had they clearly explained that this is a marketing tool, then they could not have seriously made it compulsory.

 

It would obviously be a minor sin at this stage, but it is a trend companies going online are taking more and more. I think giving false details means accepting this trend and bringing client relationship to the wrong ground.

 

24
delphinium wrote:

Retired_Thinker:


 

I am willing to bet that much of the time Norton online support is hunting up lost keys, which is an expensive and unnecesary use of their time, which you and I are paying for in the cost of our subscription.  I would rather see the money spent on research and development.

 

If that was the true explanation, they should have said it. It is nothing to state their online support is overwheelmed by lost key request so they have decided to make the thing compulsory in their own interest.  One more time, I am not against the thing by itself including if it aims at protecting Symantec but as long as there is no shortage of consistent official explanation.
25

Ben,

 

You are not alone in feeling as you do about the compulsory opening of the Norton Account as part of Activation which is required to use the program. Many others have expressed this view but the simple truth is that this is they way they have done it and none of the people you are talking with can change it.

 

One thing does puzzle me:

 

<< ...  so they need up to the name of the stree where I live for that purpose  ... >>

 

It is some while since I opened my Norton Account but I definitely did not have to fill in my address. In fact I've just opened my account and looked at my profile and it is clearly marked that only certain information fields are required:

 

* Required Fields

 

* Country/Region  

 

First Name  

 

Last Name  

 

* Email Address  

 

* Retype Email Address  

 

* Security Question  

 

* Security Answer  

 

Phone Number    

 

Shipping Address

 

Address1   Address2   City   State/Province   Zip/Postal Code    

 

Account Preferences

 

  Email me security alerts  

  Email me product updates, offers, and security newsletters

 

I filled in the absolute minimum as shown by the * fields and my Norton Account is open on that basis.

 

If you have actually filled in information you don't want them to have then it looks as if -- I don't guarantee this but there are two Edit buttons -- you can go into your account, open your profile then click on Edit and empty the fields you don't want them to have.

 

<< but in addition must accept to be enlisted against his/her desire in a marketing operation which has not been properly advertised as it is, but was rather introduced as something existing only to help the customer.  >>

 

Again this is not correct -- you can leave the marketing lines unchecked. And if you did outerwise because you misunderstood the procedure then any emails you have will have an unsubscribe link.

 

I hope that helps defuse your unease -- Symantec have handled this rather better in my opinion than many suppliers who try to bamboozle you into registration procedures that are pure marketing tools.