I do not have a Sony Vaio but I too have an "ethical dilemma".

I certainly have no problem with the BOINC/WCG software coming preinstalled however the important issue at hand for me seems to be "choice".

Is the software set up to automatically run? From the quick research I did (please correct me if I am wrong) it seems that several Sony Vaio users have complained about BOINC running and using up their resources without their permission. That takes away a person's choice to contribute and if it is set up like that then I certainly can not agree with that practice.
Running BOINC is completely different from having Symantec or any other "bloatware" running simply because BOINC is a very resource intensive process, it probably reduces the lifespan of the machine and it does cause an increase in electrical costs. These risks and costs should not be forced on the consumer without their consent.
It definitely would be a good thing if more computer users decide to contribute to WCG and other BOINC projects but to choose for them is distinctly wrong from an ethical standpoint.

I am sure that there will be many people in this forum and in general who disagree with my opinion and see no ethical violation with this practice because BOINC/WCG is a worthy cause and it benefits society and the entire human race however we can not use results to validate the injustice of taking away choice ( even if it is a seemingly insignificant choice). Should we compel everyone with a computer to crunch for WCG and other BOINC projects? Should we force everyone to contribute a portion of their income to worthy charities? Who decides which charities and causes are worthy and which ones are not?

To sum up, the power of "choice" is important and to take it away from someone is to make that person a "slave" to your decision and is definitely morally wrong.

P.S. There is a YouTube playlist called Justice which is Professor Michael Sandel's class lectures from Harvard that I am currently watching and find quite interesting and insightful. The correct moral and ethical thing to do is not always as simple as it appears. Here's the link if anyone decides to choose to view it
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL30C13C91CFFEFEA6&feature=plcp

I didn't read it that way. He's questioning what options Sony is giving its customers and Sony taking credit for their work.

Would Sony not have been convinced of starting the program, the software [initially not *activated*] which IS opt-in, that collective contribution of spare CPU cycles would not have amounted to 1225 CPU years as of now.

But, 890 members, 10 retired to register maybe under own name [residual active I cant see]? How many units were sold and the option was taken NOT to select participation? No choice? There was and it was for the very largest part waved, so is my assessment.

Hope there's still a menu entry somewhere of the bloatware catalog that allows to still choose to opt-in at a later date, at the very least entice the owners to have a second look at what WCG does.

--//--

I've worked at a PC Helpdesk for a number years now, and I can tell you with certainty that the average user is ignorant in the extreme.

The average user, having purchased a new PC, will trust the person or company that they purchased that PC from implicitly. If you pre-install something on the machine you sell them, and then ask if they want to run it, their response will be "Well, you installed it, it must be good/necessary." and then they'll say yes. It won't be until later, when they realize what the program actually does, that they have second thoughts.

At that point, the user may feel that they've been conned into the deal and have a very negative viewpoint of both the program and the vendor that sold them the PC.

We have never let facts stand in our way before, no reason to start now...