Yes, that is the part of the issue.

A lot of windows drivers have configuration tools to be installed with the driver. Windows update is downloading and installing a driver automatically from Microsoft Update Catalogue. Windows Update runs these as SYSTEM (to specifically ignore UAC prompts).

In this specific case, it is launching an interactive installer with a file location picker for install location. Saide file location picker is standard Windows API provided picker of explorer.exe instance, all Razer code is doing at that point is ask windows API to get location from user. However windows API is likely to have other issues like this, usually it isn't a problem as such installs would be after an affirmative UAC by an administrator user (you can go and run the same installer.exe from Razer's website and find the first thing it does is ask for UAC elevation), in the name of ease of use, Windows Update is bypassing that by running the installers as SYSTEM, if installer is then interactive it is likely there is control somewhere that can be subverted.

I'm not, I specifically pointed at one feature, which is when windows update downloads a package from the windows update catalogue.

Don't be so sure I don't know what I'm talking about when I'm refering to a specific thing where I do know there is a check happening:
https://superuser.com/question...

Even Razer's installer does this... Go download it from Razer's website and run it. Boom, UAC prompt. Windows Update is running it as SYSTEM and so it say do I need to elevate, no, continue, if windows update ran the windows 10 media creation tool as SYSTEM, the same issue would apply with the save iso file location.

That was windows update that did that not the installer itself. In fact you run the installer manually, and UAC popup is the very first thing.

The razer driver is of limited problem here. The issue is windows update.

Razer isn't allowing it, they are just asking windows API to run the file location picker. That is Microsoft code running at that point. On top of that, why is windows update running interactive installers as SYSTEM at all?

So does the ISO file save box in Windows 10 Media Creation Tool. The issue here is any interactive installer or tool run as SYSTEM by windows update. Not really Razer's fault.

Yes and no, one can do it via network via RDP usb forwarding to forward an emulated device with the right product and vendor ids.

One can not mess with the actual installer so much as I'm sure windows update checks the signatures of that package.

The line here is in the law:

(1)A person is guilty of an offence ifâ"

        (a)he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer [F1, or to enable any such access to be secured] ;

        (b)the access he intends to secure [F2, or to enable to be secured,] is unauthorised; and

        (c)he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.

In this case, the police asked questions and determined he did not knows at the time that access was unauthorised

No, but the law in question:

(1)A person is guilty of an offence ifâ"
        (a)he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer [F1, or to enable any such access to be secured] ;

        (b)the access he intends to secure [F2, or to enable to be secured,] is unauthorised; and

        (c)he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.

Ultimately this means he didn't meet the intent element of knowing his access was unauthorised when he just clicked the link rather than go through the passworded wordpress page.

None, they thought it was behind a password protected wordpress page, but knowing direct URI breaks that, which yoast probably put helpfully in the sites sitemap.xml for google to index,

Lyon's orginal was 1980, same year as Kirsch.

No but in medicine you do have to prove efficacy. There is a method for doing this with larger and larger sample sizes in trials.

He invented and patented an early version of the optical mouse.

The first two optical mice, first demonstrated by two independent inventors in December 1980, had different basic designs.

Like all early optical mice. their debut product relied on a special metallic and reflective mousepad printed with a square grid of grey and blue tracking lines.

The other type, invented by Richard F. Lyon of Xerox, used a 16-pixel visible-light image sensor with integrated motion detection on the same nâ'type (5 Âm) MOS integrated circuit chip.

A surface-independent coherent light optical mouse design was patented by Stephen B. Jackson at Xerox in 1988.

So yeah, his was one of several early versions, he patented it so others couldn't use it for 20 years, and this without pointing out that modern optical mice are descendants of the rival and superior dresign out of Xerox by Lyon and improved by Jackson which he did not beat the invention of.

No state has actually gone to 0% under it, and it is a "council directive" not a full directive (it did not go through the parliament). Finally the directive itself has never been questioned in the courts.

I have already read it. And read the bit at the top which says "council directive".