Slashdot Mirror
MS Passport Privacy Policy Revised
nilstar writes: "Cnet has a story here about how Microsoft will revamp its "draconian" privacy policy. Better yet.... how about we get a warning on the bottom of the IE6 window saying that this site's privacy policy is unnacceptable every time someone logs on to a passport site." Looks like it has already been changed.
Update 10AM EST by J :
Make sure to check out the
Wired story
too. Jason Catlett of Junkbusters nails it: "if Microsoft doesn't know what's in its own terms of service regarding personal information, then what hope do its customers have for the privacy of their own information?"
any third party without prior negotiations with
said party on such terms as are transacted. We
will not use information provided or transmitted
by you other than for pecuniary purposes.
Translation:
We won't sell your information unless we are
paid. We won't use it ourselves except for
financial gain.
I was going to toss in a part about impregnationg
your cat and "all your kittens are belong to us,"
but I'm in a hurry . . .
hawk
Actually...doesn't TRUSTe only guarantee that a company is doing exactly what they SAY they're doing? So even if a certain company is "TRUSTe certified" it only means that they're screwing you over in exactly the way that they say they are (in legalese, of course, which is intentionally so mind-bogglingly convoluted that only laywers generally understand it - a sufficient vocabulary and a knack for substitution helps - but ask the average Joe what they're actually saying, and he won't be able to tell)
Microsoft basically shot themselves in the PR foot and they deserve to get tweaked on this.
It was only two weeks ago that they announced the "Hailstorm" subscription services, centered around Passport, and then had to dodge the obvious question "Why should I trust my data to you guys?". It would have been alot easier if they weren't already claiming IP rights to data flowing through their system.
Speaking of TRUSTe, apparently IE 6 will include a little status bar icon showing if the site has a privacy policy. Not if the policy is at all acceptable or not, just if it is there. Of course all MS sites will show "Thumbs Up OK!", where visiting any normal site will produce "Oh No! Unknown! Scary!"
Not that this really makes any difference, it's just a small example in the psychological warfare involved in making the next generation of hosting services acceptable to the public. (Netscape did a similar thing with SSL and the overly big broken/unbroken key icon in versions 1-3). And when you get things like this instead of a 'Disable JavaScript' toolbar button, it just shows how the users aren't really driving the specs.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Much though we love to hate Microsoft, there was no way that this kind of land grab was what was intended.
I suspect that some lawyer got overzealous when setting up the original legalese, and that MS has now realised what was actually up there.
_____
My Journal
Prisoner within your own Mind ...
.Xdefaults, these represent a world that conforms. If the universe shifts (enw OS/window manager/etc) you can relocate. Pity the poor user who is not given a choice, either through ignorance, deliberate obscurity or forced "upgrades".
This is starting to get a little ridiculous. When they fenced off the public commons and called it capitalism, nobody in government objected. When they started gathering private consumption data and called it direct personal marketing, the mainstream press didn't raise a fuss. Now that they want to hold hostage our personal preferences and thoughts, the independent watchdogs are letting companies set the agenda without a comment. Is this how it is going to be, letting AOL/Time, Yahoo, MSNBC define the global rules of participation in a media rich economy? Is this going to be a world like the Prisoner when you wake up one day and find that you are no more than a number (<sarcasm> please take a ticket and join the queue for service rep but if you don't have any money/talent/influence forget about it as we'll deliberately ignore you til you go away</>). At least hackers have a choice, they have the talent and/or incentive to create their own little digital caves.
Why is this a fundamental concern? We are the sum of our thoughts, our desires, our memories. As we use electronic systems to craft our interactive environment, we define ourselves. Whever an EMACS macro set, custom shell resource scripts or personalised
So what should be the principles of allowing an external third party have some control over our personal space? I would suggest at the minimum:
Transparency - any alterations in policies should be signalled and terms explained clearly. If there is to be retroactive alterations, at least state that up front instead of after the fact!
Reflectance - feedback mechanisms must adequately reflect the needs and expectations of the users. What are the dispute channels and resolution processes.
Op-out - there must be an clear exit choice such that you can transfer all user data with no discrimination or data corruption.
It is strange how software has shifted in the space of a decade from an ownership of the functionality to the suffurance to conformance to terms at convenience of the provider. The Prisoner might ahve full service in a model village, but what a mental limitation on eir horizon.
LL
140 million of those accounts are multiple accounts by one or two spammers. They just keep creating accounts and creating accounts and either using to send spam or to fill their lists of people who want to receive spam and then selling the lists as no bounce back lists. Besides do you really believe that any of the information in Hotmail's accounts is actually correct. It is just a warehouse for the spam of the world.
This really doesn't affect the issue at all. The point is when your data is edited and stored on someone else's computer, you already cede many rights. Fine, for now they're making the terms and conditions a little better - but we still have to face the fact that companies will be able to update such licences (as they inevitably will do), and whilst there will no doubt be screams of complaint if they try to do this retroactively, people /will/ end up having to abandon their usual tools because the policy for use has changed. This is absolutely why you want to /own/ the software (or at least the licence) to use it, so that it continues to work as it always has (c.f. the Tivo article a couple of days ago) that way the worst that can happen is you start to lag behind - you're never going to find things that used to work don't anymore. Unfortunately, for Americans, is seems that the DMCA gives publishers the right to retroactively change how things work, or the licence you have for it, retroactively, whether you 'own' it or not!
So if a company uses less strict privacy policies they are legally able to do that (if it's morally right is another thing).
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
"if Microsoft doesn't know what's in its own terms of service regarding personal information, then what hope do its customers have for the privacy of their own information?"
What about a news site that unabashedly admits it doesn't fact check its articles completely and instead relies on other people to find their errors?
NO CARRIER
That's simple. The lawyers.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Well you can always turn Anime off through the user options. But I can't understand sometimes why a perfectly URL'ed and documented submission won't be accepted, and then this FUD crap makes the front page.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Now look at privacy policies like Microsoft's. Sure they've "fixed" it. But I note that they haven't removed this piece.
In other words. They can always put it back to what it was before, and they won't tell you, and you will have "consented" if you continue to use it after they change it. (I see they at least got rid of the statement that using the web site at all constituted agreement--that would have meant that the act of reading the text was considered agreement.)Web services are nothing more than subscription software sites. And privacy agreements can be "upgraded" at anytime. Show me one site that promises that their privacy agreement will never become less restrictive. And if you can, promise me that the agreement will survive a bankruptcy proceeding or even a sale of the company.
You have no privacy guarantees, on the web or off. In fact, it's worse off the web - see this Red Rock Eater Digest analysis of the new medical privacy rules, and then consider going to Defend Your Privacy and filling out the petition there.
But don't worry. Your video rental records are secure.
Here it is: bullshit. They just let you use their sticker to say you actually HAVE a privacy policy. It's misleading and (honestly) used by companies to lure people into the whole false sense of security thing. TRUSTe has never actually reviewed privacy policies...
I can't be karma whoring - I've already hit 50!
SIG: HUP
They must have read the article on Slashdot the other day and freaked out. OH SHIT, SLASHDOT'S ON TO US!!! Now if we could only get the same results with their other business practices...
MICROSOFT'S RIGHT TO USE FEEDBACK OR SUGGESTIONS YOU SUBMIT
By submitting any feedback or suggestions to Microsoft concerning the Passport Web Site or the Passport Service, you warrant and represent that you own or otherwise control the rights necessary to do so and you are granting Microsoft and its affiliated companies permission to:
Use, modify, copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, publish, sublicense, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any such feedback or suggestions; and
Sublicense to third parties the unrestricted right to exercise any of the foregoing rights granted with respect to the feedback or suggestions.
The foregoing grants shall include the right to exploit any proprietary rights in such feedback or suggestions, including but not limited to rights under copyright, trademark, service mark or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction. No compensation will be paid with respect to Microsoft's use of the materials contained within such feedback or suggestions.
Microsoft is under no obligation to post or use any materials you may provide and may remove such materials at any time in Microsoft's sole discretion.
p . This privacy statement is controlling and overrides any conflicting language contained in these Terms of Use concerning use of such information.
This section is inapplicable to any personally identifiable information that you provide in connection with your registration for the Passport Service(s). For terms and conditions governing use of such information and for more information on how the Passport Service works, please refer to the Passport Privacy Statement at http://www.passport.com/Consumer/PrivacyPolicy.as
This section also is inapplicable to any documents, information, or other data that you upload, transmit or otherwise submit to or through any Passport-Enabled Properties. Please refer to the terms and conditions for such Passport-Enabled Properties to determine the rights of the web site or service provider to such documents, information and/or data.
-------
-- russ
"You want people to think logically? ACK! Turn in your UID, you traitor!"
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
There goes my plan to keep forwarding RIAA trademarks through my Hotmail account until Microsoft started claiming "rights" to them and the RIAA sued Billy boy and friends.
Hmmmm....RIAA vs. Microsoft. Who the hell do you root for?
The Register have posted a similar story to this. This "new revamped policy" is apparently based on TRUSTe which does not guarantee the privacy of your messages, just data about you.