Groups Push FTC to Act on MS XP, Passport

BuckMulligan writes: "EPIC and a coalition of consumer and privacy groups have renewed their calls for FTC action to protect consumers from the privacy risks associated with Windows XP and Passport. In a letter sent to the FTC, the groups criticized the FTC for not upholding its statutory duty to protect consumers in light of the planned release of Windows XP. More information on the groups' previous FTC complaints is stored on the EPIC Microsoft Passport Page." So who here thinks the FTC is going to block Windows XP? Me neither. The other remedies requested (toward the middle of the letter) are interesting, though.

Comments

Their facts are not right

[mosha]

> Most recently, an error on Microsoft's Certified Partners page, a Passport service, made usernames and passwords available on the Internet in plain text.(FN10) Anyone could have used this information to gain complete access to others' Passports and Hotmail E-mail accounts.

This is not true. They could see the user name and password to log in into SQL Server database on the machine that was behind firewall, not the Passport user names and passwords. That SQL Server didn't contain any information related to Passport users. And since the machine(s) was behind the firewall, nobody could access it anyway.

Re:question.

[mlong]

In WinXP how does one uninstall MSN instant messenger, I use AIM and don't know anyone on MSN IM so it has no use to me, all it does is clutter up my systray.

Look here for how...

Re:Too Little, Too Late, Too much Money..

[killthiskid]

The FTC privacy site is here. I quote:

Advances in computer technology have made it possible for detailed information about people to be compiled and shared more easily and cheaply than ever. That's good for society as a whole and individual consumers. For example, it is easier for law enforcement to track down criminals, for banks to prevent fraud, and for consumers to learn about new products and services, allowing them to make better-informed purchasing decisions. At the same time, as personal information becomes more accessible, each of us - companies, associations, government agencies, and consumers - must take precautions to protect against the misuse of that information.

Here is their check list of pro-privacy iniatives:

• Creating a National Do-Not-Call List
• Beefing Up Enforcement Against Spam
• Helping Victims of ID Theft
• Putting a Stop to Pretexting
• Encouraging Accuracy in Credit Reporting and Compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act
• Enforcing Privacy Promises
• Increasing Enforcement and Outreach on Children's Online Privacy
• Encouraging Consumers' Privacy Complaints
• Enforcing the Telemarketing Sales Rule
• Restricting the Use of Pre-acquired Account Information
• Enforcing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA)
• Holding Workshops

It seems that at the very least, privacy is on the radar of the FTC... are they doing all they could? Of course not, not with big business pushing them around.

I don't necessarily even see where Passport would fall into one of the catagories above, although it is by not means a complete list.

All sorts of groups are calling foul about MS/Passport. I don't think it will go un-noticed.

I'm so tired of this uninformed opinion

[drew_kime]

Its too late for any action

XP is already out of the gate.

Read up on anti-trust precedent. Google on 'Kodak Polaroid instant', or just follow this link [kodak.com]. Or this one [perdue.edu].

In the largest award ever in a patent-infringement case, a Federal judge ruled yesterday [October 1990] that the Eastman Kodak Company must pay the Polaroid Corporation $909.4 million for infringing Polaroid's patents for instant photography.
...
Both companies are widely held. Kodak, which has annual sales of $18 billion, has about 172,000 stockholders and Polaroid, which is much smaller with sales of about $1.9 billion, has about 21,000.
...
The award brings closer to an end a battle that began in April 1976, when Kodak introduced a line of instant cameras. Polaroid filed suit six days later, charging that Kodak infringed 10 patents, most involving technology in Polaroid's SX-70 system, which had been introduced in 1972.

So let's see. A case that takes 16 years to play out. A final judgement that is worth greater than half of the winner's annual sales, and more than 5% of the loser's. An entire product line pulled from the shelves after nearly two decaedes of sales. A class-action lawsuit against the loser that results in refunds to any purchasers of the discontinued product.

Sounds like a good roadmap to follow. And more to the point of my subject line, proof that the courts have a history of deciding to pull products after they have shipped. So enough of this "it's too late" boo-hooing. It is damn well not too late.

Re:Too Little, Too Late, Too much Money..

[killthiskid]

Actually, I do not recieve any spam, except the stuff I want.

I contacted all businesses that have my personal data, and told them I wanted to opt out and to not share my info with anyone.

I started telling every telemarketer that called that I wanted to be put on their do not call list and asked for their name, a phone number, an address, and a confirmation letter (didn't get very many letters).

I contacted all of the big 3 credit shops and opted out with them too...

And ya' know what? I don't get marketing calls or letters anymore. None. Zero. My mail was cut by, oh, about 70%. And I never get interupting phone calls over dinner.

I took about a 9 months of telling people no, but it finally paid off.

I'm fairly certain that I can attribute at least a bit of that to the FTC muscle behind these laws.