Slashdot Mirror
MS Zone Users Must Use Passport Accounts
pathos writes: "CNet reports in this article that Microsoft, in its continued obsession to get everyone and his/her mother to be a registered Passport user, forced all of it's MS Zone gaming site users (including players of 'Asheron's Call') to open accounts in Passport in order to keep using the service... too bad that a bug with their .NET deployment kept many users not being able to access the service..." Of course, if you run the hotel, you get to say who uses the pool ...
But the whole point of passport was to provide a single continous logon throughout the MSN suite of web sites.
Why is Zone.com any different?
Of course, it looks a little different if you consider things from a business perspective. If you're a company that has 7 different login and authentication systems for their wide array of services, and you could centralize that for cost savings, wouldn't you do it? I would.
The problem with Microsoft is that later down the line someone will say "we should use this massive pile of user data we've got to get volunteers to test our new free brain implants."
Not everything Microsoft does is evil, it's just usually the last thing that they do that turns everything they've done before evil.
And if I violate the ToS for any Microsoft service, do I get my passport pulled so that I can no longer access my Hotmail account or anything else that requires it?
I know we've said this before, but whenever Passport allows access to everyone bank account and stock portfolio the Passport servers will the the target of every black-hat hacker on the planet. And you know that script kiddies will be blasting it constantly with DOS attacks.
I'm sure MS will have excuses for why it happened to, like published security holes and such. But it will be their fault for leaving so much critical information linked to one account.
-Xenopax
Here's a question for people to ponder. What happens if I violate the terms of service of Passport or any attached property of Microsoft? Or more to the point, what happens if Microsoft mistakenly thinks I did but I didn't (like if I was hacked, etc). It seems that as Passport is further extended, this has a greater and greater impact on my ability to do things on-line. What if my bank uses passport? What if I communicate with my doctor through a passport secured site? If I get booted from passport for whatever reason, there could be some serious personal ramifications, and there's noreal recourse for me because I clicked the little "I Accept" button.
I grant you this is a little out there and paranoid, but I think that if passport does become a very fundamental part of on-line authorization systems, this could become a potential problem
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Today, it's about playing M$ games or not. Big Deal, right?
Someday you'll understand.
It might be on Tax day, when you realize that you can "choose" to pay your taxes on line (for free, and get your return quickly) using Passport, or you can "choose" to pay the filing fee and wait six months for the return, but not use Passport.
It might be on Election Day, when you can "choose" to vote electronically, from your desktop, and for the Incumbent Party using Passport, or you can "choose" to take time off from work, stand in line at the polling place (in the bad neighbor hood, in the rain) and vote anonymously for the party of your choice.
It might be when you take your car in for an oil change, and "choose" to pay with your Passport-linked credit card, knowing full well that the next time you go on-line every pop-up add will tell you about the neat accessories available for your "2004 Dreadnought SUV" (except for tinted windows, 'cause you already got those) or how 'old' a car with 21,294.6 miles is...
Perhaps Graduation day, when you realize that without a Passport, your shcool won't make a transcript available on-line to potential employers. Of course they can still request one by mail, but that may take up to six weeks, and the job offer may not wait that long...
.
That's what 'monopoly' means, really. It means a condition exists under which a choice which you would otherwise have (or expect to have) does not exist.
Monopolies in themselves are not absolutely bad. In some cases they are naturally occuring, in others they are necessary and beneficial.
But in cases where a company (which, by definition, exists only to make a profit for it's shareholders) can leverage a monopoly to their own benefit and in a way which could destroy the checks and balances we've carefully constructed in other areas, there is due cause to be concerned.
And when that company has a history of abusing prior monopoly advantage, the cause for concern is even more justified.
And when that company can exercise "root access" control of the computers we are expecting to be serving us and making decisions which should only consider the costs and benefits to us, and won't allow us to even look at the source code to verify that our personal information isn't being sent against our will, it becomes a critical concern.
.
Did you really think Microsoft would come right out and say "we're doing this to remain profitable, and we don't care how many other business we have to bankrupt to do it?" Of course not. This is just about games. It's always just about games, right up until it isnt.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.