Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Calls for National Privacy Law
tabdelgawad writes "Brian Krebs, who writes the Washington Post's Security Fix Blog notes that Microsoft has just asked Congress to enact a new federal privacy law to preempt the growing hodge-podge of state laws that regulate how companies can use personal information. Go Microsoft!?"
Before your heads explode, you must say to yourself, Microsoft is only a company. Companies job is to make money, not to do good or evil, if doing good will help the company make or save money then they will do it. In this case for companies like Microsoft it is easier for them to follow one set of privacy laws except for 50 different laws and with the internet it makes it more convoluted.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Does that mean I have to commit ritual suicide now?
Anyone else think that Microsoft is trying to buy our love?
Technoli
...welcome our new alien-abducted, mind-controlled Microsoft overlords!
I'm sure by "comapanies" they mean Google.
Don't assume Microsoft is trying to enact a law that *protects* your privacy. Perhaps they just want privacy laws to be predictable w/o too much concern for whether they actually protect or not.
It will end up requiring MS-Privacy v1.0 for all taxpayers. No linux version available.
If Microsoft has the ear of the lawmakers, then they'll be in the best position to exploit the law.
Hey, this paranoia stuff is kinda fun!!
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
My browser crashed when I tried to follow the link. Should I answer yes to the dialog prompt to "Tell Microsoft about the problem"?
Wasn't Microsoft behind the "U-CAN-SPAM" Act?
Seriously, if that's what Congress does to protect our inboxes, I'd hate to see what a federal privacy statute would do the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
- Individuals have no rights to privacy.
- Corporations can do what they want with any data.
That is, they want enshrined in national law the most pernicious possible data standards. The fact that this is going down during the Bush administration may or may not play a part, but certainly, the idea that bad laws can be purchased isn't helping assuage any fears I have that such legislation is hopelessly one-sided.Dog is my co-pilot.
It's much cheaper to bribe your way around one law than it is fifty.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
I'm sure MS would rather use the palms they've already greased in Washington than try to steer state level politicians who might have preconceived "common sense barriers" that need to be broken down.
Heck, even better - maybe it's both!
My head a splode.
"The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
I'm sure many slashdot readers run MS software because they got it free, by borrowing CDs from work and running them at home. Still, it seems odd that MS would declare a day to celebrate Piracy.
What? It's not National Piracy Day. I must have had too much coffee-beer. I'll go get my goggles.
The first step to ensuring that our privacy is protected is to make it federal law that all citizens have a Passport account...
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
This is not MicroSoft fighting for your rights. This is MicroSoft working to get legislation passed that clearly establishes the rules and defines the loopholes through which they will legally violate your privacy. That's how it always works. Sort of like how the Do Not Call list made certain calls illegal, and at the same time made it legal for politicians to campaign you over the phone all day long. Sort of a variant on "bait and switch".
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I would assume this means said organizations would not be running Microsoft products...
Blog: http://richardrandomrants.blogspot.com/
One need only look at how the federal banking regulations are repeatedly used to crush California's much more stringent privacy requirements to see the real reason behind federalized "privacy" laws.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
...or is the Billy Borg looking more and more benign of late. Almost sedated even.
I read
The purpose of calling for federal regulation is to keep costs down, not to protect privacy. Some companies are actually interested in protecting privacy because failure to do imposes costs. HP is particularly good in this regard in that it lets customers access their data. The companies you have to watch out for are the ones with business models that depend on selling personal information.
It is basically the same issue as with organic food. National standards mean that companies can lobby Congress to get the concessions they want. For organic foods, it can mean anything from allowing synthetics, factory dairy farms for "organic" milk or worse.
I think this quote captures the issue well:
If you think this is going to help people like you and I very much, you would be very optimistic.
I used to work in the wine/spirits business years ago and I can tell you from experience it is very difficult to build business outside your local regulatory agent. Now that was the intention all along. (Prohibition and all)
The Good: A Single set of rules makes it easier to sell to a bigger market.
Now, on the other hand, I have some experience in gov't sales and can tell you once the gov't adopts a some conventions, well, then the big players who were there all along defining the conventions pretty much soak up all of the business. They mostly own the business already, the new rules make it a sure thing.
The Bad: Generally eliminates variety and discourages innovation.
If MS is smart, they help write the laws and develop compliant code simultaneously. So MS gets a 6-12 month jump on the competition when there's little innovation left. Win-Win for MS.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
In fact to protect your privacy everyone needs Trusted Computing on their PCs with only "offically" licenced OSs such as Windows Vista.
The maker of any closed-source operating system or application shall not be held liable for any unauthorized disclosure of private information caused by defect of said operating system or application.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Could this be Microsoft's motivation for the bill? Big companies like Microsoft can pay to get their products through a certification process, and thus used by companies who must comply with this act, but lots of OS software (some Linux distros and many apps) will not have the necessary resources to go from 'Release' level to 'Government Certified Release' level - leaving no option but for companies in the future to use the certified Microsoft WonderServer2009 over open source alternatives.
This is a preemptive strike against Google.
MS isn't in the business of knowing who you are or what you do. They want you to buy their software, not collect your personal data. It shows in their software. Activation is completely anonymous as is error reporting and authenticity checks. This is not true however, for Google.
They want to know who you are, what you do, what you click, buy, read and where you want to go. It's not going to stop there. Google wants information about every corner of the world. Thanks to a digital age, it is possible to gleen this information from our on-line habits.
MS is making a strike at google's efforts by putting tighter restrictions on how they can use, and possibly distribute your information in the future.
They'd rather that they only have to lobby one government than have to do it seperately, all over.
If the rules are centralized federally, it makes it much easier to be the gatekeeper on policy as it pertains to corperate use of private data.
Its similar to your point, but more of an addenum. I'm not judging whether they want good or evil, but its pretty clear what kind of advantages are provided by one stop shopping as it pertains to government policy making.
To think they really care about the customer as a means to more profitable ends is to conveniently ignore the fact that they define aggresive market tactics in the technology sector. They're not the sort that believes that being the best company in the quality and service sense equals the most profits. Again, whether or not you hold that to be true, its hard to build a case that they believe that.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Regardless of any personal feelings I have about this, laws governing the protection, disclosure, and use of personal/private information is very clearly a state's right. The federal government has no business in how a state protects its citizen's privacy.
With that being said, Microsoft is not asking the Senate to define how private information "can't" be used; rather, they're asking them to define how it "can" be used. In other words, Microsoft is asking for a federal standard so they can ignore the protections you directly voted for (or against) in your state. Likewise, the reason they want a federal standard is because you have no direct influence -- you can only hope that the representatives you elect accurately represent your values.
Personally, I don't see this as an improvement -- this will only make things worse.
Kind of reminds me of the whole one talks much about to hide much about oneself, so what are they plotting mu ha ha ha ha ha....
I think nietzsche said something like that except for the plotting bit and the evil genius laugh.
~AC
Not only does a uniform policy for the entire country make it easier to do business, a federal law can preempt any attempts at laws that actually mean anything useful to individuals, making doing business much, much easier.
This is not about protecting consumer's privacy. This is about enacting federal legislation that would pre-empt state legislation, and provide for a common weak, low-level of protection. It's a way of undermining individual state efforts that would otherwise be more protective.
Microsoft could not care less about people. This is about making their job easier, and their job is to make money.
I mean, after all.. what does google do? Index information. Revenue is based off how they use that information, personal and public. Will this law(s) convienently be aimed towards creating requirements on how to protect such information that it will make it costly ($$ and time) enough to hurt google's business?
Sounds like the HIPPA expanded.
The road between democracy and tyranny is paved with secrecy in the name of security.
Microsoft is also going to write the EULA for the new federal privacy law.
...all Microsoft asks is for regulations requiring all states use their proprietary Office file formats. Massachusetts rebels, with the "Boston Office Party" dumping thousands of install discs into the harbor while disguised as Apple store employees.
Oh please, think about it before gushing over Microsoft. Microsoft only does things out of self interest. There are at least two Machiavellian motives for Microsoft to want a National privacy law. One is to undermine tougher state laws. MS knows that Congress is in the pocket of industry and will pass a weak national privacy law not a strict one. The other motive is to shoot Google in the foot. Google collects detailed personal information on every every Google transaction from a record of every Google search every made to the contents of your gmail in and out boxes. Privacy laws could hurt Google and anything that hurts Google helps Microsoft.
I'm no fan of Google's use of private info, but I never, never trust Microsoft.
Microsoft Privacy Assurance has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience.
If you were in the middle of living, the identity you were counting on might be lost.
Please tell Microsoft about this problem.
We have created an error report that you can send to help us improve Our Lobbying Techniques. We will treat this report as an important path towards increased revenue and shareholder appeal.
[Debug]|[Sell soul]|[Smart people can click here and do neither unless they are x86 machine-code pros]You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Already a bunch of +4 and +5 Insightful posts bashing MS.
... While we have not reached consensus on all of the provisions of a privacy bill, we applaud Microsoft 's willingness to work actively with other high tech companies, consumer organizations and policymakers."
From TFA:
"CDT [Center for Democracy and Technology] President Jerry Berman praised Microsoft's move as "a landmark moment in the cause of establishing and protecting individual privacy rights online.
"Chris Hoofnagle, EPIC's senior counsel, agreed that Microsoft's position has softened significantly over the years. He noted that it was opposition from Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard that derailed an industry-friendly privacy bill from Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) that was quickly gathering support a few years ago
'Microsoft is being more assertive now and it shows that the company is maturing,' he said"
"ACLU legislative counsel Timothy Sparapani also praised Microsoft's move, but cautioned that any federal privacy law would need to include safeguards for data gathered by commercial data brokers."
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
Microsoft is an industry leader in terms of user privacy, internally every employee (for whom it is relevant) must undergo security/privacy training and sign statements about compliance with privacy standards (particularly in terms of how the company deals with PII, Personally Identifiable Information). Saying that the company wants a single privacy standard solely for the purpose of making money may be true in a few corner cases, but in general its not true because Microsoft already has to comply with international standards which (particularly in the EU) are much stricter than the standards of any US State. I think the biggest reason Microsoft would support standard privacy laws is because it would be easier for the company to make guarantees about third party partners (particularly those that use Passport) and make some baseline claims about the level of privacy partners must support.
No.
I'm rather thinking they are fed up because of too much different Privacy laws between different states (at least that's what the blog says).
It'll be easier for them to controll whatever data they want, if they only need to consider 1 (nationnal) legal system.
In other word : It'll be easier to circumvent if you have only 1 known barrier.
And when reading the blog carefully, one may notice that thay want to avoid data leaking against a company's will.
- User should be asked permission before giving information to governement.
- Compagny should comply to some "hacker-/virus-proof" standarts [funny when you think it's Microsoft speaking].
There's not mention about what a compagny could be able or should be forbidden to record.
The tin-foil hat will stay in place.
In other words, it's "Let me completly invade users privacy, and keep the feds out of there".
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
A fair guess is that Microsoft has seen which way the wind is blowing and decided to put forward a proposition that's essentially on behalf of business before someone else puts forward a proposition that's a lot more tilted towards Joe Citizen or other business models.
A difficulty with any law of this kind is that essentially if it's going to have teeth then it's going to be anti-business, in the sense that business will always push for a greater invasion of privacy than legislators or citizens are going to feel comfortable with. It's rather hard to believe that a convicted monopoly is the best arbiter of this unavoidable clash of interests, though to be fair it's an issue that exists in every country in the Western world.
Of course, one can't help noticing that the requirements over "secondary" uses of information would be problematic for a company with a lot of alliances with third-parties and an interest in personal data, like erm Google, and less problematic for a company where more of it is kept in house, like erm MSN or Windows Live, and where the information is much less personal. And various hints that regulatory compliance might cost big bucks could knock out a lot of small guys. By amazing coincidence, a federal law would then knock out some perhaps tougher state laws, too.
Nope. The idea that a convicted monopoly should "help" politicians decide what's in my interest strikes me as gross. Even grosser, perhaps, is that the politicians should think it's a good idea to accept this generous offer.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
>
> 1. Individuals have no rights to privacy.
> 2. Corporations can do what they want with any data.
>
> That is, they want enshrined in national law the most pernicious possible data standards.
You must be new to K Street. Never miss an opportunity to enshrine a monopoly in legislation by finding a way to render your competitors' business practices, even where they're identical to your own, illegal - while simultaneously granting yourself the permission to do the same thing under color of law.
I've therefore amended your second rule as follows:
2. Corporations that have business models that conflict with that of Microsoft must be held to the most stringent privacy standards.
Although the Constitution is no longer relevant, it's still considered bad form to write a Bill of Attainder", so you have to be a little clever about it.
Thus, you'll typically end up with something like this:
i haven't even rtfa yet (just about to) but this is the first slashdot headline that has actually made me laugh out loud.
see this site for why if you don't know
And guess who wants to control them? Imagine a great big SQLserver in the sky managing your Federally mandated MS Passports.
What could possibly go wrong??
leave it to the slashtards to get on microsofts case even when they do something good..
Rule of thumb definitions: privacy - the things which you wouldn't do or announce in the town square (or relevant 21st century equivalent); anonymity - a more general case than privacy, related the ability to tie a person's identity to actions taken in public places because of the difficulty of accounting for the scope of a public place (lots of people, lots of real estate, lots of activity, etc.).
If those thumbnail definitions can be accepted, then the real question becomes, "Is the Internet, and by extension the Web, the 21st Century town square?" If the answer is "Yes" then why are we permitting the marketplace to demand/extort/require the kind of information that we wouldn't tell someone in public during a face-to-face interaction? Another question might be why we aren't protecting that information once it is delivered. The problem isn't necessarily that we give out the info voluntarily, but that once we give it out, it becomes a commodity and an asset listed on the corporate balance sheet. Its not an unreasonable request to have one set of rules instead of 50, but my first reaction is that the Federal guidelines should simply be a minimum standard that can be added to by the states, not a set of all encompassing rules to predict every situation. We simply don't have legislators who comprehend information as an object, so the efforts are like a shotgun blast delivered to a buffalo.
(Its hearsay, but I have a friend who tells me that in the State of Washington, the regulatory oversight and constraints in place for lotto machines, video poker, and computerized slots is higher (substantially higher) than for electronic voting machines and ATMs.)
On the other hand, behavior collection and analysis, like a buying pattern or a click path, is less an issue of privacy than it is an issue of anonymity. If I want to follow you around as you walk through town, there isn't any particular reason why I can't. Should I be able to follow you around the Internet? Should I be able to follow everyone around the Internet? Those are hard questions to answer, as is the disposition and capitalization of the gathered information. They are hard to answer because we feel like the Internet, because we generally access it from private, should itself be a private domain, not a public one. When we do something, even surf the Internet, from behind physical doors, we expect that action to be protected by an expectation of privacy, not simply one of anonymity. Consequently, we have to ask these kinds of questions in seperate conversations or else we get lost in a thicket of semantic tangents and nuance.
Whether or not we, collectively, want to engage in these conversations, they will take place, and if the doors are closed around them because the decision is being driven by someone with a business or security agenda, then we stand to lose in the end.
Hmmm.... How can I spin this against MS to make it seem like they're doing something evil...
I am so sick of this nonsense. I swear, I need to stop clicking on any slashdot story with the name "Microsoft", "Google", or "Apple". Or maybe I should stop looking to slashdot thinking that maybe people could somehow look past their biases and read a story for what it is.
Yes, Microsoft is probably acting in their own best interest. So do Google and Apple. They're all trying to make money. That doesn't mean it won't benefit us. Don't try to tell me that you never act in your own self interest.
I know, Microsoft does anti-competitive things, and that's not cool, but don't let your opinion of them cloud your ability to think for yourself. We need to have our personal information protected, and here MS is in agreement with that. What's the big problem? Seriously!
The motivation for this is that MS can look at the cost of gasoline and health care and observe that as state-by-state regulations get more complicated, the cost of producing health care services and gasoline skyrockets. Software is in the same boat. As privacy becomes a bigger concern, state-by-state regulations will become more and more expensive to keep atop of. A solution at the national level reduces costs. Microsoft is doing good business here; it's a coincidence that it may benefit us.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
But now that Microsoft has endorsed the idea, I really must look into it.
Obviously, the merits run whichever way opposed by Microsoft.
...the de-Patriot Act
My thought: Microsoft is trying to get Federal rules that they can live with and that'll override more restrictive state rules. Take a look at opt-in vs. opt-out in their proposal. They advocate opt-in for a very limited class of data that they know the general public's getting touchy about, and I'll bet they make that a headline point. But for all other classes of data, they want opt-out enshrined in law in a way that prevents any state from requiring opt-in across the board. And once this is nailed down in Federal law, it'll be all but impossible to get it changed later no matter what happens.
I think that's Microsoft's strategy: cave in on the few points the public's riled up about right now, while simultaneously nailing down favorable terms everywhere else.
MS defends our privacy rights, meanwhile the GPL 3 is undemocratic. I think there's an 'in soviet russia' joke in here somewhere...
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
I, too, have recently gotten my first Slashdot "Freak". We should totally form a 1-freak club. Admittedly, that might draw attention, and in doing so the likelihood that others will become objectionable and register their distaste will increase, so I suppose it should be a "1+ freak club" or something . . . yada yada. Actually, I think I'm going to go and write my first ever slashdot journal about this.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
Oh wait
Microsoft's partnership with Spyware magnate Claria no doubt is a part of this effort. If Microsoft can write the law, they can be sure they aren't breaking the laws on spyware they'll bundle with Windows Vista.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
This sort of statement applies to companies that aren't Microsoft, as well. The goal of a company is not philantropy, it is success (unless you are a not-for-profit company whose goal is philantropy, in which case, philantropy is success, but I digress)...
The same "company goal" that Microsoft has is shared by Google, Yahoo, Netscape, Intel, AMD...
===
The company benefit from certain actions may just be as simple as 'branding' and positive public relations, but actions a company takes are almost never selfless.
I'm glad that at least SOMEONE here realizes that. (added: it's not just you, but you're the most recent example that I've seen):)
[Now if people would just realize this beyond Microsoft, I think we could all finally come to an understanding about the nature of business that I think the average Slashdotter isn't quite getting]
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
Microsoft's suggestions sound quite a lot like what we've already got in the UK thanks to the Data Protection Act.
Am quite interested by Microsoft's current developments.
Perhaps with the rise of google, they will be forced to adopt a similar do no evil policy.
Maybe they are seeing that it can actually be a good business model?
Hang on, I'm on slashot aren't I?
Yeah Microsoft are probably doing this to take control of our minds and Bill Gates is satan!
Much better. =)
Things are good
This is yet another example, though admittedly it's better than a lot of what's already in existence.
Here in NZ, we've had a Privacy Act for 15 years, and it's stronger than this proposal. You have a right-to-access-and-correct information held by any organisation, even the Government, for example. Getting a credit card or a loan is not a licence for the bank to sell your name and address to a dozen different direct-advertising agencies. Buying something on HP will not require you to purchase a larger mailbox just to cope with the influx of targeted mail.
If you allow the corporations to define the rules of the game, you are fair game. I'd hate to live in a society where any company that has my details can sell them.
Oh, and to the people who say that this exceeds the authority of the federal government, surely this is an inter-state commerce matter? A uniform set of rules under which you may be fucked over by corporations sounds like inter-state commerce regulation to me.
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
Microsoft just wants to assure that any privacy law is beneficial to Microsoft, and the easiest way to do that is to sponsor a federal law. That way, they only have to lobby one legislative body.
This is all well and good, if you believe the big-bucks, corporate lapdogs in our nations capital would do it justice, but it needs one more bullet point to make it satisfactory, in my mind:
:)
* Ensure strict and severe penalties for persons or corporations violating these rules. Ensure that any person or corporation that violates these rules suffer strict penalties, including, but not limited to reimbursement to the person or persons affected, no less than ten times their loss, or some minimum fine.
Yea, I believe the bastards who mine our computers with spyware needs to be held accountable.
H.
When VCR's are outlawed, only outlaws will have VCR's.
...hmmm Ya know how identity theft and warnings about sharing personal information is in the news all the time? Probably not good for business huh? When people don't feel good about doing business online...they don't do it as much. When people don't do as much online business, who suffers? The businesses who provide the infrastructure to do business online. Who happens to be one of those businesses? Microsoft. Does this work to their advantage? yes. Does that make it any less good for us? No
I think you've hit the nail on the head.
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
Too busy to grab the links just now, and the thread will be old and dead before I have time to do so, but several of my recent posts have been on this topic. You can search for them (assuming you have the time and interest).
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Yea, right.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
No-one seems to have mentioned it but it seems to me that a law ensuring US companies are open and honest about information they store about you might be a sidestep approach at attacking google.
Maybe MS has a google insider or two that knows that google hasn't been as open and honest about what it keeps/accumulate/buys/trawls-from-the-web as you think!
If it's true it would be highly entertaining
CDT takes "opt-out" seriously, so why should I take them seriously?
Your second quote does not show favor or approval by EPIC. Snakes mature with age. Indeed, from your fine article,
Hoofnagle cautioned, noting that Microsoft's statement of principles says the company supports "consumer opt-in" -- the consumer's advance permission would be required -- for sharing of sensitive (e.g., financial or medical) data but supports "opt-out" -- data can be shared unless the consumer explicitly says "no" -- for every other kind of information.
Your third quote should go further in it's statement of mistrust of Microsoft by the ACLU. Again, from the FA:
ACLU legislative counsel Timothy Sparapani also praised Microsoft's move, but cautioned that any federal privacy law would need to include safeguards for data gathered by commercial data brokers.
But we don't need experts misquoted to help us rip Microsoft a new one when it comes to anything customer friendly. Microsoft is anything but subtle about what it does. We can look at their own BS to see what they want to do. From their own nonsensical web page, followed by plain English translation:
Create a baseline standard across all organizations and industries for offline and online data collection and storage. This federal standard should pre-empt state laws and, as much as possible, be consistent with privacy laws around the world.
The Microsoft way or the Highway, once again.
Increase transparency regarding the collection, use and disclosure of personal information. This would include a range of notification and access functions, such as simplified, consumer-friendly privacy notices and features that permit individuals to access and manage their personal information collected online.
A notice of vile activity is not a prohibition of vile activity. A promise of sharing from Microsoft is worth about as much as a shared source license.
Provide meaningful levels of control over the use and disclosure of personal information. This approach should balance a requirement for organizations to obtain individuals consent before using and disclosing information with the need to make the requirements flexible for businesses, while avoiding bombarding consumers with excessive and unnecessary levels of choice.
Microsoft's idea of balanced is well known as is what they consider a reasonable level of trust.
Ensure a minimum level of security for personal information in storage and transit. A federal standard should require organizations to take reasonable steps to secure and protect critical data against unauthorized access, use, disclosure modification and loss of personal information.
Oh yeah, a certification process approved by an industry follower like Microsoft. Anything that would pass Microsoft for security or privacy is crooked enough to outlaw anything else.
I'll believe Microsoft gives a shit about anything but spamming their users when their OS has a half life better than 20 minutes on any network.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Microsoft is an industry leader in terms of user privacy, ...
Too bad, they couldn't go protecting our privacy when mobsters/crackers/l33th4x0r/spammers go injecting spyware, virus, trojans, and malwares which then go invading our Microsoft-certified and Microsoft-patched Windows operating systems which goes into a spell of lifting our credit cards, SSN and PII.
How about spending a better part of your MSFT cash reserves on a better QA force to put some money where your corporate mouth is?
the little guys who make the country run, or the big shots who want to limit the little guys?
the answer to the question is the heart of the argument. I don't generally expect big multinational outfits to be pushing for little guys to get their rights back as it says in the constitution.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Is that your point?
my password really is 'stinkypants'
i would reccomend this be read very carefully looking for loopholes & caveats...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
We the People have been wanting this for years and have been ignored, but now that a CORPORATION suggested it (along with an envelope of bribe...er campaign money) it will in all likelihood come to pass.
Go USA politicians.!!!!!
"Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live." - Mark Twain, "Taming the Bicycle"
Ok,
Let's take a cold hard look at the company's historical behavior.
They drove Lotus 1-2-3- out of business.
They bought off the DOJ. I mean, if AT&T was a monopoly, so is Microsoft. Since AT&T got broken up, Microsoft should have been too. Fair for one, fair for all.
They been spanked, albeit lightly, for their attempt to subvert Java and stymie Sun.
They bundled their browser into the operating system in order to drive their rival, Netscape out of business.
Now they're doing the same thing with MSN instant messenger. It bundles itself into the OS as well as their office product and can be nearly impossible to turn off.
They've been accused of deceptive trade practices regarding the "Passport" in which they deliberately mislead people into thinking that they must have a "Passport" in order to get on line.
South Korea is after them for unfair trade practices and Microsoft is threatening to pull out of South Korea as a result.
The European Union is taking a hard look at Microsoft and their business practices as well. Microsoft is having a hard time there, as well.
They're being sued for their crappy security in California now.
They have a long history of bullying major vendors into preinstalling Windows and ONLY Windows as the operating system for desktops and servers.
This is just the stuff that I can think of off the top of my head. I'm certain that there's more. Given their track record, I find it highly suspicious that they're pushing a privacy law. It's rather like putting the mafia in charge of the national bank.
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
The MS rep for the privacy law proposal was on C-span's Washington Journal (an excellent show i recommend all should watch)
The format of the show is that each guest gets a good 45 minute to an hour sit down interview, and takes calls for the entire 45 minutes.
I thought the MS rep had some good things to say. He said just about everything you would expect and it was pretty much on the ball.
Of course the entire time i tried to figure why MS is behind this because it's clear they're one of the biggest security problems on the internet.
The only thing i could come up with is that MS probably has software in developement that is near complete that they want to sell to all online retailers etc.
The MS rep's biggest point was that a person should beable to track their info, know where it is, who has it, what is being done with it, and when it shifts hands to outside agencies etc.
Which i'm guessing is exactly what they have in developement for a software solution. If MS could by law force all companies to use such software and provide such information to customers, then MS would have a sure sell to all buisnesses. And like i said, i bet MS has this peice of software all ready to go. All they need is a law to enforce the requirement of such applications and services.
The law is a good idea, but clearly i think MS is banking on this for a new source of revenue in the B2B world.
"A granted limitted right to privacy, unless we need to sort through your underware!!!"
IAMAL but the privacy laws I have read say that you have a right to privacy until someone in the government wants to look you over,
then he has to take 15 minutes out of his day to have a judge approve snoopin' on you.
Some Privacy!
Does the federal government have the authority granted to it in the Constitution to make this type of law? I'm being serious. Anywhere in Article I, Section 8 does it give them this power?
Although a national privacy law would be good, does it overstep Congress's constitutional powers?
Perhaps they are just trying to take a shot at Google ? ... Many have said that the heart of google is how they use their customer information ? ... What exactly does this privacy bill include?
-- Dan --
Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
Fourth Amendment, not fifth.
You 100% correct. No matter what the corporation, their major goal is profit (Or in some cases, making decisions that will insure long-term profit; aka vendor lockin, which may be a major goal of a company, but that in turn leads to long-term profit). However, the line blurs when you consider how they make their profit. Sure Google's motive of "Do no evil" might be to ensure a good company reputation, but it makes (almost) everyone happy. Google gets plenty of news [and /.] time, more traffic viewing their ads, and more companies aware of their advertising. Customers get a product that is superior than many of the alternatives. In this case, both the company and the customers "win". The creation of plain superior or innovative software would generally fall into this category as well.
When a company takes other routes; we get Microsoft and the *AA type businesses. Instead of profiting by keeping the customer happy with their products; they misinform the public, have a team of laywers larger than their other employees, and cheat/lie/steal/backstab anything in the way of an extra half-of-a-percent on their earnings reports. Instead of innovating as time changes, they stop everyone from innovating as time changes. Instead of creating a superior product; they sue the compitition into submission, prevent people from switching from their software, or use one of the other dozen techniques we see often the topic of discussion on /.
A corporation, per say, is not either good or evil. It's motive is the same weather it is loved or loathed by the public: Profit, and this is a good thing. Without companies constantly trying to out-do eachother to make higher profits, industries would be devoid of innovation. On the flip side, the method a company uses to generate profit can be very helpful or harmful to the customers. It is no surprise that people doubt Microsoft's intentions, since they have shown again-and-again that they will do anything to bolster profits, no matter what it does to the customers.
Microsoft is not neccesarily pushing for _sufficient_ privacy laws. It definately wants uniformity, and just maybe wants weakness that it can exploit. Did I just say maybe? This IS Microsoft. I apologise.
Well, if the information falls under something constituting self-incrimination, would that then fall into the Fifth?
#include <disclaimer.h>
#include <beer.h>
Hrm... Think of factory conditions in this way, if you would:
We should buy as much from possible from sweatshops to increase the wages of their workers.
Stop laughing >.<
Firstly, if we buy a lot from sweatshops, that would mean there would be massive $money to be made in sweatshoppery. Opportunistic taskmasters would open their own sweatshops, wanting their own peace of the pie. And, they'll want "workers," too. Eventually, the sweatshops will run out of workers to exploit, and would have to, gasp, pay them more in order to grab workers away from competitors. By putting a sufficiently large carrot in front of the taskmasters, their own greed will help the impoverished. Spooky, eh?
Also remember, that in countries that can barely feed themselves, their idea of a "living wage" is completely different.
Also, what would happened if we all stopped buying from sweatshops? They'd be shut down, of course, and yay, we liberated the poor, starving serfs earning diddly/squat per hour. Of course, that means that they're now making $0 per hour, because we just killed their one source of income and only chance of feeding their family, as feeble as was.
Although sweatshops are deplorable, they are the first babysteps towards a modern economy. We have to learn to balance humanitarian issues with economic ones. How would you rather spend your money? Would you rather a small portion of it drops into the pockets of the starving and impoverished or would you rather give a large chunk of it towards unskilled, over-privileged, unionized button-pressers?
DATABASE WOW WOW
When I read this, all I could think was "Durrwahh???, Micro$oft is pushing for a law that will benefit people?"
Bill, you are not longer my apprentice
Also, could someone please explain to me why it is so cold all of a sudden?
--Satan
Comon? Isn't there any DRM that can protect US from MICROSOFT?!?
This will not do anything to M$... it will only be a pain in the ass for their competitors.
M$ allready know everything about anyone who has registred.... and you must register just to use XP...
So, what if those people in west virginia suddenly disagree with the right to free speech?
..... tell me again, in YOUR view, what makes us a nation ?
What if they decide that they dont like that whole emancipation thing anymore?
And if they decide that defence spending is for morons, and they wont pay taxes that fund the military?
Let be honest....what does Google like doing......and whom does Microsoft hate?
... in which case you make money by manufacturing a machine the express purpose of which industrialises evil.
Companies should have a moral code of conduct. It shouldn't matter if this is merely to do with their day-to-day industrial relations, ie how they treat their staff, or if it's in the kinds of business ventures they explore. In any civilised society businesses must recognise that what they do have human consequences which are not just measurable in fiscal statistics. Money isn't the only thing which is quantifiable: so too is human misery, just ask a holocaust survivor.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
How would a privacy bill that restricts the kind of information companies are allowed to hold on their customers unless absolute explicit permission is granted?
It might only be slightly more "for our benefit" then current laws, but it might not need tto be much to cause serious problems for Google.
Shrewd, very shrewd. I believe Microsoft is trying to capitalize on the growing distrust of Google and what Google does with the information it gathers about people.
Well, don't let this go to your head... MS is also one of the primary lobbying factors behind a bill that looks to pass in the senate, which will import an extra 350,000 middle-class/tech foreign workers to further depress the wages of the american worker (and likely be utilized heavily by MS itself (otherwise why would they lobby for it?)). It's a really disgusting act both on their part and on that of the senate. The Byrd amendement to have that caveat withdrawn from the bill failed yesterday 14 to 85. With the middleclass and tech workforce already being gouged from both sides (decreasing benefits, fewer raises and increasing cost of living), how could we possibly need another few million low-wage foreign visa workers flooding this market? I seriously doubt that MS and other tech giants who would undoubtedly use this low wage influx would do the right thing and lower the prices of all their goods and utility charges... sigh.
It might be. But I think that Microsoft is working on much more simpler motives this time, all any large (or small) software company wants is to deal with one set of legal limitations. It is much easier to create software (online stuff mainly) that conforms with only one legal limit for an entire country than it is to create software that has to conform to 50 different and in many cases contradicary laws.
So it would be as beneficial to Google as it would be for Microsoft.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
It is not the federal government's role to be in charge of everything. Really. It's not.
Why isn't it the federal government's role to be in charge of everything? Because a top-heavy government with an all-encompassing federal overseer is called communism or socialism. We do not want that?
Why don't we want that? If you don't know then you need to go back through the social studies and history courses from 1-12th grades.
There were some very intelligent men who recognized that the absolute worst thing possible is to have a federal government which thinks that it is more sovereign than the collection of states beneath it. Those intelligent men wrote a Constitution, and in that Constitution they sealed it with 2 Amendments. Those Amendments are the 9th and the 10th, and they're supposed to be limiting the Federal Government.
Keep the hodge-podge of state laws about privacy. If you hand it over to the feds it will become a single point of failure and will cost 10x as much.
Likely Microsoft wants the Feds to preempt the whole system so they don't have so many state politicians to buy off.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
I remember reading several years ago, that Walmert or some other big retailer was lobbying for the repeal of law that exempted internet sales from state sales tax. The state sales tax exemption for sales made via the internet was a Good Thing for lots of small-time entrepreneurs setting up shop on the WWW because the cost and complexity of complying with sales tax collection, accounting, reporting and payment to all the various states was an overwhelming hurdle for the lone computer geek with the Next Big Thing idea that he could market nationally otherwise will little cost. Big, established companies have deep and wide benches of legal and accounting teams for whom dealing with the unique legal and tax-related entanglements of all the different jurisdictions is routine, every-day clercial work. So support of repealing the exemption was a monopoly protectionist tactic intended to raise the bar for market entry against upstart competitors. Seems like the lesson was lost on Big Bill.
Here is an example. For others simply read the EULA's for MS products. Scarey.
l ?articleID=173402277>
Microsoft's Free Web-based Virus Scanner Sends Data Back To Microsoft.
http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtm
"Windows Live Safety Center is a free site featuring tools including a virus scanner that by default sends data to Microsoft. Users can opt out of some of the data delivery, but not all of it. A blog has been set up to collect feedback. "
"...By default, the virus scanner reports back to Microsoft with details of the machine, including the operating system (its product ID, among other things), installed drivers, and installed applications. Microsoft said that the collected data would be used to "help us improve scanner features and make better recommendations." The user can choose to not transmit some of this data by clearing a check box in the scanner window. "
This insurnace company I worked for had this legal team that went from state to state fighting and usually sqashing laws and regulations that they didn't like. On the other hand, if it were Federal, the lobbying costs would be astronomical.You see, states, on an individual level, are much easier and cheaper to lobby. On a Federal level, not only do you have to deal with the Federal Gov. but also each state (via Senator) and any (powerful) special interest group there. On a state level, the special interest groups are a bit less powerful. There are exceptions of course: NRA and AOPA are two I can think of.
So, when an industry whines about there being 50 different regulations, ignore them! They LOVE all of the different regulations. Believe me, if it were really bad for business, they could have it changed in a heart beat! Just keep an eye on the current talk on Capitol Hill about having the same regulations for all of the states regarding gasoline additives. Just watch....
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
Is still my enemy.
MS is a huge force behind things in this regard, considering the volume of companies who use their software to drive their content. So it's only logical that they eventually came into the game. The flip-side is that MS has the post-bill interest, in that if this goes through, they can capitalize on solutions to help people comply. To be honest, though, having MS get into this is pretty much only a step forward. You're already doing the work on the MS platform. Why not have it protect your work for you, too? People are worried about Google, but they're browsing Google on a MS platform. You worry about the source, not the minion playing on it.
I don't think you're right -- if you go from the U.S. to Canada, commit murder, and return to the U.S., I'm pretty sure you cannot be prosecuted in the U.S. for murder. However, you can be prosecuted in Canada, and like any country with whom we have an extradition treaty, they can request your extradition, and the Feds will arrest you and ship you to Canada.
However if you commit murder in the U.S. you can run to Europe and be safe, as they won't extradite you because they're a bunch of pansies who don't believe in capital punishment.
Wasn't Bill Gates invited to the Whitehouse a couple of years back to help the US Administration put together a digitally secure Homeland using his specially designed future products?
Ugh. No thank you.
-FL
1. Embrace privacy with a preemptive federal law
2. Gut it with a concerted lobbyist effort
3. DRM
4. Profit!
"It remains to be seen if the human brain is powerful enough to solve the problems it has created." Dr. Richard Wallace
Something else to think about is the possibility that once we have Federal body of law in this area, a state's own laws may be preempted. States who want more strict (or more loose) privacy laws in this area would be out of luck. I would imagine that Microsoft has more lobby-clout at the national level. Damn federalists ;)