Microsoft Plays 'Big Brother' With Xbox Live

Steve from Hexus writes "HEXUS.gaming reports that Microsoft's XBox LIVE on the XBox 360 is giving away far more information than is necessary. From the article: 'When we first realised the extent and detail of information that was being shared with other Xbox Live users, we did a bit of investigating. With the boss on the other end of the phone, I skipped about through my Xbox 360's functions, each time challenging the boss to tell me what I was doing. Using Media Connect, he told me just a few seconds after I had started that I was viewing pictures... then playing music... then on the Xbox 360 Dashboard and then that I was in Xbox Live Marketplace looking for something to download. The sad thing is, he was right every time!' This information isn't confined to people on your friends list either."

Comments

Umm

[RoadDoggFL]

Didn't RTFA yet, but Xbox Live lets you appear offline, so what's the problem here?

Re:Umm

[vcv]

Like oh my god, someone will know I'm listening to music, or editing my options! THIS IS AN INVASION OF MY PRIVACY.

Re:Umm

[voice_of_all_reason]

I'd imagine that Microsoft collects the data even if you choose not to appear online. You're invisible to other users, but not to them. Oh my, no.

Re:Umm

[voice_of_all_reason]

Personally, the feeling is more like "They're doing something they know most people would rather not submit to, and some people are fanatically opposed to. But the information makes them money -- more than it does alienate users. So screw the customers."

Re:Umm

[RoadDoggFL]

Well who's to say your ISP doesn't collect data on you? You're on their network, why shouldn't they know what you're doing?

Re:Umm

[tekneek2k1]

Exactly! At first I was a bit alarmed and wondered if it broadcasted the title of DVDs you were watching. But it just says you are in the xbox live dashboard. Otherwise I could care less what info it displays.

Re:Umm

[TheWanderingHermit]

I really don't see why anyone is surprised at this. Microsoft has a proven and long track record. Ever since they first started in business, they do what is good for them, whether it hurts the customers overall or not. It's like the schoolyard bully -- kids are smart enough to know that when the bully suddenly starts doing something nice for you, it's to get something from you. There have been a number of cases of Microsoft using their products to obtain information from their customers or trying to control their customers and what is done with their products. Why would anyone expect them to not do that?

I remember when I finally upgraded from my Amiga to a system I could run Windows 95 on. I was thrilled and had no reason to doubt Microsoft or anything about them, but, after watching them over the years, I learned that their business model has never focused on quality of product, security, or anything that helps the customer, just on brute force. They are the schoolyard bully, have proven it many times, and there is no way I will consider buying their products until I see the light dawning on them that it is possible to treat your customers with respect. (The only thing I've bought from them in 5 years is 1 copy of each version of Windows I needed to test my software for my clients -- and that is all it is used for -- testing the final product before it is shipped to clients. And, no, I'm not using pirated copies of their work!)

Re:Umm

[voice_of_all_reason]

Because both have liscence agreements that are purposely obfuscated in order to prevent you from easily learning everything you are agreeing to.

Re:Umm

[generic-man]

If you're "fanatically opposed to" Microsoft and its business practices, you're not exactly in the market for an Xbox 360 -- except if you plan to put Linux on it.

Re:Umm

[RoadDoggFL]

Hold on, so because it's difficult to know exactly what you're agreeing to, they shouldn't know what you're doing on Xbox Live?

Re:Umm

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a company that deals with a lot of personal information (as does pretty much everyone) and a general guidline is that you should never share a person's data without their explicit consent first; there are several reasons for this but the main ones are about protecting yourself and your userbase. When you start releasing some information there is always the possibility of releasing all of the information (either through bugs or hacks), it looks really bad for any company to be the ones that released 10,000 people's credit card information (or any personal information for that matter).

In my opinion, you can tell how well a company thinks of its customers by observing how they handle their personal and private information.

Re:Umm

[pnice]

I kind of like it when I'm playing Joust and a friend or anyone else can look at see what my score is, how many lives I have left and (if in vs mode) how many lives the other player has. It's pretty sweet.

oh, and Geometry Wars Evolved is freaking addicting.

Re:Umm

[snuf23]

I think this is supposed to be touted more as a feature than an evil thing. Its supposed to let you take a look at people you play with and see "oh he's playing halo, I'll jump in", or "oh hes watching a movie, I won't bug him".
I'm not agreeing with how it's implemented just saying that this is supposed to be one of those "community building" types of features of Live.

Re:Umm

[vcv]

How does it alienate or screw the customer at all? It doesn't. Yeah, they may make money off of you, that's what businesses do. But if it's not hurting you, what the fuck do you care?

Oh, that's right, it's Microsoft.

Re:Umm

[voice_of_all_reason]

Funny, that's exactly the response pirates use to Microsoft.

Them: But stealing windows isn't hurting you! You have enough money to make it for free!

Billy: Not the point. It's the principle of the thing.

Re:Umm

[billn]

Other things I might be doing that other users will likely want to know about:
Chatting up your sister.
Chatting up your girlfriend.
Chatting up your mom.
Chatting up your girlfriend AND your sister.
Shagging any combination of the above.

All of these things are possible now that you've got an xbox 360 and don't leave your room.

Re:Umm

[RoadDoggFL]

"RoadDoggFL is playing online in Halo 2" is NOT personal information. TFA is a huge overreaction.

Re:Umm

[RoadDoggFL]

But companies knowing what you're doing on their subscription networks will not cost you money on any scale. If hundreds of millions of people got their copies of Windows for free, MS would have a problem.

Re:Umm

[ghostfacehallik]

Knowing how M$ operates this development could potentialy lead to some security flaw that will be exploited by hackers to do mallicious things to XBOX 360 owners.

Re:Umm

[Dogers]

OH DEAR GOD, EVERYONE CAN SEE WHAT I'M DOING!!!!!111 WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!1111ONEONE

I'm posting this under the first post, to let people know the flagrant abuse Microsoft are giving their customers.

It's not like Microsoft let you change the settings, or anything..

I mean, geez, why didn't make an obvious heading of "Privacy and Friends", perhaps under a sensible "Family Settings/XBox Live Controls" main header, so that parents can control what other people can tell about their kids?

Damn Microsoft.

Re:Umm

[vcv]

That is a terrible analogy. You are breaking the law by stealing their product. In this case, no laws are being broken nor is anyone being hurt.

Try again, troll.

Re:Umm

[Anonymous Coward]

yeh and how is it Microsoft being the big brother if it's other people watching you? shouldn't it say bored gamers are big brother?

Re:Umm

[Pofy]

>Well who's to say your ISP doesn't collect data on you?

Because there are laws not allowing it? No idea if they exist in your country though.

Re:Umm

[apoc06]

THANK YOU!!!! seems like someone finally sees what the big deal is.

where are the mods when you need em?

Re:Umm

[apoc06]

there are already well documented cases of flaws within certain games. whereas they are currently used to do things like load linux or play homebrew [splinter cell, 007 agent under fire, mechassault, NGC phantasy star online] with this, people will always know what game you are playing. if it just so happens that the game allows for a security flaw... who knows what an enterprising hacker could come up with?

- xbox live stores your credit card information. identity theft anyone?
- the optimal configuration would require your xbox to be a part of your home network
      - if a hacker gains access to your home network, they could potentially exploit your home pc
- they could potentially copy [read: steal] all your media files; including the private photos you took of your girlfriend, or that embarassing photo your friends took of you the last time you were drunk.
- they could unleash a virus that deletes all the media on your harddrive
- they could get upset and remove all of your savegames
- they could pad the scores of a friend
- they could crash gamers playing a certain game.
- they could record or create transcripts of your voice chat sessions.
and the list goes on...

most of us here are smart enough to know not to let EVERYONE in the world know which OS you are running and your current patch level. theres a reason we dont want that information to be public knowledge. before we didnt care as much to our consoles because they were for the most part just standalone machines. thanks to microsofts innovation, the xbox is like a highpowered mini pc; and it should be treated as such.

Re:Umm

[RoadDoggFL]

Right. This was available since 2002 on an x86 platform, why the sudden outcry?

Re:Umm

[apoc06]

only because now it is on a console that by default is given permissions on your pc [if you connect it], will possibly be used to warehouse your media files, and allows people to see exactly what youre doing on xboxlive. if youre playing a game or using a service that has a known security flaw, you are put at risk. dont forget that your average user doesnt read slashdot and isnt privy to 0-day exploits, hacks and security precautions.

Re:Umm

[RoadDoggFL]

But you're making the assumption that games with these flaws will ship, and if that's the case, then what's stopping somebody from just buying that game and finding you in a match to find out you're playing the game with the flaw?

Re:Umm

[apoc06]

they could, but its easier to steal a persons credit card en masse without having to say hello to each of them first.

What's the scandal?

[Otter]

This is obviously a case of A Feature, Not A Bug. It may not be a superdesirable feature, but it's clearly intended to be one.

I would've read the article but...

[hal2814]

hal2814
Rep ***
Gamescore 25
Zone Concentration
Status
Offline
On the toilet

So?

[jclast]

XBOX 360s are produced by Microsoft. Live is a service provided by Microsoft.

Why do we seem to think it's wrong for them to monitor how their subscribers use their service?

And when it comes down to it, do you really care that any random Live user knows that you're looking at pictures instead of playing Kong?

Re:So?

[jclast]

I'm genuinely curious here. My post was serious. Why is it a problem that other users can see what you do on Live? Why is it a problem that Microsoft knows what you're doing with their service that you paid for (either month to month for Gold, or implicitly by buying a 360 for silver)?

Re:So?

[HTH NE1]

Why is it a problem that other users can see what you do on Live?

It's a problem when those other users are in your locality, looking for the right time to break into your home while you're distracted, maybe to inflict some non-virtual fragging on your camping ass.

Or if the company you work for decides playing violent video games violates some morals clause, finds out your Live ID, and decides to fire you for playing Quake 4 at home.*

* Companies are firing people for smoking at home (and failing a drug test for tobacco); with all the hype about violent games making people violent, there is a change to make such a policy stick under the guise of maintaining workplace safety.

Re:So?

[frikazoyd]

All of the cases that I've seen where a company fires an employee for smoking tobacco (yes, even in their own home) have not been unwarranted. In these cases, the employee signed a contract saying "I won't smoke". While it is absurd for a company to say "I want you to sign this agreement", the employee didn't have to sign it. But since they did, and they breached the contract, the employer is well within their rights to fire their employee.

I see what you're saying about invasion of privacy, and I agree that some of the methods employers use to ensure that you are keeping your end of the bargain are intrusive. But if you sign a contract, it's your fault as much as theirs.

Re:So?

[The NPS]

I think on you surface, you're definitely right. I don't really care if people know what I'm doing. I don't think most people care specifically about that. What they care about is what can be done with the information. When it comes to things like genetic screening for health care, or political sanctions for religous beliefs the problems people have with lack of privacy become apparent. When it's something mundane like if microsoft knows you're playing a video game it becomes harder to present an actual scenario where that might be a problem.

I think, however, it might be fair to say that when it comes to invasion of privacy it turns sour so often and so easily that people are bitter and cynical about it in general. Sure, it doesn't matter if microsoft knows what I'm doing on my X-Box, but that begs the question, why do they need to know and what will they be doing with that information?

Re:So?

[vertinox]

Why do we seem to think it's wrong for them to monitor how their subscribers use their service?

Well, what kind of wrong?

Legally: They are most likley in the right.
Morally: A bit more gray, but no one is going to proverbial hell over this nor do most people care.
Courteous: I'd say they are in the wrong on this part. It is a bit rude of Microsoft to monitor this and let others do as well without your permission.

Remember a company has to be in right of all three of these if they want to run a business, keep the media on their side, and keep customers.

Re:So?

[jclast]

Once again, I mean this in all seriousness. Microsoft is a business. They're out to make money.

If they can give you a nifty gamercard and track your progress in games (which I think is a cool idea), and let you compare how you're doing in Kong with how PA's Gage is doing in it, why shouldn't they also be able to use that data to figure out better metrics?

Sales numbers tell you how many moved, but now Microsoft has access to which games stayed popular. How many hours have you logged in Kameo or PGR3? In theory, sequels or more games of that genre would be produced. Not only were they purchased, but they were played continuously after purchase.

I'm not advocating wiretaps or anything, but what business wouldn't want information about what its customers do with its products?

Re:So?

[Have Blue]

It's only not courteous if they don't tell you about it up front. I've never read the MS EULA or been through the 360 signup process, so I don't know if they do or not.

Re:So?

[Prophet of Nixon]

Always cross things off and comment contracts, being sure to initial and date by anything you change. Half of that stuff in a contract is only in there because some lawyer assumed that you would just sign and not look at it. Assume the same.

Now, software EULAs... those really irk me, because they're a totally one sided dialogue, and there's no way to negotiate or change terms. Arrrr.

Re:So?

[HTH NE1]

And when such contracts tend to come up after you've been employed for awhile and the company adopts this new policy, you either sign or you're fired. Continuing under your old employment contract is not an option.

And people don't ask to be stalked, but that doesn't mean you need to make a stalker's job easier.

Re:So?

[HTH NE1]

Other more mundane issues are losing friends and relationships because you told them you were visiting a sick relative but XBOX Live tells them you were at home playing Forza Motorsport.

What does the world think when your XBOX Live says you're looking at pictures when everyone knows you don't own a digital camera?

The article still has the point that this should not be shared with others by default, or a clear choice should have been prompted at initial setup. Why no up-front choice? Because the profiles aren't as useful unless people let this information be shared. There should at least be some parity, informing you in real time when someone else is watching you in real time.

You can be sure someone out there is working on how to use this to market-target or spear-phish you.

Re:So?

[hackwrench]

I wouldn't mind as long as all users know what is going to be transmitted and to who before they sign up.

After that, I would value having a fine degree of control over what information gets transmitted to who. This last bit would affect whether or not I personally joined such a network.

Re:So?

[RoadDoggFL]

What? It's not obvious enough that your information is available to someone when you yourself can see what others are doing? This is insane, I don't see anybody complaining that countless forums have this EXACT SAME feature!

Re:So?

[HTH NE1]

It's not obvious enough that your information is available to someone when you yourself can see what others are doing?

You presume that people bother to look to at such profiles, happened to do so when the other person wasn't off-line or playing a game, or made the connection that others can see what they're doing, until called to their attention.

They shouldn't have to bite the apple to realize they are starkers.

This is insane, I don't see anybody complaining that countless forums have this EXACT SAME feature!

What forums that do track you only track your activities through the forums, not also your local activities like going through your iPhoto album for an image or that you're listening to a CD or scanning through a DVD for a bit of dialogue to quote.

And forums that do track my activity and report it to other users do not compel me to use them in order to use my computer on-line. To play games over broadband with an XBOX 360, XBOX Live! is the only game in town. Or is there a supported broadband WAN peer-to-peer option of which I'm not currently aware?

And of those forums that I use that have the feature to report whether I am on the forum and what section of the forum I'm in offered a way to not disclose this information up front. From the article's surprise about it, apparently XBOX Live! does not.

My ISP may be logging everything I do on-line, but they do not publish logs of everything I do on my home computer on their website to all comers.

This is not yet the brave new world where everyone is monitored and anyone can monitor anyone else and know it. Until every speck of dust is potentially a camera monitoring everything, where everyone lives in the panopticon where everything is recorded (and hopefully every playback is publically logged with no exceptions), I'm holding on to what privacy I still can, and I will be upset whenever I discover someone else has been violating it to the world without my knowledge or consent.

Re:So?

[damsa]

You don't even have to sign a contract in at will employments states. In Washington, Nintendo can fire you because you were playing an Xbox a little too much even without a contract.

Re:So?

[MadMoses]

All privacy issues aside,

Other more mundane issues are losing friends and relationships because you told them you were visiting a sick relative but XBOX Live tells them you were at home playing Forza Motorsport.

Um, how about not lying in the first place? Would you lose friends if you would tell them that you want to play video games tonight? Time to find some friends that are more tolerant about your hobby.

(BTW I'm serious and this is not meant as a flame.)

Re:So?

[HarvardAce]

In Washington, Nintendo can fire you because you were playing an Xbox a little too much even without a contract.

While that may be possible, please don't confuse so-called "at will" employment (where either the employee or employer can break the employment agreement at any time with or without cause) as a free pass to fire people for any reason. Generally, the "with or without cause" clause means they can fire you for a good reason (tardiness, insubordination, etc.) or no particular reason (they are disbanding your division, cutbacks, etc). What they can't do, is fire you for a bad reason, especially for things such as discrimination or whistle-blowing. For a little more detail, check out Wikipedia's article on the subject.

Re:So?

[damsa]

In your article you quoted, ...are held to be "at will" which means that the employer may dismiss the employee at any time for any reason.

You can fire anyone at anytime, even if it is a bad reason. Don't confuse illegal firing with that of a bad reason firing. Illegal firing, is firing based on a protected class, such as those protected under Title VII, whistle blowing statutes and the like. Then there are other exceptions like that of Government employees, you can't fire them at will, you have to have a reason, this is because Government work is protected under the takings clause under the Constitution. Also there are exceptions are Union employees, but they are under an employment contract. But at last time I checked, MS was neither a government agency nor an Union shop.

Anyways I might be wrong as I did not go to Harvard. So if you can cite a Washington case, where someone was fired for a "bad" reason, such as playing a competitor's game then I would be happy to look at it.

IANAL yadda yadda

Re:So?

[HarvardAce]

You can fire anyone at anytime, even if it is a bad reason. Don't confuse illegal firing with that of a bad reason firing. Illegal firing, is firing based on a protected class, such as those protected under Title VII, whistle blowing statutes and the like.

When I wrote my original post, I was considering using "protected" instead of "bad" to describe the reason. I probably should have used it, as it is more accurate.

Anyways I might be wrong as I did not go to Harvard.

Cute.

So if you can cite a Washington case, where someone was fired for a "bad" reason, such as playing a competitor's game then I would be happy to look at it.

I'm sure someone with better access to that sort of data could find a case. One reason they aren't very common is that most people who are let go "without cause" (or at least without good cause) are given a severance package which (if you accept it) prevents you from suing the employer over your termination. Often these severance packages are for more money than someone would hope to recover in a lawsuit (especially after making consideration for legal fees, time spent, and the possibility you may not win), so even if a person believes they may have a case, they'll just settle for the severance package.

Re:So?

[damsa]

The point is, is that some unscrupulous employer, may use personal information to terminate an employee, even if such termination is illegal under the law, without a written employee contract. The GGP, was implying that because you work for a company then you must abide by its at will clause. My point was that, you can't blame the worker for signing a contract, because he doesn't necessarily have to sign a contract in order for his employment deemed to be at will.

Nevermind...

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

I'm tempted to say "This is news?". I mean, come on, it's Microsoft we're dealing with here. If they don't do something like this on purpose, they do by accident anyway. This should have been assumed as in "it's a feature", you know?

Yawn

[generic-man]

BBSes did this more than 10 years ago and UNIX's "w" command does something very similar.

User         Doing           Logged in
generic-man  Playing LORD    15 mins ago
d00d         Reading mail    20 mins ago
amigarox     Chat            30 mins ago

As a former SysOp, I don't know what the big deal is here.

Re:Yawn

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

"This is Slashdot" (hyperventilate, spit, huff, puff, wave arms around)...

Re:Yawn

[djdanlib]

Playing LORD! I remember that game, wow!

Good times.

Blown out of proportion?

[The Infidel]

I just dont see the big deal here. Of course, adding the option to cloak your activities would be a good add-in, but it's not like your photo album is visible to anyone else or your merchant account info is public.
This hate-everything-Micorsoft-regardless-of-whether-my -argument-is-valid mentality doesnt illustrate anything except the acrimony of the person expressing it.

Re:Blown out of proportion?

[Keeper]

Actually, there already is an option to disable it. The article is an entire knee-jerk.

people are surprised why?

[blackcoot]

given microsoft's behavior in the past, i'd be (pleasantly) surprised if they actually respected their users' privacy by at least giving them a modicum of control over what data is collected and how it may be used. the news here isn't that ms is doing something naughty, but rather that people have figured it out.

A recent appendment

[WankersRevenge]

found at the end of the article ... make what you want of it ... seems like a non-issue.

With thanks to the several e-mails, in particular the one out of a dozen that didn't just hurl abuse, we'd like to point out that there IS is way to adjust these privacy settings between everyone, friends only or no-one at all.

The options to change the privacy settings can be accessedby selecting your gamer profile whilst in the Xbox LIVE blade and then editing your profile. Whilst this provides the degree of privacy many users may well want, it is the opinion of the Team HEXUS that these options should be an 'opt-in' option not an 'opt-out'.

Re:A recent appendment

[Babbster]

It is the opinion of the Team BABBSTER that the Team HEXUS needs to a) be a little less impressed with itself and b) find something important to care about. Microsoft and every Xbox Live user finding out that I'm using the options blade, listening to music, playing King Kong or watching a DVD on my 360 isn't at all important, ever. If it is, there's always my favorite "opt-out" option: Yanking the Ethernet cable.

Uhoh

[!an Den!se]

Uhoh, my friends caught me watching a movie? Who the heck cares?

Privacy Options

[yotaku]

First off, if anyone bothered to actually read the whole article you would see that they updated the article when they realised that they can set their privacy settings to now tell anyone what they are doing on their xbox, or to just tell people on their friends list. So if you are concerned about this, just turn it off.

Secondly, who really cares if people know that you are watching a movie, or looking at pictures. For one thing, you do not even know if the user is actually at the system, of if the xbox is just idling. And do you actually care if people know you are watching a movie? Its not like its announcing to the world that you are watching the latest chick flick, or flipping though your porn collection. It just says watching a movie, or viewing pictures. Its like your neighbors seeing you leave the house. Oh my god!, they know I'm leaving the house -- my privacy!!

Re:Privacy Options

[mosschops]

So if you are concerned about this, just turn it off.

But why the heck is this turned ON by default??

Inflammatory article

[jennis]

What they complain about being an 'invasion of privacy' other people would consider a feature. Look at XFire, that tells you what games you are playing. What about people who share their iPod playlists? Or people who share their bookmarks online?

Their one real point about the privacy setting not being set to 'nobody' by default might actually have been a good point of the article, had they bothered to do their own homework or RTFM in the first place. It's not like privacy settings aren't completely common in IM applications.

Instead we get a article full of rhetoric and completely off-base comparisons with sloppy research. It gives the assumption that they were more interested in being the first out there with a "hard-hitting" story, regardless of whether or not thats actually true.

if you don't like it, then don't use it

[VendingMenace]

Here is what I don't understand. No one is forcing people to buy xboxes or to connect them to the internet. SO, if people are disturbed by their supposed privacy invation by way of LIVE, then the solution seems quite simple -- don't use it.

Seems like a non-issue to me

But will it say...

[DangerSteel]

"Watching Dirty Movie" ..

Re:But will it say...

[rednuhter]

so it only says "Watching Film" to other xbox live users what is to say it does NOT say "watching dirty film" on the mircosoft servers.

Don't really care...

[Zaetha]

Unless it shows "Lesbian-hardcore-lolita-sex.avi", I'm cool with it.

I wish I could find the Penny Arcade...

[Strell]

Where they had someone from Microsoft talking about...well I guess it was information tracking systems, but assured us it wasn't invasive, and then ended with "Oh, and Mike? From Idaho? Those pants do not go with that shirt."

Hopefully...

[kisielk]

it doesn't tell people WHAT you are watching. That could lead to some... uncomfortable situations...

Now watching: "Underage Interracial Horses Gone Wild" ;)

RTFA and/or RTFM!

[CMiYC]

This is a known "feature." The article was even updated after people e-mailed them. Both the article and the MANUAL tell how to change the default privacy settings.

Re:RTFA and/or RTFM!

[Pofy]

>This is a known "feature." The article was even updated after people e-
>mailed them. Both the article and the MANUAL tell how to change the
>default privacy settings.

But why should you always have to tunr OFF such things? Why not let the user turn ON things and features they like instead in cases like this?

Re:RTFA and/or RTFM!

[bigman2003]

I think the answer is obvious-

Because only .01% of the population would actually give a damn about this information getting out. Who the hell really cares if people know what I am doing with my Xbox? I don't care...and nobody who would actually bother to see what I am doing would care either.

In the real world this isn't seen as a 'privacy issue.' It is seen as a cool feature.

But somehow that paranoid .01% have all congregated here on Slashdot...and they all seem to be very noisy.

And if I had to guess...they are the same people who wouldn't buy a Microsoft product anyway...so the problem will solve itself.

Re:RTFA and/or RTFM!

[Pofy]

>Because only .01% of the population would actually give a damn about this
>information getting out. Who the hell really cares if people know what I am
>doing with my Xbox? I don't care...and nobody who would actually bother to
>see what I am doing would care either.

So it is a pointless and useless feature that 99.99% of the population doesn't even care about, so why does it exist to start with and turned on? Considering that a bunch of those 0.01% that DO care, doesn't like it, it appears that even less actually think it is something usefull. Or are you one of those 74.3% of the people that like spitting out percentages out of your nose just for the sake of it without having a clue?

Re:RTFA and/or RTFM!

[bigman2003]

The .01% are the people who do NOT want the Live Aware stuff turned on.

So, rather than making the overwhelming majority turn it ON, they decided to let the tinfoil hats turn it OFF.

Re:RTFA and/or RTFM!

[Pofy]

I was right, you WERE one of those 74.3% of people that like tossing out random percentages left and right!

Its called a feature

[defkkon]

I'm laughing my @#$ off over here. This makes it sound like Microsoft is spying on you. This is a feature! I listen to Major Nelson Radio (a podcast created by the director of Xbox Live devleopment) and he talked about this feature for months. Its put there to allow you to see what your friends are up to. Major Nelson actually had a show where he addressed the privacy issues. Even if you don't choose to block this feature (which you can) it never gives anything more than general information. It says "Watching a movie", not exactly what movie you're watching.

I think its cool. When my friends are playing Hexic HD, for instance, I can actually see what mode they're playing, and what their score is.

Geez, lose the tinfoil hat, buddy.

Re:Its called a feature

[Saige]

I actually wish I could enable it to show what music I'm listening to or what I'm watching on DVD. I mean, I already advertise my music listening on the computer.

The Boss

[Anonymous Coward]

With the boss on the other end of the phone, I skipped about through my Xbox 360's functions, each time challenging the boss to tell me what I was doing

Whoa! How did this talk Bruce Springsteen into helping him test his Xbox 360?

Wow, so far the responses amaze me.

[SmallFurryCreature]

I am not exactly a privacy freak, I am generally on the side of such things as surveilance camera's in risk zones or black boxes in cars. But this has nothing to do with safety. It is just noziness (or however you spell it). Companies and people butting into my private life. It is none of you business what I am doing at my PC right now no matter how general. The article has been updated to show you can in fact adjust the setting but this better include a setting that NO-ONE not microsoft not my friends, NOBODY can know what I do with my system and when.

Imagine if your car phoned home telling everyone who wanted to know when your driving and when not, would that be acceptable? So why do all the MS apologist accept this here?

No this is privacy invasion with no re-deeming function. If I want to tell other people what I am doing I will bloody well tell them.

This would be like an answering machine that told people I am in the shower, or on the toilet or whatever. NONE OF YOU FREAKING BUSINESS, if I am not online to tell you what I am doing (or answer the phone) then I don't want you to know.

Oh well, guess some people have different ideas about privacy.

Re:Wow, so far the responses amaze me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a minute, you're generally on the side of surveillance cameras and black boxes in cars, but you think Xbox Live reporting what you're doing is crossing the line? /confused

Hysterical article

[fikx]

I am pretty anti-MS and paranoid to boot, but this article comes of sounding hysterical and panicked even te me. Yeah, MS made the same ol' bad decision to get people to "try" new features by setting bad defaults. So, they messed that up again. But, invasion of privacy? Come on. His whole point seems to be centered around the new Live service showing things not related to games...yeah, and so? didn't he use the old Live? the only difference is it's closer to what they were aiming for already. The old one let you log on without running a game. it even showed you online. OMG! how dare it! To me, this is interesting both good and bad. Interesting bad that the defaults follow typical MS stupidity. interesting good that it makes it possible to actually interact with people online outside of a specific game. No more calling people to setup games. Check to see if they are online, then ask 'em to fire up your game, all from Live. (I know, it's not there yet, but it at least makes it possible).
Not saying MS isn't causing trouble with this, or at least opening the door to trouble, but the tone of the article is just ridiculous. If he's that shocked, then he's needs to use an IM client or something for a while before writing an article about this kind of thing.