Slashdot Mirror
Metadata in Vista Could Be Too Helpful
linumax writes "Windows Vista will improve search functionality on a PC by letting users tag files with metadata, but those tags could cause unwanted and embarrassing information disclosure, Gartner analysts have warned. Search and organization capabilities are among the primary features of Windows Vista, the successor to Windows XP due out late in 2006. While building those features, Microsoft is not paying enough attention to managing the descriptive information, or metadata, that users can add to files to make it easier to find and organize data on a PC, according to Gartner. 'This opens up the possibility of the inadvertent disclosure of this metadata to other users inside and outside of your organization,' Gartner analysts Michael Silver and Neil MacDonald wrote in a research note published on Thursday."
If my metadata could be viewed by other people inside and outside my organization, there's an easy solution to this.
Don't fill out the metadata fields!
Now we have a business analyst group trying to direct a computer software company how to write its software. When Gartner starts making new technology or being otherwise reasonably involved in technology, they can have a seat at the table. For now, this is just horrendously bad policy. Anyways, the Microsoft DOC format already contains a horrendous amount of metadata, the full history of changes that led to the current document, among other things. Where's Gartner's whines about that?
Nothing worse then searching for one thing, and coming up with a "*ultra-midget-fetish-sex-in-chocolate*" result when your g/f is around.......... That's my biggest gripe of indexers. Too easy to accidently find files. Like search for your g/fs name if you want pictures of her (and she is hooking over your shoulder wanting them), she may see her name come up in a convo between you and your bud that you'd rather her not see.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Help me out here, but what's so difficult about not storing metadata in-line ?
After 10 years of M$ Word disclosing secret information, you'd have guessed that "a removal tool" as mentioned in the article is obvious to anyone with half a brain as not good enough.
Storing the meta-data in a seperate file, or how about with the other metadata (i.e. with the inode) isn't so hard, is it? And it is quite obviously the right thing. There's even a big, red hint right there in your face: It's called meta-data. Might want to treat it different from the actual data, you know?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I find it a little annoying when someone does a "doom and gloom" review of a beta product, focusing on bugs or immature features. Its like doing a review of a building in progress and shouting out: "It has no roof! The rain will come right in! What are they thinking!"
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
I hear that the 2008 Toyota Prius will have a 7' high spoiler. What's up with that?
Oh, sorry... I just figured that we're talking about products that are still a few years down the pipe that haven't been anywhere close to finalized yet.
I don't know about anybody else, but we not only don't evaluate software years before it's released, but we generally wait until the software has been out for at least a year before even looking at it. I don't know what the point is of reviewing a product this early. The only thing that I can figure out is that it's a way to get a few more pageviews.
I don't respond to AC's.
How is this different than naming your file "Invoice for Asshole Larry.doc" and mailing it to the client? Simple solution: don't put potentially embarassing stuff in the metadata fields.
Do people really need an analysis to tell them this?
I know it's trendy here to bash windows, but this is FAR from a windows specific problem. Any file system that contains metadata could enable inadvertant disclosure of information, be it windows, mac, linux etc. The solution basically is to ensure that either a)your users are aware of what metadata is and how it works and to make sure that they get rid of any metadata on sensitive documents that they may send out or b) failing that, don't use the metadata.
Monstar L
Having something like "post-it notes" that do not stick to the file, but instead are part of the directory entry for that file, might be more useful and safer. If someone sends me a file, I don't want that person's metadata to pollute my classification of files.
That's somewhat like what happens with e-mail - I receive plenty of mails that the sender marked as "high priority", but that are low priority to me. Metadata on the file should be objective; subjective information should be stored somewhere else and not be transmitted together with the file.
I would *hope* ( and no, I didn't read the article ), that the meta data for each file would have the same security permissions as the original file.
Otherwise, you'd be able to search for the meta data in the private files of other users.
Turning to the metadata: Having lots of metadata to search can be a very good thing. But, if used improperly (e.g., having the index not properly secured from outside access or malicious software) they can be a bad thing (read: security risk).
So, as the grandparent said: "Like Big Bird says, remember to put your infants in the back seat, so the "safety" devices don't kill them."