Slashdot Mirror
MS Seeks Patent For Repossessing School Computers
theodp writes "Microsoft has applied for a patent for 'securely providing advertising subsidized computer usage.' The application describes how face-recognition webcams and CAPTCHAs can be used in schools to ensure that computer users are paying attention to ads, and the recourse of 'disabling or even repossessing the computer' if they are not."
Typical Slashdot garbage, the headline misrepresents the content of the story.
I use plugins that disable ads. Why the hell would anyone want to use this? I can see this going nowhere pretty effing fast.
you vill look at ze ads und you vill vant to punch out ze celebrity? ja?
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
Look at our ads or else. Adblock, Flashblock, and NoScript? No problem! We'll just keep track and take the computer away.
...if you don't look at our ads, we can reposess this board...
:(
Sheesh. I guess that's what happens when you don't own the hardware. Although I swear I keep expecting that one of these days I'm going to open the box for a mainboard, have to cut some tape to get the box open, and find a note inside that reads:
End User License Agreement
By opening this box you agree to the terms of this agreement...
I'm in a bad mood today.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
who can't afford a 100-200$ computer ? what are you going to sell them ?
of course the solution is simple in regard to children, simply forbid advertising of any kind that is directly targeted at a minor
people who prey or exploit kids need help, 9mm help
Why would a company create something to enforce students to watch ads and not learn.... Yea, that makes perfect sense when most children these days don't have the funds to buy at pizza if they wanted to.
This patent application was filed at the end of 2005... why is it just now coming up?
...ads watch you.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
A diet pepsi costs the following- can you match them up?
1) $1.00
2) $1.25
3) $1.39
with
A) Work Vending Machine
B) School Vending Machine
C) Grocery Store
If you said 1-B, 2-A, and 3-C, you're Right!
What does that mean? Exploit the students. Get them addicted to soda, (We called it 'coke' where I come from and for good reason), profit insanely at their completely disposable income, and they'll continue to provide for you the rest of your corporate career!
This patent is sickening. Schools currently use IE, but as they switch to ad-blockable content (anything available for IE) then there is SO much profit-potential lost it's absurd.
We (I and several other individuals) mentor about 30 HS students. It is TRULY amazing how much their minds are like sponges- and how easy it can be to inadvertently modify their behavior. An unkind word, a stern glance, and the next thing you know they want nothing to do with that topic. It's insane. The mentors themselves end up having to walk this twisted line of professional dedication (our backgrounds) and playing psychologist ("How does that make you feel").
Let's face it- the whole point of this is about money, and cash is king. The brains are just too wired for this behaviour (Nestle's Chocobot hour) to be anything but profitable thru very specific programming.
They'll get the patent..... and it'll be up to us to fight the intrusion into the school. Here's a hint- it'll be over a decade, nice and slow, thru 'gifts' of OS and computers...
Maybe they want to patent it so that nobody else can. I can't see M$ wanting to see something like this in use under their name. I can't see Microsoft wanting anybody to use this sort of thing. Talk about an incentive to get Linux - sheesh.
I hate it when our politicians do it, and I hate it just as much when you do it.
The summary ( and link ) say nothing about schools. Putting that in the title is egging for a flame war. It makes you ( the submitter and editor ) look like an idiot.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I disagree. Getting a computer is not that difficult. They are so commonplace that it is not that difficult to find an older model for free (Craigslist, family, streets, etc.) Four of my computers were obtained in these ways. Ads slow down computers (consider that since they are free, the hardware is probably not that good), and annoy the user into potentially giving up computers.
Also, paying ads does not help in the long run, because you never own it. Paying some amount a month is a lot better of an option.
As long as hardware specs remain open, that won't happen, but our current open marketplace is under threat from ideas like (nearly) mandatory driver signing in Vista (if you want the content), and DRM. Their purpose is to restrict the openness of the PC architecture.
The PC marketplace happened nearly by accident, through what would today be called hardware piracy by OEMs seeking to undercut IBM's monopoly over the PC architecture. You know the history, I'm sure.
The best innovation happens when engineers are free to innovate and motivated to do so. DRM, driver signing, authentication, keys, patents, licenses... these are all hinderences, concessions made to preserving the status quo, to protecting Big Money. The grey market drove the PC revolution, the little guys. Now the people who benefitted from that want to become and stay some sort of new IBM by controlling the architecture through crypto. The irony is palpable.
The crackers, the hardware hackers, they are today's heroes, as much as the IBMBIOS revengineers were way back when. They keep the wildcards in play, the market free. Vista touts security... it's not just security from worms, or viruses they're aiming for, it's security for Microsoft against the crackers that keep the playing field open, and the DRM behemoth at bay.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
Wire up the chair and every time they look away give them a shock.
This happens time and time again on Slashdot: the article title and summary mislead us into believing something the article doesn't even mean, or the article is misleading and sensationalist itself, and no one bothers to confirm its accusations before putting it on the front page for thousands to see. Time and time again we're tricked into taking a stand, and then look like idiots later.
Just because it's about Microsoft, doesn't mean you have to buy it. Sure, you want to believe it; I want to believe it. But if the trick works on us now, it'll be used in the future, to position you against issues you would stand for otherwise. One of the noblest actions a man can take is not take a public stand against something he knows nothing about. Don't comment on this until you RTFA.
Besides, the article is so stupid it should be modded off topic.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Somebody at Microsoft didn't understand what somebody else was doing...
The whole reason for Microsoft giving free computers to schools in the first place was to get them used to the Windows OS, and hopefully prevent them from wanting to switch to Linux. It wasn't supposed to be just a short-term revenue stream.
If they actually use this, schools will start saying no thanks to their "free" computers - which will, in the long term, be a serious blow to Microsoft.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
- is
actually fairly innovative and unique. Now to the best of my knowledge, patents aren't supposed to be concerned with the morality of the application, but the originality and non-obviousness of it.Microsoft should be hung out to dry for this, but from a patent aspect, it's valid.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
When this is in schools, Not Looking at the Ads will be punishable by a trip to the principal's office and possibly a two-day suspension.
I thought of this very system over three years ago, although it wasn't for the nefarious purpose of forcing school children to watch targetted ads. The idea actually was to set up a system whereby internet users could sit down, and watch ads for a few minutes to earn some money (sell your time). Obviously I take let's say 2% of what they get. I needed a way to check if the user was actually watching the ads, and the system sounds remarkably what MS guys were able to come up with. I didn't have the time to set up the site.
This situation to me highlights some of the annoying aspects of patents. First, if I had billions of dollars of cash lying around, I would have this patent (would've applied without a second thought). How then, is this system helping individual innovators rather than big corporations? Second, isn't it clear that the patent system isn't promoting R and D in this particular case?
On the plus side, I do believe a site has recently popped up that does what I wanted to do, and they probably have implemented a comparable system. Therefore, MS might lose this patent on the grounds of prior art, which is a plus.
Also, I wonder whether MS intends to charge for the webcams being provided, since they are required for the face tracking, but the schools might not (and probably don't) want them.
I just burned all my mod points on my last slashdot visit on stupid stories. Figures something good is posted right afterward.
You're nothing; like me.
"DRM, driver signing, authentication, keys, patents, licenses... these are all hinderences, concessions made to preserving the status quo, to protecting Big Money."
Sez you!
Microsoft is giving us more valid reasons to successfully argue that they have no place in the classroom.
They're making is very clear that they are achieving the kind of critical mass where they will act with impunity.
It isn't enough that they make an OS that exploits people at home, now they're seeking to patent a way to enforce it on students.
So how long before this kind of thinking migrates to television?
"We're sorry _Survivor_ is withheld for (countdown)min. until the next commercial break because you muted three or more commercials. In order to ensure an uninterrupted broadcast you must maintain at least a 25 db. audio output and not avoid the screen. Thank you."
Or better yet,
Ben checks his online bills and sees a slightly larger cable bill.
"Hey, honey. Why is the cable bill $20 more...oh crap, it says there's a fee for _Subsidy-Avoidance_ WTF is that?"
"Remember when I told you that if we removed that feedback box they'd tag on a fee?"
"I don't get it..." He scratches his head and looks at the TV.
"Remember how our subscription rates for Office went up because we didn't agree to run an ad validator? It's the same thing." She says as Ben looks for something to kick and starts wondering where he put that extra cable box.
At least they aren't trying to tell us that this will keep us safe...yet.
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
Skinner: We can buy =real= periodic tables instead of these promotional ones from Oscar Meyer. ... delicious?
Krabappel: Who can tell me the atomic weight of bolognium?
Martin: Ooh
Krabappel: Correct. I would also accept snacktacular.
- [ . . . ] several response are possible, from noting a user's record but taking no action, to a follow up communication with the user, to disabling or even repossessing the computer.[ . . . ]
- [ . . . ] Alternately, the policy may extend to a group of computers and correspondingly to a common owner, for example, a business or school.[ . . . ]
Shame on you, submitter & editor. This is NOTHING but sensationalism. The notion of "repossessing" the computer is used as an example of a step that could be taken if the advertising is not being paid attention to. Since the terminal is financed by that advertising, it would make sense to stop paying for it and take it back for redeployment elsewhere. If I'm an advertiser, I'd prefer not to keep paying for a billboard that nobody pays attention to.The notion of these computers being used by a school is used as an example where the patent discusses tying certain criteria to multiple computers owned by a common owner, "for example," a business or school. So, say you provide some of these adveritising-funded public terminals to an organization, such as a business or school, what you're doing is tying the policy for multiple systems to a common owner.
But the summary & title make it sound like MSFT is targeting school computers as if they could just swoop in, snatch them all up, and resell them on the black market. This is one of the lamest attempts at MSFT-bashing I've seen. Bash them if you must, but for god's sake, bash them for something that's actually a REAL issue, not this crap. What's next? "MSFT submits patent for punching babies, snapping bra straps of young mothers?!"?
I'd say I expect better of the editors, at least, but well... it IS slashdot.
I always thought Windows machines were already possessed by the Devil.
We've already seen cash-strapped schools include video advertisements disguised as "Current Affairs". Other schools have formed deals with Pepsi and Coke that require them to consume so much per week in order to maintain the support for school lunches (yes the students do get fat). So yes, I could definitely see a cash-strapped school taking a sweetheart deal with Microsoft to get modern machines provided their students watch so much web advertising. Such things are typically welcomed by people who want to cut taxes and "Run Schools Like a Business".
After all, as long as taxes are lowered who cares?
I think this is a very bad idea.
1. You're dealing with forcing individuals in their formative years, to look at advertisements which have been pyshologically designed to influence spending / desire.
2. I'm sure the least amount of effort will be put into controlling the content and reviewing the moral implications of such a system if the patent is granted.
3. Microsoft is displaying it's bottom line here, which obviously is not about helping out schools who need the help and promoting education, but the fact that money is far more important than education will ever be. The meaning behind charity is to give with out the intention of return...remember that concept?
The fact that they would consider taking the computers back if students don't look at the ads is downright grotesque to me.
The institution of the corporation is getting away with far too much at this point. I hope this idea is squashed before it even begins, and if it is granted...that no schools are even lacking enough in moral fiber to accept such a ridiculous deal from such a greedy company as Microsoft. I wish them nothing but the worst of luck and bankruptcy in this endevour.
Rubbish. Once pricetag is placed on a donation it's not donation any more. In fact, this can easily be seen as a way to steal taxes from the IRS since donations are tax deductable, while items sold for money are generating taxable income. And the fact that Microsoft makes it compulsory for a recepient of the donation to "watch adds" makes it perfectly clear how much this whole deal is worts. "No watching = no computers", so adds = computers. Again, this is patently wrong for many reasons, and in my first writing I pointed out just the first reason. The deal would be legal if Microsoft would reveal in advance "how many adds?", "for how long?", "total time that a person would commit by watching adds", etc. For Microsoft "watching adds" is clearly a business. They should simply reveal what EXACTLY do they expect from the person or persons, and not something that's more like "voluntary slavery". Regards!
Consider determining whether students are paying attention to the course material, or the chat window they popped up...
After all, I've yet to see a school-provided "secure" computer that wasn't cracked by one or more students within a month. The crackers are always able to get through any reasonable security measures, including innocuous password cracker disks, booting from another image to install banned software, etc.
The only "secure" systems I've actually seen forced a weekly image down the throat of every desktop to ensure that they remained identical. No unauthorized software showed up on those machines for more than a few days, then all it's registry entries and links were gone over the weekend.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
This exact practice - i.e.: forcing ads on students - is illegal inpublic education in several european countries.
In France, public schools aren't allowed to give material "sponsorized by [whatever]" to students.
It hasn't been enforced very well up until now, but MS-Computers that force kids to watch adds is sure to stir up enough noise in the media to attract attention.
One more of those Microsoft's stupid moves that encourage people to pursue the migration to OSS that is already very active in EU.
(insert revelent StarWars quote here...)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]