MS Wants To Identify All Web Surfers

Moochman writes "New Scientist reports on a technology Microsoft is developing to identify users based on their browsing habits. Quote: 'The software could get its raw information from a number of sources, including a new type of 'cookie' program that records the pages visited. Alternatively, it could use your PC's own cache of web pages, or proxy servers could maintain records of sites visited. So far it can only guess gender and age with any accuracy,' but the aim is to be able to identify name, occupation and location as well. On a related note, The Inquirer reports on Microsoft's plans to widen the use of its identity-verification technology CardSpace, which is built into Windows Vista and available as an add-on to XP. It's being envisioned as an identity solution for the entire internet: says Kim Cameron, pioneer of the technology, 'We feel it has to solve all use cases.' (Aha, so the anonymous use cases, too, eh?) One might ask, with all of this user-ID information on hand, how long will it be until the Feds come knocking on Microsoft's door asking for help? They already have."

Comments

Umm

[Richard McBeef]

The computing giant is developing software that could accurately guess your name, age, gender and potentially even your location, by analysing telltale patterns in your web browsing history.

Uh, wouldn't location be the easiest thing to figure out? Yes. The answer is yes.

Re:Umm

[Timesprout]

Yes but it appears that 95% of all male web users are located at www.bigtits.com which obviously of limited use.

Re:Umm

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like we will need more Spyware blocking technology to counter Micro$oft. Well, that is assuming they don't buy up all the anti-spyware patents and lock everyone out of the market.

Re:Umm

[ThePromenader]

Right, and just why does Microsoft thinks it has a 'right' to glean our page-viewing habits (an act akin to rummaging our underwear and sock drawers) - perhaps because that those using their software gave it to them? They assume much, but no doubt, once again, the ignorant will fall for it. MS owes its fortune to the latter aspect of their user base, so I don't see how this move is anything new.

Re:Umm

[HermMunster]

This is probably them fulfilling their obligation for the code they allowed the NSA to incorporate into XP and Vista.

Microsoft can take their ideas and shove them up their asses. What do you think we want Microsoft making these decisions and bringing up these ideas. It is none of their freaking business nor anyone else's if I choose to use the internet.

These people are getting freaking spooky. We really need to shut them down and fast. Stop frigging buying Microsoft products. Protect your security and your privacy by using Linux.

Re:Umm

[RobertM1968]

It's interesting that parent was modded troll, when what he posted was for the most part accurate.

If it is illegal for (spam) companies to glean such information, why would it be legal for Microsoft to gather such info for their own marketing purposes - or those of their affiliates (which broadly covers everyone using Windows Live Search)?

Spam, above is in parenthesis because I am indicating companies, who through similar actions have been considered spam companies.

Though the Linux point may make parent seem like a troll, it too is accurate - and one of the few PC based alternatives... so perhaps to make parent not considered by the over-sensitive on /. a troll, the last paragraph should have read...

These people are getting freaking spooky. We really need to shut them down and fast. Stop frigging buying Microsoft products. Protect your security and your privacy by using Linux, eComStation, MacOSX, or any other OS not from Redmond .

Though perhaps that too seems like a troll... but the fact is, if MS has it's way, the only other alternative is to not use the Internet - which isnt going to happen... the truth is not a troll post. The only part of his post that may be inaccurate is the part about the NSA - though the government did request such code be installed in Windows, I dont know if anyone actually ever proved such an occurrence happened, and though MS claimed they would not do such a thing (which we've learned means nothing in the real world), there oddly are enough back doors in Windows to make one wonder.

Mod parent up... just my opinion. You dont have to like what someone posts to realize the validity of it.

Re:Umm

[digitig]

Dang, I like small tits so I'm going to be a cinch to identify :-(

Re:Umm

[ozmanjusri]

The only part of his post that may be inaccurate is the part about the NSA

It's probably accurate.

From a report back in January;

The National Security Agency has provided assistance to Microsoft and Apple in securing their Windows and Mac OS X operating systems, according to a report published Tuesday.
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/01/09/nsa-pro vided-security-help-for-windows-mac-os-x/

For what it's worth, the SELinux extensions came from the NSA, so they've had a hand in improving security for all the major platforms. Linux is the only one where the code's visible for the paranoid though.

Re:Umm

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft can take their ideas and shove them up their asses. What do you think we want Microsoft making these decisions and bringing up these ideas. It is none of their freaking business nor anyone else's if I choose to use the internet.

No, no. Fair's fair. I've recently had my congressional lawn ornament sponsor legislation requiring all Microsoft executives and board members to be outfitted with 20 foot long flexible anal probes. These will comprehensively monitor their nutritional intake, recording all the where's, what's and how much. Those traitorous MickieD, Burger King and White Castle addicts will be rooted out, making the world safe again for those aligned with the better smelling vinegar chips and chinese takeout computing and marketing cultures.

Fast food addicts beware! You won't slip a "slider" past this surveillance effort!

Re:Umm

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sounds like we will need more Spyware blocking technology to counter Micro$oft. "

Somehow I feel that Microsoft will have an easier time collecting information about a user when they use IE + Windows and connect to a Microsoft server.

But for those of use that stay clear of their products, they will have to rely on deducing information with less control. If they profile you based on sites, then they'll know about me real fast when they see visits to http://www.microsoftsucks.org/

Re:Umm

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, it is developed by Chinese staff ... the guys with the largest audience that can be subjected to such software with their government's blessing ;)

If I put my tinfoil hat on, I see the two scaries gubbermints and the largest softwarez companies working together on spying on you ...

Warm and fuzzy feelings indeed.

Re:Umm

[TheNetAvenger]

I tend to think this is all overhype, because even if true it isn't something new for tons of companies.

I also find it amazing that the same people that are being so hard on the allegations of what MS is doing are the same ones that for the past year have defended companies like Google for DOING THE EXACT SAME THING, except the Google twist is they have been using FireFox and GMail in addition to searches for tracking people and marketing data. (FireFox users, if you don't already know this, you are stupid.)

Again, tell me why this is a big deal when they accuse MS of doing it, but something to shrug off when Google is doing it, has admitted to doing it, has ties with Firefox to specifically gather data on ALL platforms, and even goes through people's GMail and anyone that sends something to someone using GMail?

This is not to even mention the 1000s of advertising companies that ALREADY do this for every freaking AD on the internet, even here on SlashDot, you are being monitored based on the ADs you click on.

For the GP post, the NSA and Windows Myths are crazy, part of the reason Uncle Sam was pissed at Vista is MS wouldn't make a backdoor for BitLocker, so if you think MS is cooperating with the NSA beyond the standard obligations that OSX and even Linux has complied, you are high.

Besides if the NSA wants information, having a hook inside an OS would be the LEAST effective way of getting it. They could gleam 10 of 1000s of times the data from just monitoring network traffic, which they already do and have done since the 1980s.

And thanks to ignore the Law Bush and Gonzo, the NSA has been doing this with all domestic traffic and voice communications now too without any warrants. If people want to bitch about Big Brother, they should look to Washinton DC, not Washington State.

Re:Umm

[kestasjk]

This is kind of what Google do already, isn't it?

Everyone here is concerned about privacy issues, I'm much more concerned about them pushing "CardSpace". Imagine if they succeed in getting it widely used and they then have control over authentication on the internet. It would be a powerful way to control what software people use to access the net.
I think a unified authentication tool is a good thing, but it should obviously be based on open standards.

Re:Umm

[aichpvee]

Or you could just circumvent the spyware all together.

Re:Umm

[Hal_Porter]

I tend to think this is all overhype

I think you mean hyperbole.

Incidentally, I've always thought a well marketed bug budget summer blockbuster remake of Rollerball should be called HyperBowl!

Re:Umm

[RobertM1968]

Because what MS is claiming on planning to do means they are defining "browser history" as browser history, cache, cached form data, form data and more in order to accumulate the data they are going for. That is a far cry from what Google is doing. In addition, MS has proven they are far less trustworthy than Google and many other companies out there (see numerous lawsuits and anti-trust cases in this and other countries). Also, people opt in to allow Google to have access to their data. MS is making no such claim... they are claiming "This is what we are going to do" which is far different. And yes, other companies have tried similar things and been sued in court and lost and/or fined for their actions. So, there's the difference.

If people want to bitch about Big Brother, they should look to Washinton DC, not Washington State.

I think people here are bitching about the invasion of privacy this would add up to. For that, it doesnt matter if it's Washington DC, Washington State, or the guy who lives down the block who is illegally obtaining your personal information - just because they decided they wanted to for whatever twisted reasons they claim.

Re:Umm

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an episode of Frontline you need to checkout. Microsoft can probably be assumed to be doing this for commercial purposes as opposed to nefferious black helicoptors. Why? The NSA has rooms which snoop traffic right off the backbone. All of it. If you're not encrypting all of your communications with absurdly large PGP keys, they can read it. They have built computers to automatically read it, just in case they want an agent to read it. What little Microsoft could add in this respect through the aims discussed in the submittion would have to be nearly worthless to them.

Re:Umm

[Killjoy_NL]

Exactly, in the same boat here :)

Re:Umm

[technicalandsocial]

While Kim Cameron's talk on CardSpace is the best talk I've ever seen out of Microsoft, I've seen it more than once, which includes the same jokes. Like the one about his wife crying because the login prompt had her name several times. Hey Mrs.(too liberated to be Cameron), try an open source, free, multi-user operating system. Believe it or not, you don't have to put your real name there either, regardless of what Kim tells you. Using a pseudonym is more than adequate...

Re:Umm

[TheNetAvenger]

You do realize the article is about a 'theoretical' set of algorithms, and is not even working software, let alone something MS has ever stated they would use or plan on using or ever plan on installing without consent.

You act like this is working software already on people's computers without their permission. Geesh.

Google on the other hand leaves the 'opt out' in their EULAs and most of the users of the search engine, mail, Firefox have NO idea that their data is CURRENTLY and ACTIVELY being used. Also I have no 'opt out' when I send an email to a friend stupid enough to use GMail, my email to them is scanned without MY permission.

This whole article is about a clever person talking about theoretical ways to gather information by GUESSING about the person. PERIOD. If people want to go all hyperbole with this, then they are the same people that would buy into a story about MS mice turning into evil robots and killing people some day.

Get Real, and stop adding to this insane distortion of reality.

Re:Umm

[Xiph1980]

I wouldn't say that too fast if I were you...
That site is loaded with viagra spam due to the login-free posting, so infact the crawler just might think you have a *ahem* rubber ducky.... if you know what I'm saying :P

Re:Umm

[maxwell demon]

Also I have no 'opt out' when I send an email to a friend stupid enough to use GMail

That's not true. You can simply not send the mail.

Re:Umm

[skarphace]

This is kind of what Google do already, isn't it?

Except google drops a cookie on you while microsoft buries spyware into their OS.

I'm much more concerned about them pushing "CardSpace". Imagine if they succeed in getting it widely used and they then have control over authentication on the internet. It would be a powerful way to control what software people use to access the net.

Worked real well with .Net Passport, didn't it?

Re:Umm

[Anonymous Coward]

So, have you read all the EULAs you clicked through, uncluding the ones that came with the service packs ? So how do you know that you haven't already granted them the right, or will when SP.n comes out ?

Re:Umm

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is this boat... and how can I book passage?

Re:Umm

[RobertM1968]

Do YOU realize that MS claims they are going to be doing this, it is being developed by MS China

from Microsoft's research lab in Beijing, China where I am sure the government there is supporting and/or assisting them, and that with MS' ability to control and monitor the OS and IE, these "theoretical algorithms" are in reality far from theoretical.

You act like this is working software already on people's computers without their permission. Geesh.

Working software - yes - in test versions from what the article says - it does indicate they've done enough work on it and studied the results sufficiently to glean a bunch of the information they are already after.

already (installed) on people's computers without their permission. - without their permission? You mean like WGA and numerous other components in Windows that the closest thing to permission is "Agree to this EULA or dont use any of our software"? Yeah... I can see it happening. Fits their track record very nicely.

Re:Umm

[TheNetAvenger]

- without their permission? You mean like WGA and numerous other components in Windows that the closest thing to permission is "Agree to this EULA or dont use any of our software"? Yeah... I can see it happening. Fits their track record very nicely.

99% of Windows users obtained the copy Legally and don't give a crap whether MS Update only allows legal updates and usage. I don't fully support WGA, but I do know where it came from and it wasn't originally devised to harm customers but to stop rampant illegal copy distributing companies via OEM channels.

However if MS tells all Windows users, we will gather info on you, or you can't use Windows, MS will see the most massive Windows Exodus since WindowsME.

If MS is this stupid, then you should be rooting for them to do this. Even casual users will catch wind of this and move to something else.

Not to EVEN mention this can't happen in corporate America where information, including user research, on the corporate computers is protected under law via tradesecrets, etc. And they would have NO CHOICE but to give MS the finger.

Even a lot of small companies by law cannot share information like this let alone expose it to any company or individual, so if you think MS expects Windows to force users to give up this type of information, then either you or MS is insane. (This goes from small insurance agencies through most industry all the way up to companies that have government contracts.)

(PS Even insurance companies that have a strong legal and IT deparment working together will not allow agents to have GMail accounts for this reason, specifically.)

So if you think MS is going to do this and tie it to IE or Windows, then you should cheer them on, as it will be a true nail in the coffin of Windows.

Re:Umm

[RobertM1968]

(1) You are assuming I want to see Windows/Microsoft die... I'm a computer technician and co-own my own business with my brother... more than half of our repairs are Windows related issues (Windows hosed something, viruses, spyware, etc - listed in no particular order). As much as I hate the fact that crappy software with lotsa holes is the cause for more than half our repair labor, I'd rather not do without it.

(2) MS already has things in their EULA that says they can and will share your info with themselves and their affiliates/partners - that unfortunately includes anyone who advertises through them. So, sharing the info wont be illegal. It's obtaining it without the individual's permission that would be. And that can simply be covered in yet another massive EULA in yet another update that installs these components ambiguously referring to them as a security or service update [kinda like WGA - which was the point I was trying to make that you seemed to have missed... WGA may not be such an evil thing in and of itself (though that could be debated) - it's how they slipped it past the end user with very ambiguous, and sometimes outright incorrect information in it's EULA]. I never mentioned anything about MS Update or legal or illegal licenses. I pointed out the deceptive method MS used to deploy WGA - and numerous similar business practices.

(3) More and more, we the people are learning that businesses can lobby to have laws changed to allow them to break what previously was a law that applied to them... SoundExchange and the Copyright Office, RIAA and the CanSpy Act, RIAA & others and the DMCA with it's ridiculous loopholes, MPAA and the DMCA - just to point out some of the more obvious ones that you probably have seen on /. (since you dont seem to have given this much thought - though there are tons of others, environmentally, privacy related, freedom related, computer related, etc).

(4) I dont know what you mean by "even a lot of small companies..." - MS isnt a small company. What a small company can get sued for (civilly) or can get criminal charges brought against for; can and often end the company in a very short period of time. MS though is far from a small company, and such suits (whether criminal or civil) can be dragged out for many many years - making it rather irrelevant whether what they are doing is illegal; since by the time the case(s) are over, the damage has been done (over the span of years).

(5) The casual user WONT catch wind of this - or if they do, they'll buy into whatever idiotic reason MS claims this new "feature" is being added for - simply out of naivety - because I am damn sure the casual user doesnt read /., Groklaw or anywhere else that will post a breakdown of what this "feature" really does and will add to their computer experience. As an example, even with the tremendous growth in the AV market, there are still a lot of users who (a) dont know what a virus is, (b) dont know what a virus does, (c) dont know why a virus is dangerous, (d) dont realize they need good anti-virus software (or dont think it's that important) or (e) dont think they'll get one because they only surf the web (or combinations of 2 or more of the above). It is that type of computer illiteracy (on a technical level) that means it doesnt even matter if the casual user catches wind of this.

Kinda like (as another example) the whole Vista downsampling/upsampling HD streams causing higher resource usage and lower quality HD content. On /. there were pages of complaints and rants about it... the casual user goes on blissfully never knowing whats going on - and probably wouldnt understand it if they did (assuming MS explained it - their explanation makes it sound like a rather good thing). Arguably, probably anyone on /. could explain it to the casual user and they would understand - but there are a lot more of them than there are people here - and it's not like we are gonna take out commercials

Re:Umm

[nexuspal]

GOOOOOGLE has ALL of your history listed if you have your OWN home page. Anyone with half a brain thats poked around a little has found PAGES AND PAGES of ones browsing history all laid out for the past half year +. Go check it out... and delete it as I did. Mod me up, cause you'll find it to be true...

Re:Umm

[nexuspal]

sorry link.

Re:Umm

[TheNetAvenger]

I dont know what you mean by "even a lot of small companies..."

I started to read your post, thinking you were being insightful, but then came to this. You either didn't comprehend what I was saying or are purposely using it as a hyperbolic tangent.

I said 'even small companies', as in mom and pop shops, have to adhere to legal constraints on dissemination of information contained on their computers, including employee activity. (This was in no way a reference to MS.)

Even a small town insurance agency cannot let users or software have any access to specific information by law, and this would make running Windows in the scenario that you seem to think will happen, illegal. This is why I mentioned that many insurance companies are aware of tracking software and prohibit GoogleBar and Gmail accounts for agents.

Here is the problem with your argument in whole, you are 'assuming' what will happen, and you are exaggerating the MS EULA's rights to information that MS may collect.

I find arguments like yours very troubling, as you would be the type of person to be afraid of what could potentially happen in the future like this, yet go to Subway and hand your CC to a 16yr old that has a good memory. What do you think is more risky?

There are also tons of outlets and 'opt in' portions of society that you are already signed up for that gives out far more information than you and other are describing in your worse case scenario.

Go look up the call log information Verizon or ATT tracks and how easily they handed this over to the NSA. Even your power company can report your usage and address and other personal information to any inquiries. And even just using a CC provides more information to the CC Company than MS could possibly get from you buying something online, as the CC has all the information and doesn't have to 'guess' anything about you.

And you are right, most people wouldn't know and don't know, as most people don't check the 'opt out' box on the CC applications, etc.

However, this was ALSO a point I am trying to get through. If what you are suggesting does happen, it will become illegal for people to use Windows, and these are state and local laws, not something MS could sweep in and easily change as you suggest. So even stupid people WOULD be made aware of it when their parent company or contracting partners demand they stop using Windows. (Look up state insurance laws as I cite in my example several times now.)

Get it yet?

Re:Umm

[Anonymous Coward]

I also find it amazing that the same people that are being so hard on the allegations of what MS is doing are the same ones that for the past year have defended companies like Google for DOING THE EXACT SAME THING, except the Google twist is they have been using FireFox and GMail in addition to searches for tracking people and marketing data. (FireFox users, if you don't already know this, you are stupid.)

Honestly, this is something new for me. What difference does your browser make?

Re:Umm

[TheNetAvenger]

Honestly, this is something new for me. What difference does your browser make?

Do a search on the ties between Google and Firefox.

BTW Since this article hit SlashDot, Google's CEO announced that they were moving forward with a new information collection system so that they could provide services even more invasive than the incorrect allegations from this article against MS.

Also notice, that article never made it to SlashDot, but CNN covered it. So much for Slashdot being on top of tech news when CNN's morning show is better informing their viewers.

Who thinks of these ideas?

[solevita]

That's always my first question when I see an article like this; who could ever think this was a good idea? Obviously not someone who reads Slashdot.

I don't know how much Microsoft is paying, but it must be alot if people are thinking that such a ridiculous idea makes sense.

Re:Who thinks of these ideas?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now they can find out that I am a dog? Wooof! Woof!

Re:Who thinks of these ideas?

[Anonymous Coward]

One of there goals is to have any computer, any where, know you and load all your preferences on demand.

That is ridiculous reasoning! Thumb drives hold Gigabytes of data today. Even more tomorrow. A thumb drive with heavy duty encryption to protect the contents is the best way to take your preferences, files, data, etc. with you.

Personal data devices are more secure, private, load faster (oh boy down load my desktop over the Internet...riiight), can be written to faster, don't go down like the Internet, etc., etc. If you want you can have a backup image on a server, but the image would be encrypted and access would be owned by you.

Kids these days and their centralized computing!

Re:Who thinks of these ideas?

[cedricfox]

*ROFL* Who marketed the first beige computer?

Re:Who thinks of these ideas?

[VirusEqualsVeryYes]

They're the same people who think REAL ID is a good thing, the people who think that the trade of some rights to privacy for a little convenience is a good one.

These people exist, just not on Slashdot.

Re:Who thinks of these ideas?

[amRadioHed]

Not to mention that fact that in order to load your preferences and settings in a random new computer I will need to surf the web for a few hours while MS ID's my web habits. No thanks, I think I'll stick to the few seconds it takes to type in a password.

Re:Who thinks of these ideas?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's always my first question when I see an article like this; who could ever think this was a good idea?

I'm guessing Some Random Indian Drone sucking up to his American manager in one of the advertising & marketing departments, just before he cuts and runs to the next low-paying IT job.

Re:Who thinks of these ideas?

[Sam Ritchie]

I don't know how much Microsoft is paying...

Bill Gates is going to give everyone who participates a trip to Disneyland at his own expense.

Re:Who thinks of these ideas?

[QCompson]

who could ever think this was a good idea?

I know this is probably a tired response, but you can instantly make 98% of Americans think this is a good idea if you claim it (A) helps to fight the terrorists, and/or, (B) protects the innocent children from scary online predators.

Re:Who thinks of these ideas?

[RobertM1968]

There are a plethora of other methods to allow such functionality. Where I used to work, we had a nationwide network, and amazingly, all I had to do was log in to the nationwide network and voila! My home drive, preferences and all available!!! On XP and 2000 based clients!!! Wow!!! Amazing!!!! And that doesnt even cover the semi-thin network clients that did all the same as well...

So, in what way does MS now need to spy on and collect personal information about a user's viewing habits to determine who they are, where they live, and possibly tons of other even more sensitive information to enable a feature that already exists and works?

Explain that to me if you would...

Re:Who thinks of these ideas?

[BrokenHalo]

No thanks, I think I'll stick to the few seconds it takes to type in a password.

Exactly. And while we're at it, make sure we're not leaving persistent cookies lying around. Like symlinking cookies.txt to /dev/null for instance...

Re:Who thinks of these ideas?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thought of the moment: IIS server's respsonding with, "You are using an Apple Computer. Cancel or Allow?"

Of course, the Linux one would just have a 'Cancel' on it.

Re:Who thinks of these ideas?

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox + TorButton + TrackMeNot (sends a few random queries a minute to search engines, pollutes their results!)

Re:Who thinks of these ideas?

[fuego451]

Yo, dude! We just sold you on ebay.
~The Cats

Re:Who thinks of these ideas?

[aussie_a]

It's the fucking stupidest idea I've heard since Bill Gates started at Windows.

Re:Who thinks of these ideas?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this is probably a tired response, but you can instantly make 98% of Americans think this is a good idea if you claim it:

(A) helps to fight the terrorists, and/or,
(B) protects the innocent children from scary online predators. ..or (C) will get them a free chocolate bar.

Re:Who thinks of these ideas?

[Anonymous Coward]

*ROFL* Who marketed the first beige computer? I'm well aware that the GP is a troll, but I've often considered it fundamentally flawed. Given that it supposedly attacks PC->Mac converts and normally includes the phrase "switcheurs" in the subject line... isn't the Mac fanboys underage poster girl Ellen Feiss a "switcheur" too?

Re:Who thinks of these ideas?

[quux4]

Thought of the moment: IIS server's respsonding with, "You are using an Apple Computer. Cancel or Allow?"

Heh. You accuse Microsoft users of a trick that's already rampant amongst Microsoft haters. Try visiting John Simpson's page on resetting an AD password for instance (if you're using IE, you get a very snotty and longwinded rant instead of the url you specified). Or any of the thousands of web pages which detect IE and display a come-on for Firefox, or a link to the (now defunct?) stopie.com

Yet I can't say I've ever seen a site that says Hey, you're using Firefox, you should quit that and get IE! Hmm ...

Re:Who thinks of these ideas?

[rizole]

I imagine it is so that Microsoft can better protect you from yourself.

You don't want the ability to put yourself in a compromising position do you? Microsoft want to offer you Genuine Protection(tm).

Re:Who thinks of these ideas?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Windows was a trip to Disneyland at our own expense...

Re:Who thinks of these ideas?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Ooooh, ooooh! Does it come with chocolate and ice cream? If it does, I'm in!

Re:Who thinks of these ideas?

[Genrou]

And, if you're in the remaining 2%, people will look at you as if you were (A) a terrorist and/or (B) a scary online predator.

Re:Who thinks of these ideas?

[h2_plus_O]

who could ever think this was a good idea?

Anybody who wanted to sell targeted advertising, for one.
Anybody who wanted to sell your information to others, for another.

Yes, the ability to learn more about you than you knew you were disclosing can be used for good or evil, and can be intensely profitable, and it's already been done. Gmail was invitation-based, ingeniously, because it not only gives Google a lot of data to mine, it also provides meta-information on how people are related. Who are the connectors in your social network? Who's interested in gore-tex sporting goods or is on the mailing list of the Green party? Google knows.
Google is not even the most evil one in the information warehousing/mining game. You are profiled more than you think already- don't believe for a second that if you're applying for a big loan or are being scrutinized for a big-deal job that every bit of your legal, financial, and public personal history isn't already available for a price.

Microsoft is playing catch-up in the realm of exploiting personal meta-data for profit. ...and if it turns out to be even half as profitable as Google's data-mining from Gmail, it will have been (from their perspective at least) a very good idea. Even if it turns out to have negative ramifications (and it might) it won't matter that much to Microsoft if they don't bear those costs directly.

Re:Who thinks of these ideas?

[RobertM1968]

Mod parent funny!!!

Combining client side info with what server sees

[Palmyst]

Combining client side info with what server sees is the only way to do this, and that means the client has to send information to the server without the user being aware of it.
Good reason to stick to Firefox.

So does Slashdot's favorite:

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c3e49548-088e-11dc-b11e-00 0b5df10621.html

Of course, they will only use it for good.

Google already does it...

[dada21]

I have no doubt that Google (do no evil?) already does this. I have some friends who have been banned from the AdSense network because they clicked their own ads (big no-no), but not from their own network. Laptops from other networks in the same region (say, Chicago). Google's ads definitely send back SOMETHING to Google -- maybe screen resolution + browser version + operation system + who knows what. No one really knows what it shared (someone should trace the traffic), but Google knows more than they're sharing. Heck, their Google search tells you how many times you recently visited a searched site (I log in via gmail, though).

It isn't that hard, and it won't be that hard to deflect if you're privacy crazy. I'd say this is mostly un-news, because privacy geeks will work around it, and those who don't work around it will get some benefit from targetted ads, better compensated search opportunities, and who knows what else.

Re:Google already does it...

[zappepcs]

Yes, and they aren't the only ones that do or will. The problems, as will be pointed out are many due to the nature of HTTP. All I can think of is DAMN, this sure is another good reason to not buy, pirate, copy, or even borrow Windows Vista.... Perhaps this will help push more people toward a better OS?

Not trying to be a troll. It just struck me as this is another reason to just say no to MS.

Re:Google already does it...

[Organic Brain Damage]

http://www.google.com/analytics/

Google Analytics has been re-designed to help you learn even more about where your visitors come from and how they interact with your site.

Re:Google already does it...

[garcia]

Especially when you are using Google Analytics on the site! Someone searched *my* site for a strange keyword (misspelling of entertainment as intertainment) and within seconds Googlebot hit my site with the same search URL.

That made me realize just how fucked up Google's abilities are.

Re:Google already does it...

[ScentCone]

Well, if you want to know what Google's up to, just see what its two founders are currently talking about . They want to tell you the sort of job you'd be best suited to, and what they think you should do tomorrow. No sir, can't do THAT without Google. Point is, they're actually saying something far creepier than anything MS is saying, if you ask me.

Re:Google already does it...

[tajmorton]

Google Analytics has been re-designed to help you learn

And them too. Whenever you access a site that uses Analytics, Google now "knows" you've been there, how you got there, how often you go there... (and can link it to your google account through your google cookie).

Just saying...

Re:Google already does it...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Point is, they're actually saying something far creepier than anything MS is saying, if you ask me."

You must be new here.

Re:Google already does it...

[antic]

Their AdSense script gets all of those favourites (resolution, size, etc) plus things like number of links on the page, the title and so on. Poke around using some of the Firefox web-develop add-ons.

Re:Google already does it...

[lilfields]

I think you took hypothetical goals as real ones. Google doesn't want to tell you what you should do tomorrow, or what job you should get; they want to give you a broader spectrum of options which pertain to you. It's not like the book "The Giver" were they appoint you a job... If Google can give a set of options that are narrow, yet broad and can increase my income and level of happiness without manipulation, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Re:Google already does it...

[MadUndergrad]

When I'm browsing, NoScript tells me that tons and tons of sites have Google Analytics scripts on them. I keep all scripts blocked by default, so I sometimes have to enable one on a page. I don't have any statistics, but seems like more often than not there's GA script trying to run. Bastards.

That gives me an idea: if I were more savvy with scripting I'd write something to keep track for me how often what site tries to run scripts when I browse.

Re:Google already does it...

[ScentCone]

I think you took hypothetical goals as real ones.

The goals aren't the point. The fact that they feel comfortable even TALKING in those terms, because they will have that breadth and depth of data - that's the point. Whether those are real goals or just meant to illustrate a point doesn't matter - the point is that despite obviously knowing that many people will be creeped out, they are comfortable citing that much user tracking as a benefit, and as a key part of their business model. They're CROWING about it, about the very thing that's the creepiest about it - and of course, it's Microsoft that the local groupthink gets fired up about.

Re:Google already does it...

[MickDownUnder]

View source.... search for Urchin.... Every page on slashdot has a google analytics script that sends a cookie to Google uniquely people visiting the page (unless you have blocked it as I have done).

I'd say pretty much 90% of the web currently has Google javascript embedded in it. They know who you are, how often you surf the web, what pages you visit, how often you visit them etc etc etc.

The unbelieveable irony of people on Slashdot bitching about an imaginary technology that Microsoft doesn't have, whilst Google is collecting info about every person reading this article is quite incredible.

Re:Google already does it...

[afxgrin]

Dude, they enabled Web Search logging on my now deleted Gmail account without asking me. I had an account before they offered the Web Search logging, and found myself having every search term logged, and every link I clicked on logged as well. The only way I found out was by making a new account for a friend, when it asked me if I wanted to enable this "feature". That was such a weird weird day, as I had written an angry email to Google about this "feature" and even mentioned that maybe I missed the press release of this "feature". I was busy studying for exams that week and found later that day there was a news article about the web search logging only two days before my angry email, basically defending their decisions. The odd part though, was that no other website seemed to have indexed the article until the same day I wrote my angry email.

Eitherway, it just pisses me off knowing that they specifically tried to tie my search terms and results to my account. I basically gave up my online privacy a long time ago. Google could scan my emails, they had my day calendar, they had several articles I've written in the documents editor, they logged my chats between friends and family, they had my full name, phone number, and indexed/cached every single piece of crap I've written online, but that wasn't enough? But did they really need to log my search terms, clicked links with time stamps?!? It would have been nice if I at least had been made aware of this "feature".

No

[EmbeddedJanitor]

They can figure out whether you're sitting in a chair or jying in bed

Re:No

[pluther]

So you're saying they can see you when you're sleeping? And they know when you're awake??

Re:No

[veganboyjosh]

TFA said they'll be making a list. who knows if they'll be checking it twice or not.

Re:No

[Obsi]

They're gonna know who's naughty or nice. Armed MS guy coming to town!

Most geeks are random surfers, are we not?

[TheLazySci-FiAuthor]

I wonder how well this would work for someone like myself who frequently uses stumbleupon.com (or del.icio.us) to surf the net, or indeed anyone who tends to explore the net outside their own backyard.

To me this profiling technology seems like going through someone's garbage to find out what kind of person they are. Works great, unless they live in an RV or on a boat....I'm not sure that analogy works perfectly, but I think I'm going to start putting my trash in my neighbor's bin from here on.

Note: Stumbleupon is a firefox toolbar which will take you to a random site when you click the Stumble button.

Re:Most geeks are random surfers, are we not?

[Richard McBeef]

Works great, unless they live in an RV or on a boat....I'm not sure that analogy works perfectly

Your analogy works fine. I'm sure Microsoft can live with missing the 1% of the population who live in RVs or boats. That's the thing, as long as it works with a suitably large set of the population, you cease to matter.

Advertising?

[SmellsLike]

I wonder if they're trying to get all this information about the users to be able to identify what advertising to show them on those websites. If so google should be interested in stopping MS from doing this too.

It's suprising it hasn't been mentioned in the article. Its taking more of a privacy and anti-government stance. It looks to me like Microsoft are trying to take the lead in the advertising dollar in shifty ways also. As mentioned in the zdnet article too microsoft are already doing some of this through passport. The difference is that is opt-in whereas this is invisible to the vista user. While currently a download for XP, how long before it becomes part of the auto-updates?

Re:Advertising?

[normuser]

how long before it becomes part of the auto-updates?

What makes you think it hasn't already?

What about multiple users?

[MorpheousMarty]

If I share a computer with my family, won't their data get watered down? And when my friend comes over and checks his favorite web sites, the data will just get worse. I know MS could still find me 99%, I'm the guy who goes to /. and nytimes web site a dozen times a day, no chance there's another person with habits like that, but their database will be compromised by every user variable you can imagine. You have no privacy on the internet but you do have anonymity because your computer doesn't care who you are, just what kind of access you have.

Re:What about multiple users?

[geekoid]

THe idea is that through patterns it will know which user is on. Even if multiple people use the same machine.

Re:What about multiple users?

[MorpheousMarty]

How can they plan to do this though without any sort of verification? Even Google asks you to login so they can do this, and every time I let my sister use the computer my search results get swayed. They can come up with the perfect algorithm but they won't know when they are right or not, and I don't see how they can get around that.

Re:What about multiple users?

[geekoid]

MS owns the desktop and OS, so technical they can do what every they want without asking or telling you. Not that they would, but they certianly can.

Well, that's what make sit interestnig, maybe some smart person figured out how to do it?

The more I think of it the more possible it seems. Really all you needs is lots of data points. You generate those whenever you use the computer.
I bet if you looked at the use data point on your system, some real trends begin to show up.

In the case where people use the computer similiarly, then the results really only need to be 'good enough', not perfect.

Re:What about multiple users?

[cicho]

"Even Google asks you to login"

You assume they ask because they have to. That is not necessarily the case.

Re:What about multiple users?

[xdc]

If you and your sister log in to your favorite or most important websites, then those sites know at least some portion of your respective identities. Mix in a little collusion--er, cooperation/affiliation between said sites and their advertisers, and I would suspect that M$/Google could distinguish between the two of you, given enough information and clever, weaselly data mining.

Re:What about multiple users?

[MorpheousMarty]

It depends what they are trying to do. These data points won't have any context, it would be tricking to get it accurate over half the time. But it sounds like they want to make money by offering the most context sensitive advertising possible. Advertising to one exact person. And for that they only need to be 1% better than a placebo. So although they can do it, it's not a tin foil hat alarm. They are only going to be effective in telling you what kind of sunglasses to buy. They won't turn you into the RIAA, unless you are, you know, a ringleader for that kind of thing. Note: I don't think you have a tin foil hat, but the story is really only interesting if they plan to track us down with this info.

Re:What about multiple users?

[MorpheousMarty]

Why do they have to? Are they actually obligated to do no evil?

Re:What about multiple users?

[MorpheousMarty]

Then it is just about advertising. And it's ok with me if they tell me what kind of sunglasses to wear. Other than that advertising does bother me much.

Re:What about multiple users?

[timmarhy]

"MS owns the desktop and OS, so technical they can do what every they want without asking or telling you"

pfft no they don't. i paid for a license to use windows, i gave no such permission that ms may alter my desktop or gather data WITHOUT my permission.

Re:What about multiple users?

[Pofy]

>pfft no they don't. i paid for a license to use windows,

Great for you, personally I actually bought a copy. Even though it doesn't mean I hold any copyrights to it, the laws of my country allows me to use the copy without the need of any license, contract or permission at all (regardless of if I would actually own it or not, so borrowing it would be quite OK too for example). Of course, just like with you, I have similary not given any permissions to MS.

Re:What about multiple users?

[maxwell demon]

"MS owns the desktop and OS, so technical they can do what every they want without asking or telling you"

pfft no they don't. i paid for a license to use windows, i gave no such permission that ms may alter my desktop or gather data WITHOUT my permission.

(Emphasis added by me).

The license/permission is a legal issue, not a technical one. Your argument is like "I don't need a firewall, because breaking into computers is forbidden." There's a difference between what you can do (the technical side) and what you are allowed to do (the legal side). And on the technical side, usually it would be damn easy for MS to get the information without asking or telling you.

Problem with identifying by browser habits

[Brad1138]

We have found that 5% of Internet user are identifiable by there browsing habits, all the other 95% do is surf for porn making it hard to narrow down.

Re:Problem with identifying by browser habits

[Shados]

Well, they DID say it could semi-accurately identify genders. I think that would make it easy to identify within that 95%

Re:Problem with identifying by browser habits

[Tribbin]

OMG, you might be identified by your fetish!

no chance with read-only cookies

[dltaylor]

My cookies files and folders are read-only. Every time I shut down the browser (at least daily), all cookies are gone. Works great with cookies-required sites, since they're still enabled, but leaves no trail beyond the session. If there's a cookie that I REALLY wanted (so far, none), I could include it manually, while the browser is closed, and return the file/folder to read-write.

Re:no chance with read-only cookies

[Anonymous Coward]

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/249 7

Re:no chance with read-only cookies

[Tackhead]

> My cookies files and folders are read-only. Every time I shut down the browser (at least daily), all cookies are gone. Works great with cookies-required sites, since they're still enabled, but leaves no trail beyond the session.

And of course, there must be thousands of people in my ISP's /16 of the network, who, once a day, log onto Slashdot, hits Digg's homepage, checks stock quotes for MSFT, GOOG, AAPL, FOO, BAR, and BAZ (and only those six stocks, and always in that order), and then does some SSL with Quuxbank (and only Quuxbank), before going back to reading stories on Slashdot and Digg, predominantly in the "YRO" category.

What are these cookies of which you speak? Cookies only make tracking easier. NSA had to compromise the backbone routers to gain access to every user's clickstream. All Microsoft has to do is control the browser and embed the spyware in the OS... oh, wait.

Re:no chance with read-only cookies

[Jugalator]

Ugh... Typing in that Slashdot CAPTCHA every day just out of Slashdot admin paranoia... :-S

Re:no chance with read-only cookies

[Anonymous Coward]

Managing your cookies is a good idea, but it's not nearly sufficient to guarantee privacy or anonymity. For one thing, ad brokers like DoubleClick use web beacons (think of cookies on steroids) as well as cookies. Even ordinary ads are enough to track where you've gone over the course of one browsing session, and I wouldn't be surprised if they can capture your login handle to sites like this one through clever scripting... then they've got you covered over arbitrary numbers of sessions.

That's another reason why I prefer to be AC. Of course, even that isn't good enough for a really determined outfit... but why make it easy for all jerk firms out there (and Google is perhaps atop the list of scary firms because unlike Microsoft, they are filled with employees who believe in their company's mission).

Re:no chance with read-only cookies

[geekoid]

You assume those are the onlything it's writing for tracking.

They own the OS. it is very possible for them to write filees that there own files system is designed to ignore.

Not that they do, but alls you know is what the OS is designed to tell you, no more.

By 'you' I mean most people, there are tools that can report the exact data that has been transferred. TO be anygood, they ahve to NOT use any MS-APIs and mount the drive themselves.

re

[JohnVanVliet]

This is why i run Fedora 6 , and only use MS for the 3 games i like and the 1 in-painter program I use .It runs on the nvidia gpu and the cpu and is written in .net .

Since I use TOR

[Anonymous Coward]

They can pretty much only guess that I am a Norwegian transvestite. Not that I visit any transvestite websites or anything.

Hyperventilating overraction

[joe_bruin]

Don't worry, I'm sure this will be an opt-in feature. You won't need to enable it on your Windows machine (yes, there will be desktop component, why not), unless you want to upgrade to Vista SP1, or get IE8, or use Windows Update, Hotmail, or MSN messenger, or Word, or Outlook, or prevent WGA from deactivating your machine after a month.

Frankly, I'm surprised we haven't seen MS-TCP/IP yet (no, wait, marketing name "MS Live Connect"). A proprietary, "safe" networking protocol on top of the Internet as we know it that requires you to log-in and authenticate against their servers to use the Internet, uses their own DNS (by default, but you can change it if you're technically competent enough), and of course makes sure you're not doing anything that could interfere with MS DRM in any way.

Now it's your job, given the content and the topic of this post, to figure out if I'm being serious or sarcastic. Honestly, I am not sure which one it is.

Re:Hyperventilating overraction

[Anonymous Coward]

(yes, there will be desktop component, why not) Yes, there is, and it's pretty astonishing. CardSpace launches what appears to be a separate desktop session (I think it's done through some variant of Remote Desktop) where you select which card you wish to use to identify yourself, or at least confirm the use of the only relevant card (unless you choose to have that card used automatically.) Been testing this stuff. It's amusing when the CardSpace desktop jumps up and Norton AV decides you should have to authorize it to use the network; you're stuck unable to confirm one because the other took over your desktop.

This is supposed to amount to Single Sign-On for the end user. At least that's how it's billed. Ultimately it will be the advertisers that push it onto content providers; they want you identified.

Anyhow, there is a lot of work going on in standards bodies around identity federation and Single Sign-On. Look here and here.

Re:Hyperventilating overraction

[b0s0z0ku]

Frankly, I'm surprised we haven't seen MS-TCP/IP yet

If IPv6 becomes more popular and people route through Teredo servers owned by MS, this could actually be around 50% of what you're worried about. MS will be able to see a lot of the traffic between the IPv4 and IPv6 parts of the Internet. Scary.

-b.

Re:Hyperventilating overraction

[louarnkoz]

Actually, Teredo was specifically designed so that the Microsoft servers DO NOT SEE any of the data exchanged by the hosts. They only see the initial exchange of packets requested to set-up a tunnel through the NAT.

-- Louarnkoz

Re:Hyperventilating overraction

[quux4]

No, CardSpace is only peripherally related to SSO. It's more about providing the user with a single interface to allow him to manage the many, many identities he has, in a world where every 4th website wants you to create another login ... each with different criteria for username, password, and so on.

Re:Hyperventilating overraction

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's a rehash of the tired old Microsoft Passport but now improved to only be usable from within Microsoft Windows ?

Google

[scum-e-bag]

Surely Google is doing this already?

MS is dropping the ball.

Re:Google

[QuantumG]

MS is dropping the ball. No, they've jumped the shark.

Re:Google

[Shadowland]

> Surely Google is doing this already?

Probably.

> MS is dropping the ball.

No, Microsoft is copying Google. Again. :^)

I don't believe this

[Anonymous Coward]

They are unable to identify their next cash-cow, how can they even think to be able to identify users?

What's hilarious about this...

[Kuroji]

Is that instead of using the systems they probably already have, the government is starting to utilize private companies to do their dirty work for them. Another layer of deniability to everything, I suppose. I forget; was North America part of Oceania or did it partially belong to Eastasia?

Re:What's hilarious about this...

[kimvette]

Oceania includes the US and Great Britain.

Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

They also

[nurb432]

Want to identify all your data, your applications, your media files, the path you take to get to the office...

The Feds coming to Microsoft....HA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell do you think Redmond has been sponsoring Homeland Security conferences?

CardSpace protocol reverse engineered!

[t0qer]

ASL

Oh, please, this is reactionary

[roman_mir]

It looks like MS is now going to copy everything that Google does. You know, just to stay ahead of the herd.

Re:Oh, please, this is reactionary

[Tablizer]

It looks like MS is now going to copy everything that Google does. You know, just to stay ahead of the herd.

Hopefully somebody patented "using HTTP heuristics to identify users", and will hold it against MS. Stupid patents do have their upside.

Or not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft, you can have my identity when you pry it from my cold dead Anonymous hands.

Microsoft now an advertising firm

[sunderland56]

Gee, do you think this has anything to do with Microsoft acquiring Aquantive? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/18/162221 2 Better user tracking = more targeted ads = more ad revenue = more of a monopoly.

Re:Microsoft now an advertising firm

[maxume]

How does internet advertising revenue have anything to do with a software monopoly(and even, market share that regulators are not particularly comfortable with)?

Re:Microsoft now an advertising firm

[Zephiris]

And then, in a few years...Microsoft will buy Barnes and Noble to use with its growing database of marketing info. Some point, shortly thereafter, Tom Cruise will walk in and a smiling employee will appear on a jerky, 3D projector after scanning his eyes. "Hello, Mr. Cruise! Did you enjoy your purchase of 'You're So Damn Effing Glib!', and 'Normal People Are Filthy In The Eyes of Xenu'? We would love to provide you with new books. Might we recommend 'The Greatest Threat of Our Times: The Flying Spaghetti Monster' and 'Desperate Housewives: The Katie Holmes Escape Story'?".

Your corporate "tax" dollars at work. >:)

Re:Microsoft now an advertising firm

[QuietObserver]

What do you mean, Microsoft is now an advertising firm? Microsoft has never been anything but an advertising firm.

Marketing information of real value

[youthoftoday]

I for one welcome this technology if it's able to decide that I'm not going to be influenced by any advertising, I'm not going to take out another credit policy, buy penny shares or anything else. The day that a company decides that I'm not worth spending advertising dollars on (and leave me in peace) will be the day that I re-enable my cookies.

Coming lawsuits?

[Hemogoblin]

User-identifying technology... WGA...

This fortells mass-lawsuits of pirates, RIAA style.

all i know is

[circletimessquare]

with this story, that bill gates icon with the borg visor has never been more appropriate

"resistance is futile, you will be assimilated"

Re:all i know is

[BrandonReese]

Holy crap! Bill gates really is the anti-christ!

Almost like they're trying to out-do Google

[wyoung76]

Microsoft probably feel like they're losing all of their mindshare to Google. So, they come out with this identification technology to win back the hearts and minds of the anti-Google brigade. I'm so confused now....

Re:Almost like they're trying to out-do Google

[Anonymous Coward]

not hearts... but minds.

If I wanted to identify myself

[Anonymous Coward]

If I wanted to identify myself, I'd do myself, thank you very much!

- Anonymous Coward, and proud of it.

Re:If I wanted to identify myself

[BrokenHalo]

If I wanted to identify myself, I'd do myself, thank you very much!

Well, I would have modded this as insightful rather than funny, but never mind. Microsoft has absolutely no legitimate reason to identify users, so we can only assume the motive to be evil. Yet another good reason (as if we needed one) to run Linux or a Mac...

[sigh...]

Re:If I wanted to identify myself

[MoreDruid]

lookup of Anonymous Coward:
network statistics
IP address: 127.0.0.1
subnet mask: 255.0.0.0
hostname: linuxboxen
MAC address: BE:EF:BA:BE
gender: mostly male
location: parents' basement
surfing profile: looking for free pr0n

Re:If I wanted to identify myself

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Oh, come on. Everyone knows who you are. You must post more comments on Slashdot than anyone else in the world! There's so much data that identifying you will be easy.

Re:If I wanted to identify myself

[Anonymous Coward]

Dang! How'd you know?

Bill Gates and his fortune

[Jon Abbott]

Finally! I had been wondering how Bill Gates was going to share his fortune! This sounds like the technology that can make it happen!

Re:Bill Gates and his fortune

[lgalindo]

Finally! I had been wondering how Bill Gates was going to identify me for use linux ... and then sue me ...

random browsing bot

[eclectus]

it would take about 20 minutes to write a bot that would browse at random for you and render this useless. Sounds like a great way to look anonymous. Or really, really weird, depending on where your bot runs off to.....

Re:random browsing bot

[xdc]

...or easily identifiable as that person in your locality who is running a random browsing bot.

Re:random browsing bot

[mochan_s]

it would take about 20 minutes to write a bot that would browse at random for you and render this useless. Sounds like a great way to look anonymous. Or really, really weird, depending on where your bot runs off to.....

Except that the bot would generate random values while you would still generate values that identifies you. So, you'd have to balance how many visits the bot makes. Too much and your habits will see through as the bot visits turn into noise. Too little and your habits will dominate.

I think writing the bot isn't the whole process ... optimizing the parameters is also necessary.

And, of course, your bot would have to find sites randomly - which is quite hard to do.

Re:random browsing bot

[Anonymous Coward]

20 minutes? Depends on the implementation, but it'll either be very quick (on the order of 5 minutes) or take quite a while.

Presumably, you'd want to visit real sites, so you'd need to plug stuff into some kind of search engine, probably seeded from random entries in /usr/share/dict/words. You can use Google's I'm Feeling Lucky feature (and equivalents) to simplify this step. That's easy enough to do. But you might want to make your sessions look a bit more realistic, and do some random hyperlink following at random intervals. Threading is another good idea. Dealing with weird file types is a bit complicated (if there aren't any hyperlinks in a resource, there's no reason to download the resource in the first place). Figuring out a way to set a maximum bandwidth allotment for the program could be useful too. The trickiest part about this is setting up a good way to deal with cookies.

Re:random browsing bot

[glittalogik]

No need for it to be completely random, you could create multiple false profiles (e.g. "I am a 12y/o girl who likes horses, fashion design and emo bands with myspace pages") with random site visits consistent to those themes.

A fake family of 5 or 6 members, each with slight overlaps on your actual browsing habits, should do the trick nicely, even if it means a bit of wasted bandwidth. Dad likes Slashdot, Mum likes looking at travel sites and current affairs, little Susie thinks she might be a lesbian and is doing lots of research.

Re:random browsing bot

[Jorrit]

Is finding a random site that hard? Just use google 'I'm feeling lucky'. I'm sure that a good programmer can find a way to utilize the 'I'm feeling lucky' button on google to return a random site.

Greetings,

Re:random browsing bot

[stonertom]

Did you mean any of these?
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/102 6 (Outdated)
Or
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/317 3

Re:random browsing bot

[Jesus_666]

There's a Firefox extention mentioned in some post further up that randomly searches Google. The extension's project site mentions that newer versions of the extensions mine the search results for new terms to look for. That would be one way of generating pseudo-random sites.

Also, there's always StumbleUpon, which can be mined as well.

It's clled corporate feudalism

[cicho]

Under corporate feudalism, the corporation has rights by default. Can they do it? Check. Will it make money for them and the shareholders? Check. There are no other questions.

Re:It's clled corporate feudalism

[StikyPad]

"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan

"Don't kid yourself, Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about!" - Troy McClure

How this came about

[Tablizer]

Gates: "We need to distract people from the open-source stuff. We need to find a way to trigger the ultimate paranoia among Microsoft detractors; something that brings out their worse fears and draws their energies away from open source."

Executive: "How about using Windows to spy on people and keeping a huge database and not tell anybody what it's for."

Gates: "Brilliant!"

Re:How this came about

[QuantumG]

Actual conversation:

Executive: "Mr Gates, our plans against the Open Source community are progressing nicely! We're also making great new technology to turn the Microsoft userbase into a police state! Soon we'll be even richer than we already are!"

Gates: "Umm, yeah, you do that." [Goes back to swimming in a vault full of gold coins, Scrooge McDuck style.]

Re:How this came about

[jZnat]

No, he didn't say "Brilliant!", he said, "That's the dumbest fucking idea I've heard since I've been at Microsoft."

Re:How this came about

[Tablizer]

No, he didn't say "Brilliant!", he said, "That's the dumbest fucking idea I've heard since I've been at Microsoft."

He really said, "That's the dumbest fucking idea I've heard since MS-Bob."

Didn't Intel try this allready?

[Q-Hack!]

As I recall the ID number in the Intel chip was a complete bomb as far a sales went. Also didn't the Que-Cat also become a dismal failure?

Re:Didn't Intel try this allready?

[Phazon]

What about computers used by multiple people?

Q: Who thinks of these ideas? A: Google and MS

[AHumbleOpinion]

That's always my first question when I see an article like this; who could ever think this was a good idea? Obviously not someone who reads Slashdot. I don't know how much Microsoft is paying, but it must be alot if people are thinking that such a ridiculous idea makes sense.

This is precisely the sort of thing that Google is working on as well. It is all about targeted advertising, and Microsoft wants to be a provider of targeted advertising like Google. Q. Why did you think that Google offers you free email service? A. So they can build up their personal profile of you and provided better targeted advertising.

Re:Q: Who thinks of these ideas? A: Google and MS

[epee1221]

I'm far more comfortable with server-side monitoring than with client-side monitoring.

Re:Q: Who thinks of these ideas? A: Google and MS

[AHumbleOpinion]

I'm far more comfortable with server-side monitoring than with client-side monitoring.

Google does both server and client side.

Re:Q: Who thinks of these ideas? A: Google and MS

[MickDownUnder]

Aaaah working on it? .... They've already done it.

Just do a view source and search for urchin.

Everybody is using google analytics including slashdot.

Google already is tracking everybody through google anayltics and their search engine.

The irony of this attack on an imaginary Microsoft technology coming from Slashdot with Google analytics embedded in every page is really quite breath takingly MORONIC!

Re:Q: Who thinks of these ideas? A: Google and MS

[jp10558]

Oh, and those using proxomitron or the like can just disable/remove google analytics.

Why is this a bad thing? Not a troll!

[WombatDeath]

The following is a question I posted to another forum after reading this article. It's a genuine dilemma I've been pondering for a while now. I fully expect to get boiled alive for even asking the question, but any input will be appreciated.

-----

You may be aware that the UK leads the world with a billion CCTV cameras on every street corner. Various countries are pondering the adoption of mandatory ID cards. I've just been reading a Slashdot article about Microsoft's proposal to identify users from their browsing history. People have suggested a comprehensive crime-fighting fingerprint database.

I'm opposed to these things. The problem is that I'm having trouble explaining to myself why, precisely, it's a bad thing to have Big Brother watching me. And basing my opinion on a vague premonition of dread is pissing me off.

Whenever a measure such as those above is suggested, newspaper articles will invariably mention objections from civil liberties campaigners. I like civil liberties and am inclined to instinctively agree with those who campaign for them. But comments like "If you're not doing anything wrong, why do you care?" are simultaneously smug, irritating and difficult to torpedo convincingly. Three arguments spring to mind:

1) The government shouldn't know any more about you than it absolutely needs to. I agree with that. The problem is that it seems reasonable to assume that an extreme surveillance society which logs the activity of you, your car, your browsing, your shopping, your library borrowing, your finances and everything else would have an easier time of it in identifying criminals. Does that constitute a reasonable need, and why or why not? This argument is rather abstract and arbitrary for my comfort.

2) Unscrupulous government officials could abuse the information. Hard to argue with that one, and no doubt abuses would occur, but it seems paranoid to reject the whole deal on those grounds given the cost/benefit ratio.

3) It wouldn't work properly, would be insecure, and would be a colossal waste of money. I agree, given the UK's track record in large IT projects, but that's an implementation problem rather than a philosophical objection.

Can anyone give me any other specific, compelling argument against the surveillance society which doesn't rely on an axiom that it's an inherently bad thing? Because this is annoying the hell out of me.

Re:Why is this a bad thing? Not a troll!

[surrealestate]

Here's an example: The 1930 US Census asked citizens to provide information about their ethnicity, information which of course could be used to better target governement services, but outside the original constitutional scope of the Census to determine how many voters were in each Congressional district for purposes of reapportionment. This seemingly innocuous information, however, was not so harmless once WWII kicked in, as it was used to identify American-born citizens of Japanese (and to a lesser extent, German) descent for internment camps. No matter how harmless the information, a Government agency acting in bad faith and ignoring the Constitution can use it for harmful purposes. Since our Government consists of the same sort of people it's watching, if all people are good, they don't need this personal information; if some segment of people are rotten, the government shouldn't have it, because they too will have a percentage of rotten people who will misuse it. The privacy implicit in the original Constitution is there for a reason, because even the most innocent information can be either misinterpreted or misused.

Re:Why is this a bad thing? Not a troll!

[azenpunk]

if you're not doing anything wrong, why do they need to watch you constantly?

a criminal code of law is there to settle issues when something is wrong. if two grown men get in a fight and are both willing participants, is that battery? it is illegal in many jurisdictions, but they are both consenting adults, know the risks involved and well, probably just wont call the authorities on each other, no ones arrested an illegal act goes unnoticed and everything is A-OK.

now if everyone was monitored 24/7 both men get arrested for this. the lose the liberty to choose to fight each other consensually. the definition of what makes one a criminal slips just a little, and now since they can monitor everyone they can now arrest all the "new" criminals, and they can do this each time the definition slips a little more.

for constant monitoring of *all* activities of all citizens to contribute to a free and productive society there would have to be explicit lists of all the things that are OK to do, but if the explicit list is of what's OK that implies that this is the shorter list and that is not a good thing.

imagine a society where everyone is afraid to go and do anything besides go to work and come back home, everyone is a neat little cog in the great economic machine and everything runs smoothly. except that a society is not only its economy and we as citizens do not exist to support our economy. instead the economy exists so we can afford to do the things that we want to do in our lives, even if it's not on a pre-approved list.

the rights of the people should be more important than the rights of the companies or the power of the government.

Re:Why is this a bad thing? Not a troll!

[Anonymous Coward]

On the very remotest chance you're seriously stumped, in which case it's unlikely that any statements here will undo the lobotomy you've suffered, here goes...

1) Begin by choosing whether you believe the govt competent to manage/analyze this amount of data. If you were optimistic, then answer who will be left to hold the keys to the jail when everyone is imprisoned. If you weren't optimistic, then you have a solid answer why this should be fought (if necessary, with guns, pitchforks, and molotovs). Perhaps you might trust your neighbors more than some anon G-man? Imagine their response when you do something they disagree with (mow your lawn too early Sunday morning, are visited by that old college friend from a Middle-Eastern country, etc).

2) 'seems paranoid to reject the whole deal'? WTF! The entire US Justice system _used_ to be based on the idea of erring on the side of innocence. But, maybe you're right. It's little different from executing an innocent person. The needs of the many, I'm sure you'll quote that as you throw yourself into the volcano. I'll be strong and not shed a tear for you.

3) Ah, so we should overlook implementation problems? Fine, let me solve global warming by rocketting us all to another planet.

Forgive me if I'm not being very sensitive to your claimed quandry. I'm recently back from a year in a certain Middle-Eastern country, where mortars and other-things-that-go-boom are the norm, supposedly to spread democracy. I have little patience for people who don't recognize the rights being given away, in the name of security. Maybe you'll understand when your friends have died in an illegal war, that never intended to make anyone freer.

ghost of a patriot

Re:Why is this a bad thing? Not a troll!

[himurabattousai]

Personally, I think it's quite telling that you can't debate this topic without resorting to old, cliched arguments against this kind of behavior--not because you're lacking in the intelligence department, but because it's just that difficult to argue against the whole "National Security/Think of the Children" crowd that constantly asks for more and more, when it can only provide less and less. Every time a story like this comes up, I see countless quotes along the lines of "Those who trade freedom for security...." and "The more you tighten your grasp...." If that is the best that we, as people who value freedom, can come up with, we've already lost. Fear (or greed) is a hard motivator to counter because it takes something that everyone has and turns it against them. Using cliches to fight against fear is like trying to cut concrete with a butter knife; neither will be successful, ever.

Having said all that, I put this out there:

The three arguments you've stated are the most often used, but they are entirely correct. I think the best way to look at why all this surveillance is bad is quite simple. Our elected government officials are supposed to be public servants, and it is we, as citizens, who are supposed to be the masters. Their jobs and salaries are drawn directly from the people for whom they are supposed to work. Corporations are much the same--their jobs and salaries are supposed to be dependent on actually satisfying the needs of their customers. We submit ourselves to governments and corporations because we can not do everything that a proper, free society needs to have to survive. Not everyone can farm, build cars, or use language (or violence, if necessary) to promote his needs and defend his rights.

This surveillance society that Western Civilization is moving towards has it backwards. Instead of remembering that they are granted the privilege of working for us, corporations like Microsoft and the government view it as their birthright to have perpetual power over the very people who allowed them to exist in the first place. They see us as resources to be exploited, much the same attitude as was held by slave owners back before the civil war. They are all hypocrites, pretending to be acting in the best interests of their customers while really undermining everything they say they stand for. To them, all that matters is power--political, military, or financial. They wish to rule over us when they really should only operate with our permission. Somewhere along the line, we forgot that, and we're too afraid to go back and reclaim what belongs to us.

Re:Why is this a bad thing? Not a troll!

[NewsWatcher]

You may be aware that the UK leads the world with a billion CCTV cameras on every street corner.

Wow, that is a lot of cameras on every corner.

On a more serious note, you ask what the problem is, consider this. Imagine a man has just been released from prison after murdering someone. A CCTV camera takes a snap of him walking down the street in the vicinity of another killing, the night he is released from prison. Is this man going to be treated the same as anyone else who walked down the street?

I bet anything you like that police will target him like bees to honey. He will be harassed, cajoled, and made to prove his innocence.

CCTV has some good uses, and by and large they don't bother me, but I worry about images from them being taken out of context. Just to hedge my bets entirely though, when I was in London I felt safer because of the cameras.

Re:Why is this a bad thing? Not a troll!

[TechnicalFool]

..and the last time I got battered by a bunch of assholes who wouldn't dare take me on one-to-one, the cameras were absolutely useless in spotting it. They didn't exactly stop a bunch of people blowing trains up either. We have 20% of the world's CCTV cameras in the UK, and some of the highest violent crime rates as well. I think the more you treat people like criminals (by trying to turn the country into one gigantic panopticon for one), the more they act like criminals.

Re:Why is this a bad thing? Not a troll!

[cdrguru]

The problem is that people want more and more from the government. They want handouts, they want equality in those handouts and other special favors and they want to make sure that their neighbors aren't getting more than they are.

So, first off the government has to implement all sorts of tracking on what they are giving to whom. Lots of audits show up how bad individual departments are at tracking this information, so you create one big department (GAO in the US) to do all the tracking and auditing.

Next, you want both multiculturalism and equality in payments. This means the government has to know if you are black, white or green and where your parents came from so they can properly report on how multicultural they are being. Combine this with the auditing requirement above and you now have all of this tracking going on.

Then you start finding out that some people are getting more than others and this is a big problem. Enter more auditing, more tracking and more information gathered about each person and their history.

So how do you figure the government doesn't need all this information? If you want handouts and you want your neighbors to know they aren't getting less than you are, they need this and they need to share it with everyone.

Re:Why is this a bad thing? Not a troll!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not in favor of those camps either, but how would you respond to the argument that (recently) naturalized Japanese during WWII would not feel some sort of loyalty towards their old home country and plot/execute attacks against the American war industry (factories, infrastructure) or simply gather intelligence and perform covert operations? Would it be worth to risk losing soldiers, battles or possibly even the pacific war?

Re:Why is this a bad thing? Not a troll!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

how would you respond to the argument that (recently) naturalized Japanese during WWII would not feel some sort of loyalty towards their old home country and plot/execute attacks against the American war industry (factories, infrastructure) or simply gather intelligence and perform covert operations? Perhaps I would respond that if they are recently naturalized they must be so for a reason. The vast majority because they prefer the US to their home country? We are a nation of immigrants seeking opportunity and freedom, why would the issei be any different from recent german or italian immigrants? Surely there must be a more efficient method to narrow down the group of people who might pose a danger than to lock up each and every one of them and confiscate(steal) their property?

Would it be worth to risk losing soldiers, battles or possibly even the pacific war? Do these soldiers not fight for American principles - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Is winning a battle worth losing the war?

Re:Why is this a bad thing? Not a troll!

[badzilla]

I think it is quite simple. The multiple surveillance elements collectively give "someone" a large amount of power to affect my life. I do not in return have an ability to defend against use of this power or similarly to affect their lives in a comparative way. I am not really sure who that "someone" actually is but the best label I have is "the government." So I have to ask myself do I completely trust this someone, this government, both now and in all possible futures? Based on past experience the answer is unfortunately "no."

That is why the vague feeling of unease arises, because it forces an explicit admission of a lack of trust that everyone knows but finds shameful and disloyal to say out loud.

Re:Why is this a bad thing? Not a troll!

[jrumney]

These people were in America with access to American news sources. Most of the control the Japanese military had over the general population's opinion of the war effort stemmed from their control of the media. Japanese Americans would have heard about the atrocities in Manchuria and the expansion by force of the Japanese empire throughout Asia. They may not have been in complete support of the American side of the war if they saw through the American propaganda and realised that they were getting very biased reports themselves, but they probably wouldn't have violently opposed it either.

Re:Why is this a bad thing? Not a troll!

[stygianguest]

A similar more gruesome example: before WWII the dutch cencus documented citizens' religions. These documents helped the Nazis to find almost every Jew in a fairly short amount of time.

While it might sound unlikely Britain you will be invaded anytime soon. You should realize that knowledge is power and be carefull who you entrust it with. This goverment might be trustworthy, but what about the next one and the one after?

Re:Why is this a bad thing? Not a troll!

[fendragon]

Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Your "unscrupulous government officials" now could become the whole government in the future, taking improper advantage of such a system once in place.

Re:Why is this a bad thing? Not a troll!

[DrVomact]

You may be aware that the UK leads the world with a billion CCTV cameras on every street corner.

Here's something I've been wanting to find out for a while: is there any evidence that such omnipresent surveillance deters crime or helps capture criminals? Surely there are statistics about this. If the cameras turn out to be enormously useful in this capacity, then at least a case can be made that surveillance of public places is a good thing. If not...then I wonder why the cameras are still there. Isn't it the (British) government's responsibility to justify its surveillance practices? Have they done so?

Where does it end?

[bignetbuy]

MSFT is just amazing at the depths they will troll to invade a user's privacy. This article only highlights how deep MSFT has their hand up the proverbial *** of the end-user. Data-mining a user's browsing cache? Are you serious? If they can read from the browser cache, what ELSE can they do? And how far will they go? If Joe User has been surfing pr0n sites and accidently comes across something he should see, will MSFT know about it? Will they inform the authorities?

With Microsoft's recent advertising acquisition, will they use this technology to data-mine and serve up targeted advertisements? If they know Joe User is browsing car sites, will they serve up GM ads because GM is an MSFT partner? Will those ads overlay or replace existing ads from other companies? Don't believe it can't happen. We just had a link a day or so ago about spyware doing it.

I cringe everytime I see a computer running an MSFT operating system now. Seriously.

This almost sounds like a dying man gasping for air. Sales from Vista (despite tainted projections) aren't nearly as high as expected. Widespread adoption isn't happening (companies and Federal agencies are shunning Vista for now). MSFT has had to turn up the screws on piracy to recoup lost dollars. Cue the OSS FUD about patent infringement that allows MSFT to squeeze Fortune 100 companies for cash. Now this -- MSFT's attempt to be the identity manager of the Internet.

Not on my computers on my networks. Not now. Not ever.

Hey Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Microsoft,
I've deactivated JavaScript, Java, Flash and every other plugin / scripting via NoScript
also I've forbidden cookies
and I'm behind the TOR network
on a Linux machine

TRY AND FIND ME!!!
oh and while I'm safe... FUCK YOU, MICROSOFT!!!

Re:Hey Microsoft

[Lithdren]

Oh please, Harold, get out of your mothers basement already!

Kids these days!

Re:Hey Microsoft

[Ash-Fox]

I thought you couldn't post on Slashdot using TOR?

My profile?

[javacowboy]

So how will they identify me? By my work surfing profile, or my home surfing profile?

Yes, I surf at work, both to take a break, and to keep abreast of developments in I.T., specifically, the Java world.

At home, I'll probably surf the BBC, Slashdot, Apple sites, and my blog.

So which "me" does Microsoft hope to profile? Combine that with the fact that I use a Mac at home, and that my surfing habits will change when I change jobs.

Still, methinks this is the quid pro quo for Microsoft's deal with the Bushies to gets itself out of an enforced monopoly breakup....

Re:My profile?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your profile?

You are a British male and a liberal geek whose job is a programmer, most likely in Java language, and you change your jobs often. You use a Mac and obviously have a strong dislike of Microsoft. You are a heavy coffee drinker who happens to like artsy stuff. You are a strong supporter of multiculturalism and you hate George Bush though you are not exactly anti-American. Despite having a blog, you don't pay much attention to your hobby.

How close am I?

Re:My profile?

[javacowboy]

How close am I?

Weak are you in the Force, young Padawan. Microsoft profiling software, use you must. :D

Re:My profile?

[Anonymous Coward]

It must have been the Jedi mind trick playing shenanigans with my readings.
I suppose I still have a lot to learn of the Dark Side of the Force. But at least you were afraid and angry, yes?

Re:My profile?

[lawpoop]

I don't think it matters that the surveillance system sees two 'you's. At work, you're Joe Java Developer, and the ads are targeted towards him. At home, you're Antoine Apple User, and the ads are targeted to him. But wait -- what's that, you say! Joe Java and Antoine Apple are the same man!? You don't say!

It doesn't help the targeted ads to try to much your profiles together. At work you get java ads, and at home you get ads for thinkgeek.com.

Re:My profile?

[Anonymous Coward]

Psst, you forgot he's a cowboy.

All ITers know that any data on a computer cant

[unity100]

be trusted.

the reason is simple - if it is created through usage of bits and bytes, and everything is in any digital environment, it can be modified, changed, and faked.

nothing on the internet can be trusted to identify a person. nothing.

Re:Combining client side info with what server see

[SpaceLifeForm]

Firefox is all good and well, but you need to
be on a non-Microsoft client. Otherwise, the
Microsoft software under the browser still has
access to all of the data anyway.

Perhaps it is already doing what the article describes.

STUPID

[kentsin]

Even it works perfectly.

When issues come up, people will change their behavior.

People will by pass this easily.

So....

[sharkey]

Have they identified the goatse guy yet?

Re:So....

[Anonymous Coward]

They haven't indentified him yet, but they did say he's an asshole.

Re:Combining client side info with what server see

[bignetbuy]

Exactly. And because they are dealing with a closed-source solution, there is no direct way of knowing. What's to say an ActiveX component isn't briefing scanning a user's browser cache and reporting that information to an MSFT server. Without a sniffer between the box and the 'net, most people wouldn't be the wiser.

MS arrive late to the party yet again

[The13thMonkey]

My browsing habits will be as useful to Microsoft as they are to Google - not very useful at all as I don't leave a trail of cookies/cache/passwords behind when I'm done and even if I did I don't see their targetted ads anyway. And it's not as if changing your IP for those 'special moments' is rocket science. Everyday there's a new story in the newspapers about some guy who's had his identity stole online, so even your average Windows user is becoming less likely to save any type of personal information on a PC and is generally more educated about using the tubes. Microsoft are desperately trying to catch up with Google with web ads, but that ship has already sailed. Yaaar! Next thing you know MS will be buying an online ad company...

Re:Combining client side info with what server see

[techno-vampire]

This is why you use Firefox, to disable ActiveX. You also use a better firewall than that provided with XP; one that warns you when a program wants to "call home" and allows you to decide if you're going to let it.

And they want Ice in Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news the guys in Hell want to have some Ice

does this has to do with "clickprints on the web"?

[freaker_TuC]

I wonder if they are using this study "Clickprints on the Web: Are there signatures in Web browsing data?" ; which explains in detail how a user can be tracked by user interaction. Nice thing to read, for sure if you know you could also "be" the parameter (invalidating such methods completely) in such ways of tracking.

Google is already doing this.

[FFFish]

heck, didn't we have a patent article about it a week or two ago?

This is part of the same

[n6kuy]

... project that Microsoft started years ago to track email.

Don't worry about it. They'll pay $5 for every site they track you as visiting.

Spyware

[Trogre]

So how is this different from any other spyware? Let SpyBot do its job and kill these cookies before they can do any damage.

Did i miss something?

[pjr.cc]

First, theres an article on slashdot yesterday about spyware that has been "approved" by truste and now vista comes with embedded spyware to tell MS (who are trying to break into advertising) where i am, what im looking at and what my name is?

The thing that worries me about all this is the rather lack-lustre response you'd expect from the general slashdot community about breaches of privacy, etc. Have the aliens invaded?

im scared... they only come out at night, mostly...

Seriously though for everything that sucks about vista atm (performance, etc), knowing it had embedded spyware (or what exactly is a "special cookie program"?) would stop me moving to it.

Re:Umm Counter-Measures?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I read through the stuff, so now what? They're gonna do it cause it's profitable. What are we/you gonna do about it?

How about counter-measures and solutions? How about those anonymizing proxy services? Firefox extensions: Ad Block, CookieSafe, Flashblock, NoScript... I suppose if I wasn't so lazy I'd hot link all of those. There's also a google scraper that will give you google search results without directly using google. I'm thinking maybe there should be more encrypted tunneling proxy services which let you route through different proxies on different parts of the world like TriLightZone. Now I heard e-gold is having some trouble, some people like Cotse mentioning it's been difficult to cash back out and find an exchange. But where I'm going is a reputable online cash service so that the transaction can't be traced back to you/your CC/Paypal accounts... in order to completely separate direct ties between you and your bank acct and your anonymizing service.

Cringely Talked about this

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.primidi.com/2002/07/08.html

" This week, Microsoft announced Palladium through an exclusive story in Newsweek written by Steven Levy, who ought to have known better. Palladium is the code name for a Microsoft project to make all Internet communication safer by essentially pasting a digital certificate on every application, message, byte, and machine on the Net, then encrypting the data EVEN INSIDE YOUR COMPUTER PROCESSOR. Palladium compatible hardware (presumably chipsets and motherboards) will come from both AMD and Intel, and the software will, of course, come from Microsoft. That software is what I had dubbed TCP/MS.

        The point of all this is simple. It may actually make the Internet somewhat safer. But the real purpose of this stuff, I fear, is to take technology owned by nobody (TCP/IP) and replace it with technology owned by Redmond. That's taking the Internet and turning it into MSN. Oh, and we'll all have to buy new computers."

Re:Cringely Talked about this

[Anonymous Coward]

Primidi, that shit blog? Bad Roland, NO! We do not spam Slashdot with your blog.

Re:Combining client side info with what server see

[xdc]

I like and use Firefox, but it seems awfully chummy with Google for my taste. I don't think it's the default, but Firefox 2.0 allows you to check with Google whether each site you visit is a "suspected forgery." Probably a sizable percentage of Firefox users takes Google up on its offer.

You Will Be Assimilated, Resistance is Futile

[Enrique1218]

Man, the slashdot icon for Microsoft gets modded +1 insightful. I shall be henceforth known as 100 Of 255 of subjunction 83 of unimatrix 72 in quadrant 9. Must, the individual identity suffer more to the corporate bottom line. I, for one, don't really welcome our new corporate overlords. Read the sig for further enlightenment.

Re:It's called corporate feudalism

[Thomas the Doubter]

Yes, but they are idiots. For instance, my wife, my kids, and I all use the same machine. Must make for a very interesting viewer profile. And of course there is always Firefox...

Yet another reason

[pete.com]

To own a Mac

Re:Yet another reason

[Ash-Fox]

Because owning a Mac makes it easier to identify who you are, since there are much less Mac users to determine whos who using their browsing information.

In case anyone asks

[Orion Blastar]

my real name is Shackelford, Rusty Shackelford. I happen to share the same name and have the same web browsing habits of over 15 million other people like reading Slashdot.

I doubt Microsoft can figure out my real name, if I keep entering bogus online profiles like Rusty Shackelford and I happen to visit the same technology news sites as 15 million other people.

On the Internet nobody knows if you really are a dog.

Big Brother Bill is watching you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when personal computers used to be PERSONAL!??!?

Need any more reasons to drop Windows?

How would Microsoft collect this information?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused how Microsoft might plan to collect this information?

I can imagine using ad network to plant cookies and track IP addresses as I'm sure is already done, but many browsers (although not Firefox by default any longer to the best of my knowledge) block third party cookies, and IP addresses can change or be the front ends to NAT networks so they don't uniquely identify visitors, and definitely don't generally do so over spans of weeks or months. I'm not sure conventional ad networks are adequate alone.

TFA mentions the web page cache from the local computer or data from proxy servers, but those data aren't going to beam themselves to Microsoft. Something has to do the beaming for them. Does Microsoft have some plan, as the parent suggests, to install software on our computers to beam this information back to MS or control huge numbers of proxy servers? How would this work??

TFA also mentions some new kind of "cookie program." Regular cookies are probably inadequate since many people clean them out frequently. Flash local shared objects last longer since most people still don't know about them, but they're not exactly new. So what could MS be referring to? Maybe Silverlight could do it, but I'm not sure that would endear people to the technology. Maybe some funky IE proprietary Javascript that beams back private information about your computer, or some other plugin?

This seems likely to work for MS Windows users, but I don't use Windows, certainly don't trust Microsoft enough to install Silverlight, have disabled Flash local shared objects, don't generally allow Flash and other plugins to run, don't use a proxy (let alone one controlled by MS), and browse with JavaScript disabled. Does Microsoft think they'll be able to identify me, and if so, how?

Are they going to try to make deals with big ISPs or backbone providers to glean this data directly off the wire? (Maybe the NSA would be kind enough to share. I mean, there's no sense in duplicating all that effort...)

It's scary that a company like Microsoft would be so nonchalant about collecting this sort of information; it could reflect Microsoft's arrogance and yet unbridled Monopoly power. Or maybe Microsoft just believes it can get away with anything thanks to the success of Windows Genuine Advantage. To see what I mean, substitute "Microsoft" in this story with "Zango."

They dont want your name!

[trimCoder]

I think it is important to note that Google and Microsoft have no real interest in your name and any data that indicates exactly who you are. They are interested information that will allow them to better serve marketing material and improve their products, not so they can steal your identity or hack your bank account. I am happy for Microsoft and Google to do this as in the long run it will vastly improve their services.

I will be able to search on google and know that the results I get are more and more revelant the more I use it. I will click the occasional ad that interests me as I know that the system will learn and start to show more ads that are of interest to me.

The Ugly Truth About Online Anonymity

[irishkev]

This essay takes the paranoia all the way, but, as it turns out, maybe not far enough...

The Ugly Truth About Online Anonymity

http://cryptogon.com/?p=624

All of the stuff that you do with your "normal" online persona, you know, online banking, checking email, discussion groups, etc: You can't do any of that. The second you associate a user profile on a server with your behavior, you're back to square one. The Matrix has you. You would have to create what the intelligence business calls a "legend" for your new anonymous online life. You may only access this persona using these extreme communications security protocols. Obviously, you can't create an agent X persona via your anonymous connection and then log into some site using that profile on your home cable modem connection. To borrow another bit of jargon from the people who do this for real, full time, you must practice "compartmentalization."

Quick Question

[Psx29]

What's the difference between this and microsoft passport?

Re:Quick Question

[Ash-Fox]

What's the difference between this and microsoft passport?

Microsoft Passport identifies you with .net passport login credentials.

Re:Quick Question

[IL-CSIXTY4]

I can't speak on the figure-out-who-you-are-by-your-browsing-habits bit, but Cardspace was specifically designed to *not* be Passport 2.0. Kim Cameron is one of the big names in the identity community, and his Laws of Identity are considered the standard by which identity solutions are judged. Microsoft bought the identity startup (Zoomit) where he was working and once they realized who they had on their hands, gave him the title Architect of Identity.

With Passport, users were expected to trust Microsoft with their personal information, including their credit card numbers. The data would be stored on Microsoft's servers, and customers weren't willing to trust Microsoft with that data given all the privacy & security problems going on with Hotmail at the time.

Cardspace stores your data on your machine, in a tightly-controlled section of Windows. The UI runs in a separate desktop overlaid on top of your current one, and there is a limited API for getting access to the data in the "vault". If you give one of your cards to a site, the UI tells you what information they're requesting and lets you decide which required and optional fields to send.

It's a major step forward in user-centric identity.

BTW, Kim Cameron has a blog at http://www.identityblog.com/

Re:Combining client side info with what server see

[couchslug]

"This is why you use Firefox" with the trackmenot extension:

http://mrl.nyu.edu/~dhowe/trackmenot/

Feeding the troll, but oh well...

[Trumpet of Doom]

If you don't know what Cmd-Shift-1 and Cmd-Shift-2 are for... So, since you obviously know, what are they for? I've been looking around, but all I can find is stuff about floppy disk ejection. If you've been around long enough to do that, you should be dispensing advice, not hatred, and if you still actually eject floppies from a built-in drive on an Apple computer, please do yourself and the rest of us a favor and buy a new Mac. If whatever you're using works for you, great, but recognize that you're in the minority and that the people you seem to be directing your anger at have newer Macs.

If you think Firefox is a decent Mac application... Define "decent". Does it perform its intended function (i.e., surfing the Internet)? Yes. Does it do so with an appearance that matches the rest of Aqua? No. Does it usually load pages at acceptable speeds? Well, there you have to define "acceptable", and even then, I still wouldn't be able to tell you the answer, as I use Camino much more than Firefox and don't do much with Firefox.

If you're still looking for the "maximize" button... This may come as a shock to you, but...

When people are helped along, they tend to become productive much faster than when they're ridiculed and scorned. In this case, the help given to them may help them to become "real Mac users" much more quickly. If you simply explain that there is no such thing as a maximize button, they will probably listen, especially if you provide them with another way to achieve the desired result.

If the name "Clarus" means nothing to you... "Clarus" (sic) hasn't done anything under that name since 1998, when they renamed to become FileMaker Inc. ClarisWorks was returned to Apple as AppleWorks, and the last product with Claris branding was discontinued in 2001. (Trust me, I looked.) If you still call it Claris, then buy new software.

It's people like you that contribute to the myth that all Mac users are elitist bastards. I don't know the name of the law that states something along the lines of "the smaller the minority, the more noise it makes", but I'm sure there's one like that, and it's relevant here. (If there isn't, there should be.) I'm a Mac user, and you are (AFAIK) in a very small minority. Unfortunately, since you and the rest of your cohorts prefer to post AC, we'll never know just how many of you there are. A shame, too... I'd like to know just how many people actually post this type of thing.

Re:Feeding the troll, but oh well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Alright you seem like a helpful/reasonable person, and I'm not sure if you know these acronyms, but I'll list them and define them.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
You have been trolled. You have lost. Have a nice day.

Posts like the GP's don't even deserve a response, your time is much better spent responding to constructive arguments, etc.

Have a nice day :)

Hello Mountain View (or maybe Redmond)

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who attempts to put a positive spin on this abominable practice HAS to have a vested interest in it. It's a bunch of $h!# that Google or Microsoft isn't interested in knowing you by name. After all, isn't there money to be had by selling your profile to snail-mailers so they can also "target" you?

Personally, I hit the "Clear Private Data" button on the Firefox "Tools" menu every couple of minutes, and urge others to do the same.

Microsoft vs 180Solutions

[Anonymous Coward]

Like I posted in response to an earlier comment, to get an idea what this means try substituting "180Solutions" in place of "Microsoft" and see how the story reads.

It's rather stunning actually.

Libertarianism vs. Fascism

[bill_mcgonigle]

I'm getting really tired of seeing dada21's wannabe-libertarian garbage on Slashdot. Take your bullshit somewhere else, or keep it in one of your sleazy blogs.

I'll take one of dada21's rants about gold any day over your repressive fascist belligerence.

Hint: put him on your foes list and score down your foes in the preferences. That's what it's there for, so you can be happy without advocating oppression to satiate your minority opinions.

From a long time Mac user....

[Anonymous Coward]

Clarus != Claris
Claris is the office software. Clarus is the dogcow.

Re:From a long time Mac user....

[SCPRedMage]

And yet, not only did he spell it right in the rest of the paragraph, he got the Wikipedia link right.

It was a typo.

Re:From a long time Mac user....

[Carthag]

Clarus was mentioned by the AC that Trumpet of Doom replied to. It's hard to say if the AC meant Claris or Clarus, but eh who cares.

Re:From a long time Mac user....

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think "Clarus" is a misspelling of Claris, you really, REALLY need to GET. THE. FUCK. OUT. RIGHT. NOW.

Anti-Microsoft diatribe

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not surprised to see Cardspace and Kim Cameron trashed on Slashdot by someone who hasn't RTFA so to speak about the guy and the technology. I recently saw Cameron speak at CFP 2007. I'm a 14 year long GNU/Linux devotee and I was pretty skeptical. As a software engineer who works in security and is concerned with his privacy, Cardspace seems like a reasonable solution compared to the competitors. Nobody adopted passport because Microsoft was MITM. CardSpace puts you in control of your identit(ies).

So basically this post is trashing a guy who went to Microsoft, saw the Passport debacle, is concerned with privacy and is probably the only guy at Microsoft with a paid interest in bridging between all platforms to solve the identity (and anonymitiy) problems on the net. Good work.

Sure, Microsoft is a big evil monolith but sometimes it's got bright, friendly guys doing good work too. (You can't believe how amazed I am that I'm saying that.)

I'm impressed that he got modded a troll.

Re:Anti-Microsoft diatribe

[Moochman]

Based on Cameron's comments in the article, it seems he has always felt that a centralized Passport-like system is the ideal, but now he's realized it will never reach 100% coverage so he's settled for trying to control the technology behind the system, even if the data itself won't be stored on central servers. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure this guy has thought a lot about how to make online identification a simpler and more secure process, but his line of thinking is just a bit too totalitarian for my taste.

From my perspective, there are three big problems with this technology:

1) I don't care what they say about this being an "open" standard; for all intents and purposes it is controlled by MS and tied to their software. The internet deserves better.

2) No matter how supposedly secure the technology is, if someone gets a hold of your computer (or your physical login-ID card which I imagine is envisioned for transportability in the future) it is just as easy or perhaps even easier for that person to pretend to be you compared to current systems.

3) What is the point of using such a system in an anonymous use-case scenario, if not to make that scenario less anonymous? Please explain to me how the sentence "I am required to identify myself anonymously" is not an oxymoron.

I agree, there are bright and very nice people who work at Microsoft; however there are also quite a few shady characters (especially including the big cheese Ballmer himself). No matter how good the technology MS might create is, I will never hand over yet another monopoly to them (indeed in this case one the size of the entire world wide web), because the threat of them misusing their power will always loom.

CardSpace is optional?

[Whuffo]

CardSpace turned up on my XP box unbidden; came along with the "critical updates". There doesn't seem to be any way to uninstall it, either.

Just more of the anti-consumer practices we know and hate from our favorite monopolist. I especially like the way their updates change my default browser to IE even though the system was configured to use Firefox as the default.

Whoever it was that said CardSpace was optional - ask them how to remove it. I'd like to exercise that option...

Privacy Matters

[Anonymous Coward]

The short answer: It's dehumanizing.

Earlier this month there was a sobering article on Groklaw "3 CNET Reporters Will Sue HP Seeking Punitive Damages - What's That?" wherein PJ discussed privacy. She had this to say:

There's an interesting essay that I read as part of a course Berkman Center ran on privacy in cyberspace that said that our humanness actually depends on that kind of privacy. It's how we renew and are our true selves. The essay is still available in the readings for the course which are laudably still made available to the world, "Privacy Matters: In Defense of the Personal Life," by Janna Malamud Smith. One of the worst punishments is total surveillance, the essay points out, where you can't even go to the bathroom in privacy:

One way of beginning to understand privacy is by looking at what happens to people in extreme situations where it is absent. Recalling his time in Auschwitz, Primo Levi observed that "solitude in a Camp is more precious and rare than bread." Solitude is one state of privacy, and even amidst the overwhelming death, starvation, and horror of the camps, Levi knew he missed it.... Levi spent much of his life finding words for his camp experience. How, he wonders aloud in Survival in Auschwitz, do you describe "the demolition of a man," an offense for which "our language lacks words."...

Our function of privacy is to provide a safe space away from terror or other assaultive experiences. When you remove a person's ability to sequester herself, or intimate information about herself, you make her extremely vulnerable....

The totalitarian state watches everyone, but keeps its own plans secret. Privacy is seen as dangerous because it enhances resistance. Constantly spying and then confronting people with what are often petty transgressions is a way of maintaining social control and unnerving and disempowering opposition.... And even when one shakes real pursuers, it is often hard to rid oneself of the feeling of being watched -- which is why surveillance is an extremely powerful way to control people. The mind's tendency to still feel observed when alone... can be inhibiting. ... Feeling watched, but not knowing for sure, nor knowing if, when, or how the hostile surveyor may strike, people often become fearful, constricted, and distracted.

Does that help answer your questions? Oh, by the way, GODWIN!

Re:Combining client side info with what server see

[bignetbuy]

Hey, you don't have to tell me about ActiveX:

  bash-3.00$ uname -a
  SunOS phoenix 5.10 Generic_118855-33 i86pc i386 i86pc

I'm just saying for all those still clinging to the Redmond teet. :D

InfoCards/CardSpace are cool and necessary

[notaprguy]

I think this connecting Web surfing behavior to individual people is somewhat scary but probably inevitable. Deleting cookies daily will not keep you anonymous forever. Even if the Fed's or EU make this stuff illegal it will be done by somebody. I'd rather it was done in a transparent way - at least that way we have some idea of what "they" know. Regarding CardSpace and InfoCards...as a heavy Web user I would LOVE if it were to succeed. It would make my job much easier and ultimately more secure. The thing about InfoCards is that you're not transmitting your user name and password over the wire. You're sending an encrypted token. The data stays with whomever "issued" you your InfoCard. For example, I use Bank of America (fuck them, by the way). When I sign-in to the B of A Web site today I enter a username...then they prompt me with a second screen which shows a photo that I selected. If the photo is the one I selected I enter my password and I'm authenticated. While this is somewhat more secure than the usual username and password combo it's still unsecure for a number of reasons. First, because B of A is only one of about 1000 sites I use I use a password that...while somewhat secure...is probalby relatively easy to break. Second, I send my username and password over the wire every time I sign on to the site. While they use SSL it would be relatively easy for someone to steal the user name and password - eithe from Phising or some other method like keystroke logging. With an InfoCard, B of A issues me an encrypted token that says I am who I say I am. When I sign-on to their site using that InfoCard I send them the token, not the actual username and password. This is still not perfect but from a usability standpoint and from an overall security standpoint it is a huge advance over the way things are done today. The other neat thing about InfoCards is that there is nothing Microsoft proprietary about them. They're based on WS* standards. Anyone could implement their own InfoCard manager on any platform/OS. Microsoft happens to have one in Windows Vista that they call CardSpace. All CardSpace is is a "wallet" for storing the cards. But all the cards have is the token...not the actual data. CardSpace also has a neat feature where you can create a self-issued InfoCard. You can create as many as you want that share as little or as much information as you may want to share with a site. You can have one that has a made-up name (studmuffin) and lame password (player) that you can use when creating accounts on Web sites you've never visted before. The idea is that rather than going through the process of filling out a bunch of fields on the Web site you submit your self-issued InfoCard and it happens automatically. For sites that you want/need to have a more secure and personal relationship like a bank you might have another self-issued InfoCard that includes your real name, address, phone number etc. Overall I think InfoCards...or something like them...are necessary. How many of you have 20 or 30 user names and passwords either written down on paper somewhere or maybe in a file on your system or in your email address manager? That's insecure and a hassle. I want to be able to sign-on in a click of two. By the way, the guy behind InfoCard/CardSpace is not some wierd Microsoft borg guy. He's a renounded leader in identity management and, based on what I've read, is probably more concerned about privacy and security than most people.

Re:InfoCards/CardSpace are cool and necessary

[notaprguy]

By the way, I think InfoCards can and will interop with other authentication approaches. If Liberty actually ever produced any real working coded they could probalby work with InfoCards. It would be relatively trivial for Apple to create an iWallet ;) that their users can use to manage these identity cards.

Re:InfoCards/CardSpace are cool and necessary

[singingjim1]

This post is doomed to go unnoticed, sadly. For one thing it has too many words, and for a second thing it makes WAY too much sense. Folks here don't want to think that someone might actually be smarter than them and maybe have a little common sense to boot. That just won't stand.

It's for target advertising.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to be the voice of reason here, but this is all for develop better advertising on the web. They clearly are interested in behavior and targeted advertising. And this is a good thing. If there have to be ads on a web page at least make them relevant to me.

Microsoft "invents" again

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm... The patent that Xerox filed on that was noted in /. a little while ago -- http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/11/23 9243

Nothing to see here.

[xactuary]

Ballmer just wants better GAYDAR.

Move along.

Argh!

[Quiet_Desperation]

Will you people STOP giving money to this company?!

We feel it has to solve all use cases

Do anyone other than an android talk like that?

Re:Combining client side info with what server see

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why you use Firefox, to disable ActiveX

But does it disable the Windows network stack? No -- Linux, and Mac OS do ;-)

Pointless. Not scary.

[Anonymous Coward]

OK... I do this when I suspect I've discovered the internet to be a small world after all, by comparing post times. You can also pay attention to sentence pattern habbits, trance words, and just word choice preferences. It's a pseudoscience at best.

It's entirely circumstantial, and will only give you a vague idea. I don't really see the use of such a technology. It doesn't meet standards of evidence beyond interesting coincidence. It's not accurate enough to be much value to marketers. Any help from the host itself is a gaping security hole.

As a threat to privacy, it's only worrisome to people smart enough to protect their anonymity in other ways, but dumb enough to then decide to follow their recreational web surfing habbits...

Microsoft deserves to be boycotted for the sheer retardedness of this idea. I don't trust a company that would run with something like this with anything.

Anonymous Use Case

[IL-CSIXTY4]

In response to the snarky aside in the summary, the Cardspace designers actually had anonymous use cases in mind when they designed it. You can generate a card at any time with any information on it. When you submit a card to a site, you get to choose what personal information (if any) gets sent along with it. And, there is a unique ID generated for each site/card combination. So, you could create 100 different cards named "Anonymous Coward" and use a different one each time you came to Slashdot to post as 100 different Anonymous Cowards from one machine.

what they need

[l3v1]

So what they need is browser cache, cookies, proxies, and Windows. Well, it seems they will only be able to keep track of a very large number of totally uninteresting people - I mean from a security or threat or else point of view. Why would the feds want information about such people ? As from the advertising point of view, well, I say let them do it, and wait till even the average user crowds start hating them for it.
 

The real purpose

[Peter_JS_Blue]

I think the real reason is so they can identify all those evil Linux users.

When MS share price drops a bit, automatically send out "You owe us money for not using Windows" messages to any IP stealing, Linux hippies !!

BTW You BSD users can stop sniggering too !! As for you smug Mac users, just wait ...

Re:The real purpose

[singingjim1]

But what about us perfectly happy, content, and non-paranoid Windows users?

In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft OpenSources YOU!!

Why dont they just log your form entries?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Its that simple. Its not like its hard to figure out who you are, just have windows log your name, address, age, and credit card entries from IE and MS knows who you are and they can easily track where you go buy just logging every dam address your windows connects to...

Its not that hard really. The question is why would they want to do this? and more importantly... Why should we let them?

Simple solution

[Kryptic Knight]

Since M$'s processes are looking at your browsing habits in order to put you into the right "stats box" the solution is simple. Spoil their results.

How long till someon enterprising person comes up with a random page caller that will let you choose some "page types" that you want to browse ?

If however you look it from a business prospective

[Stu101]

Im not saying I am for this at all. I like the choice of being anonymous. However, say you have a website that you want to see how your visitors got to you, rather than just seeing the referrer link, this could be just the stuff you want. As we know, when we surf, we use hyperLINKS to move from one site to another. How valuable would it be to know that before visiting your store, they searched for an item on MSN.com (eughhh) that sent them to a site that linked to you, so you can track the history from search to them landing on your site.

Just a thought.

Ethereal/Wireshark is your friend

[pandrijeczko]

If you're that worried about software you run "phoning home" or collecting stats on you, then get hold of one of the myriad of free network sniffers (like Ethereal or Wireshark) and spend some time learning how to interpret what it sniffs.

Once you identify any weird or unwanted network connections, then it's relatively simple to stop them with a firewall rule or two, or to put a dummy entry in a hosts file somewhere.

Re:Ethereal/Wireshark is your friend

[ABCC]

If I'm not mistaken it is impossible to block the MS site through tweaking the hosts file. This is to ensure "misconfigurations do not prevent customers from visiting the MS update site" or so I believe the spin went. A non MS firewall could block it probably, but you would be best off blocking it at your router rather than trusting the configuration on a windows machine.

Re:Ethereal/Wireshark is your friend

[pandrijeczko]

I've not actually tried it but I suspect you could also do something if you used your own local caching DNS server - give that to your Windows machines for DNS and then just put some dummy entries on that.

Information want to be free...

[Martin Spamer]

Information want to be free including all the information we've traditionally regarded as private.

Get used to it.

The reason they want to do this is..

[Anonymous Coward]

to be able to better serve their ads to users.. Having all browsing data of users is something Google won't have to exploit.

I swear

[Anonymous Coward]

The more and more technology advances to waste my CPU cycles, the more and more I retract to using what just works.

Conflicting Goals

[vbwyrde]

The problem as I see it is that the Internet was designed with conflicting design goals. The two conflicting goals were 1) Allow Anonymity and 2) Allow Business Critical Transactions. Those two requirements create an insurmountable conflict for the design of the Internet. You can not possibly (it is impossible) to achieve both simultaneously. The result is exactly what we see today - various efforts to "ID" people on the net, and the counter outcry from all of us who have gotten used to the idea that we should be allowed to be anonymous on the Internet. Originally, the designers could have added a strong authentication protocol to the Internet. They refused (it was discussed at the time, iirc) on the grounds that they did not want to create "the big brother machine". Originally, they wanted business to Stay Out, and for the net to be used exclusively for academic purposes and knowledge sharing. Laudable, but completely unrealistic given the overwhelming advantages to business for a Business Critical Transactional system. So... here we are. My suggestion is to create a new Internet just for business, medical and legal, called BCTNet, and leave the old one alone (I would call it JunkNet) for those who don't mind getting hacked and viruses etc on their machines (but would no longer ever dream of doing any sort of business transaction). The fact is that with strong authentication hacking and virus uploading and scriptkiddidom would be severely curtailed. That said, JunkNet would still have the problem that terrorists can use it as their primary means of communications, which is actually exactly what they are doing today. SSL is their friend. Anonymity is not necessarily the friend of Civilization. I have yet to hear a convincing argument why Civilization requires it. Seems to me that most of what Anonymity is used for is illegal or immoral activity. Oh, and anonymous political discourse, I guess. Hmmm... maybe. It is a serious problem. I don't see much in the way of serious solutions. Microsoft's proposed solution is, predictably, totally backwards. Instead of approaching the topic from the direction of "how do we secure a BCT system?", they instead are asking themselves "How do we most greedily and sickly exploit the fundamental weakness of the Internet and our users to make more money and build the Big Brother system that the Internet guy deprived us of?" I suspect this is a strong subconscious impulse on the part of those who are at MS (and now at Google too). Or so it would seem. Maybe they can bother to make clear exactly what their intentions really are? Oh Gaffaw gaffaw! LOL.

Re:Conflicting Goals

[DrVomact]

The two conflicting goals were 1) Allow Anonymity and 2) Allow Business Critical Transactions. Those two requirements create an insurmountable conflict for the design of the Internet. You can not possibly (it is impossible) to achieve both simultaneously.

If you mean "impossible" in a technical sense, then you are completely wrong. There are no insurmountable technical barriers to creating an electronic infrastructure that permits commercial transactions that are both anonymous and secure. Such an infrastructure is not technically impossible--it is politically infeasible, because the governments of the world's nation-states will not permit it. (Such transactions would be difficult to tax, for one thing.)

Using known cryptographic techniques, there is nothing that prevents you from establishing a unique identity that is not traceable to your true name, but that can nevertheless be authenticated for commercial purposes. Such transactions would, of course, depend on the cooperation of financial institutions (e.g. banks) who are publicly known and trusted. If such a "virtual person" wanted to engage in a commerical transaction with another party (who may or may not be anonymous himself), then the financial institution could act as a go-between without either party ever learning the other's true name. Depending on the nature of the transaction, other services might be required--for example, the bank might hold funds in escrow until the goods are delivered to the specified location, or the requested service is performed.

For truly anonymous transactions, even the financial agent must be unaware of its client's true name. Again, there's no technical reason why this can't be so. All communications between an account holder and his bank could be authenticated by public/private key technology. The bank only needs the ability to uniquely identify the accountholder, and--of course--there must be sufficient funds in the anonymous account to cover the transaction.

As I said, such things are politically infeasible at present. However, as the nation-state continues to weaken, it is possible that we will see the rise of anonymous banking and commerce. This will raise some serious moral questions, of course--trade in illegal substances and stolen goods are only one problematic issue. Another is that it would become possible to solicit illegal services--such as taking up a collection to finance the assassination of a politician whom you particularly despise.

Science fiction author Neal Stephenson writes about these issues in his books Snow Crash and Cryptonomicron.

Re:Conflicting Goals

[Corson]

Maybe they are not conflicting goals. I think of the Internet in terms of a large city. People walking the streets. Businesses and recreation parks. As people are expected not to wear face-covering hoods (at least in Western world), some kind of identification potential for individuals always exists, but no formal "authentication" is required to walk your dog in the park, or to browse the products in a store, or to make a purchase and pay cash. One may need to "authenticate" to make a withdrawal at the bank, or to enter a particular building. Do you need to "authenticate" to drive your car back home on the freeway? Of course, security camera photos of you shopping at the mall may be stored somewhere, without your knowing it. IMO the Internet should be no more restrictive that that.

mmmmm

[genrader]

now we just need the microsoft google alliance and we can do anything!!!!1one

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c3e49548-088e-11dc-b11e-00 0b5df10621.html

Re:Combining client side info with what server see

[linuxci]

I like and use Firefox, but it seems awfully chummy with Google for my taste. I don't think it's the default, but Firefox 2.0 allows you to check with Google whether each site you visit is a "suspected forgery." Probably a sizable percentage of Firefox users takes Google up on its offer. I doubt that many people enable that feature, it's off by default (the standard phishing protection in firefox compares URL's with a list that's downloaded every 30 minutes). The people who are most likely to need phishing protection are those who are least likely to look in a settings dialog so therefore I can't imagine many will enable this check with google function.

Underwear and sock drawer

[Prototerm]

All well and good to go pawing through my drawers, as long as they start with the one I throw my *dirty* underwear and socks into. In that case, I think the punishment fits the crime. Excuse me, I have to scrub my typing fingers after that one. ewww!

The people shall be secure in their papers....etc.

[Joce640k]

"That the people shall be secure in their persons, houses,
  papers, and possessions..."

Another Alternitive, If I may

[Prototerm]

I neither abandon Microsoft software, nor do I leave myself open to tricks like Microsoft's latest dream of world conquest. I choose a middle ground.

I run the Windows software I cannot or will not replace in a virtual VMWare sandbox with no internet connection (just a local intranet connection). That way, I don't feel the urge to update Windows (I generally use Win2k sp4) or play the old "whack-a-mole" game with viruses and trojans. It's not perfect, and I still use Wine for the occasional Windows game (I don't stay up-to-date there, either, preferring older games), but I avoid a whole lot of pain and most of the risk in using Windows software.

There's an old saying in computer software (and yes, it's US centric. sorry about that): You can tell who the pioneers are, they're the ones with arrows in their backs. Avoid being a pioneer, and all sorts of viable solutions to Microsoft's schemes and dreams present themselves.

Re:Another Alternitive, If I may

[RobertM1968]

An excellent alternative* and one I subscribe to as well...

* But for the average user, such a method is far beyond them :-(

Re:It's called corporate feudalism

[maxwell demon]

Yes, but they are idiots. For instance, my wife, my kids, and I all use the same machine. Must make for a very interesting viewer profile.

The installed spyware might in addition analyze typing/mouse movement patterns in order to identify who's currently sitting on the computer.

And of course there is always Firefox...

Which doesn't help if the trojan is installed into the base Windows system. Of course there's always Linux ...

Registration facilitates confiscation

[doug141]

This thread contains good arguments why, once a buyer has passed a background check, centralized records on gun owners should not be kept. As Germans were rounding up Jews on the lists of the Dutch, Germans were going to the homes of those with registered firearms and confiscating them.

disguiso bot

[fuliginous]

Time for the automated desktop bot that surfs in your absence and in the background to generate noise. Possibly with parameters and profiles that you can change to become someone else.

Removing CardSpace

[Anonymous Coward]

It would seem that recent Windows updates also included hotfixes for CardSpace.

So after this action I can assume that my machine now has CardSpace installed....

How does one go about to remove Cardspace?

Bring-Your-Mac/Linux-To-Work Day

[Anonymous Coward]

Every day MS displays more distinctly that they are catering to the interests of big corporations, and couldn't care less about individual users. So, let them keep moving their entire product line/architecture/applications to the big brother end of the spectrum! The only thing that this will do is send all the non-corporate users rushing to the other end. I think this latest move might be the tipping point the market needs to start moving away from MS.

I think this year I will start pushing for a "Bring-Your-Mac/Linux-To-Work Day". Most "average" users choose Microsoft because it is what they are used to or exposed to at work. I think if people in corporate settings had the chance to see the alternatives first-hand, it would be a different story.

So ahoy! I encourage everyone to institute "Bring Your Mac/Linux To Work Day" at your jobs, and watch as your coworkers stare, green with envy, as you boot blazingly fast, work and surf without restrictions, and achieve equal if not superior productivity.

Your logic is flawed

[lpq]

Microsoft has no legitimate reason to identify users, so assume motive to be evil. another reason to run Linux or a Mac

Your logic is flawed in multiple ways.
 

1) legitimate reason: MS is a SW company providing solutions to customers. Big problem online is proving you are who you say you are to a 3rd party. How does a merchant verify I am who I say I am (and that they are not taking on a fraudulent transaction which they will be held responsible for)?
How does bank or stock broker verify it is you doing a money transfer or stock transaction?
How can I prove my age complies with laws regarding age? Are you "thirteen"? Are you "eighteen"? Are you "twenty-one"?
If the good senator from N/S. Carolina is determined to enact age-verification to adult websites, do you have to give a credit card with your age that maybe could be verified against a card-holder database? How can you verify age?
How do Ebay parties verify they aren't entering into a scam?

These are all "legitimate" areas where there is a need for some type of user identification/verification. It is a legitimate problem in doing commerce on the web. A software company has every "legitimate" right to attempt to create a solution. So your first statement and its conclusion regarding motive is flawed.

Regarding your second statement about this being a reason to use a different OS. That's also logically flawed, since we are identifying people from browsing habits -- something that would be OS neutral. People still browse with Linux and Mac-based computers. In fact, using an alternate browser and OS puts you in a minority of sorts -- providing additional identification factors. If you wanted to remain "anonymous", standing out from the crowd isn't a great way to do it.

That people agreed with you and marked you insightful only shows how many others on slashdot have similarly faulty logic.

Re:Your logic is flawed

[ThePromenader]

To claim that someone's logic is flawed doesn't mean that it is so. What's more, you are answering his points with others of your own, which in itself does not constitute an argument against that made. Spin is not logic.

All the same, taking your post at face value: Why should I have to 'prove' who I am if the information I am viewing is of no value to me (no sale?) Are we to assume that it should be 'normal' that, in order to remain anonymous, we must act (browse and buy) like everyone else? Shall we speak of Orwell?

Re:Your logic is flawed

[BrokenHalo]

I was not offering a logical discourse, and I never said I was. If I had intended that, I would have gone about doing so in a totally different way.

However, you offer nothing logical yourself.

How can I prove my age complies with laws regarding age? Are you "thirteen"? Are you "eighteen"? Are you "twenty-one"? If the good senator from N/S. Carolina is determined to enact age-verification to adult websites, do you have to give a credit card with your age that maybe could be verified against a card-holder database? How can you verify age? How do Ebay parties verify they aren't entering into a scam?

Since when is a casual internet user required to do any of those things? If I am making a financial transaction, I need to identify myself to the extent that the creditor gets paid. I ONLY need to identify myself to that creditor. It is not my responsibility to provide data for Microsoft, Google or any other organisation for their use by way of a profile. My transactions are none of their business.

I certainly am under no obligation to any marketroids to provide that data. Advertisers seem to have the world convinced that the universe would cease to exist if they are not allowed to paste their tripe over every surface visible to humanity, but that doesn't mean an intelligent person has to swallow that unchallenged. Neither should we give them any encouragement.

hope the do it

[suezz]

hope they do it to me then I can sue their arses and work on open source full time.

Well that settles it again..

[jav1231]

Like I always say, Microsoft if inherently evil. Like kicking puppies!

You will ID me when you pry my keyboard

[WillAffleckUW]

from my cold dead robotic-enhanced RFID-enabled hands!

this is...

[derjames]

the fuckin' dumbest idea i've heard at microsoft...

The real reason

[thorkyl]

They want to sell you info.
They want to send spam
They know who has thier OS
They want to target you for ...
They want control
They, well they just want control

Re:If however you look it from a business prospect

[thorkyl]

but my name and location?
why do they want that?

mmmK

[bandmassa]

Well, if they include this technology in Macroslop Idiot Exploiter 8, it'll kill it stone dead then. ;-)

Stupid reporter who knows nothing about technology

[aaahchi]

The reporter is mixing the meaning of "Identity" and "Preference". If you read the conference paper, you can see the researchers are trying to provide personalized service which match people's perference, instead of trying to identify people.