Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Consent-or-Die Patent
theodp writes "Maybe you shouldn't get too attached to those new Windows Live services. On Tuesday, the USPTO granted Microsoft a patent for privacy policy change notification, which describes how to threaten users with the loss of their accounts and access to web sites and services should they refuse to consent to changes in a privacy policy. This includes the case where a user might object to allowing personal information, collected earlier with a promise of confidentiality, to be shared in the future with third parties. Also described is a 'Never Notify Me' option so you won't have to 'worry' over privacy policy changes."
...they're trying to outdo Google by embracing a "Don't be Good" motto?
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
If you don't like the privacy policy, don't use the service. What's the big deal? If any site were to kick me off because I didn't agree to changes in their privacy policy, I would simply not visit the site again.
My blog
And the award for most dramatic Slashdot headline goes to...
I don't have a microwave. I do, however, have a clock that occasionally cooks shit.
Canada and EU have privacy laws. So would this be an illegal patent?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Unless your pacemaker is hooked up to a Microsoft Website, loss of access to a web-site or even an e-mail account probably won't kill you.
They have patented an unethical behaviour. Does that mean it will be harder for other people to do what the patent describes? Please?
I never worry about about privacy policies, I know I get scr3wed over anyways - so why bother....
(write-line *coolsig*)
Remember how Amazon once had a very nice, simple, policy, something like "we never share any of your information with third parties." And then one fine day, they changed it to something "we'll share any information we have about you with third parties, but only with third parties that we think are really good and have something of real value to offer you."
I hate myself for it, but I've kept using Amazon because, well, darn it, they're convenient and inexpensive and efficient.
Dave Barry once commented that he now has to drive ten miles to buy anything, because he realized that over the years there wasn't a single business within ten miles of which he hadn't said at one time or another "I'll never patronize them again."
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I'm just waiting for that "Your first newborn is ours" clause...
Who just amended their privacy policy to remove notice of privacy policy changes?
A quick search on her name, takes you to a University site.
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~m4dunn/index.html#slide0001.html
"This presentation contains content that your browser may not be able to show properly. This presentation was optimized for more recent versions of Microsoft Internet Explorer. If you would like to proceed anyway, click here."
Sounds like the same Melissa, with the same attitude. Is that why MS hired her?
Reminds me of the heart plug in the movie Dune.
"Don't be angry. Everyone gets one here."
One twist by a Microsoft cubical creep and all your data drains out.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Doesn't anyone bother to learn how to spell these days?
Damn that's evil! Really, what quicker way to drive away users - program your application to piss them off and then stop working.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Wanted: Slashdot mods that can write.
If you experience that some company screws you by doing the same to you, you can always notify M$ to sue the pants off of the unethical bastards. :)
M$ will surely help you
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
I think it was a joke.
A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
Novell user so I'm ok. err... wait
It allows the monopoly holder to stop other people doing whatever it is the patent monopoly covers. In theory, microsoft could use this to ensure no-one implements such nastiness.
Yeah, not likely,this is after all Microsoft ("Be Evil"), but still, a possibility in theory.
In order to be a participant of this nonsense, you quite literally have to buy into it. When I view my stack, it is completely devoid of Microsoft. Kubuntu(Gutsy), and all those solutions found in Adept, along with Design Patterns. Move over Dr.DOS, QEMM, and STACK; Kindly make some room for Microsoft.
I'm sure they will license it to other evil-doers under RAND terms.
OMGWTFBBQ iNnoCenT CusTomeRz ar3 bEinG sCrew3d over by eV1l cOrp0rAtionz!!11 THiNk oF t3h c0nsUmErs!!
Sigh...
1. If you don't like the service or the TOS that comes with it, don't use it.
2. If you are worried that a service you previously liked would change it TOS and make your data inaccessible should you refuse it, keep backup of the data.
3. If you are afraid of being led to a new TOS through vendor lock-in, take preventive measures to ensure a smooth rollover to another provided should something go wrong.
4. If you are worried a TOS may have something you are not willing to accept, actually take time to read it before clicking "Next". If you don't understand something, there are a lot of places online where you can discuss a TOS and get a legal-to-human translation of it, especially TOSs of big corporations.
5. If you don't follow any of the above points, only blame yourself when you get screwed over.
As much as companies want to, they can't (legally) FORCE you to allow them to use your data for anything if you didn't accept the TOS. Especially now that courts upheld the law that companies must obtain consent before continuing to provide service with a modified TOS. Companies can mislead you, try to mask the truth, entice you with BS offers, sweet-talk you, downplay the entire thing, block you from using their services (or even access to your data)... But they can't FORCE you to play by their rules.
As a consumer, you have the ultimate power to affect corporate decisions - either use their service or don't. Those who whine about how bad/unethical a particular service is, but keep using it, are hypocrites, not to mention stupid, and fully deserve whatever consequences they get from being sheep.
For the rest of us, there is a good amount of viable alternatives to be able to drop one provider for the favor of another at (almost) a moment's notice, but iff the basic rules above are being followed. If not, then, as I said, blame nobody but yourself when you have "no choice" but to be the company's data slave.
And can we, FFS, stop protecting the "innocent consumers" who get screwed over by evil corporations due to their stupidity? Seriously, this is worse than the "think of the children" mentality - at least you could argue that children are too young to think for themselves - but adults should really know better. Let people get what they deserve.
As opposed to...? How it is now, that if you disagree with a site's current or new privacy policy you shouldn't, y'know, use them? Say for example GMail changes their privacy policy, and tells its users that it's going to start divulging the contents of your all your email to 'select marketing partners' for 'market research' purposes. I can't tell them "You know what, I don't care what the rest of your users do, but I'm going to stick with the original privacy policy, kay?" I either, as the submitter puts it, consent or die.
Be glad that in the figure they indicate they'd let you delete your account in that case.
PS - I'd seriously dig a Windows theme that looked like that.
I don't see the bold new invention here worthy of a patent.
Are they claiming to have invented a "Whatever" button? Or is it a patent on using previously supplied information to contact a user?
As for the "threaten" aspect, it's not a threat - if a site changes it's policies and a user doesn't agree, why shouldn't they cancel the user?
Shame on the Patent Office for approving this silly patent, and good luck to MS to try and derive money from it!
Ken
Geesh. Things are really getting out of hand at the patent office.
This should be someting for contract attorneys/court, not the patent office.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Wasn't there a federal court case recently that specifically said policies like this were illegal?
I don't remember all the details, but from what I do remember it mandated that parties must be informed of any changes to contracts/agreements. You couldn't have a clause like "we don't need to notify you of changes to this agreement". So, if that is the case, doesn't it kill the entire purpose of this patent?
BTW - I really think things like this should not be patentable. This is not an invention.
Good thing they've patented this technology. Now nobody else can use it.
perhaps it's time you begin to think like one. MS is not forcing anyone to do anything...unless you consider busy folks with realistic usage schedules to be non-existant. time to stop the autonomous business/consumer choice rhetoric. MS is not solely in the position to make money...their market position demands social responsibility and a more sensitive perspective of etiquette.
No joke. Prepare to take that free albeit useless domain name microsoft gave you with their windows live basic that you signed them over as the registrant in the obscure eula...you know the one that if you want to put your own graphics on the page header you have to pay 30$/month? The one you can't write your own anchored hypertext references or embed stuff...
Riight, so prepare as part of cancelling to furnish your domain email address, whatever name and phone number you signed up with, your credit card number, and more...all in an email that's being sent overseas to hopefully cancel your account. if it works they'll email you back to your cancelled account. If not, they'll use the information to let habib urr..."rick" buy a new dell.
Thanks microsoft. Your live service and the fact it takes about 20 faqs and disabling popups to find the link to cancel is craaaap.
=)
they have patented some weird unco monkey dance thing, complete with sweaty armpits, and have applied for chair throwing a) in anger, b) in peace and c) well in any other form not covered in a) and b)...
This what you get for being stupid and using a microsucks platform. One day everyone wake up out their lemming mentality and realize what a piece of crap Microsoft really is after all!!!
Your Honor, I plead not guilty to the charges, as it was consensual. As per my consent notification system (defense exhibit A, the T-Shirt) and my consent management system, it is very clear that I have implied consent of the plaintiff.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I'm willing to bet "agree to all future changes without notifying me" won't hold up in court.
I'm a bit puzzled though how you can patent notifying someone that, if you don't agree to a legal change, you lose your service, is somehow something novel?
Isn't just computerizing a long-existing, non-computer process not patentable in and of itself?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I think that you're missing the point. If there happens to be a service which you would like to use but you find that the terms are unacceptible then there are three things that you can do:
1) Put up with it. You get screwed, but you get the service. I
2) Quietly abstain from using the service. This is the option that you seem to advocate. You lose the service, the provider loses your patronage. In fact, everyone loses, but only a little bit, so it's better than option 1.
3) Complain loudly about it. This is what's happening here, and you seem to have a problem with it. Complaining is the same as abstaining, except with the chance that the terms of service will be changed because of your objections. Unless you're apathetic toward the situation, then this is actually the best option.
The "don't use the services" excuse is clap trap. Most of us, even the most skilled, have idiot relatives. Relatives who don't care, are selfish or (my favorite) who "don't want to live in a world with bad things, so I will ignore them". Said relatives are absolutely arrogant about their "right" to place my personal information on their PC. They are also absolutely callous about the consequences, to me, from what happens to that data. Thus, those of us with idiot relatives can't opt out. Unfortunately, in the US, computer stupidity is not considered an acceptable excuse to place idiot relatives in a care home (or padded room).
What worries me about this patent is not what it is trying to do, but the patent office actually let someone patent something that is fairly obvious and trivial. I mean, I think seen plenty of website that implements something similar, for someone to say no to these privacy rules and then eject you from the website. What is the innovation that is being presented here? Or am I being dumb and missed something?
Sounds like the patent system is just rewarding someone who can afford to find a creative lawyer, and phrase the patent application to sounds "technical".
Well, since they aren't getting one bit of real information from me, and I save my mail and stuff locally, should I care?
What?
I don't see what the problem is. You agree to the terms or you don't get to use it.
SchedulesDirect just changed their privacy announcement to more or less the same idea. How come there's no slashdot story about that? Oh wait, microsoft. Sorry. Go back to your fanboism.
It's like any other site, MS or not, with a TOS. Agree to it, or they simply can't deal with you from a legal liability standpoint. Now they may be jerks about it, but that's the internet for you.
Honestly, people... I know this site caters to those with a heavy Linux slant, but the double standard is ridiculous. Happily modifying your OS and tweaking program source to make it work on your PCs, but god forbid you should have to agree to a website's rules to enjoy its services...
Windows Live never worked for me anyway. The times where I thought it might be useful it faltered.
As for "Never Notify Me" window, I would like that for all programs/serivices.
If you refuse to kneel, you shall perish by the hand of Ursula or Non. I must warn you, very few individuals survive Ursula "attacks". As for Non, well he may have been to prison but he still doesn't swing that way. So he'll swing you into the upper atmosphere instead.
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
Forget canceling, I got this wonderful email recently:
Subject : We're updating your MSN Hotmail account!
Windows Live Hotmail: Your automatic update is coming soon!
We appreciate your loyalty to MSN® Hotmail®. We know you depend on e-mail to keep up with your friends and family and want to make sure you're using the best services we have to offer. Now that Windows Live(TM) Hotmail is available, it's time to start enjoying all the features that make it PC Magazine's 2007 Editors' Choice Award Winner.
There's no cost to update your account. You keep your current Hotmail e-mail address and "inbox" (e-mails, contacts, calendar, etc), but get all the great new features of Windows Live Hotmail.
You can update yourself today, or if you like, let us take care of everything for you when we automatically update your account in the next few weeks.
I simply loathe the Live mail. Buggy, bloated, and slower than molasses (IMHO). I use Gmail for everything important these days, and my Hotmail is mostly just a spam catch-all. If I can't find an opt-out on the automated Live garbage, I don't care that I've had that email for 5+ years- it's history.
Most of the sites I've ever visited (and bothered to read their privacy policy) tell me that they have the right to change the policy at any time, it is up to me to keep abreast of their changes and by continuing to use the site I accept any revisions they've made to their policy.
In short, I have no idea what or when they change something and could find myself a year down the line using a service which is selling my data to anyone who comes knocking.
Based on that, isn't this slightly better in the fact you'll know when those onerous changes come?
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
They're some of the brightest, most original small businesses going. Makes you understand how the Wright Brothers came out of that environment.
My wife is a devotee of Terry Precision Cycling. It was started by a woman who couldn't find a bike to fit her. She happened to be a mechanical engineer, and the light bulb came on over her head. My wife's bike came with a homemade desktop-published manual that is among the very best manuals I've ever seen for any product whatsoever. The first time my wife had a slightly tricky technical question about her bike she used the "email us" contact link on the site and was, dare I say, thrilled when she got a long, detailed, helpful reply from Georgena [sic] Terry.
Another great example of brilliant self-publishing is Barnett's Bicycle Manual.
Take a look at Sheldon Brown's bicycle website for another great example of the true nerd spirit at its best.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
And speedgoat advertises in Urban Velo. What a company!
I agree with this post.
The idea itself is not bad - distill down just the most recent changes to a privacy policy, then show these changes to the end user, and ask for their consent.
If they dont consent, then either cancel them then and there, or give them time to migrate there data. Also notice that the patent says that if you dont agree, the application will not be able to use that information that is part of the privacy policy change.
I also agree that is not a patent. It's far too obvious.
I was taking my ball and going home when nobody wanted to play by my rules when MS was still in a motel room in Texas!
HTAPWYNTSWTAAJSWJFM!
(Honestly, There's A Point When You Need To Stop With The Acronyms A Just Say What You F@@king Mean!)
A goal is a dream with a deadline
That's all fine and good if you like being Amazon's bitch, and putting local retailers out of business.
1. I fail to see how spending money at **another online bookstore** is **not** putting a local retailer out of business, which is what GP suggested.
2. The college bookstore is subsidized by eFollet and the university and run by students at minimum wage (I know, I have friends that worked there when I lived on campus). They don't need my support to stay in business.
3. Saving that $50 allowed me spend money recently at local businesses that I ordinarily would not have frequented. For example, on Sunday we went out to a local family-friendly sports restaurant to catch our favorite football team playing.
So, in short, by being careful with your money on making purchases you can save money and support local retailers with other purchases. Which is one reason my wife does most of our shopping (groceries, sundries, basic home supplies) at Wal Mart.
The text of the patent says that Figure 7D (linked in the story post) is just part of an embodiment of the patent. Shutting off access to the account is just a policy; it's not what is being patented here.
That said, I have two real problems with the patent. One is that there seems to be a lot of prior art here; the other is that everything discussed in the patent is pretty obvious stuff. A patent like this should never have been granted.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Unless you're one of the rich and powerful, in most countries including democracies you'd end up getting similar to what the common man gets too.
:).
So if you're not in that "club", it is probably in your interest to make sure that the common man gets a better deal than they would get, left to the likes of Microsoft, Fox News, *AA, Sony, Hollywood, MTV, Monsanto etc.
If you're in that "club", then I'm not surprised you'd feel that way about the "common man", or for that matter everyone else you no longer need[1].
[1] A good measure of a person is how well he or she treats people they don't have to be nice to. I fail pretty badly but at least I know that
(IANALTINLA)
I Am Not A LaTIN LuvA?
Trash collection is a commodity service; if the company that hauls my trash refused to do it any more, in theory I could find another one and it wouldn't matter much (ignoring side issues like goverment monopolies). Most software is not that commoditized, though. When you're using a software service, you're typically dependent on a single provider for that specific service. So, it makes sense to be cautious about who you depend on, and what your recourse is if things go south.
In the absence of strong assurances from the application provider, it's actually pretty reasonable to decide you'll go it alone and control your servers and software yourself. People who use web services right now are taking a completely unquantifiable risk. It just so happens that so far, not many people have been seriously bitten by that risk. I'm sure that'll happen sooner or later, and then you'll see a flurry of reactions as users and providers try to cover themselves against such things in the future.
...is 'angelic' correct? Did I win?
We're only talking in the conceptual-sense, right? Otherwise I sense I'm waaay out of my league talking about all this opposite-of-evil stuff.
Evil is as evil does, no? (...with apologies to Senior Forest Gump)
You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
Interesting view. Especially considering Google is data mining VAST amounts of data, and keeping it far, far, far longer than anyone else (some estimates put their data retention at 30 years).
If data is kept more than a few years (I think it's 3 years), the government doesn't even HAVE to get a warrant. Thus... Google huge profile of historical data will give a very detailed map of everything about you: what you searched for, what web sites you go to, time between searches... then if you use Gmail, or know someone who has... they know your IP and MAC addresses, who you are, who you know... and thus they know who all your friends are... and THEIR IP and MAC addresses... and thus the complex web of Google's data mine continues. And if you ever logged in to GMail from work, they know where you work. And if you have Google Maps installed on a device with GPS, they also know EVERYWHERE you have gone. And they are going to be keeping it for DECADES.
And let's see... MS wants people who use Windows or MS Office to pay for it. Yep... that's pretty damn evil. I can see why all you FOSSies get bent out of shape. I'll bet had Billy G known all he needed to do to get on the good side of the idiots was to keep chanting "don't be evil", all you guys would be having a Coke and a smile, singing kumbaya together right now.
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
You can patent pretty much anything. It doesn't mean you get to make use of the patent. What if you patented a way to electrocute people through their keyboard/mouse if they're caught using a pirated serial key. Sure, you can patent it... but you can't use it (although personally I'd like to be able to zap trolls on slashdot or gamerooms).
The fun part is, where such activities are legal and don't violate privacy laws, anyone but the patent-holder now engaging in such activities would be in breach of the patent, and thus MS could sue the bejeezes out of them. It's funny, because it really seems like they're patenting something that would lose customers, but in the other hand if they never used the method itself, just the patent (to sue others who tried to roll over privacy), then it would be like a sword swung in favour of good.
I think though, that there may just be prior art to this patent anyhow, sad as that is.
LANDO
But that wasn't our agreement!
DARTH VADER
I have altered our agreement. Pray I don't alter it again.
Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes genius. -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Well, it wasn't a bold new invention until you went and typed it in bold.
You have doomed us all. Thanks, kenh.
Sure the executives are mandated by shareholders to maximize the value of the company, but that shouldn't and doesn't mean the executives have to do every last sleazy, slimy, and dirty (yet legal) trick to do so.
The line between "sell out" and "protect customer privacy" is drawn the same way a lot of executive decisions are made: where do they think the future negative impacts of an act will outweigh the present benefits (e.g. quick cash to make quarterly report vs. weakening company position long term)
For example: Amazon might be able to make a killing in quick cash by selling all their user's info to "Cock Ring Warehouse", but the negative backlash will be much more costly in the future.
The problem is people have given info to so many companies now it's hard for the average Joe to track down just who sold him out. Even then, companies obviously think it's worth the occasional "I'll never do business here again!" when they get caught.
"Cheeze it!" - Bender
The sleaze never stops ...