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."
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.
This method may work for those who are 'in the know', but imagine the millions of sheeple that have come to rely on it since it's the homepage of their fancy new Vista machine. I'm willing to bet this will only be argued about within the tech community, but the common man is just going to accept and comply - never knowing what they gave up.
It is a "big deal" because software as a service is a "big deal." People are starting to rely on web apps; imagine if I could stop you from using a desktop app at a moment's notice because of a privacy policy change.
Palm trees and 8
Are you kidding me? MS is doing nothing new. I have had the same issues with cell phone companies/utilities/etc. Hi we are changing XYZ and if you don't like it please leave. Seems most corporations screw people over. I like the one change in my utility bill where arbitration and the whole you can't sue us clause in there.
Look at a cell phone contract sometime. If you leave early you pay a fee, if they company forces you out they pay no fee, etc.
Business 101: Screw your customer and get more money
Well then the "common man" should get what he gets. It's not our job to babysit him.
I think you're wrong there. Isn't the point of Slashdot to report the news? Isn't it the job of the technically elite to keep an eye on mega corporations, making sure no ugly things happen to the rights of the many?
If technically elite do not watch out for everyone else, then we all get what we deserve.
What, exactly, does he "get?" A society where privacy concerns are eventually so eroded among a large majority - accustomed to think of intrusions into their privacy as normal - that government or corporate action could abolish meaningful privacy for the "rest of us?"
Sorry, but I feel that it is "my job" to inform people about the underhandedness with which their private information is dealt. I certainly don't want them thinking that they can take privacy for granted.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
Perhaps some other people should point out these concerns to those people, who probably have enough going on in their lives to not contemplate their legal status with regard to their computer applications.
Perhaps these other people could have a website that aggregates stories pointing out such examples of corporate buggery, and that provides a forum for folks to discuss them. Perhaps they could get enough exposure to occasionally penetrate the online public's consciousness.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
It does, however, raise two interesting points:
1) The current ridiculousness of the patent system. The patent system is intended to stimulate innovation by protecting useful ideas. If you're right, this is an attempt to stop a certain kind of behavior by a large company. Isn't that what the legislature is for?
2) If you're going to trust your data to a third party by keeping it online only, make SURE you have the right to retrieve it without entering into further agreements.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
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.
Nice joke, but it points out something that is becoming increasingly clear in Slashdot discussions: You're getting dumber. How often is the word 'evil' bandied around nowadays? Thanks Google!
The opposite of bad is good, the opposite of good is bad. The opposite of evil is NOT: Good!
There claim to be so many atheists amongst the Slashdot crowd; well you don't need religion if you see everything as good and evil, why? Because it is what is known as SLAVE MORALITY.
The closest thing I could get to the opposite of Evil is compassion, NB: compassion is not the same as good. So while using the word evil, be very careful to be clear that its opposite is not good, thinking like that will dumb you down.
*Kisses karma bye-bye and ducks*
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
Good thing they've patented this technology. Now nobody else can use it.
I pay for those services. Over the public services, I have the power of the vote to control those services. The others are publically-regulated monopolies, hence, once again, the power of the vote.
My blog
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...
You are picking and choosing your definitions. One definition of "good" (the third, in my Webster's) is "possessing or displaying moral virtue." One definition of "evil" (the first) is "profoundly immoral and malevolent." Those two are, quite clearly, opposites. "Compassion" is "sympathetic pity and concern for the suffering and misfortune of others," which doesn't necessarily make a person "good." Feeling bad for someone else is not the same thing as doing something that fixes someone else's misfortune. That is, compassion is a part of being good, but it is not the only part of being good.
So be careful about what will dumb you down.
There is. To deny that is to embrace relativism, which precludes any possibility of weighing one's actions according to a moral standard.
I agree with you that rich is not evil. Wealth is amoral, neither being rich nor being poor makes one good or evil. That doesn't mean there's no evil.
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!