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."
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.
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
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.
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.
Good thing they've patented this technology. Now nobody else can use it.
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.