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.
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?
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.
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!
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
Well then the "common man" should get what he gets. It's not our job to babysit him.
I have to agree, Its a well known problem with all 'live services' or in my case data licences, you have an account on a 'by day' use, At least they are ensuring that users must agree to the policy change, rather than letting it pass them by. Is this some way related to that google stuff I read a few weeks back?
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"
M$'s method was always to steal an idea, add their own incompatible extensions, monopolise the service by killing any competitor, then bleed the customers and create these unacceptable EULA's.
Now it turns out, they patented their evil ways too.
At which point you want to say no to their methods?
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Damn that's evil! Really, what quicker way to drive away users - program your application to piss them off and then stop working.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Perhaps these people should think twice before relying on a service that they have no control over whatsoever.
My blog
I think you're wrong there. Isn't the point of Slashdot to report the news? Isn't it the job of the technically elite to keep an eye on mega corporations, making sure no ugly things happen to the rights of the many?
If technically elite do not watch out for everyone else, then we all get what we deserve.
What, exactly, does he "get?" A society where privacy concerns are eventually so eroded among a large majority - accustomed to think of intrusions into their privacy as normal - that government or corporate action could abolish meaningful privacy for the "rest of us?"
Sorry, but I feel that it is "my job" to inform people about the underhandedness with which their private information is dealt. I certainly don't want them thinking that they can take privacy for granted.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
If you experience that some company screws you by doing the same to you, you can always notify M$ 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.
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)
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.
glad to hear you drive your trash to a remote location and bury it, forage for plants and kill and clean your own meat, generate your own power, and send your comments to slashdot via your own leased point to point frame relay.
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
Then I hope you have not paid much money for your services, if they can be made subject to an inacceptable policy change anytime.
And considering the agreement, just letting it pass them by might give legal problems later on when the user says he was not aware of it.
C - the footgun of programming languages
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.
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.
=)
Nobody objects to "informed consent" here. What people don't like is having the contract changed while it is being exercised. They are not talking about just a website. They are talking about a service which is used after agreeing to a certain contract. This practice is at the very least deceptive since a contract is a promise of a future performance. If the contract is changed while it is being exercised, the other party could suffer. You can change services, yes. But using a certain service may require commitment of resources. Changing the service would mean losing those committed resources.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
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
* electric power
* water
* gas
* police dept
* fire dept
* road repair
(ok, amend that to 'no significant amount of control')
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.
Hey twitter, how's it going?
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
I would challenge the chair throwing patent based on prior examples of published work. Example, Jesus throwing tables and chairs in the Bible. "WWJD? Some times he gets pissed off and throws some chairs and tables over!" :-)
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?
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...
Hypothetical: You are storing some mildly critical data on an MS server, and were to forgetful to back it up locally.
MS changes their privacy policy so that you would allow them to use your likeness/username/_stored_content_ in their new SPAM campaign.
You must select _Yes_ to log back in (use the service) to retrieve your hostage data (which if you logged in would no longer be confidential).
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.
Well, that is the argument for free (as in freedom) software. You shouldn't use software that you cannot examine, but people do that all the time, and they don't care about the philosophical argument. Convenience comes first, then aesthetics, but freedom and privacy aren't even on the table.
Palm trees and 8
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.
for those of you with leased cars think of it like haveing to re-agree to the lease each time you drove the car, even though you paid up front and arranged financing for 3 years of driving. After all, you might drive too far so they might decide you don't need to take trips more than 500 miles from home even though you paid for "unlimited " use to 12,000 miles per year. Or how about deciding after you'd paid where you'll buy your gas and oil changes. In "real" space that would be stupid, but it's exactly what MS is trying to pull here.
Nobody is paying for this service (yet). That means they decidedly did not enter into any sort of contract.
My blog
Well, since Microsoft agrees to perform something of value (provide a service) and it is not a non-profit organization, it must be assumed that (because of their stated intent in the incorporation charter) whatever it is getting in exchange is something that it deems to be of value. It could be something as trivial as an opportunity to display their ads.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
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.
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.
Oh, no... I say let 'em find out the hard way.
The sight of MSFT's Redmond campus in flames on CNN, surrounded by a huge chanting mob of pissed-off (and cut-off) users? It would be frickin' priceless.
Okay - all kidding aside, I am serious about wanting to let them find out the hard way in this case. It's going to be pretty obvious to anyone --with, say, a pr0n collection-- that suddenly his or her data is going to be under someone else's control and whim, and maybe that's not a good thing. Those who fail to recognize even that basic of a principle kinda deserves what they get.
I'm not saying we should suddenly institute any form of Digital Darwinism here, but sometimes you don't really want to hand-hold and spoon-feed the general population so much, y'know? Maybe sometimes the general public does need to discover to their horror that they screwed up... it tends to instill a much longer memory and distrust of That Which is Bad in this industry.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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.
Oh, no... I say let 'em find out the hard way.
The reason the general public don't care is coz only a small number of people find out the hard way - the rest are unaffected. Now, you and I may refuse to use these services on ethical grounds, or because we don't want to take the chance of being part of the minority group who actually gets screwed over, but most of the general public don't know and don't care (unless they are one of the few who does get screwed).
The really sucky thing is that sometimes it's really hard to use the alternative services that won't screw you because the popular ones are specifically designed to never interoperate with them. (Example, You can choose to use MSN or XMPP. If all your friends are on MSN then you using XMPP instead isn't going to be much use. Good luck convincing everyone to drop MSN).
http://blog.nexusuk.org
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!
Well then the "common man" should get what he gets. It's not our job to babysit him.
At the risk of being modded offtopic, it's attitudes like this that foment the creation of the Storm worm botnet.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
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!
No, what he's saying is that most of the people at Microsoft are cube-shaped.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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
but i haven't done anything to deserve being called elite. there's no justification for it so maybe, technically, i'm not... oh... well... fuck me then
on a more serious note i think most normals would request that the tech elite piss off and/or stop being wankers. i'm sure they'd laugh their ass off to think that the geek squad has their back
-- How I want a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.
(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.
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
IANAL bla bla bla.
If you were that person in that hypothetical situation I'd feel obliged to point and laugh at you for using MS for important stuff. But then I'm like that.
Didn't hotmail used to have some blurb in the EULA about anything sent through it was property of MS and you gave up any rights to it? Is that still there? Been years since I actually used a hotmail account (way too much spam getting past filters).
Did that ever get challenged in court and has anyone ever proved that EULAs and similar have any legal precedence? And has MS ever actually stolen someones stuff and then told them that they had agreed to it in the EULA?
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 ...