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.
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"
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
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)
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
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.
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 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.
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!" :-)
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!
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!