Bill Gates Knows What You Did Last Summer

theodp writes "Give Bill Gates your 'pictures, videos, documents, e-mail, instant messages, addresses, calendar dates/scheduling information (e.g., birthdays, anniversaries, appointments), voice mail, phone logs, RSS feeds, subscriptions, bookmarks, mail lists, project management features, computing device data, tasks and location data,' and he'll improve your 'quality of life.' That's the promise behind a patent issued Thursday to Bill Gates and his 20 co-inventors for 'Personal Data Mining', which Microsoft notes 'can include a monetization component' that 'could initiate an auction to sell information to the highest bidder.'"

Comments

Privacy

[Hatta]

Is not privacy essential to a high quality of life?

Re:Privacy

[Hijacked Public]

Not for everyone.

The way to combat this is to kill the monetization component. The way to do that is to beat Bill to the punch and give all your data to everyone before he does, so they have to motivation to buy it.

Re:Privacy

[Gerafix]

Privacy is to quality of life as hookers are to blackjack.

Re:Privacy

[Monkeedude1212]

Essential? What kind of blackjack do you play? I want in on that action.

Re:Privacy

[Hatta]

Being free from the manipulations of other people who think they know what is best for me is an absolutely indispensable part of a quality life. Be it marketers or moralists, I don't care.

Re:Privacy

[causality]

Not for everyone.

The way to combat this is to kill the monetization component. The way to do that is to beat Bill to the punch and give all your data to everyone before he does, so they have to motivation to buy it.

Another way to combat this is to gather such information on Gates, other high-profile corporate figures, and politicians. Then publically post them onto highly visible Web sites. I mean after all, they think no privacy is such a great idea, right? Let them be the pioneers.

Like the notion that if the average Congressman knew that he had to depend on Social Security for his retirement, it would have been fixed (i.e. made sustainable) a long time ago.

Re:Privacy

[DancesWithBlowTorch]

Okay, I'm confused. Whenever privacy is discussed around here, we say "wouldn't it be great if we could retain personal control over our data, and could willingly decide whom to sell our data to?"

So know someone with a great deal of economic leverage is trying to push exactly such a system, and all of slashdot goes "Oh my god, how evil! Quick, everyone give your data away for free, so nobody can monetize them any more, not even yourself!"

Guys, Bill Gates stopped being the most evil man about five years ago. I care much less about the shortcomings of Windows than I care about Google and Facebook knowing more about me than I do myself. At this point, I'd be willing to pay Bill Gates if he offers to secure all my personal data.

Re:Privacy

[causality]

Okay, I'm confused. Whenever privacy is discussed around here, we say "wouldn't it be great if we could retain personal control over our data, and could willingly decide whom to sell our data to?"

I think I can dissolve your confusion.

Real privacy would mean you get to decide whether this data is collected in the first place. If it's going to be gathered anyway and you might get a little discretion over how it is used once amassed, that's not real privacy. Sort of like the way that the ability to choose your master is not real freedom.

Re:Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Another way to combat this is to gather such information on Gates, other high-profile corporate figures, and politicians. Then publically post them onto highly visible Web sites. I mean after all, they think no privacy is such a great idea, right? Let them be the pioneers.

I agree.

The ChaosComputerClub in Germany published a government official's fingerprints in a magazine after he introduced legislation to get everyone's fingerprints.
I think they did them on an easy to 'apply' foil sheet.

I believe someone in the UK is offering a reward for Jacqui Smith's fingerprints after she proposed similar laws.
I hear she has since become paranoid about what she touches in public. I wonder if her garbage has any fingerprints.

Monica Lewinski really collected Bill Clinton's DNA as a pre-emptive move against DNA retention laws. Just kidding.

Re:Privacy

[An ominous Cow art]

I think it's time to post a link to this story again.

Re:Privacy

[inviolet]

I don't doubt a bit of data mining went into that. I don't see the harm it could have produced. I only see a successful result, both her and the companies are happier for it.

Yes, we all know that data-mining makes a market more efficient. Why should my mailbox be stuffed with ads that I do not care about? I, and the marketer and the retailers and everyone else, would rather the ads were relevant.

The problem is that this same data can be used to identify and persecute people who behave unfashionably. Their behavior may be perfectly moral (e.g. spanking a child, or buying a rifle, to take some pop examples), but is no longer en vogue. Privacy allowed them to continue behaving morally when the tide of fashion turned against them (i.e. society tried to drive them to immoral/inefficient behavior).

Re:Privacy

[maxwell demon]

I don't doubt a bit of data mining went into that. I don't see the harm it could have produced. I only see a successful result, both her and the companies are happier for it.

If I were in the data mining business, I'd also make sure that you don't notice the disadvantage.
For example, are you sure that the interest she has to pay for some credit wouldn't be lower if the bank had not had access to some mined data which unfortunately correlates with bad payment behaviour, without her paying behaviour actually being bad?

Re:Privacy

[Lumpy]

You CAN do that by limiting the amount of data created.

#1 - Store loyalty cards? GET RID OF THEM.
#2 - Use ONLY CASH for every transaction. Some really big ones you cant, but you can limit the data creation.
#3 - DONT register warranty cards, or registration of anything.
#4 - Xbox live user? Use a not connected to you information base and ONLY use scratch and sniff cards. make a random person that cant be connected to you, this is not hard.
#5 - Prepaid cellphone with only cash bought minutes from cards linked to fake information.

There are a lot more, but it can be done. The problem started with YOU not getting verbally upset with banks selling your information to everyone. Along with stores, etc... The time to have stopped this was 20 years ago before an entire industry was created around collecting data on everyone.

Some places now have cameras at the card swipe machine pointing at your face from the keypad. I guarentee these are taking a snapshot of you and can be used to attach your cash purchase to you. Simply covering the camera before you enter view will solve that.

If you want to protect your information and privacy you have to work hard at it because your government does not care one tiny bit about it.

Re:Privacy

[PotatoFarmer]

The fact that someone would do all those things is in itself more data about that person's habits. The real trick is to selectively limit your audit trail so that you still appear in the middle of the distribution curve. Like schooling fish and flocking birds, the best form of anonymity is to surround yourself with a few million things just like yourself.

Sadly, the end result of this sort of behavior is that Netflix recommends I watch Transformers 2. A high price to pay, but such are the wages of freedom.

Re:Privacy

[vux984]

John just wasn't conditioned with the proper morality for such an environment

That pretty much applies to any environment. Working hard in the sugar mines for your insect overlords is utopia too. Serving the insect overlords is good, and serving them should bring you a sense of tranquil satisfaction. The pain they inflict in their whippings is cleansing, and motivational, and while you should avoid failing to live up to their expectations you should take pride in knowing that they care enough about you to invest time in you like that. As for the fact that you are dying of malnutrition? Death is a welcome and inevitable end to all things, and your passing will make more room and food available for your children, who are much stronger than you, and much more able to serve the overlords. In a way, this is really for the best, and you should recognize this, and it should give you tranquil satisfaction and happiness.

If you disagree, you just aren't conditioned with the proper morality for such an environment, for it is truly utopia.

Or to pose a more interesting question: What is utopia if not happiness, and if you don't care how does an invasion of privacy (in and of itself) affect your happiness?

Utopia is not simply "happiness". As a result, the follow up question misses the point.

What -is- utopia? It is an "ideal society" of liberty, equality, and harmony.

Naturally any ideal society will have happy and contented citizens, but any society with happy citizens is not necessarily a utopia. Put people in cages and condition them to be happy there is not a path to utopia. It is a means to an end that bears some superficial semblance of utopia.

Taking away liberty and equality to enforce harmony is dystopian, even if you replace liberty with 'conditioning not value it'.

Re:Privacy

[Hatta]

What sort of privacy did you have in a hovel with -3-4 generations of family all sleeping on the same dirt floor?

What sort of quality of life did you have then? You had piss poor privacy, and piss poor quality of life. As people's fortunes improved, they chose to improve their quality of life by increasing their privacy.

Re:Privacy

[Hatta]

The Video Privacy Protection Act was passed after the video rental records of a Supreme Court nominee were leaked. So your suggestion does have precedence.

Re:Privacy

[natehoy]

#1 - Store loyalty cards? GET RID OF THEM.

A few friends and I used to rotate our Kroger cards randomly about once a week. We were all from different walks of life, so I can imagine what Kroger thought after a while. "One week: 5 packs of Ramen and a 24-banger of Bud. Next week: Filet, salmon, fresh vegetables, and a couple $30 bottle of wine. Next week: Weight Watchers Meals and 'Vitamin Water'. WTF?"

Re:Privacy

[RichM]

Sadly, the end result of this sort of behavior is that Netflix recommends I watch Transformers 2

Have you been searching Google Images for "megan fox nipslip?".

Sincerely,
Bill Gates.

It's only Evil when Microsoft does it

[You'reJustSlashFlock]

When Google does it, it's okay.  Thats why Slashdot has the evil Borg for Bill Gates and the friendly Google logo for Google.

Re:It's only Evil when Microsoft does it

[EzInKy]

For the most part that is because Google doesn't require using Google software on your personal computing device to access Google services. Microsoft, on the other hand, seems to take offense if you are not using their platform.

Re:It's only Evil when Microsoft does it

[shutdown -p now]

Microsoft, on the other hand, seems to take offense if you are not using their platform.

I guess it's why e.g. Office Live Apps officially support Firefox (including on Linux and Mac), and Safari.

You could say that using IE (or at least Silverlight) is nonetheless suggested, but then again, every time I log into GMail with my favorite browser (Opera), I see the ad urging me to try out Google Chrome...

Re:It's only Evil when Microsoft does it

[shutdown -p now]

How long did that take them?

Longer than I'd like, yes. Nonetheless, things are changing.

Look at Outlook Web Access - it still doesn't allow you to use the useful interface if you don't use IE, despite the fact that Firefox handles it fine. (try switching your useragent)

Fixed in Exchange 2010 - full version of OWA is now supported in Firefox and Safari.

Yes, that took a while, too, but better late than never.

They've just *barely* started supporting other browsers. I guess that's cause for some praise, but Google has supported other browsers since the beginning.

I'm not saying that Google isn't historically doing much better on that front (for one thing, it annoys me that neither Office Live nor OWA support Opera).

I was merely correcting GGP's generalized assertion that "Microsoft ... take offense if you are not using their platform".

Isn't that called Google?

[nweaver]

Isn't that already called Google, where you give them your email, your pictures, your videos, your calendar, all your documents, all your web searches, and about half of your total web surfing (*cough* analytics *cough* doubleclick *cough)?

Re:Isn't that called Google?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust no one, especially not a publicly traded, for-profit corporation.

Re:Isn't that called Google?

[rdavidson3]

Isn't that already called Google, where you give them your email, your pictures, your videos, your calendar, all your documents, all your web searches, and about half of your total web surfing (*cough* analytics *cough* doubleclick *cough)?

That's why double-click and google-analytics are on my blocked no-script list.

Re:Isn't that called Google?

[amicusNYCL]

What exactly did Google do to earn your trust that Microsoft never could?

Re:Isn't that called Google?

[Inda]

I do all that with Google and more. They send me snail mail and they have two of my phone numbers. I don't block JS. I don't use ad-block. I'm from the UK...

So what advert do they choose to show me on this page? "Chicago Patent Lawyers" --Which is better than the normal "Tidy your SQL" type adverts.

I don't code any more. I don't live in Chicago or even the USA.

Most of my RSS feeds on my iGoogle home page are to do with football. Surely that must be the biggest clue for them?

Google fail. They fail so hard with all their adverts.

Re:Isn't that called Google?

[nschubach]

especially not a publicly traded, for-profit corporation.

You say that like the "not-for-profit" companies are any better. Most of them are pushing agendas of their own. Just because they don't profit share with stockholders doesn't make them any more trustworthy.

Re:Isn't that called Google?

[mcgrew]

A clean interface; not wanting to own my computer; not wanting me to do everything their way; not calling design flaws "features"; not charging me for beta software; not charging me hundreds of dollars for products that should cost, at most, tens; not being cutesy and pandering to ten year olds (including Clippy).

Google treats me like I'm a respectable adult. Microsoft treats me like I'm a retarded five year old.

Re:Isn't that called Google?

[Teun]

For me it's not so much what Google did earn, it's especially what Microsoft did to lose any trust.

Re:Isn't that called Google?

[Reilaos]

To be fair, Google did improve the quality of my (online) life.

Hmm

[goldaryn]

Gates can have all that stuff, but there's no way I'm giving him my chair

Re:Hmm

[Yvan256]

You must be thinking of the current Microsoft CEO. Bill Gates only jumps over chairs.

Choice?

[Chris Lawrence]

So I guess the real choice is whether you want Bill Gates to have all your data, or Steve Jobs. But either way, google already has it. :)

Re:And you were worried about Google?

[MozeeToby]

It looks like you're getting married, would you like to...
() Perform background check on your fiance
() Take out a loan to pay for the reception
() Invite Clippy... Please? I'm so lonely...

He wants to recreate you virtually!!

[vivin]

'pictures, videos, documents, e-mail, instant messages, addresses, calendar dates/scheduling information (e.g., birthdays, anniversaries, appointments), voice mail, phone logs, RSS feeds, subscriptions, bookmarks, mail lists, project management features, computing device data, tasks and location data,
 
... and then he will use your virtual avatar and put it into a military robot... we know where that goes!

Re:He wants to recreate you virtually!!

[FlyingBishop]

Please explain. I'm not sure where that goes. It's very unclear.

And Microsoft Loses to Google AGAIN!

[RobotRunAmok]

Come on, Bill, what's all this "Ask" crap about? In a Man's World, you just take someone's data, you don't "Ask" like some panty-waist privacy advocate! You think Sergey Brin would "ask" before he takes my data? Hell, no! Sergey will just take it, sell it to the NSA, and then create an Android app that will let me dial in and get it back again -- for a fee.

Seriously, Bill... first combating world hunger, then curing disease, and now ASKing me before you breach my privacy? You're getting soft. Time to turn that Borg implant in your Slashdot avatar over to Sergey, I'm afraid...

An obvious case for prior art

[way2trivial]

see this link
http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacypolicy.html

We know something about Bill Gates too

[Yvan256]

He started watching Caprica.

Re:Title Correction: The N.S.A. Knows What You Did

[Locke2005]

Nobody would expect that!

Re: Bill Gates Knows What You Did Last Summer

[element-o.p.]

Ummm...used Linux? :P

Re:No

[Hatta]

If you are confidant that others can not use personal information against you, then there is no need for privacy. For instance, if everyone knew everything about everyone, then everyone would know that someone was using your information against you, and could act against that person.

You don't think that a guarantee of privacy would have made, say, Alan Turing's life much better? If you do things that are not morally wrong, but other people think they are then privacy is very much essential for your quality of life.

Re: Bill Gates Knows What You Did Last Summer

[maxwell demon]

Ummm...used Linux? :P

The reprogramming task force is on the way to you.

One note about data mining...

[NecroPuppy]

You get such interesting stuff when it's way off.

I recently picked up, at a going out of business sale, a piece of jewelry that was normally $1200 for less than $200.

Since then, I've gotten several high end credit card offers, none of which I would normally qualify for.

So mess with the system.

Use your grocery store card... but only when buying beef jerkey and toilet paper.
Get your name on a couple strange mailing lists.
etc.

If the data becomes so worthless that they can't actually use it, they'll stop. But only if enough of us go through with this.

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.

Re:One note about data mining...

[DerekLyons]

And when the analysts look at the bell curve, the outliers that are the weird are easily isolated and discarded from the analysis.

Re:Office.microsoft.com hates alternative browsers

[b4dc0d3r]

(apologies for the formatting, I just created this 20 minutes ago for my own purposes). Bottom line: the entire intention of this Office.Microsoft.com "feature" is misguidedly implemented, showing a complete lack of testing using the common 'alternative' platform.

Visiting Office.Microsoft.com with FireFox and NoScript gives the following message:

<noscript>
<table border=0 height=95%>
<tr><td valign=middle>
<div><center><b>One Moment Please...</b></center></div><br>
<div>To help optimize how your Web pages are displayed, we are checking to see if a 2007 Microsoft Office program is installed.</div><br>
<div>If this page does not automatically redirect, you have scripts disabled. <a href='/_services/errors/error.aspx?id=5'>See more information on scripts.</a></div><br>
<div><a href='http://office.microsoft.com/search/redir.aspx?assetid=FX010562591033'>Follow this link if the page is not redirected.</a></div>
</td></tr>
</table>
</noscript>

Enabling scripts, loading the page, then disabling scripts, results in the message at the top of the page, along with the requested page content (which doesn't appear prior to loading scripts):

Warning: This site requires the use of scripts, which your browser does not currently allow. See how to enable scripts.

That seems to be a disconnect. The second message shows that the site can be used with scripts disabled. The only reason I see the "One Moment Please..." message is the lack of cookies. In theory, the browser would check which versions are installed, and then show customized content for your version. IE browser allows ActiveX controls which could access the local filesystem, which can report that information.

VBScript function ofctestax() creates objects using the following CLSID values and then calls GetOfficeX() and/or GetOfficeLcid() functions to see what's installed:

• 4453D895-F2A1-4A38-A285-1EF9BD3F6D5D
• 6632AA50-49DC-475B-B911-A02B84C7C794
• C9712B19-838B-45A5-ABF2-9A315DDDED50

It then calls the function ofcpost() which sets cookies describing which versions are installed. ofctestax() is called inline from a script at the bottom of the page.
How does this work in FireFox?

if (typeof(window.external)=='undefined') {
if (navigator.mimeTypes['application/x-msoffice12'] != null && !IsOpera())
document.write("<embed id='ofcnp' type='application/x-msoffice12' f='ofcpost' width='0' height='0'>");
else if (navigator.mimeTypes['application/x-msoffice'] != null && !IsOpera())
document.write("<embed id='ofcnp' type='application/x-msoffice' f='ofcpost' width='0' height='0'>");
else
ofcpost('N','0','N','0');
} else {
if (typeof(ofctestax)!='undefined')
ofctestax();
else
ofcpost('N','0','N','0');
}

ofctestax is a VBScript function, so in IE and any browsers supporting VBScript, it will run. In other browsers, it will not be recognized, and thus be undefined. ofcpost() function is called with default values, setting cookies to uninformative values.

With no cookies, this happens, because ofcpost() calls post() function:

<script language='JavaScript'><!--
function post()
{

What did I do last summer?

[harry666t]

I was camping in a middle of a fucking forest with a herd of hippies, that's what I did.

So, how can you improve the quality of my life, mr. Gates? Can you give me a bigger forest? More hippies? Less villagers with pitchforks?

Bing is supposedly better than Google, rememeber?

[Enderandrew]

Where are all the /. posters who've said the past few months that everyone should move to Bing over Google, because Google is the evil behemoth that doesn't respect your privacy?

I'm just curious.

Re:Your existence as you know it is over

[mcgrew]

You do realize that your grandmother is probably a cyborg, don't you? If she has an artificial hip, knee, pacemaker, or any other device incorporated in her body that aids in its functions, she's a cyborg.

You will be assimilated. You will pay good money to be assimilated!

When I was assimilated in 2006 my existance as I knew it was over. And I'm thankful as hell!

Re:No

[spun]

Actually, modern research suggests you are at least partially wrong. In fact, less than 5% of people will act that way the majority of the time and regardless of circumstance. Around 15% will almost always act in a fair and equitable manner, even if everyone around them is cheating and acting unfairly. The rest will act fairly when in fair situations, and take advantage only when they see the majority of people around them taking advantage.

Google 'fairness reciprocity economic research.' Most people are not in fact driven primarily by self interest, but by notions of fairness and reciprocity. Look up games theory on wikipedia for an interesting jumping off point if you are interested, read about some of the experimental games played, and how people do not act to maximize their personal benefits, but to create and maintain justice.

We're not all evil, but the belief that 'we're all evil' is itself a primary motivation to act in a selfish fashion.

Google should be pissed

[Vermyndax]

...for Gates patenting their complete business model. Is it more evil that Google didn't patent it, or is it worse that they kept it on the down-low?

A "privacy" article at Techflash? Really?

[natehoy]

If you're running AdBlock, click on the blacklist for that site. In my case, it's literally the first time I've seen that AdBlock has a mechanism for handling more blocked scripts than my screen can display.

If you're not running AdBlock, and you value your privacy at all, don't read the article.

6 Doubleclick cookies, a Quantserve pixel, cookies AND a pixel image from 2o7, more scripts from more companies than I care to count.

"My God! It's full of crap!"