New Messenger Has Same Old, Gaping Privacy Holes

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft released the beta of the new 'Wave 4' Windows Live Essentials last week. The new beta of Windows Live Messenger 2011, while plugging some privacy holes and shoring up the user interface, fails to tackle the one biggest privacy-buster of all. Say you use Messenger to IM your wife. You also use Messenger to IM your old girlfriend. The next time your wife logs on to her Hotmail account — not Messenger, Hotmail — she will see that you and your old girlfriend 'are now friends.' It all happens without your knowledge or permission, and it happens even if you tell Messenger you want your personal information to be 'Private.'"

Comments

Thanks for providing a real world example..

[Niobe]

..we can all relate to

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, replace wife with mother, and girlfriend with the goatse guy.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[indre1]

It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[larry bagina]

ahh, now I see the gaping hole.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[garcia]

My wife would make the goatse guy look like a virgin if I ever did what the blurb suggested.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[negRo_slim]

You know it's no different than a real life situation. Say your wife drove by a gas station and your filling up and happen to run into your old girlfriend. Well a wife driving by has about the same context with which she could judge this GAPING PRIVACY HOLE as you call it.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[izomiac]

I detest examples such as this. They imply that you only need privacy if you're doing something wrong. Why not use one where a person is friends with both a fundamentalist christian and a well-known atheist, or a homosexual and a homophobe? There are countless examples of where doing the right thing has negative repercussions if the wrong people find out about it.

Privacy isn't your right to get away with illegal or immoral behavior. If you frame it as such then people will rightfully point out that you do not have such a right.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[noidentity]

I think most of us are adept enough to look up things like this pretty quickly. I found lots of useful links explaining what these things are (wife, girlfriend) and was able to follow along.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[Draek]

How in hell is chatting up with your ex-girlfriend when you're married something inmoral? at all?

I know, I know, lack of experience to judge here in this forum so take my word for it: it's something perfectly normal, and relatively common as well. Yeah, some people can get a bit jealous but the same goes for, say, commenting how 'cute' David Beckham looks wearing the England uniform yet few (if any) would say that making such a statement qualifies as "inmoral" for a married woman.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[MrNaz]

Bumping into someone accidentally is different from actively establishing communication with them. The other distinction to be made is that in your example, your wife driving past happens by chance. With the example in the summary, Hotmail reports your contact with your ex-GF to your wife, so its a certainty that all of your existing contacts know who you are in contact with.

Your example is about as relevant to this scenario as a tyrannosaurus chasing a field mouse.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[interkin3tic]

Why not use one where a person is friends with both a fundamentalist christian and a well-known atheist, or a homosexual and a homophobe?

One potential reason: that sounds like the start of poorly-written sitcom, not a serious privacy problem. Not only would that have convinced fewer people it's a problem, but then some network would be premiering a horrible new show this season.

Were the WB still around, it would probably be starting right about now in fact.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[xero314]

I detest examples such as this. They imply that you only need privacy if you're doing something wrong. Privacy isn't your right to get away with illegal or immoral behavior.

Actually what the summary is suggesting you actually do is the immoral part. Talking to an ex is not immoral. Intentionally hiding it from your spouse is.

There are countless examples of where doing the right thing has negative repercussions if the wrong people find out about it.

Could you please provide at least one, because you have not done so yet.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[TubeSteak]

Privacy isn't your right to get away with illegal or immoral behavior. If you frame it as such then people will rightfully point out that you do not have such a right.

Immoral behavior?
WTF do morals have to do with illegal behavior?
The courts have generally supported your right to privacy over the moral police.

Now excuse me while I legally engage in some immoral sodomy with a consenting adult.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[SkyDude]

You know it's no different than a real life situation. Say your wife drove by a gas station and your filling up and happen to run into your old girlfriend. .

C'mon your example doesn't work .
/. ers are geeks who fear females. None here have girlfriends, so by extension, no wives.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[TheLink]

> How in hell is chatting up with your ex-girlfriend when you're married something inmoral?

Chatting with her is not necessarily immoral, but chatting up with her I don't know :).

Seriously though, that's why privacy is useful. Because life is too short to possibly provide context to everyone, and they may not still accept your version of it.

So if you can control your privacy you don't have to waste lots of resources and time dealing with things which wouldn't have been problems in the first place.

Imagine if someone accused you of being a pedophile just because a bunch of 9 year olds (who you somewhat know - via niece, church or whatever ) decided at about the same time (they often do stuff in groups) to start messaging you on MSN, and you thought "oh what's the harm in adding them to your contacts". And next thing you know some paranoid lady accuses you of being a pedo.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[woodyleonhard]

@izo - If you have a chance to read the InfoWorld article, you'll see that my original example involved a guy and his boss, and a potential new employer. That's close to the scenario that originally brought this problem to my attention. Back in April, I wrote about - and warned Microsoft about - this precise problem. (See my Windows Secrets Newsletter article.) Somebody there just isn't listening. Privacy problems are real and enduring. Examples are fleeting - mutatis mutandis. No offense intended.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[hoggoth]

I have several friends that are fundamentalist Christians. These friends are really nice people and I enjoy having them as friends. I just don't talk about certain things around them out of respect for their kooky views. They are somewhat aware that I don't believe the same things as them and they don't bring it up either.

(But I did get a chuckle out of a "history" book that started just a few thousand years ago. I have a laminated fossil in my office older than that)

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[slashdime]

I detest examples such as this. They imply that you only need privacy if you're doing something wrong. Why not use one where a person is friends with both a fundamentalist christian and a well-known atheist, or a homosexual and a homophobe?

Your example is just as bad. Because why would anyone befriend a homophobe in this day and age? Or even worse, the fundamentalist christian.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[sznupi]

I can imagine recent hatchlings chasing what was quite similar to a mouse, and in fact its distant ancestor.

WOuldn't chicken vs. field mouse sort of count anyway?

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[Killjoy_NL]

So thank god for gay marriage eh? eh? ;)

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[joss]

Are you claiming to be too dumb to think of one for yourself or are you just feeling argumentative ?

How about: talking to a potential new employer. Its not immoral but its definitely not something you want your existing employer to know about.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[daveime]

and talk about emotions

There's your problem right there. You don't talk about emotions, you just display the fuckers at the appropriate times.

The first time you find yourself asking your girlfriend "how she is feeling", that's when SHE realizes that you can't "read her" and are not suitable mating material. You are supposed to KNOW how she's feeling without having to exchange 20 questions first.

And really ... a chick who likes playing videogames, how sexy is that ? And you wanted to just talk ?

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[internewt]

@izo - If you have a chance to read the InfoWorld article, you'll see that my original example involved a guy and his boss, and a potential new employer. That's close to the scenario that originally brought this problem to my attention. Back in April, I wrote about - and warned Microsoft about - this precise problem. (See my Windows Secrets Newsletter article.) Somebody there just isn't listening. Privacy problems are real and enduring. Examples are fleeting - mutatis mutandis. No offense intended.

I think MS might be trying to change what is/was just a pile of users into a social network, and this is how MS is trying to force (or trick) most people into joining the network. Many users will not notice what's happening, many will not care, and many that might care will not (act on their) worry as they need to join the network to be able to keep using the free thing (IM).

Maybe it's competition? You can't use facebook's IM thing without having a FB account (and hence being part of networks), so MS figure they can do the same as people seem to accept being users of social networks. And as a bonus, MS get a social network of their own, with lots of users, that they can mine for data to sell to advertisers.

If you are the article's author, do you know if a passport account, set up with a domain that doesn't exist any more, is vulnerable to this privacy hole?

I created an MSN passport years ago, so I could use the MSN messenger service from 3rd party clients, and still do with Pidgin. IIRC, you could sign up and get a user name that was something like blahblah@passport.com, or you could use an existing email address from elsewhere. At the time I had a vanity domain, and used passport@mydomain.tld to sign up, so I knew where the spam had come from. Have these old accounts been migrated across to this thing I will want nothing to do with?

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[internewt]

(Score:0, Troll)

Your example is just as bad. Because why would anyone befriend a homophobe in this day and age? Or even worse, the fundamentalist christian.

Looks like Pat Robertson has got mod points today!

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[Andrewkov]

I see why she's your ex girlfriend.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[mcgrew]

Not all of us are Koothrappali. Some of us are Wolowitz. Hell, some of us are Cooper. Note that all four of them got laid before the second season was over, and from the "vanity card" at the end of every episode (it lasts about thre seconds, you have to pause it to read) I'm pretty convinced that the shows writers are all nerds who are probably logged in to slashdot right now.

So cheer up and take heart. I'd link A Nerd's Guide to Getting Laid for you but the last time I did, some humorless dork modded it "troll". So I won't.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[mcgrew]

How in hell is chatting up with your ex-girlfriend when you're married something inmoral?

Because it will inspire jealousy in your spouse, and causing pain to other people is immoral. Do you really think that she's going to be OK with your talking to someone you used to have sex with? I wouldn't be; if I found that my wife or girlfriend was still "friends" with her ex-lover I'd certainly have a problem with it.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[Insightfill]

Now excuse me while I legally engage in some immoral sodomy with a consenting adult.

Yes, but in some locales, the immoral sodomy is also illegal.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[drinkypoo]

I have several friends that are fundamentalist Christians. These friends are really nice people and I enjoy having them as friends. I just don't talk about certain things around them out of respect for their kooky views. They are somewhat aware that I don't believe the same things as them and they don't bring it up either.

Are they really your friends if you can't freely exchange ideas without thinking the other is insane (which is what "kooky" means)? No, they're only your acquaintances. Let's all speak the same language here, so we can understand each other.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[geminidomino]

I'm pretty convinced that the shows writers are all nerds who are probably logged in to slashdot right now.

Not true. One of them is a surprisingly-socially adjusted member of my extended family. ;)

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[mcgrew]

WTF do morals have to do with illegal behavior?

Nothing whatever, and I would posit that sodomy with a consenting adult is not immoral; nobody's being hurt. Adultery, otoh, is hurtful, as I know from painful experience with Evil-X. Adultery is legal, however.

In Illinois, it's legal to fuck your congressman's wife so long as you don't pay her for it.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[geminidomino]

why would anyone befriend a homophobe in this day and age? Or even worse, the fundamentalist christian.

A simple modification to your words should make the answer clear.

why would anyone be a homophobe in this day and age? Or even worse, the fundamentalist christian.

If reason hasn't spread far enough to stop people from opting into this stupidity, it's not hard to believe it hasn't spread far enough to convince everyone else not to associate with the subcreatures.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[ArsenneLupin]

The difference is probability.

Such "gas station" situations can happen... but frankly, what is the probability? Probably less than 1% .

However, with the hotmail situation, there is 100% probability that she will notice your "new" friendship when she logs in next time.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[ArsenneLupin]

We gay people don't see matters so narrowly... We'd see such a situation as a wonderful excuse for a threesome :-)

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[ArsenneLupin]

via niece, church or whatever

You'd better not mention church...

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[ArsenneLupin]

not a serious privacy problem

It depends. Just replace "one homosexual friend" with dozens of homosexual friends, and then the one homophobe friend will start drawing conclusions about yourself... Which may be more serious, if you're not out yet yourself.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[Killjoy_NL]

Thank him/her for me then, I love the show.
So a big thank you from Schiedam, The Netherlands :)

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[VGPowerlord]

Were the WB still around, it would probably be starting right about now in fact.

It starts airing next week on CW as a new "summer" series.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[mcgrew]

One potential reason: that sounds like the start of poorly-written sitcom

So does my life.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[noidentity]

Since the problem here is arousal of jealousy, rather than impropriety, it perfectly shows why revealing this information of contact is the wrong thing for it to do. If you really were just chatting, then your argument supports that it shouldn't be revealed.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[hoggoth]

If all of my friends believed the same things as me, my social life would be pretty boring.

And I assure you I have friends that are much crazier than the fundamental christians.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[ArsenneLupin]

Friends... or work colleagues. Homophobe, or suspected homophobe (when you try to avoid the subject as much as possible, and all you have to go about is weird quips and off-color jokes)

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[ArsenneLupin]

In Illinois, it's legal to fuck your congressman's wife so long as you don't pay her for it.

... but if you did, would you be charged for prostitution or for illegal campaign funding?

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[Toonol]

It does imply that. Not that chatting with an old girlfriend is immoral; but doing so and hiding it from your wife certainly is.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[SkyDude]

So cheer up and take heart. I'd link A Nerd's Guide to Getting Laid for you but the last time I did, some humorless dork modded it "troll". So I won't.

Well, as a service to the /. community, here's the link I think.

And a more concise guide.

Let the braindead mods troll me - I have karma to burn....MUAHAHAHAHAHA

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[Your.Master]

You don't get to tell me who my friends are and what the criteria are for my friendship.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[Golddess]

Note that all four of them got laid before the second season was over

I don't recall Sheldon ever getting laid. Though these examples didn't all occur during the second season, Raj had that slutty email correspondent of Sheldon's, Leonard had Penny, and Howard had Penny's friend, but I cannot for the life of me remember Sheldon hooking up with anyone.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[mcgrew]

Nope, neither one of them. Screw it, my karma's excellent and a downmod won't hurt me, so here's the link I referred to. Most find it humorous, but some find it offensive. Nobody who lacks a sense of humor should go there.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[mcgrew]

A grad student moved in with him for a couple of weeks. Unfortunately, wikipedia only has a synopsis of one show that season, and it isn't it. I'd have to check the DVD for the show's title, but it was 2nd season.

I don't recall Leonard ever getting Penny, though they went out for dinner. He did get it on with Leslie Winkle in the 1st season.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[Golddess]

Like I said, I didn't think it happened within the first 2 seasons, but they definitely hooked up at some point during the series.

I think I know what episode you're referring to. I'll have to go back and check that episode out again, thanks.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example..

[mcgrew]

I haven't seen any of season 3, and I'm maybe 1/2 way through season 2. I want to see them in order.

Open communication?

[0100010001010011]

I understand the privacy implications, but maybe they could have chosen a better example.

If your Wife has some huge issue with you talking to your Ex-girlfriend, there are probably other underlying things.

Communication should be open, like this:
"Oo, she has a nice ass"
[girlfriend turns]
"yeah, you're right"

Re:Open communication?

[Renraku]

You're living in a fantasy world.

Here's how it really goes:
"Oo, she has a nice ass."
[girlfriend glares]
"Why are you looking at her ass?"
"Well, she walked by, I just kind of glanced there."
"Why didn't you glance the other way?"
"I don't know, I just didn't."
"What's wrong with my ass?"
"Nothing's wrong with your ass, I was just making an observation."
"Are you saying my ass is fat?"
"No not at all, I love your ass."

The next day:
"My boyfriend doesn't like my ass any more..I don't think he loves me."
"Aw, it's okay sugar, there's boys everywhere! Let me introduce you to my friend Ronaldo, he's single!"
"Well, okay, since my boyfriend obviously doesn't love me anymore."

A week later:
"Well since you have an infatuation with other women's asses, I'm leaving you for Ronaldo. At least HE says I have a nice ass!"

Re:Open communication?

[Aladrin]

Perhaps he didn't mean 'old' in that sense. ;)

Re:Open communication?

[Korin43]

You're living in a fantasy world

Or maybe you're living in relationship-hell. Why date someone so insecure that you have to lie to them?

Re:Open communication?

[twidarkling]

There's the issue. You assume that he's cheating. Nowhere is that implication beyond your own mind. Thanks for demonstrating why this is an issue.

Re:Open communication?

[Saint Stephen]

I guess people can live how they like, but IMO that would probably mean your GF would be likely to cheat on you. Sluts are fun but unreliable in the long term.

Re:Open communication?

[secolactico]

A week later:
"Well since you have an infatuation with other women's asses, I'm leaving you for Ronaldo. At least HE says I have a nice ass!"

If you ever find yourself in that situation thank your lucky stars and feel pity for poor Ronaldo.

Re:Open communication?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're living in a fantasy world

Or maybe you're living in relationship-hell. Why date someone so insecure that you have to lie to them?

I'm guessing that you've never dated any real women.

Re:Open communication?

[spazdor]

I'm guessing *you* haven't.

(Where "real woman" means something roughly analagous to "real man", as opposed to the more usual /. definition, "not a blow up doll")

Re:Open communication?

[selven]

If I had a girlfriend whose self-image was reliant on one small part of her physical appearance I would be the one dumping her.

Re:Open communication?

[betterunixthanunix]

"What's wrong with my ass?"

This is the point at which you leave your girlfriend -- if she can make such massively illogical statements, which are tangentially related (at best) to what you said, you are better off single.

Re:Open communication?

[shaitand]

The problem isn't that he is im'ing an ex, or even that you assume that means hes cheating. The issue that she considers him having sex with other girls a problem.

It's just sex it doesn't imply any attachment.

Re:Open communication?

[shaitand]

If you had dated any real women you'd realize that they are all psychotic bitches. If they aren't psychotic bitches then the only explanation is that they are sucking your buddy tom's dick every weekend.

Re:Open communication?

[shaitand]

I take it you are single? In what world do any women hit a better than 60% logical statement rate?

Re:Open communication?

[winkydink]

You could have stopped after the first three words.

Re:Open communication?

[flaming error]

> Why date someone so insecure that you have to lie to them?

Because it beats being alone?

We're all flawed humans. Insecurity isn't the worst problem a date/mate could have.

Re:Open communication?

[betterunixthanunix]

There is a reason that I cruise for girls in the math department at my university.

Re:Open communication?

[X0563511]

Great! No harm can come of that, and it keeps her from being a psychotic bitch.

Re:Open communication?

[X0563511]

The one where you don't settle for the first woman you find.

Re:Open communication?

[sharkey]

"Not a blowup doll"? You mean a Real Doll, Right?

Re:Open communication?

[JordanH]

If I had a girlfriend...

Stop right there.

Re:Open communication?

[maxume]

They can't run fast?

Or is it the last department where they don't 'know' yet?

Re:Open communication?

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

No, we get it. Problem is that talking to someone is not being unfaithful. The old girlfriend might be someone you share interests with, or she might have had a problem you knew the answer to, or she might be sharing news about a mutual acquaintance.

If it was any of those things, and your wife has a problem with it--or you're irrationally afraid she will--then as the top of this thread and GP suggest, you have bigger problems than the security of your messenger.

Of course, you MAY be cheating, but as GP pointed out, nowhere was that stated, only that you don't want your wife to find out. Now in lots of cases, the women involved would only be upset if you really were cheating. But some people don't behave quite that rationally, and I imagine that a lot of people might fear the appearance of infidelity even if they were doing nothing wrong.

Re:Open communication?

[interkin3tic]

If they aren't psychotic bitches then the only explanation is that they are sucking your buddy tom's dick every weekend.

I'm confused as to how fellating tom would be a treatment for that or any psychological problem, but hey, whatever works.

Re:Open communication?

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation needed]

Re:Open communication?

[icebraining]

Have you ever considered that your experience may be biased by the fact the only women you meet are the ones too stupid to get that you're a misogynist?

Re:Open communication?

[icebraining]

Of course, 2) is invalidated by 1).

Re:Open communication?

[Z34107]

Well, my college's math department had a really cute girl who talked excitedly about doing brain surgery on birds and stitching them back up again. I'm not much of a bio nerd, but that was cool.

As for the department where they don't "know yet," what she did know about scalpels would have probably made up for it.

Re:Open communication?

[twidarkling]

She can't bitch at you while her mouth is full, duh. :p

Re:Open communication?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I take it you are single? In what world do any women hit a better than 60% logical statement rate?

I think that depends on whether or not you settle for a chick. When I was 'hunting' I met every crazy chick in town. When I got pissed off and said "fuck it", I quit looking, and that's when I started bumping into ladies (yes, plural) that actually had brains in their heads. My problems stopped when I stopped running around going "ok... I can live with that."

Re:Open communication?

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

You're living in a fantasy world.

That fantasy world isn't nearly as nice as my real one, where my wife enjoys pointing out noteworthy asses and breasteses for my enjoyment.

Re:Open communication?

[Lehk228]

and that is why i date men

Re:Open communication?

[Cryolithic]

My ex was bisexual, and yes, that was a definite "Pro" in that relationship.

Re:Open communication?

[destroyer661]

You're living in a fantasy world.

10 Here's how it really goes: "Oo, she has a nice ass." [girlfriend glares] "Why are you looking at her ass?" "Well, she walked by, I just kind of glanced there." "Why didn't you glance the other way?" "I don't know, I just didn't." "What's wrong with my ass?" "Nothing's wrong with your ass, I was just making an observation." "Are you saying my ass is fat?" "No not at all, I love your ass."

The next day: "My boyfriend doesn't like my ass any more..I don't think he loves me." "Aw, it's okay sugar, there's boys everywhere! Let me introduce you to my friend Ronaldo, he's single!" "Well, okay, since my boyfriend obviously doesn't love me anymore."

A week later: "Well since you have an infatuation with other women's asses, I'm leaving you for Ronaldo. At least HE says I have a nice ass!" 40-some-later GOTO 10

There, fixed that *cough* erm... implemented recursion properly for you.

Re:Open communication?

[mr_walrus]

>breasteses

chesticles.

Re:Open communication?

[DamienRBlack]

I take it you are single? In what world do any PEOPLE hit a better than 60% logical statement rate?

Fixed that for you.

Re:Open communication?

[simonj2]

+1 insightful.

Re:Open communication?

[Hurricane78]

No, you’re living in a fantasy world.
A world that was parroted around so much by the losers of the world, that everybody started actually believing it.
A world where what you describe is normal.

Where the man has no spine and no dominance whatsoever. And hence the woman only uses him as a provider and as a slave. While she fucks someone else behind his back. And for good reason. Since that other man is the actual manly man with the spine and dominance, but he’s too “free” to be able to be much of a provider.

Meanwhile we get told from childhood on, that being dominant would be wrong and men and women are equal. Has anyone looked at them lately? Or talked with the other sex? The needs and everything as so very different, they could as well be two species.
But when you mention that dominance is a male thing, you always get those female and male extremist feminists who in a very funny quirk of nature want to make men and women completely equal, by running after *male* ideals, as if they were their own too.
Meanwhile, every healthy woman shakes her head, since her ideas are *her* ideals. And dominance or other male things not being them is only a bad thing for actual sexists, who value male ideals higher. As I said: A funny quirk that those who do that, are the worst feminists. ^^

Look, it’s simple: A woman simply loves the feeling of being safe and secure. She can still pull the strings if she wants. But I can completely relate to having a safe nest. Especially if I were by nature dedicated to be the “child expert”.
(The sad thing, is that raising children is not the most respected and best paid job in our society. For both sexes. Mothers earlier, fathers later.)

And then women get flooded with things that make them insecure.

Conclusion: Be dominant and lead the way, but be there for her! And you know you are doing good, when she does not have bad thoughts about you or her, when you mention a nice ass. Because of how very sure she is because of how very sure and safe you are.
Turn it around and think of it: If your wife would say that a man was very charming, when do you think it’s more likely she will think that maybe it’s a bit unstable with you both? When you just stay cool and maybe agree, not showing a big reaction? Or when you start to panic inside of “Oh god please don’t let her run away because oh god I’m so lucky that I got her at all!”?
Hm? ^^

See... :)

Re:Open communication?

[Hurricane78]

I studied this aspects of social dynamics and psychology, and... well... I know for a fact that you never learned how to be a real man.

Real men don’t have to lie. Because they define what’s OK and what not. And don’t let the women define their reality.
Which does not mean the unfair shit that extreme feminists want to paint it as. Quite the opposite.
The difference is: We don’t enforce. We offer. She accepts. Because she likes it.

And here is the key: A real man does not have to lie or fear that he will lose her, because he does not depend on her. He does not need to take value from her. He offers. But not for free. For the worth he himself gives himself. The woman attaches to it. When she detaches, well, it does not really matter. He has the next one in about an hour. His state does not rise and fall with her acceptance. If he says that is ok, it is. Period. Or goodbye.
(Of course if she has a good point, that’s nice too. And of course if by his own rules, he just fucked up, then he has to and will apologize and fix it. Point is: She accepted those rules when she came to him. That’s why it’s OK. You did not force her on those rules. She saw them and saw that they were good.)
[Now you know why the women with servant husbands/BFs prefer to fuck someone who does the above, behind his back. ^^ I say they are right!]

Re:Open communication?

[Bottles]

What the FU-

That's why Tom from MySpace is auto-added to everyone who signs up.

And that explains the grin in his avatar picture.

Son of a bitch.

Re:Open communication?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only on slashdot would this be modded insightful.

pathetic

Re:Open communication?

[merockstar]

So what you're saying is that women prefer to date either men who lie to themselves about their own emotions, or men who aren't really sincerely interested in them?

That doesn't make any sense, but I know from casual observation that you're extremely right. It's disgusting, but truth.

Re:Open communication?

[PrecambrianRabbit]

Oh false antecedents, is there anything you can't imply? :-D

Re:Open communication?

[PrecambrianRabbit]

Parent post is chock-full of win! Hilarious!

Re:Open communication?

[IICV]

I love the irony here! Assuming the parent is in fact single, you just barely managed a 50% logical statement rate for this post. If the parent poster isn't single, that goes down to zero.

Re:Open communication?

[cwnannwn]

Unless she texts it to you during the act.

Re:Open communication?

[Killjoy_NL]

Best comment in this thread today :)
Cheers

Re:Open communication?

[ebonum]

Things may appear simple in your mother's basement, but in the middle of the real world with an angry wife bearing down on us, they get more complex.

- The Hunt For Red October

Re:Open communication?

[Tom]

Uh, no. At least not that I could remember.

Re:Open communication?

[AliasMarlowe]

In what world do any women hit a better than 60% logical statement rate?

In this world, there are very few people who approach 60% logical statements even on a good day. The average is much lower. We may be quite logical for work-related stuff (bunch of PhD guys & gals doing R&D), but not socially. Excessive use of logic in social issues probably hampers reproductive success...

Re:Open communication?

[Tom]

Uh, talking is cheating now? Nowhere did the OP even hint at more than a conversation going on.

Re:Open communication?

[mjwx]

A week later: "Well since you have an infatuation with other women's asses, I'm leaving you for Ronaldo. At least HE says I have a nice ass!"

2 minutes later:
ME: "Well, I'm off to Pattaya. Have fun".

Sex tourism, the nuclear weapons of bad breakups.

Re:Open communication?

[silentcoder]

Worst and most factually incorrect piece of misogynistic bullshit in this thread so far.

You're about one step away from "back to the kitchen, no votes for you".

Face it - feminism happened because men dominated instead of... oh I don't know FORMING A PARTERSHIP with their partners ?

Well I rather LIKE forming partnerships. I like the idea of working TOGETHER. Without a boss-figure or a "head of the household". Because I am not ARROGANT enough to think I always know better.
There is nothing more primitive and barbarian left in our world today than the idea that somebody always HAS to be in charge. I certainly will not be that barbarian in my own home - and I suggest you rethink the complete and utter lack of respect you show to woman.

Stupid feminists said "a woman can do everything a man can." but it had to be said, you're judging based on first-wave feminism though- it had to be said THEN.
Current so-called 3rd-wave feminists have a very different view. They tend to be sex-positive, porn-positive woman whose idea of equality is that a man should be able to enjoy being a man, and a woman should be able to enjoy being a woman. When they are together they should be able to form a partnership in which both of them can find intellectual, emotional and sexual fulfillment.

The nice about that is, that it doesn't make the stupid mistake you, the first wave feminists and all the men they rallied against (and their intellectual descendent's still do) are making: generalizing based on sex.

The single greatest definition of sexism I ever read was: "Sexism is to consider about the sex of a person when it is not a relevant concern."

When IS it a relevant concern ? When you go to a urologist or a are trying to make a baby together - your respective sexes matter. You can't swap jobs for those kinds of things (yet anyway).
That is IT. Every other time the question to ask is "Which one of us is most capable of making this decision" and should be answered honestly by you both - and the decision given to the one who is best suited for the task. The sex of the person will never having anything to do with the answer. Not EVER.
The nice thing about this system is it works just as well for polygamous or same-sex relationships.

Re:Open communication?

[nstlgc]

Small? Have you *seen* that ass??

Re:Open communication?

[tehcyder]

It's just sex it doesn't imply any attachment.

Good luck using that as an excuse if you're actually married.

"But, darling, it was just pure physical lust that drove me into having amazing, lengthy, filthy sex with that gorgeous eighteen year old pole dancer. It meant nothing to me, nothing at all. Now just get me my dinner, I'm going out tonight and I need a lot of energy, if you know what I mean, and I'm sure that you do."

Re:Open communication?

[nschubach]

Yep, your ex could have reached out to you to find out who did the roof on your last house because they did a good job.

Re:Open communication?

[drinkypoo]

They say men are more likely to cheat, while women are more likely to "poach mates", i.e. knowingly hit on someone who is taken.

Re:Open communication?

[Mods]

If you didn't post AC all the time you could probably get some of my mod points to spend for yourself.

Re:Open communication?

[geminidomino]

A woman doesn't need to be bisexual to appreciate attractiveness in other women.

I know, I didn't get it at first either! A definite plus getting pics of women emailed to me by my GF saying "check out how hot she is!"

Re:Open communication?

[0100010001010011]

I don't think it's "cheating" if he's aware of it.

4. to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
6. to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
7. Informal . to be sexually unfaithful (often fol. by on ):

I know it may come as a shock to most slashdotters, but some people are comfortable with open relationships, cuckolding, swinging, polyamory, etc. It's not for everyone, but relationships and sex are a HUGE gray area and not as black and white as the bible belt would like to make you think.

C'est la vie.

Re:Open communication?

[mdielmann]

And why would you want to be stuck with someone who is so utterly clueless about biology, and is that insecure? Yay you for getting out before it's too late.

I had a girlfriend that was totally okay with it. Hell, she'd point out cute girls to me! My current girlfriend isn't as okay with it, so I don't say anything. She knows I look, but doesn't complain if I don't ogle, and doesn't want me to point out the cute girls to her.

The biology part is simple. Guys are wired to cue strongly to visual stimulation - we notice pretty girls. Pretending this isn't true for the vast majority of cases doesn't change it. The trick is what you do afterward.

Re:Open communication?

[BenoitRen]

> Why date someone so insecure that you have to lie to them? Because it beats being alone?

It really doesn't. Dating someone like that is hell. You'd be rather be alone.

Re:Open communication?

[mcgrew]

If you had dated any real women you'd realize that they are all psychotic bitches.

No, just the single ones. Girl friends of mine who have boyfriends and come to me for "revenge sex" when they're fighting with him are very pleasant!

The good ones are almost all taken. The psychotic bitches are available because they've been dumped.

Re:Open communication?

[alexo]

If your Wife has some huge issue with you talking to your Ex-girlfriend, there are probably other underlying things.

New wives can often feel insecure in the presence of old ex-girlfriends.

After my wife-to-be met a female friend of mine, she seriously tried to sever the ties between us. It took her several years to admit to me that she was afraid I would leave her for that friend (quote: "I felt like you had a lot more in common with her than with me") and for me to convince her that we really were "just friends". They're on good terms now but it took time.

Communication should be open, like this:
"Oo, she has a nice ass"
[girlfriend turns]
"yeah, you're right"

Relationships are funny things, they grow and evolve with time. My wife knows now that no matter how much I ogle the menu and work up my appetite, I'm still dining at home.

We still have "communications" like the above, but they usually go like this (rough English translation):
"Oo, she has a nice ass"
[wife turns]
"Meh, mine's better"

Re:Open communication?

[Abstrackt]

There was a man sitting in his room. He began to talk to God.

The man said, "God, why did you make women so beautiful?"
God replied, "So you would like them."
"Oh," the man replied, "why did you make women so soft?"
Again, God replied, "So you would like them."
The man was pensive for a moment and then asked, "God, why then did you make women so stupid?"
God replied, "So they would like you."

Re:Open communication?

[CAIMLAS]

Precisely. That kind of woman is for shallow conquests using a pseudonym, not dating. Heaven forbid you actually talk with them. That's an exercise in futility.

Re:Open communication?

[spidr_mnky]

Actually, it sounds like he's living in my world. I have that conversation with my girlfriend about twice a week.

The scenario you lay out does have a happy ending. Within a week, the problem solves itself. Specifically, the current problem leaves you for Ronaldo. Then you just have to work out the more long term problem of how you ended up dating bitch-face to begin with, and how to avoid it in the future.

Re:Open communication?

[spidr_mnky]

Looks like I should have just modded you up and saved my breath. Well put.

so it's like,,

[phrostie]

so it's like facebook?

Re:so it's like,,

[cosm]

+1 Like

Re:so it's like,,

[X0563511]

-1 SetTheBuildingOnFireAfterChainingAllTheGroundFloorDoorsAndWindows

Oh. Sorry. I got carried away, there.

Re:so it's like,,

[kirill.s]

-1 SetTheBuildingOnFireAfterHavingYourRedStaplerTakenAway

FTFY

Re:so it's like,,

[X0563511]

No no, see - your "fix" implies I need a reason to set the building on fire :)

(yes, I got the joke. it's tired and old, which is why I didn't make it myself)

Err what?

[js3]

If your girlfriend tags you in a facebook picture everyone including your wife will see it too. What's the big deal?How is this a huge privacy hole?

Re:Err what?

[jamesh]

If your girlfriend tags you in a facebook picture everyone including your wife will see it too. What's the big deal?How is this a huge privacy hole?

Because we hate Microsoft here, that's why.

Re:Err what?

[LBt1st]

Normal don't make it right.

Re:Err what?

[magsol]

Aka, "Just because Facebook does it, doesn't make it right."

Re:Err what?

[TooMuchToDo]

I would LOVE for facebook to have a privacy option "Disable the ability to tag me in any photo"

Re:Err what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can untag yourself in a facebook photo, you can unfriend someone so they can't tag you, etc. With this, there are no options. Facebook isn't exactly the golden standard of user-controlled privacy settings, but it's better than this.

Re:Err what?

[minsk]

I would LOVE for facebook to have a privacy option "Disable the ability to tag me in any photo"

Like the privacy setting entitled "Photos and videos I'm tagged in", which can be customized to Only Me or blocked from specific people?

I can't swear that it works properly. So test with someone other than your mistress first :)

Re:Err what?

[spazdor]

Hang on a second here. Did you just point out that MSN works kind of like Facebook, and then insinuate that this means the privacy is fine?

Re:Err what?

[js3]

Hang on a second here. Did you just point out that MSN works kind of like Facebook, and then insinuate that this means the privacy is fine?

Of course not. I'm saying OMG MSN HAS A HUGE PRIVACY ISSUE when the biggest social website out there had this 2 years ago is a bit disingenuous

Re:Err what?

[CheshireCatCO]

Facebook (and Google) have been getting a ton of flack for this, too. Your example is poorly chosen if you really want to argue that this isn't a big deal.

Re:Err what?

[KahabutDieDrake]

Facebook is a social interaction system. IM is a communication system. They have entirely different expectations of privacy and function. It's really not that difficult to draw distinction between them and what functions should cross over and which should not.

I think the bigger point here is that MSN is a crappy IM system trying to be a crappy social network. Neither of those things is terribly useful, so don't use it. Problem solved.

Re:Err what?

[KahabutDieDrake]

Lets review. MSN is an IM program. It allows for person to person direct communication. Facebook is a social network. It allows for everyone you know to meet everyone else you know.

So your point is that if facebook has a privacy flaw, then it's ok for every other form of communication to have this flaw too? Try again.

Consider if your phone, instead of ringing, told the caller the last 5 people you talked to. Would that be ok because facebook does the same thing? I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't accept that.

Most of us are smart enough to post only what we want public on facebook, and use IM or something else for private communications. My guess is you are young, and think you should be able to post privately to facebook, or maybe you just don't think privacy is important. It doesn't matter, because you are missing the important part, which is IM != Social network. What the fuck do they teach kids these days?

Re:Err what?

[icebraining]

Except we've been saying OMG FACEBOOK HAS A HUGE PRIVACY ISSUE for two years. Facebook privacy issues have at least one story per week. Nobody is being disingenuous.

Re:Err what?

[hawaiian717]

I'd go so far as to say that if Facebook does it, it's probably wrong.

Re:Err what?

[sjwt]

If your girlfriend tags you in a facebook picture everyone including your wife will see it too. What's the big deal?How is this a huge privacy hole?

Because we hate Microsoft here, that's why.

Yes, because no one bitches about facebooks privacy settings..

Re:Err what?

[daveime]

Excepting landlines, just about EVERY mobile phone keeps a log of your last 5 or 10 missed, received and dialled calls.

And if, like 99% of the married population, your wife is not "jealous", just merely shall we say "overly curious", then that'll get you in just as much trouble if you happened to even miss a call from an ex.

I wonder why is nobody screaming OMGBBQWTF, GREAT BIG PRIVACY HOLE IN NOKIA / SAMSUNG / IPHONE PRIVACY ???

Re:Err what?

[internewt]

I would LOVE for facebook to have a privacy option "Disable the ability to tag me in any photo"

Pfft, you think they are going to give up their chance of getting data that could be very useful for training an automated facial recognition system?

Lots of real world pictures, probably tagged reasonably accurately. There are loads of groups that would like access to that, and FB will/does sell that access.

Re:Err what?

[spazdor]

Because access to your cellphone is restricted by the physical possession of that cellphone. This MSN thing is more like if your wife was able to see your missed calls on her cellphone.

Ahh, the future of the internet...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

All the lack of privacy and cliquishness of the tiny little towns that people ran like hell to the big city to avoid; but with the systematic asymmetry of information that only modern technocratic corporatism can provide... Just lovely.

Silly example

[overshoot]

The obvious problem is having a wife and an ex-girlfriend. That's backwards: girlfriend and ex-wife works much better.

Re:Silly example

[chill]

Not if you're doing it right, it isn't.

Re:Silly example

[drinkypoo]

Not if you're doing it right, it isn't.

You are so right. The right way is girlfriend and girlfriend. Marriage is for people having children.

Re:Silly example

[geminidomino]

If you're doing it right, the word "wife" never even enters consideration.

There's no good reason at all for a man to ever get married, unless you are old fashioned and want kids (and that's another sucker bet).

The obvious lesson

[DoofusOfDeath]

Never do anything involving both "ex-girlfriend" and "old, gaping ... holes".

Thats the biggest security hole?

[hilather]

What about MSNs lack of even simple encryption? I don't know how many times I've seen people snoop on other peoples conversations over wireless...

Re:Thats the biggest security hole?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Lack of encryption is a pretty egregious offense; but a vulnerability that consists of making possibly-compromising disclosures specifically to people with which you have some sort of prior relationship, no matter where they are on the internet, is quite arguably more salient, for the vast majority of people, than a vulnerability that exposes their communications to technically savvy individuals within wireless range(if the wireless is unencrypted or weakly encrypted, or those individuals have the keys).

Plus, lack of encryption is something that you can, with minimal effort(and the cooperation of whoever you are talking to, which is the harder part), solve on your own. Pidgin+OTR. Done, instant encryption that even the provider can't do jack about for any protocol supported by libpurple. The provider telling everybody you know who you have been talking to lately, on the other hand, is an unsolvable problem from the client side(barring the old "uninstall that fucker like a bad habit that owes you money and never touch it again" solution).

And, ultimately, except in the case of financial matters, or malware that renders a computer unusable(where the damage is pretty much fungible, and it really doesn't much matter who inflicts it, it hurts the same), security vulnerabilities and privacy disclosure issues that specifically aim at people you know in real life hurt more than ones where random strangers can get the same data. Random malefactors on the internet can certainly steal your money, and a few hardcore sociopaths with nothing better to do might torment you just for giggles; but the people immediately around you are a large part of your life. Disclosures to the former are unfortunate. Disclosures to the latter are potentially devastating.

Re:Thats the biggest security hole?

[icydog]

Honest question: Which of the common IM protocols are encrypted, excluding things like OTR?

Re:Thats the biggest security hole?

[icebraining]

I've seen myself, does that count?

Re:Thats the biggest security hole?

[man_of_mr_e]

None that i'm aware of. Same with most VOIP services. Skype has encryption, but they also tap peoples calls at the drop of a supeona.. Which is not a good thing even if you're not doing anything wrong (there are lots of people in jails and prisons for things they didn't do based on evidence which "seems to fit")

Re:Thats the biggest security hole?

[Philip_the_physicist]

Qnext isn't very common, but it does use SSL for direct client-to-client chat.

Re:Thats the biggest security hole?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The boundary between "system problems" and "user problems" is not a sharp one. There are certainly specific cases that you can, on snap judgement, put solidly into one camp or the other; but there exists more or less a continuum between them.

The problem with all this "social" crap is that it is generally in the interests of the provider to encourage you to expand your "network" as much as possible, and to reveal as much as possible, because it provides them with more valuable advertising data and attracts more users. Usually, if you do your homework, delve deep enough, and pay attention to detail, there exist a more or less functional set of privacy settings(either because the company fears being the target of the latest "State AG shooting for governorship Cracks Down on Cyber-Paedophiles" case, or in order to attract disclosure-shy users); but they are, all too frequently, a design afterthought at best, or deliberately obfuscated and semi-broken at worst; because they are not something that you are really encouraged to regard as a core feature.

Depending on whether a given service's privacy features are simply obscure and complex or literally broken, you can argue as to whether or not a specific incident represents "incompetence" rather than "system design problem"; but it is clearly and unequivocally the case that these systems give you a good hard shove in the direction of disclosure-by-default. This only sometimes means that they are literally impossible to secure; but the direction of the push is clear.

Re:Thats the biggest security hole?

[Ash-Fox]

Google talk uses encrypted XMPP, a few of my friends started using it with their android phones. I have no idea how widespread it is though.

Microsoft: reminding us who's #1 in in-security!

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft: reminding us who's #1 in in-security!

I mean, it was getting to the point where people might have forgotten about them. Good to see them making bold steps in the wide-open field of goatfucking user privacy!

Goatse Security

[cosm]

...must still be fresh in people's minds...

Gaping Privacy Holes

while plugging some privacy holes

your wife

your old girlfriend....... your wife's logs

she will see that you and your old girlfriend 'are now friends.

you want your...... 'Private.'"

...or maybe just mine. Sounds like a bad 2girls1cup scene played out over IM's!

Re:Goatse Security

[Anonymous Coward]

That is probably because you are a sick fuck.

MS makes Google Wave client?

[devent]

I didn't know MS's messenger can communicate with the Wave. And since when it's already in version 4?

Re:MS makes Google Wave client?

[rsborg]

I didn't know MS's messenger can communicate with the Wave. And since when it's already in version 4?

Since Microsoft has been trying to copy the Apple Hype Generator (a lower powered Reality Distortion Field)... they figured they couldn't copy Wave, but hell they can just obscure Google's competing tech by crowding the namespace!

what a crap story.

[bloodhawk]

Where is the option to mod the whole story as overrated/troll. Sigh

That is good

[kentsin]

Be honest!

Deja Vu

[Velorium]

So basically it's like what Google did with Buzz and Gmail contacts. You didn't learn from others' mistakes on this one did you Microsoft?

Re:Deja Vu

[vlueboy]

So basically it's like what Google did with Buzz and Gmail contacts. You didn't learn from others' mistakes on this one did you Microsoft?

Yahoo has a Buzz competitor too. Windows Live/Hotmail, Google and Yahoo! Pulse's biggest downside is that none of them force people to use their real full names, so you can't expand your network with long-lost acquaintances.

The new players still protect our privacy, but hinder people's being found: obfuscated URLs, hiding your name, sex location and relative age; not being indexed at the very top of Google's searches have killed their shine in light of the big social networks.

For 3 years I slowly noticed Google, MS Live and Yahoo integrating chat, social information, avatars, new blogs, photo albums, status update broadcasts and crap mindful of dating sites. None of that has forced my friends, already deep in FB, to UPDATE their pre-Facebook site profiles using the new tools in their hands.

(*) Funny that Facebook, in spite of all its privacy controversy, is so correct about e-mail address disclosure. I applaud their hiding your valuable e-mail address from the friend request process. Thus, people who are out of touch with you can attempt to contact you --and if things go wrong, you can unfriend them without worrying that in the process of finding you they would learn handles allowing them to bug you over Gmail / Hotmail and Yahoo chat until you personally accept them at a more serious level.

bah

[madcat2c]

People that use messenger won't have girlfriends, your argument is invalid.

Privacy Setting Windows Live

[ShawnDoc]

Can't you turn this off in the Windows Live privacy settings (not the Live Messenger privacy settings)?

Re:Privacy Setting Windows Live

[bloodhawk]

yes you can, but lets not confuse a MS bashing with facts.

Re:Privacy Setting Windows Live

[woodyleonhard]

@bloodhawk - Sorry, but this isn't MS bashing. I've been writing books about Windows and Office since Windows 3.1, and I've been accused of being both an MS toady and a basher - sometimes both at the same time. Ain't true. I call 'em as I see's 'em. I've been looking for a way to disable the chain-of-references. Please tell me where to turn it off. Changing the overall setting to "Private" in Wave 4 doesn't do it for me.

Re:Privacy Setting Windows Live

[bloodhawk]

login to live.
go to your profile.
select privacy
change the level at which users can see your friends.

Re:Privacy Setting Windows Live

[bloodhawk]

PS: make sure you click advanced so you can individually control all your settings rather than rely on default templates.

Re:Privacy Setting Windows Live

[woodyleonhard]

But you see, that's the problem. I set up ALL of the accounts as "Private" and that didn't keep Hotmail from showing my erstwhile "friend". When I click Advanced, I don't see a setting that says "don't blab about the people I've IMd" - don't see anything similar. What did you change to tell the Hotmail logon screen that it shouldn't scrape my IM buddies' names?

Re:Privacy Setting Windows Live

[bloodhawk]

If you mean private as in the 3 default options, then no it doesn't, you have to explicitly go into privacy and then advanced and edit the settings.

PRivate is defined as : allowing friends to still have some access.

go into privacy settings->advanced->Basic Information->friends list and set who can see your friends list to "JUST ME"

Re:Privacy Setting Windows Live

[woodyleonhard]

Yes, that's correct: I mean that clicking Private - the third of the three privacy options - does NOT block disclosure of your IM buddies.

I've been looking all over for a setting such as the one you describe, and I don't see it.

In my Live profile, I click Privacy Settings, Advanced. At the top of the page I see the three options - Public, Limited, Private. As you say, none of those block disclosure of IM buddies.

I go farther down the page and I don't see a Basic Information block. I see "Profile and Search" and "Activities" ... all the way down to "Manage connections with other services".

There's no Basic Information block, and no slider to set who can see my Friends List. None.

Under "Profile and Friends" there's a slider marked "Basic Information" which can be set to "Just Me". Is that what you're talking about?

Re:Privacy Setting Windows Live

[bloodhawk]

Profile and search has 3 subcategories that can be expanded.
Basic information
Contact Information
Interests, favourites, things and notes

if you click on basic information it will expand out giving you the option to adjust who can see your friends list. At this point I am finding it a little hard to believe that someone that claims to have written books on windows and office could not read through that web page and work it out, I am probably being trolled. yes it is more complex than it should be, but then how many people honestly want to hide their friends list from their friends, I had not even thought to look for this option till this article and it took me all of about 1 minute to find.

Re:Privacy Setting Windows Live

[woodyleonhard]

I see the setting, but as best I can tell it doesn't have the effect that you describe. I change the setting for user "X" to Just Me. I then log on to Hotmail with a different account. The "X and Y are now friends" display is still there.

Try it and see for yourself.

As for trolling... So, if this works, you're saying it's obvious that if you want to prevent one of your IM buddies from seeing all of your IM buddies' names when they log on to Hotmail, you should know that you have to (1) go to www.live.com, (2) log on with your IM id and password, (3) navigate to the Privacy page, (4) click through the Advanced tab, (5) click on a line that says Basic Information, and (6) adjust the slider that says Friends List to Just Me.

You're also saying that clicking on the Private setting shouldn't necessarily make your IM buddies list private.

Forgive me, but who's trolling whom?

Re:Privacy Setting Windows Live

[Ash-Fox]

Yes, that's correct: I mean that clicking Private - the third of the three privacy options - does NOT block disclosure of your IM buddies.

The privacy setting is called "log out".

Re:Privacy Setting Windows Live

[halcyon1234]

Yes. Yes you can. Privacy settings & permissions

Re:Privacy Setting Windows Live

[woodyleonhard]

As bloodhawk notes above, you can change the privacy setting for Friends List (if you can find it), but in all the experiments I've done so far, that hasn't changed the Hotmail logon screen behavior.

I'm going to try again with brand new id's and see if I can get the setting to work, but even if it does, anybody who IMd someone long ago will still be vulnerable. As best I can tell.

If your experience varies, please let me know!

Re:Privacy Setting Windows Live

[woodyleonhard]

I can confirm unequivocally, in my tests, that turning off the setting mentioned by bloodhawk (i.e., sliding the Show Friends slider all the way to the left) does NOT block the behavior.

I can't find any way - in Messenger, Hotmail, or on live.com - to block the way that the Hotmail What's New page scrapes up "friends of friends."

Microsoft screwed up this one big-time.

So the moral of the story is....

[ryanw]

don't communicate with people you don't want your wife finding out about. Problem solved.

Re:So the moral of the story is....

[dtml-try MyNick]

Or better yet,

Don't marry someone who can't handle the fact that you had multiple relationships before her. There usualy is a reason why someone is a "ex".

Hell, some of my ex-es have become very close friends (no pun intended) after the relationship ended. Even been best man? (witness?) when one of my ex gf's married the guy she *did* want to spend the rest of her life with.

Stupid security policies aside..

[Improv]

This is about the worst example one might make to argue for privacy. If you're sleeping around on your wife, you deserve whatever you get.

Re:Stupid security policies aside..

[Arimus]

Err... think it is more an example than a real concern, just a poor one.

Alternate scenario.

You work for Company X, one of your friends from Uni is now a manager at company y (x's most fierce rival) and your boss is on your msn list... one day he sees that you are now friends with the manager at y. That's going to raise some concerns.

(Actually I'd guess i is probably x's most fierce rival - atleast in for loops)

Re:This is so irrelevent it's not even funny.

[westlake]

Microsoft Messenger? Oh you mean that thing i don't have installed on this computer? The thing i specifically removed from the silent install disc i made?

Relevancy is best seen from the view outside the basement.

Messenger has 330 million users and is available in 50 languages. Windows Live Messenger

 

Suspicious ones ARE the cheaters

[phorm]

It seems that when I dated women who were suspicious, they were often the ones most likely to cheat, and somehow the ones that always had some personal justification for me.
I'd talk to another girl, or maybe an ex, I must be into her, *even* if I notably ensured said ex knew I was in a happy relationship. Then the jealous GF would assume that because - in her mind - I was a cheater, it was OK to go and hit on other guys online (and in the last case, actually managed to be seeing another guy behind my back for months while STILL accusing me).

Screw that BS. If you can't trust your partner, and/or your partner can't trust you, then you probably aren't meant to be together.

Now in terms of the "nice ass" comment, that doesn't mean that as the relationship goes on you should neglect your GF. Don't stop giving compliments or doing nice things just because you've been together awhile... it's a failing many have past the "honeymoon phase".

Re:Suspicious ones ARE the cheaters

[priegog]

Seconded. Granted, a bunch of anectdotes won't make any useful data, but it has happened to me once, and to a friend I know twice.
It has been suggested to me that women with histrionic personality traits behave exactly in this way, and I can indeed confirm that at least said ex has these sort of traits, so in the end it seems to boil down to it all being our fault for being attracted to such women in the first place. Upon realising this, I've made a conscious effort not to fall for these kinds of girls... So naturally I've been single for 2 years now. /coolstorybro

Re:Suspicious ones ARE the cheaters

[alexandre_ganso]

So you are giving relationship advice here on /. ? Seriously???

Re: In what world...

[aXis100]

In my dreams. In reality it's even worse :(

Re:Microsoft: reminding us who's #1 in in-security

[Anonymous Coward]

actually this is a case of users proving that no matter what features you provide them they will still make stupid mistakes and blame it on the vendor, or in this case blog it to the internet.

FYI,

Log in to live
Select your profile
select privacy
Adjust your privacy for contacts to whatever you like. friends can see non restricted contacts by default but you can disable that.

lesson of the day, if your gonna cheat, then know the fuck what your doing.

Only geeks use messenger

[GnomeIllusionist]

Exactly, my gym friends and I all talk to our girlfriends on XMPP-compliant IM or, for the truly in-love, IRC through Tor on a 300 baud modem.

XMPP

[slasho81]

It's 2010 and Windows Messenger still doesn't support XMPP. What's up with that?

Why dear Ronaldo is single....

[macraig]

You forgot to mention how dear Ronaldo got to be single in the first place: HE was in the exact same predicament a month before and got licked to the curb by his ex- for Eduardo, who just happened to be eager to tell her she had a nice ass because HE was recently single. It's a pyramid scheme!

Obviously you need a car analogy

[NotQuiteReal]

It is as if you HATE seafood, but you are driving along and you see a broken down carload of nuns (of course you thought they where hot college girls going to a costume party) on their way to a fish fry and you innocently help them out by transporting their (unbeknown to you) leaky boxes of melting cod fillets to the parish hall.

Then you suffer with retching dry heaves every time you drive, for the remainder of your ownership of said car.

If I got a nickel for each time I heard this...

[nickdwaters]

Frankly, managing privacy and security is a giant PITA, and I'd reckon, a drag on resources. Microsoft has dozens of teams working, each integrating standards at their own pace. If you don't like it... or have something to hide... then don't use Microsoft services. P.S. I think all web traffic should be secured. Period.

Who are you calling a gaping hole?

[Bob_Who]

Microsoft, or the other two headaches?

i suggest flowers

[farble1670]

Say you use Messenger to IM your wife. You also use Messenger to IM your old girlfriend...

i suggest flowers. or maybe not cheating on your wife. if you think it's not cheating, then ask your wife (or your mom if you are living in her basement) and see what she thinks.

Re:i suggest flowers

[Renraku]

Here's how it would go.
"Do you still talk to your old girlfriends?"
"No, not really. Why do you ask?"
"LIAR! I saw that MSN notification. Why are you still talking to them?"
"I'm not 'talking to them.' My ex added me to her friend's list."
"So you ARE 'talking to them.'"
"I haven't talked to her in over a year."
"But it says you're friends with her! You have to talk to someone to be friends with them!"
"No you don't..all they have to do is add you!"
"If you think I'm stupid, you're WRONG."

Re:Microsoft: reminding us who's #1 in in-security

[man_of_mr_e]

Privacy != Security, they're two different concepts, though they do have some inter-relation. Like when Privacy friends Security and Secrecy gets mad.

Re:This is so irrelevent it's not even funny.

[man_of_mr_e]

Hotmail is great for a spam account.. let Microsoft pay the spam bills.

Microsoft Phishes your accounts.

[smeckert]

Microsoft Phishes your accounts.

I was showing my friend how to get a paypal account, and had him sign up,
the whole time warning him about phishing emails.
"Never click the paypal link in an email. Go there on the browser."

He signed up using a hotmail.com address, and the "verify
your account" email came back phished by microsoft passport.

The email had an IP address in the href= for the link.
The IP address resolved back to a passport.microsoft.com address block.

They wanted him to sign in to paypal on their server, steal his login,
  and then pass the info along to paypal.

Don't take my word, try it!
They NEED bashing.

Re:Microsoft: reminding us who's #1 in in-security

[Cwix]

Wow, you right it should be opt out not opt in.. how could we have made that mistake?

Re:Microsoft: reminding us who's #1 in in-security

[Cwix]

How so? I certainly see it as exposing information that the users may not know is being exposed, and may not know how to stop the exposure of the information. Kinda like I dont know a security breach.

Hmmmmm MS does it again...

[dogzdik]

Microsoft's shitty software has more gaping holes than my fist fucking porno collection.

Hail MS for what they're doing

[aramosfet]

Actually this was done purposefully. Their intention is to provide a trigger so that relationships with trust issues fall apart sooner instead of wasting time with people who don't trust you or people who are cheating behind your back. If anything they should be appreciated for the service they're doing. We all the people were open[WARNING Does not apply to M$!] and good willed, humanity wouldn't have to waste time and money on these petty issues instead could concentrate on science. I bet if 1% of the earths population were astronomers or space engineers, we would've already had a colony in Mars.

Re:Hail MS for what they're doing

[gbjbaanb]

actually, this is closer to the "truth" than you think. ArsTechnica had a review of the new Messenger and found that they had removed the ability to view webcams - you can now only do a 2-person "video call". Which in a healthy, moms-apple-pie society would be fine... but in the world we live in, its probably not the thing most users want, either the people with MSN or the girls offering to go to a private chat with you. Poor girls - now they get to watch too :)

Oh yeah, its also pants with the Windows 7 taskbar, why did they get rid of the ability to hide the damn thing to the notification area when there's nothing going on in the main window?

The power of Melinda

[Teun]

This clearly shows that although Bill is no longer involved in the day to day management of MS Melinda still pulls some strings.

Re:This is so irrelevent it's not even funny.

[nschubach]

Does it have 330 million users because everyone has it installed... or does everyone have it installed because it has 330 million users?

Re:Open communication? - mod parent up hilarious

[blahbooboo]

1.) Getting relationship advice from Slashdot is like getting financial advice from Iceland.

2.) The proper display of affection for the female posterior is an open-palm slap, perhaps accompanied with a generous squeeze. Repeat as necessary.

This post is brought to you by the CAPTCHA "ashman"

Wish i had mod points. This was quite funny, especially #1

Re:This is so irrelevent it's not even funny.

[Ash-Fox]

Oh you mean the most used webmail and most used messenger applications in the world (by a mile)? Sigh.

Actually yahoo is still the largest webmail provider out there. Tencent QQ however is the most popular instant messenger out there.

Why did you lie to me? :(

Re:Security Fix

[geminidomino]

Holy shit, dude. I've never actually seen someone's tongue STAB THROUGH their cheek before! That had to hurt...

Re:This is so irrelevent it's not even funny.

[jack2000]

Actually since you mentioned this i don't own a tv either. I watch what i want when i want it.

Sounds like

[turkeyfish]

a security feature for wives rather than a security bug.