Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft To FTC: Don't Tell Us How Long To Retain User Data
Roberto123 writes "In a public response to proposed federal regulations to protect users' privacy online, Microsoft said it is committed to 'privacy by design' but thinks the Federal Trade Commission should use a light regulatory touch. The company 'urges the Commission to avoid imposing prescriptive requirements with respect to data retention periods or in further defining "specific business purpose" or "need."'"
Here's the thing: Microsoft looks out for Microsoft. That's how capitalism works, and it really does help people when capitalism is applied correctly. But having high-level capitalists telling the state what to do with regards to protecting the citizenry is not a correct application of capitalism.
Microsoft needs to look out for Microsoft, the government needs to look out for the safety of the common taxpayers.
Just the one collective, resistance is futile!
there are more hotmail and live email accounts than gmail.
It makes some sense to limit the use of privacy-intruding data, regardless of the collecting agency.
We all know that Google collects data - that's their main business, but what is more disturbing is all those cookies that are used to track us and make statistics from. They are really useful to see if someone likes certain car brands and which type of porn that's preferred. So statistical collectors can probably figure out that there is a 25 year old male who drinks Jack Daniels and Coca Cola, living in Texas who likes Ford Mustang and other American Muscle cars, works at Home Depot and prefers anal sex. All that can be determined by combining a collection of cookies stored in your browser and in turn that will control the ads displayed to you when you are surfing.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Well, what Microsoft is saying here is that FTC might not know how long the data needs to kept for things to work.
If this is the case, the software is completely broken and need to be redesigned or scraped.
Besides from a user point of view Microsoft does not provide any services where where storing of privacy data are needed at all(Apply to Google too). Obviously this does not include a regular customer database, as this is not what the FCC discuss in this case and such databases have already some regulation in place. What FCC discuss in this case is user profiling/spying.
CIA wants them to store it for eternity. FTC wants them to get rid of it ASAP. Make up your mind, The Government!
Back in the bad old days of apartheid, South African's white minority advocated that foreign companies follow a policy known as "constructive engagement" - it's pretty much analogous to what Microsoft is asking the FTC to do now with regards to user privacy.
"Don't punish us, because we really REALLY intend to be good in the long run..."
#DeleteChrome
That's it, we're boned.
"We support privacy in principle, but oppose privacy in practice."
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Capitalism (when applied correctly) doesn't always help people. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Capitalism is just one system and shouldn't be held beyond question.
Dude I just gotta ask: How much does MSFT pay you to shill? Is it an every two week kinda thing, or do you get paid quarterly? How are the benefits? Because from your post you are obviously getting paid because NOBODY kisses that much ass for free!
As for TFA, can we choose none of the above? I don't trust MSFT, and I sure as hell don't trust the government, what with their shredding the constitution practically on a daily basis, so it is kinda a rock and a hard place here. Can we hear from the EFF on this? Because frankly so far they seem to be the ONLY ones who give a shit about privacy anymore.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
It's simple: If $COMPANY's business model can't cope with not being allowed to store user data for $DURATION then it's too bad for the company. Citizen interests should always trump corporate interests and privacy is in the interest of the citizen. If MSFT, GOOG or any other company relies on being able to mine you for years that doesn't mean everyone has a sacred duty to uphold their business model just because it exists. It's really like with the record companies - they can't comprehend that their business model might not work and would rather adapt society to them than vice versa.
(Of course a paid shill won't care but your post makes for a good entry point to the discussion.)
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
> You really think they understand computers and IT better than Microsoft? After all, Microsoft has been in the business since the 80's.
You really think we understand state leadership better than Gaddafi? After all, Gaddafi has been in the business since 1969.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
How do we know that the FTC's intent is to impose an upper bound....
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Doesn't Sorbanes-Oxley Act already prescribe how much and how long companies should keep electronic records? That is what they told me when our company implemented a bone-headed password change process.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The "invisible hand of the market" was a quasi-religious substitute for god in a time when atheistic concepts were crude and relatively unevolved from their theistic heritage. Those who had broken free from the chains of pious dogma found themselves lonely - perhaps man could divine an intelligent design for society instead? One so perfect that it must surely improve everyone's lot.
Turns out god is just man, and man is not god.
Some people are taking their time to catch up with this.
Microsoft produces mainly computer software and makes money with that. Both Google and Facebook by design make money by exploiting users privacy and selling their data to advertisers
Microsoft doesn't have search engines, online user accounts, web mail, etc, just like Google...?
No sig today...
Are you suggesting that "the guberment" should impose regulations on hard-working citizens instructing them how they should run their business?
But that's... that's... a communism.
I mean, shouldn't humanity's greatest hero The Invisible Man be the one dealing with this issue like he has done for... forever now?
What's so funny about "the invisible hand" anyway?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
...they should be forced to retain online user data for exactly as long as the shortest amount of time they generally retain their own employees' emails.
If Microsoft is anything like Intel and the other big boys, that would be ~2 weeks for inboxes. Wanna keep the web-hoovered data for longer? They can then expose themselves to more legal liability by extending their corporate email retention policies similarly. I'm willing to wager that they really won't want to do that, but it's generally win-win - longer email retention times mean that anything stupid/illegal there has a better chance of recovery.
(Most big corps keep the time short to save disk space in general, to help auto-purge crap messages that most folks ignore, and of course to provide legal CYA. Individual employees are allowed to copy off mails to other folders which keeps the messages around for longer, but then liability shifts to the individual employee).
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
How I read the article:
Microsoft: Please Mister FTC, don't delineate what's "legal" so we won't get sued if we find a novel/barely legal/grey area way of selling/otherwise profiting from privacy data.
My answer to them:
Please Mister FTC, if they don't have my permission, in writing, to use my data, for every client they sell it to, it should be illegal.
Each time a client wants to use my data, I should know, and should explicitly allow it.
Thank you, have a nice day
You really think they understand computers and IT better than Microsoft? After all, Microsoft has been in the business since the 80's.
Argument by authority. I could argue that Microsoft isn't really an authority, nor very much interested in consumer privacy, and that in their epochs (30 years...) of business they have made plenty of mistakes. I have as much faith in Microsoft as I do in the FTC (not much), but at least the FTC is (supposedly) looking out for me, while MS only cares about MS.
I agree, they should be looking at Google and Facebook. But, remember, Microsoft is trying to get into the same markets as them now. They aren't just a software company anymore, they're trying to get into the whole "social content" market just like Google and Facebook.
If FTC wants to do something, they should look into that and let the good companies like Microsoft be alone.
When the hell did MS turn into a "good company"? Their OS phones home every month, against your will. They've played fast and loose with customer data. MS is a "good company" in the "they are good at being a company" sense, but not in "they are good to customers, and play well with others" sense.
Also, the FTC rules aren't aimed straight at MS, they are aimed at the whole industry. MS just took affront to them, since they will hurt the bottom line. I'd bet that the FTC looked at Facebook and Google too, and probably looked at them more than MS, because they hold a bigger mindshare when it comes to potential privacy issues.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I'm not Capitalism's largest fan... But thats not quite true either. True capitalism doesn't necessarily even mean shares, or shareholders would exist. If there was a much more fragmented market, and large monopolies and ultra massive conglomerates were stomped out, then the free market would move closer to helping the social good.
Basically Capitalism is a tool, and it could be used for good or ill. The government exists to constrain it, and subjugate it to the common good. Or at least strike a balance between individual profit and the said common good.
I really can't think of an alternative to capitalism.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I can be in favor of the gov protecting consumers, but I don't get what is so inherently evil about these companies storing the data that I give them for a long time.
Typically, when I let them have the data I figured they would, at the very least, use it to pick which ads to show me and I really don't mind that.
In my opinion, the real privacy problems lie elsewhere, e.g.
- Selling or sharing my data without proper consent.
- Collecting it without my consent.
- 'Forcing' or tricking me into allowing them to collect my data. For example, if I agree to iTunes terms of service for the iPhone then I'm agreeing to let Apple collect data about my precise location. To me these are too unrelated, and I don't really have any choice.
So, I think this issue is how they collect it and what they do with it, not how many years they store it.
Yeah, because no one wants the jobs or products that capitalism creates.
-Where would we be without public roads?
-At home.
I KNOW! I get spam from them all the time.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Behold, the new generation of Godwin's law.
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
The magical shareholders who aren't people?
The correctness of the rest of the comment hinges on the definition of "correctly". If there is a government helping to avoid market failures (mostly by limiting the power of monopolies, punishing outright lying and protecting property rights), capitalism does help everybody, as they can focus on the work they do best (comparatively), and exchange the product of that work with others.
"Microsoft said it is committed to 'privacy by design'" == Empty talk
"but thinks the Federal Trade Commission should use a light regulatory touch" == we are corporate whores that want to exploit people as much as we can
Read radical news here
Nice try Steve