Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Promises Not To Snoop Through Email
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft took some much-deserved flack last week for admitting they examined the emails of a Hotmail user who received some leaked Windows 8 code. The company defended their actions at the time. Now, after hearing the backlash, Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith says they will not do so in the future. Instead, they'll refer it to law enforcement. He wrote, 'It's always uncomfortable to listen to criticism. But if one can step back a bit, it's often thought-provoking and even helpful. That was definitely the case for us over the past week. Although our terms of service, like those of others in our industry, allowed us to access lawfully the account in this case, the circumstances raised legitimate questions about the privacy interests of our customers. ...As a company we've participated actively in the public discussions about the proper balance between the privacy rights of citizens and the powers of government. We've advocated that governments should rely on formal legal processes and the rule of law for surveillance activities. While our own search was clearly within our legal rights, it seems apparent that we should apply a similar principle and rely on formal legal processes for our own investigations involving people who we suspect are stealing from us.'"
Translation: "Sorry we got caught. We'll be more careful to not get caught next time."
I'm reassured.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Wasn't scaremongering about Google reading your email part of their stupid ad campaign?
If Microsoft could read, couldn't they also inject crafted evidence into his account? Might be a nice way to take down opposition...
"No, but understanding is not required, only obedience."
It's 'flak'
from Google? MS just admitted they lied so that would have made the Scrroogled ad campaign a straight face lie?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
They said:
Effective immediately, if we receive information indicating that someone is using our services to traffic in stolen intellectual or physical property from Microsoft, we will not inspect a customer’s private content ourselves. Instead, we will refer the matter to law enforcement if further action is required.
One narrow circumstance that probably won't happen again. In all other circumstances they can read the customer's private content?
T-800: "I swear I will not kill anyone."
Yeah, right!
I believe it was Thawte did/do free certs for email for non-commercial use. I would prefer php/gpg though.
Edit: did. Ah well.
(Just kidding, Slashdot has no edit function)
CAcert.org and StartSSL offer free client certs.
While CAcert's root is not included in browsers and mail clients (thus people you communicate with will need to install and trust the CAcert root or they'll get scary warnings), the StartSSL root is widely included. StartSSL is totally free for "Class 1" certs (domain-validated server certs or email-validated client certs) for non-commercial purposes. Class 2 certs (identity-validated server and client certs, as well as organization-validated certs for organizations) only charge money for the validation, but you can issue as many certs as you want for yourself (or your organization, if you get the org certs) at no extra cost.
How about they build an encryption API right into their service? Encrypt the message locally before it ever goes to the network. Oh, they don't want to do that. I see. So Microsoft promises to not read your mail, while retaining the ability to easily do so whenever it's convenient for them. That makes me feel so much better.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Microsoft != Facebook
Ok...
Right! That's right! Facebook is a software giant that snoops through your stuff. Microsoft is... is...
Waaaait a minute...
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Microsoft don't need no steenking warrants!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
If you're going to steal IP from a company, uh... maybe... just maybe... you shouldn't use their cloud service to get and transfer the goods?
The point being two moral wrongs make a right?
A lawyer said that. So ... what heart?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No, it's exactly the point. Because how many mail folders did they go through before finding the "right" one? Do you think if they did that we'd ever hear about just how many mailboxes they opened without the consent of the content owner and violated their privacy? Do you think it's ok that a company (not even a government, but a mere, ordinary COMPANY) should get away with digging through your emails at a hunch? We think you might have done something we don't like, so we simply dig through your belongings, to hell with your privacy, to hell with how you feel about some strangers digging through your stuff, we do what we WANNA.
What's next? Your landlord opening your home with a key he retained because he heard a rumor that you might have gotten visits from a drug dealer, so he simply marches over at 6am, opens your door, digs through your clothing and your sex tox collection then shrugs when he doesn't find anything and goes without even a "whoopsie, sorry"?
That's ok, too, I guess?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
but seriously, do you think the other majors are much better? There is anecdotal evidence galore that most IT companies cooperated to a greater or lesser degree, with the NSA, law enforcement, and so forth. Also that they use/used their technical capabilities to investigate whenever and wherever they have had a concern.
Brad Smith at least sounds like a human being and not someone reading a prepared statement. And he's moving in the direction we all say we want. While I agree that we need to watch for implementation of these statements, I don't think we should reject the statements themselves. That's just cutting off our noses to spit our faces.
Reward good behaviour and punish the bad. That's just basic psychology. And for those who think that MS is simply evil, I believe they turn their backs on changing the behaviour of a major IT player. Not to mention degrading the meaning of the word evil.
I had similar happen back in 2010 when a would-be employer called back and started threatening me about legal ramifications about sending them malware, and send me a $7000 "cleaning" invoice from Geek Squad.
Further discussion found that the HR person thought the ribbon icon that shows a signed E-mail was malware that seized his machine, so the company called GS to have every computer in the business "fixed".
...great about this actually. I just need a cup of tea to enjoy's Microsoft's downwards spiral,
I've never considered Microsoft 'evil.' Self-centered and only looking out for only it's own interests,ya but that's pretty much par for the course with most corps and people. I still hold corporations and people accountable. I always have. Just as with Yahoo giving the PRC the contents of an email account resulted in the closing of my accounts with them, so that is what has happened with Microsoft. These weren't the 7 GB freebies either. I'll wait and watch to see if their is an actual behavioral change, are corresponding change in the ToS/EULA. Promises don't mean a thing here. Change.
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
I realize in the modern world it's impossible to not do business with MS, but I can move in that direction. I will do so now because two recent events show the nature of the company.
As most of you know, Bill Gates (who now claims to be sort-of detached from his company) came out against Snowden. He used a fake argument, so the motive must be money - money from the government taking from the people.
And now, of course, we know MS thinks nothing of perusing private emails. Although this may be allowed in the fine print of the TOS, it's not the part of the advertised-image MS projects, and MS's repeated defense that doing so was within the law won't help it on the ethical front.
I know many of you have serious monetary disputes with MS, and that is where your MS-disdain springs from. I previously ignored those disputes because I was too lazy to learn the details. But I see your point now without going into the details. A monster company with no ethics is a true monster.
(||) Nehmo (||)