Slashdot Log In
MS Passport: "All Your Bits Are Belong To Us"
from the no-other-way-to-say-it dept.
One of the key questions is what Microsoft means by "associated services." The terms of use agreement applies to "the Microsoft Passport Web Site" which they redefine in the first sentence to mean "a Web site and its associated services."
Later in the terms, they explicitly say:
"The Passport Web Site may contain bulletin board services, chat areas, news groups, forums, communities, personal web pages, group calendars, electronic mail postings and/or other message or communication facilities designed to enable you to communicate with the public at large or with a group (collectively, 'Communication Services')..."
That doesn't sound like a simple site for password- and personal-data-storage to me.
The really big thing that everyone seems to be worried about is, how is Hotmail email affected by this? Here's the Hotmail Terms of Use. So is Hotmail an "associated service"? How would we know? Passport is listed as one of Hotmail's "additional Microsoft web sites and/or services"; what does that mean? If Hotmail is associated with Passport, does that mean Passport is associated with Hotmail? (Is "association" associative?)
And the fact that any access of www.hotmail.com redirects me to a machine at hotmail.passport.com worries me a lot. How could these sites not be considered "associated"?
Some more tidbits...
Don't forget that Passport is a TRUSTe licensee. TRUSTe stands 100% behind their privacy statement, so you can really, really trust that All Your Bits Are Belong To Us. (The joke is that TRUSTe doesn't actually guarantee you any privacy. It supposedly guarantees that, if you can wade through the legal mumbo-jumbo, you'll find yourself being screwed in precisely the way that the lawyers tell you you're being screwed.)
Here's a directory of the sites that use Passport for single-sign-in or purchasing.
You read it here first. Slashdot predicted this eight months ago. "Microsoft Passport And Your Privacy," July 29, 2000: "...I'm sure Microsoft uses it as a user-tracking system more than anything else." Go read Joel's article, from eight months ago, in which he explains how Passport "eliminates the last line of defense protecting your privacy" and how Microsoft will "create a massive consumer information database."
An article in the Daily Aardvark points out that Netscape users have a hard time reading Passport Q&A.
Bryan Smith has a thoughtful rant about what this would mean for open-source software. Dual copyright? Hmmmm. Here's your link, Bryan: "Dual-copyright/licensing" of your IP withOUT your permission.
A RISKS submitter calls it "highway robbery."
Don't forget that Passport is the website for which Microsoft forgot to pay its $35 domain registration fee, back around Christmas '99. This is the company you want to entrust your passwords to?
And finally, All Your Bits may be hard to retrieve once they Belong To Us. jasonjwwilliams writes "After reading about the new Hailstorm.net initiative by Microsoft, and how once integrated with Passport.com, any communcations sent in conjuction with the service in any manner becomes the property of Microsoft, I asked Passport.com to remove me. The response: we don't do that, wait 12 months to be auto-removed. After three e-mails here's the bottom line I received:
"Due to security reasons we do not allow nor do we have a feature to delete Passport accounts. Rest assured that if you do not access your account within 12 months our system will automatically delete your account."
"I don't know about anyone else, but I think this is a completely lame response and as far as I understand against the law. Anyone know who to get a hold of? This is arrogance gone too far."
Saving on comment space (Score:2)
In the interest of saving valuable server space lets just summarize all the M$ zealot posts
Sure it's slimy, illegal as hell and completely self-serving but pure marketing genius!
You should know better than to send important shit through hotmail
Sure it says all our bit belong to them but we can trust Bill not to actually try it.
God I'm tired of you Linux zealots constantly bashing Microsoft, this doesn't really mean what it says. We can trust them.
Oh god yes, yes, give it to me Bill. No not THERE. OUCH, that HURTS. FUCKIN ASSHOLE, where's my vaseline?
Is there one honest M$ zealot out there who can admit this is pure umitigated bullshit? Didn't think so...
The last AYB (Score:3)
Extra: Slashdot editor researches story (Score:2)
To top it all off, you checked for earlier /. stories, determined this to be a different story than the one eight months ago, but posted that story's link for those who wanted the original /. take on things.
You could have stopped at the first paragraph, and just posted the story as it stood, but you didn't. Applause all around, it's good work by you and my hat's off!
(...and to the usual crew, if yer gonna bitch when they mess up, give 'em a pat on the back and a round when they do well. It's just right.)
Passport Removal by phone works. (Score:5)
And yes, I did this a few years ago. It works.
--
WolfSkunks for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.keenspace.com";
Re:Copyright cannot be transferred accidentally (Score:2)
What is confusing you is this: 'transfer'. There is no transfer, because you are not _giving_ _up_ your own copyrights. You still keep them and have full rights to them. This is not that difficult to understand. It'd be very much another story if MS were trying to _take_ your own rights away from you so you can't have them. They are shrewd enough not to attempt this. Instead, your rights become nonexclusive because MS gets total permission to do whatever it likes with the copyrighted materials- anything that is not actually a _transfer_. There is no transfer because you keep rights too. It's an assignment of rights, a licensing. There is loads and loads of precedent that you can do this in a nonexclusive way on the web with only a click-through- or not even that, in the case of mp3.com's new terms, when the previous terms included securing your automatic agreement to new terms after a time period, with or without your knowledge or consent.
I Am Not A Lawyer either- but I am more of a not-lawyer than you ;) honestly, where does 'transfer' even enter into it? You get a grip yourself- this is perfectly real.
*tadah* enter Not A Lawyer Man! (Score:2)
The main thrust of this is, if you are doing business with anyone using Passport, _you_ must also sign up, or be prohibited from using the materials. Basically it's leverage on people using it in a business setting: if you get sent materials or business stuff through Passport and make use of it without yourself being a member (this would include email, and certainly would cover anything like free web hosting space), you are a criminal and can be prosecuted even if the person sending the information intended for you to use it. They retain a copyright of their own on the material so you're not 'infringing on the copyright' but you never consented to Microsoft's terms for use of materials transferred via Passport, so you'd be sued basically for abuse of the service (taking advantage of it without signing up). This will hold up a lot better in the case of a web hosting service- it'd be a little insane applied to e-mail.
You agree that no joint venture, partnership, employment, or agency relationship exists between you and Microsoft as a result of this agreement or use of the Passport Web Site or service.
This one's easy: if not for this clause it could be argued that Microsoft, for being legally allowed to entirely control communications between people, may be acting as an 'agent' or employer. Basically, it's not so unusual for an entity to provide the communications channels between someone and someone else, even including the ability to harshly control the sort of communications permitted. If you were an author and needed someone to be the communications between you and book publishers, you'd get an agent, who would be the go-between and may have other protections like restricting your ability to simultaneously do other submissions (I'm not up on that part really). Microsoft is taking a role of a communications middleman and asserting controls and limits on the means of communicating, asserting exclusivity, so they are an agent. The reason the clause specifically says you agree that they're NOT an agent is because presumably agents have rules they have to follow, and Microsoft wishes to be able to assert the rights of an agent without suffering any of the limitations.
King County, Washington, U.S.A.
Conspiracy theories are all very fun but I suspect this is simply the nearest court to Microsoft HQ. So, if you sue, then _you_ have to travel, and the Microsoft lawyers only have to stroll down the street a few blocks. Perhaps they'll build a little bunker right by the court for comfort and convenience! :)
Re:Collision with GPL? (Score:2)
With me so far? Good, here's the kicker. Under the Passport Terms of Service, if you are the sole author of something that's open source and you're contributing it to someone else under the GPL or any other license... well, MS can deny that the person has a right to use the 'means of transmission' (Passport) without signing up. They cannot 'un-GPL' something you GPLed, or take away people's rights under that license...
BUT! If you are the sole author, and thus legally able to assign licenses and dual-license your stuff, YOU are giving Microsoft their own special license to that GPLed code, which is subject to NONE of the restrictions you intended to place upon it. They don't get access to further development- but the other development does not get access to whatever MS does to it, because effectively YOU gave them a special license with no restrictions or obligations. This exists alongside the GPL license you originally intended.
If I'm not mistaken, this can only take place if you're the sole author and legally able to do such sublicensing- if I download all of Debian, I don't become the original copyright holder, and though the licensing allows me carte blanche it doesn't let me do special sublicenses for stuff that's not mine. But if you are the sole author, you do have the capacity to simultaneously use different licenses and that is the sort of person who would be hosed completely by this trick.
So- just by using Passport it doesn't give you the power to give Microsoft stuff that is not yours to dual-license, and that emphatically includes GPL stuff that _cannot_ be dual-licensed except by the original author (once it's out there it stays GPL, that fork remains uncorruptable). But if _you_ introduce stuff that you are the original copyright holder, and use Passport- you cannot enforce that the code is GPL, because you're simultaneously giving MS its own distinct license, which they have total freedom to do anything they want with it AND to license the result as restrictively as they want. Your use of GPL _does_ _not_ affect MS's license of the stuff sent through Passport.
The question on my mind is: can a router be made to be part of Passport? If my ISP ended up forced to run stuff through Passport and signed something that said 'all your users are belong to us', would this end up binding me even though I didn't willingly sign up?
Re:Wow. (Score:2)
Wow. (Score:3)
So- you're finally suing Microsoft. You found they used GPLed code in something- or you're not GPL but they used your code anyway- or for that matter you're an ambulance chaser and you're just suing them because you think you can get a jury to think they stole your code. Whatever. Your argument is, "This == my code, that == Microsoft's product, thus == pay me lots of money for stealing my IP."
Here is the Microsoft defense's response:
"PROVE you did not ever transmit this code over a Passport property!"
Chew on that one for a while. And remember, these are the people who forged evidence in Jackson's court despite a blaze of publicity and sharp government lawyers! Now, what would they need to buttress their case that you had at some point sent the code/art/property through Passport? A server log, a user name, a password. Now, attend closely: WHOSE servers are these that they would need to find this evidence on? Of course they are.
This is a _damned_ impressive potential legal roadblock to suing Microsoft over IP, and it emphatically addresses the open source problem: basically, no matter who you are, Microsoft can use your code in proprietary software and _if_ you figure it out and sue them, it becomes your problem to prove that you have never used Passport and sent the code over it: and who owns the servers that would contain the evidence you'd done just that? One guess. The Microsoft lawyers now have a terrific defense against any such charges: they'll make you the defendant. If you insist you never used Passport- "Well, then, do these server logs imply that you used our service CRIMINALLY, violating our terms of service?".
The possibilities here are so evil and cunning that even I am impressed, and they don't usually impress me- but then they don't usually manage anything with this degree of subtlety either.
Just be warned. The "You must have used Passport" defense needs to be taken into consideration.
From ICQ's TOS (Score:2)
Re:Yahoo!, anyone? (Score:2)
...phil
Re:All Your Genetic Makeup Are Belong To Us (Score:2)
Old News (Score:5)
The Passport Web Site may contain bulletin board services, chat areas, news groups, forums, communities, personal web pages, group calendars, electronic mail postings and/or other message or communication facilities designed to enable you to communicate with the public at large or with a group collectively, ("Communication Services"), you agree to use the Communication Services only to post, send and receive messages and material that are proper and related to the particular Communication Service.
conspicuously absent from the list are communications between individuals.
One issue often overlooked in these things is the problem that plagues some publishers and causes them to reject unsolicited submissions: what the hell do you do when somebody hands you the outline for something very similar to a project you have under development? If you accept it, then you risk accusations later that you're a thief. ("Man, I said last year they oughta' put spellcheck into Explorer! Them bastards stole my idea!") Alternatively, if you simply state that you can use any ideas posted in the forum, then you've covered that possibility and maybe avoided a nuisance suit.
Now if the Reg had bothered to go to Hotmail itself, they might have found this:
It is Hotmail's policy to respect the privacy of its users. Therefore, Hotmail will not monitor, edit, or disclose the contents of a user's private communications unless required to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to: (1) conform to the edicts of the law or comply with legal process served on Hotmail; (2) protect and defend the rights or property of Hotmail; or (3) act under exigent circumstances to protect the personal safety of its users or the public.
not ironclad, but probably as good as the ISP through whom they're being accessed.
Who deserves privacy for free services? (Score:2)
Why should a user expect any privacy from Hotmail or Passport? I don't see why its a big deal. You don't HAVE to use their services! I've been on the Internet for 5 years now, and I'm yet to be compelled to sign up for a @hotmail.com email address or use Passport. It isn't like this is some cornerstone of the Internet.
The only people that use Hotmail are spammers, kids, and AOL-type users. Anyone with a legitimate business, or anyone transmitting private information, should be using a real mail service, and not passing around important information on a free account.
As for Passport, the whole idea of the system is flawed, and anyone who is stupid enough to trust a single web site with all your passwords and credit cards DESERVES to get exploited and taken blatant advantage of.
Just my two cents worth,
Michael Merritt
michael@miklm.com
Not if you use their stuff... (Score:2)
Re:Old News (Score:5)
And they might also have found _this_:
Guess what's in the list of links... You got it. "Microsoft Passport". This means that your spiffy Hotmail "account" isn't actually actually a Hotmail account. It's a Passport account that allows you access to the Hotmail "service". What's the impact here? That you are agreeing to the Passport TOS when you sign up for Hotmail.
Perhaps you should read your own quote when you say that they're "talking about forum posts and the like". "electronic mail postings" certainly aren't forum postings, and "other message or communication facilities designed to enable you to communicate with the public at large or with a group" sure as heck covers a _vast_ amount of territory. It's not "just" forums, folks.
And, you should look at the Hotmail TOS itself for evidence contrary to your claim that Hotmail prohibits that sort of behaviour:
Of course "Hotmail" _says_ it would never invade your privacy in those manners. The problem is, they're not. You're explicitly giving up your privacy to Microsoft as part of this agreement. There's no such thing as "a user's private communications" on Hotmail, because you've already agreed to give up your rights to that information twice. Once when you signed up for the Passport account, and again when you used the Hotmail service to send it out.
Oops. As the Privacy Nazi might say... "NO PRIVACY FOR YOU!"
Re:Concerns on LKML (Score:4)
Not true. The Hotmail user who recieved the mail is the one who agreed to the Hotmail TOS. The Linux developers never made any agreement with Hotmail. Thus, MS would have no grounds to appropriate IP belonging to the kernel developers. Even if the TOS gave them that right, the person who agreed to the TOS had no authority to grant them that right, anymore than I can sign a paper authorizing you to give away free copies of Windows.
Similarly, if a kernel-dev mail came from a Hotmail account, even under the craziest readings of the Hotmail TOS, the only IP which MS could appropriate is that belonging to person who sent it through Hotmail, not the entire kernel, because the sender doesn't own the rights to the entire kernel. Still, unraveling a mess like that could be ugly.
Personal and non-commercial use only (Score:4)
I guess my major disconnect here is I can't imagine anyone in their right mind trusting their company to an open service like this. It baffles me.
A humble solution (and a silver lining) (Score:5)
Anyone reading the plane English of this license cannot help but see that, very clearly, the end user is required to grant Microsoft any and every right to their ideas, their work, even their patents, just by processing their information through a piece of software which happens to use Passport as an authentication mechanism. This could, in the future, include any document written by Micosoft Word (using passport to authenticate the author or encrypt the file as a new feature, etc.), sent through a Microsoft mail server, or served from a Microsoft Web server.
Microsoft has a well documented history of stealing other peoples work (and getting sued for it, and being required by the court to make appropriate reparations to the aggrieved parties). This isnt about avoiding frivolous lawsuits, this is about legalizing a reprehensible tactic they already engage in: theft from their customers, their competitors, and anyone else whose idea they like.
There is, however, a silver lining to this dark cloud. Two states have already, very foolishly, passed UCITA legislation, giving this sort of EULA the force of law. One would hope the courts would overturn such an onerous condition, particularly in light of the fact that nearly every party to this agreement has no idea what theyve agreed to, but one cannot assume reason will always prevail.
If it doesnt, it wouldnt be too terribly difficult for the authors of Apache, sendmail, various USENET and chat servers, and so forth, to add a clause to their respective licenses reading something like this:
This would be a potent weapon indeed for the Free Software community to strike a possibly leathal blow to copyright and patent law, once and for all (until such a time as another court rethinks this kind of thing, or a law is passed making such onerous and unreasonable property grabs illegal). Much of the very infrastructure of the Internet is powered by free software of one sort or another. If the courts should uphold this kind of behavior, we as a Community are in a position to use it in liberating far more knowledge and intellectual property, doing the Copyright and Patent Barons far more damage (and correspondingly far more good for free science and free software) than they could ever do to us. We arent compelled to use their software, but if they are using the internet at all, they are almost certainly using ours.
Re:This just in... (Score:3)
For great justice, take off every 'MiG'.
C-X C-S
Re:Old News (Score:4)
Hotmail will not monitor, edit, or disclose the contents of a user's private communications unless required to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to:
If they think your patch is their property or a right they posess, they will defend that right as they see fit.
Concerns on LKML (Score:5)
It may be an overreaction, but it's probably still a good idea. It would be a messy court fight if it ever came to that.
Re:Wrong Number (Score:3)
SO in order for the title to fit with this mis-translated-yet-somehow-taking-the-world-by-st
Re:Here's Microsoft's response - be thankful! (Score:3)
So with their NSA dealings... (Score:3)
All Your Reg Stories Are Belong To Slashdot (Score:3)
It happens so frequently. Interesting story on Slashdot, frighteningly similar to recent Reg story, sans any quote of the Reg or link to their story. In fact, Slashdot seems to _never_ post Reg links any more, and seems to enjoy taking shots at them (witness them being described as 'scare mongerers' during the CPRM debacle).
S'not cos El Reg gets better stories and funnier content is it? And while we're on the subject, what's up with not linking to BeSpot?? Huh???
Boycott brewing. (Score:3)
Activism (Score:3)
Copied below (because black text on black background doesn't work - at least in Konqueror)....
Microsoft should be feared and despised!
After taking the time to read the Microsoft Passport Web Site Terms of Use and Notices I have had a belly full of them. The potential damage they can do with this license is staggering. I encourage everyone to take the time to read it, particularly the section entitled "LICENSE TO MICROSOFT". If you've ever had any doubts about the nature of that company reading that section should put them to rest for good and all!
I don't know how many times I've heard Microsoft described as "evil" by Linux zealots and open source supporters (which I am both) and thought, "They're losing it... Microsoft is just a company!" but now I'm forced to agree with them. This license is heinous, and more, it's frightening because I know that some people won't read it and will lose the rights to their own data/content without knowing. Add that to the fact that the license is clearly attempting to gain the rights to *ALL CONTENT WHICH PASSES OVER ANY SERVICE THEY PROVIDE*. For example... this article could be copied by someone and sent to someone else who uses the hotmail email service. According to the license Microsoft would then own the rights to this article! Unbelieveable you say? Go read it and see for yourself.
Most of the time when confronted with things like this I may rage for a while but I usually conclude that there is little that I can do to cause the policy to change so why bother doing anything at all but not this time!
Effective with this posting the following blocks are in place against email inbound to MoonGroup.com or any of it's domains. If you truly understand what their license means you will do the same on your mail server.
msn.com 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their services will be accepted.
msn.net 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their services will be accepted.
microsoft.com 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their services will be accepted.
microsoft.net 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their services will be accepted.
hotmail.com 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their services will be accepted.
hotmail.net 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their services will be accepted.
As this is clearly a pre-cursor of what Microsoft's
I fear them for what they are doing! I despise them for doing it!
Good luck to all of us... we're going to need it!
Here are some related links:
The Register.COM article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/18002.html
Troubleshooters.COM new copyright and other articles: http://www.troubleshooters.com/cpyright.htm http://www.troubleshooters.com/tpromag/200104/200
LEAP Thread (first article in thread): http://lists.leap-cf.org/pipermail/leaplist/2001-
By Chuck Mead on Monday April 02 2001 @ 11:55PM EDT
SLASHDOT HAS THE SAME T.O.S.!!! (Score:5)
Check out the TOS from the Open Source Development Network [osdn.com], the Slashdot parent owned by VA Linux. The TOS is available at http://www.osdn.com/terms.shtml [osdn.com].
Of particular interest would be the clause in Section 4 of the OSDN Terms of Service: "the submitting user grants OSDN the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed"!
Slashdot owns my intellectual property! Oh, the horror!!
Sigh.
So what should we learn from this? We should learn to put our paranoia in check and consult a lawyer before we open our mouths.
This clause is in virtually every TOS for any web service and is designed to protect service providers from litigious jerks who do things like sue service providers because their web page appeared in a marketing brochure for the service provider or (even worse) litigious twits who do dumb things like claim "They've infringed upon my copyright because they're keeping a 'copy' of my work on their servers!!"
These standard clauses are NOT designed (nor would they legally allow) the service provider to claim legal ownership of the content in question.
This same old tired shit hit the fan a year ago when Yahoo bought Geocities and someone noticed a clause in the TOS (that had been probably been there before but just not gotten any press). See the Wired story [wired.com], the Wired follow-up [wired.com], and the obligatory Slashdot reference [slashdot.org] from last year.
Yahoo caved to the PR blitz and rampant public ignorance and slightly modified their TOS to make it more clear. Microsoft probably won't . . . simply because they're Microsoft and they don't need to.
Maybe the angry hordes ought to jump down OSDN/Slashdot's throat now, eh? I bet they could get OSDN to cave and change their TOS, right?
Or maybe they should just take a deep breath, get a grip, and wise up.
Re:Arg! (Score:4)
Kudos sir!
Never mind Hotmail and Passport, beware XP! (Score:5)
Boycott XP or be assimilated...
You don't have to use Hotmail or Passport to have MS own EVERYTHING you do. You just have to use Windows XP, which is claiming to be Microsoft's next "gotta have it" OS.
From the Microsoft White Paper on Hailstorm [microsoft.com]
So talk all you want about using other mail and password services, Micro$oft plans to own all XP users too!
Wow, the Reg guys were right. (Score:4)
Geez.
All Your Plagiarism Are Belong To Jaimie (Score:5)
Not that I'd ever accuse a slashdot editor of plagiarism.
I hope everyone will boycott (Score:3)
I don't use passport, and now I won't. I don't care if it helps me achieve something I need; I'll find a different way.
This has come up before--I've given up some online business because they required me to have a passport account; I've written the vendor and told them why I will not threaten my own privacy for any reason.
The best we can do is not to use these services, and intelligently evangelize more privacy-friendly alternatives.
SteveYahoo's not much better (Score:3)
Directly from Yahoo Mail's Terms of Service [yahoo.com]
With respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of Yahoo! Clubs and Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the specific Yahoo! Club or Yahoo! Group to which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo removes such Content from the Service.
With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible area of the Service other than Yahoo! Clubs or Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo removes such Content from the Service.
With respect to Content other than photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service other than Yahoo! Clubs or Yahoo! Groups, the perpetual, irrevocable and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed.
Well... (Score:3)
If anyone is using Hotmail for serious, private e-mail, they deserve to be exploited.
Re:Personal and non-commercial use only (Score:5)
Well, just explain that to your wife when she gets a little note from Passport Information Services...
Here's Microsoft's response (Score:5)
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
All Your Genetic Makeup Are Belong To Us (Score:5)
LOL. I hadn't thought of this excuse.
Look, due to security reasons I must backwards engineer your code. I can't explain it, but it's a part of my private genetic makeup. I'll be glad to supply you with my public genetic key, but, as you know, the private key must stay with me.
I must backwards engineer CSS.
I must hack BlueMatter.
I must attempt to thwart the latest SDMI watermarking scheme.
Rest assured (and this means you, Hilary, and you too, Jack Valenti -- even though, yeah, you're getting up there in years) that if I do not release my version of your encryption schemes, they will be deleted from my hard and from my memory banks. But, as you know, for security reasons, there's no way I can delete them manually. Nor is there any way that you -- Hilary or Jack or you spooks at the NSA -- can compel me to delete them sooner.
I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. It's for security. You understand. I know you do.
"All your gene makeup are belong to us."
Why use Passport at all? (Score:5)
I don't even trust IE to hold on to my /. password! You never know when Bill Gates may want to hi-jack my account and burn my karma away by posting anti-Linux hate speech!
--
Re:Old News (Score:3)
Yeah, but when what you post belongs to M$... Begs the question, what are the rights and property of Hotmail, and what rights and property can be construed through other services (for instance, PassPort).
If Hotmail has the "right" to cooperate with other M$ services, and Passport has the "right" to use/copy/rape/etc your data, then Hotmail may not necessarily have the right to use/copy/rape/etc your data, but their partners do, and since they're going to cooperate with their partners...
Re:Why use Passport at all? (Score:4)
"We all know." *WE* do. We, the savvy users of the net know that. But does Joe Blow Internet User know? Nope. The average web surfer doesn't know one wit about security, not even the simplest idea like not giving out your passwords. Hell, these are the people that write their work login on a sticky note and put it on their monitor.
This is exactly how companies like Microsoft, AOL, etc. can get away with their predatory and irresponsible practices. They target the 90% of the computer world that is totally clueless about how to protect themselves and their data. All they see in things like Passport is a very nice, pretty service that makes their life a bit easier. They don't know or think about the (in)security side of it.
And another problem is, this sort of knowledge really only circulates among people like us, who hang out on Slashdot and other techie sites. This kind of information needs to be put in places where the average user will see it, like in PC Magazine and such. I'd say it also needs to be put on the front pages of the main portals (like Yahoo, and so forth). But then again, a lot of those portals are run by companies guilty of these practices, so...
I am sure (Score:4)
Microsoft should probably put in etraordinarily clear armor plated language that this does not license them to theft of corporate secrets, not that this has never stopped them before.
That said, If it wasn't news last week, why is it news now?
(People moan about news items around here being old if they saw it twelve hours ago, but the age on this seems a little extreme)
Heck, it could have made a wonderful story for April Fools day, the one legit story that would have looked like a fake.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Unreadable legalese (Score:3)
This raising an interesting issue: What happens if a web browser fails to properly display a disclaimer (or other legal document)? For example, suppose the main site uses javascript to pop up the legalese. Further suppose that I browse the web with javascript disabled. So when I click on the link that says, "Click here to view limitations of the offer", am I able to interpret the lack of any limitations appearing on my screen as a complete lack of any limitations on the offer? What if I do have javascript enabled, but the text isn't displayed (or is displayed blank) due to an error in the web browser's interpretation of javascript?
Privacy? What privacy ... (Score:3)
In Canada, there's the Internet Privacy Act, which became law on 01/01/01, and which means that I, as a dual citizen of the US and Canada, have more rights by virtue of my Canadian citizenship than by my American birthright.
And in the EU they have more rights, but the EU won't sue the US companies that violate their citizens' rights to privacy.
All this shall pass
IF we protest, they will change (Score:4)
So yeah, let's all talk about it, raise awareness and show what we think of their heavy-handed and likely unlawful approach to being more than commoncarrier service.
I wonder though... if they were to buy a big chunk of the internet, could they do the same thing? "If your traffic passes through our routers, we will sniff it and steal anything we like!"??
These people need to be stopped.
Re:All Your Genetic Makeup Are Belong To Us (Score:5)
"Due to security reasons we do not allow nor do we have a feature to delete Microsoft Windows from your system. Rest assured that if you do not access your computer within 12 months your hard drive will automatically be reformatted."
This just in... (Score:5)
Re:Old News (Score:3)
I think everyone should lighten up about this. Remember who we're dealing with? That's like getting mad at the devil for trying to steal your soul. Of course they're going to write the legalese this way. 99.9% of their users never read the terms of service. And they know it. So they write them to their advantage. And they try to include everything, including the kitchen sink if their lawers think there's even a minute chance that something bad could happen to them legally. This is no different from park-at-your-own-risk signs in parking lots. Sure if the attendant keys your car, you'll want to sue. But will that really stop you from parking there? If you're really concerned about all this then do one of these things:
1. Don't use the service
2. Use a service with a more agreeable TOS
3. Encrypt your transmissions
4. Send truly important things fedex or registered mail.
I think a little grown-up thinking is in order.
Irritating (Score:3)
The story itself is really interesting, it is well-written, and it has a lot of interesting background information. It is thought-provoking, it provided me with information that actually does happen to be new to me (I missed the first story on this) and it should start some interesting discussion. Then it gets posted with the fifteen thousandth AYBABTU reference in the last week. That totally distracted me from the story itself by sheer irritation level alone.
The whole thing reminds me of the "WHAZZUP!!" commercials. It was funny once. Maybe even twice. Now I can't go into a sushi bar without a bunch of jerks getting drunk on sake and yelling "WASSSABI!!"
The AYBABTU thing is way past old. I almost expect to see it linger on in comments for the next six months, but it really doesn't need to keep coming up in the headlines. Especially not in the headlines of stories that are otherwise really interesting. That just makes it more irritating.
-Keslin [keslin.com], the naked nerd girl