Microsoft's Consent-or-Die Patent

theodp writes "Maybe you shouldn't get too attached to those new Windows Live services. On Tuesday, the USPTO granted Microsoft a patent for privacy policy change notification, which describes how to threaten users with the loss of their accounts and access to web sites and services should they refuse to consent to changes in a privacy policy. This includes the case where a user might object to allowing personal information, collected earlier with a promise of confidentiality, to be shared in the future with third parties. Also described is a 'Never Notify Me' option so you won't have to 'worry' over privacy policy changes."

What is this, anyway?

[FlyByPC (841016)]

...they're trying to outdo Google by embracing a "Don't be Good" motto?

Re:What is this, anyway?

[WED Fan (911325)]

I've got one mod point left. And instead of using it, I'm posting here to let you know that I'd use it on you had I not decided to post to this topic.

But, in the end, you weren't compelling enough.

I was looking for more substance, something that I could use around the water-cooler later this morning. I wanted something that would just hit me at my very core and tell me that, "Yes, all of America is summed up in that very statement, and FlyByPC has his finger on the very pulse of the nation."

Instead, I feel like the prom date, who gets up to the front porch at the end of the evening and gets a handshake and a "I had a nice time."

Am I asking too much?

Re:

[styryx (952942)]

Nice joke, but it points out something that is becoming increasingly clear in Slashdot discussions: You're getting dumber. How often is the word 'evil' bandied around nowadays? Thanks Google!

The opposite of bad is good, the opposite of good is bad. The opposite of evil is NOT: Good!

There claim to be so many atheists amongst the Slashdot crowd; well you don't need religion if you see everything as good and evil, why? Because it is what is known as SLAVE MORALITY. [wikipedia.org]

The closest thing I could get to the

Re:

[Stephan Schulz (948)]

The opposite of bad is good, the opposite of good is bad. The opposite of evil is NOT: Good!

...

The closest thing I could get to the opposite of Evil is compassion, NB: compassion is not the same as good. So while using the word evil, be very careful to be clear that its opposite is not good, thinking like that will dumb you down.

You've never played D&D, right? It might be fun to see a "lawful compassionate" Paladin compassionately smiting the "chaotic bad" tribesmen of Wuu.

Re:What is this, anyway?

[russotto (537200)]

I don't like the word evil; it polarises the mind into thinking there is a 'side' of Evil

There is. To deny that is to embrace relativism, which precludes any possibility of weighing one's actions according to a moral standard.

I agree with you that rich is not evil. Wealth is amoral, neither being rich nor being poor makes one good or evil. That doesn't mean there's no evil.

Re:

[mmarlett (520340)]

You are picking and choosing your definitions. One definition of "good" (the third, in my Webster's) is "possessing or displaying moral virtue." One definition of "evil" (the first) is "profoundly immoral and malevolent." Those two are, quite clearly, opposites. "Compassion" is "sympathetic pity and concern for the suffering and misfortune of others," which doesn't necessarily make a person "good." Feeling bad for someone else is not the same thing as doing something that fixes someone else's misfortune. Th

Re:What is this, anyway?

[FuzzyDaddy (584528)]

You raise a good point - the point could be to prevent this from becoming a common practice.

It does, however, raise two interesting points:

1) The current ridiculousness of the patent system. The patent system is intended to stimulate innovation by protecting useful ideas. If you're right, this is an attempt to stop a certain kind of behavior by a large company. Isn't that what the legislature is for?

2) If you're going to trust your data to a third party by keeping it online only, make SURE you have the right to retrieve it without entering into further agreements.

And the award...

[gzerphey (1006177)]

And the award for most dramatic Slashdot headline goes to...

Unenforceable in many states

[flyingfsck (986395)]

Canada and EU have privacy laws. So would this be an illegal patent?

Re:Unenforceable in many states

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

The EU does not allow software patents, so this would be an illegal patent. There is no equivalent to the Berne Convention for patents, however, so the question is moot. That said, there is nothing stopping you from patenting an illegal activity, but since you can't make use of it then it's basically just a way of paying the government some money. You could, for example, patent a method for increasing the yield of opium plants, but you would not be able to do anything with this in the USA unless you spent a lot of money on lobbying.

(IANALTINLA)

You won't die.

[Organic Brain Damage (863655)]

Unless your pacemaker is hooked up to a Microsoft Website, loss of access to a web-site or even an e-mail account probably won't kill you.

Re:You won't die.

[Reverend528 (585549)]

If your pacemaker is hooked up to a microsoft website, you're probably already dead.

Re:

[pieaholicx (1148705)]

Which makes me wonder how you managed to get it hooked up to a microsoft website in the first place. Last I heard their pacemaker API required that you buy their brand of pacemaker which is only available in very few select locations and costs thousands more than any others.

Re:

[gardyloo (512791)]

Which makes me wonder how you managed to get it hooked up to a microsoft website in the first place. Last I heard their pacemaker API required that you buy their brand of pacemaker which is only available in very few select locations and costs thousands more than any others.

Yes, but you can get a corporate discount, and some of their ports are closed by default.

Re:

[weicco (645927)]

No. You are obviously confused by iPacemaker which synchronizes paces with iPaces through iComputer using iSoftware. But luckily you get them all from the same vendor! Just remember to sign a contract with AT&DT and hope your iPaces account is opened in time...

Re:

[Reverend528 (585549)]

And the xp one misses a lotta beats

I think you mean it misses "yottabeats".

Re:You won't die.

[Renraku (518261)]

"Your pacemaker couldn't be verified by Windows Genuine Advantage. Please contact your Microsoft representative to acquire a legal licence. Pacing has been disabled."

But they won't let you 'Live'

[CheeseTroll (696413)]

I think it was a joke.

Good

[thetagger (1057066)]

They have patented an unethical behaviour. Does that mean it will be harder for other people to do what the patent describes? Please?

Re:Good

[Dunbal (464142)]

They have patented an unethical behaviour. Does that mean it will be harder for other people to do what the patent describes? Please?

      No, it just means they will sue your pants off if you are more unethical than they are.

Re:Good

[muellerr1 (868578)]

They have patented an unethical behaviour. Does that mean it will be harder for other people to do what the patent describes? Please?

No, it just means they will sue your pants off if you are more unethical than they are.

If you are more unethical than they are, your pants are probably already off.

Re:

[svendsen (1029716)]

Are you kidding me? MS is doing nothing new. I have had the same issues with cell phone companies/utilities/etc. Hi we are changing XYZ and if you don't like it please leave. Seems most corporations screw people over. I like the one change in my utility bill where arbitration and the whole you can't sue us clause in there.

Look at a cell phone contract sometime. If you leave early you pay a fee, if they company forces you out they pay no fee, etc.

Business 101: Screw your customer and get more mo

Yeah, this is surely good for us

[someone1234 (830754)]

If you experience that some company screws you by doing the same to you, you can always notify M$ to sue the pants off of the unethical bastards.
M$ will surely help you :)

Re:

[krgallagher (743575)]

"They have patented an unethical behavior."

I am not sure it is unethical. Unethical would be for the original privacy policy to include a clause stating they could change the policy at will and without new consent. At least they are giving you an chance to opt out.

They are after all providing a free (as in beer) service. It is their right to put whatever requirements they choose upon your use. It is your right to not use the service. Yeah I agree it is a shitty thing to do, but how many sites have

Me? Personally, I've caved, again and again.

[dpbsmith (263124)]

Remember how Amazon once had a very nice, simple, policy, something like "we never share any of your information with third parties." And then one fine day, they changed it to something "we'll share any information we have about you with third parties, but only with third parties that we think are really good and have something of real value to offer you."

I hate myself for it, but I've kept using Amazon because, well, darn it, they're convenient and inexpensive and efficient.

Dave Barry once commented that he now has to drive ten miles to buy anything, because he realized that over the years there wasn't a single business within ten miles of which he hadn't said at one time or another "I'll never patronize them again."

Re:Me? Personally, I've caved, again and again.

[SCHecklerX (229973)]

On the rare occasions that I need to mail order rather than use the local bike shop, I love Speedgoat's privacy policy: http://www.speedgoat.com/aboutus-privacy.asp [speedgoat.com]

Our Plain-English Privacy Policy
If you think you receive a lot of junk mail, you should see how much crap an on-line business gets every day! We're people here at Speedgoat, not a corporation, and we hate spam as much as you do (probably more), so we keep any and all correspondence you have with us to ourselves. Why is this so important? We live in a sneaky world filled with sleazy marketing techniques that count on complacency and a lack of knowledge. Ever wonder why you're receiving all that junk mail? Unfortunately, a number of businesses are in the habit of selling off your personal information. Even the friendly neighborhood grocery store is profiling you with each bleep of the product scanner.

Rather than hire an attorney to draft a 20 page privacy policy, we'll just keep it simple. Speedgoat Bicycles does not, and will not make any customer information available to any outside companies, organizations or individuals, period. We do not, and will not, sell customer information, and we will not reveal specific custom bicycle pricing. As on-line shoppers ourselves, we value your trust in us, and we respect your privacy.

Pretty refreshing to see that a smaller business 'gets it'.

Bicycle companies are cool

[dpbsmith (263124)]

They're some of the brightest, most original small businesses going. Makes you understand how the Wright Brothers came out of that environment.

My wife is a devotee of Terry Precision Cycling. It was started by a woman who couldn't find a bike to fit her. She happened to be a mechanical engineer, and the light bulb came on over her head. My wife's bike came with a homemade desktop-published manual that is among the very best manuals I've ever seen for any product whatsoever. The first time my wife had a slig

A digital heart plug

[AHuxley (892839)]

Reminds me of the heart plug in the movie Dune.
"Don't be angry. Everyone gets one here."
One twist by a Microsoft cubical creep and all your data drains out.

Damn that's evil!

[MECC (8478)]

4. The method of claim 3, further comprising denying use of the selected information by the application until consent to the change is granted in response to the user interface.

5. The method of claim 3, further comprising denying use of the selected information by the application if consent to the change is denied in response to the user interface.

Damn that's evil! Really, what quicker way to drive away users - program your application to piss them off and then stop working.

New Definition for a Process?

[LifesABeach (234436)]

In order to be a participant of this nonsense, you quite literally have to buy into it. When I view my stack, it is completely devoid of Microsoft. Kubuntu(Gutsy), and all those solutions found in Adept, along with Design Patterns. Move over Dr.DOS, QEMM, and STACK; Kindly make some room for Microsoft.

Think of the adults!

[SamP2 (1097897)]

OMGWTFBBQ iNnoCenT CusTomeRz ar3 bEinG sCrew3d over by eV1l cOrp0rAtionz!!11 THiNk oF t3h c0nsUmErs!!

Sigh...

1. If you don't like the service or the TOS that comes with it, don't use it.
2. If you are worried that a service you previously liked would change it TOS and make your data inaccessible should you refuse it, keep backup of the data.
3. If you are afraid of being led to a new TOS through vendor lock-in, take preventive measures to ensure a smooth rollover to another provided should something go wrong.
4. If you are worried a TOS may have something you are not willing to accept, actually take time to read it before clicking "Next". If you don't understand something, there are a lot of places online where you can discuss a TOS and get a legal-to-human translation of it, especially TOSs of big corporations.
5. If you don't follow any of the above points, only blame yourself when you get screwed over.

As much as companies want to, they can't (legally) FORCE you to allow them to use your data for anything if you didn't accept the TOS. Especially now that courts upheld the law that companies must obtain consent before continuing to provide service with a modified TOS. Companies can mislead you, try to mask the truth, entice you with BS offers, sweet-talk you, downplay the entire thing, block you from using their services (or even access to your data)... But they can't FORCE you to play by their rules.

As a consumer, you have the ultimate power to affect corporate decisions - either use their service or don't. Those who whine about how bad/unethical a particular service is, but keep using it, are hypocrites, not to mention stupid, and fully deserve whatever consequences they get from being sheep.

For the rest of us, there is a good amount of viable alternatives to be able to drop one provider for the favor of another at (almost) a moment's notice, but iff the basic rules above are being followed. If not, then, as I said, blame nobody but yourself when you have "no choice" but to be the company's data slave.

And can we, FFS, stop protecting the "innocent consumers" who get screwed over by evil corporations due to their stupidity? Seriously, this is worse than the "think of the children" mentality - at least you could argue that children are too young to think for themselves - but adults should really know better. Let people get what they deserve.

Re:

[kebes (861706)]

You're viewing it from the point of view of "if these online services have onerous terms, just don't use them!" You're right, of course. But my cynical prediction is that most people will accept the onerous TOS, thereby validating the approach, and making such invasions of privacy accepted by the mainstream. You may say "who cares? Let those lemmings give away their privacy!" ... which is fine, were it not for the fact that it will have consequences even for those of us who object and refrain from using th

As opposed to...?

[Mortanius (225192)]

"...granted Microsoft a patent for privacy policy change notification, which describes how to threaten users with the loss of their accounts and access to web sites and services should they refuse to consent to changes in a privacy policy."

As opposed to...? How it is now, that if you disagree with a site's current or new privacy policy you shouldn't, y'know, use them? Say for example GMail changes their privacy policy, and tells its users that it's going to start divulging the contents of your all your email to 'select marketing partners' for 'market research' purposes. I can't tell them "You know what, I don't care what the rest of your users do, but I'm going to stick with the original privacy policy, kay?" I either, as the submitter puts it, consent or die.

Be glad that in the figure they indicate they'd let you delete your account in that case.

PS - I'd seriously dig a Windows theme that looked like that.

Seriously, I think the poster missed the point...

[kenh (9056)]

This is a patent application that was approved, much to my dismay, for policies to notify users using previously submitted information about changes in policies including allowing users to request that they not be notified about policy changes.

I don't see the bold new invention here worthy of a patent.

Are they claiming to have invented a "Whatever" button? Or is it a patent on using previously supplied information to contact a user?

As for the "threaten" aspect, it's not a threat - if a site changes it's policies and a user doesn't agree, why shouldn't they cancel the user?

Shame on the Patent Office for approving this silly patent, and good luck to MS to try and derive money from it!

A patent?

[nurb432 (527695)]

Geesh. Things are really getting out of hand at the patent office.

This should be someting for contract attorneys/court, not the patent office.

Court case?

[bteeter (25807)]

Wasn't there a federal court case recently that specifically said policies like this were illegal?

I don't remember all the details, but from what I do remember it mandated that parties must be informed of any changes to contracts/agreements. You couldn't have a clause like "we don't need to notify you of changes to this agreement". So, if that is the case, doesn't it kill the entire purpose of this patent?

BTW - I really think things like this should not be patentable. This is not an invention.

Good thing...

[kabloom (755503)]

Good thing they've patented this technology. Now nobody else can use it.

Re:

[Tablizer (95088)]

Imagine the royalties the Mafia is gonna hafta pay
     

Would it be legal?

[140Mandak262Jamuna (970587)]

Supposing I make a TShirt that says, "By looking at this T-Shirt you agree not to sleep with me. However I am free to change the terms of the contract, and agree that you don't have to notified of any change I make to this policy." and then ... you can imagine the rest.

Your Honor, I plead not guilty to the charges, as it was consensual. As per my consent notification system (defense exhibit A, the T-Shirt) and my consent management system, it is very clear that I have implied consent of the plaintiff.

OMG!

[onemorechip (816444)]

The text of the patent says that Figure 7D (linked in the story post) is just part of an embodiment of the patent. Shutting off access to the account is just a policy; it's not what is being patented here.

That said, I have two real problems with the patent. One is that there seems to be a lot of prior art here; the other is that everything discussed in the patent is pretty obvious stuff. A patent like this should never have been granted.

Re:

[TheSpatulaOfLove (966301)]

This method may work for those who are 'in the know', but imagine the millions of sheeple that have come to rely on it since it's the homepage of their fancy new Vista machine. I'm willing to bet this will only be argued about within the tech community, but the common man is just going to accept and comply - never knowing what they gave up.

Re:

[SamP2 (1097897)]

Well then the "common man" should get what he gets. It's not our job to babysit him.

Re:

[TheSpatulaOfLove (966301)]

I think you're wrong there. Isn't the point of Slashdot to report the news? Isn't it the job of the technically elite to keep an eye on mega corporations, making sure no ugly things happen to the rights of the many?

If technically elite do not watch out for everyone else, then we all get what we deserve.

Re:

[Sunburnt (890890)]

Well then the "common man" should get what he gets. It's not our job to babysit him.

What, exactly, does he "get?" A society where privacy concerns are eventually so eroded among a large majority - accustomed to think of intrusions into their privacy as normal - that government or corporate action could abolish meaningful privacy for the "rest of us?"

Sorry, but I feel that it is "my job" to inform people about the underhandedness with which their private information is dealt. I certainly don't want them t

Re:Well, if you don't like the privacy policy...

[betterunixthanunix (980855)]

It is a "big deal" because software as a service is a "big deal." People are starting to rely on web apps; imagine if I could stop you from using a desktop app at a moment's notice because of a privacy policy change.

Re:Well, if you don't like the privacy policy...

[Sunburnt (890890)]

Perhaps these people should think twice before relying on a service that they have no control over whatsoever.

Perhaps some other people should point out these concerns to those people, who probably have enough going on in their lives to not contemplate their legal status with regard to their computer applications.

Perhaps these other people could have a website that aggregates stories pointing out such examples of corporate buggery, and that provides a forum for folks to discuss them. Perhaps they could get enough exposure to occasionally penetrate the online public's consciousness.

Re:

[rubycodez (864176)]

glad to hear you drive your trash to a remote location and bury it, forage for plants and kill and clean your own meat, generate your own power, and send your comments to slashdot via your own leased point to point frame relay.

Re:

[Phantom of the Opera (1867)]

Perhaps these people should think twice before relying on a service that they have no control over whatsoever.

Like....
    * electric power
    * water
    * gas
    * police dept
    * fire dept
    * road repair

(ok, amend that to 'no significant amount of control')

Re:

[someone1234 (830754)]

M$'s method was always to steal an idea, add their own incompatible extensions, monopolise the service by killing any competitor, then bleed the customers and create these unacceptable EULA's.
Now it turns out, they patented their evil ways too.
At which point you want to say no to their methods?

Re:

[Lonewolf666 (259450)]

Then I hope you have not paid much money for your services, if they can be made subject to an inacceptable policy change anytime.

And considering the agreement, just letting it pass them by might give legal problems later on when the user says he was not aware of it.