New Messenger Has Same Old, Gaping Privacy Holes 287
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.'"
so it's like,, (Score:3, Insightful)
so it's like facebook?
Re:Open communication? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Err what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Normal don't make it right.
Re:Open communication? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Ahh, the future of the internet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open communication? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Microsoft: reminding us who's #1 in in-security! (Score:1, Insightful)
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!
Re:Err what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Open communication? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you ever find yourself in that situation thank your lucky stars and feel pity for poor Ronaldo.
Re:Thats the biggest security hole? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
what a crap story. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Err what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Deja Vu (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Open communication? (Score:2, Insightful)
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? (Score:2, Insightful)
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? (Score:2, Insightful)
I take it you are single? In what world do any women hit a better than 60% logical statement rate?
Re:Thanks for providing a real world example.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Open communication? (Score:3, Insightful)
> 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? (Score:3, Insightful)
The one where you don't settle for the first woman you find.
Suspicious ones ARE the cheaters (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Thanks for providing a real world example.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
XMPP (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Open communication? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Err what? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Thanks for providing a real world example.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Who are you calling a gaping hole? (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft, or the other two headaches?
Re:Microsoft: reminding us who's #1 in in-security (Score:3, Insightful)
Privacy != Security, they're two different concepts, though they do have some inter-relation. Like when Privacy friends Security and Secrecy gets mad.
Re:Open communication? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:1, Insightful)
Only on slashdot would this be modded insightful.
pathetic
Hmmmmm MS does it again... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Err what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd go so far as to say that if Facebook does it, it's probably wrong.
Re:Thanks for providing a real world example.. (Score:3, Insightful)
So thank god for gay marriage eh? eh? ;)
Re:Open communication? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.