Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Microsoft Patents

Microsoft's Consent-or-Die Patent 179

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft's Consent-or-Die Patent

Comments Filter:
  • by FlyByPC ( 841016 ) on Tuesday September 11, 2007 @09:45AM (#20552487) Homepage
    ...they're trying to outdo Google by embracing a "Don't be Good" motto?
    • by WED Fan ( 911325 ) <akahige.trashmail@net> on Tuesday September 11, 2007 @10:06AM (#20552805) Homepage Journal

      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 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
      • 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.

        • by styryx ( 952942 )
          Lol, D&D aside, could you suggest a better alternative to the opposite of Evil? I don't like the word evil; it polarises the mind into thinking there is a 'side' of Evil (containing: RIAA, MS, Google on off days, etc...etc...) The trouble arises in that slave morales consider rich people to be Evil, the opposite of evil is good, therefore: being poor is good! Um... being poor isn't good, it's bad!
          • could you suggest a better alternative to the opposite of Evil?
            Moral?
          • by russotto ( 537200 ) on Tuesday September 11, 2007 @12:47PM (#20556129) Journal

            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.
            • Some people are conditioned into believing money is evil (that is, people who have more money than they do are evil) by such things as the repeated misquoting of 1st Timothy as "money is the root of all evil" when it is really "the love of money is the root of all evil."
          • You have it all wrong, we all know that: Four legs good, two legs better.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 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
      • From the Wikipedia entry you quoted "What Nietzsche meant by 'morality' deviates from common understanding of this term.". Don't go foisting your morality on us with sly word games. Nietzsche was completely bonkers. He spent most of his life making up categories for different things and rambling on about them. Your post seems to indicate that you didn't get the joke.
      • by dodobh ( 65811 )
        The opposite of evil is live, in a certain sense of the word. Also, 'good' is an appropriate opposite of the word 'evil'. Compassion is not the opposite.
  • by gzerphey ( 1006177 ) on Tuesday September 11, 2007 @09:47AM (#20552515)
    And the award for most dramatic Slashdot headline goes to...
  • by flyingfsck ( 986395 ) on Tuesday September 11, 2007 @09:49AM (#20552545)
    Canada and EU have privacy laws. So would this be an illegal patent?
    • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Tuesday September 11, 2007 @10:02AM (#20552745) Journal
      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)

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by baffled ( 1034554 )
        So then, if someone violated the law with your patented technique, not only can the state penalize for unlawful acts, but you can seek monetary reward for patent infringement..

        1) Patent commonly violated law (e.g. speeding)
        2) Wait for public record of convictions
        3) Profit!!
        • 1) Patent commonly violated law (e.g. speeding)
          2) Wait for public record of convictions
          3) Profit!!
          Wait, you forgot the "???" entry!!!!

          You can't have a Profit list without a "???" entry.
      • 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.

        Because that kind of thing wouldn't be at all useful in the legal production of medical opiates (morphine, codeine phosphate, etc)....
      • HTAPWYNTSWTAAJSWJFM!

        (Honestly, There's A Point When You Need To Stop With The Acronyms A Just Say What You F@@king Mean!)
      • (IANALTINLA)

        I Am Not A LaTIN LuvA?
  • You won't die. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Organic Brain Damage ( 863655 ) on Tuesday September 11, 2007 @09:49AM (#20552549)
    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.
    • by Reverend528 ( 585549 ) on Tuesday September 11, 2007 @09:56AM (#20552661) Homepage
      If your pacemaker is hooked up to a microsoft website, you're probably already dead.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by 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: (Score:3, Funny)

          by 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.
        • by 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...

      • And, there wouldn't be much but a smoking heap of charred flesh cuz you'd have been...

        ass-immo-lated
    • by Renraku ( 518261 ) on Tuesday September 11, 2007 @10:04AM (#20552781) Homepage
      "Your pacemaker couldn't be verified by Windows Genuine Advantage. Please contact your Microsoft representative to acquire a legal licence. Pacing has been disabled."
    • I think it was a joke.
  • Good (Score:4, Funny)

    by thetagger ( 1057066 ) on Tuesday September 11, 2007 @09:49AM (#20552551)
    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 (Score:5, Funny)

      by Dunbal ( 464142 ) on Tuesday September 11, 2007 @09:51AM (#20552589)
      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 (Score:5, Funny)

        by muellerr1 ( 868578 ) on Tuesday September 11, 2007 @10:19AM (#20553019) Homepage

        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 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
    • 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 :)
    • "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

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

      Well, it could mean one of two things. Either they don't want anyone else doing this (as someone pointed out above), or they want to insist on the status of not being just evil, but rather being the masters of all evil (so they want to be paid by anyone else who decides to be evil).

    • My thought exactly. By applying this method - MS could (likely) shoot themselves in the foot and at the same time, due to the patent, limit the competition from doing the same.
  • by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Tuesday September 11, 2007 @09:51AM (#20552587) Homepage
    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."

    • by SCHecklerX ( 229973 ) <greg@gksnetworks.com> on Tuesday September 11, 2007 @10:41AM (#20553435) Homepage
      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'.
      • 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
      • And speedgoat advertises in Urban Velo. What a company!
      • by Greyfox ( 87712 )
        That's nice. I wish a goddamn bigger business would similarly get it. *sigh*
    • I hate myself for it, but I've kept using Amazon because, well, darn it, they're convenient and inexpensive and efficient.

      There are lots of alternatives to Amazon, which is the Wal-Mart of the book sales industry. For example Powell's Books [powells.com].

      • Not if you want a used copy of Chung's Computational Fluid Dynamics [powells.com], for instance. Their price (new) is as high as the local college bookstore! Compare used at Amazon, 71.99 [amazon.com], I got the book in under a week and saved $50+ off the bookstore price.

        I can't say I've had Amazon spam problems - but then again I do have a good spam filter so I might not ever see it.
  • by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Tuesday September 11, 2007 @09:56AM (#20552669) Journal
    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! (Score:3, Informative)

    by MECC ( 8478 ) * on Tuesday September 11, 2007 @09:59AM (#20552707)

    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.

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

      I don't know why people are thinking this is a new idea. After all, Windows has been doing the exact same thing for years.
    • Damn that's evil! Really, what quicker way to drive away users - program your application to piss them off and then stop working.

      P Since that seems to be the default behavior for most Microsoft programs (Annoy, Annoy, Annoy, Reboot), I fail to see why this this would drive users away.... Hasn't in the past at any rate.

      • by MECC ( 8478 ) *

        P Since that seems to be the default behavior for most Microsoft programs (Annoy, Annoy, Annoy, Reboot), I fail to see why this this would drive users away.... Hasn't in the past at any rate.

        True enough but that seems to me to be evil as a side effect, as opposed to declared, deliberate, premeditated evil.

        I mean imagine you have tons of data in word documents (or some other MS-app created data store), and MS or someone you think is MS changes the privacy policy allowing them to publish your address li

  • 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.
  • by SamP2 ( 1097897 ) on Tuesday September 11, 2007 @10:13AM (#20552917)
    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.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      I think that you're missing the point. If there happens to be a service which you would like to use but you find that the terms are unacceptible then there are three things that you can do:

      1) Put up with it. You get screwed, but you get the service. I

      2) Quietly abstain from using the service. This is the option that you seem to advocate. You lose the service, the provider loses your patronage. In fact, everyone loses, but only a little bit, so it's better than option 1.

      3) Complain loudly about it. This is w
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by 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 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.

      Unless they collude with the government to make it legal for them to force you to allow them to use your data for anything they damn well please.

      AT&T, I'm looking in your direction.

    • by r3m0t ( 626466 )
      (paraphrased) "If you do not accept these new terms... somebody else may register this e-mail address".

      How practical is it to leave them when they decide to let their employees and "trusted third parties" snoop into your data? Somebody else can dive in and practically steal your identity. There's no time to prepare - you log in one day, and you can't access your data until you allow *them* to snoop your data, and maybe even retain your data after you close your account.

      Hopefully any court would agree that a
  • As opposed to...? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mortanius ( 225192 ) on Tuesday September 11, 2007 @10:18AM (#20552995) Homepage

    "...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.
  • by kenh ( 9056 ) on Tuesday September 11, 2007 @10:19AM (#20553007) Homepage Journal
    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!

  • 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? (Score:2, Informative)

    by 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.
    • by r3m0t ( 626466 )
      It does notify the weaker party (user), but without giving them any time for them to leave.

      e.g. when my bank changes its contract, it has to give me 30 days notification by post before the changes take place. Longer if the changes are to my disadvantage. Then, I can transfer my money elsewhere.

      This is more like my bank prompting me about the new contract the next time I put my card in an ATM. "If you decline, your account will be closed and all the money will become inaccessible. You cannot withdraw money u
  • Good thing... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kabloom ( 755503 ) on Tuesday September 11, 2007 @10:22AM (#20553059) Homepage
    Good thing they've patented this technology. Now nobody else can use it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )
      Imagine the royalties the Mafia is gonna hafta pay
           
    • Oh they will, it'll just be included in the Microsoft(TM) Fuck-You-To-Your-Consumers Package 3.11
    • "Good thing they've patented this technology. Now nobody else can use it." ...unless they pay Microsoft. Hmm, I don't see the big advantage for me, I will still get screwed and Microsoft will get more money.
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Tuesday September 11, 2007 @10:45AM (#20553505) Journal
    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.

    • Supposing I make a TShirt that says, "By looking at this T-Shirt you agree not to sleep with me.."
      I think you'll be astonished by how well that would work. Oh wait, there's more..
  • 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.

    Most of the sites I've ever visited (and bothered to read their privacy policy) tell me that they have the right to change the policy at any time, it is up to me to keep abreast of their changes and by continuing to use the site I accept any revisions t

  • I was taking my ball and going home when nobody wanted to play by my rules when MS was still in a motel room in Texas!
  • OMG! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by onemorechip ( 816444 ) on Tuesday September 11, 2007 @01:05PM (#20556555)
    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.

Real Programmers don't write in FORTRAN. FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies. FORTRAN is for wimp engineers who wear white socks.

Working...