Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Your Rights Online

Groups Push FTC to Act on MS XP, Passport 303

Posted by michael from the recalibrate-phasers dept.
BuckMulligan writes: "EPIC and a coalition of consumer and privacy groups have renewed their calls for FTC action to protect consumers from the privacy risks associated with Windows XP and Passport. In a letter sent to the FTC, the groups criticized the FTC for not upholding its statutory duty to protect consumers in light of the planned release of Windows XP. More information on the groups' previous FTC complaints is stored on the EPIC Microsoft Passport Page." So who here thinks the FTC is going to block Windows XP? Me neither. The other remedies requested (toward the middle of the letter) are interesting, though.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Groups Push FTC to Act on MS XP, Passport More

Groups Push FTC to Act on MS XP, Passport

Comments Filter:
  • XP is already out of the gate.

    If they want to take on the other .NET servers, they had better start now (or maybe its too late for that aswell)

    • I'm so tired of this uninformed opinion (Score:4, Informative)

      by drew_kime ( 303965 ) on Tuesday October 23, 2001 @04:06PM (#2468200) Journal
      Its too late for any action

      XP is already out of the gate.

      Read up on anti-trust precedent. Google on 'Kodak Polaroid instant', or just follow this link [kodak.com] [kodak.com]. Or this one [purdue.edu] [perdue.edu].

      In the largest award ever in a patent-infringement case, a Federal judge ruled yesterday [October 1990] that the Eastman Kodak Company must pay the Polaroid Corporation $909.4 million for infringing Polaroid's patents for instant photography.

      ...
      Both companies are widely held. Kodak, which has annual sales of $18 billion, has about 172,000 stockholders and Polaroid, which is much smaller with sales of about $1.9 billion, has about 21,000.
      ...
      The award brings closer to an end a battle that began in April 1976, when Kodak introduced a line of instant cameras. Polaroid filed suit six days later, charging that Kodak infringed 10 patents, most involving technology in Polaroid's SX-70 system, which had been introduced in 1972.

      So let's see. A case that takes 16 years to play out. A final judgement that is worth greater than half of the winner's annual sales, and more than 5% of the loser's. An entire product line pulled from the shelves after nearly two decaedes of sales. A class-action lawsuit against the loser that results in refunds to any purchasers of the discontinued product.

      Sounds like a good roadmap to follow. And more to the point of my subject line, proof that the courts have a history of deciding to pull products after they have shipped. So enough of this "it's too late" boo-hooing. It is damn well not too late.

  • Who cares? (Score:3, Troll)

    by jiheison ( 468171 ) on Tuesday October 23, 2001 @03:43PM (#2467973) Homepage
    Let MicroSoft AND XP/Passport users learn the hard way. No one with any common sense would register sensitive data with Passport, and those that do are due for a valuable lesson.

    Worst case scenario: this gets cracked big time, and suddenly everyone is hip to M$'s lack of attention to security.
    • Normal ordinary people don't know the full implication of what they are doing when given their data do Passport, namely Credit Card number, Bannk Accounts acess, etc. If Microsoft will be getting this data then they should be treated like a Bank and be accounted with the same responsabilities and ethics. Microsft should be full aware of the consequences of a bad implementation of XP/Passport technologie, like banks are full aware of rogue individuals having access to sensitive data.
      • One would think. However, software companies traditionally require license agreements that absolve them of all blame no matter how egregious the problem or negligent the company was in not preventing it.

        While it is generally agreed that these kinds of things wouldn't hold up in court, I get the impression that many of the recent legislative products excreted by a Congress who is bought and paid for by the software and entertainment conglomerates are leading to a world where software companies are immune to any legal action based on the fitness or lack thereof of their products for any purpose.

        And from the looks of SSSCA, it seems they want to make Open Source software alternatives illegal.

        Welcome to the 21st century.

    • Re:Who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by MattC413 ( 248620 )
      Actually, the worse-case scenario would be that it gets "cracked big time", Microsoft doesn't notify anyone, and not only do the 'unwashed masses' get their information compromised, but they don't blame Microsoft one way or the other.

      Either that, or Microsoft blames hacker 'terrorists' and everyone walks home happy (except the consumers, of course).

      -Matt
    • No, worst case scenario: it gets cracked big time and there are millions of cases of identity fraud, overwhelming the nation's law enforcement, crashing the economy, and leaving many consumers in the rough.

      Buyer-be-ware only goes so far.
      • Hate to be really pessimistic, but worst case is someone gets all your CC / bank acct / stock trading acct details, crashes the world economy / markets, there is mass unrest, people start killing each other to gain things like food rather than trading as all currencies are now worthless, of course now we are in the age of weapons of mass destruction, so people will use those as well, humanity becomes extinct, the END.
    • Yeah, but it won't happen that way and we all know it. Yes, this will get cracked big time, but it won't cause Microsoft to go down in flames. The PR machine will kick in calling the cracking of Passport cyber-terrorism. Everyone will go "Oh poor Microsoft" and then we will proceed to pass more legislation removing even our most basic civil liberties. Say good bye to Linux and PGP and hello to a legally mandated MS operating system and ROT13 as your most powerfull legal encryption tool.

      Hate to be pessimistic, but I'm losing a lot of hope here. I vote, I pay taxes, but every time I log into /. I see something else that makes me think about emigrating to a freer country. Anyone want to sponsor a bright, talented theatre designer with a background in entertainment lasers willing to work for next to nothing?

    • They won't learn, that is the problem.
      The vast majority of people out there that use computers are too stupid or just don't care.

      What if Ford put out a car that had major problems that they knew about and yet did nothing and as a result 10,000 car accidents.
      Really is it any different if Microsoft Puts out an OS that they know has major security problems and yet does nothing, then 10,000 people get hacked into and all their info taken?
      There is a difference. If Ford does a crappy job people will go elseware. That is why they don't, they know they have to do a good job.
      MICROSOFT HAS NO COMPETITION WITH THE MASSES.
      95% of computer users out there have never heard of Linux guys. Sad but true. Therefore Microsoft is a Monopoly and needs to be broken up.

      Everyone that cares at all about security already knows that Microsoft doesn't give a rip about security and know better not to use hotmail or passport if they don't want to have that data stolen. I use Xp and passport daily. Why? because they are easy to use and I don't really care if someone gets my password for passport. Big rip, i'll just change it. I use Hushmail for anything I don't want people to see.

      It is MICROSOFTS job to make sure their software works. Because the general public is too stupid to know any better. If they fail to do this the FTC needs to step in and take over
      • If Ford does a crappy job people will go elseware. That is why they don't, they know they have to do a good job.

        Oh really? Ford Explorere & Firestone [google.com]

        95% of computer users out there have never heard of Linux guys. Sad but true. Therefore Microsoft is a Monopoly and needs to be broken up.

        Perhaps, but 100% have known about Apple for over a decade.

        I don't really care if someone gets my password for passport. Big rip, i'll just change it.

        And what if they change it and lock you out of your own account?

        the general public is too stupid to know any better

        A classic case of projection, if ever there was one.

      • Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by SoftwareJanitor ( 15983 )
        What if Ford put out a car that had major problems that they knew about and yet did nothing and as a result 10,000 car accidents.

        Ummm... Yea... Pinto (all models built in the early to mid 70's) -- gas tank is the floor of the hatchback which is undivided from the passenger compartment, in rear end collisions sometimes the tank would rupture filling the passenger compartment with gasoline, and in the event of a fire, an explosion. Mustang (2nd gen models) -- similar problem of gas tank serving as floor of trunk, sometimes in cases of rear end collisions the gas tank would rupture filling the trunk with gasoline, and in the event of a fire, the rear seat, being backed with fiberboard would often burn through quickly allowing fire to enter the passenger compartment. Ford vans (1980s and some 1990s models) -- gas tank placed too close to catalytic converter, often causing heat from converter to heat gas tank, and occasionally cause fires. Full size Ford/Mercury cars (Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis) -- faulty shift linkages that would occasionally cause a car to spontaneously drop to reverse if left idling with transmission in "Park" on an incline such as most driveways.

        Of course in these cases, the courts have often punished Ford for product liability... Ford has had to recall and fix this sort of defects. Of course Ford, unlike Microsoft, warrants their products against defects and that they are fit for the purpose they are sold for. And unlike Microsoft's products which you only license, you actually own Ford's product when you buy it. Why doesn't the government and the marketplace hold Microsoft to the same standards?

    • Unfortunately, the "lesson" will go unlearned. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by oGMo ( 379 ) on Tuesday October 23, 2001 @04:21PM (#2468312)

      Microsoft is good at one thing: spin control. Even if they get hacked and everyone's data gets stolen, what do they do? Take the blame? Admit they're not very good at this security thing? Decide Passport wasn't a good idea?

      Yeah right. Instead, they can simply spin it as "terrorism". That's right---you and your data have been the victims of a terrorist-hacker attack. Computer crimes are terrorism. You are a hapless victim. Microsoft is a hapless victim. Are they to blame? Who would blame the victims of a terrorist attack? Would you blame the people in the WTC buildings for the attack that got them killed?

      Now whose fault does it look like? Certainly no-one would blame MS. They've provided this great service and now for their insight, innovation, and generosity, are the victims of terror. Right. How many people will learn a lesson from this? They'll just want more draconian laws passed, harsher measures taken against these "computer terrorists".

      • Yeah right. Instead, they can simply spin it as "terrorism".

        Actually, I think the whole computer-crime-as-terrorism thing is a pretty useful analogy.

        When the bad stuff happened last month, the FAA responded by completely shutting down all air travel in the US until major policy changes could be instituted. Did it have a serious impact on the security of the US air travel system? Dunno. Maybe. The point is, the FAA acted, and acted fast, doing the best job they could think of. We'll never know, thankfully, if they saved lives by doing so.

        When nimda happened, Microsoft responded by... um. Actually, how did they respond? Exactly what swift, decisive measures did MS take to lessen the impact of that problem, and prevent future problems?

    • Let MicroSoft AND XP/Passport users learn the hard way.

      I hope your morgage advisor, bank manager, car sales man, plumber, electician and doctor all have the same attitude as you.

      One of the benefits of society is that the stronger, more intelligent, gifted or whatever, can help the weaker...

    • Worst case scenario: this gets cracked big time, and suddenly everyone is hip to M$'s lack of attention to security.

      Not so sure. I think that the bigger possibility is for people to steal accounts one at a time. People will not fault Microsoft here anymore than they have in the past...

      I assume that it is happening right now, but I hardly use Passport except for my email and that is not terribly sensitive (yah, and some people think all hotmail accounts are used only by spammers anyway, so I am all right).

  • Don't use it, dude (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Jeez. It isn't like there's a law requiring you to have a Passport account. Some people...

    • Re:Don't use it, dude (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This is exactly what worries me.

      Hi. I'm a mac user who also uses linux and bsd for various things. I don't use windows. I will not be using windows xp. I have no desire to sign up for a passport account.

      If i honestly thought that i could get away with never at any point from now until i die signing up for a passport account, i could honestly not care less about this. However, i doubt this. I suspect microsoft will enter into "agreements" (consisting of, microsoft gives them lots of money and they do what microsoft likes) with a great many entities, and eventually i will be *required* to have a passport account to use many common services. For example my college, the websites i commonly purchase products for, the car rental place i frequent may institute some form of "support" for passport which entails requiring me to sign up for a passport account. I may find myself in situations where i am forced to use inferior products or services to escape passport authentication; i may find myself in situations where i need to use a product of a certain type in which *ALL* of the competing products in that area in some way require Passport. I would not be at all surprised if Microsoft at some point purchased some company that i do business with-- for example, cdnow-- and inserted my personal information from cdnow into the Passport database without asking my permission. At the least, i do not see what stops them from doing it.

      It bothers me that Microsoft has created the installed base for the passport service by basically buying customers-- i.e., going to a large service (hotmail) with lots of dependent customers (who cannot get out because they gave their hotmail account to many, many people, some of which they no longer know how to contact) buying the large service and forcing all of the service's users to sign up for passport accounts. This looks to me like leveraging their rediculous resources, which in my opinion were at least partially accumulated in an unethical manner, to gain -- if not a monopoly-- strong market power in a new market. It looks to me like *EVERYONE* currently in Passport is there because MS leveraged one of their other products (hotmail, winxp, msn messenger) to force that person to (or lead that person to believe they are requried to) sign up. Given that microsoft has been declared a monopoly by the courts, i suspect they perhaps, if the law is to be taken literally, lost the right to do this.

      If you can look me in the eye and tell me with a straight face that i will not at any point in my life have to sign up for a passport account, and if you can look me in the eye and tell me with a straight face that i will be able to set up my own personal hailstorm server to selectively control my information and have as much freedom to use random non-microsoft products as any passport user does, then i have no issue with passport. However, based on the way microsoft tends to strategize, i do not think you can really tell me that. Therefore, i say that as someone who does not use or intend to use Passport service, i have every right to be as fully alarmed as possible by the privacy and other issues that EPIC and other organizations are raising with the Passport service, as it seems to me that while i am not a current or planned-future passport user the problems with passport are likely to directly affect me at some point in time, and (especially given that i am a U.S. taxpayer) every right to demand the FTC look into the issues that EPIC and the other organizations raise.

  • Their facts are not right (Score:4, Informative)

    by mosha ( 217365 ) on Tuesday October 23, 2001 @03:45PM (#2467990)
    > Most recently, an error on Microsoft's Certified Partners page, a Passport service, made usernames and passwords available on the Internet in plain text.(FN10) Anyone could have used this information to gain complete access to others' Passports and Hotmail E-mail accounts.

    This is not true. They could see the user name and password to log in into SQL Server database on the machine that was behind firewall, not the Passport user names and passwords. That SQL Server didn't contain any information related to Passport users. And since the machine(s) was behind the firewall, nobody could access it anyway.
    • "And since the machine(s) was behind the firewall, nobody could access it anyway."

      A large percentage of theft is committed by disgruntled employees than anyone else.

      Just because the bank manager left the safe combination on the desk don't assume nobody can access the contents of the safe.
  • I find it so funny that consumers apparently need to be "protected" from an OS. Really, they aren't protecting consumers as much as protecting the competitors of MS.

    Not to say the competitors shouldn't be protected from a monopolized MS, but lets not beat around the bush, eh?

    • I find it so funny that consumers apparently need to be "protected" from an OS. Really, they aren't protecting consumers as much as protecting the competitors of MS.

      The information gathered through Passport is subject to cracker attack. The crackers can then distribute a whole database of private information to whatever source they want to, regardless of any promises of privacy given by Microsoft or the government. From this, it is quite clear that the goal is protecting consumers. You are right that competitors would also benefit, but only in the short term, and this is quite minor compared to the danger XP poses for unwary consumers.

      Caveat emptor.
  • I don't like it, but XP and Passport are already out of the bag. There isn't a lot that can be done to stop them now.

    With the current US govt. focused on the "terror attacks" I immagine that the DOJ will be told to quietly sweep this whole mess under the rug.

  • Yes...PLEASE protect us mr. government.. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The hypocrisy is amazing..slashdotters want the government to protect consumers from the evils of Microsoft, and "Big Business"..but when the government wants to protect citizens from terrorism..you guys go apeshit about "Big Brother".

    Which is it?? You can't have it both ways.

    • It's one thing to protect people from terrorists. It's quite another to take away their freedoms.
    • actually we can have it both ways.

    • All this is notwithstanding your rather debious set-theory math here .. can you actually proove that the people who post a la "MS is evil, protect the consumer" are the /exact/ same people as the "Big Brother" watchers? Yes, its true (and probably a surprise to you), slashdot does contain a range of opinions from a range of people. As such, you may be referring to two reletively (obviously not totally) discrete sets of people here: those who hate MS or are big up on consumer advocacy, and those who hate the government and are big up on civil rights. On TOP of that, both goals are essentially designed to disempower a centralized point-of-abuse for the benifit of the population at large, so it's not all that hypocrytical. At any rate, protecting consumers from MS is a goal that will ultimately protect and affect far more lives than any dent terrorism can make into the actual physical population (MS consumer base is the world, while the target of terrorism is confined to a relatively small set of symbolic geographical locations). You speak volumes about the rediculously skewed perspective on the threat terrorism truely poses as opposed to those who's lives are influenced by the world economy and its communication and data infrastructure.

      I ain't arguing for either side, but I just thought I should point out that your comment is pretty rich in rheoric and glibness and short of supportive evidence.
  • Seeing how the economy is in the crapper right now, the launch of XP is probably seen as a Good thing by our government. In light of this, I seriously doubt the government will do anything to stop it. Conspiracy theorists, insert your 9/11 MS conspiracy theory here.
  • Microsoft be required to disgorge any personal information collected fraudulently and deceptively through XP and Passport.

    I don't think I want M$ a) collecting my info and b) if they have it, puking it back up on me.

  • I doubt it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kailden ( 129168 ) on Tuesday October 23, 2001 @03:50PM (#2468045) Journal
    I recently purchased Money 2002 and it has you sign up for a passport ID on install. Then everytime you open Money, it asks for it again.

    Now, this may be just a "software choice" and not "forced on by the OS" but it still leads me to believe the FTC could care less. This problem is too ingrained in the commerce/commercialism division of capitalism, the only way to change it is by regulating it (hoping that enough congressmen/women are not totally on the side of big business) (and regulation of businesses is another big topic, and has many problems associated with it) or leaving it up to consumer choice/free market...but face it...it's hard to motivate ppl who just want to balance thier checkbook/email/browse the web and could care less about the implications....

    I think there is extremism on both ends. Too much regulation and you can sqelch true innovation, or hurt businesses, or create huge goverments. But if you rely on the market and the population to chose, well, lets just say its hard to beat a intel's/microsoft marketshare with the average complacent home user who might use his computer for 3 hrs a week... because in aggregate that makes a lot more marketshare than the 10% who realize that hey there are better alternatives out there....

  • My prediction: 3 weeks later... (Score:5, Funny)

    by MWoody ( 222806 ) on Tuesday October 23, 2001 @03:51PM (#2468055)
    An FTC spokesman made the following announcement last Tuesday:

    "The FTC has carefully considered the allegations against Microsoft and, more specifically, the Windows XP operating system and Passport data storage center. It is our decision that these charges are unfounded, and that Microsoft will be allowed to continue unimpeded with their designs. The reasons for our ruling are far too complex to go into at this time, but rest assured that we gave the matter considerable, unbiased contemplation. By the way, do you like my hat? It's made of money! Are you staying for lunch? We're having money!"

    (Punchline uncerimoniously stolen from Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com])

  • Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MartinG ( 52587 ) on Tuesday October 23, 2001 @03:51PM (#2468061) Homepage Journal
    Why do you need the FTC to block Windows XP? You can block it yourself using the method known as "not buying it" if you don't like it.

    It seems to be taking some people quite a while to figure it out, but I've tried it and I can tell you it certainly works. It's considerably more effective than the method called "grubmle and moan to your friends about microsoft and then go out and buy their products" that most people seem to be using.
    • Easier said than done. when the major PC manufacturers are locked in to including Windows with their retail systems, this essentially forces a dangerous product on an unwitting public. Granted, these are the same folks that have made AOL the largest ISP on the planet, but they deserve the protection the FTC can afford them. The strongest call to action I found in the letter:

      Begin an investigation to determine whether Passport complies with the requirements of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

      Ain't no way Passport does age verification. This is a pretty strong piece of legislation that has caused several software companies to back off similar registration schemes.

    • Were that true! It will come bundled on new computers like it or not. Right now you might be able to get 2K or ME on a box, but what about after MSFT pulls the OEM deals? I bulid my own computers so NP here. I think you are asking alot from consumers. They don't have any options or choices, that is why they need help. Asking them to use Linux is one thing, but to build a PC to avoid the MSFT tax it too much. They only way to hurt MS is not to pay the MSFT tax. they could care less if you fdisk the box after you paid for it and if counts as a sale for marketing. I have a feeling that this will not be the case after the subscription base deals kick in. let us hope.

    • Mmmhhhmmm ... show me a laptop that you can buy sans Operating System.
      ~CrackElf
    • No, I don't agree (that there is a simple solution).

      When you have no real choice in what OS is installed in the new Dell you buy for Johhny for Christmas your alternative is to not buy a PC (if you even know the difference between XP or ME or whatever).

      This is the monopoly leverage that Microsoft wields. Sure, the vast number of people who are able to build their own PC's have a choice. I've got to think that this is a pretty small minority of people who will end up with a new PC in the next 12 months.
    • Don't like that your Firestones blow and cause your Explorer to flip? Don't buy them. All those suckers who died due to inadequate knowledge of their tires had it coming.

      It's called protecting the public, and if the FTC won't do it, isn't it time someone sued them to force it?

      Of course, I assume that's EPIC's intent if FTC doesn't act, and why they're going through these known-to-be-futile actions.

      • Oh please. Firestones blowing were an exception. People don't expect that to happen. There isn't a long-term historical trend of tires suddenly failing like that.

        Microsoft products blowing are not an exception. They've been blowing continuously for years and years. Before you buy a Microsoft product, you're already reaching for the KY ointment.

        Would you buy a can clearly labelled "carbonated dog vomit, with donkey puss extract" and then complain to the FTC about the taste and healthfulness of the beverage? Bitching about Microsoft products, when the boxes are clearly labelled with the well-known company's name, is the same thing.

        • It may seem obvious to you and I, but if it were so obvious to most consumers, MS wouldn't have 95% of desktops locked up.

          And some of EPIC's remedies are that Microsoft label its dog vomit correctly.

          And then there's: "You can't sell confections containing a whole frog." "They're clearly labelled -- Crunchy Frog." or somesuch -- an illegal (according to EPIC, I don't know the laws enough to say), harmful product shouldn't escape regulation just because it's so labelled (which XP isn't).

    • I cann't understand how this kind of post get rated as 5 - insightfull. The "don't like-it, don't buy it!" arguement is one of the most over-used argumenents here at slashdot at this kind of discussion.

      I believe "don't like-it don't buy it" posts are going to surpass the "imagine a beowulf cluster of those" posts. Please, say something new, would you?
  • In the letter, I saw this:

    Order Microsoft to revise the XP registration procedures so that purchasers of Microsoft XP are clearly informed that they need not register for Passport to obtain access to the Internet;

    I think this is the most important item here. If you use XP, then you must log on to Passport for use of the internet, to go along with the bundled Internet Explorer.

    Most consumers will go for Microsoft XP, since most consumers aren't aware of the alternatives. But why does Microsoft have to force Passport, perhaps they are afraid people will choose the alternatives there?
    • But why does Microsoft have to force Passport...?


      It doesn't force you to sign up for Passport. It just heavily implies that you need Passport, then depends on the naive masses to fall in line. "It keeps nagging me to get a Passport. I guess I need one." Once you sit through the nag screen six or seven times, however, it goes away.

  • support (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jrennie ( 79374 ) on Tuesday October 23, 2001 @03:58PM (#2468130) Homepage
    After reading the letter, make sure to scroll through all of the signatures at the bottom. If you haven't yet done so this year, open up your check book and contribute to your favorite of these organizations. These consumer organizations can only continue to push the FTC if we support them.

    Jason
  • What we need isn't a technical solution. What we need isn't government intervention. What we need is consumer education. We know what's wrong with XP. Apparently EPIC knows (although the original article is slashdotted). However, the average consumer doesn't. If they knew the problems and alternatives, they could make an informed decision.on whether to use Windows, Mac, Linux, BSD, etc.

  • Passport is optional anyway (Score:5, Insightful)

    by throx ( 42621 ) on Tuesday October 23, 2001 @04:04PM (#2468182) Homepage
    First, security details are a non-issue. None of the proposed remedies even address the security concerns.

    Just reading through the proposed remedies I have to ask whether these complaints are just there for the sake of bashing Microsoft and propping up competitors:

    "An investigation into the information collection practices of Microsoft through Passport and associated services"
    ...we don't trust them, investigate them!!

    "Order Microsoft to revise the XP registration procedures so that purchasers of Microsoft XP are clearly informed that they need not register for Passport to obtain access to the Internet"
    ...it was clear enough to me when I installed XP that the Passport registration was separate from internet access, after all you have to be connected to the internet before you can register with Passport!!

    "Order Microsoft to block the sharing of personal information among Microsoft areas provided by a user under the Passport registration procedures absent explicit consent"
    ...why just Microsoft? Shouldn't the companies registering this complaint also volunteer their own information sharing policies? Smacks of hypocrasy to me.

    "Order Microsoft to incorporate techniques for anonymity and pseudo-anonymity that would allow users of Windows XP to gain access to Microsoft web sites without disclosing their actual identity"
    ...you mean like a fake hotmail account? No one's done that before!

    "Order Microsoft to incorporate techniques that would enable users of Windows XP to easily integrate services provided by non-Microsoft companies for online payment, electronic commerce, and other Internet-based commercial activity"
    ...what's wrong with the other companies? Can't they write code anymore?

    "Provide such other relief as the Commission finds necessary to redress injury to consumers resulting from Microsoft's practices as described herein"
    ...there's been damages? Sheesh!

    not to mention the real kicker:

    "Begin an investigation to determine whether Passport complies with the requirements of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act."

    Oh my GOD!!! Think of the CHILDREN!!!

    I'm sorry, but I just don't buy this one as a legitamate complaint. None of these remedies sit anywhere close to fixing any known problem with Passport. Naturally the most obvious remedy is to open the protocol and allow third parties to implement their own Passport servers but that would be too obvious, wouldn't it?
    • "Order Microsoft to block the sharing of personal information among Microsoft areas provided by a user under the Passport registration procedures absent explicit consent" ...why just Microsoft? Shouldn't the companies registering this complaint also volunteer their own information sharing policies? Smacks of hypocrasy to me.
      Other companies are not legally declared monopolies
      "Order Microsoft to incorporate techniques for anonymity and pseudo-anonymity that would allow users of Windows XP to gain access to Microsoft web sites without disclosing their actual identity" ...you mean like a fake hotmail account? No one's done that before!
      And hopefully it will be possible in the future
      "Order Microsoft to incorporate techniques that would enable users of Windows XP to easily integrate services provided by non-Microsoft companies for online payment, electronic commerce, and other Internet-based commercial activity" ...what's wrong with the other companies? Can't they write code anymore?
      Again, other companies are not legally found to be monopolies. Microsoft doesn't get to play by the same rules because of their monopoly status.
      "Provide such other relief as the Commission finds necessary to redress injury to consumers resulting from Microsoft's practices as described herein" ...there's been damages? Sheesh!
      If MS's crap servers storng 130 million passport members' credit cards get hacked, damn skippy there will be damages.
      • Monopolies are not an issue for the FTC, they are an issue for the DoJ and courts. If this is about Microsoft being a monopoly then sending a letter to the FTC is going to get about as much action as sending it to the local fire department.

        If Microsoft's servers get hacked THEN there will be damages. I'm saying there are no damages to be paid right now because no damage has been done!! If they are going to count "privacy" issues then I'd be going after doubleclick and other banner ad people and not Passport.
    • It seems that you either A) don't really understand the arguments or B) overestimate the public.

      Average Joe computer user may not really understand that Passport or other services are optional. Sure they need to connect to the internet to get a Passport account but that doen't mean that they understand that it is completely unnecesary. The average user will connect to the net using whatever is listed on the desktop, if you don't believe me then just look at who has the fastest growing ISP out there (MSN) and before AOL was stripped from the desktop THEY were the fastest. If there is a wizard that runs people through MSN and signing up for a Passport account then most people will do that. This bundling without giving options is what got MS labeled a monopoly.

      ...what's wrong with the other companies? Can't they write code anymore?
      What is wrong with MS, can't they write code, especially patches, that doesn't break specific non-MS programs that used to work perfectly. Funny how the programs that are usually broken are ones that MS doesn't like, i.e. CCMail, Lotis Notes, WordPerfect conversions etc... It has been shown in the past that MS purposefully breaks compatability to force their own products, this hurts the customer by limiting choice. By breaking connectivity and not allowing other 3rd parties from integrating their products the customer loses because of lack of competition.
      • Hmm, maybe if you stopped calling the general public stupid idiots you'd have a better social life.
      • No, I don't really understand their arguments at all. By presenting this to the FTC they aren't complaining on monopoly issues (antitrust is an issue for the DoJ and courts) so that blows away any bundling issues they may have.

        Absent bundling issues, what exactly is their argument? That all this information is bad in Microsoft's hands? Give me a break! Compared to the way banks and credit reporting agencies behave with information, Microsoft is a saint!

        Their arguments may be sound in an antitrust trial, but before the FTC and an examination of the suggested actions for the FTC to take really shows it up as a publicity stunt to have a bash at Microsoft.

        As for the little rant about MS breaking other people's code - where exactly is that in the complaint? I may have missed something?

  • all I want in life (computer-wise) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dr. Awktagon ( 233360 ) on Tuesday October 23, 2001 @04:07PM (#2468206) Homepage

    All I want is to be able to 1) buy a computer from any PC manufacturer I want without ANY operating system, or 2) be able to immediately sell, on eBay let's say, the operating system and junk that comes with a new PC. And not get a nastygram from Microsoft, or the guy who buys it can't run it because of some serial number.

    If I buy a car, or a TV, or pretty much anything else, I can strip it down and sell the parts and nobody calls me a "pirate". For instance, I sold a card remote and sensor from an old Discman on eBay. I can remove the tires, or the engine, or the ashtray from my car and give them away or sell them, then add my own.

    Why can't I do this with my computer? Why are software companies allowed this power? Really, I want to exercise my capitalistic rights and avoid Microsoft, but it's hard.

    • I know this is not the answer you're looking for, but I've been very succesful with option 3: build your own. You may have to find somebody with the technical know-how to help you, but building your own from scratch does mean you will end up with a computer without an operating system.
  • I haven't seen this on the news pages yet, but I just read that Sun has gotten together with a bunch of other companies, 32 to be exact, to basically compete against MS and are calling themselves The Liberty Alliance:

    http://ecommerce.internet.com/news/insights/outloo k/article/0,,10535_908411,00.html [internet.com]

    The difference between this and MS is that the Liberty Alliance is made up of many companies and so the data will hopefully be more secure. In fact, that's one reason they formed it (so they say).. because they don't trust MS with all that personal info.

    Anyway, I guess the larger sites will still support passport just because they don't want to isolate users. eBay is quoted in the article as saying just that.. they'll support any and all, even though they are part of the Liberty Alliance. Wonder who will win...
    • Most likely MS will create a "standard" where you can't use any other form of authentication along with Passport. They'll justify this by claiming that Passport authentication is an "international, cross-platform standard" and that it is "by far the most secure and widely-used" form of online ID so they are hardly being anticompetetive.

      What's more, no one will care. The vast majority of the population probably won't even know there WERE alternatives.
    • >>The difference between this and MS is that the Liberty Alliance is made up of many companies and so the data will hopefully be more secure. In >>fact, that's one reason they formed it (so they say).. because they don't trust MS with all that personal info.

      Because 33 big corporations with all your personal info is so much better than just one!
  • Let me see. The Passport prompt comes up the first six times. I have 10 completely clueless friends are going to call and email me every single time it comes up. I have 20 moderately intelligent friends who will call the first two times then email me asking for detailed instructions how to disable it. I have 50 friends who'll know exactly what it's doing and will send me rants every time it happens. That's 100 phone calls and hundreds of emails. Then there's my dad who I'll have to visit personally and connect through six times so he doesn't see it again.

    That's a lot of my time wasted which could be better spent elsewhere. I wish I could charge those costs back to Microsoft.

    This isn't about you and me, about those with the knowledge to avoid such pitfalls. It's for the unlearned masses, many of whom I'll end up wasting my time responding to. Just like this message.
  • Microsoft is a company in business to make money. they don't care about ethics. they DO care when they step over the ethical boundry, because it could harm their bottom line. when was the last time you invested money in a company that had a 90% market share and cares about the consumer? probably never.
    did microsoft leverage their huge market share to influence the FTC?? Hell yeah they did, and their shareholders are banking on them doing it again. i wonder how many of the people on the juries, judgeships, and head FTC members are microsoft share holders. you can bet the aren't going to make a decision to hurt their bottom line either. expect microsoft to do more to increase their bottom line, even if it would be called "illegal" if another company did it. will they get caught, and eventually get in trouble? probably, but they'll beat the rap. they are the "Al Capone" of this generation. they will get away with murder until someone finds a loop hole. that is the american way, and the traditional american dream.
  • From the letter:
    Begin an investigation to determine whether Passport complies with the requirements of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
    I'd hate to be stuck between Microsoft and COPA.
  • Whatever Microsoft does with passport is nothing compared to the fact that they're taking java out of the next version IE. They're using their dominance in the desktop OS/Browser market to promote .NET and crush java. Seriously, how many Joe Blow computer users will actually think to download a java VM from Sun and spend the time doing so? Probably the same number that thought to download Netscape once IE came out. What's next, taking out HTTP and replacing it with MSHTTP? Hello, justice department, Ralph Nader, are you out there?
    • Whatever Microsoft does with passport is nothing compared to the fact that they're taking java out of the next version IE. They're using their dominance in the desktop OS/Browser market to promote .NET and crush java.
      Oh dear lord, gonna have to explain this again.

      Microsoft isn't removing Java from IE by choice. They were ordered to remove their implementation of Java after the MS/Sun lawsuit. I remember hearing about Symantec going crazy because they were going to be able to supply MS with a Sun-compliant Java engine. I'm not sure if that's actually happened, haven't heard anymore about it since.

  • A long while ago, in a weak moment, I was talked into using passport to use MSN messanger at work (peer pressure from our M$-based IT shop). I don't use it anymore now (actually I only used messanger for about a week before tossing it). Does anyone know of a way of un-signing up for passport? I've checked all around the passport site and cannot find a way of getting out and I don't want to be counted in their statistics.
  • What!?!? You mean my junk email account is part of some nefarious scheme to conquer the world?

    Seriously... I remember when the complaint was issued the first time. I'm not sure how the FTC couldn't have been aware of it, but he who has the most money seems to get their way in the U.S. I've given up on any U.S. government imposed "solution" and I sure has heck don't expect the FTC to do anything in the next two days.

    So really, at this point I just sit back and watch M$ inundate the consumers with inconvenience, hassles, nagging, price-gouging, privacy-invasion, competition-thrashing and generally any kind of bad behaviour they can devise. If the gov't isn't going to to anything, then let M$ be their own worst enemy and let the consumer decide. They've already scared my company into switching to something (anything) else.

    At home right now, my machine runs Linux and tomorrow it'll still be running Linux. XP? Who cares.
  • Regardless of whether XP gets stopped or not (and at this late juncture I doubt that it's even feasible), Microsoft's practices need to be reviewed by the government. It's pretty much a given that what they are doing with XP is more of the same bundling that they were found guilty of previously (in short, this time they're attacking AOL, Winamp, Real, Adaptec, and more). If anyone in the judicial branch were to see this, it might make a much better case for a very harsh penalty against Microsoft.

    Personally, I'd like to see them make the OS free and force them to open a lot of their proprietary APIs. That way, they can't continue to lock things down into a proprietary format. That should compensate for the amount of innovation they've snuffed over the last 7 years. Your mileage may vary, so I expect someone to disagree. That's just fine, I'm just stating my opinion.
    • I agree with you. Microsoft continues on a daily basis to use it's OS monopoly as leverage to create more monopolies. It is clearly illegal to anyone who has an understanding of how computer technology works. I even suspect that there is more to it than we've heard about, that Microsoft software actually targets other applications, forcing them to lock up or halt. Netscape made that claim a while back but nobody really took heed to it. Anyway, you're right, MS is bad for computers and the internet, and I wish the FTC would do something.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close