61–70 of 164 posts
If this is true then SkyDrive and Azure are toast. Perhaps all cloud storage as well.
I wish that were true. I really, really do. Unfortunately, too many people just don't give a damn.
I don't get Microsoft. Are they really that hypocritical to the core and so shameless? Why in the world would they launch a "privacy" campaign against Google when they're in a glass house themselves, and so vulnerable? Why the hell would they even put themselves on the spotlight like that? Or are they really that comfortable with lying, that they have no problem attacking others over something, even though they are j…
Microsoft often "competes" by trying to strangle competitors revenue streams even when outside their core business, where they are happy to lose billions on Bing and their online division if it also reduces Googles primary revenue stream: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/microsofts-online-sinkhole-8-5... Since Google's products are essentially "free" to end users, they don't criticize them on value, so they build an ant…
Err, Microsoft was involved in search in 1999, and Hotmail predates Gmail, so I don't know what you're talking about.
>Microsoft often "competes" by trying to strangle competitors revenue streams even when outside their core business,
You mean like Google with Android(to compete with Apple), Google Apps(Office), Chromebooks(Windows) ? They still make 95% of their revenues with search so all the above are outside their core business designed to hurt competitors revenue streams. They have succeeded quite well with Android, not making much money but stopping Apple's revenues.
Or is it just so that all these companies, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple got something big in return for their cooperation with NSA?
Perhaps they will or got intel on their international competitors?
As so many people seem to be involved in this, at every company sysadmins, managers, developers etc, perhaps many of them want to leak but dont know how, they are close to the devil so to say and fear they cant really do anything about it as they already know the extent of the surveillence?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, did you expect "privacy" to imply that your data would not be released to the government following legal requests for it? I always assumed it meant that they wouldn't share it with other businesses, but maybe that's just me. Analogously, if one of the major phone providers started selling information to marketers, including what times of day I made phone calls, would it be inappropriate for a competitor to crea…
I didn't think it meant they would give the NSA an un-encrypted firehose of private user data violating unlawful search and seizure implications that are a constitutionally protected right of American citizens, but maybe that's just me .
motto: "YOUR PRIVACY IS OUR PRIORITY" Yeah, now it seems a bit mh... ironic. Not because i think that google is more privacy friendly, but surely microsoft is not at all.
To play devil's advocate here, what else would people have Microsoft do? Is there a scenario in which they can successfully resist enabling surveillance features in their products while operating in the US? CALEA applies to telecommunications providers, which is a label that would seem to clearly apply to Skype. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calea Are major companies based or operating in the US allowed to provide sec…
To play devil's advocate here, what else would people have Microsoft do? Is there a scenario in which they can successfully resist enabling surveillance features in their products while operating in the US? Do you think the government would jail someone of Steve Ballmer's stature if he talked openly about what the government has asked of Microsoft. Because of his position he is much more protected from criminal actio…
Perhaps... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwest#Refusal_for_NSA_spying
I know his excuses seemed "reasonable" (if you're a smart liar, you don't try to blatantly bullshit someone on their face - you find a "good reason" to hide it), but it was no less of a bullshit excuse as Microsoft's earlier rejection of WebRTC (and they ended up supporting it anyway - guess they didn't feel that strongly about that security claim to begin with).
This was the same way. Yes, it may have improved Skype's reliability a little bit, but I honestly doubt that was the main purpose for doing it. As we learn in this revelation, they don't seem to have a problem with adapting their service to suit NSA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't think it meant they would give the NSA an un-encrypted firehose of private user data violating unlawful search and seizure implications that are a constitutionally protected right of American citizens, but maybe that's just me .
I can see how "but maybe that's just me" (and the entirety of the first paragraph) could be read as snarky, but that's not how I meant it. It was a non-rhetorical question: what should a company like Microsoft do when faced with a court order? Does compliance with such orders make "privacy" campaigns nonsensical, if they still have meaningful privacy protections compared to competitors? Also, IANAL, but as far as I k…
Skype, which was bought by Microsoft in October 2011, worked with intelligence agencies last year to allow Prism to collect video of conversations as well as audio This is pretty scary. When you talk about emails, it's sort of "impersonal". But collecting audio and video data from your casual chats on Skype is a fucking break in.
Now think about all that corporate espionage material being in the hands of the government.
Think about how much private sexual activity between physically separated partners is conducted over Skype. Anything from a lonely grunt serving in the military trying to get a little private time with his wife back at home, to outright video sex between a prostitute or camgirl (or camboy) with a john (or jane).
Now think about all that blackmail material being in the hands of the government.
To play devil's advocate here, what else would people have Microsoft do? Is there a scenario in which they can successfully resist enabling surveillance features in their products while operating in the US? CALEA applies to telecommunications providers, which is a label that would seem to clearly apply to Skype. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calea Are major companies based or operating in the US allowed to provide sec…
To play devil's advocate here, what else would people have Microsoft do? Is there a scenario in which they can successfully resist enabling surveillance features in their products while operating in the US? Do you think the government would jail someone of Steve Ballmer's stature if he talked openly about what the government has asked of Microsoft. Because of his position he is much more protected from criminal actio…