Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday March 28 2018, @09:41PM   Printer-friendly
from the they-are-listening dept.

Microsoft, which purchased Skype in 2011, will soon increase its monitoring of Skype and other services. Starting May 1st they will further examine ostensibly private communicatiosn for 'offensive language' and 'inappropriate content' for the purpose of blocking. The changes are rolled out as part of a new terms of service advisory for the company's many services.

Microsoft will ban 'offensive language' and 'inappropriate content' from Skype, Xbox, Office and other services on May 1, claiming it has the right to go through your private data to 'investigate.'

From IDG's CSO : Microsoft to ban 'offensive language' from Skype, Xbox, Office and other services.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28 2018, @09:50PM (26 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28 2018, @09:50PM (#659705)

    Nevertheless, it shows that Deep State has found a loophole: "Private" organizations are not beholden to the restrictions of the Constitution; "private" organizations may restrict free speech.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +3  
       Offtopic=1, Insightful=1, Interesting=2, Informative=1, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=7
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by urza9814 on Wednesday March 28 2018, @10:03PM (1 child)

    by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday March 28 2018, @10:03PM (#659708) Journal

    Nevertheless, it shows that Deep State has found a loophole: "Private" organizations are not beholden to the restrictions of the Constitution; "private" organizations may restrict free speech.

    That's not a "loophole", that's just capitalism. Microsoft paid for those servers, so now they can use them however they want. Don't like it? Don't use it.

    • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday March 28 2018, @10:46PM

      by Gaaark (41) on Wednesday March 28 2018, @10:46PM (#659733) Journal

      I don't! Spank you!
      :)

      --
      --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28 2018, @10:08PM (17 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28 2018, @10:08PM (#659711)

    What this shows (well, again) is that Skype is 100% broken and no one should use it. Your conversations will not be private from either Microsoft or the government, the software is proprietary, and now they're apparently going to police the content of someone's speech.

    Really, any devices these companies offer (Microsoft, Sony, Apple, Nintendo) are fundamentally broken by design, since they don't respect the users' freedoms. But most of the addicts and masochists known as "gamers" will happily continue to use these oppressive devices and services, and even outright defend them in many cases.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Gaaark on Wednesday March 28 2018, @10:47PM

      by Gaaark (41) on Wednesday March 28 2018, @10:47PM (#659734) Journal

      Mycroft AI for the future win!

      --
      --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28 2018, @11:01PM (15 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28 2018, @11:01PM (#659740)

      no ones forcing you to use them. design and build your own. quit acting like you're entitled or have some right to use others resources as you see fit. jesus.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28 2018, @11:15PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28 2018, @11:15PM (#659746)

        And that is why we need more regulations to make sure private companies don't violate the rights of users, even if the user agrees to some EULA.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 29 2018, @02:49AM (2 children)

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday March 29 2018, @02:49AM (#659829)

          Wrong. Users need to stop making themselves so dependent on these services of private corporations. As the other poster said, "don't like it? Don't use it".

          There's Free software and communication protocols out there that don't rely on some company's secret, proprietary software or servers. If you want privacy, use those. Stop throwing your money at some greedy corporation and then complaining about their product.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29 2018, @02:33PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29 2018, @02:33PM (#659973)

            The problem is that with that Free Software, you'll not manage to call any Skype user. The network effect ensures that moving away from Skype gets too painful for most people.

            What is really needed is open protocols. Then all clients could compete without the network effect causing any issues.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29 2018, @05:27PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29 2018, @05:27PM (#660076)

              if only FOSS would do more, then slaveware peddlers would enable freedom? you are brainwashed.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28 2018, @11:20PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28 2018, @11:20PM (#659750)

        no ones forcing you to use them.

        Straw man. I did not say anyone was 'forced' to use these services. I advocate not using them.

        But whether you are forced to use the service or device or not has nothing to do with whether what the companies are doing is unethical. Not respecting people's freedoms [gnu.org] is unethical. Spying on people is unethical. Digital restrictions management is unethical. This is all true whether or not using the service is mandatory.

        I would also argue that there are significant negative externalities when proprietary software and monstrous surveillance engines like Facebook become popular. There comes a point where even if you refuse to use any of it, you are still affected by others using it because you will inevitably have to do business with someone who does, and then it's your data on the line. With Facebook, someone can upload a picture with you in it without your permission and then tag your name, even if you do not use the service.

        quit acting like you're entitled or have some right to use others resources as you see fit. jesus.

        Take note: This is the quality of the type of person who would defend these companies and practices. Zero intelligence whatsoever. It leaves you hoping that it is merely a troll.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 29 2018, @02:56AM (2 children)

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday March 29 2018, @02:56AM (#659832)

          But whether you are forced to use the service or device or not has nothing to do with whether what the companies are doing is unethical. Not respecting people's freedoms is unethical. Spying on people is unethical. Digital restrictions management is unethical. This is all true whether or not using the service is mandatory.

          Only in your opinion. What's "ethical" depends on your opinion; there's no universal way to determine what is or isn't ethical. To many people (like those who live in some authoritarian countries), spying on people and not respecting their freedom IS ethical, because in their view these things are needed to maintain a stable society and strong government. To other people, digital restrictions management IS ethical, because it supposedly helps content creators get better compensated for their work.

          It's all very simple: if you disagree with the values of the company that makes a service or device, and you don't like the restrictions involved in using that device or service, then don't use it.

          I would also argue that there are significant negative externalities when proprietary software and monstrous surveillance engines like Facebook become popular.

          Absolutely. But freedom-respecting alternatives do exist, such as Diaspora, but no one wants to use them. We've seen lately just how dangerous Facebook is, but is anyone going to change their ways? Hell no. They were able to do it in the earlier days of the internet when everyone dumped MySpace to switch to Facebook, but that just isn't happening now; the 30+ people absolutely refuse to give it up. The only way Facebook is going to die (or become the next MySpace) is for enough time to pass that their users die of old age, since the under-30 crowd doesn't seem to be so attached to it like the idiot X-ers (I'm an X-er BTW, so I have every right to bash my generation full of morons; the older Millennials are pretty stupid too).

          Anyway, I agree with you: I advocate not using them. That's the best we can do now IMO.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29 2018, @06:21AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29 2018, @06:21AM (#659860)

            To many people (like those who live in some authoritarian countries), spying on people and not respecting their freedom IS ethical, because in their view these things are needed to maintain a stable society and strong government. To other people, digital restrictions management IS ethical, because it supposedly helps content creators get better compensated for their work.

            Yes, to authoritarians, that sort of behavior is alright. But I think of the term "authoritarian" as an insult of the highest caliber to begin with, meaning that such people are mere trash to me. Clearly, that's just my opinion and many other members of this wretched species disagree.

            Other than that, you're really just pointing out that different opinions exist, which is quite obvious. I will fight to have my views implemented.

            I will say, however, that DRM and spying have consequences that demonstrably exist and have nothing to do with someone's opinion. All someone can do is say that they don't care about those consequences, but if they deny they exist, then they are just wrong.

            Absolutely. But freedom-respecting alternatives do exist

            And how do these alternatives stop someone from uploading a picture of me without my permission and tagging my name, thus allowing Facebook to add more facial recognition data to their database? It doesn't. Real privacy laws are needed to stop that.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29 2018, @06:15PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29 2018, @06:15PM (#660111)

              What stops someone from posting a picture of you on a bulletin board worth your name?

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 29 2018, @01:46AM (5 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 29 2018, @01:46AM (#659810) Journal

        Those of you with this attitude really need to be identified in real life. That way, when Big Business finds some reason to come after YOU, the rest of us will know that you deserve that boot on your throat. Nay, you actively lobbied to have a boot crushing your throat, you don't merely deserve that boot. It will save the rest of us the effort of defending you. Sheep are prey animals, after all, and their destiny is the slaughter house.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 29 2018, @02:05AM (2 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday March 29 2018, @02:05AM (#659816) Journal

          Ayyyy-men, brother, and +1. You've been reasonable and insightful lately; keep it up!

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 29 2018, @02:05PM (1 child)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 29 2018, @02:05PM (#659963) Journal

            Sorry. Negative. I'm the same old asshole that I always am. I enjoy pissing off left and right. I'll point out that I don't have cyclical mood swings and what not. It's you who is feeling especially chummy. We've seen this each spring since we've met. It's those hormones, and the nesting instinct doing it to you. Now, you may apologize by reminding us which of the pits of hell you think I'll be spending eternity in.

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 29 2018, @07:27PM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday March 29 2018, @07:27PM (#660148) Journal

              You don't pay too much attention, do you? Hell is not eternal, and it's a state of mind more than a specific place. Only you know what your Hell will look like, and even then, you won't know until you get there. You might also not know how long you'll be there until you're done. I can venture one guess for you, though: after you're done you're probably coming back as a woman :D

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 29 2018, @03:00AM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday March 29 2018, @03:00AM (#659833)

          Those of you with this attitude really need to be identified in real life.

          Why? We're not dumb enough to use XBox Live or Skype. If you have a boot on your throat from Microsoft, it's because you happily chose to have that boot on your throat. No one's forcing you to use Skype or XBox Live (certainly not the latter; I guess you could make an argument for the former for business use, but even here, who cares? That's mostly your employer's problem, not yours, as long as you only discuss work-related stuff on Skype). Anyway, no one *needs* to play online console games, and there are plenty of alternatives to Skype these days, both Free and proprietary (the latter ones even work through your browser).

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29 2018, @06:29PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29 2018, @06:29PM (#660121)

          Sometimes, the truly special yes men make good pets.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29 2018, @05:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29 2018, @05:22PM (#660070)

        are you on the cheese? the op didn't say anything liek what you are replying to. go get some sleep, you crackhead.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28 2018, @11:13PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28 2018, @11:13PM (#659745)
    It is no loophole, since there is no law that says you have to use Skype. If you don't like what Microsoft is doing with Skype, there's dozens of other instant messaging apps out there that you can switch to, some of which are Free Software, and further some even offer strong end to end encryption that provides reasonably good guarantees that they can never do what Microsoft is going to do here. Microsoft may still have a monopoly on desktop OSes but they do not have a monopoly on instant messaging software. Far from it.
    • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday March 29 2018, @10:18AM

      by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday March 29 2018, @10:18AM (#659908) Journal

      Microsoft may still have a monopoly on desktop OSes

      Microsoft most certainly does not have a monopoly on the desktop OS market.

      There are many Linux options in the free space, and they have competition in the commercial space from Apple.

    • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Thursday March 29 2018, @12:41PM

      by unauthorized (3776) on Thursday March 29 2018, @12:41PM (#659935)

      It's not a loophole as much as it wouldn't be a loophole for the state to pay for private armed goons to oppress you.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29 2018, @02:41PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29 2018, @02:41PM (#659981)

      It is no loophole, since there is no law that says you have to use Skype.

      But if Skype gets away with it, then one day the government might demand it for all services, pointing out that it works quite fine for Skype.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28 2018, @11:28PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28 2018, @11:28PM (#659754)

    So will MS ban the language and leaning of the games on xBox? No. So they are hypocritical.
    Then, in my world, "Windows" is a swearword too. "Zark! Belgium!" - Zaphod

    • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Thursday March 29 2018, @07:17AM

      by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 29 2018, @07:17AM (#659873)

      Hm, are you in the running for a Rory?