Microsoft's newest Media Player, included free with Windows XP software, has a privacy-invading feature that came to light last week. Media Player quietly keeps a log, stored on the user's own computer, of the DVD's it plays. So users who thought they were watching movies privately were actually leaving behind records of what they have viewed. The software also sends information back to Microsoft in a way that allows the company to match individuals with their music and movie choices.

It is not surprising that technological innovations can come at the cost of privacy. What is troubling is that in many recent cases, sensitive information has been compromised in ways that even a vigilant user had no way of guarding against. Last month, Eli Lilly & Company promised the Federal Trade Commission, as part of a legal settlement, that it would improve its online security after it unintentionally disseminated the e-mail addresses of more than 600 people taking Prozac. These instances are part of a growing problem, the ability of technology to capture vast amounts of personal information about users, often without their knowledge. As the industry wrestles with how much privacy protection to build in, two guiding principles are emerging: transparency and user control. Users should be told exactly what personal information is being collected and what will be done with it. And it should be made easy for users to withhold private information or set conditions for its use.

Last month Bill Gates, in a widely publicized companywide memorandum on "trustworthy" computing, endorsed the principles of transparency and user control. Microsoft has also promised to be sensitive to the privacy concerns that are arising out of Passport, its Internet identification-verification program, which can make online shopping more convenient but can monitor and keep records of the Web sites users visit and what they buy online. These are welcome commitments from a company that already has large amounts of personal information about millions of computer users.

But these principles can be difficult to put into practice. After the problem with Media Player was revealed, Microsoft amended its policy statement to tell users that it was logging DVD titles. But Microsoft did not tell users how to stop Media Player from logging the information. That means people still lack the "user control" they should have.

Privacy issues like these will be of growing concern as more personal information is collected by Passport and other sophisticated data-collecting systems. These vast stores of information could be used by the companies that collect it to build dossiers on individuals. The government could have access to these records simply by serving a subpoena. The data could also be seen by hackers or, as in the Eli Lilly case, released accidentally.

The industry's efforts at self-regulation are a good start. But as last week's Media Player revelations showed, they have been far from foolproof. The burden remains on companies like Microsoft to show that they can be trusted to build transparency and user control into their technology. If not, the government may need to step in to protect users' reasonable expectations of privacy. http://www.nytimes.com

LOAD-DATE: February 24, 2002

Real also had this problem. If Apple can stomach it, I'm sure they'll do this as well.

THIS IS THE REAL DEAL

The reason why they do it isn't only to collect the data. They want to demonstrate that DVDs and CDs can be turned into a pay-per-view style medium, and that MS/Real/Apple whatever will be able to do the following:

- charge for use of a recording on a per-device basis (this is similar to what "secure digital" memory, and the new white sony "memory sticks" promise)

- get rid of Copyright rights, and replace them with "software licenses" like they did with DVDs. Books are treated like CDs - they are copyrighted works, and the user retains certain rights to copy the object and resell it. (You can copy a book for yourself. You can sell the original.) DVDs are "licensed", like software -- the license is a contract that basically says "you don't own the DVD, but you're contracting with the owner to use view the movie on the DVD player." In other words, you're giving up all your Copyright rights, and getting a much more restrictive contract.

Please think about that, anti-copyright anarchists. The software and entertainment businesses are pissing on the idea of "Copyright". They found the restrictions of copyright inadequate, so they created something more restrictive.

- collect royalties on a per-play basis (a "license" model lets you do this)

- prevent "unauthorized" use of a file (again, the license model)

- deliver everything encrypted, ostensibly for security, but mainly for profit.

- change the laws to allow for greater aggregation of user data, because they need to keep track of where their assets are being used.

This isn't actually "technology" but "law". The technology to do this has existed for some time. They just need some restrictions lifted so they can continue with "business".

Don't be afraid of the technology. What's threatening is the fact that the tech and entertainment businesses are teaming up to make sure that we lose our privacy rights, and our right to free speech.

These are legislative issues. People need to get educated.

This is from Mike Godwin, a lawyer.

Subject: Re: IP: intel backs consumers in copyright war



Hi, Dave.

I was in the hearing room, and I thought Vadasz's testimony made

important points. But the senators were not terribly receptive to his

arguments, and in fact came close to (effectively) ordering the IT

industry simply to comply with Hollywood's demands (or else they'd be

forced to by legislation). It was clear to me and to other

technically knowledgeable people in the room that neither the

senators nor most of the copyright-company witnesses grasped the

scope of what Disney's Eisner and others were asking for.

The IT community has a formidable task ahead of it when it comes to

educating policymakers about the problems and costs of proposals like

the one Senator Hollings floated prior to this hearing. Because a

central goal of Hollywood's lobbying effort this time is to prevent

unencrypted and unwatermarked content from being circulated on the

Net, and the only kinds of measures that could do this require

top-to-bottom rearchitecting of every aspect of the digital world.

This rearchitecting would, among other things, require first the

labelling of all coprighted content and secondly a redesign of all

digital tools (from PCs to OSs to routers to everything else) to look

for the labels and permit or deny copying accordingly. But few

speakers at the hearing seemed to be aware of this.

Consumer and civil-liberties groups were not represented on the

witness list, but they were in the room, as were representatives of

many companies that would be affected by schemes like the one that

might be mandated by Senator Hollings. Most audience members were

visibly amused or distressed when Eisner confessed that the only

reason he could think of for Michael Dell not to build in ubiquitous

copyright-policing functions in his products was that Dell wants to

sell his products to infringers.

The central thing I took away from the hearing was that too many of

the players and decisionmakers in this area lack the basic technical

understanding necessary to make intelligent copyright-policy and

IT-policy decisions. It was disheartening.



--Mike

Oram writes about the net. Follow the link to get the whole article:

Chairman Mao would have loved copyright content controls. His writings were edited every few years, but if somebody kept an old Little Red Book they could find out when the feudal reactionaries turned into the beacons of the proletariat.

These are all logical outcomes of the trend toward offering copyrighted material on a limited and subscription basis. PressPlay, for instance, lets you listen so long as you pay, but not to go back and check what you listened once the service goes away. Good-bye to the classic parent/child bonding ritual where the parents play the music that used to turn them on twenty years before.

Under such conditions, culture loses a layer of its reality. It's harder to compare what you see and hear to what others see and hear. Researchers cannot easily point to parts of the transmission and comment on it. A whole layer of verification and social affirmation disappears.

that link was broken. here's a better one.

Follow this link to find out about the SSSCA, a bill that was in Congress last year that would mandate that all software and hardware would support some kind of standard encryption.

That would be like making a law requiring that all refrigerators have locks on them. Or a law requiring that all yards have fences and gates. It made it as far as being a BILL IN CONGRESS. Think about that.

And it's Disney that's spearheading this. Sick.

This isn't a conspiracy, like some other posts on IndyMedia. It's 100% mainstream, and is considered a problem by moderates and left and right of center people. There's no coverup, and the only enemy is apathy and ignorance. The first victims of this kind of legislations will be individuals, and then, public computers operated by individuals. We'll all be stopped, and only the Disneys and Time Warners will be left standing.