Micro$$$oft taking away more of our rights...

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Companies can now pay Microsoft to allow their mail to circumvent Hotmail spam filters. This reeks worse than Grizzly Adams' underpants.



Quote:

Microsoft offers anti-spam bypass



Hotmail, MSN operator adopts program that will allow marketers to bypass filters by paying a bond.

May 5, 2004: 9:55 AM EDT



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. said Wednesday it has adopted an e-mail program by IronPort Systems Inc. that will allow legitimate marketers to thread the gauntlet of spam filters protecting its e-mail services.



More here

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Are thwy going to take this to its logical ind and charge isp's to interface with it?
  • Reply 2 of 15
    cubedudecubedude Posts: 1,556member
    Even in middle school(soon to be high school), I don't know anyone who still uses Hotmail. They've all switched to Yahoo for mail and AIM for IM.
  • Reply 3 of 15
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    I use hotmail for spam and people/companies who I don't want to give my real address.
  • Reply 4 of 15
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    They gotta make a profit somehow.

    Hotmail sucked before (MS Passport, plenty downtime, spam, etc.) and now it sucks even more. No reason to use it when there's a zillion other services.

    Nowadays Hotmail and Yahoo addresses are often not accepted for forums and the like, since they're abused too much.
  • Reply 5 of 15
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    What rights are they taking away?



    I wasn't aware it was an unalienable right to use Hotmail according to your own terms. One can argue about privacy laws just as iTMS detractors can argue about how using m4p2mp4/playfair is "fair use," but it's silly. Both services present you with all-emcompassing ToS agreements that allow them to legally do this.



    Joe Hotmail's "rights" were signed away the minute he clicked "OK."
  • Reply 6 of 15
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    Don't bring iTMS into this. iTMS is essentially an online record store. It is not right for Apple, regardless of legality, to dictate to people what THEY do with THEIR data.



    Up until iTunes 4.5 I was all for iTMS. Then I witnessed Apple, seemingly with all the effort of stating "make it so," increasing the artificial restrictions placed on users.



    THAT is why EULAs, outrageous online ToS and DRM are all bad - what should be the domain of governments becomes the domain of corporations who exist to serve themselves, not "the people".



    That said, it's hard to see Microsoft letting companies spam you as "taking away more of our rights," after all it's not changing what you can do with email once you have recieved it.



    Barto
  • Reply 7 of 15
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Eugene's point is that the market will dictate how well policies like this work. If people hate it enough, and are educated enough to go elsewhere, they can and will.
  • Reply 8 of 15
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    I agree as far as hotmail goes. Plently of other services to choose from, and g-mail will certainly rock the boat when it is publicly available.



    I'm saying this is totally different to iTMS, which I think Eugene was wrong to bring up. Almost all aspects of the music industry are textbook symptoms of market failure.



    Barto
  • Reply 9 of 15
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Barto

    It is not right for [Many companies, not just Apple], regardless of legality, to dictate to people what THEY do with THEIR data.



    You may find this interesting. You are certainly not alone on this.



    Is that the sound of the Entertainment industries shaking their boots?



    *rattle* *rattle* 8)

  • Reply 10 of 15
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    "our rights..."?



    Sure, I hate MS as much as the next guy, but at least get your critisisms correct. You do not have the "right" to dictate how somebody else must provide you with free email.
  • Reply 11 of 15
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    I wouldn't go as far as tonton went, but I see his point. We all have a fundamental right to privacy. Whether we sign this right away when we take the opportunity to use a free service, I don't know.



    I guess I just wonder, more generally, how much control we have over signing away our rights. That case in Germany where someone was looking for someone to eat and someone responded and was killed by the other person. Was that ok because he "signed away" his right to live? I dunno. (Not the same thing, but it deals with similar issues.)
  • Reply 12 of 15
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Barto



    I'm saying this is totally different to iTMS, which I think Eugene was wrong to bring up. Almost all aspects of the music industry are textbook symptoms of market failure.



    Barto




    Oh Jebus.



    Both services present you with rules, restrictions and caveats.

    Both services require your voluntary submission.

    Both services are one of many sources of e-mail or music.



    People think they have the basic human right to do whatever they want, even if they agreed to be restricted by the ToS. It's just like the ridiculousness of the California state assembly-woman who proposed a ban on Google Gmail because of privacy issues. She has no concept of submission.



    Both are awareness issues, not rights issues. You have the right to boycott both services. You lose nothing by doing so.
  • Reply 13 of 15
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    Oh Jebus yourself. Companies shouldn't be able to make laws, whenever market failure occurs those "laws" made by companies are just like when democracy breaks down: you get f'd in the a.



    Barto
  • Reply 14 of 15
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    What? You want to outlaw contracts?



    Would make it awful hard to feel safely employed and safe with big purchases like that of a home or automobile. I am of the opinion that the 'right' for two parties to engage in contracts is more important than the 'right' to force companies to give you something for free.



    Choose your free email based upon what you give in exchange for that service. Agreeing to receiving targeted advertising (in exchange for email) isn't appealing to me but it certainly doesn't encroach upon anyone's rights.



    Take responsibility for your own life.
  • Reply 15 of 15
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Barto

    Oh Jebus yourself. Companies shouldn't be able to make laws, whenever market failure occurs those "laws" made by companies are just like when democracy breaks down: you get f'd in the a.



    Barto




    You'd get f--ked in the ass more often if you couldn't fall back on liability and contractual obligation. Nobody said a contract was a "law," but a company has every right to revoke a contract if you break the rules.
Sign In or Register to comment.