×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Messenger Has Same Old, Gaping Privacy Holes

kdawson posted more than 3 years ago | from the not-that-kind-of-friends dept.

Privacy 287

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft released the beta of the new 'Wave 4' Windows Live Essentials last week. The new beta of Windows Live Messenger 2011, while plugging some privacy holes and shoring up the user interface, fails to tackle the one biggest privacy-buster of all. Say you use Messenger to IM your wife. You also use Messenger to IM your old girlfriend. The next time your wife logs on to her Hotmail account — not Messenger, Hotmail — she will see that you and your old girlfriend 'are now friends.' It all happens without your knowledge or permission, and it happens even if you tell Messenger you want your personal information to be 'Private.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

287 comments

Thanks for providing a real world example.. (5, Funny)

Niobe (941496) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724572)

..we can all relate to

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example.. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32724638)

Sorry, replace wife with mother, and girlfriend with the goatse guy.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example.. (5, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724690)

ahh, now I see the gaping hole.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example.. (4, Funny)

garcia (6573) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724950)

My wife would make the goatse guy look like a virgin if I ever did what the blurb suggested.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example.. (1)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725026)

You know it's no different than a real life situation. Say your wife drove by a gas station and your filling up and happen to run into your old girlfriend. Well a wife driving by has about the same context with which she could judge this GAPING PRIVACY HOLE as you call it.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example.. (2, Insightful)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725336)

Bumping into someone accidentally is different from actively establishing communication with them. The other distinction to be made is that in your example, your wife driving past happens by chance. With the example in the summary, Hotmail reports your contact with your ex-GF to your wife, so its a certainty that all of your existing contacts know who you are in contact with.

Your example is about as relevant to this scenario as a tyrannosaurus chasing a field mouse.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32725460)

My wife would make the me look like the goatse guy if I ever did what the blurb suggested.

FTFY

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example.. (5, Insightful)

izomiac (815208) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725086)

I detest examples such as this. They imply that you only need privacy if you're doing something wrong. Why not use one where a person is friends with both a fundamentalist christian and a well-known atheist, or a homosexual and a homophobe? There are countless examples of where doing the right thing has negative repercussions if the wrong people find out about it.

Privacy isn't your right to get away with illegal or immoral behavior. If you frame it as such then people will rightfully point out that you do not have such a right.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32725244)

I detest examples such as this. They imply that you only need privacy if you're doing something wrong.

The example implies no such thing. You've simply made a poor inference.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example.. (3, Insightful)

Draek (916851) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725318)

How in hell is chatting up with your ex-girlfriend when you're married something inmoral? at all?

I know, I know, lack of experience to judge here in this forum so take my word for it: it's something perfectly normal, and relatively common as well. Yeah, some people can get a bit jealous but the same goes for, say, commenting how 'cute' David Beckham looks wearing the England uniform yet few (if any) would say that making such a statement qualifies as "inmoral" for a married woman.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example.. (2, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725392)

Why not use one where a person is friends with both a fundamentalist christian and a well-known atheist, or a homosexual and a homophobe?

One potential reason: that sounds like the start of poorly-written sitcom, not a serious privacy problem. Not only would that have convinced fewer people it's a problem, but then some network would be premiering a horrible new show this season.

Were the WB still around, it would probably be starting right about now in fact.

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example.. (1)

xero314 (722674) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725462)

I detest examples such as this. They imply that you only need privacy if you're doing something wrong. Privacy isn't your right to get away with illegal or immoral behavior.

Actually what the summary is suggesting you actually do is the immoral part. Talking to an ex is not immoral. Intentionally hiding it from your spouse is.

There are countless examples of where doing the right thing has negative repercussions if the wrong people find out about it.

Could you please provide at least one, because you have not done so yet.

ATTENTION WE GOT SOME COMMIE SPIES TO SHOOT !! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32725100)

Then we gonna go find some more and shoot them too !!

Commies BETTER go home !!

Re:Thanks for providing a real world example.. (5, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725134)

I think most of us are adept enough to look up things like this pretty quickly. I found lots of useful links explaining what these things are (wife, girlfriend) and was able to follow along.

Open communication? (4, Funny)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724588)

I understand the privacy implications, but maybe they could have chosen a better example.

If your Wife has some huge issue with you talking to your Ex-girlfriend, there are probably other underlying things.

Communication should be open, like this:
"Oo, she has a nice ass"
[girlfriend turns]
"yeah, you're right"

Re:Open communication? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32724658)

If your Wife has some huge issue with you talking to your Ex-girlfriend, there are probably other underlying things.

You mean other than the fact that you're cheating on her?

WHOOSH.
*rolls eyes*

Re:Open communication? (5, Insightful)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724738)

There's the issue. You assume that he's cheating. Nowhere is that implication beyond your own mind. Thanks for demonstrating why this is an issue.

Re:Open communication? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32724930)

Hint: the "you" in the whoosh post refers to the man in the summary. He's hypothetical, and the whole point is that he's cheating and doesn't want that information revealed, so there is no assumption involved.

Re:Open communication? (1)

suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725284)

No, we get it. Problem is that talking to someone is not being unfaithful. The old girlfriend might be someone you share interests with, or she might have had a problem you knew the answer to, or she might be sharing news about a mutual acquaintance.

If it was any of those things, and your wife has a problem with it--or you're irrationally afraid she will--then as the top of this thread and GP suggest, you have bigger problems than the security of your messenger.

Of course, you MAY be cheating, but as GP pointed out, nowhere was that stated, only that you don't want your wife to find out. Now in lots of cases, the women involved would only be upset if you really were cheating. But some people don't behave quite that rationally, and I imagine that a lot of people might fear the appearance of infidelity even if they were doing nothing wrong.

Suspicious ones ARE the cheaters (2, Insightful)

phorm (591458) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725230)

It seems that when I dated women who were suspicious, they were often the ones most likely to cheat, and somehow the ones that always had some personal justification for me.
I'd talk to another girl, or maybe an ex, I must be into her, *even* if I notably ensured said ex knew I was in a happy relationship. Then the jealous GF would assume that because - in her mind - I was a cheater, it was OK to go and hit on other guys online (and in the last case, actually managed to be seeing another guy behind my back for months while STILL accusing me).

Screw that BS. If you can't trust your partner, and/or your partner can't trust you, then you probably aren't meant to be together.

Now in terms of the "nice ass" comment, that doesn't mean that as the relationship goes on you should neglect your GF. Don't stop giving compliments or doing nice things just because you've been together awhile... it's a failing many have past the "honeymoon phase".

Re:Open communication? (1, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725046)

The problem isn't that he is im'ing an ex, or even that you assume that means hes cheating. The issue that she considers him having sex with other girls a problem.

It's just sex it doesn't imply any attachment.

Re:Open communication? (5, Insightful)

Renraku (518261) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724666)

You're living in a fantasy world.

Here's how it really goes:
"Oo, she has a nice ass."
[girlfriend glares]
"Why are you looking at her ass?"
"Well, she walked by, I just kind of glanced there."
"Why didn't you glance the other way?"
"I don't know, I just didn't."
"What's wrong with my ass?"
"Nothing's wrong with your ass, I was just making an observation."
"Are you saying my ass is fat?"
"No not at all, I love your ass."

The next day:
"My boyfriend doesn't like my ass any more..I don't think he loves me."
"Aw, it's okay sugar, there's boys everywhere! Let me introduce you to my friend Ronaldo, he's single!"
"Well, okay, since my boyfriend obviously doesn't love me anymore."

A week later:
"Well since you have an infatuation with other women's asses, I'm leaving you for Ronaldo. At least HE says I have a nice ass!"

Re:Open communication? (4, Insightful)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724710)

You're living in a fantasy world

Or maybe you're living in relationship-hell. Why date someone so insecure that you have to lie to them?

Re:Open communication? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32724818)

You're living in a fantasy world

Or maybe you're living in relationship-hell. Why date someone so insecure that you have to lie to them?

I'm guessing that you've never dated any real women.

Re:Open communication? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32724864)

I'm guess you've only been dating psychotic bitches.

Re:Open communication? (2, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725064)

If you had dated any real women you'd realize that they are all psychotic bitches. If they aren't psychotic bitches then the only explanation is that they are sucking your buddy tom's dick every weekend.

Re:Open communication? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32725292)

( Women here, or some guy defending their honour. Take you're pick )

FUCK YOU!!!

Re:Open communication? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725406)

If they aren't psychotic bitches then the only explanation is that they are sucking your buddy tom's dick every weekend.

I'm confused as to how fellating tom would be a treatment for that or any psychological problem, but hey, whatever works.

Re:Open communication? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32725414)

[citation needed]

Re:Open communication? (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724882)

I'm guessing *you* haven't.

(Where "real woman" means something roughly analagous to "real man", as opposed to the more usual /. definition, "not a blow up doll")

Re:Open communication? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32725306)

You're living in a fantasy world

Or maybe you're living in relationship-hell. Why date someone so insecure that you have to lie to them?

I'm guessing that you've never dated any real women.

Considering I'm dating two real women, I'd say grand-parent is actually living in a relationship-hell.

Source [blogspot.com] . As in, that is me.

Re:Open communication? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32725480)

Or maybe he just dates bisexual women.

"damn, she has a nice ass"
"Yeah, I know!"

I've had that happen more than once actually (well, I would never _say_ it, but you both notice when you're both staring). But yeah, if you're dating fully straight women, avert your eyes at all costs.

Re:Open communication? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32724866)

Because you want to date a woman?

Re:Open communication? (2, Insightful)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725158)

> Why date someone so insecure that you have to lie to them?

Because it beats being alone?

We're all flawed humans. Insecurity isn't the worst problem a date/mate could have.

Re:Open communication? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32725268)

Think of it this way: if you caught your girlfriend/wife ogling other dudes and complimenting their features to you... What would you think of that? I mean, I'm not talking about what would you tell her and your friends or what you've read on FHM on this topic. I mean what would you think of that?

I can tell you my personal experience. My relationship with my gf is rock solid to the point that without a single doubt both of us want to spend our lives together. Yet, she is bi and, although she never had sex with a girl since we started seeing each other, we intend to do threesomes when we meet a single girl which meets both her and my expectations. When we go out we frequently find ourselves looking at girls on the street, pointing out the hotties. Adding to that, she is also into voyeur stuff and she wishes to watch me have sex with the threesome girl. It's only possible to suggest this stuff, let alone plan for it, if you are completely, unquestionably and unconditionally trust your partner.

Yet, one day we were taking a stroll when she caught me looking at a girl's tits. I mean, I wasn't even ogling her. This was on a summer day, the girl, who was hot, was wearing a light shirt with a huge cleavage, she wasn't wearing a bra and she was walking with a bit of hurry. Well, any man who sees a pair of tits bouncing around coming your way... Even if you are gay you will look at the bouncing boobies. Well, my gf caught me staring at those bouncing tits. I'll remind you that this is my bisexual, threesome-planning girlfriend who wants to see me having sex with other girls and who has absolutely no problem pointing me what girl she thinks is hot. Well, in that particular case... She didn't reacted well. At first she simply stopped talking and when I asked what was wrong she insisted that everything was fine. Yet, after I insisted on it for a while she complained she didn't liked that I looked at that girl's tits. Bear in mind that this is a girl who actively looks out for girls for me to screw while she watches.

So, this hasn't anything to do with being insecure or living in a relationship-hell. This is human nature, nothing more, nothing less. You don't want to see your sexual partner coveting for some other sexual partner and you don't to feel left-out or second-best. And guess what you achieve when you glance at the wrong girl's ass in the street? /posted anonymously for the obvious reasons

Re:Open communication? (5, Insightful)

secolactico (519805) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724814)

A week later:
"Well since you have an infatuation with other women's asses, I'm leaving you for Ronaldo. At least HE says I have a nice ass!"

If you ever find yourself in that situation thank your lucky stars and feel pity for poor Ronaldo.

Re:Open communication? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724898)

"What's wrong with my ass?"

This is the point at which you leave your girlfriend -- if she can make such massively illogical statements, which are tangentially related (at best) to what you said, you are better off single.

Re:Open communication? (2, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725078)

I take it you are single? In what world do any women hit a better than 60% logical statement rate?

Re:Open communication? (2, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725454)

Have you ever considered that your experience may be biased by the fact the only women you meet are the ones too stupid to get that you're a misogynist?

Re:Open communication? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32725014)

1.) Getting relationship advice from Slashdot is like getting financial advice from Iceland.

2.) The proper display of affection for the female posterior is an open-palm slap, perhaps accompanied with a generous squeeze. Repeat as necessary.

This post is brought to you by the CAPTCHA "ashman"

Re:Open communication? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32725252)

Just to add: In apologizing and begging her to stop, you reward her bad behavior and she is likely to continue and escalate it as it feeds her ego. Also, you end up establishing yourself as a weak male. That plus the self righteous indignation you have validated for her means you are basically boned once the next male that gets her knickers wet comes along. People are enormously good at rationalizing their irrational behavior.

Did you ever wonder why assholes tend to get and keep women? Well, there is the obvious self confidence issue. But, also, they tend to reward behavior that benefits themselves. And, they will often punish behavior that does not. They are, after all, assholes.

This ties into a larger problem folks like us miss during childhood. Basically, if you set up the situation where another person will feel better by kicking your ass, they will kick your ass. And, they will continue to do so long as the benefit outweighs the cost. Likewise, if it makes them feel worse, they won't, excluding some life or death situations. Let me make this clear: Morality, ethics, and laws only apply in so much as when someone with authority is looking (and cares) when dealing with most people. Some people do have an iron clad sense of right and wrong, and usually they are some of the ones getting their asses handed to them. Most just rationalize that they do and get pissed if you do anything to bring that up, even inadvertently.

Re:Open communication? (1)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724754)

I guess people can live how they like, but IMO that would probably mean your GF would be likely to cheat on you. Sluts are fun but unreliable in the long term.

Re:Open communication? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32724924)

Also, all classes should be public, with directly modifiable member variables!

Err what? (1)

js3 (319268) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724648)

If your girlfriend tags you in a facebook picture everyone including your wife will see it too. What's the big deal?How is this a huge privacy hole?

Re:Err what? (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724670)

If your girlfriend tags you in a facebook picture everyone including your wife will see it too. What's the big deal?How is this a huge privacy hole?

Because we hate Microsoft here, that's why.

Re:Err what? (3, Insightful)

LBt1st (709520) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724680)

Normal don't make it right.

Re:Err what? (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724800)

I would LOVE for facebook to have a privacy option "Disable the ability to tag me in any photo"

Re:Err what? (3, Informative)

minsk (805035) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724840)

I would LOVE for facebook to have a privacy option "Disable the ability to tag me in any photo"

Like the privacy setting entitled "Photos and videos I'm tagged in", which can be customized to Only Me or blocked from specific people?

I can't swear that it works properly. So test with someone other than your mistress first :)

Re:Err what? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32724832)

You can untag yourself in a facebook photo, you can unfriend someone so they can't tag you, etc. With this, there are no options. Facebook isn't exactly the golden standard of user-controlled privacy settings, but it's better than this.

Re:Err what? (4, Insightful)

spazdor (902907) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724902)

Hang on a second here. Did you just point out that MSN works kind of like Facebook, and then insinuate that this means the privacy is fine?

Re:Err what? (1)

js3 (319268) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725128)

Hang on a second here. Did you just point out that MSN works kind of like Facebook, and then insinuate that this means the privacy is fine?

Of course not. I'm saying OMG MSN HAS A HUGE PRIVACY ISSUE when the biggest social website out there had this 2 years ago is a bit disingenuous

Re:Err what? (1)

CheshireCatCO (185193) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725382)

Facebook (and Google) have been getting a ton of flack for this, too. Your example is poorly chosen if you really want to argue that this isn't a big deal.

Re:Err what? (2, Insightful)

KahabutDieDrake (1515139) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725472)

Facebook is a social interaction system. IM is a communication system. They have entirely different expectations of privacy and function. It's really not that difficult to draw distinction between them and what functions should cross over and which should not.

I think the bigger point here is that MSN is a crappy IM system trying to be a crappy social network. Neither of those things is terribly useful, so don't use it. Problem solved.

Ahh, the future of the internet... (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724720)

All the lack of privacy and cliquishness of the tiny little towns that people ran like hell to the big city to avoid; but with the systematic asymmetry of information that only modern technocratic corporatism can provide... Just lovely.

Silly example (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724722)

The obvious problem is having a wife and an ex-girlfriend. That's backwards: girlfriend and ex-wife works much better.

Thats the biggest security hole? (2, Interesting)

hilather (1079603) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724752)

What about MSNs lack of even simple encryption? I don't know how many times I've seen people snoop on other peoples conversations over wireless...

Re:Thats the biggest security hole? (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724842)

Lack of encryption is a pretty egregious offense; but a vulnerability that consists of making possibly-compromising disclosures specifically to people with which you have some sort of prior relationship, no matter where they are on the internet, is quite arguably more salient, for the vast majority of people, than a vulnerability that exposes their communications to technically savvy individuals within wireless range(if the wireless is unencrypted or weakly encrypted, or those individuals have the keys).

Plus, lack of encryption is something that you can, with minimal effort(and the cooperation of whoever you are talking to, which is the harder part), solve on your own. Pidgin+OTR. Done, instant encryption that even the provider can't do jack about for any protocol supported by libpurple. The provider telling everybody you know who you have been talking to lately, on the other hand, is an unsolvable problem from the client side(barring the old "uninstall that fucker like a bad habit that owes you money and never touch it again" solution).

And, ultimately, except in the case of financial matters, or malware that renders a computer unusable(where the damage is pretty much fungible, and it really doesn't much matter who inflicts it, it hurts the same), security vulnerabilities and privacy disclosure issues that specifically aim at people you know in real life hurt more than ones where random strangers can get the same data. Random malefactors on the internet can certainly steal your money, and a few hardcore sociopaths with nothing better to do might torment you just for giggles; but the people immediately around you are a large part of your life. Disclosures to the former are unfortunate. Disclosures to the latter are potentially devastating.

Re:Thats the biggest security hole? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32725248)

except this isn't a privacy problem either, it is simply a user incompetence problem. If he is going to cheat on his wife then perhaps he should learn about the basic privacy options, like logging into live and setting it so his wife can't see his contacts.

Re:Thats the biggest security hole? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32724844)

I don't know how many times I've seen people snoop on other peoples conversations over wireless...

Never? It's never, isn't it.

Re:Thats the biggest security hole? (1)

icydog (923695) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725434)

Honest question: Which of the common IM protocols are encrypted, excluding things like OTR?

Microsoft: reminding us who's #1 in in-security! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32724766)

Microsoft: reminding us who's #1 in in-security!

I mean, it was getting to the point where people might have forgotten about them. Good to see them making bold steps in the wide-open field of goatfucking user privacy!

Re:Microsoft: reminding us who's #1 in in-security (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32725298)

actually this is a case of users proving that no matter what features you provide them they will still make stupid mistakes and blame it on the vendor, or in this case blog it to the internet.

FYI,

Log in to live
Select your profile
select privacy
Adjust your privacy for contacts to whatever you like. friends can see non restricted contacts by default but you can disable that.

lesson of the day, if your gonna cheat, then know the fuck what your doing.

Goatse Security (3, Funny)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724774)

...must still be fresh in people's minds...

Gaping Privacy Holes

while plugging some privacy holes

your wife

your old girlfriend....... your wife's logs

she will see that you and your old girlfriend 'are now friends.

you want your...... 'Private.'"

...or maybe just mine. Sounds like a bad 2girls1cup scene played out over IM's!

Re:Goatse Security (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32724828)

That is probably because you are a sick fuck.

Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32724790)

That's not a bug, that's a feature.

Signed,
Anonymous Reader's wife.

MS makes Google Wave client? (1)

devent (1627873) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724796)

I didn't know MS's messenger can communicate with the Wave. And since when it's already in version 4?

This is so irrelevent it's not even funny. (0, Troll)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 3 years ago | (#32724854)

Microsoft Messenger? Oh you mean that thing i don't have installed on this computer? The thing i specifically removed from the silent install disc i made?
And Hotmail? Really hotmail in 2010? Sigh.

Re:This is so irrelevent it's not even funny. (3, Informative)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725172)

Microsoft Messenger? Oh you mean that thing i don't have installed on this computer? The thing i specifically removed from the silent install disc i made?

Relevancy is best seen from the view outside the basement.

Messenger has 330 million users and is available in 50 languages. Windows Live Messenger [wikipedia.org]

 

Deja Vu (4, Insightful)

Velorium (1068080) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725000)

So basically it's like what Google did with Buzz and Gmail contacts. You didn't learn from others' mistakes on this one did you Microsoft?

Privacy Setting Windows Live (4, Informative)

ShawnDoc (572959) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725050)

Can't you turn this off in the Windows Live privacy settings (not the Live Messenger privacy settings)?

So the moral of the story is.... (1)

ryanw (131814) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725090)

don't communicate with people you don't want your wife finding out about. Problem solved.

Stupid security policies aside.. (1)

Improv (2467) | more than 3 years ago | (#32725164)

This is about the worst example one might make to argue for privacy. If you're sleeping around on your wife, you deserve whatever you get.

Re:Stupid security policies aside.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32725322)

can you tell me where the example said he was sleeping with the ex girlfriend?

Could be as simple as
"Hey. how you getting on? Did you ever find that stack of cd's that I thought I left round your place way back? There's one I really miss."

Re:Stupid security policies aside.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32725376)

if he needs to keep such a conversation private from his wife then the marriage has far far greater problems then her discovering this.

Who cares about Microsoft stuff? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32725246)

My boss just came in to give me my yearly review and let me 'splain: this woman is a 30-something brunette ball o fire. We work solo shifts here so it's just me an here and that blouse she was filling out. Why oh why oh why did she wear them stilettos with the short skirt? The whole time we were discussing my performance (which was near-spotless, by the way) I was hoping it'd turn into one of them moments dreamt up and printed in the margins of smut mags that no one ever pays any attention to 'cause of the pictures (hopefully SOMEONE'LL know what I'm talking 'bout). You know what I'm saying "Dear editor: I never thought it would happen to me... " Well I'm saddened to say that it didn't to me either. Phooey. I did get a raise, however... two of 'em.

Re:Who cares about Microsoft stuff? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32725478)

Tip: just say "I would like to eat out your asshole." Believe it or not, women aren't offended and disgusted, they're (and I've used this line on a dozen women or more) turned on by the balls, the confidence of anyone who would say that. And don't worry about the ass-eating thing, chances are she's too self conscience and will forget about it after you fuck her sweet pussy.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...