MSN censorship?

Linked

Sent a dozen messages containing the words they deemed "censored", worked just fine (trillian 3).

MS selected a spot on the Security/Freedom axis that saves the masses from themselves. What's new?

And here I thought this was going to be a belated discussion of this bit of news from 6 months ago: Microsoft deletes 'freedom' and 'democracy' in China.

If I can't send the phrase "download.asp" to someone on MSN, then MY FREEDOM HAS BEEN LOST!

Works just fine, looks like amsn is spreading false information.

Quote:

Original post by BBB [...]Isn't their argument for not allowing Vista PC's to boot other OSs "security" for the user?

Huh? Did I miss Vista's release?

I just tried it with a friend of mine. Seems to be a box of lies.

Quote:

Original post by BBB Quote: Original post by Sneftel If I can't send the phrase "download.asp" to someone on MSN, then MY FREEDOM HAS BEEN LOST! "If the state installs a mind-probe in my head that prohibits me from saying "illegal software" then MY FREEDOM HAS BEEN LOST!"

Hmm.... you're right. There really is quite a difference between heavy-handed virus screening on MSN and implanting control devices into people's brains. I guess MS can't really be accused of any serious wrongdoing here. Good point!

Quote:

Original post by BBB You missed the point. Of course it doesn't matter if they block download.php . Its the fact that they have these kind of filters. If they can block download.php they can block the download link for the latest Firefox release or something similar, less obvious.

Slippery slope fallacy.

Quote:

Original post by BBB [...]You missed the point. Of course it doesn't matter if they block download.php . Its the fact that they have these kind of filters. If they can block download.php they can block the download link for the latest Firefox release or something similar, less obvious.

How can you live with yourself? I mean, you have the ability to KILL PEOPLE! Murderer!

If people (and/or companies) should be judged on what they are able to do instead of what they do or try to do, a lot of people (and/or companies) are are going to suffer quite a bit in whatever afterlife there might be, supposing you believe in an afterlife based on the judgement of life.

it only seems to happen when using unofficial clients..

WTF

More FUD by free software zealots.

Actually, I'll have to retake my argument. I'm using MSN 7.0 and a friend of mine is using 6.2. This is our test conversation, see the 2 red boxes:



Toolmaker

Quote:

Original post by eedok it only seems to happen when using unofficial clients.. WTF

That actually makes sense, since it would be far easier to make a virus connect to the network (after it's stolen the name/pw) and spam a person's friends with the virus link than to make it automate an actual MSN client (especially since it would have to deal with all the custom clients having different tab orders/etc).

That's a lie, unless what you guys say about custom client is the case.

Proof:

Quote:

Original post by BBB [...]True. But again it also makes sense if MS goal is to screw everyone on this planet that don't like their MSN client.[...]

Not really. MS is REALLY good at blocking third parties when they want to. Just look at the MS Office formats - so far (or at least, last time I checked around 2003) no other program (or suite of programs) handles all the office formats correctly for input or output. That isn't just because they don't want to, but because they're obfuscated intentionally so as to be very difficult to figure out every single bit in the file. If something similar was done to the protocol, third party clients would be cripped for a long, long time, and it wouldn't be too difficult to change protocols monthly but let the server support the last 3-4 versions so people don't have to upgrade as often. The protocol changes could even be automated. If they honestly wanted to block third parties, such a obfuscated protocol would be an easy way to crush them as long as deired.

Quote:

[...]And why do they block all www.X.download.php while allowing www.X.download.asp through? Or any other link!? The virus writer can easily change the link or am I missing something? If anyone has an explanation then I'm listening.[...]

Because they're not targetting 'viruses'(general), they're targetting 'a virus'(specific) that uses the specific file they block.

As far as the article on Vista - wow. I can't believe you're scared of something that says essentially "might maybe kinda almost, but we don't know for sure". In case you're not up to speed, the 'trusted computing' idea has been around for a LONG time and similar things were said about XP. Until there is something (anything) definite, it's nothing but speculation (or worse, FUD-inducing propoganda).

The other article is just a stupid mistake MS made. I can see that you're afraid they might be making more, but I don't think this case of blocking a specific filename likely used by a specific virus is anywhere near the same thing. I don't even really think this case is a mistake - it's better to protect unwary users from themselves than come off as 'insecure', and I'm sure that MS surveys/polls have shown that they'd do much better if they increased security at the cost of freedom.

Quote:

Original post by BBB But lets stick to the topic.

That'd be more believable if you didn't link two unrelated "MS is eeeevil" articles. An undirected referendum on whether MS is an evil company or not is not going to be a useful discussion.

Quote:

(observe WORRIED and nothing else so all OSS haters can stop bashing me)

I hope you aren't including me in that group. Though I guess I've been called an OSS hater about as much as I've been called a MS hater. If one has a brush, the impulse to tar people with it is rather strong.

Aaanyways, I really don't see much in the way of news here. Surely anyone with a basic knowledge of programming would be aware that filtering out specific words is trivial functionality. Even if MS hadn't decided to filter "download.php", wouldn't affect whether they COULD. This is my real problem with the original article: It's representative of an eagerness on the part of anti-MS people to try to paint innocuous events as bellwethers.

Google did [does?] the same thing, and I didn't care then either. Powered by php or something like that.

CM