Grandma has been using this service for at least 8 years now, and she has a lot of important stuff in her email folders that she’d like to move to her new service.

I called MSN support and asked (nicely) how we could transfer all that data – her data – over. The response was a simple, “you can’t do that”.

An incredible exchange followed, going something like this:

Me: “I can’t do that? Why not?”

MSN Rep: “because there’s no way to do it”

Me: “Well shouldn’t there be? It’s her data!”

MSN Rep: “Well we don’t have a way to do that”

Me: “I can’t imagine I’m the first person to want to do this. Have other people called with questions like this?”

MSN Rep: “Yes, quite a few”

Me: “And what do you tell them?”

MSN Rep: “We tell them there’s no way to do it”

Me: “Well that sounds like a problem doesn’t it? How are you addressing it?”

MSN Rep: (I don’t remember how she answered this point)

Me: “Ok let me ask… is email stored on the box or on your servers?”

MSN Rep: “It’s kept on our servers”

Me: “Alright, is there an open protocol your servers support, like IMAP or POP, to access email on the servers?”

MSN Rep: “No”

Very frustrating.

Over the year, Hotmail and MSN IM users have taken advantage of the integrated identity management (AKA: Live platform) across the multitude of services available from Microsoft partner networks as the source of identity and presence management. Microsoft Live as a business group have the mandate to manage to a service level and provide the necessary supporting services to protect and act responsibly on behalf of their subscribers.

From a pure commercial perspective, Microsoft has taken the IM business model user from simply being a social networking tool and applied a broader context of presence and identity management model to develop and provide value-add services to the users of this service. Like many other companies who are developing new lines of business to expand their revenue base, Microsoft has taken advantage of their multi year investment in free online services for email and IM and now provide value-ad services to the same users across their gaming platform (XBOX and PC), Web based services, mobile platform and other subscription based products (Anti virus, Software+Service, Software registration). Has America forgotten that we are the heart and sole of capitalism or was internet supposed to have changed the world to socialistic model?
Google and Yahoo may like to think they are all for users but it is not magic that is driving up Google’s share prices. They too could have adopted similar approach to Microsoft but found it easier to drive their main revenue base from Ad driven revenue streams. This business model absolves the big search giants from the added need management of user’s online identity beyond their primary profile management. Google and Yahoo’s licensing allows the companies to track, analyse and share any of the user’s interaction and data consumption patterns as matrices to drive ad placement revenue and other commercial reasons. Wait a second, what happened them being in it for the greater good of the users?

One of the biggest challenges that user’s of online services are faced with going forward is consolidation and management of their virtual identity. Some of the most common profiles that we manage on regular basis are professional networking services, IM, Mobile SMS, Professional Memberships, Social Networking, subscription services and the list goes on. Do you propose that there should be no governance and rigger applied by the companies providing the online service to secure the user’s profile and data? Should the user not have the right to feel safe about whom they have shared this information with and how this information is shared after they subscribed to the services of the primary provider?

So who is really the bad guy here? I would suggest that at least Microsoft is very upfront about their business model. They are a FOR PROFIT company and that is what they do best. In exchange of making profit from my business as a user, I fully expect the BIG Software giant to protect my personal data in any and all business ventures direct or through partnership.
I signed-up to Hotmail online email service in 1997. Since then, I have used my user ID to procure many services from Microsoft and their network of partners. I take some comfort in the idea that Microsoft at least tries to apply a level of governance on who gets access to my ID and user data, how my information is shared and secured across all partner networks.

Perhaps you could be more objective then simply playing to people’s emotions.

Ah, I’m so glad I use linux.

It is scary how little people care about this stuff. And then you have respected publications not getting it.

Yahoo, Google and Hotmail provide secure means to do such stuff. I think it is incumbent on them to ensure that their users privacy is maintained in the Web 2.0 world. If Google had done this, it would’ve been a positive article I am sure.

It *is* our data, and the only way Microsoft has provided for us to retrieve it is with our full account access. If they alternatives they offered weren’t sabotaged with exclusivity agreements then they might find that startups were happy to play ball!

MS COULD demand certain security measures or, more uniformly, require the service to send the user to MSN where they must agree to a warning about how this startup may do lord knows to their info. It should be up to the user.

Keep in mind that if this article is accurate, they are NOT doing this. But they ARE saying that it’s totally fine to do whatever you want IF you only use MSN.

Generally these types of services at least require you to enter your IM info AND PASSWORD for them to get all your contacts. And if you give _anybody_ this info they can sign on using an IM client and get all your contacts.

Not exactly a lot here that this policy is keeping safer.

Microsoft has shown time and time again that security is not important to it. It is only there as a selling point. The book – The Software Conspiracy – has on-the-record statements from Microsoft’s vice president of development that Microsoft does not give a damn about security.

Alchin went to Intel’s developer conference and said that they completely ELIMINATED ALL BUFFER OVERFLOWS from window XP. Yet, the very first security hotfix for XP is a buffer overflow issue – released before XP is even officially released!!!!

Look at DRM – I know of NO consumer who is saying “hey, I want DRM – build me the most restrictive DRM you can, so that you can also licence your other crap to the media companies”. But Microsoft did so anyway – so who does the restrictive DRM benefit? The consumer? (so, what happens to your DRM’ed files when you have to restore, or reset the DRM database or use it on your 2nd laptop, or whatever? you are screwed, because Microsoft did not put any effort into ensure that the USER – the *CUSTOMER* has the basic use rights necessary), no, it’s so that Microsoft can use it to sell to media companies the idea that they can protect their files using a Microsoft DRM – which means paying Microsoft.

On the other hand – have you paid Google for anything? Do they not spend the effort to make their free services as *useful* to *YOU*, the user, as possible?

This is not about trust. This is about leveraging their monopoly into new markets. This is about expanding their power. Anyone who thinks otherwise (including delusions about security) is fooling themselves.