dotgnu-general
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]login service slamming


From: Jeremy Petzold
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]login service slamming
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 07:27:13 -0700 (PDT)

all though that is a scarry thought, I would think
that an action of that sort would be conidered
steeling and the information was moved wothout the
person's knowledge. M$ is not that stupid.

--- Ron Burk <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> >The only thing that I want to ensure is that they
> can't use our own work
> >(outside of the spec) against us.  All specs should
> be open for
> >anything.  All code, however, is a creation that
> should be held closely
> >to the intentions of the original author.
> 
> What about all data? How about if Microsoft modifies
> their
> Passport SDK, so that Passport-enabled servers now
> also suck the personal data out of any end-users
> who happen to be using dotGNU-based single
> logon products and put it into the Passport
> database?
> Since they control the browser, it's conceivable
> that they
> could create a completely transparent form of
> "slamming",
> in which people who thought they were using a dotGNU
> single logon system have been silently converted to
> Passport,
> and now their data resides on centralized Microsoft
> servers in addition to the original database
> location
> that the end user selected. (I'm thinking only of
> the
> proposal being developed at address@hidden, for
> which I see no technical difficulties to
> implementing such
> slamming -- nor can I see any strictly technical
> barriers that could be erected to stop it.)
> 
> "all specs should be open for anything" would seem
> to
> indicate that such slamming is perfectly acceptable,
> in which case, the dotGNU specification may be a
> convenient
> way for Microsoft to acquire new Passport users and
> little threat to them (since they have no
> compunction
> to make their specs open, and can prevent any
> slamming
> in the opposite direction).
> 
> Is slamming important to try to prevent? I'm not
> sure that
> AT&T feels "validated" when their customers get
> slammed over to MCI :-). I bet they would feel even
> less so if a proprietary spec eliminated the
> possibility
> that slamming would ever occur in the reverse
> direction.
> 
> 
> Ron Burk
> HighTechInfo.com, www.hightechinfo.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/developers


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]