Windows Live shares your Messenger contacts

Topic

New Reply

	TOP STORY[/size][/font] Windows Live shares your Messenger contacts[/size]
	By Woody Leonhard Anticipating its “Wave 4” Windows Live rollout of new Hotmail and Messenger apps, Microsoft made sweeping changes in how it connects you with its latest social-networking construct. With the new Live format, Microsoft pays a great deal of lip service to maintaining your privacy; but my tests show you can’t trust what you see on the screen.[/size]

---

The full text of this column is posted at WindowsSecrets.com/2010/07/22/01 (opens in a new window/tab).

Columnists typically cannot reply to comments here, but do incorporate the best tips into future columns.[/td]

[/tr][/tbl]

Reply | Quote

Replies

I tried something else. From the Privacy Options page, I clicked Windows Live in the upper left column. This opened the Options page. There I clicked Your updates in the Messenger Social section. This opened the Manage your socila updates page. I unchecked all of the options and clicked Save. I hope this works – but finding it? That’s another story!

Reply | Quote

Hi,

Just yesterday I discovered something similar on my Google Account Public Profile (though with a relatively lesser degree of privacy concern).

I have a few photograph albums uploaded on Picasa Web Albums.
Except one, all other albums are marked as ‘Unlisted’ — which means they do not show up in any public searches by anybody.
And only people whom I share the links with, can view those albums (if they forward the links to others, that’s another story !).

Yesterday, I noticed that photographs from one more album (which was Unlisted) were displayed on my Public Profile page !
No amount of changing that album’s settings in Picasa Web Albums, would make those photographs disappear.

Finally, out of frustration, I simply disabled the display of ALL albums (NO PHOTOGRAPHS !) on the Public Profile page.

Khushnood Viccaji
Mumbai, India

Reply | Quote

It is appalling that your Windows Live list for people you’ve only messaged does not remain private – the analogy you give of it being similar to if the iphone started telling you “Your dentist called Bank of America” really brings it home how ridiculous it is.

I don’t use Windows Live, but do use Skype – hope it doesn’t decide to go the same way!

Reply | Quote

sbraddock:
Outstanding analogy.
Thanks.

Reply | Quote

Tattling is certainly a concern, but I think there’s a much bigger privacy problem with Live Messenger Social…

When I delete a Windows Live Messenger contact, I can no longer see their profiles, updates, or when they are logged in to Messenger Live – but it apparently this does not work in reverse! They can still see me when I am online and also my Messenger profile updates!

Sure, I can “block” contacts, but the problem is that if I’ve already deleted all contact info then I can no longer block them! Now I am stuck with the very perverted situation of having people that I don’t see or want to correspond with who remain able to surveil me using Messenger Live!

Yes, I can globally restrict what others can see on my profile, but this is an all or nothing proposition that does not address the problem.

By way of comparison, when I unfriend someone on Facebook they immediately lose access to my profile and online activities. I expect the same degree of privacy on Messenger Live Social.

Anyone here have similar experiences, concerns, or answers?

Thx,

Reply | Quote

Woody, after reading your article, I will not go anywhere near Windows Live. If they are playing fast and loose with the messenger information, I can only imagine what else they are playing fast and loose with. Frankly, I believe that Social Networking, Cell phones, and some of the other things they have tried and failed at are best left to the folks that are doing well at those products. With the exception of Windows ME and Vista, Microsoft builds good operating systems, and generally builds good office/academic apps such as Office. They should stick to those.

Bill Stewart

Reply | Quote

Yes. I consider this presumptive approach to be unethical. So lets find a way to stop it.

Reply | Quote

I just went into my Windows Live (haven’t been there in months), and had a very frustrating time trying to see what settings were for privacy and notifications, and contacts and what contacts can see, etc. The settings are all over the place and some I had trouble getting back to because some settings are only visible from particular areas and some seem not to be available at all – even though they are referenced in the contact privacy area.

If you have a new contact invitation, it gives you the ability to limit the information shared with that contact, if you accept the invitation. However, it appears that for existing contacts you no longer have the ability to change to restricted information at a later time? (At least I can’t find any place to do that).

This is far worse than Facebook* because as Woody noted, it is tied to my LiveID which is linked to ALL Microsoft’s offerings from email to messenger, to documents, pictures, passport, spaces, etc. And because it is linked to things like Passport (which you need in order to have access to some important offerings like the Windows 7 Beta program), it makes it impossible to just delete it.

This is a privacy nightmare.

* I have already deactivated and later deleted my Facebook account some time ago

Reply | Quote

One thing readers need to be aware of is that the new ‘Beta’ version of ‘any’ of the Windows Live’ family makes the security suite of “Vipre” fail to start. Lots of people who have used this program for months find when they install Windows Live “Beta” that when they reboot their computer that Vipre fails to start. The fix to repair this is to uninstall the “Beta” that was just installed. There is a serious conflict with this Beta.

Reply | Quote

I really appreciate the comments regarding the lack of security on Hotmail and Google, Could we get suggestions on this forum for some of the secure email servers, please? I’ve a dual boot with the option to run either Windows XP or Linux Mint 9 ‘Isadora’.

Thanks,
Dick

Reply | Quote

I, too, found the http://windows.live.com/options page. There are more settings under the ‘Messenger Social’ section, specifically ‘Your updates’, I clicked there and de-selected all of the options there.

Here are the options they have:
Connected services – Updates about services connected to Windows Live
Discussions – Updates about discussions in groups
Favorite things – Updates about favorite books, music, and movies
Groups – Updates about groups
Messenger games – Updates about games played in Windows Live Messenger
MSN – News, sports, weather, entertainment, and financial info all in one place.
Network – Updates when people become friends
Office on SkyDrive – Updates about shared documents on SkyDrive
Photos on SkyDrive – Updates about new photos
Profile – Profile updates
Profile notes – Updates about notes left on profiles
Shared favorites – Updates about shared favorites
Spaces blogs – Blog updates on Windows Live Spaces
Spaces guestbook – Updates about comments added to guestbooks
Spaces lists – Updates about changes to lists on Spaces

I’m hoping that will help.

-George

Reply | Quote

I still think the worst part it that they refer to your buddies as your “Live Friends”… As opposed to your dead friends?

The real twisted irony of this: If they were to die in real life, they would still be in your “Live Friends” list.

Reply | Quote

Excellent posts, everybody. I’m still appalled by all of this.

@George – there are two different collections of 16 settings. One set is for you, going out to your Buddies, er, Friends. (Alive or dead.) The other set is for your Friends coming in to you. I tried ten ways from Tuesday, and couldn’t figure out how to get the tattling turned off. My guess is that changing the settings for me – going out to my Friends – may (or may not) change tattling on Future Friends. But I couldn’t find anything at all that would affect Current Friends.

In other words, if I initiate a Messenger conversation with Phineas Fogg, that fact will be echoed to all of my established Friends, forever – and there’s not a blessed thing I can do about it.

To put it another way, why isn’t the “Private” setting Private? Is that too much to ask?

Reply | Quote

Oh, Woody. Must we go round and round about this again? I’ve just read your new article in the Windows Secrets newsletter, and it’s once again clear that either (a) you really don’t know what you’re talking about or (b) you like to create a lot of sensationalism in your writing by pandering to people’s fears about privacy on socially oriented websites. This notion of third party tattling (the first time I’ve ever heard anyone use that term) is really a tempest in a teapot. Yes, Windows Live Messenger requires you to add people to your network in order to chat with them, and yes, depending on your notification settings, your other friends may see that you’ve added that person as a friend. But this is really a non-issue for most people, because it’s easy to disable such notifications, most people who actually use the social features of Windows Live find these notifications extremely useful, and most people actually want the convenience of keeping their contacts in one simple, unified list.

To turn off the new friend notifications, you just have to modify your permissions, which can easily be done either from within Messenger or via the Windows Live web UI. George is on the right track, but he didn’t get the URL correct; the page he meant to link is at http://www.live.com/options. But I’ll go even one step further…the page that controls your Messenger Social updates is located at http://profile.live.com/whatsnewwithyousettings/. There’s a simple list of check boxes that allow you to control what kinds of updates you share with your social network. Smack in the middle of which is an option called “Network,” with a description that reads “Updates when people become friends.” If you don’t like to broadcast your acquaintances, then just uncheck the darn thing. Problem solved.

Wanna hide a previous update? Click that little gear wheel beside it on your Messenger Social stream, and remove it (and BTW, there’s also a link there to the aforementioned update settings). Done.

I think the genius of Windows Live is that it allows you to use just the bits you want. Don’t like all the social updates and public profile stuff? Fine, then don’t use it. Lock down your profile so nobody sees anything, and just use Hotmail, if that’s all you want. It’s not rocket surgery, folks.

See, you assume wrongly that Microsoft is either (a) inept at configuring security or (b) out to trick you into revealing more about yourself than you want. I don’t get why everything has to be so cloak and dagger with you guys. Windows Live is a social experience. That’s how it was designed. IM is inherently social and always has been. E-mail to a lesser extent. Other Windows Live services are blogging and sharing updates…all social. To function, these services all depend heavily on lists of established contacts, so it makes sense to provide a unified list of contacts. What’s tripping you up is the recent attempts to interconnect more previously detached Microsoft services. You signed up for Hotmail or Messenger a decade ago, and now you’re bummed that it doesn’t work exactly the same way it used to. But here’s the thing, most people who use Windows Live as designed actually want to know when their common friends are using it. That fosters better and deeper connections with people you actually care about. For instance, let’s say that my sister and I are chatting on Messenger, and I see that she’s added my mom to her network. Wow! I didn’t know mom was using Windows Live! Then I can invite her to my network, too. I might come back and inquire why you’re using Messenger to talk with people you really don’t want others to know about, but that’s your business.

You know, your own WS Lounge website has some rather social features. I have a profile with an avatar and interests and everything. I can even make friends on here! While I was perusing the bowels of my profile, I noticed that the site reported the last threads to which I’d replied and the last few users who’d viewed my profile. The information beside this posts tells people where I’m from! How dare you share that kind of information with other users?

So I remain unimpressed with your little exposé. Stick to covering Office, Woody.

PS: The Skeptic Geek has a pretty favorable review of Windows Live’s social features. You should really check it out. http://www.skepticgeek.com/socialweb/is-windows-live-delivering-what-google-buzz-promised

Reply | Quote

Oh, Woody. Must we go round and round about this again? I’ve just read your new article in the Windows Secrets newsletter, and it’s once again clear that either (a) you really don’t know what you’re talking about or (b) you like to create a lot of sensationalism in your writing by pandering to people’s fears about privacy on socially oriented websites. This notion of third party tattling (the first time I’ve ever heard anyone use that term) is really a tempest in a teapot. Yes, Windows Live Messenger requires you to add people to your network in order to chat with them, and yes, depending on your notification settings, your other friends may see that you’ve added that person as a friend. But this is really a non-issue for most people, because it’s easy to disable such notifications, most people who actually use the social features of Windows Live find these notifications extremely useful, and most people actually want the convenience of keeping their contacts in one simple, unified list.

To turn off the new friend notifications, you just have to modify your permissions, which can easily be done either from within Messenger or via the Windows Live web UI. George is on the right track, but he didn’t get the URL correct; the page he meant to link is at http://www.live.com/options. But I’ll go even one step further…the page that controls your Messenger Social updates is located at http://profile.live.com/whatsnewwithyousettings/. There’s a simple list of check boxes that allow you to control what kinds of updates you share with your social network. Smack in the middle of which is an option called “Network,” with a description that reads “Updates when people become friends.” If you don’t like to broadcast your acquaintances, then just uncheck the darn thing. Problem solved.

Wanna hide a previous update? Click that little gear wheel beside it on your Messenger Social stream, and remove it (and BTW, there’s also a link there to the aforementioned update settings). Done.

I think the genius of Windows Live is that it allows you to use just the bits you want. Don’t like all the social updates and public profile stuff? Fine, then don’t use it. Lock down your profile so nobody sees anything, and just use Hotmail, if that’s all you want. It’s not rocket surgery, folks.

See, you assume wrongly that Microsoft is either (a) inept at configuring security or (b) out to trick you into revealing more about yourself than you want. I don’t get why everything has to be so cloak and dagger with you guys. Windows Live is a social experience. That’s how it was designed. IM is inherently social and always has been. E-mail to a lesser extent. Other Windows Live services are blogging and sharing updates…all social. To function, these services all depend heavily on lists of established contacts, so it makes sense to provide a unified list of contacts. What’s tripping you up is the recent attempts to interconnect more previously detached Microsoft services. You signed up for Hotmail or Messenger a decade ago, and now you’re bummed that it doesn’t work exactly the same way it used to. But here’s the thing, most people who use Windows Live as designed actually want to know when their common friends are using it. That fosters better and deeper connections with people you actually care about. For instance, let’s say that my sister and I are chatting on Messenger, and I see that she’s added my mom to her network. Wow! I didn’t know mom was using Windows Live! Then I can invite her to my network, too. I might come back and inquire why you’re using Messenger to talk with people you really don’t want others to know about, but that’s your business.

You know, your own WS Lounge website has some rather social features. I have a profile with an avatar and interests and everything. I can even make friends on here! While I was perusing the bowels of my profile, I noticed that the site reported the last threads to which I’d replied and the last few users who’d viewed my profile. The information beside this posts tells people where I’m from! How dare you share that kind of information with other users?

So I remain unimpressed with your little exposé. Stick to covering Office, Woody.

PS: The Skeptic Geek has a pretty favorable review of Windows Live’s social features. You should really check it out. http://www.skepticgeek.com/socialweb/is-windows-live-delivering-what-google-buzz-promised

“Don’t like all the social updates and public profile stuff? Fine, then don’t use it.” Are you kidding me? Is that how Microsoft is going to win us over?

“Lock down your profile so nobody sees anything, and just use Hotmail”. Listen buddy, I never wanted Windows Live to begin with. Microsoft pushed Live with Hotmail users and the settings were originally the same as Hotmail. I never changed my behaviour, Microsoft did. They simply refuse to allow me to hide my contacts. For example, i recently added a contact and didn’t want anyone to know about this. It asks when you add “do you want to post this person to your profile”, something like that. I said ‘no’. So wouldn’t you assume that we’re telling MS that we don’t want people knowing we have this person on our list????

This person then goes ahead and sends me pictures while we’re chatting, guess what, “it got posted to my wall”!!!!!! is that a lack of privacy or what??

The privacy settings are confusing, not easy to find, not easy to use, and still don’t do what they’re intended to do. That’s the point!

Moderator Note: This post has been edited to remove profanity/personal attacks that violated forum rules. – Deadeye, Forum Moderator Staff

Reply | Quote

Oh, Woody. Must we go round and round about this again? I’ve just read your new article in the Windows Secrets newsletter, and it’s once again clear that either (a) you really don’t know what you’re talking about or (b) you like to create a lot of sensationalism in your writing by pandering to people’s fears about privacy on socially oriented websites. This notion of third party tattling (the first time I’ve ever heard anyone use that term) is really a tempest in a teapot. Yes, Windows Live Messenger requires you to add people to your network in order to chat with them, and yes, depending on your notification settings, your other friends may see that you’ve added that person as a friend. But this is really a non-issue for most people, because it’s easy to disable such notifications, most people who actually use the social features of Windows Live find these notifications extremely useful, and most people actually want the convenience of keeping their contacts in one simple, unified list.

To turn off the new friend notifications, you just have to modify your permissions, which can easily be done either from within Messenger or via the Windows Live web UI. George is on the right track, but he didn’t get the URL correct; the page he meant to link is at http://www.live.com/options. But I’ll go even one step further…the page that controls your Messenger Social updates is located at http://profile.live.com/whatsnewwithyousettings/. There’s a simple list of check boxes that allow you to control what kinds of updates you share with your social network. Smack in the middle of which is an option called “Network,” with a description that reads “Updates when people become friends.” If you don’t like to broadcast your acquaintances, then just uncheck the darn thing. Problem solved.

Wanna hide a previous update? Click that little gear wheel beside it on your Messenger Social stream, and remove it (and BTW, there’s also a link there to the aforementioned update settings). Done.

I think the genius of Windows Live is that it allows you to use just the bits you want. Don’t like all the social updates and public profile stuff? Fine, then don’t use it. Lock down your profile so nobody sees anything, and just use Hotmail, if that’s all you want. It’s not rocket surgery, folks.

See, you assume wrongly that Microsoft is either (a) inept at configuring security or (b) out to trick you into revealing more about yourself than you want. I don’t get why everything has to be so cloak and dagger with you guys. Windows Live is a social experience. That’s how it was designed. IM is inherently social and always has been. E-mail to a lesser extent. Other Windows Live services are blogging and sharing updates…all social. To function, these services all depend heavily on lists of established contacts, so it makes sense to provide a unified list of contacts. What’s tripping you up is the recent attempts to interconnect more previously detached Microsoft services. You signed up for Hotmail or Messenger a decade ago, and now you’re bummed that it doesn’t work exactly the same way it used to. But here’s the thing, most people who use Windows Live as designed actually want to know when their common friends are using it. That fosters better and deeper connections with people you actually care about. For instance, let’s say that my sister and I are chatting on Messenger, and I see that she’s added my mom to her network. Wow! I didn’t know mom was using Windows Live! Then I can invite her to my network, too. I might come back and inquire why you’re using Messenger to talk with people you really don’t want others to know about, but that’s your business.

You know, your own WS Lounge website has some rather social features. I have a profile with an avatar and interests and everything. I can even make friends on here! While I was perusing the bowels of my profile, I noticed that the site reported the last threads to which I’d replied and the last few users who’d viewed my profile. The information beside this posts tells people where I’m from! How dare you share that kind of information with other users?

So I remain unimpressed with your little exposé. Stick to covering Office, Woody.

PS: The Skeptic Geek has a pretty favorable review of Windows Live’s social features. You should really check it out. http://www.skepticgeek.com/socialweb/is-windows-live-delivering-what-google-buzz-promised

You think Woody’s article is an expose? This article perfectly lays out what I’m talking about, it’s been a year and Microsoft still has not addressed this issue:

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/tech/features/article_1596998.php/Windows-Messenger-and-social-networking-a-privacy-risk-Feature

Moderator Note: This post has been edited to remove profanity/personal attacks that violated forum rules. – Deadeye, Forum Moderator Staff

Reply | Quote

Just one more reason why I don’t have anything MSFT in our household. We run 100% Linux on every system, all 19 laptops, phones, desktops and servers.
The lightbulb went on for me about MSFT when I was helping them at their Redmond campus in 2003 – they were bloated and out of control seven years ago, and I haven’t seen any signals of improvement since.

This was great reporting, I have shared it with several friends who act as support to their friends and family.

As for mine? 80 yr old dad on a ‘Droid and running Ubuntu on his two laptops and desktop. In laws running Ubuntu on their desktop. No support headaches for me!

Reply | Quote

What’s the big deal ? There’s another technology for private web communication. It’s called email.

Reply | Quote

Great article.
I am using Wave 4 beta, and have it linked to Facebook. what I saw on there is very troubling. I have some photos on my Skydrive account, that are marked “Just Me”, and these photos are showing on Facebook. While there is nothing in that particular folder, I do have others on Skydrive that I do not want shared. I am searching to see how those got onto facebook. YIKES
No other folders however that are marked as Just Me are visable.

Reply | Quote

For some folks Windows Live IS their email. Fortunately it isn’t here but I know quite a few where it is their email.

My biggest concern is how it’s all interconnected. My Passport ID shouldn’t be linked with ANY of the Windows Live ‘Social Networking’ offerings, in any way, shape or form, IMHO.

I don’t use Google Talk or Buzz on my Google GMail email address either.

Reply | Quote

Fran,
Your Passport ID is NOT linked to any social networking site other than Messenger if you don’t want it to be. When I set the Wave 4 Beta up, I specifically had to add facebook. You can also add other networking sites, but I don’t belong to twitter or MySpace, so I didn’t set them up. Now when I log into Messenger, yes I see what is new on facebook, but that again is of my choosing. You can switch Messenger to compact view, and you won’t see any updated from Facebook. You will however see your friends list.
As for my previous post, I found out that by moving the pictures to a folder that I created, then blocked, they are no longer showing. Weird as that may seem that is where I am at with it now. Still more digging into it me thinks.
Here is another thing that I am seeing. Of course with Skydrive you now have several MS Office applications available. COOL! but with the new Wave 4 Outlook now looks a lot like what I have seen that Outlook 2010 looks like. .Remember that these are only available in the Wave 4. I wished I had saved the link to download it but I didn’t. I’m sure someone else did though.

Reply | Quote

Fran,
Your Passport ID is NOT linked to any social networking site other than Messenger if you don’t want it to be. When I set the Wave 4 Beta up, I specifically had to add facebook. You can also add other networking sites, but I don’t belong to twitter or MySpace, so I didn’t set them up. Now when I log into Messenger, yes I see what is new on facebook, but that again is of my choosing. You can switch Messenger to compact view, and you won’t see any updated from Facebook. You will however see your friends list.
As for my previous post, I found out that by moving the pictures to a folder that I created, then blocked, they are no longer showing. Weird as that may seem that is where I am at with it now. Still more digging into it me thinks.
Here is another thing that I am seeing. Of course with Skydrive you now have several MS Office applications available. COOL! but with the new Wave 4 Outlook now looks a lot like what I have seen that Outlook 2010 looks like. .Remember that these are only available in the Wave 4. I wished I had saved the link to download it but I didn’t. I’m sure someone else did though.

Actually I was talking about all the sharing between all the Windows Live ‘social networking’ offerings that Microsoft has, although, yes, other social networking sites would be a problem too as you noted with the UNshared pictures folder.

It’s the same issue I had with Buzz and Google Talk, and other Google Offerings being integrated with my GMail account.

They are all doing it and people act like this is all so cool … right up till their private stuff gets compromised due to all of that cloud ‘sharing’ between offerings from Google or Microsoft, and particularly incorporating third party ‘sharing’ … one day maybe they will get the privacy thing down, but I think it will only happen when the privacy side of social networking takes to the courts. Like it did with telemarketing and other areas. And the sooner that happens, the better for everyone … as long as the courts do the right thing concerning privacy.

Reply | Quote

@Greg –

Good to hear from you again!

There are, in fact, two lists of 16 options for Messenger social updates – if you can find them. (Tellingly, George – who obviously knows what he’s doing, and worked hard to figure this out – only found half of them.) The first, as you note, is at

http://profile.live.com/whatsnewwithyousettings/

The second is at

http://profile.live.com/whatsnewsettings/

It appears as if disabling one of the 16 options in the first group of settings will turn off future “third party tattling” notifications. I haven’t verified that, but I’ll take your word for it. Note that these settings are buried on a different site (not messenger.com), and you have to drill down to the correct set of settings. By drill down, I mean you have to hover your mouse over one of the tattling messages, wait for the hidden wheel to appear, click on the wheel and choose More Options. Choosing “Private” at the top Privacy Settings dialog doesn’t make your settings, uh, Private.And choosing “Just Me” on the Privacy Advanced Options Friends setting doesn’t do the trick, either.

Sorry, I don’t consider that “cloak and dagger”. It’s simply lousy user interface design – when I click Private, I mean Private.

MSN Spaces was, indeed, a social experience. I’m sorry, but MSN Messenger was NOT a social experience. The fact that Microsoft chose to re-brand Spaces as Windows Live, and re-brand Messenger as Windows Live Messenger, does NOT give Microsoft the right to use my Messenger “phone book” as a publicly accessible resource.

Let’s say my sister and I are chatting on Messenger, and I see that she’s added an old high school boyfriend to her network. Wow! Maybe she’s started IMing someone at an addiction support group. Or a well-known religious or political figure. Or Isaiah Mustafa. What intrusive, privacy-busting malarkey. It’s none of my $#@! business whom she’s IMd.

Microsoft’s going to get sued big-time over this. You can’t re-purpose a product and start using customers’ private information any way you please. Can you?

Reply | Quote

Let’s say my sister and I are chatting on Messenger, and I see that she’s added an old high school boyfriend to her network. Wow! Maybe she’s started IMing someone at an addiction support group. Or a well-known religious or political figure. Or Isaiah Mustafa. What intrusive, privacy-busting malarkey. It’s none of my $#@! business whom she’s IMd.

Two points: First, the fact that she’s added Isaiah to her network does not imply she’s been chatting with him on Messenger. Yes Messenger requires that you add someone to your network in order to chat, but there are other reasons for adding someone to your network. Maybe she just wants an easy way to follow his social activity stream. Second, I’d assert that she does want you to know, otherwise she’d have configured her own updates to prevent “tattling” as you call it. Or she’s just too lazy to turn them off, which I suppose is sort of tacit acceptance.

The “what’s new” option pages you referenced (the ones with the lists of check boxes) really deal with what kinds of updates you’re choosing to put into your activity steam and consume from your network’s activity streams, whereas the “permissions” page (the one with all the sliders) really deals with the types of friends with whom you choose to share those updates. For instance, I may elect to report networks I’ve joined in my Windows Live activity stream, but only choose to share my updates with friends. A friend may not give a rat’s a$$ whose network I’ve joined, so she may choose not to consume that particular kind of update from her friends, including me. So those are really multiple points of articulation for all this.

I’ll concede that the privacy options are still a bit convoluted, but in fairness this is still a public beta (although we were not allowed to opt out), and the development teams have acknowledged they are working on consolidating and simplifying the controls even further. Name one social site these days that doesn’t have a million and one privacy and security options. I give Live credit for providing linkable URLs for them.

In the end, I suppose it’s a matter of preference. If you’re so bothered by the convoluted security options that you don’t want to use Windows Live, then don’t use it. But look at everything you get on Windows Live for free: e-mail, IM, social updates from over 70 popular activity partners, 25 GB of cloud storage, great online photo sharing experience, Office web apps, blog, calendar, contacts, groups, alerts, a suite of integrated desktop apps, a solid mobile experience, and pretty soon, all of it on a slick Windows Phone 7 device.

Reply | Quote

@Greg –

Good to hear from you again!

There are, in fact, two lists of 16 options for Messenger social updates – if you can find them. (Tellingly, George – who obviously knows what he’s doing, and worked hard to figure this out – only found half of them.) The first, as you note, is at

http://profile.live.com/whatsnewwithyousettings/

The second is at

http://profile.live.com/whatsnewsettings/

It appears as if disabling one of the 16 options in the first group of settings will turn off future “third party tattling” notifications. I haven’t verified that, but I’ll take your word for it. Note that these settings are buried on a different site (not messenger.com), and you have to drill down to the correct set of settings. By drill down, I mean you have to hover your mouse over one of the tattling messages, wait for the hidden wheel to appear, click on the wheel and choose More Options. Choosing “Private” at the top Privacy Settings dialog doesn’t make your settings, uh, Private.And choosing “Just Me” on the Privacy Advanced Options Friends setting doesn’t do the trick, either.

Sorry, I don’t consider that “cloak and dagger”. It’s simply lousy user interface design – when I click Private, I mean Private.

MSN Spaces was, indeed, a social experience. I’m sorry, but MSN Messenger was NOT a social experience. The fact that Microsoft chose to re-brand Spaces as Windows Live, and re-brand Messenger as Windows Live Messenger, does NOT give Microsoft the right to use my Messenger “phone book” as a publicly accessible resource.

Let’s say my sister and I are chatting on Messenger, and I see that she’s added an old high school boyfriend to her network. Wow! Maybe she’s started IMing someone at an addiction support group. Or a well-known religious or political figure. Or Isaiah Mustafa. What intrusive, privacy-busting malarkey. It’s none of my $#@! business whom she’s IMd.

Microsoft’s going to get sued big-time over this. You can’t re-purpose a product and start using customers’ private information any way you please. Can you?

Thanks for those two links Woody

Reply | Quote

I don’t have messenger and haven’t used it for years because of its intrusive nature. By that I mean how it stops you from working because everybody wants to talk to you because they aren’t busy.

Yes, you can and always could set your online status to away or some other ‘don’t bother me’ message or even to show you as offline, but close friends who knew your browsing habits knew you wouldn’t be offline all day.

You then get the ‘where were you? Why didn’t you want to speak to me on messenger?’ so I stopped using it.

I have a live ID but only use some live space and email and then not for anything remotely private.

The problem with social networking is it is social. It is generally free. It is like me saying ‘here is £100 (or $, if you prefer) but you must shoot your best mate in the leg.’ Most of us would decline the £100. Social networks say here’s some free online connections and resources. Here’s the price. Little privacy (we are all grown up and all know that).

The bottom line; I use free email. I don’t use it for anything socially, personally or financially sensitive. I do expect a chance that information may be intercepted or lost. I accept the price.

I use (sparingly) social networks. I don’t use it for anything I would not be prepared to have printed in a national newspaper. I expect it to be insecure and for the information to ‘leak’ either by accident or design .

If Woody’s scenario happens to you using a free social networking contact infrastructure, frankly I doubt you should be using a computer online.

Common sense is the watchword. Keep private communications in a more secure infrastructure. Use social networks for social interaction, not for business deals or for personal, private communication.

I wouldn’t send an explicit note to a lover and pass it on through a network of friends, hoping it would reach her and nobody else would read it and/or show it to somebody else who might tell the wife however much I trusted the network of friends I used. Yet we seem to think doing something similar online should be iron-clad private.

Granted, clicking private should mean private. but we all know that ain’t necessarily so.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Reply | Quote

@Paul –

Yes, but when I signed up for Messenger (he says, stroking his long gray virtual beard) there was no such thing as social networking. Messenger was an IM app. I’ve been writing about Messenger in my All-In-One books for more than ten years. When did it become a social networking app? Who gave MS the right to re-position it, and swallow my privacy in the process?

My iPhone is a phone, not a social networking voice device. If Apple suddenly decided to start showing my call list to everybody I dial, I’d blow a gasket over that, too. Wouldn’t you?

Reply | Quote

@Paul –

Yes, but when I signed up for Messenger…

If a ‘phone company, who bill me for their service and in the UK (and I imagine in the US too) are constrained by the Data Protection act yes, I’d blow a gasket. However, if I had a free ‘phone and free calls I would expect privacy but would be careful what I was doing with it!

I suspect social networking sites by their very nature are in a very grey area where data protection and the law are concerned. Perhaps it needs to be tested in a court of law?

And let’s face it, when you sign up for a messaging service you are basically saying ‘here I am, contact me’. It is, was and always will be a social network, even if it wasn’t as social when you first signed up and wasn’t actually called that. (Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe the term ‘social networking’ had been coined in the early days of messenger so one could hardly have called it that then, even if it had some of the hallmarks of social networking.)

As for being an existing messenger, were all these things changed without consultation or were you informed of the changes and was the option not implicitly there to say ‘I don’t like it’ and stop using it?

Perhaps the terms and conditions should be reviewed by somebody with the requisite knowledge to see if they are being broken.

I only joined a social networking site because my college course required me to so that I could write a thesis on the subject. And my conclusions were then the same as now. I am not a particular fan of the genre. My comment to my lecturer was ‘why should I? I have real friends and don’t need to make more that I will never meet and never be sure they are sincere’. All my Facebook friends are people I know and have met and can contact in the ‘real’ world, and I intend for it to stay that way on that particular medium.

We know why they do this. Most people who use social networking want this type of interaction. So that is the default. Say something, everybody knows you said it. If you don’t want them to know, don’t use the service or use the security settings to prevent this.

I accept that you have tried to use the security settings, apparently unsuccessfully. But if they don’t work, don’t use the service. Complain to the service. Encourage others to do the same. But I stand by my contention that we are all adults and we know how the service works.

Really this debate is now showing what a debate should. We agree on the basics, but our personal opinions differ and affect our reaction to such changes.

You take the view they are irresponsible and should make private mean private. I take a similar view, but because I don’t use the service because of these kind of problems I also take the view that you should know the risks and act accordingly. You say ‘tomato’…

Reply | Quote

@Paul –

I agree with you to a point, but the point where we diverge is this. I do NOT accept the idea that an Instant Messaging program is a social networking program. Microsoft may decide that Windows Live Messenger is a social networking program, but they have no right to pull all of my data into their new endeavor, without my explicit permission – and without my Buddies’ explicit permission.

Why do I think that IM is not a social networking application? Because Microsoft’s IM client is the only client with aspirations to social networking. None of the major IM programs – AOL Instant Messenger, Gadu-Gadu, Yahoo Messenger, GTalk, even the venerable ICQ – not one of them tries to pull off anything close to third party tattling.

I started a Facebook page to keep in touch with family and friends, and to make it easier to share family pictures. That’s great. That’s what I expected. Although Facebook has separate privacy problems, there’s never been any question that Facebook is a social networking program.

We are all adults, yes, but we do NOT know how the service works. I would venture to say that at most a very tiny percentage of all Live Messenger users have any idea about third party tattling. And I would submit that there aren’t more than a handful of people in the world who truly understand the 32 privacy options offered by Windows Live.

Microsoft could simplify all of this by making the “Private” setting keep my activities private. They don’t. That’s my beef.

That said, I agree completely with your conclusion, i.e., “you should know the risks and act accordingly.” The problem lies in discovering the risks, and then making the risks known.

Tomahto.

Reply | Quote

@Paul –

I agree with you to a point, but the point where we diverge is this. I do NOT accept …

…Microsoft could simplify all of this by making the “Private” setting keep my activities private. They don’t. That’s my beef.

That said, I agree completely with your conclusion, i.e., “you should know the risks and act accordingly.” The problem lies in discovering the risks, and then making the risks known.

Tomahto.

I agree MS could have done things better. Since I don’t use messenger, I have no idea how much or little information was given before the change. But I really can understand your anger. I stopped using messenger because I didn’t like it. If I still used it and was unhappy with the changes, I’d stop using it. If folk did that in significant numbers, it would make them think again (hopefully!)

But maybe MS did this in all innocence, genuinely believing they were doing you a favour. Even then ‘informed decision’ comes to mind.

I’ll leave it at that. I think we both know each others feelings on the subject. I say stuff ’em, you say stuff ’em- but you want them to know and make the appropriate changes so you can continue to use an application you find useful if it stuck to messaging and left out the ‘helpful’ content!

Tomato – Red, fleshy edible fruit, often used as a vegetable- pronunciation uncertain!

Reply | Quote

@Greg –

I disagree with this statement:

I’d assert that she does want you to know, otherwise she’d have configured her own updates to prevent “tattling” as you call it. Or she’s just too lazy to turn them off, which I suppose is sort of tacit acceptance.

I submit that my sister isn’t dumb or lazy. When asked, she told Messenger to keep her activities Private. Messenger didn’t do that. Moreover, Microsoft has made it incredibly difficult to discover, much less change, these privacy settings. Hover your mouse over a tattling message and wait for a disappearing wheel to appear? C’mon.

While it’s true that Messenger 2011 is in public beta, all of the stuff I described in the article pertains to the current version of Messenger. The problem’s in the plumbing, Windows Live’s security settings, which are not in beta.

Windows Live might be the greatest thing since sliced turkey. Or it may be an also-ran social networking facility bolted onto two popular online apps. In either case, I should be able to keep my private activities Private without wading through (count ’em) four primary privacy options, at least one of which doesn’t work, 17 sliders, and 32 check boxes.

Reply | Quote

Thanks for the warning and the good advice.

For what it’s worth, my Face Book security settings have been “downgraded” on four occasions over the last 6 weeks, each time without my having changed anything. Even though I am careful not to say or post anything that is “sensitive”, it is nevertheless of great concern to me that changes to the default settings are made without prior warning to users. (I am not the only one to have experienced this).

I guess the rule far ALL social web sites (whether or not they are so-called private) must be: exercise caution at all times regarding your posts: You never know who might see them.

My Rig: AMD Ryzen 9 5900X 12-Core CPU; ASUS Cross Hair VIII Formula Mobo; Win 11 Pro (64 bit)-(UEFI-booted); 32GB RAM; 2TB Corsair Force Series MP600 Pro 2TB PCIe Gen 4.0 M.2 NVMe SSD. 1TB SAMSUNG 960 EVO M.2 NVME SSD; MSI GeForce RTX 3090 VENTUS 3X 24G OC; Microsoft 365 Home; Condusiv SSDKeeper Professional; Acronis Cyberprotect, VMWare Workstation Pro V17.5. HP 1TB USB SSD External Backup Drive). Dell G-Sync G3223Q 144Hz Monitor.

Reply | Quote

WOW what a spirited conversation.
All of you have made valid points. What is missing in this entire thread is this. When you download Wave 4 and install it it give you the options to install parts that you don’t already have. Un check them if you don’t want the Social Connector for example. Even if you do install it however you do not have to turn it on. So the choice is yours. Use it as a Messenger program, or use it as a social networking application.
I went through all of the controls on the pages that Woody posted, and un checked everything that had anything to do with Skydrive. My feeling on that, is that the documents, pictures whatever is on there is my stuff and my stuff only and I don’t want people seeing that Hey John just posted some new pictures on Skydrive, nor do I care if someone else did.

Just my thought

Reply | Quote

t8ntlikly –

Ah, would that it were true!

The plumbing – the Windows Live privacy-busting behavior – is in effect whether you use Messenger “Wave 3” or “Wave 4”. Microsoft changed the plumbing quite some time ago. It doesn’t matter what version of Messenger you install, or whether you install other parts of Wave 4. If you use Messenger – any version – you get third party tattling.

Kinda comes along for the ride.

Reply | Quote

t8ntlikly –

Ah, would that it were true!

The plumbing – the Windows Live privacy-busting behavior – is in effect whether you use Messenger “Wave 3” or “Wave 4”. Microsoft changed the plumbing quite some time ago. It doesn’t matter what version of Messenger you install, or whether you install other parts of Wave 4. If you use Messenger – any version – you get third party tattling.

Kinda comes along for the ride.

Yes I realize the tattling has been there, and I like most everyone else don’t care for it. I am really surprised that no one has taken MSFT to task for that. what I am referring to however is the interfaces into Facebook and Myspace.

Reply | Quote

@t8ntlikly –

OIC! You’re not referring to Windows Live as a social networking program, you’re talking about Facebook, et al. I understand. Yes, you’re absolutely right.

It’s scary that the same connections are now available inside Outlook, eh?

Reply | Quote

@t8ntlikly –

OIC! You’re not referring to Windows Live as a social networking program, you’re talking about Facebook, et al. I understand. Yes, you’re absolutely right.

It’s scary that the same connections are now available inside Outlook, eh?

Yea it is

Reply | Quote

This practice is more widespread than it has any right to be. I have an account and several sub-accounts (each a different email address) with BT/Yahoo in the UK. I have noticed for a while now that I am being offered “Updates” from people in my address book, or simply people I have corresponded with in the past. I have ignored the offers, but reading this article made me examine what was happening more closely. I discover that my profile is available to anyone who asks for it (fortunately, my Profile only gives my name and that I am male — if I want people to know more than that, I’ll tell them) and the default setting is that all of my information, and any changes I may make to my settings, is passed on to anyone who wants to read it. This “service” did not exist when I first signed up several years ago to what was then BTOpenworld, and I have never been advised of its introduction, though I don’t doubt that it was hidden in something that would have been an option to read. I have this morning been through my main account and clicked a great many boxes on three separate tabs to withdraw from this service I never wanted in the first place, but then I had to go to each of my sub-accounts and change them all separately. I don’t understand where people get the nerve to introduce these unheralded changes. I have no social networking accounts — no Facebook, no twitter, nothing. I don’t like social networking. I don’t WANT social networking. Why should I have social networking foisted on me? I know who I want to network with and I can do it on my own, thank you very much. Whoever did this needs a big kick up the fundament.

Reply | Quote

Even Facebook lets you send private messages to other subscribers (and they don’t automatically become “friends”).

Reply | Quote

@Gordon –

Good point. IM is becoming less and less important, and Microsoft knows that.

Reply | Quote

The biggest issue for me in all this is the labyrinth of links and options to all these privacy settings, and the fact many of them are set to automatic by default. Just checking my Live/Hotmail account now reveals a couple of (this time) innocuous status updates from Messenger months ago that I don’t care to have available to anyone. I deleted them, but why are they there by default?

I trudged through all the links and options, but how many other users bother to?

Reply | Quote

i am totally appalled with Greg’s replies here.. can’t believe i am actually reading such remarks when whatever that is happening is obviously a serious invasion of privacy, u DO NOT blame the user for not setting the correct permissions when u decide to change things without telling the user and not providing the proper instructions and knowledge for the user to make an informed decision on what to do. having a myriad of privacy options available is not an excuse to do things without consent and the majority of users are average casual users that do not want to waste their time and do not have the knowledge or the expertise to figure out what is going on when all they want is just to use it as it is, an instant messenger.

i agree with Woody completely on this issue… Messenger WAS a private messenging tool and how can Microsoft blatantly publish and share our private contacts without informing us or ask for our explicit permission?

i notice the tattling going on when I looked at my messenger some time ago but I never bothered because I thought my friends had explicitly agreed to share those updates. it was only when i finally entered my profile to check on my settings did the nightmare begin. i was greeted with ‘Welcome to your new profile’ and then told to save my settings for Public, Limited or Private. If i had known this would be the start of a privacy nightmare, I would NEVER have clicked save in the first place. All of a sudden I started having ‘friends’ in my profile when there was none before. I dismissed this as nothing serious since I thought it was just listing my messenger contacts for only me to see. It was only when I stumbled across a contact’s profile and saw “You invited XXX to be your friend.” that I realised the seriousness of this issue. Why were invitations sent out without my knowledge? And why did my messenger contacts become public because I selected PRIVATE in my new profile settings? Now i regret visiting my profile and making that stupid decision of clicking save with the intention of trying to make my profile more private only to end up having my privacy totally breached.

Woody, did you take microsoft to task on this issue and request something be done? I searched the internet extensively regarding this issue and the only relevant result I got was this article by you. my guess is that no one bothers or no one notices what is happening yet or even how serious a privacy breach this is. i do hope this issue receives more attention and Microsoft starts paying attention to the privacy of its users or we should all start boycotting its messenger.

Reply | Quote

I’ve been in touch with Microsoft, and they’re basically in agreement with Greg.

I, for one, am disgusted – and amazed that the US Congress hasn’t caught on to this. Clearly, Microsoft is re-purposing Messenger contacts, in a way that violates our privacy, without requesting (much less receiving) permission.

Perhaps our politicians don’t understand the gravity of the situation. Heaven knows I’ve tried to explain it in straightforward terms.

Perhaps they feel it’s not worth fighting – or that Microsoft’s wording on acceptance of a Messenger request suffices.

Reply | Quote