lol, I love the "WARNING: HIGH COMPREHENSION PROFICIENCY NEEDED
" warning, very funny =D
On a more serious note, I have had this happen to me and the blocked party
was wondering why he couldnt see my messages - not so funny. It shouldnt be
possible for users to invite people without their acceptance, it would be
great if this was changed (at last)
Paul.
<Nicholas> wrote in message news:...
> Windows Live Messenger has some severe privacy bugs and it needs to be
> addressed ASAP.
>
> Today, if you've blocked someone, that person will know that you've
> blocked him, if he was talking to someone else who invited you to their
> convo...
>
> Now that's a serious issue, because you've blown your cover. To balance
> ease with privacy, we need a solution.
>
> WARNING: HIGH COMPREHENSION PROFICIENCY NEEDED
>
> We'll have three people just to keep things simple:
>
> John is you, and you blocked Sally
> Kevin didn't block anyone
> Sally didn't block anyone
>
> Here's what should happen:
>
> 1. Kevin and Sally are having a convo, Kevin invites you. At this time,
> *no one else* will know about that
>
> 2. You are notified - "Kevin is inviting you to join a convo with Sally.
> If you join, your status for Sally will be Online for the duration of
> the conversation."
>
> 3. If you say no, Kevin won't receive any response from you (I'll
> explain later why)
>
> 4. If you say yes, Kevin will now have to ask Sally if you are invited.
> So Sally in the group convo will see "Kevin is invitng John to this
> convo, do you agree?"
>
> 5. If Sally votes "no" she'll stay on the same convo. If Sally votes
> "yes" she'll start a new, blank group conversation with you and Kevin.
>
> Note for all this to work, a new privacy feature *must* be implemented:
> "Appear Offline for contacts who are having a conversation with my
> contacts that I have Appear Offline with". I know it sounds so complex
> but I'll break it down. This option means:
>
> - Anyone who talks to a contact on your block list *WILL AUTOMATICALLY
> MAKE YOU APPEAR OFFLINE TO THEM*, so they can't blow your cover and tell
> them that you're online for them and not for those you've blocked.
>
> - And if someone else talks to a contact you've appeared offline to
> because of the previous reason, they also *WILL AUTOMATICALLY MAKE YOU
> APPEAR OFFLINE TO THEM* as well. So it's a chain effect. All designed to
> give you *ABSOLUTE PRIVACY OF YOUR BLOCK LIST*
>
> Remember in number 3, if that option is not ticked, Kevin can just go
> ahead and tell Sally "oh John (you) is online for me, why he's offline
> for you? Did he block you?". If that option is ticked, You've already
> Appear Offline to Kevin and he will have no idea whether you've blocked
> Sally or not.
>
> Now for you to easily see who's seeing you Appear Offline because of
> this feature, their status should be "Online (Restricted)" of whatever
> other status like "Out to Lunch (Restricted)", etc. WLM should still
> allow you to talk to them if you don't mind risking yourself blowing
> your cover.
>
> Also, another privacy feature that *must* be included for the first one
> to work properly: "Notify me if contacts is starting a conversation with
> someone I've Appear Offline with".
>
> Why? Because if you boldly Appear Offline *RIGHT AWAY* when Kevin starts
> a convo with Sally when Kevin and you are already having a convo. He'll
> notice that: whenever I start talking to Sally, John (you) Appear
> Offline straight away, ah, so that means you blocked Sally.
>
> With the second privacy feature I mentioned, you're given a warning for
> what's happening, and it's time for you to say "I gtg" to Kevin *IN THE
> CONVO WITH KEVIN* so that it looks like as if you're offlining
> *naturally*, and not because you're trying to cover up anything.
>
> Now you might ask: what if both Sally and I blocked each other? Well, if
> both used the privacy features I've mentioned, Kevin *won't* be talking
> to you in the first place, because the privacy features would have made
> you Appear Offline to Kevin, so he won't know any of the blocking things
> between you and Sally.
>
> And since he can't invite you or Sally, *YOU AND SALLY* won't see any of
> the messages in 2 and 4 (look back up). So you see... 200% privacy!
>
> [[[[Now if you understand everything that I've said, you might ask:
> "Wouldn't the messages in 2 and 4 breach Sally's status privacy?". Well,
> yes and no. As you see, *IT'S YOU WHO'S BLOCKING SALLY, NOT SALLY
> BLOCKING YOU". So if Sally isn't blocking you, she's got nothing to
> hide, but *you do*. That's why you're given first priority to be asked
> whether you want to even talk to a blocked contact, as opposed to asking
> Sally "Kevin is about to invite someone who's blocked you, do you
> agree?"]]]]
>
> And, no.... the message in 2 doesn't explicitly state that Kevin is
> already talking to Sally, but that Kevin is going to talk to you and
> Sally from a fresh start.
>
> Sounds extremely complex doesn't it? I know, and I wish I could've made
> it simpler. But I think that's about as perfect anything private in WLM
> can go.
>
> P.S. Ironically, while I support this idea, I, for one, also don't
> really care about this feature. Because anyone that I've blocked and
> deleted from my contacts list, I don't really care if they know I've
> blocked them, simply because: "If I delete them, I don't care what they
> think of me blocking them".
>
> --
> Nicholas...
>
> "Overclock Your Life, Then The World"
>
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
