4 ms·

Microsoft was the first company to join PRISM, in September 2007: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRIS

Microsoft was the first company to join PRISM, in September 2007: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) I'll take a flight simulator hidden in Excel over widespread, systematic violations of privacy any day thanks. Want to maintain trust from your customers? Don't spy on them.

cortesoft 6y ago
This seems... completely unrelated?
- admax88q 6y ago
  Why? The thesis of the article is that they dont allow easter eggs because they can hurt users trust. Seems like there are a lot of other practices they do which are far more harmful to user trust.
  - cortesoft 6y ago
    So, since they participated in PRISM, they shouldn't do anything else to improve trust? It wasn't like this was an either/or situation... a manager wasn't deciding between prioritizing not participating in PRISM or not making an Easter egg.... in fact, I can almost guarantee this person wasn't involved in the PRISM decision.
    - square_usual 6y ago
      Ok, let's think about trustworthiness like it's an RPG stat. Preventing easter eggs is, at best, +1 modifier. Joining PRISM is, conservatively speaking, ~-100 on the same scale. It kind of makes whether or not there are easter eggs in the code meaningless in comparison.
    - drdeca 6y ago
      I suppose one might argue that if they [prism] then they don’t value user trust, and therefore user trust wouldn’t be a reason for them to not [easter eggs]. However, that would seem to be based on an idea of valuing which is absolute, and which accepts no trade-offs. Conceivably they could value user trust (at least, instrumentally value it), but value what they would get out of doing [prism] more, per amount of lost user trust, then they value what they would get from [easter eggs] per amount of (somehow?) lost user trust. (Words in square brackets are abbreviations for the activity relevant to the words in the square brackets)
    - jancsika 6y ago
      > So, since they participated in PRISM, they shouldn't do anything else to improve trust? Since they participated in PRISM-level trust violation, they can't improve trust at the level of guaranteeing no easter eggs. It would be like cheating on a spouse and then building back trust by promising and delivering on a "no practical jokes" policy.
      - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
        > It would be like cheating on a spouse and then building back trust by promising and delivering on a "no practical jokes" policy. Well, it’s a start
      - roenxi 6y ago
        If we follow that train of logic, what exactly is the complaint? That they implemented any software at all instead of full-time internal advocacy against PRISM? They aren't being paid to implement Easter eggs. The job is to produce software that effectively helps users within bounds of the law. The government says they have to spy on their users, so it isn't like Microsoft can do otherwise.
        stirfish 6y ago
        >That they implemented any software at all instead of full-time internal advocacy against PRISM? Yes.
        jancsika 6y ago
        > The job is to produce software that effectively helps users within bounds of the law. The government says they have to spy on their users, so it isn't like Microsoft can do otherwise. You must be trolling me. The article as written is completely different than the article as written plus something like what I quoted from you pasted at the bottom.
        roenxi 6y ago
        Sorry if the argument was too subtle. The article is arguing that there is a proper engineering choice to be made (Do I include Easter Eggs? No, primarily because it is an unnecessary bug vector that erodes user trust). The root of this thread is an argument observation that users shouldn't trust the software anyway. Fair enough, that is certainly true. But there isn't a choice for MS about whether they help with PRISM. The US government is going to force them to. In a framework of what decisions the developer makes there are no choices to be made - they have to implement PRISM. It isn't reasonable to argue about something outside their sphere of influence when assessing what principles are good and bad. PRISM doesn't erode anyone's trust in the competence of Microsoft's engineering, it is just a general erosion of trust in American software. Nothing MS can do about it. I'm arguing that the article should be seen as trust in engineering competence. Not trust in the abstract.
    - DocTomoe 6y ago
      Because they joined PRISM, they and every single line of their code is inherently untrustworthy. You can even make a point that anyone who ever worked for them has become significantly less trustworthy.
  - Lammy 6y ago
    My favorite easter egg is _NSAKEY
    - hnedeotes 6y ago
      "open sesame!"
      - goldenkey 6y ago
        "close poppy!" _DEAKEY
- unnouinceput 6y ago
  How is this unrelated? Excel did had a flight simulator hidden as an Easter egg!
- zingplex 6y ago
  I think they're remarking on the irony of getting up on a high horse about trustworthy computing while doing something remarkably untrustworthy only a few years later.

cortesoft 6y ago

This seems... completely unrelated?

admax88q 6y ago
Why? The thesis of the article is that they dont allow easter eggs because they can hurt users trust. Seems like there are a lot of other practices they do which are far more harmful to user trust.
- cortesoft 6y ago
  So, since they participated in PRISM, they shouldn't do anything else to improve trust? It wasn't like this was an either/or situation... a manager wasn't deciding between prioritizing not participating in PRISM or not making an Easter egg.... in fact, I can almost guarantee this person wasn't involved in the PRISM decision.
  - square_usual 6y ago
    Ok, let's think about trustworthiness like it's an RPG stat. Preventing easter eggs is, at best, +1 modifier. Joining PRISM is, conservatively speaking, ~-100 on the same scale. It kind of makes whether or not there are easter eggs in the code meaningless in comparison.
  - drdeca 6y ago
    I suppose one might argue that if they [prism] then they don’t value user trust, and therefore user trust wouldn’t be a reason for them to not [easter eggs]. However, that would seem to be based on an idea of valuing which is absolute, and which accepts no trade-offs. Conceivably they could value user trust (at least, instrumentally value it), but value what they would get out of doing [prism] more, per amount of lost user trust, then they value what they would get from [easter eggs] per amount of (somehow?) lost user trust. (Words in square brackets are abbreviations for the activity relevant to the words in the square brackets)
  - jancsika 6y ago
    > So, since they participated in PRISM, they shouldn't do anything else to improve trust? Since they participated in PRISM-level trust violation, they can't improve trust at the level of guaranteeing no easter eggs. It would be like cheating on a spouse and then building back trust by promising and delivering on a "no practical jokes" policy.
    - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
      > It would be like cheating on a spouse and then building back trust by promising and delivering on a "no practical jokes" policy. Well, it’s a start
    - roenxi 6y ago
      If we follow that train of logic, what exactly is the complaint? That they implemented any software at all instead of full-time internal advocacy against PRISM? They aren't being paid to implement Easter eggs. The job is to produce software that effectively helps users within bounds of the law. The government says they have to spy on their users, so it isn't like Microsoft can do otherwise.
      - stirfish 6y ago
        >That they implemented any software at all instead of full-time internal advocacy against PRISM? Yes.
      - jancsika 6y ago
        > The job is to produce software that effectively helps users within bounds of the law. The government says they have to spy on their users, so it isn't like Microsoft can do otherwise. You must be trolling me. The article as written is completely different than the article as written plus something like what I quoted from you pasted at the bottom.
        roenxi 6y ago
        Sorry if the argument was too subtle. The article is arguing that there is a proper engineering choice to be made (Do I include Easter Eggs? No, primarily because it is an unnecessary bug vector that erodes user trust). The root of this thread is an argument observation that users shouldn't trust the software anyway. Fair enough, that is certainly true. But there isn't a choice for MS about whether they help with PRISM. The US government is going to force them to. In a framework of what decisions the developer makes there are no choices to be made - they have to implement PRISM. It isn't reasonable to argue about something outside their sphere of influence when assessing what principles are good and bad. PRISM doesn't erode anyone's trust in the competence of Microsoft's engineering, it is just a general erosion of trust in American software. Nothing MS can do about it. I'm arguing that the article should be seen as trust in engineering competence. Not trust in the abstract.
  - DocTomoe 6y ago
    Because they joined PRISM, they and every single line of their code is inherently untrustworthy. You can even make a point that anyone who ever worked for them has become significantly less trustworthy.
- Lammy 6y ago
  My favorite easter egg is _NSAKEY
  - hnedeotes 6y ago
    "open sesame!"
    - goldenkey 6y ago
      "close poppy!" _DEAKEY
unnouinceput 6y ago
How is this unrelated? Excel did had a flight simulator hidden as an Easter egg!
zingplex 6y ago
I think they're remarking on the irony of getting up on a high horse about trustworthy computing while doing something remarkably untrustworthy only a few years later.