Skip to main content
Hotmail – Not Quite The Big Bang

Corporate Responsibility today, means rather more than promising not to ‘cook the books’ or the President standing in front of a large sign that promises corporate America’s future good behaviour. There’s a new ethical dimension to consider which may be just as important as Teflon accounting.

One hundred and sixty four. That was the total number of junk emails waiting for me in my Hotmail inbox on my return from sunny Spain. Roughly ten pieces of junk a day for each day I was away on holiday and it doesn’t include the thirty or so items of Spam which found a temporary home in my conventional office inbox.

Nothing remarkable of course. Only the normal bag of rubbish, ‘Come Visit the Bang Bus’ or “Best Buy Epson Ink Cartridges for Office or Home”. Mind you, the challenge of deleting twelve consecutive “Sex Pics of the Day” with the preview pane open, is rather more than I expected or even deserve at my age.

Perhaps the only solution is to block all email from any domain or address that one doesn’t know. At least this would reduce the load on my in-box, as filters and especially Hotmail’s own ‘Spam Trap’, are even less effective than channel tunnel security.

So why didn’t I use my Hotmail account while I was abroad? Cost. I’m using my mobile phone/Compaq IPAQ combination with GPRS enabled. Downloading lurid emails and loan offers, one hundred and sixty-four of them could prove very expensive over a wireless connection, so better to delete the lot, en masse, over the office Ethernet.

What surprises me is the heavy silence from Microsoft. Following earlier comments on the Spam problem, I did ask the company for some kind of comment. After all, isn’t Microsoft at least morally accountable to its customers? Hotmail might be a free service – well almost – used by millions of people across the world and yet the company, aware that the volume of Spam and inappropriate content is running out of control, chooses to remain silent over the problem, other than offering a feeble filtering option which collapses within the month.

So, why no official comment? Off the record, people will admit that Hotmail is a complete mess that presents a convenient and high profile conduit. One that introduces many of the worst examples of content-driven corruption to a global audience. While I’m not suggesting that Microsoft acts as a censor, I am suggesting that the company sets an example by offering some kind of filtering which can be enabled as an option, to screen out the daily diet of Viagra and teenage webcam offers.
Hotmail is simply an example. The tip of a much larger problem that confronts a world intent on abusing the Internet to its still yet unexplored limits.

So, does corporate responsibility stretch to include an ethical dimension? One associated perhaps with the provision of an on-line service or is the concept of corporate ethics as dated and as laughable as the principle of honesty in politics?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Civilisational Data Mining

It’s a new expression I haven’t heard before. ‘Civilisational data mining.’

Let me start by putting it in some context. Every character, you or I have typed into the Google search engine or Facebook over the last decade, means something, to someone or perhaps ‘something,’ if it’s an algorithm.


In May 2014, journalists revealed that the United States National Security Agency, the NSA, was recording and archiving every single cell-phone conversation that took place in the Bahamas. In the process they managed to transform a significant proportion of a society’s day to day interactions into unstructured data; valuable information which can of course be analysed, correlated and transformed for whatever purpose the intelligence agency deems fit.

And today, I read that a GOP-hired data company in the United States has ‘leaked’ personal information, preferences and voting intentions on… wait for it… 198 million US citizens.

Within another decade or so, the cost of sequencing the human genome …

The Nature of Nurture?

Recently, I found myself in a fascinating four-way Twitter exchange, with Professor Adam Rutherford and two other science-minded friends The subject, frequently regarded as a delicate one, genetics and whether there could exist an unknown but contributory genetic factor(s) or influences in determining what we broadly understand or misunderstand as human intelligence.

I won’t discuss this subject in any great detail here, being completely unqualified to do so, but I’ll point you at the document we were discussing, and Rutherford’s excellent new book, ‘A Brief History of Everyone.”

What had sparked my own interest was the story of my own grandfather, Edmond Greville; unless you are an expert on the history of French cinema, you are unlikely to have ever hear of him but he still enjoys an almost cult-like following for his work, half a century after his death.

I've been enjoying the series "Genius" on National Geographic about the life of Albert Einstein. The four of us ha…
The Mandate of Heaven

eGov Monitor Version

“Parliament”, said my distinguished friend “has always leaked like a sieve”.

I’m researching the thorny issue of ‘Confidence in Public Sector Computing’ and we were discussing the dangers presented by the Internet. In his opinion, information security is an oxymoron, which has no place being discussed in a Parliament built upon the uninterrupted flow of information of every kind, from the politically sensitive to the most salacious and mundane.

With the threat of war hanging over us, I asked if MPs should be more aware of the risks that surround this new communications medium? More importantly, shouldn’t the same policies and precautions that any business might use to protect itself and its staff, be available to MPs?

What concerns me is that my well-respected friend mostly considers security in terms of guns, gates and guards. He now uses the Internet almost as much as he uses the telephone and the Fax machine and yet the growing collective t…