In full-scale retreat, Microsoft has issued new terms of use for its Passport website and service.
The new terms replace old ones that came under a barrage of criticism from privacy advocates and the media last week.
Microsoft has deleted terms that granted the company broad license to use, modify, distribute, publish or sell "any communication with or through the Passport website." According to definitions in the old terms, 'communication' included bulletin boards, chat rooms, personal Web pages, or e-mail. Critics accused the company of wanting to own and control all the information passing over its network.
The new terms grant Microsoft far more limited license, claiming rights to publish and distribute only "feedback and suggestions" users make to the Passport website.
The new terms also make clear that Passport's terms of service do not apply to other Microsoft services, like Hotmail, that users can access using their Passport password. Users are instructed to refer to the terms at those individual sites to determine what rules apply there.
Jason Catlett of Junkbusters, who had lambasted the old terms, agreed that important alterations had been made.
"They have retreated on the over-arching language," he said. "They patched it to limit the 'on everything' language to comments and suggestions, which is sensible."
Catlett was also pleased to see the company make good on its promise to state explicitly that, in the case of any conflicting language, the Passport privacy policy would trump the terms of use. That statement was added to the new terms.
"The License to Microsoft section was deleted," Microsoft spokesman Tom Pilla said, reviewing the changes. "We regret any confusion the former terms caused."
Although there had been no link to it from the terms of use, the privacy policy was previously posted, had not changed, and would have overridden the old terms, he said.
Pilla also made clear that when the Hailstorm service is launched, it will have its own terms, separate from Passport's terms.
While acknowledging the new terms as an improvement, Catlett still thought the flap only strengthens his belief that consumers need better laws to protect their privacy online.
"In most developed countries, statutory rights of consumers override anything put in the terms of use or privacy policy," he said. "Those are the rights we need. It's preposterous to have a public fight in the media in order to get decent privacy protection."
