Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Wed, 1 May 91 18:20:15 GMT From: Ron Dippold Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? Message-ID: Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 329, Message 4 of 9 Lines: 76 In article hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: > In article , overlf!emanuele@kb2ear. > ampr.org (Mark A. Emanuele) posted a BBS file containing hysterical > raving about Prodigy supposedly snooping through user's disks, > uploading and processing confidential information. Let me say first that I don't think they're doing it, however, I can see why someone might think so. Also, I don't believe the article said that they _were_ uploading, just that they could. > [how STAGE.DAT is created] > The idea that Prodigy is slow because they're using bandwidth to > upload confidential information for analysis is just wrong. Watch your > modem lights! Only tiny little bursts of transmission are sent. MOST > of the time, the line is completely idle in both directions. The I hate to tell you this, but I do watch the modem lights, and there are many times that the computer should not need to send data to Prodigy when it is most definitely doing so. Usually when it is sending the info about a new screen for STAGE.DAT, it seems to spend a _lot_ of time talking back to Prodigy. It's probably just ACKs and other chatter, but it certainly appears suspicious, and that's the problem. I, too, wondered why the hell it was sending all that stuff back and exactly what it was sending. > simple fact is that Prodigy is slow because the software is SLOW (it > was written in anticipation of us all having very fast CPUs, video > cards, and modems before too much longer), not because of some > sinister conspiracy to invade our private files. Who could honestly > believe that two companies who are big fat targets for lawsuits would > do something so supremely stupid and easily detectable? > No, the biggest mistake Prodigy made was in not wiping clean > newly-allocated disk space in order to remove any questions in this > regard -- and I suspect that the next Prodigy software update will do The biggest mistake Prodigy made was to completely alienate its customers with arrogance and incredible high-handedness, to not train its customer service people better (so they know what the hell is going on instead of just denying everything), and in handling the E-mail affair so badly (okay, three mistakes). GEnie and CompuServe both have software that perform the same function as the Prodigy software and take over your machine in the same way, but you don't hear people worried about that. Why? Because people trust GEnie and CompuServe and they don't trust Prodigy. Train of thought: "Hmm, what's all this stuff doing in my STAGE.DAT? You don't think Prodigy could be harvesting my hard drive, do you? Why would a big company with the backing of IBM and Sears risk alienating their customers like that? On the other hand, they've never seemed to give a damn before about alienating their customers, and then there's that E-mail stuff. You know, I bet those b*stards would have the chutzpah to do it." Not that I think they are, but it is easy to see how someone could think so. Prodigy has a _serious_ image problem. I don't think anyone could log onto a "normal" local bulletin board, ask about Prodigy, and continue to use it once he/she reads the replies. Someone asked what they could possibly do with the data that's sent (assuming it was, of course). 1 MB per user is a lot to store. However, I could do a _lot_ with one item from every user's hard disk: their directory tree. Small, doesn't take much time to send, and tells you a lot about the person, much more so if you send it every now and then and compare it to the latest copy. The STAGE.DAT is sort of a red herring. If they wanted to send stuff from your hard drive, they wouldn't need to put it in STAGE.DAT first. Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks. | Ron Dippold