More On Microsoft's Smart Tags

Our purpose with this series is to use real life examples of deception, fraud and other evil to show how you can better protect yourself. The examples cited in these articles are intended to demonstrate best practices and recommendations.

The problem with smart tags is not the basic concept. The problem is that Microsoft is implementing a major change in their browser that has a huge effect on virtually all web sites without getting the agreement of the web community. Microsoft is more or less creating a new, de-facto standard without going through the normal standards committees and such. This violates the ethical "contract" that Microsoft has with the internet world.

There is an agreement (unwritten but there nonetheless) between webmasters and the browser manufacturer that the browser will act in a certain way. Blurring the lines between a web site and the web (which is what smart tags do) violates that agreement.

Basically, smart tags are Microsoft's way of saying "we, the browser manufacturer, can do what we want to the content produced by a webmaster". This violates the agreement between webmasters and the manufacturer. This makes it unethical. Webmasters were not consulted (as they would have been had it gone to a standards committee).

Standards committees are the ethical way to introduce changes into the system. This gives all webmasters (and users for that matter) ample opportunity to come to an agreement. Ethics is merely a set of agreements, after all. I agree not to chew on your arm during dinner. Therefore you agree to come over to my place for dinner. If I chewed on your arm, it would be unethical.

I like to equate it to a painting. Okay, I am an artist and I've created a painting. You purchase the painting. Who has rights? Well, I the painter present it in a certain way. You the purchaser see it a certain way. If the user wants to mark it up with crayons or show it under a blue light or even light it on fire, well, it's his painting.

So the artist (the webmaster) gives the purchaser (the user) the initial art in a certain form. The user can change it as desired once he owns the painting (has the website displayed on his screen).

Now, does the person who made the paper on which the painting is printed have any rights to sell advertising attached to the painting without the knowledge or agreement of the artist?

My point is as a webmaster I am an artist. I present my art to an audience and I have the right to expect that art to be shown, at least initially, in the manner of my choosing. The audience has the right to change that if they wish. However, the hot dog vendor down the street does not have the right to suddenly decide he wants to tape post-it notes to my art whenever he wants. The frame manufacturer should not take out a pencil and write phone numbers on my painting. The paper company should not create paper which changes colors unexpectedly under my work.

That's my beef. Not that the web site is being changed. But that's it's being modified by the vendor of the browser without the agreement of the internet community. I do not grant the vendor that right.

Microsoft's smart tags violate the basic agreement that a browser vendor makes to webmasters. The job of a browser is to browse. That's it.

The browser manufacturer has two agreements - one with the audience and one with the artists (the users and the webmasters). They have a responsibility to balance those agreements to be fair to both parties. Otherwise the model falls apart and ceases to work.

The web is not just about users. It is multi-dimensional. There are vendors, users, advertisers, marketers, producers, sellers, webmasters and lots of other -ers. All of them have a right to depend upon a certain set of rules from the browser. It is unethical to change those rules without the buy-in of the majority of the community.