Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Privacy

Who Invests in Spyware Companies? 293

Posted by michael from the glad-you-asked dept.
NW writes "Ben Edelman just published a list of major investors in spyware companies totaling over $139 million in venture capital." Slashdot has not verified Edelman's information, and please note that harassing the receptionist at these places is unlikely to cause any change in their investment policies.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Who Invests in Spyware Companies? More

Who Invests in Spyware Companies?

Comments Filter:

  • Advertisers (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DOsinga ( 134115 ) <douwe.webfeedback@noSPaM.gmail.com> on Thursday January 13, 2005 @12:03PM (#11348681) Homepage Journal
    It doesn't really go into who actually advertises on spyware or which networks supply the ads.

    • Re:Advertisers (Score:3, Interesting)

      by krgallagher ( 743575 )
      " It doesn't really go into who actually advertises on spyware or which networks supply the ads."

      No it lists investors. From what I see it is a bunch of venture capitol companies; companies that provide money to startup companies in exchange for a stake in the profits. It is pretty much the standard business model for a lot of startups. It is a lot easier to get money from venture capitolists than banks. In exchange you give up some (often most) ownership in the product.

      • >> a stake in the profits

        These are real companies, cutting cheques for amounts in the millions. I wonder what kind of involvement their respective legal departments have in assessing the risk of fines/lawsuits to balance against the potential of profit?

        The numbers must look O.K. even if the ethics don't...
      • From what I see it is a bunch of venture capitol companies; companies that provide money to startup companies in exchange for a stake in the profits.
        That's not what a "venture capitol" company is. A venture capitol company supplies something [wikipedia.org] that looks vaguely similar to the White House. [wikipedia.org]
      • "It is a testament to the quality of my opinions that people attack my grammar and spelling."

        Actually I would think that it would be a testament to the quality of the grammar and spell checker being used.

        Sarcasm aside, it seems that venture companies will throw money at any project that has a well-formatted proposal. For example, all the VCO funds that were given to Santa Cruz Operation SCO when they claimed that they owned Linux. They did this after Microsoft gave them a lot of money in the backg

    • Who Advertises With These Firms (Score:5, Informative)

      by bedelman ( 42523 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @12:09PM (#11348761) Homepage
      I have on hand lots of information about advertisers supporting these companies. One complication is that some of the advertisers are unintentional participants -- e.g. the ads were placed by affiliates, apparently often acting without authorization by the underlying merchants. Often, the link format makes it possible to tell the difference between an affiliate's ad and an "official" ad.

      As to Gator advertisers: See Gator advertisers as of 2003 [harvard.edu] and Gator advertisers based on data from Claria's S-1 disclosure [pcpitstop.com].

      In any event, I'll be updating my site with more advertiser information in the future. It's at the top of my list of priorities.

      • Not their fault, and I should care because?? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Seek_1 ( 639070 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @01:12PM (#11349519)
        I'm sorry, but if a company out-sources their advertising to someone who uses Spyware, I still won't buy their products.

        It's up the company to ensure that their advertising partners are behaving responsibly, no one else!
        • Its not quite outsourcing. What I believe he's referring to is referral programs. Amazon.com and others do use referral programs to boost their advertising; its certainly outside advertising, but they still manage to do a lot of advertising themselves. These programs are usually designed to include as many people as possible, so its certainly no surprise that you find people pushing their referral program over gator. While I'd appreciate a more proactive stance against the practice, I certainly wouldn't wan

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • People don't care what tech companies are on it. People are still gonna support Apple,Palm and Sun no matter what they do. But if Microsoft did the same, people would be up in arms.

  • Weatherbug? (Score:4, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @12:03PM (#11348682)
    I wonder who invests in Weatherbug, the notorious spyware company that spams message boards saying "we are not spyware" ? (They have yet to install spyware that says "we do not spam").

    • Re:Weatherbug? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by kenmtraveller ( 605717 )
      I would love a good source to prove that Weatherbug is spyware. My parents use it (the full, paid for version). I had heard that it was spyware and told them so, but my brother in law, who is an executive in the IT department of a major corporation, told them it wasn't. Guess who they believed? -Ken

      • Re:Weatherbug? (Score:5, Informative)

        by lucabrasi999 ( 585141 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @12:11PM (#11348790) Journal

        Personally, I wouldn't trust Bill Gates, but your parents might [eweek.com]. He thinks it's spyware.

        • Re:Weatherbug? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by narfbot ( 515956 )
          Ouch. The article says that AOL complained to Microsoft over the spyware classification of WeatherBug, and Microsoft is going to remove the signatures for it now.

          Lesson learned by spyware and affliated companies: reputable companies will give in and remove you from their scanner if you pay them off.

          Our lesson: We cannot allow people to trust and buy into Microsoft AntiSpyware when it is starting to sell. (I'd say WinXP for that matter, to begin with, but that will take years to undo the damage already

          • Re:Weatherbug? (Score:2, Interesting)

            by screwdriver ( 691980 )
            This can also work in reverse. Say a small company starts up that poses a threat to Microsoft. They can simply label it as "spyware" and problem solved. Since the small company doesn't likely have the revenue to attack Microsoft in court, MS wins by default.

      • Re:Weatherbug? (Score:3, Informative)

        by Maestro4k ( 707634 )
        • I would love a good source to prove that Weatherbug is spyware. My parents use it (the full, paid for version). I had heard that it was spyware and told them so, but my brother in law, who is an executive in the IT department of a major corporation, told them it wasn't. Guess who they believed? -Ken

        I can't prove it's spyware, but I can prove they do things against your wishes, see my reply to the grandparent here [slashdot.org] for more info. I'd highly recommend they get rid of it, there are alternatives that aren

      • Here is the dirt on Weatherbug (Score:5, Informative)

        by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @12:13PM (#11348821)
        click here [searchlores.org] for a detailed analysis.

        If it really was not spyware, they would not feel a need to spam message boards to say it.

        • So the detailed analysis is that weatherbug starts at boot (well, duh, how useful would a program to tell you about weather alerts be if you had to remember to start it each time you logged in?), optionally installs itself in IE, and supports itself with ads and that makes it spyware? (I'm choosing to ignore the 'spybot says it's spyware so it must be' argument-from-authority at the end.)

          Yahoo Messenger does all of those things. Why isn't it spyware?

      • Re:Weatherbug? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sheepdot ( 211478 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @12:32PM (#11349058) Journal
        What they have to say:
        http://www.weatherbug.com/aws/NotSpyware.html [weatherbug.com]

        While WeatherBug is not *technically* spyware, it does serve advertisements. But so do a lot of functional websites. Big deal.

        The problem *I* have with WeatherBug is the following:
        1) It is set to automatically come up on boot. And when it does so, it serves an advertisement. Any program that pops up an advertisement is INDEED "adware" by any definition of the term.

        2) The "Typical" installation adds MySearch Toolbar, which is known to cache search terms. Why exactly do they need to store my Internet searches? Why is this installed by default?

        3) A Desktop Icon ad for Netscape. This is pointless and worse, IMHO, than popup ads. I now have to MANUALLY DELETE the advertisement automatically placed on my Desktop

        4) Ironically, when you go to "Add/Remove Programs" they beg you to reconsider uninstalling, then beg you to keep it, they'll just remove the fullscreen pop-up on boot. Why they don't offer a choice in the first place is beyond me. This is really just a rehash of point #1.

        Maybe those of us technical support geeks that loathe the software wouldn't be so offended by it if it somehow knew we were troubleshooting the owner's PC and didn't want to hear about the latest tsumani threat to the state of Iowa, or potential blizzard in San Diego while we're clearing off all the *real* spyware.

        As I know there are WeatherBug employees who are actually paid to refute online comments on forums stating that their product is adware, I openly challenge those employee to please post their definition of "adware" in a reply.
      • The article describes a method for analysing what data is being sent back and forth. Note that you need an older type, non-switching ethernet hub to make it work -- one with a co-ax port is very definitely non-switching. The reason is that a non-switching hub simply repeats any packet on every port, so wherever it's meant to go it will certainly get there. Modern, switching hubs actually inspect each packet, determine the hardware address of each appliance, and send packets only to the relevant port base

    • Re:Weatherbug? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Maestro4k ( 707634 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @12:09PM (#11348757) Journal
      • I wonder who invests in Weatherbug, the notorious spyware company that spams message boards saying "we are not spyware" ? (They have yet to install spyware that says "we do not spam").
      For anyone who doubts Weatherbug's evilness, I can relate a concrete example of it. My Mom had been using Weatherbug, and I let her keep it because it seemed fairly harmless. Then one day last month I checked her computer and a box was popped up saying an update to Weatherbug was available, asking if I wanted to install it. I clicked no, it installed anyway.

      It took me a while to get rid of it as well, the remove program entry was broken, I had to download the crap again and install it again to finally get rid of it. I suspect it's left a few registry entries I haven't found yet.

      Weatherbug may or may not be spyware, but I'm inclined to believe it is. Legit companies don't install upgrades against your consent and make it hard as hell to uninstall their software. That is how spyware/malware generally works though.

      • Weatherbug wound up on my PC at home. I think it is from when my GF put AIM on the computer. If found some instructions [pchell.com] on removing it, though I haven't had a chance to try them yet. It includes info on registry updates that Weatherbug makes and even mentions an alternative product for those who what weather updates. -R

      • Re:Weatherbug? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CoffeeJedi ( 90936 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @12:51PM (#11349275)
        not only is it hard as hell to uninstall, when you go through the process it says first:
        "Stop! Do you really want to uninstall Weatherbug? It could save your life!"
        and then:
        "Click here to stop recieving LIFE SAVING hazardous weather alerts!"

        any program that tries to scare people (probably older computer users, ie: grandparents) into keeping it, is malware in my book

        • Re:Weatherbug? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Maestro4k ( 707634 )
          • not only is it hard as hell to uninstall, when you go through the process it says first:

            "Stop! Do you really want to uninstall Weatherbug? It could save your life!" and then:
            "Click here to stop recieving LIFE SAVING hazardous weather alerts!"

            any program that tries to scare people (probably older computer users, ie: grandparents) into keeping it, is malware in my book

          I had forgotten about those, they really ticked me off as well. That just adds even more proof that they're not legit. Hell, I've u

        • Re:Weatherbug? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by SunPin ( 596554 ) <slashspam AT cyberista DOT com> on Thursday January 13, 2005 @02:00PM (#11350151) Homepage
          As a veteran of 4 Hurricanes in five weeks last summer, I can declare that when the weather gets to "life threatening" levels, your computer stopped working long before that point.

      • Kudzuware (Score:4, Insightful)

        by siskbc ( 598067 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @01:34PM (#11349788) Homepage
        Weatherbug may or may not be spyware, but I'm inclined to believe it is. Legit companies don't install upgrades against your consent and make it hard as hell to uninstall their software. That is how spyware/malware generally works though.

        Adware (like weatherbug) has just as much reason as spy/malware to install itself never to be uninstalled. This is an important point that isn't being made enough, which is that adware is damn near as bad as spyware. The distinction lets weatherbug off the hook by claiming, probably correctly, that they aren't spyware.

        I think we need a new term to describe software - of any ilk - that refuses to uninstall, or reinstalls itself, or penetrates so much of your OS that you can't uninstall it. I nominate either "cancerware" or "kudzuware" (after that lovely plant that now covers most of the US South, and is impossible to eradicate).

        • Re:Kudzuware (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonym1ty ( 534715 )
          I nominate either "cancerware" or "kudzuware"

          I've been using the term Vomitware for a while now. Not only does it make you want to vomit, but it vomits itself all over your hard drive when it installs. ---AOL is also vomitware.

          Removing it is just like making sure to check and clean behind the toilet after a night of praying to the porcelain god that the parallel is just to perfect to ignore.

    • Weatherbug isn't spyware. It's adaware, which in my book is almostasannoyingware.
    • Well who would invest in weather bug .... Off the top of my head a vaction travel company that works the area the person is visiting. Maybe a taxicab company whom has a catchy telephone number to brand there number to the public. a hotel. Basically I would think travel firms first, then service companies that might be related to travelers.

      there are more but I'm just drawing a blank right now.

      Onepoint

  • 007 (Score:5, Funny)

    by wolflike ( 754807 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @12:04PM (#11348694)
    MI5, FBI, CIA, the usual dated TLA arm's of the illuminati

  • Don't have to take my word for it -- sources (Score:5, Informative)

    by bedelman ( 42523 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @12:04PM (#11348695) Homepage
    As to "Slashdot has not verified...": I've cited sources for each report of funding of each specified spyware company. See the links within my page -- just click on the "$40 million" and similar hyperlinks to see the source (news coverage, press release) reporting that funding.

  • Companies... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by paranode ( 671698 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @12:04PM (#11348696)
    180solutions (Zango, n-Case), Claria / Gator (GAIN), Direct Revenue (OfferOptimizer, many aliases), eXact Advertising (BargainBuddy, BullsEye).

    Ah well that's not surprising, I was hoping to see some hidden players. A call to these people's secretary definitely wouldn't do any good. It would probably just result in more telemarketing offers.

  • Reads like a... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Chrontius ( 654879 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @12:04PM (#11348698)
    Reads like a hit list.

    I give it ten minutes for the DDOS to start.

  • Slashdot has not verified Edelman's information... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Will2k_is_here ( 675262 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @12:05PM (#11348705)
    Does Slashdot ever verify the information it links to? As if we need the disclaimer.

  • 0wnership Society (Score:5, Informative)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @12:07PM (#11348730) Homepage Journal
    Remeber that "investors" are the owners. They can hide behind corporations, but the owners are responsible for the actions of their companies, even if they're not legally accountable.

    • Re:0wnership Society (Score:4, Informative)

      by Eric Giguere ( 42863 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @12:28PM (#11349014) Homepage Journal

      ... the owners are responsible for the actions of their companies, even if they're not legally accountable.

      There are different levels of legal accountability, actually. Courts will "pierce the corporate veil" when necessary to get at the people who are ultimately responsible for things. Regulatory bodies are getting more aggressive about this kind of stuff -- look at all the fuss over Nortel, where a bunch of board members have just quit and former senior executives are going to pay back millions in bonuses. You have to think carefully before being a company director these days.

      That said, I'm sure that these spyware companies are doing things in a legal manner and getting end users to agree to being spied on. Whether this is ethical is another matter, but I don't think VCs are generally out looking for the most ethical investments, they're looking for the ones that make them the most money.

      Eric
      On the lighter side: How the Vioxx recall reduced spam [ericgiguere.com]

      • Re:0wnership Society (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Doc Ruby ( 173196 )
        Nortel is a Canadian company, where people actually learn from mistakes, especially those that threaten the sustainability of the whole community. In the US, the threshold for "necessary" in "pierc[ing] the corporate veil" is usually defined as "scapegoat", or "fall guy", after vast legal wrangling and expense. Corporations are very useful organizing principles for cooperation to create wealth and accomplish complex, long-range tasks. The limited accountability that is their veil is too thick, covers too mu
    • This is actually the main thing that is wrong with capitalism: the breakup between the connection of property and responsibility. The laws are there to make it impossible to legally take the ones into account that foster civil wars, drain chemicals everywhere, rob everyone in sight etc. It's just normal business practice. The shareholder, that actually feels responsible for things the company he co-owns does is the vast minority. And the manager can do what they want as well, the worst thing that can happen
      • I dissagree. The problem isn't that there is a breakdown between propery and responsibility. The responsibility is held by those with power, not neccisarly property. I think you know that, so this is more of a clarification than a correction. The problem is that we haven't doen a good job holding those in power( ceo's exectuives board members) responsible. Worse things can happen to them than getting fired, but it doesn't happen often enough. Enron is one of the few cases where the execs are being punished
        • We're dealing with a dilemma of ownership vs control, which always lurks beneath the "republic" model applied to both corporate equity and other representative governments. If the 1990s equity bubble hadn't ended in a crash, sending people fleeing from their daytrading online casinos, we'd be in a much better position to manage the ongoing governance of our equity. Shareholders who ran up hugely popular equity discussion websites in their initial entry to the market could use those exact same websites to di

  • And yeah (Score:2, Funny)

    by murderator ( 849208 )
    And by the way forward-looking companies invest in parallel incremental options for years and at base level, this just comes down to facilitating third-generation processing.

  • My company should be on that list! (Score:5, Funny)

    by dynamo_mikey ( 218256 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @12:10PM (#11348771)
    My company has been giving millions of dollars to a company in Redmond Washington and some of that cash is being redirected to support a malware product known only as "Internet Explorer."

    -dynamo

  • harrassment... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TrebleJunkie ( 208060 ) <ezahurakNO@SPAMatlanticbb.net> on Thursday January 13, 2005 @12:10PM (#11348777) Homepage Journal
    "please note that harassing the receptionist at these places is unlikely to cause any change in their investment policies"

    No, but harrassing the *board* members might. That's why I love the SEC's EDGAR search. Names, and in name cases, phone numbers, for company board members.

  • They talk about going after spammers.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by motherjoe ( 716821 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @12:10PM (#11348779)
    They talk about going after spammers, but maybe what they need to do is go after these companies that invest in them.

    If the spammers didn't have these companies funding them, then I dare say they wouldn't last very long.

    just .02
    • Yeah.... and don't go after the criminals.... go after the stores who sell the criminals guns.... no wait.... go after the gun companies that distribute the guns to the stores.... no wait.... go after the mining facilities that mine the ore to make the metal to make the machines to produce the guns to distribute to the stores who sell the guns to the criminals.

      Same logic here. Where does it stop? They'd find a way for funding. Obviously, they're getting a reutrn on their investement so there has to be so
      • I hadn't thought about drawning a comparison between spamming and armed robbery.

        I could however see equating it with the strategy the Goverment has taken with Terrorist organizations and the charities that fund them.

        I could see the headlines now...."The Acme company has had it's assets frozen by the IRS after it was learned they invest heavily in spamming organizations."

  • I disagree (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Concern ( 819622 ) * on Thursday January 13, 2005 @12:13PM (#11348812) Journal
    "please note that harassing the receptionist at these places is unlikely to cause any change in their investment policies."

    Don't know about that. Harassing us on an inhuman scale appears to be working for them. Frankly, harassing them back, within the limits of the law of course, probably would be quite helpful. Many lobbysts and activists do far more about much less, and achieve considerable success.
    • How about everyone who reads slashdot simply file a small trivial lawsuit against each one. Sure it will probably get thrown out of court, but these companies will still have to pay their lawyers and court fees simply to respond to anything at all. It might add up.

      You guys start. I'll watch and see how it turns out.

    • Re:I disagree (Score:3, Insightful)

      by FortKnox ( 169099 )
      michael must be smiling. /. never provides disclaimers. Michael puts on there to implant the thought 'harass.' Kinda like reverse physcology. You are the exact reason that line is in the article.
    • Yeah, but aim it at the right person. For once I agree with Michael... if you call up their 800 number, you're going to get an operator or a receptionist. The person you're talking to is NOT the person who invested in the spyware company, they're just working there to make a buck and feed their family.

      Same reason I hate fucking Michael Moore. "Oh, this company is bad, it sells guns, let's go harass their receptionists who had nothing to do with the decision to sell guns!"
  • The only way spyware/adware is going to be stopped is when the financial incentive is removed. Someone out there is making a lot of money with spyware. Having a list of investors is just the beginning of the list of people to sue and/or throw in jail. It's going to take some time, but my phone is definitely ringing less since the do not call list went into effect with its hefty fines and penalties. I would guess that the conservative family values anti-porn groups will be all over this soon in an unholy all

  • Edelman is trustworthy (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I've read and used Ben's research for other projects, especially his domain name data and it's always accurate. No reason to doubt him this time unless you can find definitive contradictions. He is friendly has always responded to email if it's on topic. Nice to see his work get some attention here.

  • One in the same (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FyberOptic ( 813904 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @12:34PM (#11349092)
    And as if it weren't fairly obvious these days, many "spyware removal" companies are also likely to be partners with these spyware companies.

    There was a particularly nasty adware on my brother's PC once, and during my time trying to see where it came from, I happened to click on one of the ads, which boasted to help you "get rid of spyware and adware". The ad took me to a generic "search engine" page, filled with spyware/adware "removal" programs.

    But did I see things like Ad-Aware or Spybot listed? Why hell no. I saw a bunch of removal programs which I had never ever heard of in my life. And yes, they cost money.

    So answer me this; why would a piece of adware give you an advertisement on how to remove adware, unless the companies that sell you the removal software are in on it too?

    And you know that the companies know they're showing up on these adware "search engines", because there are referrer ID's in the urls. After confronting a company about it with my brother's infested PC, they of course pretended to know nothing about it. I find it very hard to believe that they could have a referrer ID from an adware search engine, and it be total coincidence.

    So yes, I'm 100% convinced that many adware companies are allied with adware removal ones, if they aren't in fact one in the same many times. Just think of how many people actually end up clicking those ads and buying that software, just because they don't know any better.

    Since adware companies are basically virus writers, with ads as their payloads, we can only hope that more laws will start to pop up to nip it in the bud. But in the meantime, perhaps Ad-Aware or Spybot can strike up some deal with vendors (if they haven't already) to include their software with machines. At least until Microsoft's adware removal tool starts shipping with Windows.
  • Wouldn't the software that real spies use be called spyware?
    Are they offended at the usurping of the spyware moniker by other, less wholesome individuals?

  • The real question is ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 13, 2005 @12:42PM (#11349175)
    Are these same venture capital companies also investing in spyware removal companies?

    Just wondering.

  • Only slightly off-topic (Score:3, Insightful)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @12:46PM (#11349226) Homepage
    Some time ago there was mention on Slashdot about adware/spyware/malware exploiting security holes as a means of installing itself and other software without a users approval or knowledge.

    Now that's a pretty hefty claim and while I have little trouble believing it, I'd like to see positive confirmation of that claim. What I mean to say is that perhaps someone out there with the skills could should at least one example by disassembling some of this malware to show us all exactly what exploits are being used, when, where and how. It would be nice to see evidence that cannot be denied or spun away.

    I think if it can be shown that they are indeed actively exploiting security holes and are not operating ethically as they all claim to be, then the U.S. Federal Trade Commission might be able to step in and take measures to rectify the situation. I don't think we need more laws even if they would actually serve to benefit the public a little better. I think if we can show they are intruding onto computers without permission, there are already laws against that -- both civil and criminal.

  • Big Money, Inc -- any surprises? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by swb ( 14022 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @12:48PM (#11349246)
    Does it come as a surprise that our business class would be interested in forcing software onto people they "have" to run so that they can collect information and enrich themselves?

    Does it come as a surprise that our business class generally believes that a removing consumer choice and privacy are a good thing?

    I'm kind of waiting for a significant investigative peice in the media spyware, spam and its relationship with more "traditional" businesses whose only real motivation for staying out of that space is their reputation.

  • Wow, am I naive. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by java.bean ( 66111 )
    Every time I convince myself I'm as cynical as I can be, something like this pops up, and I realize I'm still my old naive self.

    I had assumed these companies were just handfuls of unethical developers. I can't believe VC firms are putting 10s of millions of dollars into these outfits.

    That was a wakeup call.

  • organized crime (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dAzED1 ( 33635 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @01:08PM (#11349470) Journal
    how many people did Al Capone actually pull the trigger and kill?

    Same bit. I wouldn't be suprized to find some of these VC's are not just VC's, but sepecifically search out people to put up these little shops. That way, they are protected, as merely being someone who loaned the person money. Get most of the profits, with few of the liabilities.

    It would be beautiful to change that - to increase their liability. Like I already said in this post, its like going into a gun store and asking to borrow a gun so you can rob a bank, and promising most of the profits in return. The gun store, if they agreed to that, most certainly should be held liable.

  • Receptionist (Score:4, Insightful)

    by iamacat ( 583406 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @01:31PM (#11349758)
    please note that harassing the receptionist at these places is unlikely to cause any change in their investment policies

    Of course it's pointless to be rude or demand that she personally withdraw company's investments. But you can certainly politely explain that you are a victim of their client's illegal activities and ask to contact one of the partners who has influence in decision making.

    You will not get through, but the company's management will eventually know that people keep calling and complaining about Claria. The last thing an investment company wants is a client entangled in a class action lawsuit or government investigation.

    Then again, you might be surprised. Michael Moore convinced Kmart to stop selling bullets just by talking to them - granted he brought columbine victims along. Maybe some companies don't wish to invest in scum and will turn away once the reality is fully explained to them.
    • Michael Moore convinced Kmart to stop selling bullets just by talking to them - granted he brought columbine victims along.

      He also brought video cameras along.

  • Slashdot Turning a New Leaf? (Score:4, Funny)

    by MSTCrow5429 ( 642744 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @01:51PM (#11350031)
    Slashdot? Verify? Could this be the start of a new policy of accurate and responsible reporting at Slashdot? Maybe the CBS Report put things in perspective for them.

Slashdot Top Deals

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Close