Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy The Internet

Feds Asked to Take Action Against Adware Creator 240

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the paging-big-brother dept.
An anonymous reader writes "CNet is reporting that a consumer watchdog group has asked the Federal Trade Commission to take action against 180solutions and CJB.net for unfair and deceptive business practices. The Center for Democracy and Technology submitted over 150 pages of examples of 180s bad practices." From the article: "180Solutions deliberately and repeatedly duped Internet users into downloading intrusive advertising software, according to a Center for Democracy and Technology complaint (download PDF). The company continued these practices even after it pledged to better itself and after receiving warnings from spyware experts and privacy advocates, the group said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Feds Asked to Take Action Against Adware Creator More

Feds Asked to Take Action Against Adware Creator

Comments Filter:

  • and it won't matter... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by flakier ( 177415 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @06:38PM (#14543838) Homepage
    ...because they will say something like it was their "partners" that engaged in the deceptive practices. Then they will say that they will watch their partners more closely in the future.

    • Re:and it won't matter... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by StupidHelpDeskGuy ( 636955 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @06:41PM (#14543859) Journal
      Yes, because the folks in Washington never change their mind. Especially if their chances for relection are hindered. It will matter eventually, we just have to keep fighting.

    • Re:and it won't matter... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mordors9 ( 665662 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @06:46PM (#14543903)
      it won't matter because their is no public outcry yet at this point. Most non-Slashdot computer users seem to look at it as part of life. Nor are any of the corporate interests flexing their muscles to get the government hopping.

      • Re:and it won't matter... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by lymond01 ( 314120 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @07:43PM (#14544389)
        There's no public outcry because 90% of users don't know what's actually happening. "Oh, I hate these darn ads!" they'll say, but they don't know why they are there or that they can easily get rid of them. I am constantly amazed by the level of computer knowledge people demonstrate, despite the fact they are parked in front of one 8-10 hours per day. In fact, a good PhD Engineering friend of mine IMs me and asks if the web server is down, he wanted to look up someone's address on the site directory. I told him yes it was down and gave him the email address. He then asks: "Well, if the website is down, can I still email them?"

        People are learning, I'll admit, but even "saavy" users don't really know much about spyware, adware, viruses, hijacking, firewalls, etc. Have they heard of them? Maybe. But they don't really know how to deal with them or even what to look for.

        • Re:and it won't matter... (Score:2)

          by John Hurliman ( 152784 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:20PM (#14545739) Homepage
          He then asks: "Well, if the website is down, can I still email them?"

          If you send an e-mail to user@domain.com and the server hosting domain.com is down, after a certain length of time won't the e-mail bounce back in to your mailbox? Seems like a valid question to me, unless of course they were trying to e-mail user@hotmail.com.

          • Re:and it won't matter... (Score:2)

            by Fulcrum of Evil ( 560260 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:46PM (#14545888)

            If you send an e-mail to user@domain.com and the server hosting domain.com is down, after a certain length of time won't the e-mail bounce back in to your mailbox? Seems like a valid question to me, unless of course they were trying to e-mail user@hotmail.com.

            No. There isn't one server hosting domain.com, and mail is handled differently anyway. If the mail server is down, it gets returned after about 4 days.

      • Re:and it won't matter... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by halcyon1234 ( 834388 ) <halcyon1234@hotmail.com> on Monday January 23, 2006 @10:51PM (#14545605) Journal
        it won't matter because their is no public outcry yet at this point. Most non-Slashdot computer users seem to look at it as part of life. Nor are any of the corporate interests flexing their muscles to get the government hopping.

        Actually, it won't matter because even though we (tech savy, anti-malware consumers) are the vast majority of the marketplace, we are the vast minority of Crapware 180's "customers".

        What power do we really have? A boycott won't work. None of us buy thier "products" anyways. The Malware makers income is all based on being paid by shady or downright illegal companies for advertisments. And all of those companies rely on uninfomred (read: stupid) people seeing those ads and responding to them. It may not be many people, but it's enough to make a profit. (After all, when you're either a) selling snake oil or b) stealing people's money/credit card numbers/identity/whatever, only a few suckers are needed to make a profit).

        So we can't do any economical harm to them through the usual methods. We can't boycott products, or refuse to shop at the advertised merchants. And even if one or two of those merchants get nailed/go bankrupt/whatever, there will be 500 more right behind them, all waiting to get their share of the sucker pie.

        Corporations aren't going to do anything about it, either. None of the "merchants" are their direct competators. Those corps are focusing on "ligitamate" consumers (ie: us). They don't see Crapware 180 as a competator. They may see it as a minor nusicence to their own networks. But keep in mind that there are SEVERAL corporations who's business model depends on the existence of black hat advertisers. (After all, with no spyware infested computers, there's no way to see spyware removal programs/services...).

        So the government can try to step in and blow up Crapware 180, or any of their ilk, but it'll only go so far. Most of those companies have gone to great lengths to (just barely) stay within the letter of the law (or at least, snuggled safely in a nest of loopholes). Any action they can try to take would get tied up for years, if not decades, in the courts. Crapware 180 will make enough money to survive the legal actions. And, in the worst case, they can fold and secretly/illegaly shuffle their money away, only to pop up again as another company.

        Personally, I still think that a user supported massive attack on the spyware companies will do any good. Something like the Make Love Not Spam screensaver from a year or so ago. Either DDoS the servers to hell (of the merchants or the adware provider, whichever), or some form of massive "click fraud" type attack against the merchants to make it too expensive to operate. (No profit = no companies).

  • Only one? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by catahoula10 ( 944094 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @06:40PM (#14543847)
    What about the rest of them.

  • And not always duped... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DaHat ( 247651 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @06:40PM (#14543848)
    The one and only time I've ever had a PC of mine hijacked was because of 180solutions under IE7 and XPSP2 a few months back... I browsed to a site related to them and a moment later I had several new icons next to my clock and plenty of pop up ads saying hello.

    Never before and never since had I ever had this happen... and it did make me a believer that a system could be hijacked without the user doing anything more than navigating to an HTTP url.

    • Re:And not always duped... (Score:2, Troll)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Monday January 23, 2006 @06:48PM (#14543916) Homepage Journal
      Under IE7? The browser's not even out yet, and already there's exploits in the wild?

    • Re:And not always duped... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 23, 2006 @06:50PM (#14543937)
      it did make me a believer that a system could be hijacked without the user doing anything more than navigating to an HTTP url

      That depends heavily on what program you are using to browse to the respective HTTP url. Your problem was not that you are simply "browsing to a url", the specific problem is that you are "using IE to open a url". IE leaves itself wide open to attack for a variety of reasons, I've been browsing almost exclusively with Opera for the last few years (a little Firefox as well), and I haven't had any issues at all (read: not even one). I don't run a virus scanner, my biannual spyware inspections only turn up various cookies, and I haven't had an infection in years. I also browse some pretty disreputable sites with impunity, the difference between me and the average user is that I take specific precautions with my browsing habits (i.e., I don't use IE, on any computer, except to test sites).

      • Re:And not always duped... (Score:3, Informative)

        by spoco2 ( 322835 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @07:22PM (#14544208)
        I don't run a virus scanner

        I'm sorry... but I will laugh if one day your pc is taken down by a virus... Why not run a free one like AVG? It'll make you feel all warm and cosy inside... if just for the fact that it comes up clean in its checks.

        • Re:And not always duped... (Score:2, Informative)

          by legallyillegal ( 889865 ) <legallyillegal&gmail,com> on Monday January 23, 2006 @07:30PM (#14544285) Homepage
          and i'll laugh the day your AVG fails 22% of the time ... which is today [virus.gr]

          and I don't run a realtime scanner either.

        • Re:And not always duped... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Killall -9 Bash ( 622952 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @08:18PM (#14544711)
          Its been a long time since i've used a virus scanner at home, and I'll tell you why:

          1. They can only find known virii. Maybe being 'protected' from tens of thousands of viruses comforts you, but I'm worried about the few no one knows about yet, and AV software provides no protection against those.
          2. They are only partially sucsessfull in removing virii. How many times have you seen "Delete Failed! click here for more info"? I've seen it a few times too many. I SHOULD NEVER EVER SEE THIS MESSAGE! This is a design failure.
          3. AV software is not effective as a means of prevention. Virii come in two flavors-- trojans and worms. Trojan==idiot user clicked on BrittneySpearsNaked.jpg.exe; AV cannot prevent this. Worm==windows security issue; AV cannot prevent this. This is an over-simplification, and may not be 100% technically accurate, but you get the picture.
          4. (sum of points 2 and 3) If AV software can't prevent infection, and if it sometimes can't even remove the infection, what good is it again? Its good for Symantec, its good for Macafee, and its good for IT professionals who get to say "its not my fault, I did everything i could to prevent it" next time a code red happens.

          • Re:And not always duped... (Score:2)

            by TrancePhreak ( 576593 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @09:56PM (#14545362)
            This is an over-simplification, and may not be 100% technically accurate
            I'd say this applies to your entire post, as it's pretty much all wrong.
            1. Most pay for virii scanners (McAffe, Norton) have a technique to detect unknown virri. It's called Bloodhound in Norton.
            2. I know Norton can get this message, but it can also try to delete the file at startup. Or you can go into safe mode and it will delete it.
            3. Norton is quite effective with this problem (trojans). When you try to run the program, Norton will tell you it's infected and give you a choice of what to do.
            4. Since you base your #4 on 2 and 3, you are pretty much wrong here too.

            • Re:And not always duped... (Score:2)

              by Fulcrum of Evil ( 560260 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:50PM (#14545909)

              'd say this applies to your entire post, as it's pretty much all wrong.

              I don't bother with virus scanners - they-re far more trouble than they're worth. Instead, I run behind a NAT router, use Firefox, and avoid questionable content, like elf bowling. I haven't had any issues in rather a long time (hardware related), and I have no intention of changing.

          • Re:And not always duped... (Score:2)

            by Mycroft_VIII ( 572950 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @10:28PM (#14545504) Journal
            ". They can only find known virii. Maybe being 'protected' from tens of thousands of viruses comforts you, but I'm worried about the few no one knows about yet, and AV software provides no protection against those. "

                Actually Anti-Virus programs have had an ever increasing ability to dectect unknown viruses for over a decade.
                I remember an antivirus program from BEFORE win95 came out that did some simple checks for programs behaving like a virus.
                Also your definitions are a bit confused. Viruses don't have to be worms or trojans, and not all worms or trojans are viruses.
                As far as efficacy goes, yeah that varies a bit and is never perfect, but 95% safe is better than .5%.

            Mycroft

          • Re:And not always duped... (Score:3, Informative)

            by sremick ( 91371 ) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @12:20AM (#14546041)
            1) So what? Most people get infected by a very small subset of the huge number of known viruses antivirus software protects you against. It is an elite few who are so exposed that they are bound to get hit first by a new virus in the wild, so new the antivirus vendors haven't added a signature to their databases yet. Sure it happens once in a while, but SO WHAT? Meanwhile there are all these KNOWN ones out there EVERYWHERE that AV software CAN protect you against. It's like saying you won't take vaccines, since the flu vaccine won't protect you against HIV. Why not be protected against the flu anyway? Basically you're saying, "It only can help me 99% of the time, so since that's not 100% I don't even want that 99% of protection so I'll go without."

            2) I don't care if they are only "partially-successful" in salvaging the infected file. Especially since most are irreversibly-damaging anyhow and so there's nothing TO salvage. To me, the REAL success is getting the virus off my computer. If I lose a document or other datafile in the process, it's not the end of the world. At least the virus has been DETECTED, and REMOVED, and is no longer infecting files on my machine and others. How on earth is that a good reason to not run it anyway? Once again, you're denying yourself all the benefits that AV software DOES have since it's not perfect 100% of the time.

            3) First of all, virus != trojan. Secondly, most AV sofware DO detect the common trojans out there in the wild that you're likely to come across. And their on-demand scanning DOES catch those files in exactly the situation you describe. You're just plain wrong on this point. 0% technically accurate.

            4) AV software is good for the same reason we use seatbelts, surge-suppressors, and bullet-proof vests. They add a level of protection that covers a significant scope of what one is bound to experience that it's worth it. A seatbelt won't save you if a semi crashed down on top of you, but usually people just get into rear-enders. A surge-suppressor won't protect you if lightning hits the line 10' from your computer, but usually that's not the case and what you experience are normal surges well within its range of protection. A bullet-proof vest won't protect you against a RPG shot at your head, but they have saved many people from gunshots aimed at the torso which is the majority of what cops come up against, and you'd be hard-pressed to argue with a cop that he shouldn't bother wearing his/hers.

            And finally... "virii" is not a word, and horribly incorrect under all rules of Latin as a plural of "virus". [wikipedia.org]

          • Re:And not always duped... (Score:3, Funny)

            by TallMatthew ( 919136 ) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @06:44AM (#14547292)
            BrittneySpearsNaked.jpg.exe

            Do you know where I can download that? Rad!

    • Re:And not always duped... (Score:3, Informative)

      by springbox ( 853816 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @07:54PM (#14544488)
      The one and only time I've ever had a PC of mine hijacked was because of 180solutions under IE7 and XPSP2 a few months back... I browsed to a site related to them and a moment later I had several new icons next to my clock and plenty of pop up ads saying hello.

      The only reason this is a problem is because of the type of user that these companies are exploiting. You're running IE that doesn't appear to be locked down in any way on an account with administrator privileges. Basically any ActiveX app (most likely) not only has the flexibility to do basically whatever, but nothing is stopping it from tearing apart your system since it's also running with administrator privileges.

      Don't feel too bad though, back in the days of Windows 98 I had some InstallShield app pop up through Internet Explorer and install some intrusive application without any warning.

      Just because Microsoft gives your account admin access by default (WinXP) doesn't mean you can't do anything to protect yourself. You should take some time to lock down your system if you don't want another infection. No more admin level access to your every day account, etc. Unfourtnately, because your type of setup is so common unscrupulous companies will take advantage of it. (See also: SONY)

      • Re:And not always duped... (Score:2)

        by Mycroft_VIII ( 572950 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @10:44PM (#14545575) Journal
        I see a lot of 'don't run windows xp as admin', but has anyone tried to anything usefull with such a setup?
            I'm shure it's possible to some extent, but Everytime I re-install I swear I'm not going to use the admin acount or permisions for day to day use and everytime I wind getting tired of every damn idiot app or game or whatever refusing to install or run elsewise.
            The problem is so many software vendors (especially the snake oil vendors selling 'copy protection') just assume the machine runs admin and code as if THEY own the machine, not the actual owner.
            And XP itself compounds the problems with thier brain damaged design and UI in this area (or at least in my opinion).

        Mycroft

        • Re:And not always duped... (Score:2)

          by springbox ( 853816 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:01PM (#14545647)
          It's possible to do it, and it's easier for me because almost all of my apps are open source projects and they work well with plain users. It takes a bit of work for others, but depends on what you're running really. For a lot of apps you might need to set some crazy permissions but you can eventually get most things working, or try using runas as a last resort.

        • Re:And not always duped... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by afidel ( 530433 ) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @12:14AM (#14546022)
          It's possible but extremely frustrating. All of my users run the majority of their software off our central Citrix servers. They run as unprivlidged users. Whenever we get a new app from some clueless software company we have to educate them in basic security practices and let them know that "Just run it as an administrator" isn't an acceptable solution. Hell I had to pull teeth and call back 3 times and ask for a supervisor before Intuit would even TRY to give me a list of the registry keys that a non-power user would need to run Quickbooks ENTERPRISE 6.0! They finally gave them to me, which I later found out was compiled by a USER of the product and posted to an unofficial support board! The whole culture of Windows software development just sucks. The funny thing to me is NT actually has one of the BEST security mechanisms (policy based fine-grained ACL's) of about any common OS yet it basically goes unused because of lack of care on the part of all the lazy developers.

    • Re:And not always duped... (Score:2)

      by digital bath ( 650895 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @10:56PM (#14545626) Homepage
      I just realized that 180Solutions' office is just down the street from my house. I mapped it on google, at it's a three minute drive. I think I'll go buy some eggs...

  • Stupid adware. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BigZaphod ( 12942 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @06:40PM (#14543854) Homepage
    That stuff is evil. I think we should just submit them to a public stoning or something like that. Not only would it be more fun - they might actually consider not doing it again!

  • They had it coming (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mikeswi ( 658619 ) * on Monday January 23, 2006 @06:42PM (#14543862) Homepage Journal
    For the last two years, 180Solutions has been issuing press releases claiming that they are going to clean up their affiliates. Then an affiliate is caught installing trojans and sneaking onto computers without consent. Then 180Solutions issues a press release .....

    And round and round we go.

    If they spent 1/10 as much time actually controlling their affiliates as they do writing up press releases, maybe something might have been done.

    • Re:They had it coming (Score:2)

      by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @07:16PM (#14544158)
      More like "if they spent 1/10 as much time looking for real jobs as as they do writing up press releases, maybe something might have been done." These are just another group of sociopaths out to profit off the Internet by any means possible. Not much you can do about people that don't even accept that they're doing anything wrong.

  • Advergaming The New Adware? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by biocute ( 936687 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @06:44PM (#14543886)
    What about Advergaming [slashdot.org]?

    If you buy a software, install in your computer and it's showing you ads when you're using the software, it may even retrieve new ads from a remote location, are we supposed to put up with that?

  • Throw them in jail... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Number_5 ( 519448 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @06:44PM (#14543889)
    and massively fine anyone who advtises with them. My mom has called me in tears because she could not use her computer due to popups etc. The only way to end this problem is to fine the advertisers.

  • Hehe, cjb.net (Score:2)

    by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @06:46PM (#14543900) Journal
    Anyone remember those back in the happy early days of circa HTML 3 Internet? :-)

    I recall them once being a rather clean host, and among the first more well-known ones offering free subdomains.

  • 180 will always be right on the edge (Score:5, Insightful)

    by putko ( 753330 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @06:46PM (#14543901) Homepage Journal
    180Solutions is always right on the line. They used to play really dirty, until it was illegal.

    Then they did the arms-length thing: blame the affiliates, but encourage them to break the law.

    I don't see how their behavior is any different from companies that mislead people as to what they are buying or signing (e.g. I'll give you a check for a dollar -- but it is also a contract that switches your long distance service to may carrier).

    Some people are stupid. Our laws assume that people are responsible and that if they sign a contract, that is them willingly singing a contract.

    I suspect the problem is that some people are so stupid that they aren't really responsible, and that is especially the case when it comes to computers running spyware.

  • No more spyware! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BHennessy ( 639799 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @06:46PM (#14543905)
    This will stop spyware dead in its tracks, just like how when the "spam king" got sued all spam ended. ...

  • A dose of their own medicine.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by nixkuroi ( 569546 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @06:58PM (#14543997)
    I think the feds should be granted warrants to enter the 180's employee's homes and build furniture in them. This furniture would be covered with fleas, ticks and head lice and be generally annoying to the person who lived there and there family. They would also be painted in ugly colors and make noises anytime someone entered the home or used another piece of furniture. Additionally, the furniture and appliances would be built in such a way that it would be difficult or impossible to remove from the homes without causing damage.

    Maybe we could send them some Sony DRM cd's too.

  • 180 does a 180 (Score:2)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @07:03PM (#14544047)
    "The company (180Solutions) continued these practices even after it pledged to better itself and after receiving warnings from spyware experts and privacy advocates, the group said."

    But, in typical relapse fashion, 180Solutions lived up to its name and did a full 180 on its pledge to better itself.
    It says it now may check in to an undisclosed rehab center on the coast to help with its spyware addiction.

  • Your spyware stories? Here's mine (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spoco2 ( 322835 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @07:09PM (#14544100)
    Ok... I don't really get spyware on my pcs... neither my wife or I go to porn sites (ok... in my youth I did... :/ ), I've made firefox the default browser on all my pcs, we have AVG free virus protection [grisoft.com], Sygate Personal firewall... although, bugger... I just noticed they've discontinued that... will have to switch to ZoneAlarm [download.com] now I suppose... humph. And we run Ad-Aware [download.com]
      and SpyBot Search and Destroy [download.com] every now and again...

    But just recently I've had to clean my father-in-law's pc, and a friends one too.

    Now the father-in-law's one was pretty bad, popups would launch with IE, and there was a lot of CPU activity etc. that was not accounted for... nasty stuff... but a clean with Adaware, Spybot, using Add/Remove to kill anything that looked suspect, putting firefox on etc. and we have a clean computer.

    The other computer though... my GOD! On startup it would immediately go to 100% CPU usage... and once you could finally get Task Manager up it was iexplore.exe that was doing the damage... a few minutes later when it'd actually respond to a kill process and the work of cleaning it could finally take place... well... hours later and using all tools I think it's clean now... but it required all of them to get it all... with HiJack This [download.com] being the final saviour to remove the last of the damage...

    And what were the biggest damage makers? The damn programs that these people downloaded that claimed they were 'Spyware cleaners'... but really were spyware themselves.

    EVIL

    FUCKERS

    they prey on people who already have pcs loaded up with spyware... and put more on.

    Of course the second of the two pcs was infected so damn badly (Spybot found over 3 thousand items) due to porn surfing... almost always the cause of these things.

    I don't know how the makers of these programs live with themselves... there's nothing redeeming about what they do... AT ALL.

    • Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine (Score:2)

      by techno-vampire ( 666512 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @07:43PM (#14544390) Homepage
      Here's another one you need: Spyware Blaster. [javacoolsoftware.com] It's so good that if Spybot Search and Distroy detects it, it tells you that some of Spyware Blaster's protections are better than its own.

    • Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine (Score:2)

      by springbox ( 853816 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @08:04PM (#14544590)
      Nice. I noticed that Symantec acquired Sygate and are (surprise!) not giving away their excellent firewall anymore. Sygate Personal Firewall is IMO the best free Windows firewall available. Don't use Zone Alarm. It's extremely icky. Download SPF from here [oldversion.com]. It should last you for a while.

    • Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rjhoffmann ( 922675 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @08:29PM (#14544794)
      Preface: I work for a Small-ish computer company in Wisconsin. Adware/Spyware/Malware (etc.. The list goes on.) Has become more of an epidemic than anything. We get roughly 20 pc's in a week to repair. Some are your run of the mill hardware failure, but most (90%) are coming in with the customer complaining that the system is just "running slow" Needless to say, I've seen everything. 180 to vx2 variants, rootkits, and rouge removal products. PC's so loaded down that the only means of repairing is an FnR. What's worse is the adware is bringing up links that claim "Your machine is infected with spyware, click here to remove". So the customer pays money to download a dodgy program that does nothing but infect their machine further. The worst part is that these programs take so long to remove that hourly labor goes thru the roof, (thus making it more cost effective to Format and Reload) In all, I know I'm just kicking the dead horse here, I'd honestly like to see companies like 180 get the feds to actually do something about it.. Probability, nil.. but its worth hope.

    • Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine (Score:2)

      by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @09:16PM (#14545132) Homepage Journal
      So you have to run 4 third party programs to keep your system free of spyware. And you don't have a problem with that?

      Back in the days when I was doing OS/2 tech support, there was a good bit of concern at IBM that users didn't want to have to do a software shut down before powering their machines off. The thinking was that although system administrators on "real" operating systems accepted this as necessary, it would be a change that home users would not be willing to accept. A couple years later Microsoft introduced this in Windows 95 and users accepted it without comment.

      I often wonder if any other company besides Microsoft told its customers that you'd have to use several third party programs to keep their software even remotely safe, would the users accept that? Probably not, and yet Microsoft has somehow managed to lock users into this little mental box where having to do that is normal and acceptable. But suggest to them that they switch to Apple or Lindows and you get "Oh but it won't run my software." Which usually conists of a Windows 3.1 copy of photoshop pirated in 1993. And of course all that anti-spyware software they've invested in.

      And yes, I know that running Linux or OSX won't keep you safe if you download binaries off the web and run them in your user account. I'd still have an OS that's reasonably secure in spite of poor user security practises than have an OS that's ridiculously insecure on top of poor user security practises.

    • Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine (Score:2)

      by krunk4ever ( 856261 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @09:27PM (#14545198) Homepage
      I don't know how the makers of these programs live with themselves... there's nothing redeeming about what they do... AT ALL.
      maybe they don't need to think about it when they're rolling around in their money.

    • Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine (Score:3, Insightful)

      by lucas teh geek ( 714343 ) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @12:01AM (#14545964)
      i used to do heaps of porn surfing (before i got a girlfriend) and i never got any adware.
      i think the sentance you were looking for is "Of course the second of the two pcs was infected so damn badly (Spybot found over 3 thousand items) due to porn surfing with IE"

  • A modest proposal (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TomGrantAtXythos ( 898055 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @07:20PM (#14544192)
    [Note: For the thuddingly literal out there, I am not actually advocating that anyone do this.]

    Go into the homes of the 180solutions executives. Rewire all their consumer electronics, from their refrigerators to their Tivo boxes. Make it very difficult to figure out what has been changed, or how to change it back. Leave a note behind saying, "We saw how you were using your home electronics and thought we could help!"

    Seriously, I see no difference between this scenario and what adware/spyware companies do with your PC. Even the EULA on adware-loaded software doesn't make it clear what's going to happen once this stuff gets unleashed on your hard drive.

  • RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)

    by qualico ( 731143 ) <worldcouchsurfer@@@gmail...com> on Monday January 23, 2006 @07:21PM (#14544200) Journal
    Sure wish we could pit RIAA against 180.

    Why is it that we can have organizations like the RIAA to protect industry interests, yet there is no one to protect the interests of consumers?

    • Re:RIAA (Score:2, Insightful)

      by TechForensics ( 944258 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @07:41PM (#14544367) Homepage Journal
      We do have one. Or actually, fifty or so. Each state (and probably D.C.) has an Attorney General with powers to sue to stop public scams or nuisances. Usually there is a consumer protection division. People have to start bugging their A.G. It takes a lot of complaints about any particular abuse to get things moving, so go ahead.. and spread the word. CC your letter to your state and federal congresspersons. Larger volume of mail equals better chance you'll be heard.

    • Re:RIAA (Score:2, Insightful)

      by c0d3h4x0r ( 604141 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @08:43PM (#14544878) Homepage Journal

      Why is it that we can have organizations like the RIAA to protect industry interests, yet there is no one to protect the interests of consumers?



      Because consumers aren't the ones who have all the money.

      Well, that's not entirely true. After all, corporations only get rich because consumers buy their shit. As a group, consumers actually have all the money.

      The problem is that consumers are a bottom-up bunch, so trying to convince them all to support a single agenda and allocate money toward it is nearly impossible. Even if you can get a bunch of consumers to agree on the same agenda, you can't easily and effeciently pool all their funds together toward pushing that agenda. Consumers are armed with frustration, consumer rights groups (such as the EFF) are starved for funding, and even if someone at the top sets an agenda, they don't have the resources to make it happen.

      Corporations, on the other hand, are a top-down bunch, so a single CEO (or small group, aka the board) sets an agenda, and they can immediately throw the tons of money they've previously collected toward making it happen. They are armed with money, they make a decision, they make it happen.

      You can bet that if consumers adequately funded an organization like the EFF, such that the EFF was financially armed better than the RIAA or MPAA, you'd start seeing things change in real ways. But you can also bet that will never happen as long as corporations offer mass-desirable tangible goods for sale while consumer-rights groups only offer intangible services or mass-undesirable tangibles such as T-shirts with their logos on them.

  • My guess for their next move (Score:2)

    by dthree ( 458263 ) <chaoslite.hotmail@com> on Monday January 23, 2006 @07:30PM (#14544284) Homepage
    180 could do like Claria/Gator and sue everyone calling it spyware/adware. Then make back-door deals with the anti-spyware software developers to take them off the threat list. Sue, those who don't comply. Case dismissed!

  • They're not the only evil ones... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by js9kv ( 690351 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @07:32PM (#14544296) Journal
    180solutions are scumbags, true.

    What about 2o7.net? These bottom-feeders have been using a domain name that looks like an IP address for ages - and there's no legitimate reason for it, other than to confuse those who can't tell zero's from O's in their firewall reports. Even their hosts appear with stuff like 192.168.1.2o7.net.

    Most folks out there would miss that in a firewall report if they didn't read it closely and wonder why an IP address appeared in the resolved names column.

    What ever happened to the Internet Death Penalty? Boy, do we need it now!

  • It looks like their luck... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Blazeix ( 924805 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @08:09PM (#14544632) Homepage Journal
    ...is about to turn 180 degrees.

  • 180 solutions spyware news (Score:4, Informative)

    by mcguyver ( 589810 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @09:11PM (#14545093) Homepage
    For details on 180 solutions tricks go to http://www.benedelman.org [benedelman.org]. It has screenshots of 180 solutions in action [benedelman.org]...pretty detailed and interesting to read. I'm especially amused by this recent bit of jousting [benedelman.org] going on between 180 solutions and Ben Edelman. Here Ben accuses 180 solutions of targetting kids [benedelman.org] as well as being deceptive. 180 solutions responded [zdnet.com] and here [benedelman.org] are Ben's latest additions to the arguments. This is a great (and sad) example of how people choose to define the law when it's not explicitly defined.

  • Death to the Scum Suckers that make Spyware (Score:3, Interesting)

    by venuspcs ( 946177 ) * on Monday January 23, 2006 @09:32PM (#14545229)
    Okay a couple things I want to say:

    1.) 180 Solutions has now resorted to FLAT OUT HACKING to get their shit on your computer. I use Firefox 99% of the time. Today, while reading Slashdot (in Firefox) my computer mysteriously rebooted. When it came back up (for a few minutes) I noticed that I now had 180 solutions crap all over my fracking computer. Attempts to clean it caused my computer to reboot again and again and again. I wound up having to do a System Restore to a few hours earlier. These FUCKERS WILL PAY!

    2.) While I am a big fan of ALTERNATE Operating Systems, having the GENERAL PUBLIC switch to them would not solve the problem, for long. The reason Linux, Unix and MacOS don't have this problem is because there isn't a big enough user base to make figuring out how to infect these systems PROFITABLE. If you had a massive move of people to these OS's then they Spyware people would just move too.

    3.) Someone asked why there is an RIAA to protect CORPORATE INTERESTS but nothing to protect CONSUMER INTERESTS. Well there are several reasons: 1.) They have BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, 2.) They work together (probably the most important) to form these groups like the RIAA, 3.) We (the voters) keep electing these low-life son-of-a-bitches that PROTECT CORPORATE AMERICA while SCREWING CONSUMERS and 4.) American's (the consumers) have become complacent and won't TAKE A STAND against CORPORATE AMERICA to PROTECT OUR RIGHTS.

    If people would spend half as much time BITCHING ONLINE (Like I am doing right now) and more time FORMING A GROUP then we might have enough power to CHANGE THINGS.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Richard Colbert
    Web: http://www.venuspcservice.com/ [venuspcservice.com]
    ICQ: 14466429
    YIM: cmptrgeeknshermantx
    MSN: pcheaven2k at hotmail dot com

  • What makes you think the feds care? (Score:2)

    by SleepyHappyDoc ( 813919 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @09:34PM (#14545239)
    I don't think the government has any interest in protecting our privacy. They pay lip service at press conferences, but nothing seems to change. An example, for all the Canadians voting in the federal election today...if you received one of those cards in the mail that says you are registered to vote, that means your name and address, along with other personal information, is on the federal voters list. This list isn't just for the government...it's distributed to each candidate for each party running in that election. That's right, your name, your address, and your personal information is in the hands of the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, and even the Marijuana Party if you've filed a Canadian tax return in the past 10 years or so and didn't check the tiny little box excluding the CCRA from sharing your information. Once it's in the hands of the public, it can go anywhere (be stolen from the campaign office, or even sold to help finance the campaign). There are laws against the redistribution of this information, but the laws in place are essentially unenforceable, and punishing an offender after the damage has been done does nothing to protect our privacy. So you'll pardon me if I have little faith in the governments interest in protecting us.

  • CJB.net wtf happened!? (Score:2)

    by SteveXE ( 641833 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @09:51PM (#14545339)
    I remember back in the days when AOL was cool and we all...well most of us used punters and all that crap CJB.net was a godsend. It was the difference between

    www.angelfire.com/moonbeam/wtf/12672/usa/east/omfg /some/one/shorten/this/url/index.htm
    and
    whatever.cjb.net (redirect)

    I guess when times got tough they went down the wrong road instead of finding ways to add value to their service. Its too bad because this is an excellent example of a do good company that went the wrong way, hopefully Google never has to do the same...if they havent already.

  • 180solutions ranked 7 in Inc. Magazine (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GT_Alias ( 551463 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @10:31PM (#14545522)
    I thought this was a pretty amusing article:

    Search Marketing Company 180solutions Ranks Seventh On the 2005 Inc. 500 [180solutions.com] (press release on 180solutions.com web site)

    Either Inc. didn't do their research on companies in their top 10, or they truly don't care how the money is made, only that it is made.

  • My 180 Solution (Score:2)

    by Ranger ( 1783 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:27PM (#14545777) Homepage
    String 'em up by the balls. Then they'll be 180.

Slashdot Top Deals

One small step for man, one giant stumble for mankind.

Close