iDownload Tries to Silence Spyware Critics

Doug Muth writes "According to this article over on DSL Reports, yet another spyware author, iDownload, has been sending out cease and desist letters to sites that classify their iSearch toolbar as Spyware. Some research reveals that yes, iSearch really does take over users' computers. A search on Spyware Guide also turns up a writeup on iSearch."

Packets

[BoldAC (735721)]

What?

I have seen packets of it sending the current URL to questionable websites... especially right before it pops up a window.

Spyware, no doubt.

Re:Packets

[ackthpt (218170)]

I have seen packets of it sending the current URL to questionable websites... especially right before it pops up a window.

Spyware, no doubt.

So today's lesson is: Weasels will turn to the courts to shut up those who would warn the public

funny thing is, it's the same lesson we've been presented before [216.239.57.104].

Doesn't matter

[akac (571059)]

A cease and desist letter doesn't mean much if you're in the right. Anyone can send one. Anyone can sue. Its just being a blowhard.

If it gets into the court system and doesn't get outright dismissed, then its a problem.

Re:Doesn't matter

[lukewarmfusion (726141)]

If it did get into the court system, the court may end up legally defining spyware. Think of it in terms of libel, slander, defamation, etc. If you call the software spyware, it can damage their business and reputation. You could be held liable for their losses, even. But that would require that the claim was false. To prove it was false, the court would have to officially declare their software one way or another.

Gator became Claria, as I recall, right around the time they started using these tactics. I wonder if someone can find an update on the outcome of their C&D orders. My guess is there wasn't any - it was just hot air.

Re:Doesn't matter

[twiddlingbits (707452)]

Some states have passed laws that contain a legal defintion of spyware. I also think there is a bill in Congress that bans spyware as well (I hope it is a better bill than the CANN-SPAM law). To prove libel or slander there has to be an element of "intent". If there was no intent to harm thier business they can't win. It's your right as a user to ban whatever software you want, spyware tools just tell you about the supposedly "bad" software. You actually have to take an action and agree that it is "bad" and then delete it. Therefore the USER made the decision NOT the Spyware package. The spyware only provides you with information. This one will never make it to court, it's just a tactic to try to prop up a lost cause.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Kashif Shaikh (575991)]

Which is why Anti-Spyware software have to rename themselves, or put something in bold letters when something found isn't spy-based software. Something desclaimer like:

WARNING: 'ChangeYourToolBar.exe' isn't spyware. It is a program that changes your toolbar with its own custom version, without asking your permission. If you think this is an illegitimate program, please click on the check box to delete.

Now this removes the burden-of-proof from anti-spyware programs, and lets the user decide whether he should keep it or not based on the description.

Kashif

Does too matter

[fm6 (162816)]

A cease and desist letter doesn't mean much if you're in the right.

Every time we talk about lawsuits and C&D letters, somebody trots out this naive civics-class bullshit. It's not a matter of being in the right. It's a matter of proving you're in the right. There isn't some magically Equity Fairy who makes bad lawsuits go away. At the very least, you have to show up in court to argue that the lawsuit is bullshit. And then there's always a chance that the initial decision will be, "Well, it might be bullshit, but I need more evidence before I can decide."

Plus there's always the chance that iDownload has discovered some obscure bit of legislation or precedent that gives them the upper hand legally. You think the people who write laws and court decisions always have the same view of "fair" as you do?

New Yorker cartoon, showing lawyer talking to client. "Sir, you have a very good case. But before we can proceed, we have to settle one small issue: exactly how much justice can you afford?"

If this outrages you, well, it should. Best way to express this is by contributing to any anti-spyware defenese funds that get organized.

Not Spyware?

[dbleoslow (650429)]

from TFA, Not only can't the products be called "Spyware", they can't be called "Foistware" or "Malware" either.

I deem thee, "Assware"

Yea definitly spyware....

[LnxAddct (679316)]

iDownload's [idownload.com] front page claims that they are spyware free. To put things in perpective, spyware is like farting, the first person to deny it usually did it. If you read further down their list, it says "Certified Virus Free". Have you ever seen software have to claim its virus free? And where exactly do you get this certification, and who certifies it? I want to see the certificate. Its their software dammit, of course its virus free (assuming they were a legit company), just like all commercial software from respectable companies should be.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Yea definitly spyware....

[Phosphor3k (542747)]

They also clam that their antivirus software (part of their suite) is ICSA certified. Funny, I don't see their product on ICSA's certification list [icsalabs.com]

You should report that to ICSA

[Sycraft-fu (314770)]

They may decide to go after iDownload for it.

No need for alarm

[delta_avi_delta (813412)]

Contradicting the article's claim that the industry isn't standing up to these guys, it's nice to see that CastleCops have themselves retained council, and their rebuttal http://castlecops.com/article-5765-nested-0-0.html [castlecops.com] doesn't pull any punches.

Could happen to you...

[clinko (232501)]

It's all how you look at it. They believe they provide a service (although inferior, and with more ads), it is a service.

Eventually this is going to happen to legit companies. I make a taskbar icon program [clinko.com]. I'll admit it's pretty shitty because it's beta. Also, You see more ads because of using it than not using it... (It links to pages with ads on them.)

Is it spyware/Adware because I want to pay for a work in progress?

Re:Could happen to you...

[jest3r (458429)]

The EULA states:

The software may conveniently without your input or interaction install Third Party Software on your computer ...

There is really only one way to look at that ...
http://toolbar.isearch.com/terms.html

Hey, you know something?

[Faust7 (314817)]

I really hope Microsoft, having recently released that beta of AntiSpyware, gets one of these letters.

iDownload won't even know what hit them.

Re:Hey, you know something?

[Tim C (15259)]

Yeah, MS only cares about it's profit margins - big deal, it can join the club of almost every other company in the world.

But its profit margins are going to start being hit if using Windows becomes too unpleasant an experience, and malware is threatening just that for the average user. Hence the interest in spam prevention/filtering, firewalls, anti-virus, and anti-spyware software.

From the link

[techstar25 (556988)]

iSearch claims it "displays links to and advertisements of related websites based on the information you view and the websites you visit; store non-personally identifiable statistics of the websites you have visited;"

If that isn't spyware, I don't what is. In fact, isn't that the definition of "spyware"?

They also claim to "conveniently without your input or interaction; install software from iSearch affiliates; and install Third Party Software".

That's scary stuff!

iCrap

[fafaforza (248976)]

Maybe Apple should send them a cease and decist letter for shamelessly copying the i{whatever} naming scheme.

CEASE AND DESIST

[blurryrunner (524305)]

Dear Sir or Madam:

This firm represents iDownload.com with respect to your inaccurate classification of iDownload's software product, Search toolbar, by referring to it as Spyware in its description. Specifically, a recent review of materials disseminated by your company, via the Internet, revealed that your company is falsely disparaging iDownload's product, Search, in that Castle Cops f/k/a Computer Cops, L.L.C. classifies the product as Spyware and articulates that,

* iSearch is certified spyware/foistware, or other malware.

Castle Cops f/k/a Computer Cops, L.L.C.'s characterization of iSearch as Spyware is damaging to the iDownload brand. As we all know, Spyware is a phrase within the public conscience that has a specific meaning. A classification of Spyware is usually reserved for those programs that not only have the ability to scan an end- user's computer, but also seek to remain unnoticed or hidden, and also seek to gather personal information such as passwords, account numbers, etc. of the end-user. iSearch does not fit this profile.

iSearch does not qualify as Spyware. iSearch is a toolbar that in no way attempts to remain hidden or evade detection. Continuing, unlike Spyware, iSearch does not gather any personally identifiable information about end users, does not collect data about the user's web usage, does not collect any information entered into web forms, does not share information with third parties, does not send or cause to be sent unsolicted e-mail, and does not install items such as dialers on the end user's computer. Rather, Search will molest your children, burn down your home, and make your PC act like an Apple II. In Soviet Russia, Search searches you.

We would request that you correct your disseminated materials immediately to remove any reference to iSearch as Spyware, Foistware, or Malware. To the extent you fail to remedy your improper disparagement of the iDownload brand on or before February 15, 2005, we will neuter an EA programmer on the hour, every hour. Should you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please feel free to contact me.

Best Regards,

Mark D. Hopkins

Does iDownload need a problem? I'll give them one.

[Mr.Fork (633378)]

As a Federal Government IT Manager, I have a problem with software that sits on a machine and collects information. Any application that can track a government employee's use of a workstation falls into the espionage law areas.

It would be interesting that as a Federal Agency, we deemed these programs malicious software, and seek Federal action against the companies who make these applications with a C&D of our own. Spyware constitutes spying. Without clear permission from the user, we shoud be fighting these companies on our own front.

Stay tuned. :)

Re:What?

[rewt66 (738525)]

Who needs a crime?

I can sue you for wasting the planet's oxygen. (You're breathing, right?) The court will throw the suit out immediately, but I can file it. This also forces you to defend it, which means hire a lawyer, spend money, etc. It's a form of bullying.

So what it really comes down to is, these slimeballs are saying, "If you call our stuff spyware, we're going to harass you, make your life difficult, and cost you a bunch of money". It's a form of bullying.

Welcome to the United States, home of the "free" (how come we aren't free from this kind of nonsense?)

Re:Just let us know

[Taladar (717494)]

We could answer by sending "Cease to exist"-HTTP-Requests to their Webserver.

Re:How to make them stop quacking?

[fdrebin (846000)]

2 barrels of #8 shot. Repeat as necessary.

Re:In other news...

[danheskett (178529)]

Crooked, deceptive or not... Would you want your software uninstalled by other software that claimed yours was "Bad"?
I write software for a living, and sell it for a living, and support it, etc.

I am not the least bit worried about other people's software uninstalling mine.

Why?

Because, it's ultimately the end-users decision. The owner or owners of a PC get to decide what to do with it. Would I be pissed if a competitor was targetting my stuff and auto-breaking/disabling it? Yes. Are there legal remedies available to me? You bet.

I am I pissed if an end-user decides to install some software that decides my software is bad? NO, not at all. Why is it bad? For disk space reasons, performance, or some bogus false-flag? What can I do to make my software better, that's what I am interested in.

Citizens have final total dominion over their private property, and that's how it should be. If someone wants to install something that breaks one of "my" products, well then, too bad for me.

Re:The Law of Uninteded Consequences

[geoffspear (692508)]

Is it at all possible that iDownload could use the DMCA to sue people who make software to remove their spyware?

No. There's no copyright issue whatsoever.

They might be able to argue that the spyware removal software is interfering with contracts between them and their users (as I believe some actually have tried to argue), but good luck convincing a court. At best, they could try to sue the people who installed their spyware, agreed to their ridiculous EULA, and then broke the EULA by removing it. I imagine the first person sued under those pretenses would just need to get a single Windows users on the jury, countersue for 1 billion dollars, and seize all of the spyware company's assets.