Real Networks And More Privacy Concerns 146
Arrogant-Bastard writes: "Lauren Weinstein's Privacy Forum Digest V09 #15 reports
that RealNetworks' "Download Demon" forwards the details
of any download (i.e. URLs, filenames) to RealNetworks.
See The Digest
for details. " Now, granted, this time the program, if you read the fine print, says that it will do this - but c'mon people - how many bone-headed moves do you have to make?
Big Brother? Who's He? (Score:2)
For example, my bank would be able to tell me that at the start of this month, I went away for a weekend to London by car, while I was there I travelled mainly by Tube, I visited Kingston and Wimbledon, and that I probably stayed with a friend. That's quite a lot of information to be derived from a few transactions on my debit card- but it's perfectly possible to infer this from just a small amount of information.
My cellphone company could tell me I have family in Scarborough despite the fact they've not got their address.
... and so on. Fact is, it's very very easy to track someone through their real life. As far as I understand it, why should life on the Net be any different? I accept that anonymity is nigh-on impossible in real life, so why should I expect more on-line? Cookies can be used to track where users go on the net, and indeed are. Why should I care? I accept the fact that I have no / very little privacy and live with it.
This may seem very scary to some of you, but why? Unless you've got something to hide, why do you need your privacy? I don't think you do. I know I certainly don't.
--
Re:Download Demon, NOT RealPlayer (Score:1)
What 'other downloads' does this include? I'm tired of hearing about how Real 'respects my privacy' but still does stuff like this. The privacy group they belong to shouuld revoke their membership and shoot them.
At this point, I'm gonna flush real altogether and go pick up the real plugin [winamp.com] from winamp.
Re:DoubleClick! (Score:2)
it has become clear that the terms of the license agreement should be compared in the same way as price when making an informed buying decision.
Great insight!
Many programs are available for download for free (as in free beer), but there is still a cost. People are not charging money for the product, but that does not mean that they are not making a profit from your use of the product.
Free email accounts on the web, free dialup accounts, free streaming media software... You don't pay any money for these products and services, but what do you give up in exchange?
Often you are asked for information such as an email address, and other contact information. If they are particularaly cheeky they might ask you for your age and education/occupation and annual salary.
The software might be free, but if the EULA includes a statemant like Each use of our product constitutes agreement to pay a $1 fee billed to you through your ISP after stripping your IP. coupled with the now standard statement at the end Any part of this EULA may be changed without notice then there is a cost, but it is in a place where we traditionally do not look for a cost.
The price or cost of using a piece of software is agreeing to the terms and conditions of the EULA. We are used to the others not knowing what is happening on our computers. However, with dedicated connections to the internet and software that reports back to the owner about what is happening on your computer, we are no longer able to disregard the EULA with by thinking "what they don't know won't hurt me".
Several others have made the comparisson to a trojan horse. What I am waiting to see is what will be the first piece of software to report back to it's owner about other software on your computer. When will a program relate all of your keystrokes back to the owner while the program is running? All the software on our computer? The contents of the files?
Many people (probably not on
Is it ok (legaly or ethically) for software to do anything it wants to simply because you agreed to let it in some obscutre clause of non-standard licensing agreement?
For now I don't see any solution other than to read the EULA very carefully before using the software. As LaNMaN2000 [slashdot.org] said in the above post, the EULA thould be looked at like a price tag. Know all of the hidden costs of a product before you agree to use it, as enforcement of these terms is becoming easier and easier for the owners.
And as one last piece of advice for those creating software that they want people to use: Use of a standardized EULA will greatly increase the ease and comfort of agreeing to your license. When I see that the EULA says GPL, I know in three letters what that license entails. Create a license that is basic enough that you can use it on all of your products with minimal additions. (doesn't have to be the GPL, but stick to a standard) If I see that the EULA for a piece of "ripicheep Corp" software is their standard license with the addition of the following terms, then once I know what that standard license is, I don't have to search through the fine print to determine if I am willing to agree to the EULA.
Re:ZoneAlarm caught them (Score:1)
- I too am a big fan of ZoneAlarm and recommend it to any home users with a 24/7 connection.
- Have you noticed that ZA often warns of traffic on weird ports when you visit SlashDot?
- I really wish ZA would have a better log and better help related to what to do if you are being scanned/pinged/etc.
- Does anyone know if this Netzip Download Demon will still download files if you set ZA to disallow it from acting as a server, but still let it access the Internet as a client. (One of the better features of ZA is the ability to allow programs to run as clients OR servers OR both)
Re:Alternatives? (Score:1)
I'm sure it was just a slip on your part, but how does Windows figure into this picture. Is there some magical operating system you know of that will prevent programs from making socket connections you don't already know about? Yes, I guess you would say, a firewall, but in this case it was the firewall sending the message, what OS would have prevented this?
I'm sure the programmers over at Real Networks told their bosses about the backlash they would shortly be receiving if they went ahead with this feature. They did anyway, I'm sure they will offer some bizzaro explanation for the "feature" and take it out once they have been Slashdotted. But this isn't a Windows issue and neither was your firewall.New Product (Score:1)
1) By using this software, you give EvilCorp permission to send a copy of this software to all of your Outlook Express contacts.
2) By allowing EvilCorp to distribute its software in the aforementioned manner, you are indicating your willingness to be responsible for all incidental costs (including bandwidth/storage/etc.) that result from this distribution.
3) Any damage caused to files on your computer as a result of using our software is not the responsibility of EvilCorp.
4) ILOVEYOU!
What do you think?
WWLD (Score:1)
And Thank You
Re:Big Brother? Who's He? (Score:1)
It's Worse Than That (Score:1)
Seth Finkelstein winds up by asking how many people will read through the mountains of fine print.
If I understand the article correctly, Download Demon is bundled with some other Real programs and sets itself up automatically. So some people did not ask for the Download Demon, might not even know it's on their system, and so would never have thought to read its Privacy Statement.
Re:Arrghhh! (Score:1)
Now this takes the cake.. (Score:1)
WARNING: By installing this software, Real reserves the right to record your name, address, kids social security numbers, and what you had for dinner last night by giving you this free software. If you don't want us to know that you beat your wife, please cancel this installation right now!
--cyphergirl
Annoying... (Score:1)
Spent 15 minutes to disable all that stuff, all reporting back to real networks, special offers and everything.
Not a real incentive to installing the software.. but then again, normal "luzers" won't care about that stuff and will be happily spammed.
Still, I'm a bit pissed off at this attitude. It's almost as bad as our favourite pun-target, with their "oh, and if you buy our word processor, we'll also slip under your nose a few (sometimes not-entirely-compatible) fixes to your OS".
It's a question of ethics (Score:2)
My feeling is that if your product is going to act in ways that you know are distasteful to many potential users you are ethically obligated to point that out in a clear and obvious manner. Saying it in the small-print legalese may satisfy legal requirements but doesn't satisfy ethical ones, IMHO.
And as I understand it, the product in question is installed in the process of installing other products, so the user may not even know that there is a potential issue to consider. That puts using a nonobvious warning even further outside the pale, ethically speaking.
Re:Download Demon, NOT RealPlayer (Score:3)
Well, since you've asked, yes.
(1) WMP works better than the RealPlayer -- it crashes less often (note: "less often", not "rarely") and AFAIK supports more formats. Besides, I don't really watch anything in RealAudio/Video anyway.
(2) RealNetworks has a very consistent pattern of trying to spy on its users -- much more so than Microsoft.
(3) Given a choice between dealing with a big lumbering dinosaur (e.g. stegosaurus) and a smaller more aggressive one (e.g. velociraptor), I'll take the big one any time.
Kaa
More pabulum to them (Score:1)
And without the Big Brother spectre that operates against anyone caught up in political struggles, the very practical reason we need to keep worrying about it today is that this data is being gathered for all time. When I need to buy a new car, I don't want the salesman to have access to piles of information about me and my tastes because that information can be used to extract a higher price from me. A fundamental assumption of free-market economic theory is that both parties to a transaction have equal information. If one side has been spying, the benefits of free-market trading are lost.
Re:Download Demon, NOT RealPlayer (Score:1)
Re:What are their motives? (Score:2)
How am I supposed to hallucinate with all these swirling colors distracting me?
Re:Now this takes the cake.. (Score:1)
They can see what i've had for dinner... right after i've put my finger down my throat and throw up all over their friggin software. I've given up on realplayer anyway, can't get it to run without crashing.
fine print... (Score:1)
ugh...
why don't they publicize that fact as one of the "features" of real player..
Re:easy solution: (Score:1)
Alternatives? (Score:2)
This is typical (Score:1)
+----------------------------------------------
what about the Online Privacy Alliance? (Score:1)
Real is obviously not getting a clue so what about sending feedback to the Online Privacy Alliance that they are so proudly associated with? I checked them out and they seem to be an inflated multi-committee PR move to self police privacy issues but if they start to get gripes about a member maybe they can do something. Interestingly they have no obvious e-mail contacts but after digging I found that you can e-mail Christine about OPA questions at the webmaster address (webmaster@privacyalliance.org)
"Christine,I am a little unclear about the function of your alliance. It sounds like you have created a self regulating body that can do whatever it wants with personal information as long as it is somehow disclosed in the privacy policy. My concern is the situation with Real Networks. They are still farming user information in what I consider to be rather insidious. They had problems with their Real Jukebox product and apparently fixed it but now their appropriately named "demon" program sends information (file names and URLs) of any program I download to realnetworks/netzip. This is unacceptable. I don't care if this is being used anonymously for marketing or if they are creating a personal profile to figure out how my children are going to look. I don't like it! As a member of your alliance you are responsible for their actions because they are touting membership to comfort concerned consumers (ME). It's not helping and is only serving to make me question the validity of your organization. I hope you are able to do something about this issue.
Sincerely
ANONYMOUS
P.S. You would think that an organization with "seek input and support for Alliance initiatives from consumer, business, academic, advocacy and other organizations that share its commitment to privacy protection." in it's mission statement would consider having a couple of e-mail contacts on the site."
Dop Christine a line: webmaster@privacyalliance.org
Re:Online Privacy Policies (Score:1)
If your members persist in hiding and publicly denying the invasiveness of their Internet tracking measures, they deserve to be shut down by the heavy hand of government. Today they abuse the trust of the public with breathtaking arrogance.
What about the new Yahoo Media Player? (Score:2)
Re:Windows Media Player 7.0 doesn't... (Score:1)
Re:It really should be illegal... (Score:2)
On a side note such scripts would be useful for congressional bills as well.
Stuart Eichert
RealNetworks (Score:2)
I think I'll now classify RealNetworks as a "don't let a packet come withing three hops of them" company. I am fairly sure I don't have anything of theirs installed, but I'll check just in case.
Kaa
Once a spammer, always a spammer... (Score:2)
RBL listings, plural, did not get these people to fix their problems.
My response? I donated a computer to http://www.free-expression.org/, and got my employer to donate them a license for another OS they might be able to target.
Give it a look, and if it seems interesting, get involved. If we replace RealAudio, RealNetworks will die quietly, which is pretty much the best they deserve.
I remember when.... (Score:1)
But now they seem to be playing the same game as other grown-up corporates. It's a shame, but I guess this is what happens when a young company grows up. Here's hoping the same never happens to Andover or Slashdot!
This is stupid But its just gonna backfire (Score:1)
IP# FILENAME CONNECTION DATE
x.x.x.x GROUPSEX.JPG 56k SomeDate
How useful is that?
What Else to Use to Play RealMedia?? (Score:1)
I'd love to. But what else can play RealAudio/RealVideo files? Are there any other good players out there for Linux or Windows that can play RealAudio or RealVideo?
RealPlayer keeps bugging me to "register" it. Lately, it's been asking me to download (from within RealPlayer) an "update" for the player, as well. If I do that, it's sure to give away some personal information, like the names of files I've been playing in it, my email address, and other stuff (if it hasn't already...).
Re:Windows Media Player 7.0 doesn't... (Score:1)
Re:Netzip privacy statement is *long* reading (Score:1)
An answer (Score:2)
Exactly one. You know, this community seems a little lax on actual integrity for being so chock full of zealots. That's fine if you don't really follow the party line; respectable even, but I see so many people who don't practice what they preach. I suppose that's fair, as that there are so many different agendas here (I like free software, but I'm not of the RMS be-all-end-all persuasion).
But what really gets me is how short most people's attention span is. DVD's are evil! Lucasfilm is evil because they won't release Star Wars on DVD! Double fricking standards here. Half the people I know who bought DeCSS t-shirts also went out and bought new DVDs the same day. Now, I can't be the only person here who honestly believes in some of this crap. I know there's more out there.
My point? Real Networks fucked up a LONG time ago. I haven't touched one of their products since, and I don't plan on it. So they're at it again, I'm not surprised in the least. Yeah, they "fixed" the problem the first time around, but the whole point of a general boycott is to protect the people who are too stupid to protect themselves. If they start making this known from the get-go, (ie, the first thing you see during the install, and you can opt out) then the problem will be gone. There shouldn't be any need for ANOTHER boycott of Real . . . anyone who felt strongly about it the first time should STILL be boycotting.
Just my opinion though.
Re:It really should be illegal... (Score:1)
On a side note such scripts would be useful for congressional bills as well.
Stuart Eichert
Re:ZoneAlarm caught them (Score:1)
OTOH, is there really much more you want to do if you are being pinged/scanned? From what I can tell, ZoneAlarm reacts to those requests as if there were no computer present - so the people scanning are just getting no response back. (this is just what i got from testing at grc.com - I could be wrong!)
I have tried tracking down some IPs, but they are usually spoofed or just belong to some hapless cable modem user who doesn't even realize they have a trojan running on their machine. Now I just ignore them and just make sure nothing weird is being sent out.
As far as the client/server thing, I just downloaded RealPlayer super basic bare bones (I broke down and got it because two fav. radio stations only use real player format for their online broadcast). I told ZA to let it access the internet but NOT act as a server - I can still listen to music, so I guess that works - could work with netzip - don't know since I got the most basic real player I could.
-------
Re:Annoying... (Score:1)
Also - during the install, de-select all of the "helpful" things real player wants to add and put bogus info wherever you can. Oh, and of course you have to de-select a bunch of things in the options once you run it (systray!), but when it's all done you can have a nice, minimized player that plays low-quality music! Sweet.
If only those radio stations *COUGH*WFNX*COUGH* wouldn't insist on using real for their online broadcasts.
-------
Re:Alternatives? (Score:1)
Besides that, Winamp with the plugin has a hard time with the streaming Real Player content - I finally broke down and removed it and just used Real for those audio streams that don't come in mp3.
-------
Re:I am sparticus (Score:1)
If RealNetworks wants to know that I listen to LiveAudioWrestling every Sunday evening or Monday afternoon, and throughout the week listen to commentaries in RealAudio by some individual wrestlers, why do I care? If it can improve the quality of the service (And I'm skeptical about whether it can, but this is a hypothetical situation), I don't see any problem with letting them know what I'm listening to.
(And yes, I'm aware that RealPlayer isn't the program in question, but it's the only software from RealNetworks that I use.)
Adam
And so, the battle is lost ... Re:I am sparticus (Score:2)
As long as people are willing to trade their privacy for (in this case) hypothetical conveniences --- "Here's my DNA, where's my free Happy Meal?" --- we will face a long, hard, uphill battle to secure the details of our lives. *Sigh*
Re:And so, the battle is lost ... Re:I am sparticu (Score:1)
It's really none of your business either, but I'm willing to admit that I use RealPlayer to listen to wrestling related content. For that matter, I use WMP for the same purpose too, on a different site.
If I was listening to or watching more questionable material, perhaps I would not feel this way, which is why I suggested that companies that wish to collect data about their users ask in a more open way than the license agreement, and give you the opportunity to disable the data collection if you wish to do so.
Because they can use that make compile a profile of you?
Adam's Realplayer Profile: Listens to wrestling shows for approximately 3 hours each week.
Send in the market droids! I watch and listen to wrestling, and I'm not afraid to admit it! Quick, shill those posters at me, those PPV videos, the collectors edition of Mick Foley's Mr Socko!
Oh, wait. They already do that during the commercials, and I don't mind a bit.
Because the security of that profile is not mentioned, much less proven?
This bothers me little. I've admitted it on Slashdot. Now Everyone Knows.
I've said it in previous posts, and I'll say it again: If this sort of information could be gathered and used to customize the type of advertising I see, I wouldn't mind one bit.
I know that's going against the common publicly stated (Vocal Minority, perhaps?) opinion here, but that's my opinion.
Adam
Re:Alternatives? (Score:3)
I think however that you might find that similiar situations are going to become "industry standard".
As a point in case, I recently installed a "personalized firewall" product on a friends machine. As a confirmed paranoid, I had a packet sniffer running at the time and guess what?
Suprise, suprise, it fired of a packet to it's creators to let them know that it had been installed at that IP address. My advice to my friend was simple - get ride of it.
The moral of my tale is obvious. If your stuck using Windoze in certain situations, get yourself a packet sniffer first and worry about your multi-media ( and other utilities ) later.
This kind of idiocy is becoming so pervasive it's gone beyond a joke. The only reason why it even gets of the ground is simply because the general public doesn't know. If they did, they wouldn't touch these products and companies would very quickly learn to leave the issue alone.
You might be strangling my chicken, but you don't want to know what I'm doing to your hampster.
Re:What Else to Use to Play RealMedia?? (Score:1)
Just remember,
your address is me@privacy.net or postmaster@real.com or black@prognet.com (technical contact for Real.com) or accounts-payable@prognet.com (billing contact for real.com)
What about Aureate? (Score:1)
Now I read about NetDemon tracking URLs and stuff like that. It really makes you worry about downloading 'free beer' programs from the net. Companies usually want something out of you for using 'free' stuff. I guess I stick with open source programs from now on. More assurance of privacy and security.
Re:More power to them (Score:1)
You don't have to send the ones with pretty pictures. A pack of 5"x7" cards from the local store would do just fine. And, they'd be a damn sight cheeper if everyone used them for mail instead of envelopes and stationery.
--JoePS. Stationary means not moving, and stationery is the paper you write letters on.
--
Re:Online Privacy Policies (Score:1)
Re:Big Brother? Who's He? (Score:1)
In case you don't know, that advertising is what enables you to watch your show. Without advertising dollars, the cost of such simple things such as newspapers, TV and magazines would be astronomical. Putting up with 4 minutes of comercials is the price you pay for cheap entertainment.
In the words of Homer Simpson... "Mmmmm... beer."
Re:What Else to Use to Play RealMedia?? (Score:1)
Basically I visited one or two pr0n sites (yeah I know, I was bored
Re:An answer (Score:1)
Well now...lets assume that *everyone* on Slashdot boycotted DVDs to support DeCSS. Do you think that would make a difference? Would the DeCSS lawsuits be dropped? Of course not! The entire membership of Slashdot would be a mere drop in the ocean compared to the amount of people buying DVDs.
Since boycotting DVDs won't change anything, why suffer needlessly? Obviously you feel that anyone who buys a DVD is supporting an evil organization. But not everyone has such fantacism about it. Rather than chasting fellow /.'ers about not boycotting DVDs, perhaps you should make aware more realistic and effective options.
For example, Slashdotters could donate money to Epic.org [epic.org] or EFF.org [eff.org]. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper or a periodical. Some TV stations will let community members appear on their newsshows to give feedback. Has anyone considered doing this (in an educational, polite, non-flaming way, of course.)
There are a lot more effective ways to help bring about the end of this ridiculous lawsuit than boycotting DVDs.
I'll get off my soapbox now! =)
I thought I was the only one. (Score:1)
Got really pissed when ZoneAlarm started sounding alerts. That program is awesome btw. (www.zonelabs.com; if you don't have it, GET IT.) Got even more pissed when GetRight no longer functioned. Wanted to scream when I discovered that not only had DD replaced GetRight, but it SUCKS ROCKS, insists on maximizing at odd times, and just generally got in the way.
No thanks; I register my shareware so I don't have to stare out those ads. You want to know what I do on the Internet? Pay someone else to GUESS. If I wanted someone tracking me, I'd join "AllAdvantage.Com!" At least they pay you with cold hard cash. (NOTE: That is NOT an endorsement for alladvantage.com!)
Think on this though: anyone know of a small company that's managing to compete, hasn't been swallowed by a bigger fish, and respects all the rules? (Winzip?) If you can think of one, support it.
B.
Re:Oh no! People are responsible for themselves! (Score:2)
FYI #2, it is still up in the air on whether click-through licenses are actually legally binding, mainly because nobody takes them seriously, and therefore do not read them. And besides, Real knows full well that people do not read them, so hiding the admission of some extremely intrusive behavior of its software inside the license rather than making it obvious on the download page or on a privacy statement shows an extreme amount of contempt for their users' privacy, and therefore they deserve all the bad publicity we can generate.
FYI #3, if you still think anyone who signs (or clicks) something without reading it is a moron (and I'm inclined to agree with you), consider a bill that was recently passed by the Republican controlled Senate:
http://cryptome.org/4th-sneaky.htm [cryptome.org].
Re:Big Brother? Who's He? (Score:1)
Did anyone else see that thing on a police state being created slowly so the subjects wouldn't have any experience to relate it to?
I am almost daily seeing a chance to link to it.
If MP could play real files (Score:2)
If it did steam real files I'd delete RP in a second.
Re:Big Brother? Who's He? (Score:2)
Re:An answer (Score:2)
A pedantic correction. "Fucked up" implies unintended consequences, e.g. they didn't really want to collect personal info on people, but it just happened anyway. RealNetworks didn't fuck up. They intentionally, consciously, and deliberately set to collect all information about their users that they could get their littly grubby hands on. So, no, it wasn't a fuck-up. What it seems to be is a rather strong incompatibility between Glaser's value system and my own.
Kaa
Re:More power to them (Score:1)
Naturally I'm not going to give you more information than I feel like giving about myself to you because my privacy means something to me.
Re:Big Brother? Who's He? (Score:1)
As for needing my privacy; Do I care if someone knows I like nifty electronics? No. Do I care if I get unsolicited calls, emails, and letters selling such? Yes. I hate email spam. I hate telemarketers. The only thing worse is being target-marketed by a group of them that think I'm a hot prospect because of some damn data collected by an internet company.
COPPA And Real (Score:1)
Let's say someone's kid downloads a program from a COPPA compliant site. However, since RA was installed, it uses the download demon (sic, intentionally). Now some unauthorized data collection is occurring. The site is either now unintentionally violating COPPA or Real is intentionally violating COPPA. That is something like $10,000 / day fine isn't it?
(Of course, the usual IANAL applies)
sooner or later, this will come to a head (Score:2)
OK then (Score:1)
- Your social security number, or other national equivalent determined by your residency.
- Your passport number.
- Your drivers license number or equivalent.
- The maiden name of your mother.
- The account numbers of all bank accounts you own.
- The type, size, and location of the most expensive objects you possess. I'm especially interested in easily-portable objects like rings, watches, necklaces, etc.
- The names, ages, locations and favorite toys of any family members under the age of twelve.
- The location and type of any firearm you own.
- Your current street address, along with the location and type of all windows or other entrances into your home.
- Does your home have a dog? If so, what is it's favorite food? I'll need to sedate it.
- The brand and model number of any security devices in your home.
Now then, if you really "don't need your privacy" you'll honestly and truthfully supply all of the above information. If you don't answer these questions, consider yourself a hypocrite.. . . or perhaps you really DO need some privacy after all.
Re:Big Brother? Who's He? (Score:1)
Re:More power to them (Score:1)
Now that I think of it, if someone where willing to give me a house for free I might let a representative from some housing association drop by every now and then to see what TV shows I watch or see what I eat for dinner.
all depends (Score:1)
Kinda like the music industry. Major labels screw bands big time. As an artist, I don't like that, and refuse to buy major label cds unless I can buy them from the band directly, where they get to see more of the money (which they do).
You're right though; it's difficult to come up with an "overall perfect example" because we're all looking at these issues with different perspectives.
Re:Big Brother? Who's He? (Score:2)
I like my privacy. I have nothing to hide, but I still like to know that what I do, where I go, etc, is my business, and no-one else's.
Why, if I have nothing to hide?
Well, it depends on your definition of what you need, or want, to hide. Me, I want to hide my spending patterns, how much I earn, what sort of things I like (hobbies, favourite music, even favourite TV shows and foods, etc). Why?
Because I'm fast becoming tired of all the advertising.
(And that's without addressing any other concerns; I'll leave that for now, as I really ought to be working)
It's getting so that you can't make a move in the on- or off-line worlds without being bombarded by the stuff. Giving more information about what I'm likely to spend my money on to the people that try to get me to spend it is only going to increase the amount of advertising that is thrown at me.
I dislike online advertising because it costs me time and money to download the stuff (until I add it to my junkbuster block file), and clutters up web pages (that's an aesthetic objection
I dislike real-world spam mail because it's a waste of resources, and just helps add to the mountains of rubbish we have to deal with.
I dislike TV advertising because it breaks up the flow of whatever I'm watching, wastes my time, and is generally quite irritating in itself.
You seem to have accepted the slow erosion of your privacy; that is your right. I do not, as is my right, and I will fight to keep what little privacy I still have.
Cheers,
Tim
OT: thanks for the link (Score:1)
Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".
Re:Alternatives? (Score:1)
Re:Alternatives? (Score:1)
Re:It really should be illegal... (Score:1)
Re:Big Brother? Who's He? (Score:1)
Well, I would guess you have nothing to hide in your personal life and finances. So, perhaps we should arrange for the details of your checking account, including who you wrote which checks to and for how much, and the contents of all the letters you wrote to your friends and family, including those love notes to your wife ( if you are in fact married, substitute appropriately if not ). And that little rant to your friend about what you really think of your boss at work. No? This doesn't appeal to you? Why not? After all, why do you need your privacy if you don't have anything to hide?
Re:What Else to Use to Play RealMedia?? (Score:1)
Jim
This is why free software is important (Score:1)
Surely, anyone with a concern for their privacy, wouldn't want all their intentions divulged, would they? But, how can you be sure the software you use is doing what you want, and only what you want?
Clearly, when the source is open, it is difficult to hide such shenanegans (yes, Real is being open about this, but what about others?). When the source is free, we have the luxery of as many eyes as care interested in reviewing it.
While I don't agree with RMS that proprietary software, or use thereof, is inherently evil, I do think that if we care about our liberty and privacy, it behooves us to use and support free software, where appropriate. - RSH
Re:Netzip privacy statement is *long* reading (Score:1)
Re:Download Demon, NOT RealPlayer (Score:1)
I've previously used RealPlayer for streaming audio. However, after I tried Windows Media Player, the quality of sound is better (at the same bitrate.) I don't have to get all the advertisments too.
I downloaded Windows Media Player 6.0 BETA and it is great! Really great visual features but it is a little buggy at the moment.
Try WML, I don't think they (Microsoft) catches data since when you check on the URL, it is usually redirected to a URL but at least it is for them to "track" how many people use the URL (more acceptable for me.) At the same time, you can track the URL and do not need to redirect all the time.
Well maybe better, just listen to the radio and talk over the telephone. At least it is more "secure" than the Internet.
John
DoubleClick! (Score:2)
It is all a matter of publicity; most consumers have the impression that what they do not know--or take the time to read in the license agreement--cannot hurt them. With the passage of UCITA in various states, it has become clear that the terms of the license agreement should be compared in the same way as price when making an informed buying decision. Until people realize this, the only hope we have of avoiding agreements like Real's is to use the media to inform consumers.
ZoneAlarm caught them (Score:4)
I just installed RA last night on win2k, funny coincidence. ZoneAlarm from ZoneLabs [zonelabs.com] started warning me as soon as I restarted that something was up. First, Real Jukebox wanted to access the internet. Now way, Sorry. Then something called main_program (I think, this is from memory) tried to access the internet. Again, no way.
At this point I started to uninstall all the crap that I didn't ask for. When I got to the Zip download thing, after I hit the uninstall program they provided, main_program wanted to access the internet again. jeez, these people are desperate for stats I guess.
So not only does is keep track of download stats, it also wants to know when you install and un-install the app.
--mark
Caveat emptor is no excuse (Score:3)
Does this come as any surprise to Real? Quite the contrary, they know that people generally read at most the first page of those agreements; they were counting on it. They could have put the notice about the software's logging in big bold letters at the top of the agreement, but they didn't. Why? Because they knew many people wouldn't agree to it; that's why. You can scream "caveat emptor" until you're blue in the face, but the fact is that a merchant that cheats his customers is still a villain, even if the customers should have known better than to be taken in.
-rpl
Gaol? (Score:3)
Some sort of bionic-chroot-on-steriods might be the answer for running untrusted binary-only software. FreeBSD has jail() which is like an improved version of chroot(), but what's needed here is something more sophisticated.
Ideally you'd make it so that _all_ access to the outside world can be filtered through some userland process. Preferably a Perl program, hehehe. This is roughly what I have in mind:
filter_syscall() {
if (call is 'open file for reading') {
if (filename one of those allowed) {
return OKAY;
} else {
modify the 'open' call so the mode is
set to read-only; return OKAY;
}
} else if (call is 'read') {
return OKAY;
} else if (call is 'send data over network') {
check to see if the data is being sent
back to RealNetworks - if it is then
return FAIL_SILENTLY;
else return OKAY;
} else {
warn("program is doing systemcall we haven't
seen before");
return FAILURE;
}
}
It could be quite a lot of work to do this _fully_ for any large program, but a quick hack to allow all system calls except those sending private data, or to overwrite any private data being sent with 'X' characters, might be quite easy.
What if this were Jiffy-Loob??? (Score:2)
- Josh "Yoshi" Steiner
---
Xiphoid Process Records - http://xiphoidprocess.com
San Francisco based electronic music.
Download Demon, NOT RealPlayer (Score:4)
Folks, you might want to read the article. The problem is with a piece of software called Download Demon, a part of Netzip, NOT Realplayer. It's the same company, and you might want to stop using their products on principle, but don't rush off to find an alternative to Realplayer just because you're worried it'll track personal information...
What would you rather have, Windows Media Player?
~P
I am sparticus (Score:4)
This could have the additional benefit of making companies act more overtly about their data collections, if that is the only way they can successfully collect accurate information.
-Spazimodo
Fsck the millennium, we want it now.
What are their motives? (Score:2)
But I can't see where the payoff is for Real. I imagine that if everyone in the world was to use Download Demon for every download they ever made, then the resulting sending of information back to Real would cost them a small fortune in bandwidth. I can't see that they're going to make much money selling the information on either - if companies are particularly interested in finding out who's downloading their products then they usually make the user register or fill in a form before downloading.
Real's main software product, Real Player, is losing market share to Windows Media Player so it seems that Real needs all the goodwill it can get in order to survive. Although the majority of computer/internet users are not overly worried by the issue of privacy (certainly not to the same extent as the average Slashdot reader), more and more of their potential customers are going to become disillusioned every time Real pull a stunt like this.
Online Privacy Policies (Score:5)
I work in Marketing Research, where data collection is mostly what we do and so privacy issues, especially internet privacy, is "suddenly" a hot topic. MRA has a forum where any marketing research issue, including how you feel about your privacy, can be addressred. If you are interested in having some voice in how that data is used and collected, please post at www.mra-net.org/forum/ [mra-net.org]. MRA sets a lot of marketing research industry standards which our members follow, and I'd rather privacy was a bigger concern, not a brief one or two lines buried in policies somewhere. We don't even have a privacy policy right now.
You can keep marketing research from doing what other industries are doing.
*shrug*
Re:It really should be illegal... (Score:2)
There is a big huge gaping hole in your opinion. The fact of the matter is that most people aren't smart enough, like you and I. Therefore companies that do such bad things will always profit, survive, and maybe even crush the competition who are not doing such bad things.
That's why we have a lot of laws in the first place! That's why "buyer beware" has never cut it in many many situations.
Now this situation doesn't result in anyone losing money or property without compensation(*), which is what most of our laws deal with. It deals with the loss of privacy.
Does privacy deserve the same protection as property? Does it deserve any protection at all? Is the shrink-wrap license enough?
I think a lot of us would argue quite successfully that yes, it deserves a hell of a lot more protection than it has now, and no, shrink wrap licenses should not be valid for half the stuff that is often in them.
There are certain types/sizes of 'contracts' which are valid when made 'in passing', and others that need a lot more than an 'in passing' contract, that need signed documents, adequate two party communication and understanding, and adequate compensation. How many of us have heard of contracts or events being overturned by courts because there wasn't a signed contract? We all know that there are some contracts that the courts won't enforce with at least a token measure of compensation. And some that aren't enforcable when that token is effectively meaningless. And others that are deemed 'fraud' because the 'contract' was so obscured and desceptive.
Personally I think this world will degenerate into hell if we don't produce an adequately balanced system of legislative, enforcement, and legislative system. Human beings in general are just too stupid to 'figure it all out for themselves' and solve it through individual actions as you suggest.(**)
-NH
(*) Here's a unique argument. Information *IS* property. We've got that ingrained in our society. So how come this information isn't worth anything or isn't protected? Shouldn't I be in control of who obtains this information from my life? Shouldn't taking this information without my consent or compensation be illegal?
Now of course it was in the disclaimer/shrink-wrap license. And you are getting 'compensation' in the form of software that does work for you. But is that enough?
If someone came up with a new way to screw people over and get 10-50 bucks from them without them really noticing that they had agreed to it, don't you think there would be a clamour to deal with it legislatively? We've already done so in many cases. We're seriously cracking down on phone-'fraud' organizations that do this exact thing to old and gullible people.
(**) Some of us don't like having to wade through the shit that your idiot friends effectively allow in this world. And some of us take pity on your idiot friends who are in effect powerless to protect themselves or change the world, because hey, they're idiots. And most of us take deep offence to shucksters and con-men depriving the weak of their property and rights.
IE: If you want to go live in the wild west, take your damn six shooters with you, we don't want your kind around here.
Re:What are their motives? (Score:2)
Freeware supported through advertising is here to stay. Given the fact that you are going to see ads, what is wrong with the ads being for things that you are really interested in?
What is the big deal anyway? I could really care less if everyone knew where I surfed and what I downloaded, especially if their purpose is to help me avoid pointless ads.
The only thing that they are guilty of is bad software design. The "Download Demon" should make it clear that it is being installed, what it does, and how to remove it. Removal should be simple and complete. This isn't a privacy issue, though. It is just badly written software.
sick of advertising? (Score:2)
You realize that by using junkbuster you are hurting the sites you are visiting that depend on advertising revenue. Personally, I think that longer download times are a small price to pay for a great site, like
NEWS: New version of Real s/w bundles Netzip (Score:2)
Re:What about Aureate? (Score:2)
I have no affiliation with the following:
Steve Gibson has been a real help to many with his Shields Up! and SpinRite, but a little known program on his site will take out the Aureate VIRUS.
Everyone that uses CuteFTP and many other shareware programs have the Aureate VIRUS in thier computer. It is installed with the program With NO UNINSTALL PROGRAM !
It sits, and waits for an internet connection to send constant information back to ads(x).adsoftware.com and there have been a lot of problems with system lockups because the software can't make contact !
From the ABOUT tab in the program
The OptOut Web Site at http://grc.com/optout.htm [grc.com] contains an extensive summary of the issues and problems surrounding the use of advertising agent programs, parasites, and spyware. You will also find extensive information about OptOut's current capabilities (they will keep growing). Please click the link above to visit our site to learn about this problem and OptOut.
--
Me again: It is small 38k, written in assembler and is free (as in beer) until sometime in July.
Get it and use it And RTF Agreements BEFORE installing software on your machines !!!!!
- Save The Whales
Faulty logic (Score:2)
So, if something doesn't bother you it shouldn't bother anyone else either? And if it bothers someone, he/she must be a criminal.
Tell me, is it nice living in such a fantasy world of pure black and white?
You say you don't have things to hide. Well, congratulations. However, most of us do have things we prefer to keep away from prying eyes. Nothing criminal. Just petty, boring details such as our credit card number, sex life, political/religious affiliation, medical history and other things which in the end paint rather a detailed picture of each of us.
And you know what. Just as I am entitled to decide how much and which of my own feelings I show to others, I am also within my rights to keep these other petty details of my life secret. It's not a question of trying to hide something dirty. It's about controlling your own life and not letting other people run it for you. Being able to say "fuck you" to aggressive salesmen/advertisers, politicians or law enforcement agents trying to reach too far into your personal space.
Re:Download Demon, NOT RealPlayer (Score:2)
Re:More power to them (Score:2)
Re:ZoneAlarm caught them (Score:2)
Thanks..
It really should be illegal... (Score:5)
They shouldn't be allowed to do that. I don't know how to stop them, but that shit should be illegal. Or at least force them to advertise functions which do not directly relate to the purpose you bought the software for: it's like buying a word processor with an undocumented feature which changes your networking settings, it's not what you bought it to do.
"You agreed to it"... bah! (Score:2)
Why would there even be such an expression as "the fine print" if not because this tactic has been used for centuries. Bury the zinger in a pile of mumbo-jumbo, and people won't look hard enough to find it. Make it much easier to go for the goodie than to get a lawyer to read the screen. Then sit back and commit whatever ethical violation you can stomach.
Arrghhh! (Score:2)
Re:What Else to Use to Play RealMedia?? (Score:2)
> download (from within RealPlayer) an "update" for the player, as well.
Which update is that? I got two of these for my 'doze RealG2 install. The first was a few hundred K long, and without it, some of my downloaded South Park episodes wouldn't play (hey, I was away from cable for a few months, I downloaded 'em in the name of interoperability :-).
ObHack1:
On a whim, I took a checksum of every file on my Winblows machine, did the update, redid the checksum, and diffed the output. GNU utilz make DOS useful.
The "update" is merely the replacement/addition of a couple of .DLL files for the G2 codec. I backed up the .DLLs, restored the disk image and replicated the "upgrade" by simply unzipping the .DLLs into the proper directory. Which meant that only one Win9x install had to phone home to Real. The rest were done offline. Sweet.
RealG2 is now whining at me to get an update that's about 3.1M in length. Since all of my .RM files play just fine without it, I'm repeatedly telling it to fsck off. Why fix what ain't broke?
Request:
What I'd really like to see is a registry hack to permanently disable (or set the "30 days" limit to "30 years") the nag.
Thoughts:
The problem with .RM is the problem with .AVI and M$Word's .DOC. One file extension, multiple incompatible formats. Since they're traditionally generated with closed-source software, all Real has to do is disable the ability to generate "old-sk00l" .RM files in their encoder; content providers will subsequently generate data that can only be played back with "new-sk00l" players. Everyone's forced to upgrade in order to view content, and Real gets to install whatever trojans it wants. (At least most of the progress in .AVI codecs was made before the invention of spyware.)
The general rule of thumb I use is still never to upgrade any component of a Windoze system unless something is both (a) not working, and (b) there's reason to believe the upgrade will fix it.
Meanwhile, I'm also glad that MP3 is basically as good as it ever needs to be. For Windoze users - there will never be any reason to download "AOL-amp 9.99" that plays MP3s with embedded banner ads, and/or supports user profiling.
ObHack2:
Speaking of profiling, someone pointed me to a WindozeMedia video file (.ASF?) that, after it had played, spawned a browser and attempted to connect to the 'net and view a URL. Every time it was viewed -- even if you'd saved it to your local drive and were playing it locally. The URL was in ASCII embedded within the file. A few minutes with a hex editor solved that problem.
All of which is a long way of saying "me too". A cross-platform open-sourced solution for streaming and locally-stored video content would go a *long* way towards eliminating these kinds of abuses.
Netzip privacy statement is *long* reading (Score:4)
But how many people are ever going to read down that far?
Re:Download Demon, NOT RealPlayer (Score:2)
privacy shmrivacy (Score:2)
Well, that's nice -- although it does seem awfully Simpsonsish of them:
I'm going to kick the air, and if you get in the way, that's your own fault!
Re:More power to them (Score:2)
Privacy is privacy no matter what the medium. I do not want a third party to know what I am downloading, any more than I want people staring into my window while I shower.