Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Operating Systems Software Windows Security Your Rights Online

Spyware Critics Respond to iDownload/iSearch 253

Posted by timothy from the pesky-vikings dept.
Paul Laudanski writes "Slashdot ran an article earlier on 'iDownload Tries to Silence Spyware Critics'. Since then, the spyware critics have responded to iDownload: CastleCops, NetRN, and Sunbelt Software. InternetWeek and BroadbandReports have picked up this story as well. Brian Livingston interviewed iDownload's CEO Arlo Gilbert, who claims the letters were a success: "The majority of sites we've contacted have taken down or properly classified iSearch" and "When asked to name some of the sites that had complied, Gilbert answered, "I'm not going to share that information. It would be shooting a gift horse in the mouth."" General overview by Kye-U and Zhen-Xjell."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spyware Critics Respond to iDownload/iSearch More

Spyware Critics Respond to iDownload/iSearch

Comments Filter:

  • Shooting a what??! (Score:4, Funny)

    by mvdw ( 613057 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:10PM (#11820070) Homepage
    Talk about mixing metaphors! "Shooting a gift horse in the mouth"?? It should be either "looking a gift horse in the mouth", or "beating a dead horse", but neither of those matches what he's trying to say...
    • Actually, it makes some sense...what he means is, (I think) "why destroy something so beneficial to me that I barely had to work to produce in the first place?" which has absolutely nothing to do with a gift horse...

      Okay, so maybe you were right after all...
      • The original term "To look a gift horse in the mouth" comes from the practice of looking at a horse's teeth to determine its health. So, to look a gift horse in the mouth is to look critically at a gift, to see whether it's any good or not.

        • Re:Shooting a what??! (Score:3, Informative)

          by unitron ( 5733 )
          I think it's actually looking at the teeth to determine the horse's age (which, admittedly, has some bearing on the horse's health). The older the horse, the more the gums have receded, revealing more of the length of the teeth. That's why the phrase "a little long in the tooth" means old or aging. The teeth aren't really any longer than they always were, it's just that more of the length is showing.

          • Re:Shooting a what??! (Score:2, Informative)

            by cerebis ( 560975 )
            It is the wear on teeth that is meant to be the determining factor when ageing horses, not the gums receding.

            Horse teeth grow continually, and wear from chewing. The method rests upon the assumption that the growth and wear rates are approximately constant across different horses. Since horses do not all share exactly the same diet, some have a habit of chewing hard objects, and teeth growth rates vary, the method isn't particularly reliable.

            Though I will grant you that "long in the tooth" refers to gum

    • Re:Shooting a what??! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:14PM (#11820111)
      i'm pretty sure he meant "raping a gift horse in the mouth"
    • that comment struck me as a poor mix of metaphor and porn references, but what do i know?

    • Re: Shooting a what??! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:22PM (#11820175)


      > Talk about mixing metaphors! "Shooting a gift horse in the mouth"??

      Aw, give him a break. You know the important attribute for the "CEO of Spyware Company" character class is low CHA, not high INT.

    • Re:Shooting a what??! (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Maybe he meant a Trojan horse?
    • Given the current "brilliance" of a number of business moves I've read about in the last 24 hours *cough* true.com *cough* I'd say it's also possible that he honestly thinks that is what you are supposed to do with a gift horse. *sigh*
    • Perhaps he's been so much in the mixvertising business that he forgot how a pure original is supposed to be.
    • Crap. You're just biting the hand that rocks the cradle of love, anyway.

    • Re:Shooting a what??! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Gamma_UCF ( 777510 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @12:27AM (#11820845)
      Shoot the Gift Horse in the Mouth and win the Free IPOD!!!

    • Re:Shooting a what??! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by comgen ( 802337 )
      I find it interesting that a company of this nature would go this route. I do understand how having your company black-listed would pose a threat to your business and PROFIT-'being key here'. I feel that if your company and/or product made it to the antivirus, spyware, watch lists etc. that there is a major problem with your service/product(s) and should be closely reviewed and fixed. This letter got me to thinking, why don't I bill this company for my time and service. Why should I bill customers for tim
    • "I'm not going to share that information. It would be shooting a gift horse in the mouth."

      Make that man a Slashdot editor!

  • Is it... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Creepy Crawler ( 680178 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:11PM (#11820071)
    is it Spyware when you click OK?
    Is it spyware when you let it stay on your system?
    Is it spyware when you let it run?

    When does the user take responsibility over what somebody/something else does?

    Seriously, it has to do with peoples' rights and how many intentionally do not inform themselves what they do, and their repurcussions involved.

    If we applied to what normal people do online (and then blame), what would you say if somebody cashed those "Loan Checks" sent in the mail? Most people know its a acceptance of a loan. Yet, common sense is thrown out the window on the net.

    • Re:Is it... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Darthmalt ( 775250 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:15PM (#11820118)
      It's Spyware/malware/adware when it piggybacks on your system without an easy way to keep it from installing and then resists being uninstalled. i.e. cool web search and it's ilk

      • Re:Is it... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Creepy Crawler ( 680178 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:20PM (#11820162)
        Thats exactly my point.

        I run a slew of different operating systems, which include Windows and Linux. I know what programs I run, and when. If i suspect a program to be... naughty, I create another account and run it in there.

        No matter what OS you run, you can limit permissions and run questionable apps mostly safely. Like I reiterate, it s a fault of the user for not watching what he does on the machine.

        You surf porn sites and run "programs" to download porn, you're gonna get infected. You download illegally copied works, youre gonna get infected. You open absolutely every attachment, even if it says "happy98.exe", you're gonna get infected.

        • Re:Is it... (Score:4, Informative)

          by Darthmalt ( 775250 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:40PM (#11820314)
          true but I consider myself to be computer savvy and I still occasionally get things like cool web search and other programs without knowing what they came in on. Even running Kerio personnal firewall I got some ad pop under thing that avoided detection by adaware and spybot. It only showed one every couple hours so I was blaming the ad on AIM / webpages getting things past firefox. Wasn't till I went through my startup folder that I caught it.

          Though I agree that users need to take more responsibility for their computers. (insert analogy of learning to change your oil/tires here)

          • Re:Is it... (Score:5, Informative)

            by Creepy Crawler ( 680178 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:53PM (#11820396)
            Im unsure of the state of your system, but this gives me a hint.

            --It only showed one every couple hours so I was blaming the ad on AIM / webpages getting things past firefox.

            Not knowing the types of things you do on your machine, Im guessing your infection vector is AIM's ads. Since they use IE's engine to display (check for yourself.. they do) you end up opening yourself to the hacks and cracks of IE. Still, IE has no priviledge escalation bug to worry about, so as long as you run as a user and not an admin, you should be safe as long as you take your data and copy it into another profile.

            My suggestion would to be to pitch AIM and get GAIM. Multi-protocol, and now AoL-Time Warner is acting nicer to 3'rd party clients.

            Still, you also need to consider watching out for rogue WMA's, WMV's and other Microsoft Media garbage. You can insert all sorts of executable code within them, including running programs from a URL directly (yes, that bad). I observed a friend watch a WMV porn vid from a BT download. Was it.. every 2 minutes, it would respawn all the programs, 5 pop-unders and 2 "install-for-free-pr0n".

            • Re:Is it... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @02:36AM (#11821334) Homepage
              Realistically, people use their computers to do other things. If I want to chat with a co-worker online instead of going to the other building where they're located, I'll install and use aim. The average user isn't going to monitor what AIM does, or what any of the other applications say they are going to do, any more than I would go into my automobile to verify that the mechanic really did replace my spark plugs. You take the butcher's word for it. If an application represents itself as an app that can open any graphic image file, and I happen to need to see files sent to me by my family or I just worry about such things, I'll install it. I'll be buggared if I'm going to run a whois on every company and see if they have the same info as ClariaGatorInsertEvilSpywareMakerNameHere.

              Now, I actually do all of these things, because that's one of the things I'm paid to do. But the average user cannot be expected to check their task manager's list of running processes and know that while wscntfy.exe, hptskmgr.exe,wmplayer.exe, YEDIEx.exe, vmnat.exe, sshd.exe, svchost.exe, boinc_gui.exe, avgcc.exe, grxp4exe.exe, and the 64 other things currently running on their machine are benign, but that ie_32.exe is spyware. Heck, even now I only recognize *most* of what's on the list, and then in a cursory "that's usually on the list" sort of way.

              Normal people shouldn't be expected to know this. They want to interface with the computer, not program it. When I go to the store to buy a batch of oranges I expect a batch of oranges: I shouldn't need to know the finer details of modern horticultural techniques and the international fruit business to avoid getting lemons that have been painted orange.

              If somebody represents their ap as going to do something, the extent of my responsibility assumes that the ap behaves as expected. If it earnestly tries to look like an orange, it should be an orange. If I sold a painted lemon as an orange, even with a fine print disclaimer, I would be in trouble for misrepresenting the product. I don't see how software is any different.

            • Wait... (Score:3, Funny)

              by raehl ( 609729 )
              We have to INSTALL porn now? I miss the old days when you could just pop it in the VCR.

        • Re:Is it... (Score:3, Funny)

          by DaveJay ( 133437 )
          You surf porn sites and run "programs" to download porn, you're gonna get infected. You download illegally copied works, youre gonna get infected. You open absolutely every attachment, even if it says "happy98.exe", you're gonna get infected.

          You think that surfing the web describes an accident between a surfer and a fishing trawler, you might be a redneck.

          Oh, wait, what?

    • Re:Is it... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MindStalker ( 22827 ) <mindstalker AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:19PM (#11820153) Journal
      Is it spyware when it called itself "Critical Microsoft Windows Media Player Update", and is nothing of the sort. Then does not appear in your add/remove programs. And in fact the only way to remove it is to use a spyware removal tool. Or how bout the people that got it bundled with the Win32.Beavis virus. They didn't agree to the EULA. Now if someone can simply prove that iDownload had this hand in the creation of this virus, we could finally put these guys behind bars where they belong. Of course getting access to secret memos before they are destroyed in another exercise entirly.
      • Do you buy watches on the corner near the grungy club in the big city? Do they say "Rolex"?

        Well, do you buy anything off of a fold-up table off a street vendor who just LOOKS slimy?

        Well.. And if somebldy believes the "Critical Windows Media Player Update", why dont the users check on the "Windows Update" button at the top of the start bar?

        If they do it that way (which is not exactly THAT hard to notice), they can gat the patch from a KNOWN GOOD source.

        After all, would you buy (assuming you had a prescri

        • Re:Is it... (Score:2, Informative)

          by Draveed ( 664730 )
          I understand your point - users should avoid shady sources. However, I think your average user doesn't understand how they could get their system infected with spyware, and only has a limited understanding of what spyware is in the first place. They will believe "Critical Windows Media Player Update" is real because they don't know the reasons to be suspicious.

        • Re:Is it... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by RollingThunder ( 88952 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @11:33PM (#11820627)
          User stupidity does not make the actions of the company OK. It just means that both parties share some of the blame.

          The company gets the bulk of the blame, they're obviously intending to trick people.
        • Parent's point is that Microsoft's "Critical Windows Media Player Update" they provide via their website (the REAL Microsoft and the REAL website) don't have anything to do with windows media player. He's asking if that's spyware.

        • Re:Is it... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ultranova ( 717540 )

          Do you buy watches on the corner near the grungy club in the big city? Do they say "Rolex"?

          If you sell fake rolexes on a shady corner, and the police catches you, do you walk away with no charges filed because anyone who believed you was an idiot ?

          More generally, is it okay to commit fraud if your victims are idiots ?

          No ? Then the intelligence - or lack of it - of iSearch's victims is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

          Furthermore, I would like to remind everyone who's bemoaning the stupidity of the

      • Hey, couldn't we all just try to be fair for one second please? Just because every trusted anti-spyware group around says iSearch is a scum of the Earth, lying, back stabber installer using, bold faced lying, web trail tracking, configuration raping, big fat dirty liar doesn't mean it's true - does it? I think we should let the folks at iSearch know that there's no chance we'll EVER forget this overwhelming industry wide attack on their good name. I suggest that every member of /. send them a brief message

    • Re:Is it... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 ( 812236 )
      I don't know how or why you were modded as "Flamebait". Your post is insightful.

      There is a different standard on the web, where willful ignorance is forgiven. Obviously not everyone can be an uber-geek, but as with anything out there, using a PC, or going online, requires a little bit of knowledge. If people are not going to pay attention to whatever shows up on their PC, or they're just going to click straight through install wizards, they ought to share some of the blame.

      Case in point: BBSpot poste

      • Re:Is it... (Score:3, Informative)

        by Creepy Crawler ( 680178 )
        ---I don't know how or why you were modded as "Flamebait". Your post is insightful.

        Well, either I was "flaming" or I really found a big point of contention in the Tech community.

        ---There is a different standard on the web, where willful ignorance is forgiven.

        Well, it's not just with the web. It's with computers and computerized technology. People are afraid cause they dont want to "mess it up", even if it's just setting a clock from 12:00 to your time.

        People deal with complex life issues every day. Fina

        • Re:Is it... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by timmarhy ( 659436 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @11:22PM (#11820553)
          your wrong. plain and simple. isearch misrepresents itself in order to get installed. misrepresenting yourself in any other arena is called FRAUD. so why doesn't it apply to people who create things like isearch? spyware programs like isearch also rely on people not being tech savvy enough to know how to spot them. your arguement that someone not being tech savvy is a defense for companies like this also doesn't hold.
    • There is no point in arguing that the average computer user is educated and even a little intelligent -- HE ISN'T. If you are arguing that they are, you're VERY very full of it. The stupidity of the average person is proven day in and day out. I didn't think it was a point that needed to be proven any longer.

      And assuming it no longer needs proof, we need something to protect not just the mental weaklings out there, but also our own interests as well -- that being a reduction of malware, spam and other i

    • Whatever it is, it's crap (Score:5, Interesting)

      by iamlucky13 ( 795185 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @11:32PM (#11820613)
      Now, I'm not in the habit of installing programs of ill repute just so I can examine their legality and morality, so bear with me and correct me if I'm in error on any of this.

      According to their user agreement [isearch.com], Isearch does some things I would definitely describe as "malware," but does not appear to send personal information to a third party without notice, which I would say is a fairly safe definition of "spyware." It's actions include pop-ups, pop-unders, interstitial ads, redirection of certain URLs and "conveniently without your input" installs additional software (Section 2). The next section states explicitly states that iSearch does not collect personal information, but they and their affiliates may collect anonymous info.

      It's clear this program is crap. You are right that users need to take responsibility for what they install. However, while iSearch is truthful about what their program does, they are also attempt to be misleading. They aren't doing anything (as far as I can tell) that is illegal, but it is slimy, lowdown, and rotten and totters on the edge of unethical. They are playing with words and hiding the truth in the abundance of words typical of EULA's to fool users into installing a product they do not want.

      Furthermore, the fact that iSearch is not breaking the law does not change the fact that neither are these anti-malware companies. They simply compile lists of distasteful programs and label them as they see fit: adware, malware, spyware, etc. If they're careful to present clear definitions of those terms, they shouldn't even have to worry about iSearch's claim that spyware is a loosely defined term. Then iSearch wouldn't even really have a slander case against them.

    • Re:Is it... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dvdeug ( 5033 )
      If we applied to what normal people do online (and then blame), what would you say if somebody cashed those "Loan Checks" sent in the mail? Most people know its a acceptance of a loan. Yet, common sense is thrown out the window on the net.

      Why shouldn't we blame those people who send out the checks? The goal there is to prey on the stupid and unwary. "I put it all in the fine print" may be a defense to a fraud charge, but it's not a defense to a charge of being a sleezeball and scumbag.

      No matter how stupi

    • Re:Is it... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mcc ( 14761 )
      Well, the general idea here is that large numbers of people download and run software specifically designed to find and remove software like iDownload/iSearch.

      It doesn't matter really how it got on there or why, the idea is that the users didn't want it on there, and they don't want it on there badly enough they're running software like adaware to make it go away.

      iDownload/iSearch is trying to stop such tools from working by abusing our legal system to prevent their software from being classified as what

  • Well if you're going to butcher analogies... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Icarus1919 ( 802533 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:11PM (#11820076)
    I personally would have gone with something from Back to the Future. He could have said that he told the companies to make like a tree and get out of here.

  • Yeah, sure. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:12PM (#11820086)


    > "When asked to name some of the sites that had complied, Gilbert answered, "I'm not going to share that information. It would be shooting a gift horse in the mouth."

    Yeah, and all the lurkers send me supporting e-mail when I'm the only person taking one side in an argument on Usenet.

  • Here's a piece I found interesting. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FireballX301 ( 766274 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:13PM (#11820093) Journal
    "Specifically, a recent review of materials disseminated by your company, via the Internet, revealed that your company is falsely disparaging iDowload's [sic] product, iSearch...

    "As we all know, Malware is a phrase within the public conscience [He means 'consciousness.' Ed.] that has a specific meaning. ....

    "Continuing, unlike Malware, 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 unsolicited e-mail, and does not install items such as dialers on the end user's computer. ...

    "To the extent you fail to remedy your improper disparagement of the iDownload brand on or before February 15, 2005, we will take all necessary action against your company to protect iDownload from your continuing tortuous conduct [He means 'tortious' or injurious conduct. Ed.]."

    Although the writer of the article goes into detail, frankly, iDownload is using semantics to hide the true purpose. Spyware, is software that is installed on a consumer's computer, WITHOUT that consumer's explicit, knowledgeable consent, and DOES NOT serve a proper, useful service for that consumer.

    On another note, if they're c-ding people because of 'disparagement' issues, perhaps instead anti-adware vendors simply have a 'suggestion' about the adware in question. Would that change any legal issues?
    • Although the writer of the article goes into detail, frankly, iDownload is using semantics to hide the true purpose. Spyware, is software that is installed on a consumer's computer, WITHOUT that consumer's explicit, knowledgeable consent, and DOES NOT serve a proper, useful service for that consumer.

      No way?! A Spyware company that's trying to use word games to justify their existence? No way!

      I thought that there were straight forward and honest people behind those companies installing software w/o my k
      • I thought that there were straight forward and honest people behind those companies installing software w/o my knowledge on my computer.

        No, just you, for still using IE despite all evidence showing how stupid it is to do so.

        • Re:Here's a piece I found interesting. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Pantero Blanco ( 792776 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @03:10AM (#11821412)
          Actually, spyware and popups have started to get by Mozilla/Firefox and the other F/OSS browsers so vaunted for their security recently...I blinked today when I got my first unwanted popup on my FreeBSD box, and my XP partition occasionally picks up crap even though I use Firefox instead of IE.

          It's nowhere near as bad as most of the computers of those who use IE, but it does exist.

    • Tortoise conduct (Score:4, Funny)

      by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:53PM (#11820389)
      "protect iDownload from your continuing tortuous conduct [He means 'tortious' or injurious conduct. Ed.]." "

      I think he really meant tortoise conduct. My system has really been running slow since I installed the thing.

    • Although the writer of the article goes into detail, frankly, iDownload is using semantics to hide the true purpose. Spyware, is software that is installed on a consumer's computer, WITHOUT that consumer's explicit, knowledgeable consent, and DOES NOT serve a proper, useful service for that consumer.

      He is right, though. iSearch isn't really spyware. It doesn't really spy. All it does is install itself serruptitiously, pop up millions of ads at you all day long, and requires you to pay them 30 dollars b

  • When corporate-speak goes bad... (Score:5, Funny)

    by tattoi.nobori ( 687297 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:14PM (#11820104)
    Gilbert is quoted as saying, ""I'm not going to share that information. It would be shooting a gift horse in the mouth."

    He went on to say, "I can tell you that we've got positive engagement in critical areas. We're definitely going to grab this bull by the horns of the dilemma, and leverage our synergies with a focus on the future. It's a win-win situation."

  • It's all bad to me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by erick99 ( 743982 ) <homerun@gmail.com> on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:15PM (#11820122)
    I don't like any adware or spyware - period. I run three separate programs (AdAware, SpyBot, and a webroot program) to keep that stuff off of my computer. I understand folks have to make a living but do it differently. I don't mind google adsense ads within pages and stuff like that. It's upfront and a little more honest than some program hiding and collecting data or "helping" me by collecting key strokes and making sure I get the "right kind of ads." It's all bad. Period.

    • Re:It's all bad to me (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pipingguy ( 566974 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:45PM (#11820354)

      Advertisers have to get off the pollyannish notion that they can track their ads to specific sales.

      Eyeballs impressed is useless unless the eyballs gathered are relevant to your product/service.

      What advertisers have to do is to specifically target websites that discuss things that are relevant to the readers of that website. That won't happen soon because the shotgun approach is still prevalent (a 1/4 page, one month ad in the back of a more general interest, glossy magazine is worth more than a 6 month ad on a more-specific website).

      The web has been a neophyte marketer's dream come true - lots of flash and hype.

      • Re:It's all bad to me (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Moraelin ( 679338 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @04:04AM (#11821600) Journal
        Well, that kind of notion is what happens when you let someone define their own criteria of doing their job well. Doubly so when we're talking someone whose job _is_ to lie, i.e., marketting.

        Actually, lemme rephrase that. Not outright "lie", but creatively mis-lead and mis-represent.

        So the marketters invented all sorts of bogus self-serving metrics to justify their job. And then worked to inflate those metrics, rather than actually sell a product.

        Probably the most insidious is the "click" as a measure of success and somehow directly equivalent to "sale". I mean, hey, if you got them to click, they're surely interested in the product, right? Wrong. Exactly in what product is someone interested when they click by mistake on a Fake-UI ad or "punch the monkey" tricks? None whatsoever.

        And the whole Internet disaster is a direct effect of these bogus metrics. People end up working to drive up the metric, not to actually do their job.

        E.g., once you define "number of ads downloaded" as a measure of advertising success, you get spyware and other software that just downloads tons of ads. It doesn't even matter if anyone sees them. They just have to show up in the logs as downloaded.

        E.g., once you define "number of clicks" as a success metric, the direct result is fake UI ads. Or with spyware that automatically redirects you to the site, basically simulating a click the obnoxious way. It's not even a slippery slope. It's a direct cause-effect situation.

        Etc.

        And just so I don't offend only the marketting people, the same happens in _every_ job where people are measured against a bogus metric of success.

        E.g., I know one PHB who demanded weekly reports from everyone of what patterns they applied, and measured a programmer's worth in how many of those they applied. That project is still not ready yet, some 3 years past the original deadline, and with a team 4 times the original size by now. It's also _the_ most baroque architecture I've ever seen, because _everything_ goes through every pattern ever invented, to match the boss's metric. E.g., no object is ever just passed around as it is, it's first wantonly wrapped in a "decorator", obtained from a "factory", which is a "singleton", etc, etc. And I mean so baroque, you can _literally_ fill a whiteboard with only the _layers_ an object has to go through. Sad.

  • I don't understand... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:17PM (#11820132)
    how listing the empty set is like shooting a gift horse in the mouth.

  • Not that it matters (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Realistic_Dragon ( 655151 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:17PM (#11820137) Homepage
    You could have 'iDownload is selling your credit card information to people who want to rip you off' in 5 mile high letters created by manipulating the Northern Lights and there would still be people who downloaded and ran it just to see what all the fuss was about.

    • Re:Not that it matters (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Mr Ambersand ( 862402 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:21PM (#11820167)
      Those people aren't the problem. The people who are the problem are the ones who insist on clicking every flashing 'hit the screensaver'type ad. I've even heard some of these people say 'oh, I don't mind spyware, it helps pay for the internet'.

      iDownload's business model is wholly dependant on idiots. Lucky for them, there's no shortage of those on the internet.

  • Heres what i dont want... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SteveXE ( 641833 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:23PM (#11820181)
    I dont want any software i cant remove 100% without it coming back and no more then a few clicks to remove it. I dont want software that tracks what websites i visit, or files i download, whether anonymous or not. I dont want software that can read my cookies, email, keystrokes, or any of my data whether it reports it or not. I dont want software sneaking onto my system, whether its concealed in a 1000 page EULA or not unless i say specificly install this it doesnt belong on my pc. I dont want ant software that can edit any data and transmit data over a network without my permission I consider that spyware/malware, if your software does this stuff it shouldnt be allowed to exist. Unless the user is informed upfront on what it is, what it does, what it modifys, reads, sends, and how to uninstall it in big bold letters.

    • Re:Heres what i dont want... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Unless the user is informed upfront on what it is, what it does, what it modifys, reads, sends, and how to uninstall it in big bold letters.

      That's what the 1000 page EULA is for. Feel free to read it big bold letters.

    • You Don't Like Internet Explorer, eh? (Score:5, Funny)

      by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:37PM (#11820298)
      "I dont want any software i cant remove 100% ...that tracks what websites i visit, or files i download... transmit data over a network without my permission.... "

      I get the impression you don't like Microsoft Internet Explorer very much, do you?

  • And if he did shoot... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Esion Modnar ( 632431 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:24PM (#11820191)
    it would be the first time a horse's ass has ever shot a gift horse... in the mouth.

    Maybe he meant to say that it would be like beating a dead gift horse... after, of course, shooting it... in the mouth.

  • Shitware (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Luigi30 ( 656867 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:25PM (#11820201)
    Yes. In my brain, iDownload is now no longer classified as Spyware. It is now Shitware. Please address complaints to brain@luigi30.fl.us.

    Seriously. What did they hope to achieve by this? Common people have figured out that "spyware" == "bad" so they have to make up their own terms to get around that? Who do they think they are, Gato^H^H^H^HClaria?
    • "iDownload is now no longer classified as Spyware. It is now Shitware"

      Tell me where I can download ShitAware and Shitbot-Search-And-Destroy? or ShitBlocker? I'll be the first there to download it.

  • Some little details (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:26PM (#11820212)
    Postal Mail:

    iDownload.com
    1180 Avenue of the Americas
    14th Floor
    New York, NY 10036

    For toll free billing support or if you know your party's extension dial: 1-800-844-5919

    AND the leech lawyers

    http://www.ssjmlaw.com

    4330 South Mopac, Suite 150
    Austin, Texas 78735
    (Travis & Williamson Cos.)

    Telephone: 512-347-1604
    Dallas: 214-800-2898
    Fax: 512-347-1676

    Tell em what you think, IANAL but I think free speech applies to private phone calls.

    If in doubt, don't do it. But I am going to tell them what I think.

    • Re:Some little details (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      oh yeah mark's page is here

      http://www.ssjmlaw.com/hopkins.html

      email: mark@ssjmlaw.com

      These Texas lawyers have not doubt heard of "don't mess with Texas"

      I think it's time we taught ALL lawyers "don't fuck with the internet".

    • Yes free speech applies to phone calls (Score:4, Informative)

      by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @11:04PM (#11820460)
      Why wouldn't it? However, what you cannot do is threaten them, espically with physical force. You are free to tell them their products suck, etc, but don't make any threats. Also, if they hang up on you, respect that and don't call back. If you call repeatedly, that can be harassment.

      • Harassment? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by AtariAmarok ( 451306 )
        "Also, if they hang up on you, respect that and don't call back. If you call repeatedly, that can be harassment."

        Some people call that "telemarketing".

    • Re:Some little details (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Troy ( 3118 )
      Complaining to the secretary on the phone probably won't help matters. Likewise, it will be useless fo complain to almost anyone that a total stranger could get on the phone in short order. And, almost by definition, anyone in a spyware company with the power to do anything about it probably doesn't care.

      Instead, why not call companies being targeted and encourage them to persist in how they label this product? Likewise, once it comes to light which companies gave in, contact them and let them know how dis

    • Free Mail Relay Directly to them (Score:5, Interesting)

      by KnightMB ( 823876 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @12:54AM (#11820986)
      I'll go a step further with my mail server, any e-mail sent to idownload@knightmb.dyndns.org will be auto-forward to:

      webmaster@idownload.com
      abuse@idownload.com
      postmaster@idownload.com

      Free of charge, no logging, no IP information logged, you will completely anonymously delivered. I want to make sure the fine folks at the non-spyware idownload website can get the proper feedback on their wonderful something-ware programs. This is for real, all e-mails sent to idownload@knightmb.dyndns.org will auto-forward to those addresses. I consider it a way of saying thanks to the idownload people and I want to connect them with the people that have a word or two to say to them :-)

  • Hmmmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by AutumnLeaf ( 50333 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:26PM (#11820214)
    I bet if they named their product 'iBeEvil' they'd have the same number of installations.

    How many joe-blow users read these pop-up install dialogs. "What? iBeEvil? Oh - a security fix from Micrsoft. Yes, install, if it lets me get to what I clicked on."

    • Go read my thread [slashdot.org] about user responsibility.

      Course it was flamebaited immediately.

      Gotta wonder if I really hit a nerve saying what I did.

      • Re:Hmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)

        by BCW2 ( 168187 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @11:30PM (#11820595) Journal
        I don't understand that one getting hammered the way it did. The people who foist this crap should be tied to a tree and fed ex-lax for a week. The users who allow it should be taught responsibility while wearing a shock collar. You just called the thundering herd of dumbass a thundering herd of dumbass.

        I work in a whitebox store and spend 80% of my time cleaning this crap out of boxes. I tell them where it comes from: ALL pop-ups are EVIL, ALL toolbars are spyware. At least 20% will be back in < 3 months with the same problem(gee I don't know where the 6 toolbars came from?). I will not let any computer leave the store without Ad-Aware and Spybot installed, yes even a brand new one, and the owner instructed on updating and running. With some it helps with others nothing will help till they make the connection between clicking this crap and paying me money.

  • We killed one mongol, but the Horde remains (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:46PM (#11820358)
    They have a hell of a long way to go before they remove the idownload = spyware association. Check out these search results:

    Google search for idownload and spyware : 23,100 hits.

    Google search for isearch and spyware: 82,400 hits.

    Google search for isearch and malware: 17,000

    Google search for isearch and shit: 14,900 hits.

    Looks like someone shot this dead horse out the barn door, and it is too late to look it in its mouth.

  • Account of iSearch malware/spyware damage (Score:5, Informative)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @11:04PM (#11820456)
    Here is a frightening account of iSearch's damage to someone's computer: click here [computercops.biz]. "Spyware" is too innocuous a term for this. It's not a spy: it is a file assassin.

  • Ambulance chaser of the month... (Score:4, Informative)

    by B747SP ( 179471 ) <slashdot@selfabusedelephant.com> on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @11:06PM (#11820471)
    Ambulance chaser of the month award goes to Mark D Hopkins at a pissant little jack-of-all-trades law 'firm' (though it's more of a 'closet' than a 'firm') in Texas.:Mark D. Hopkins Partner, Austin Office mark@ssjmlaw.com Born: Houston, Texas; admitted to the State Bar of Texas in 1995. Undergraduate education, The Univeristy of Texas, Bachelor of Arts with Honors and Special Honors in Economics, 1992. Legal education, The University of Texas, Juris Doctorate, 1995. Areas of Practice Mr. Hopkins litigation practices focuses heavily on matters relating to real estate transactions, construction matters, and state taxation issues. Mr. Hopkins also has considerable experience in litigating personal injury and wrongful death matters, as well as handling complex insurance coverage matters in both State and Federal court.

    Funny how he left 'stooge for scumware authors' out of his specialities...

    Markie works at the Austin office. You can contact him here: Telephone: (512) 347-1604, Fax: (512) 347-1676, The Overlook at Gaines Ranch, 4330 S. Mopac, Ste. 150, Austin, Texas, 78735

  • Another scary iSearch story (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @11:12PM (#11820500)
    click here [lavasoftsupport.com], an account of where iSearch forced pr0n links on a family computer used by kids.

  • (can't think of a decent title) (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Not Public ( 257178 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @11:35PM (#11820633) Homepage
    a) [my least intelligent/valid point] until now, I assumed that Austin had a higher percentage of computer literate legal professionals. Thanks for destroying that Mark.

    b) their webpage is frontpage'd. Not even "well" frontpage'd. Yet another company that has their secretary "whip out" something for that internet thing "no-one ever looks at." highly unproffesional in appearance.

    c) I couldn't find any partner, much less the attorney in question having any experience or training in internet/software law. and again, the appearance of the site kinda would lead one away from having them involved in such things.

    d) I hate pointing it out.. but the lawyer in question looks to be relatively very young. I'd hate to imagine one of the partners handing it off to him as either a "disposal client" (after this client, his career's in the disposal) or equally bad, if they've got a senior partner with any common sense- that someone let him take it to these extremes, destroying their firm's image/reputation.

  • I like the Abusive Hosts Blocking List article... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @12:15AM (#11820790)
    http://www.ahbl.org/notices/isearch.php [ahbl.org]

    It's a second-level link from here. I'm putting the link in this post because some people may not see it and it's definitely worth reading like all good horror stories are.
  • We also need to find a way to get companies like Thawte to stop issuing certificates to shitware companies. [kazzasucks.com]

  • So... wait. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @02:12AM (#11821264) Homepage
    iDownload claims that their C&D letters were a success. But all these links responding to the C&D letters look like rejections. Is there any evidence that any website anywhere actually responded to iDownload's cease and desist letters by ceasing or desisting anything at all?

  • I didn't care about spyware ... until ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Skapare ( 16644 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @02:13AM (#11821266) Homepage

    I didn't care about spyware. Since I use Linux and Firefox, what do I need to worry about. So I didn't really worry. Let the Windows lusers have their popups and misdirected browsers. I didn't really care. Besides, I've been getting $500 a pop for coming in and re-installing people's Windows machines for them (after extracting their important data they never backed up). So why should I have cared about making this illegal.

    But once these people go so far as to have lawyers make threats against people exercising the right of free speech to reveal the truth that in many cases the big media will completely miss (look how often they are led to their stories now due to a blog), now I'm pissed off. So now I fully favor the law being passed against spyware. I just hope they don't screw it up like they did with the law against spam.

    But I also favor the idea of creating a SLAPP/CE blacklist. Or maybe there is one already I don't know about. In any case, the idea is to block the bastards right at the router. Obviously the first places to block are their web sites and mail servers found in DNS. But being spyware, it most likely is trying to communicate with home base in other ways, too, and may be doing it without the use of DNS. In such cases, the only way to block it is to put in an access-list or null route it. If it is being directed to do things from home base (once it knows you are infected), then null routing may not be enough and an access-list is needed (either deny or use route maps to redirect the traffic). These people need to be cut off at the jugular.

    BTW, the biggest reason I want to see this practice be illegal is so in future cases where they try a SLAPP lawsuit, their lawyers can be taken down with them for failure to properly advise their clients. Getting lawyers disbarred, or even jailed, is one of my favorite hobbies I don't get to enjoy anywhere near enough.

  • SLAPP counterclaim (Score:3, Informative)

    by Hamster Lover ( 558288 ) * on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @02:33AM (#11821321) Journal
    California is a SLAPP (stategic lawsuits against public participation) state. I read somewhere that CastleCop is considering a SLAPP counter claim which would result in the original suit getting tossed and costs awarded. SLAPP legislation is intended to protect speech on matters of public interest in circumstances such as this.

    I am not saying a SLAPP counter claim would be easy or cheap for CastleCop, but as I understand it SLAPP counterclaims are almost always successful, especially when the SLAPP action concerns pure speech.

  • Bad bad software (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Blitzenn ( 554788 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @08:48AM (#11822548) Homepage Journal
    I was INFECTED by this stuff recently. I had an extremely difficult time removing it from my machine. It would reinstall itself continuiously and had so many roots in my registry it took me hours to weed it all out. When I wrote a letter to the manufacturer. They told me that I should not try to uninstall their software. If I insisted, They would send me an uninstall 'package' taht I could install to remove the installation. The really pissed me off as they wanted me to install more of their software in order to remove the first software.

    I didn't bite.

    I replied to them that their software had been installed on my machine without my permission and without my knowledge, took over my machine settings and that was wrong. Because of those properties, it was spyware. They got pissy and told me that I was wrong. That it was not spyware and that not utility that I could get off the market could remove their product successfully. They seemed quite proud of that fact.

    THe only way I found to successfully remove the infectious dlls and such was to change the security settings on the target executables so that they did not have enough permission to run on a reboot and then reboot the machine and delete all of the dll's and executable you otherwise could not because they were already being actively used.

    We pass laws to stop people like this and all they do is find a new way to skirt the law, while the boy down the street, who was just goofing around and made a mistake, gets arrested and sent to jail under that same law. Our approach to fixing these problems is obviously not working. Why does everyone insist on continuing down that road? We write laws that contain templates to check to see if someone is 'bad'. If you fit the template, you are bad and go to jail. The problem is that the bad guys you are really after simply alter themselves just enough, so they no longer fit the template, and skate free. We need to target these people SPECIFICALLY not generically as we are doing now. We are harming people who don't deserve it and curtailing our own freedoms with this method. It is not showing ANY results that matter. Stop the nonsense, PLEASE!

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close