Slashdot Mirror
Domain: benedelman.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to benedelman.org.
Comments · 128
-
Also of interest: Section headings removedNot discussed in the initial write-up above, but potentially of interest:
Gator's license, as presented by Kazaa, merges section headings in with body text. No bold type separates section headings from the paragraphs that follow. For that matter, no line breaks separate the headings from the paragraphs. They're just all merged together.
Example:
Ownership; All Users of This Computer Bound You represent and warrant that you are the owner of the computer and that you have authorized the download and installation of the GAIN AdServer and GAIN-Supported Software, or that
Seriously! See screenshots. -
Re:WhenU is certainly malware
Just to echo the parent, if you have any doubt, take a look at research by Ben Edelman on this topic
-
Re:WhenUGetSued...
Show me your proof that "in most cases the user has 'agreed' to allow these programs to run." I can certainly find proof to the contrary.
Take a look at these screen shots of the Bearshare install that includes WhenU and tell me it is reasonable to expect a user to press page-down 45 times to read the license.
Users are not aware they are running WhenU because the company works hard to keep them ignorant. -
Connecting to Gator's Servers -- what can be doneRecall my 2003 Documentation of Gator Advertisements and Targeting. I didn't pollute their system or render it worthless, but I did devise a method of efficiently determining all advertisements that Gator targets at a given domain. Type in a domain, see which competitors or others are targeting that domain with their paid advertisements through the Gator / Claria service.
-
License is 45 screens longOn the subject of WhenU's license:
Viewing the license on screen can be quite difficult, because WhenU places it in a window so small that viewing the whole thing requires 45 distinct presses of the page-down key. See WhenU License Agreement Is Forty Five Pages Long.
-
License is 45 screens longOn the subject of WhenU's license:
Viewing the license on screen can be quite difficult, because WhenU places it in a window so small that viewing the whole thing requires 45 distinct presses of the page-down key. See WhenU License Agreement Is Forty Five Pages Long.
-
Re:Free Speech vs Invasion of PrivacyIf I walk up to some woman on the street,...Then I go visit her house, quietly walk in and make more notes about her life, use her phone to call it in to my associates... I'd be arrested for so many violations of the law it wouldn't be funny. So why the hell is this tolerated in the virtual world?
If you ask someone for permission to enter their home and make notes about their life, and they grant it, then you would not be in violation of the law. You'd be "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." (or "What Not to Wear" or "Changing Rooms" or...)
I think a law saying that spyware must disclose all of its spying activities, in plain English, and must ask permission to do so (not necessarily every time it runs, but at install-time), would be an appropriate compromise, (and this appears to be what the Utah law says according to this analysis.). Will people still install spyware because they don't bother reading disclaimers? Yes...but so be it. That would be better fixed by a public advertising campaign than by the law. But requiring people to be up on the latest spyware programs, to know which programs are safe and which are not, just by their names--that's too much to ask the average user.
(Although: some web-based index where you could type in the name of a program and it tells you if it's spyware, ok, or unknown--that would be helpful too.)
-
A Problem with the "User Consent" ApproachAs WhenU presents the situation, users' apparent consent (e.g. by pressing the "Yes" button in a drive-by download) allows WhenU to do whatever they want.
One problem with this argument is that sometimes users are asked to accept a license agreement that 1) they've never seen ("click here to view our license agreement, then press yes to continue"), 2) they cannot view (because the "click here" link is defective). In court two weeks ago, I showed the judge a couple videos of various defective WhenU license agreements, which don't display even when users specifically request them.
See my report from the hearing, case documents.
-
A Problem with the "User Consent" ApproachAs WhenU presents the situation, users' apparent consent (e.g. by pressing the "Yes" button in a drive-by download) allows WhenU to do whatever they want.
One problem with this argument is that sometimes users are asked to accept a license agreement that 1) they've never seen ("click here to view our license agreement, then press yes to continue"), 2) they cannot view (because the "click here" link is defective). In court two weeks ago, I showed the judge a couple videos of various defective WhenU license agreements, which don't display even when users specifically request them.
See my report from the hearing, case documents.
-
A Problem with the "User Consent" ApproachAs WhenU presents the situation, users' apparent consent (e.g. by pressing the "Yes" button in a drive-by download) allows WhenU to do whatever they want.
One problem with this argument is that sometimes users are asked to accept a license agreement that 1) they've never seen ("click here to view our license agreement, then press yes to continue"), 2) they cannot view (because the "click here" link is defective). In court two weeks ago, I showed the judge a couple videos of various defective WhenU license agreements, which don't display even when users specifically request them.
See my report from the hearing, case documents.
-
Google Removed WhenU for a Very Particular ReasonAs the guy who reported WhenU's cloaking to Google, I can tell you that Google didn't remove WhenU because Google doesn't like WhenU (whether or not they do, I do not know) or on a whim. Google removed WhenU because WhenU was breaking Google's rules.
Details at WhenU Spams Google, Breaks Google "No Cloaking" Rules.
-
Why This MattersI think this is a bigger deal than folks here have recognized:
1) It's not often that Google and Yahoo and MSN take public action against those who break their rules. There's surely lots of cloaking going on in the world, but most of it seems to go undetected, or at least unpublished, by search engine staff. Conversely, I gather it's rare for a company as big as WhenU to try cloaking -- most cloakers are somewhat smaller, somewhat less established, and have somewhat less to lose (can just set up shop on some new domains if their old domains get excldued from search engine results).
2) My research indicates WhenU has been engaging in a pattern of search engine smapping. There's the cloaking, described above. Then WhenU copied some dozens of articles to more than a dozen WhenU web servers -- without statements of authorization to reproduce, and without even copyright notices. (One publisher confirmed that the article copies were unauthorized.) What to make of this? Again, I believe, the best interpretation is a desire to manipulate search results to boost availability of pro-WhenU content at the expense of critics, search engine rules and copyright law notwithstanding. Details at http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/whenu-copy.
3) WhenU has other bad practices of note. See my release of last week: WhenU Violates Own Privacy Policy: WhenU has been telling users that its software "doesn't collect or send your browsing activity anywhere" when, in fact, it does. My site has screen-shots, HTTP logs, etc.
Ben Edelman
benedelman.org -
Why This MattersI think this is a bigger deal than folks here have recognized:
1) It's not often that Google and Yahoo and MSN take public action against those who break their rules. There's surely lots of cloaking going on in the world, but most of it seems to go undetected, or at least unpublished, by search engine staff. Conversely, I gather it's rare for a company as big as WhenU to try cloaking -- most cloakers are somewhat smaller, somewhat less established, and have somewhat less to lose (can just set up shop on some new domains if their old domains get excldued from search engine results).
2) My research indicates WhenU has been engaging in a pattern of search engine smapping. There's the cloaking, described above. Then WhenU copied some dozens of articles to more than a dozen WhenU web servers -- without statements of authorization to reproduce, and without even copyright notices. (One publisher confirmed that the article copies were unauthorized.) What to make of this? Again, I believe, the best interpretation is a desire to manipulate search results to boost availability of pro-WhenU content at the expense of critics, search engine rules and copyright law notwithstanding. Details at http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/whenu-copy.
3) WhenU has other bad practices of note. See my release of last week: WhenU Violates Own Privacy Policy: WhenU has been telling users that its software "doesn't collect or send your browsing activity anywhere" when, in fact, it does. My site has screen-shots, HTTP logs, etc.
Ben Edelman
benedelman.org -
Why This MattersI think this is a bigger deal than folks here have recognized:
1) It's not often that Google and Yahoo and MSN take public action against those who break their rules. There's surely lots of cloaking going on in the world, but most of it seems to go undetected, or at least unpublished, by search engine staff. Conversely, I gather it's rare for a company as big as WhenU to try cloaking -- most cloakers are somewhat smaller, somewhat less established, and have somewhat less to lose (can just set up shop on some new domains if their old domains get excldued from search engine results).
2) My research indicates WhenU has been engaging in a pattern of search engine smapping. There's the cloaking, described above. Then WhenU copied some dozens of articles to more than a dozen WhenU web servers -- without statements of authorization to reproduce, and without even copyright notices. (One publisher confirmed that the article copies were unauthorized.) What to make of this? Again, I believe, the best interpretation is a desire to manipulate search results to boost availability of pro-WhenU content at the expense of critics, search engine rules and copyright law notwithstanding. Details at http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/whenu-copy.
3) WhenU has other bad practices of note. See my release of last week: WhenU Violates Own Privacy Policy: WhenU has been telling users that its software "doesn't collect or send your browsing activity anywhere" when, in fact, it does. My site has screen-shots, HTTP logs, etc.
Ben Edelman
benedelman.org -
Use Utah law as inspiration for a better Fed. law?We just need the Federal equivalent of Utah's recently enacted spyware law. Although we should try to make sure our congresscritters don't pass a weaker one that overrides better protections at the state level.
LWN ran a story about the Utah anti-spyware law last month. A number of parties objected, but don't appear to have any legitimate grounds for complaint. The law doesn't ban spyware outright, but requires that spyware explain to the user what it will do, and obtain the user's consent before doing it. Only naughty people/companies should have a problem with that.
The LWN story links to an excellent analysis of the law by Benjamin Edelman.
-
WhenU's Complaint in PDFFor those interested in the case documents, I've prepared WhenU.com, Inc., v. The State of Utah - Case Documents. So far the site offers WhenU's complaint (PDF), with more to come in the coming weeks.
Sign up for updates via a link on the site.
Ben Edelman
benedelman.org -
WhenU's Complaint in PDFFor those interested in the case documents, I've prepared WhenU.com, Inc., v. The State of Utah - Case Documents. So far the site offers WhenU's complaint (PDF), with more to come in the coming weeks.
Sign up for updates via a link on the site.
Ben Edelman
benedelman.org -
WhenU's Complaint in PDFFor those interested in the case documents, I've prepared WhenU.com, Inc., v. The State of Utah - Case Documents. So far the site offers WhenU's complaint (PDF), with more to come in the coming weeks.
Sign up for updates via a link on the site.
Ben Edelman
benedelman.org -
Does WhenU Comply With Its Privacy Policy?One relevant question: Does WhenU in fact comply with its privacy policy as drafted?
My research indicates that WhenU does not comply with its privacy policy, in the following sense: It sends to its servers certain URLs that users visit, namely the URLs above which WhenU displays pop-up ads.
Details are in my recent FTC comments, Methods and Effects of Spyware. See paragraphs 12-17.
Ben Edelman
benedelman.org -
Does WhenU Comply With Its Privacy Policy?One relevant question: Does WhenU in fact comply with its privacy policy as drafted?
My research indicates that WhenU does not comply with its privacy policy, in the following sense: It sends to its servers certain URLs that users visit, namely the URLs above which WhenU displays pop-up ads.
Details are in my recent FTC comments, Methods and Effects of Spyware. See paragraphs 12-17.
Ben Edelman
benedelman.org -
Bill Signed Into Law
For those still reading --
I'm told that Governor Walker signed the bill into law today.
Ben Edelman
benedelman.org -
Article misrepresents what the bill requires
Jack,
You're right that the bill would be awfully overbroad if it did what the article says it does. But the article is wrong. Read the bill and see for yourself.
Or, better yet, read my FAQ-style analysis and see 1) what the bill really does, and 2) what the article got wrong.
A Close Reading of Utah's Spyware Control Act
In short: Software that reports users' online activities is only prohibited under the bill if the software lacks a proper license agreement and uninstall program. So plenty of programs can still report users' activities, so long as this is properly disclosed and so long as users can change their minds later.
Ben Edelman -
Article misrepresents what the bill requires
Jack,
You're right that the bill would be awfully overbroad if it did what the article says it does. But the article is wrong. Read the bill and see for yourself.
Or, better yet, read my FAQ-style analysis and see 1) what the bill really does, and 2) what the article got wrong.
A Close Reading of Utah's Spyware Control Act
In short: Software that reports users' online activities is only prohibited under the bill if the software lacks a proper license agreement and uninstall program. So plenty of programs can still report users' activities, so long as this is properly disclosed and so long as users can change their minds later.
Ben Edelman -
Article misrepresents what the bill requires
Jack,
You're right that the bill would be awfully overbroad if it did what the article says it does. But the article is wrong. Read the bill and see for yourself.
Or, better yet, read my FAQ-style analysis and see 1) what the bill really does, and 2) what the article got wrong.
A Close Reading of Utah's Spyware Control Act
In short: Software that reports users' online activities is only prohibited under the bill if the software lacks a proper license agreement and uninstall program. So plenty of programs can still report users' activities, so long as this is properly disclosed and so long as users can change their minds later.
Ben Edelman -
Read the bill, carefully!
I agree that that's the impression you'd inevitably get after reading the article. That's clearly what the article's author wanted! the question is: What impression would you get after reading the bill? Or after listening to the sponsor of the bill defend it?!
For an alternative perspective, check out my A Close Reading of Utah's Spyware Control Act. I go through the bill's major provisions, then take a close look at the specific concerns raised by its critics. I received a copy of a letter they sent to bill sponsors, so I can examin the arguments in considerably greater detail than, for example, the MediaPost article.
Ben Edelman -
Read the bill, carefully!
I agree that that's the impression you'd inevitably get after reading the article. That's clearly what the article's author wanted! the question is: What impression would you get after reading the bill? Or after listening to the sponsor of the bill defend it?!
For an alternative perspective, check out my A Close Reading of Utah's Spyware Control Act. I go through the bill's major provisions, then take a close look at the specific concerns raised by its critics. I received a copy of a letter they sent to bill sponsors, so I can examin the arguments in considerably greater detail than, for example, the MediaPost article.
Ben Edelman -
Explanation of the Law, and Analysis of CriticismIt's been fascinating to see this discussion -- with some folks taking the time to pretty carefully understand the bill, and others (perfectly understandably) deferring to news coverage. As someone who's had the opportunity to talk to Utah legislators about this bill, I thought I'd put together an analysis of what the bill does. I've also received a copy of the letter that gives the AOL et al. critique of the bill, so I've tried to respond to it, point by point.
-
Explanation of the Law, and Analysis of CriticismIt's been fascinating to see this discussion -- with some folks taking the time to pretty carefully understand the bill, and others (perfectly understandably) deferring to news coverage. As someone who's had the opportunity to talk to Utah legislators about this bill, I thought I'd put together an analysis of what the bill does. I've also received a copy of the letter that gives the AOL et al. critique of the bill, so I've tried to respond to it, point by point.