Pop-Under Deception and Private Property

RogerRamjet98 writes "I was browsing the web today and I got hit with a pop-under ad. Annoying but no big deal, right? Wrong. This one managed to change my home page to (CT:Link removed. Why would we send these dicks traffic?) Which pretends to be yahoo, and is convincing enough to fool the average computer user, but is really a platform for launching more pop-under ads. Combine this with the AOL/WinXP news, and it makes me think that the settings on my computer ought to enjoy legal protection as private property: Changing them without my permission (such as adjusting my home page, or whatnot) should constitute assault or trespass." Or turn of JavaScript. Or don't run IE. But good luck on that trespass case. With a history of laws like the DMCA, Uncle Sam can only make it worse.

Comments

And which dicks would those be?

[devphil]

Granted, I agree that we shouldn't send "those dicks" any traffic. And I agree that companies who do this sort of thing are indeed dicks. And I also agree that it would be most amusing to see an entire /. comment page referring to an unnamed corporation only as "those dicks" because we don't have a name or a domain.

But it would also get old quickly. So, Taco, what's the name of the organization whose link-to you removed? Not a domain or anything, just a noun that we can use instead of "those dicks."