Slashdot Mirror
FTC Shuts Down 'Pop-Up Trapping' Sites
Masem writes: "The FTC today ordered the shutdown of 5,500 sites owned by John Zuccarini, all of them the so-called 'typo' sites that common mis-entered URLs for popular sites (such as Annakurnikova.com); when the user visits these sites, their back button behavior in most popular browsers is modified as to open multiple pop-ups featuring ads for adult entertainment and gambling sites when pressed, and uses other technology to basically 'trap' the browser until the entire application has to be closed. While some sites are still operating, the FTC is going to take this matter to court, which may decide exactly how much control a web site can take over the end browser using JavaScript and ActiveX. CNet has the full story." Le Marteau contributes a link to the same story at the Washington Post.
I can know go back to browsing porn at work without the fear of getting caught.
Je t'aime Stéphanie
'nuf said
What about all the Porn sites that do this... I sure could use the FCC's help there :)
Well, it is a start I guess...
I am become Troll, destroyer of threads
What gets me is not that someone registered those names and cybersquatted (I'm all for that), but that this kind of annoyance (popup Spam) is actually clicked through and these Casinos, fake/genuine Viagra, etc. sites make any money at all.
Are you the one clicking on them?
Blah blah blah... "IE sucks cuz I can turn off popups in Moz..."
Finally, a practical use for the FCC...Thank God. This is one of the few times where a little government intervention wouldn't hurt.
Try explaining to your boss why the firewall detected all these adult site alerts when all you were trying to do was look for Dana Bourgouis guitars...
Or your wife/girlfriend for that matter.
RB
----------
ah honey, we're all resplendent - Bill Mallonee
And I thought X-10 was bad!
This type of advertising only frustrates users and creates animosity between advertiser and potential customer. This is an obvious and sometimes extreme nuisance, having to shut down your broweser at times!
Alienating your audience is not a good business practice.
I like fire ants. They are very spicy!
This was the federal trade commission, not the Federal Communication Commission.
I was curious when they became involved with net traffic.
As much as I hate popups like that, government regulation of such is even worse. Also, what can they do about overseas sites? Are they going to try and put it under the same controls as overseas TV broadcasts?
The proper way to fix this is to fix the browsers so they don't allow this to happen.
FCC, stay the hell out of the net.
The title should be FTC, not FCC. BIG difference...
Hey, give the guy a break, he's trying. He closes down most of his sites, but whenever he hits the "back" button they all start up again. Those damn javascript-based admin tools...
Hope this will include the "Neverending popup", where you point to a site that popups a copy of itself, which popups a copy of itself, which popups a copy of itself...
I think the troll link "comp-u-geek.com" (DON'T GO THERE!) does that...
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
what about all the non-typo sites that exist? Well, how about using the no-popup feature of mozilla/netscape 6.x and dump the ie browser!
===> An eye for an eye makes everyone blind - MG
er, I mean Zuccarini.
.. no scratch that, there's a night and day difference between registering typo sites and displaying a pile of non-porn ads, and registering those sites and trapping the user in a net where they can't get out and displaying pornography to them for the sole intent of making a buck. especially when said users could be children or people who find pornography offensive.
But seriously. There's a fine line between
I've seen a few sites who grab a typo site and just use it to promote their own (not indecent) site, but also provide a link on their site to the site that "you might have wanted" instead. I think that's fair enough, no big harm there, but to intentionally trap people. Wow. I never thought I'd be praising government intervention on the internet...
If God gave us curiosity
One thing that surprised me is that this slime ball has been sued for this before and lost 57 cases tied to 200 domain names and been fined $800,000 to $1,000,000. And he's still doing it. The only reason he would still be doing this is if it is profitable, above and beyond court costs and fines.
Who is falling for all this and patronizing the sites that trap you like this?
Even though I'm sure we all had good intentions (if not complete thoughlessness) when all these cool features were added to JavaScript. But really, isn't it time that this gets fixed at the Browser end? I cannot think of *any* good reason for browsers to allow JavaScript to modify how buttons like Back and Close opperate without confirmation by the user. (it would also be trivial to apply a reasonable limit, like say 3, to pop-up windows). Microsoft and Netscape should both be *really* embarrassed that this issue is being addressed by the governent and potential legislation before they've even had a chance to suggest ways of fixing the situation.
This is a client-side browser issue. If we had a competative browser market, someone might find it useful to "innovate" a feature into the browser to disable popups, or cue up the popups and let the user decide whether to let them fire.
Was it Konquerer that put a similar feature into their browser? If so, big huge kudos to them.
Regardless, I don't see Microsoft champing at the bit to reduce end-user annoyance over this, and I'm surprised, because I can't imagine how the IE team can browse the web without getting fed up with that crap and saying "fsck (or maybe chkdsk) it! I'm going to "innovate" a way to stop this!".
- StaticLimit
this shouldnt' fall under the jurisdiction of the fcc?
I thought the FCC was there to regulate certain things... like radio, and television (as it's broadcast, and involves many public concessions to work, right-of-way, etc).
How can they dicatate what a website can do? Sheesh.
Wheres he hosting all these sites?
Where is he buying his domains from?
What OS is he using?
Sounds like alot of work for popup sites, he must be making damn good money after lawsuits.
Bitching aside, this decision is a Good Thing. It forces people who deliberately break something to think again. This might not be terribly popular, but who cares. This decision will do more to stop terrorism on the Internet than all the marketroid sponsored carp ever will. It will genuinely have a positive impact on how the Internet is seen and used. And that may be the best thing that has happened in a VERY long time.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
My feelings are mixed on this one. I don't like the FCC monitoring web sites like this - what is next? Banner Ads? Non-trapping pop ups? As much as I hate the infinite windows, what if (although far-fetched) there were "trapping" ads for the Boy Scouts, or some Christen group? Would the FCC REALLY care about this? My worries are this precedent may be used further down the line to censor web content in some way.
IMO the FCC should make a standard for browsers (read Internet Exploder) to not allow this function to operate on their browsers. This may also serve the double purpose by limiting the security holes Microsoft can put on your machine through unneeded bells and whistles on IE.
--cgeek--
Jesse Wolfe Sr. Manager Systems Integration
Namely, You are connecting to THEIR machine.
Mail server administrators block spam because they are using their resources, why can't these people claim the same? After all, you're using THEIR resources, shouldnt they have the right to send any data on a connection that YOU initiated? (Though I realize you might not have intentionally made that connection; they can be sneaky, but the point remains.)
I just don't like regulation, If it's bad and wrong, it's the clients job to work with the received data. But noone's blaming Microsoft, Netscape, Mozilla, or Konq (and you really can't blame the last 2, they're implementing things to take care of this junk).
Target a solution, rather than the cause and punishment.
That's just my view.
Linux: Because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
James Brents
I wonder if this would be considered as terrorism in Ashcroft's proposed law?
I'm not sure, but running Windows probably makes you a lot more susceptible.
I sincerely hope you're joking. All you need is a Javascript-enable browser! Making capital out of stupid people is what Microsoft seems to be famous for. I wouldn't want that kinda press myself...
I agree that these sites are annoying and have no good purpose, but is government involvement really the answer?
He is probably not paying the fines.
If I got a $800,000 fine I wouldn't be able to pay it.. so what happens then?
I was going to post this, but you beat me to it, and in fewer words.
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
Is this really so bad? You have to a) run IE, b) have javascript security at it's lowest, and c) type in an incorrect URL in order for this "trap" to work... do we really want these people running around on the net anyway?
(humor)
~ now you know
So people use scripting for imaginative ways that nobody had expected. Then people start complaining. Hello!!!! New and unexpected uses are what scripting are all about. To be programmable means that things will be asked that you hadn't anticipated. (Otherwise, there is no need to program them.) Therefore you have to expect abuses when you introduce such a technology. Scripting engines do not belong in browsers, mail clients, news clients, and so on. It was plain irresponsibility for Microsoft, Netscape, and the others to do this to their products. Years ago I saw the coming security nightmare that we live in today. It arose from the "browser wars" between IE and Netscape. This functionality wasn't about making websites better, it was about trying to have a gimmick feature that the other didn't have. This gold-plating not only lead to shoddy implementations, but bloated browsers, bloated websites, and immeasureable amounts of wasted bandwidth.
Now that Netscape is dead, the problems unfortunately remain. Browsers shouldn't have scripting embedded in them, period. If you like scripting, then you have to expect and put up with this crap. There's no way to legislate people to stop doing things like this.
The only way to stop them is to disable scripting on your browser. The more flexibility a program has, the less secure it is. Scripting adds almost no value to websites, and is now just a tool of marketers, used more against you than for you. They track you with it. They take over your web experience with it. They keep tabs on what you're doing... and sometimes even take over your machine when flaws are discovered and exploited. I have serious problems with other people running their code on my machine, and therefore disable all scripting.
Consequantly, I don't every seem to have any problems with pop-up windows, pop-under windows, "trapped" browsers, infinite-loop "back" buttons, etc.
Turn off scripting. Encourage websites to stop using it. The web is full of more than enough bloated crap already. While you're at it, get rid of flash, and all the rest of the plugins.
My aunt is furious about when her 6 year old child accidently does a typo and porn sites pop up everywhere. Perhaps if this stops, it will lessen the demand for filtering software. Filtering software, IMHO, is very bad; definately the worse of two evils. At least shutting down a web site could possibly have a court process attached to it...
I find it pretty amazing that some people, after having their browser assaulted with annoying pop-ups, go on to actually buy things from these merchants. I guess spammers and phone salesman make money too, but I find this equally strange. I would hope this sort of thing would fix itself through consumer pressure.
-Dave
Oops, ./ should have been /. Hopefully we were in the root directory to start with so it doesn't make a difference.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
I for one couldn't be more delighted. Having to ditch the browser because you stumbled into a shitty web porn glue trap is about as intrusive and evil as code gets without being viral.
hmmm... then again i wonder how all this bodes for microsoft... Smart Links indeed...
This as well as the 'close' pop-up crap should finally be banned...
as for the FCC dictating standards and then trying to uphold them as far as Browsers are concerned and the 'control' factors...
I'm not sure which I'm more comfortable with...
alt-f4
or more Federal Control
"Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
This is a great thing. The FTC protects people from fraud and other illegal business practices. That is what they are doing in this instance. The FCC regulates the airwaves, television, and so forth.
The government isn't "getting involved in the internet" in any new creative way. They are just protecting consumers (us) from fraudulent illegal business practices
Next time get the FCC FTC thing correct before you post, it completely changes the context of the article.
I can get a warning when I enter or leave an ssl session if I want it.
I can get a warning when I accept cookies if I want it.
I can even get a warning when I submit a form if I want it.
All of these are fairly trivial run-of-the-mill type web actions, but something as annoying & intrusive as creating pop-ups and altering my browsers history list cannot be disabled. When oh when are we going to see the ability to disable pop-ups & other intrusive/obnoxious script actions like this?
There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
looking for a bug in some Javascript (we maintain
our own web browser), and after delving down
through the deliberately obfuscated javascript
code, it became obvious what it was trying to do:
it went through all links in the document, attaching
a javascript "front-end" to each link that did an http GET request
informing the remote site what had been clicked on,
before actually following the link. the technique
used seemed fairly dodgy (the request was purporting
to be for a non-displayed image), but it's interesting
to see what a fairly reputable site is prepared
to do in order to get as much information off you as possible (without your knowledge).
how reasonable is that? i don't like it, but is that sort
of subterfuge the kind of thing we'd like to stop too?
[PS. apologies if this appears twice - it looked like
had rejected the previous ones; and then the whole
server seemed to crash: what was going on there then?]
Zuccarini did not immediately respond to calls for comment.
Heck no! He's too busy trying to shut down 5,500 sites......
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
more wasted seconds, don't mind me
Edith Keeler Must Die
Don't think it's available for anything other than OS X, but Omniweb has great javascript control. There is actually a setting to not execute a pop-up window unless it is from within the domain of the website you are at. Very slick, haven't seen an X-10 ad in a long time. Plus it has some sweet cookie handling options, like accept but don't save. (This may be old news on other browsers, but I've been stuck with IE for a long time.)
Only downside is I can't do my banking with it, but other than that it's the perfect browser for me.
Laugh while you can, monkey boy!
I noticed in the article that the guy had 'at least 63' trademark infringement lawsuits filed against him last year, 53 of which he lost.
:->
Maybe if he's lucky Canter & Siegel will represent him.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
I wish I could figure out how to disable buttons with javascript. See I'm a Neomail user. It's a great webmail app. It has its own set of navigation buttons (images with links) to navigate the site with. Using the Back, Forward, Reload, and other common buttons breaks the session, forcing the user to see an error and login again. Instead of directing the user straight to the neomail.pl script, I wrote a simple HTML page with news, help, etc.. on it and POST to that script. Much easier to work with and change. I need to find some way to spawn a new window (or change the existing parent) to either disable the buttons or disable that entire button bar. Any ideas? Kudos to the FTC for their actions. I wouldn't mind having his source though. ;)
My bad as much as theirs.
Having the FTC do this is an entirely different matter.... it makes much more sense.
I wonder if I can sue a website operator for changing my homepage without my knowledge while visiting the operators site?
Just turn java and javascript off.... Clears the problem up quick and makes your linux machine "More Secure(tm)". PS While your at it, turn cookies off also.
Thanks, Steve
This topic should clarify a lot of the hypocrisy among the /. crowd; What's *your* opinion on this issue? And how does that opinion compare to, say, what you would feel about the court shutting down your anti-Microsoft site?
Got Rhinos?
Check out:
salshdot.org
slsahdot.org
slahsdot.org
etc...
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
In an ironic twist of fate, when Zuccarini attempted to take down his 5500 sites, 72,296 new sites were instantly spawned. When he tried to remove those, 9,375,012 more were created. The FTC suggests he reinstall brain 1.0
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
To everyone who thinks this is a good thing for the government to be envolved in: "Get a real browser!". For a couple versions now Mozilla has had the ability to disable the JavaScript functions that can open windows. It's currently not available from the GUI, but they have complete instructions for how to edit the config file to disable pop-ups. I use it and love it. Take responsibility for your own browsing.
I doubt you will ever see this sort of feature in a non-Free browser, because corporate interests would not permit them to add it. Microsoft probably owns some of the sites that annoy us with pop-ups. Think about it.
Because the benevolant and wise microsoft has decided to tie the brower into the OS, you'll notice there is no "quit" option in IE. Under linux you can kill these sites by exiting netscape or galeon or whatever with ^q. IE you have to pretty much reboot to get rid of them.
Go MS!
For me this is wonderful news.
Since there are some days when I can't even spell my own name correctly this will help me out a lot. I know you've been there too. Too much alcohol, not enough sleep, and the caffine is taking its sweet time to kick in.
Now if they'd only come out with spell-check for the location bar in my browser I'd be set!
Goran
Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
Namely, You are connecting to THEIR machine.
Mail server administrators block spam because they are using their resources, why can't these people claim the same? After all, you're using THEIR resources, shouldnt they have the right to send any data on a connection that YOU initiated?
No.
If I open cnn.com, I know what to expect when I get there, news. If my little sister tries to open up Britney Spears' webpage for info on Britney Spears, and lands in this guy's javascript porn-ad trap, not only is it a federal crime (she's 8 years old), but my little sister did not initiate the connection expecting the deluge of porn advertisements.
By the same token, Microsoft doesn't have the right to wipe my linux partition every time I visit their update site to patch winME.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
Oh hell, good one.
Signed,
Stump
The first time I ran into one of these sites was when I was trying to visit the web site for Nickelodeon (the kids TV network) and I misspelled it. I was using IE on a Win98 box and since every window is a separate process, you can't kill IE as a whole, so the only thing for it was to press the power button. Pretty disgusting when you think about it, because most of the people you are going to trap that way are going to be kids, and they definitely should not have been looking at the pictures that were displayed.
That does bring up the point that to some degree it is a problem with the software. At least I know on a Mac (OS9 or OSX), I could just kill the IE process and not have to forceably shut down the computer. Anybody out there know how to do this on Win98?
--
The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.
A spam message wastes some of my bandwidth and a few seconds of my time. A "hydra" pop-up ad wastes some of my bandwidth and more than a few seconds of my time. The fact that I posted my e-mail address on my web site does not give you permission to use my resources to market to me. Clicking a link at a TGP (list of porn galleries) must imply a little more consent, because I obviously put up with banner ads, but I don't see why it should imply any more consent than "you may display things in this browser window". Not "you may open new browser windows or otherwise make it difficult for me to leave your site".
We deal with spam by first by black-holing rogue networks, then through government regulation, and perhaps occasionally through international pressure. Why are we skipping straight to government regulation for pop-up ads, rather than trying the black-hole approach first?
The shareholder is always right.
yeah... recent konqy and (I think) mozilla can ask for confirmation on window.open().
When is advertizers gonna wake up and make a site designed to show off the newest toy?
Oh wait ... thats what search engines are for.
make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
It's difficult to draw the distinction without getting into questions of intent, and that's dangerous territory. In short, be careful what you ask for when talking about typo sites.
It's good to see that the FTC isn't totally out to lunch under the Bush administration. Usually, the FTC takes wimpy actions like asking somebody to cease and desist what they're doing. This is an unusually aggressive response.
How much control should a web site have over the user's browser? As much as the user gives it, of course! Now, even in brain-dead browsers like IE there are zones, where you can simply say "If i don't know this domain, don't give it full control." The default of giving away user control is admittedly unfortunate... but it is the user, by choosing the software, that is giving the site, explicitly, this freedom.
Yes, explicitly. I have installed a piece of software which has no purpose other than to let a web site control my browser... and now controlling my browser is illegal? Huh? If I didn't want to do it, I wouldn't have installed the software...
I've had this sig for three days.
What is the fundamental difference between a person intentionally creating a javascripted page that 'traps' a browser and an annoying but relativly benign 'traditional' trojan horse bomb (ala: cookie monster)?
In both case:
1) you download something from the net which advertises itself as being desirable.
2) when that download is processed/executed the results of execution are not the desired or advertised results.
In addition:
Removal of the downloaded item generally requires the end-user to take an undesirable action. (popups require you to exit the browser, trojan bombs often require extensive cleanup).
I would be the first to admit that popup traps are not as directly harmful (in general) as a traditional trojan. But that is only a difference in degree. There are trojans which have equally minor effects.
Should the method used to spread and execute malicious code matter? I would think a popup trap would be viewed as much worse than most trojan horse efforts since the effects are cross-platform. Even worse, the author must be making some serious $$ off our annoyance. How many of our CPU cycles have been wasted by this loser?
This is somewhat analogous this: I go to a grocery shop and ask for Zuccarini instead of Zucchini. Suddenly I get bombarded by hundreds of golf balls, cricket balls and soccer balls. Now I have an option to throw back the balls at him, however unfortunately it is not possible on the internet. Hence I welcome FTCs decision.
Why the powers that be (MS and Netscape) allowed visible browser buttons to be disabled in the first place? :)
On another note, this should teach those who are trolling for porn to at least spell correctly!
Taco, pay attention.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
He's made $800,000 - $1,000,000 from these sites, which the FTC would like to take away. It does not say he's been fined for that much. Also, he lost 53 of the cases not 57, it doesn't say if he was fined beyond losing the domain names. Check your facts!
you can do endtask from ctrl alt delete, but its a pain in the ass, as you still have to kill individual windows.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
If M$ were to take out the popup functionality, or even keep it off the default configuration, it would certainly kill these crappy advertising campaigns, but cause a few problems. Web app sites would have to be re-designed to some degree, so yes, M$ would be shooting their ASP and .NET initiative somewhat in the foot, but not too bad. As useful as popups are to leet JavaScript advertisement coders, they do serve a legitimate purpose.
:-)
Of course...if enough of them popped up, you would just run out of RAM.
When you backclick or close, the next site(s) will attempt to pop up, but no further code will be loaded and hence the hell will eventually end.
I always click "work offline" before trying to exit or back out of any of these questionable sites now BEFORE the cascading crap starts...
If you stumble onto one of those sites where you're in pop-up hell, put that site into in the Restricted Sites Zone
[sarcasm]
What a great idea! I'm sure glad Microsoft is there to make these wonderful innovations for me!
[/sarcasm]
First, this 'solution' wonderfully misses the point that most people didn't want to go there in the first place - once they get bit by this, then they'd probably never go back again, which makes putting something in the 'twilight zone' pretty pointless.
which leads to point #2: if they DID want to go there, they've already been bitten by the popup monster.. Talk about "closing the barn door after the horses have eaten your children."
Third, I would wager that 99% of people who use IE have no idea what 'security zones' do, or how to put a site into one even if they knew.
Okay - I'll probally get flammed for this. But if you are using Internet Explorer you can start up IE with the -new command and have each browser open in a seperate process. That way, your main browser won't lock up or be forced to 'end task' if your popup windows get out of control.
There's nothing inconsistent about condemning bad law while praising good administration of a good law.
I know libertarianism-soaked Slashdot doesn't like to think this way, but there does exist a middle ground between the positions of "laws are bad, mm-kay?" and "government is the answer to everything".
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
OmniWeb for OSX solves this with a checkbox labeled:
"Allow Pop-Up Windows Only When Link is Clicked On" (or something similar)
Which means, it'll only pop up a window if and only if you click on something deliberately.
Nice. Very, very nice.
I've only been using Mozilla for a week or so, but I'm impressed, and imagine this is not a problem. Featurs such as right click, "block this image" to kill add.doubleclick.whatnot are very cool. It looks good and works great. Java is back on and I don't fear it will be able to replace system files. Blocking images is tricky, but I've been seeing fewer adverts and more real content. Bassed on that, I imagine the fix is already in and this is an M$ specific problem.
That makes the implications worse. Does this mean that anything that makes MSIE do unexpected things can be shut down by the Feds? As M$ careens further and further into it's own little propriatory world, who's to say they won't put up yet more "standards" that make innocent sites look bad to M$ users, who then pull their hair out and curse the site. Is this an old pattern emerging again?!
I've heard that M$'s crappy software was powerful, but this is too much.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The implicit contract between web-user and web-server operator is that the latter takes control of the browser for the purpose of showing the former something that he or she may conceivably want to see. Ignoring this contract is an abuse. What is wrong in a government agency tracking and prosecuting abuse?
-- look, cheese ahoy!
The only detail I'm curious to know about this whole thing is... why the fsck did Netscrape and Mafiasoft put these alleged "features" into their defective browsers in the first place?! A back button should do what it says, namely, go BACK, not open 6.02x10^28 pr0n windows!
Shameless plug: I just use Opera. It costs money, which I gladly paid, because it actually WORKS unlike the previously mentioned excuses for browsers! Version 5.12 is great, as nearly all sites work the same as on the defective browsers--this includes online banking and bill-paying that didn't previously work with version 4.
And even if you don't use Opera... Friends don't let friends use Mafiasoft products!
I've heard that some people pay to be abused, humiliated and embarassed. What better way to get all of that than to have your six year old daughter open one of these sites in front of your wife who never thought well of that internet thingy?
It's a joke. I hate spam, porn and this Zuchinni loser.
Still, for reasons posted above, I worry about this shutdown. Should the govenment shutdown web sites that simply take advantage of a crummy browser on a single crappy OS, and thus give official government protection to those products?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
when the user visits these sites, their back button behavior in most popular browsers is modified as to open multiple pop-ups featuring ads for adult entertainment and gambling sites when pressed, and uses other technology to basically 'trap' the browser until the entire application has to be closed.
Worse, recent Mozilla builds won't even leave pop-up hell using the Exit command if you've enabled the Quick Launch feature. I have filed bug 98923 about this problem. (I used a trick someone mentioned here to disable pop-up ads, so I don't encounter this bug often.)
Wintop will do it. It's on Microsoft's site (though you have to look *really* hard). It's part of their kernel toys.
Anyhow, you can open it up and it can kill IE in just a few mouse clicks.
In addition to being mostly unenforceable (because not all websites fall under the FTC's jurisdiction), this law ignores the capabilities of the browser itself. While I'm sure the politicians don't know this, it's easy to write a browser that prevents this sort of abuse. While it's tempting to throw legislation at a problem, it's foolish when there's an obvious solution. Don't we have enough unenforceable laws already?
"Saddam Hussein cavorts with terrorists."
iCab has given users amazing control over JS for ages (and of course from the GUI. If you don't want a web site to:
access the referer
open new windows
move windows
touch the toolbar
write in the status line
create cookies
ask for cookies
access history
etc
You can prevent them from doing it with the click of a button. You can apply the settings to all web pages and choose sites where the filters won't be applied.
You can even decide what type of Javascript will be executed by turning on/off:
JavaScript 1.0
JavaScript 1.1
JavaScript 1.2
JavaScript 1.3
JavaScript 1.4
JavaScript 1.5
JScript
among many, many other things
It must be one of the most configurable browsers out there.
For general browsing it's extremely fast, small and flexible and cannot be beat at saving web archives. One word of warning though. It feels like a finished browser but is still in Preview. Make sure you don't have any duplicated Text encoders on your system.
For OS X iCab is still being primed. OmniWeb however, will give you enough control over popups.
The defendents argument might be taken from the same precedent which allows "freedom of speech" to include the invasiveness of phone solicitation, granted the phone solicitation doesn't automatically cause your phone to ring over and over until you listen to the message all the way through (a la Homer's Happy Dude scam in the Simpsons), but constitutionally, where does is the line drawn between the right of someone to make a sales pitch to someone who breaks into your house and harrangues you until feign death?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Use Alt-F4 instead. I remember it always works faster than popups pop up.
If they're going after this guy, you can bet whitehouse.com is next!
Shaun
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
If X10 wants their ads to get out there, maybe those of us with some spare time on our systems hands can devote it to a script that constantly downloads their advertisements. With enough people doing it, their bandwidth costs may finally outstrip their sales enough that they have to pull the web ads.
Not a DoS or anything. Just pulling the ads repeatedly to drive up their bandwidth. Maybe we can take them from 14th place to first for a bit without giving them a dime to cover it.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2001/10/cupcake.htmtarget=_ top
What's with you fucking idiots trying to put "target=" in your URL's!? It has never worked, and if I want a new goddamn window, I'll make my own!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Sure, this pop up thing of a problem. But wouldn't it be easier to go yell at microsoft to include a pop-up disable feature in IE? This guy is a dickhole, but let's not forget that this ms could have given us an easy fix for this pop up shit.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
If I drove my car into McDonald's and the exit moved every time I drove towards it, it would be called Kidnapping, or something similar. But it's perfectly legal for some assholes to trap you on their web site? I hope the government takes this opportunity to give legally give us back control of our own computers.
People should be annoyed by popup trojan links and traps until they download AdShield for IE or use a browser like Konqueror that stops this crap out of the box. Microsoft should have added this to IE 6 but they are a bunch of lazy monopolistic twits. Netscape should have too but they are circling the bowl so I'll cut them some slack. I E is better because it lets you make the menus toolbar, and address bar go on one line at the top and lets you use more screen for viewing the page.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Personally this problem is one that is obviously escalating and getting quite out of hand. Therefore, I think we should welcome not only government sponsored efforts to prevent this offensive and irritating "pop-up fiend", but also employ a myriad of client-side measures. Those saying the problem should be handles in one paricular way are missing some of the point, both the browser vendors and the government have a part to play in ensuring that this doesn't become a more serious problem.
Some people have said that this action amounts to the silencing of freedom of speech. It doesn't, these websites full of adverts are there for you to read if you wish, and this guy's particular little set of sites would still be up and running for you to view if he hadn't have made them so intrusive, offensive and irriating to the accidental visitor.
Now I'm using DSL these popups have gotten even worse, with a 56k modem I used to be able to close the popups before the replicating javascript had fully loded into the page, and they'd just close quietly. With a faster connection it soon becomes insanity.
My recomendations are thus... 1. Create a specific option in browsers to prevent the opening of new 'popup' windows. 2. Set the default level of prevention at ONE pop-up window per visit to a specific domain. 3. By default prevent all 'Hydra' windows (close one, another pops up initiated by the OnClose event. Or even worse, another pops up right away on the OnLoad event). There is *no* legitimate use of 'hydra' popups except to baffle and irritate and confuse.
Like many slashdotters I view the internet as more than an 'online service'. It has it's own environment, it's own communities and it's own culture. Albeit dramatic, this practise of pop-ups pollutes and clutters the internet (and is spreading to ever more legitimate sites) to the extent that my mother or younger sisters panic and don't know what to do when they seemingly can't close the browser for new windows popping up (they don't know about the task manager, and wouldn't remember how to use it if i told them).
We must remember that these things may be a nuisance to us, is distressing and offputting to people who are less well acquanted with the workings of the internet, and for these people to be turned (even frightened) away by such things flies in the face of the open nature and 'information for all' philosophy that I am sure we as slashdotters and web-users hold very dear.
This sig has been deprecated.
OMG governments are dumb. They don't bother dealing with the major problems (like the DMCA, and peoples rights going down the drain) but when something happens that affects them in their little worlds (someone was browsing pr0n and got caught by a 'trap') they finally deal with it, but they manage to screw it up by targeting the _wrong_ group. Why deal with this at the widest point by shutting down sites that are run by idiots? why not target the bottleneck - i.e the few browsers that allow this sort of thing to happen.
After browsing with opera for the last year, i haven't had any trouble with right-click scripts, source hiding, or trapping... As soon as i open IE, i loose control of my own computer. Why does microsoft (its mainly them) seem to think that anyone else should have any sort of access to my computer? Only i decide what goes on in there. This sort of thing plays on the fact that most people don't know whats going on on their computer and for most that do, its to complicated and not worth the effort to fix. Its like conning people. I think closed source is generally the theme here, as microsoft would just love to have an internet where everything is closed ms binaries and if the designer doesn't want you to print something... you can't unless you dump the screen to printer or reverse engineer everything.
Personally i find web-designers the scum of the earth. I question even letting them decide what colours to use on a page (yellow text on white. WHY?) and wait for the day when a nice proxy will filter the web and convert _everything_ into a format similar to gnu.org (the way html should be) stripping all the pointless java menus and gimmicks.
The web-designers have a right to put up what they want. Microsoft has an obligation to either write software that doesn't allow such massive security holes, or advertise their software as flawed.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
For those who still endure the drudgery of Winblows at work or home, go to www.panicware.com and get the Pop-Up Stopper. Works great, non-intrusive, can be disabled with a quick double-click on the tray icon.
-- United States Supreme Court, Rowan vs. U.S. Post Office, 1970
how to invest, a novice's guide
Now that Netscape is dead, the problems unfortunately remain. Browsers shouldn't have scripting embedded in them, period. If you like scripting, then you have to expect and put up with this crap. There's no way to legislate people to stop doing things like this.
...
No, there is a way to legislate this. We programmers just don't want to admit that the language is wrong, that we may be forced, due to unintended consequences, to amend the Javascript code.
And this is something the FCC or FTC could require be fixed, just as they can change the standards for HDTV (FCC due to communications standards, FTC due to trade implications).
The only way to stop them is to disable scripting on your browser. The more flexibility a program has, the less secure it is. Scripting adds almost no value to websites, and is now just a tool of marketers, used more against you than for you. They track you with it. They take over your web experience with it. They keep tabs on what you're doing... and sometimes even take over your machine when flaws are discovered and exploited. I have serious problems with other people running their code on my machine, and therefore disable all scripting.
Consequantly, I don't every seem to have any problems with pop-up windows, pop-under windows, "trapped" browsers, infinite-loop "back" buttons, etc.
Turn off scripting. Encourage websites to stop using it. The web is full of more than enough bloated crap already. While you're at it, get rid of flash, and all the rest of the plugins.
I do this too, but yahoo, slashdot, and cNet all try to pop up Javascript - it's boring clicking "No" each time, but a lot better knowing they can't run the code on my PC. And I don't get to choose which browser I use at work, or the default settings
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
I can't say this is good. Noone likes those popup ads that lock you in, and do other unethical things. However, I dont think it's good for the government, or anyone, to say it's illegal/disallowed.
Like killing people, blowing up things, or taking your PC from your home while you're at school?
Namely, You are connecting to THEIR machine.
Mail server administrators block spam because they are using their resources, why can't these people claim the same? After all, you're using THEIR resources, shouldnt they have the right to send any data on a connection that YOU initiated? (Though I realize you might not have intentionally made that connection; they can be sneaky, but the point remains.)
I just don't like regulation, If it's bad and wrong, it's the clients job to work with the received data. But noone's blaming Microsoft, Netscape, Mozilla, or Konq (and you really can't blame the last 2, they're implementing things to take care of this junk).
Target a solution, rather than the cause and punishment.
Wrong. Some people send spam with http get requests to request an image, then use the request to track who responded and what server it was. I did not consent to this.
Basically, it comes down to privacy. I have the right to shoot intruders in my home with a gun. I should be able to do the same to the CEO and execs of the spam firms that use such tricks.
After all, it's home invasion, no?
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Well, use that ability, and close windows before anything loads... If one happens to slip by you, and open three windows, well, you know have one second to close a window every third of a second, and it goes on and on. Actually, if you do want to practice, without all the blood and gore, why not just use this little activity. [Yes, I am aware you can turn off all violence in these games, but why bother nudging around with your fabulous 3D video card]
Don't eat your soul to fill your belly.
conesus.com
Here is a link to the Win95 Kernel Toys. Wintop is part of this package.
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
But i've seen a bunch of posts about how this espcially hits the big market browsers like IE. I don't know about anyone else but when I run IE it's with Java (and cookies!) turned off. A little one second jaunt into the security menu and no more pop-ups... bleh.
Dont forget, high traffic could be caused by piggybacking on the other high traffic web sites they advertise with; for example weather.com probably contributed 1,000's of hits for x-10 just from my own usage alone...but I never once clicked on anything they were offering.
Every time you visit one and download the images in the ad, you are creating traffic on the domain.
So high traffic does not equal high interest or success, just that they shoved their ads on that many users.
This is gonna really hurt the FreeBSD counts on next months Netcraft report.
Netcraft page for CWIE LLC
www.slahdot.org
Good!
I hate getting stuck at those sites. Unfortunately, pop-ups and pop-unders are becoming all the rage. I hope they FTC can use their authority to close down some more of these sites.
Brian
* 100% Linux Web Hosting - NO Windows - No Code Red - No Nimda Worms
Linux kernel code doesn't make it a piece of cake for someone to modify your computer or browser without your consent. Internet Explorer does.
What is worse is that if you hit "end task", Windows trys closing the window normally first, which causes more windows to open.
--
The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.
There should be no need for user-visible options for this sort of preference: the browser should be secure against such annoyances by default.
If a thing is not diminished by being shared, it is not rightly owned if it is only owned & not shared. S. Augustine
I'll have to try that, Thanks.
--
The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.
I don't think it's at all unreasonable to require that pr0n not be distributed to children and that it be clearly labeled as such on the outside of the package somehow. This guy's scam fails on both counts.
...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
Well, here it is. Perfectly LEGAL sites are being shut down because a government agency simply doesn't like them. Kiddie porn is one thing, but what this guy was doing is LEGAL! We're already waaaaay doen the slippery slope, now, people. This is the biggest threat yet to the Net. Be careful about what you put on your website. Too many popups, or annoying ads, and the FTC can shut you down. Who knows what's next? CONTENT they don't like??
http://www.slahdot.org/
Look I found one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_c
They don't like what a piece of code does, so they ban it.
I can't believe people are supporting moves to dictate what you are or are not allowed to express in a piece of code.
This functionality is, i'm sure, in the W3C standard for Javascript, so criminilizing this is pretty stupid.
Now, if your browser is engineered so poorly that it allows you no control over this behaviour - i.e. a site author is free to mess up your web browsing experience, shouldn't you ask the manufacturer of that browser to do something about it?
Don't restrict this guy from publishing anything he wants to on the web. The control over whether to view that content should be in the user's hands.
I know that M$ etc. would love to turn the web into a heavily regulated, TV-like environment where most content is approved and published by a few mega-corps, with government regulations on what is or is not acceptable, but that idea makes me sick to the stomach.
i mean, how hard would it be to have a preference setting for 'ask me before allowing javascript to open a new window'? Give the user a choice, don't make it a crime to write this type of application (for which there are many perfectly legitimate uses)
Making rules for what types of applications you may or may not publish on the web is surely a free speech issue.
'Sorry, window.open() is now a federal crime.' doesn't cut it with me.
The problem is with the tools that web browsers expose to site developers. The site developers should be free to put any tags they like up on the web.
This is why web browsers are free to ignore markup they do not support.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
POPUP KILLER, sadly afaik win32 only but it works wonders on those annoying pop ups and pop unders
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Now I wish the feds would do something to stop the pop up adds that interupt my TV shows every 10 minutes. I hate those.
I hate those bogus sites. Finally someone is getting rid of them.
These sites are set up to take advantage of typos, but they do it in an advanced way, which causes your browser to work in an atypical way. Since there is also porn involved, I can see how this would be a problem. For instance, in a school setting, where bringing up porn can cause embarrassment and possible disciplinary action from instructors.
Plus, using the internet costs money, so commandeering a person's system should be illegal. There is already a law banning telemarketing from cell phones. To me, it seems like the same thing.
If the sites just had irrelevant content and didn't take control of the browser, I don't think the government could touch him, but since his programming works in an almost virus-like manner, his sites should be shut down.
Often in Error, Never in Doubt.
Because a bunch of morons thought that the web had to look like television, they put ActiveX, VBScript, Javascript, Flash and other crap into browsers and plug-ins. This, not surprisingly, lead to many vulnerabilities like the one exploited here. (Who is the genius that decided that the "Back" button should be able to be redefined by any website that the user viewed?) If the web simply displayed pictures and text, we would not have this idiotic problem. Lest you laugh, that's what books and newspapers have done for centuries and they still seem mighty useful and popular.
We have seen this overcomplexity lead to many problems. Look at Microsoft Outlook: some group of idiots decided that displaying text, or even pictures, was not enough. So they added Visual BASIC scripting to it. And HTML that you can't turn off. Suddenly any nitwit could create an e-mail Trojan horse that emailed itself to every person in the address book. Or Outlook could display some web site in the preview window, play annoying music, or provide confirmation to a spammer that you received and saw his message.
It's time that we started demanding robust, secure applications even if it means that web sites won't be able to display animated, dancing piglets.
Okay, let's say that the moderation system exists solely to improve the browsing experience of those who do so at +1 or higher. What then is the point of reducing the karma of innocent victims of a site bug?
If someone makes what would have been an up-moderated comment if it had landed in the story the commenter submitted the comment to, then suposedly this is a person one would want in the pool of potential moderators.
What if this one down-modding is the only one they get, and the only reason they aren't given mod points? Kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Thank you MadAhab. Yes, my comment was supposed to end up in the disussion about the body heat powered battery. Sucks to lose karma for an error but I don't think I post to slashdot enough to really care about karma anyway.
Noticed a long time back that www.sourcefourge.net is one of these sites. Is nothing sacred!
bbh
Anyways, the point is:
Don't blame the patent office. Blame the courts or blame the applicant, where appropriate.
Don't even necessarily blame the "system". Realize that ALL systems have problems, the question is whether our system itself is relatively optimal. I believe that if you take a few steps back, you'll see that the system, the way it is today, is well thought out and makes a lot of sense. [FYI, it works too!]
Think about it: Do you really want or think it makes sense to put all the hurdles up front? Consider how costly it is to decipher the various claims, prior art, research, and so on. It's simply unrealistic. Do you really want to give some gov't bureaucrat that kind of power if you're an inventor? Do you want to give up your ability to argue your case OR, alternatively, allow potential problems to resolve themselves.
If every IE window is a separate process (and I have that option selected), why is it when I'm trying to do something useful like find information on a particular 2 cycle engine carburetor or an older Compaq monitor vertical scan circuit or whatever, and I've got several pages that I want to see open, if one causes IE to choke, it closes everything?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I got tired of pop-ups and re-programmed back buttons long ago( a couple months, I think)...I found an extensive block list on the net somewhere and added all that data to my hosts file that dumps all those addresses to localhost (127.0.0.1). Poof, tons of banner ads don't show up, back button redirects might get one or two windows open, but they are they are typically blank explorer windows. Ah, my online experience is so much better. If you come across another site you find "offensive" (but pr0n is so much fun too watch, just look at the stats, 250 movies made last year, 14000 pr0n flicks...hmmmmm)If I wanted to be blasted with ads, jeez I'd watch TV, oh guess I have to buy one first...email me if you want me to send you a copy of the hosts file I'm using.
Freeschwag@(nospam)hotmail.com
If it's free, it's me!
Tweet, tweet, all id10t's out of the gene pool, open swim is over.
An important technical point: it sounds like the Back button was not actually reprogrammed to perform a different action. Rather, an onUnLoad event handler was specified in the BODY tag to execute a bit of JavaScript code when the window was closed. There are legitimate uses for this that are not annoying, although offhand I can't think of any (probably cleaning up things that were previously set, perhaps on a site that is designed to use multiple small windows for some special purpose).
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I wanted to find out about making zuccini cupcakes, but all I got was pr0n! waaaa!
My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!
Registering typos is a smart, good thing (regradless of what you think =) but "trapping" is just plain WRONG.
I am pleassed to see this type of thing, assuming it actually gets implemented with some knowledge and thought.
Imagine surfing pr0n without holding your fingers poised over Alt-F4!
Oh, and to they guy who (anon) responded to my sig about being dyslexic as "we used to call you idiots who couldn't spell", I think we used to call folks like your mom "Dumb bitches who couldn't afford abortions"
Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
[Konqueror] allows you to control the behavior of the popups. Either you can let them popup, have it ask before pop'n them up, or deny them.
Since you seem to be on a platform that Konq runs on, I'll ask you: does Konq block pop-ups by default, or does it just give you the option to block them? If it blocks pop-ups by default, I'll commend its authors for being the first JS-supporting browser to ship in a state not vulnerable to the pop-up hydra DoS attack. If not, it's still good that you can block them. (I haven't checked Mac-only browsers, so I could be wrong about the "first" part.)
The shareholder is always right.
People who are rabidly anti-filtering forget that for some purposes it is useful.
Explain it to Heather, who encountered censorware that changed her name to H****** because of the substring "eat her." The words "freedom of s***ch," "pe***ion," "cl***," "cu***ber," "**** school," and "A Plu* **am" are also perfectly legitimate, but because they contain substrings, they trip false alarms in hypersensitive filter software. See this page about a pe***ion for a sample, and see this page for more information on false alarms.
Will I retire or break 10K?
So WHAT if they aren't perfect? Improve them.
How would you design your censorware to distinguish between Rep. "Dick" Armey and "Dick" meaning male genitalia? I'd like to see the algorithm you propose to use that won't set off too many silly false alarms.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Not that I *ever* browse porn sites, but pressing alt-F4 closes new windows faster than they can spawn new ones.
The guy is setting out to deceive the unwary. Do you have a civil right to deceive people? Of course people decieve people all the time, and some forms of deceit are considered legal (and, equally, some illegal). But there's a big difference between being legal and being a civil right. What it seems to me this is fundamentally about is the right to lie, and as far as I'm concerned that is not a civil right.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Female Prison Rape in NY
It is NOT the code that is banned, it is a particular use of the code that is banned.
This is how DeCSS should have been handled, the code itself should be legal, but using it to make unauthorized copies of DVD's should be illegal.
Using DeCSS to play DVD's or to make copies under "fair use" should be legal, of course.
(sorry for shouting)
The real problem is that Netscape and to a lesser degree Microsoft have been bending over backwards to give full control of the presentation to the content provider, against the original idea of HTML to let the content provider describe the content, and leave the presentation to the user, or the software acting on his behalf.
Such traps are just the absurd symptoms of how control of the users machine have been taken away from the user, and given to the content provider. The real way to combat this is to tranfer control back to the user, and demand content based markup over presentation based markup.
I find this site incredibly stupid.. or incredibly smart when accessed by a stupid person.
If you haven't seen it, it counts down and then just keeps popping up new browser windows until you eventually lock-up. The neat thing about it is that it tells you to save your work.. the owner must be a real nice guy *cough*idiot*cough*.
If you feel like testing your skills; let it count down and give it a head start.. Then see if you can close the windows as fast as it pops them up. Yes, I do fall under the "stupid person" category as I have actually tried this.
Trying to shut down everybody that does this sort will obviously be futile.
Seems to me that it would be much easier, and more effective, to make some changes in the browser; so rogue sites would not be able to disable back button, etc.
I'm guessing you're running Windows IE.
remember, IE is a part of Windows?
thus, when IE dies, so does Windows. :)
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
but www.gamcopyworld.com and www.taghuer.com both points to sex site...
I know I mispelled them some times ago and restet them
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
No one is truly objecting to government involvement that has posted to this thread. The objection is to *how* the government chooses to become involved. To control how programmers write their code - that's how the government has chosen to address this particular problem. Infringing upon the civil liberties of programmers rather than finding an actual solution. It's dangerous perspective - that creates a climate where the Internet is seen as evil, and scary, and the only way to tame it would be to create more and more restrictions.
By no means am I an anarchist, but nor am I a capitalist. To rail against the constrictive efforts of the government is just, because they opt to take the easy solution rather than an equitable one.
regulation does work. For example, the streets are not covered with litter and dog poo, and none of my neighbors remodel their appartment during the night. Of course, there are failures and problems, because as you said, the world isn't perfect.
There is no such contract. You speak of a illusion, a ghost, if you will.
An implicit contract exists in every human transaction, and becomes legally binding whenever the courts say so. Of course, judges can and do err. To prevent such "imperfection" your seem to want to to ban human judgement.
Code is speech
Yes, and code also does stuff. That is why it is the business of the courts to decide which speech is protected and in what circumstances. Your all or nothing attitude doesn't fly and never will.
Period. End of story
No, the story just begins, the story of making distinctions and bringing human intelligence to bear on life.
Sooner or later that FTC will shut down a site a majority of people doesnt think is "abusive"
And then someone will appeal the decision and the courts will decide whether the rights of the minority have been somehow inapropriately curtailed. And if the court will judge wrongly, you and me can demonstrate in Washington until we get politicians to appoint smarter judges.
And in the end, it still isn't perfect. Because nothing is, not even the technological shiboleth.
-- look, cheese ahoy!
How exactly is exploiting *this* Javascript behavior any more acceptable than NIMDA's web vector?
I think hydras are much more like a virus than they're like DeCSS. They deliberately produce undesirable behavior on the machine you own. In fact, I'd put many copy protection schemes into that category as well...
Turning off popups is ok but then what do you do for sites who have legitimate reasons to open things in a new window? For example when you have a ? next to a word that links to a quick popup definition of that word.
I tried browsing with a popup stopper product in place and there seems to be no differentiation between links you click on that you WANT to open in a new window versus those that just open on their own do to a javascript function of some sort. Is there any way to differentiate between the various kinds of popups or the reason they are coming up? Does anyone know of a popup stopper product that does? I don't want to stop ALL popup windows, but anything with the X-Cam or similar that just shows up under my other windows or things that load upon page load or page unload.
On a side note, I have been trying to switch to using Opera exclusively after using it on and off for awhile and can tell you that it isn't working out as I hoped it would. There are several sites I can't visit even when I identify myself as MSIE 5. One is the site for my online banking. I'm thinking it has to do with SSL or some other security feature. Still for the most part - I love Opera!!
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
wrong idiot. I use mac running old safe Netscape Navigator 3.0.1 (the only one ever shown to have no backdoors or exploits) and I have javascript off usually. Plus it has a history menu to jump back anyways, unlike the pc version of IE.
Hmm...I don't exactly see how that goes against my point - you do not have a Javascript-enabled browser, ergo you are safe.
remember, IE is a part of Windows?
:)
thus, when IE dies, so does Windows.
WHAT are you talking about? If you're on windows 9x then having iexplore.exe go wacky doesn't effect the rest of the processes, just kill all the internet explorer windows. If you're on windows 2000/Xp/NT just kill the root iexplore.exe process and all IE windows will go poof.
what you said makes no sense.
If God gave us curiosity
If every IE window is a separate process
Umm, no, you're confusing explorer windows with internet explorer windows. There is no option to "open every internet explorer window in it's own process". And I don't know why you'd want the "open every explorer window in it's own process" anyways.
Thus you can just kill the root iexplore.exe process and all of the ie windows under that process (i.e. spawned from that site) will die with them. You *cannot* open a new iexplore.exe process from within internet explorer.
If God gave us curiosity
Of course we are talking about MS here, so when they say separate process who knows if that means what it would to anybody talking about any other OS. (I mean, what the bleep is a "friendly" URL or error message?)
I've had the problem happen both with windows launched by right-clicking and clicking "Open in new window" and with windows launched by calling iexplore.exe via the Start button menu.
Usually it just murders all the IE windows but not anything else, although if I get trapped in hydra-headed pop-up hell, that'll sometimes lock up the whole machine and require a cold boot.
I do hope that there is a special circle of eternal torment for whoever thought it was a smart idea to give the file manager and the browser the same name.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
is this better? :P
Reality is for those who can't face Science Fiction.
what?!
"Tools, Internet Options, Advanced, Launch browser windows in a separate process"
I don't have that option. I do have that under explorer as tools, folder options, view, advanced settings, launch folder windows in a seperate process.
(I mean, what the bleep is a "friendly" URL or error message?)
right click, choose "what is this?", and it will explain it to you.
I've had the problem happen both with windows launched by right-clicking and clicking "Open in new window" and with windows launched by calling iexplore.exe via the Start button menu.
right-click and "open in new window" opens in the same process, running another iexplore.exe creates a new process.
if a window goes berserk or crashes or you kill the process, it will only kill all of the windows that were launched from that process... your other iexplore windows will be fine and unharmed.
and unless you're using windows 9x then you can't kill the system by having popup hell with iexplore windows.
I do hope that there is a special circle of eternal torment for whoever thought it was a smart idea to give the file manager and the browser the same name
Huh?
"Internet Explorer" and "Explorer" is not that small of a difference, and what does it matter? They're two seperate names. I don't understand your beef.
If God gave us curiosity
it is annoying to end up at those sites, there is one the is aimed at slashdot too. i forget the exact spelling of it, since it was a typo i might not ever remember, but i had to do killall -9 mozilla-bin to excape it.