Slashdot Mirror
WhenU.com Enjoined From Competing Pop-Ups
Frisky070802 writes "The NY Times reports that a preliminary injunction has been issued against WhenU.com, a company that distributes software that performs certain tasks for users but also intercepts their website visits so that, for instance, a visitor to Expedia would see a pop-up ad for Orbitz. Now if only we could get rid of all the rest of the pop-up ads."
We are scheduled to get rid of pop-up ads right after we deal with SPAM once and for all.
Don't hold your breath, please.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
Yes, the old adage of "click here, end up there" scenario - unfortunately, the only people that will really benefit from all this fighting back and forth are the lawyers. Who really gives a damn about the users anyways?
For the unfortunate friends and family that run Windows, I always install adaware and do a scan of their computer every once in a while.
http://www.lavasoftusa.com/
It seems to take care of the adware kazaa installs, and most others.
Reccomended for every windows user, should be "mandatory" like antivirus software.
Funny how all through the article not one mention is made of the weaknesses of having IE and Windows (which is the only setup the whenu.com client affects) as a monoculture. I can't count the number of times people on my ISPs board have claimed the ISP must be doing something wrong cos going to one site brings up another, or cos going to one site brings up ads for another.
Weak software brings about this crap. Start at the base.
Ironically, enabling the "advanced features" of the Google Toolbar does nearly exactly the same thing as WhenU's software in that it sends the URL of the page you are visiting to Google which returns the page rank and category of that URL.
Same method, completely different use.
It seems to me that this is more a victory for the pop-up companies. After all, if this company manages to make it less profitable for companies to USE popup ads, then eventually there will be fewer of them. I mean, it's generally pretty sleezy tactics, but that seems to be the general trend in advertising these days anyway.
I'm just glad safari and mozilla block popups for me...
"I doubt WhenU held a gun to people's head forcing them to install the WhenU client."
No, but I have suspected them of using an IE exploit to install their client without the user's knowledge or consent. I can't prove it, of course, and I'd imagine it would be a big stink if it were true (e.g., felony computer crime for each violation, one would think.)
They don't literally force anyone to install their software, but they certainly do it clandestinely and without a clear affirmative decision made by the user. It doesn't fall in the same category as literally holding a gun to the user's head, but that doesn't make it ok.
"To say it plainly, if it's MY computer, I'll install what I choose, and if I'm not happy, I know exactly where the uninstall is located."
This kind of spyware sneaks in. And without a certain amount of knowledge, such as knowing the registry inside and out, they are very hard to remove. I don't need help with this stuff either, but I know a thing or two about computers. That does not diminish my concern for a victim who cannot say that.
So instead of holding a gun to your head and making you talk, they sneak into your apartment while you're at work and bug the place. Does that make you feel better?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
The injunction against the company only prevents them from using a particular pop-up ad that is triggered when a user visits the webste of one of their customers. So I think the main issue is it ethical to draw people away from your competitor by taking advantage of the fact that you have some software installed which "knows" when you visit your competitors' site?
There's no such thing as a positive pop-up. They're only annoying, no matter if they contain ads or a message telling you that your password failed. Put the damn message in the body of the web page.
In contract law there are certain things that you cannot sign away. For instance, you cannot sell yourself into slavery.
It is controversial whether EULAs even constitute a legal contract.
Why should companies get away writing software that if a script kiddy did he would be put in prison, or at least get a criminal trial?
Once software starts hijacking your computer then it is entering the realm of viruses. Among other things this definition should include being unable to uninstall the software without re-installing windows. Another is repeatedly resetting your password to goatse or other pr0n sites.
Promote Sensitivity on Slashdot, make me your friend.
If I install KaZaA - God help me if that day ever comes! - I expect it to find me music. I don't expect its bundled programs to also "reach [me] at the exact moment [I] express an interest in [some advertiser's] product."
Speaking of which, if I go to expedia.com, I'm not expressing an interest in orbitz.com's product! I'm expressing an interest in Expedia.
I can see both sides of the issue here, and for once it's actually difficult for me to take sides in an issue that involves advertising (usually it's a no-brainer). I still find myself siding against WhenU, though. EULA or no EULA, their practices are sneaky and underhanded. The article claims that between Gator and WhenU, more than 30 million people are infec^Wusing this software. How many of them do you think have any fucking clue it's installed, and of those, how many have the slightest idea how to get rid of it?
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
I know a lot of people are going to mention mozilla. And for good reason. It just works. But I'd like to mention that pop-ups represent a golden opportunity to introduce opensource software to your non-techie friends and family.
The non-geeks have a difficult time understanding the whole concept. But if you solve a very visible problem for them, like pop-ups, you earn a chance to tell them why mozilla exists. Don't beat them on the head with it (i.e. don't preach), just feed them a little. Next time they have a problem, they'll come back for more.
So while pop-ups are a curse for your average folk, we geeks can make a little use out of the situation.
jef
Give an advertiser a useful tool, and he will abuse it until nobody wants the tool anymore!
Apparently advertisers never consider this effect, they make the same mistake over and over again.
- They changed television from an information/entertainment medium with the occasional advertisement into a continuous show of advertisements with the occasional show element inbetween. Result: people buy VCRs and TIVO, to skip the ads.
- when they discovered the banner ad they did not stay with displaying a logo and static advertisement text, no it all had to be animated and blinking. Result: people install banner blockers
- then they discover the pop-up, and abuse it to such a level that some sites cause an endless loop of popups and the amount of popups is annoying in generel. Result: people demand popup blockers.
When will they learn to be moderate? Probably never.
I was just talking about this yesterday with my counterpart in another office. He told me that now that IE is going to block pop-ups that I should come back to the fold (I'm the only Mozilla user in the I.S. group). Nope, IE still doesn't have a "block images from this server" option to kill banner ads. About all I use IE for at work is for pages that don't work well with Mozilla, which includes our corporate intranet site, damn Frontpage. :) I don't use it home at all. What can I say, I was using Netscape long before I tried IE and have never seen a reason to switch.
I wouldn't say I'm a bad gambler but the last time I went to Vegas I even lost a buck on the soda machine.
The internet seems to become more useful every day, as more and more commercial interests make their wares available to me, provide me with web interfaces to common tasks like checking balances and reporting problems (even SBC has email trouble reporting now.)
How can we take it back? WTF are you talking about, it's ours already. We vote with our dollars. People obviously want to be spammed, because they're buying things from spammers. Remember, the majority rules.
I want instant communications with friends and colleagues all over the planet, and I have it. I have several instant messengers including a WASTE network. Sure, all the IMs show me ads. I consider that fair payment for using their services. It's not like they're popups.
By using Linux without any specialized software, and keeping the XP machines in the house up to date, I have prevent myself from being backdoored. I occasionally run updates on my Linux system so I don't get rooted there, either. And the walls never seem to need any maintenance as long as I keep up to date. Then again, I use NAT, I drop source routed frames, and I don't have any software bound to my insecure/WAN interface except for that which needs to be there; Anything which I can't bind to specific addresses has been walled. (I used to block by default but this has been easier.)
I don't see how these are drastic measures at all. You wouldn't have a door without a lock, and you shouldn't have a network without a firewall.
BTW I get a shitload of spam. Mozilla Thunderbird is good enough to roundfile it for me. If I get to the point where 99% of it is spam, I guess I'll have to use spamassassin or something. More than 50% of my snailmail is spam, and that's much worse than email spam, because every time it gets recycled (most of it is newsprint by volume) it takes its tool on the environment. Even trees grown for paper deplete the soil, and the process of making them into paper is fairly dirty.
I got into internet use in 1990 or so, which by no means makes me an old man around these parts, but I do remember what it was like to just not get spam. But I also remember what it was like to try to find anything on the internet at the time. You basically didn't, unless it was well known. You found most things by following links from server to server which we all thought was pretty neat. Now look at things.
There are some technical issues related to internet use. It should be technically more difficult to spam people. We will eventually achieve some sort of consensus and make it more difficult through technical means. Right now, just concentrate on your filtering. It will get better. If you want to make it get better faster, attach yourself to a project to accomplish these goals, or start one of your own, and produce something.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"