Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo Anti-Spy Favors Yahoo's Adware Partners?
prostoalex writes "Yahoo's new browser toolbar is advertised to clean out adware and spyware from the user's PC and from the sound of it is a good tool to rely on. Not so, says eWeek, whose Matt Hicks notices that Yahoo excludes by default two popular adware/spyware applications - Claria (ex-Gator) and WhenU.com - Claria has commercial bonding with Yahoo! Inc."
Why would I install a "toolbar" to clean out spyware? Shouldn't I use an application dedicated to that?
-Letter
Claria is one of the most prevalent and intrusive spyware programs out there. It's a major omission to not handle it.
This just shows yet another benefit of open source software. When a publicly traded corporation is solely behind the development of a closed product, don't be suprised when they try to protect their interests, at the consumer's expense.
The Technonaut
You mean that thing that was really cool back in 1995 but has become the net equivalent of a tourist trap?
I haven't even visited the site in years, literally. Do people still use that? Between the slanted stories on the front page and the increasing use of flash on the site, they drove me away a long time ago.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Wonder how much they charged for that little "Feature" to Claria and whomever. It would be very Microsoft of them.
Some antivirus or anti-spam software may not detect a virus/spam that its competitors do, but the next day the situation is reversed. Which one is better? Ditto anti-Spyware. Install the Yahoo toolbar if you think it will help. You should still use other tools though.
If the suspicions raised in the article are true however, I do think there is an ethical question here that should play some part in your decision.
Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
Gator/Claria is classified as 'adware' (as opposed to spyware) by the toolbar, and all adware by default is not blocked.
The toolbar will block them, it requires users clicking on a checkbox somewhere in the options. This makes it just a bit less sleazy.
The main problem with all of this is "where do you draw the line between spyware, adware, and software?"
Unlike viruses or worms, it's not at all clear where the line is between "good" and "bad." It may be that Claria has a valid business model, in which case they have a strong case that their software shouldn't be lumped in with the likes of clientman, or other truly nasty spyware. Certainly, their business model is not illegal today. (Of course, I personally don't like it, and would never use their software.)
Should Yahoo include "windows update" or "redhat update network" in their list of spyware?
These applications are out of control. To trick a user into installing (and sometimes, installing without asking) software that slows down the machine and floods them with pop up windows is worse then spam. At least with spam, you can delete it quickly.
In addition to this, I cannot count the number of times family members or neighbors have called me up asking for me to help them remove TONS of this junk from their machines. Its even worse when you have to update software just to remove the junk that has been installed. Some of these applications even force you to install other software to remove the offending software. This is ridiculous.
People trust Yahoo. For Yahoo to put a program out there on the market, and do this kind of thing on purpose? That is a pretty crappy thing for a company to do. I have lost what little respect I had for Yahoo..
Cyris
What goes around, comes around.
Yeah, they might not be playing fair in the spyware finding business, but at least they are still honest with the news reporting.
The Slashdot story is misleading though. It implies that a special case is made for these two companies, and that the tool ignores them. What is actually the case is that the two companies 'products' are in the adware category (along with others) which isn't enabled for filtering by default.
It's not quite the same as the system refusing to remove them, they're just in the category that isn't removed by default.
Cant we make anti-spyware apps that flood the spyware collection systems with LOADS of useless data?
Kinda makes spyware apps useless if they have to spend $$$ on extra bandwidth to handle the new data and $$$ on CPU Cycles to sort through the Krud.
hehe - and then watch as a new business of "anti-flood" filters are built for the spying companies!
Namely, "fun/amusement" applets -- think applets like "XEyes". Yes, I will admit, when I was in college I used to get a kick out of running things like "BartEyes" (A Bart Simpson knockoff of XEyes), and although I have outgrown them, My mom still likes her "Felix", a cat that walks around on her screen.
Felix is the last amusement applet I will ever let my mom run. I only let her run it now because it predates spyware being trojaned into these little applets. Today, I don't trust ANY fun/amusing "applet" because IMO they all potentially carry a spyware payload.
Sadly, I have noticed that this trend of spyware payloads has begun to move itself into mildly useful, free utitlity applets as well -- I have heard of a weather reporting applet and a time server synchronization applet carrying nasty payloads. I suppose it won't be much longer before the majority of nifty utilities from places like tucows.com are suspect.
I think sometimes that we live in sad times.
slashdot is really really losing it. I've seen
more FUD this week than I've seen all last month,
maybe all year.
The tool does not favor "Yahoo's partners", as a
*30 second skim* of the f'in article tells you.
It simply doesn't scan adware by default. If
you click the box to scan adware, it does detect
Yahoo's partners products. The article isn't
clear on whether the product removes the adware.
The controversial part, read carefully now, is
that it detects *spyware* by default. It's
*adware* that isn't detected by default. They
shouldn't do one and not the other. I'm sure
I speak for all consumers here when I say, no
consumer, not a one, cares about the distinction.
(And the distinction is fuzzy at best anyway.)
Their product favors "adware", and some "adware"
producers are Yahoo partners. It's not as if,
like the slashdot article tries to imply, that
some adware is detected but not Yahoo's partners'.
It's like email viruses. You only get infected if you act like you don't care about getting infected. OR, if you act stupid. For about 4 years I have run Ad-Aware maybe a 4 times, and all I get as a result is few tracking cookies. And I Do use the internet more than average, I can tell you that. But then again, I am european ;)
:)
People get spy/ad-ware by doing stuff on the net. It's like walking in desert and finding oneself being thirsty but alas no water to drink.
Anti malware tools are like that water in the desert. Byt who the heck told you to go into that desert.
If you don't know what will happen from "yes", don't click on it. Preferably don't even click on "no". Kill the process
Off-topic? Goes with the motive, your honor...
(Nightshift and nothing to do, I admit)
-Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
And that makes it cool? Obviously the reason they are in that category (which itself isn't removed by default) has something to do with their financial ties to them. Same shit, just dressed up differently.
Really, this opens up a question of "Just what, exactly, is adware/spyware/malware?"
I remember a day when WeatherBug was a cool application being sponsored by local TV stations who basically used it to promote the WeatherNet equipment that they had invested in. No popups, just a few ads that mostly linked you to the TV station's website and sometimes had a picture of the station's weather team. Of course, now that thing is a pop-up crazy monster. But how can you say on which day was the day that this program suddenly turned "evil"... it's not exactly a binary state.
It's hard to ban software such as WhenU because the users end up agreeing somewhere along the line to a AUP/TOS/EULA that lays out exactly what WhenU is going to do. We need better standards for how such documents are displayed, but we can't exactly prevent people from agreeing to them if they really want to without taking out some programs that we like such as ad-blockers in the process.
Really, this is a game of blury definitions...
Wasnt it Yahoo that changed the "subscription" settings on all their current (at the time) email users to have them "opted-in" to all their spam partners not too long ago?
Fool me once...
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
blury definitions yes, but that does not mean that there are not clear distinctions.
We can all tell the difference between the salvation army and a pawn shop.
Now if an app has a thousand ads attached to it but it makes you well aware that exposure to these ads is the "price" you pay for using it and you choose to continue using it anyway, then thats not evil, it is just an annoyance, and one that you have chosen to accept at that. If it secretly slips ads in after it is suppossedly a terminated process or if takes any action that cannot easily be stopped or that you were not made clearly aware of, then it's evil and it clearly smells evil (insert your "hey that sounds like windows" joke here).
ôó
It seems to me that if they really wanted to do something about these companies they could start by not accounting for 31% of their profits.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
I would like to add ease of uninstallation. If an app purposely makes it difficult to uninstall, then it's doubly evil.
jred
I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...