Slashdot Mirror
FTC Bars Popup Backdoor Ads
zanderredux was one of several readers to note that the FTC has banned backdoor popups. This is the result of the D Squared case that we've heard a bit about in the past. The case also restricted them from sending IM ads as well.
This is really going to negatively affect my sex life. Will the FTC please get out of my bedroom, and keep their laws off my body while they're at it?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So, will this be as ineffective as the CAN-SPAM act?
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
What's a "Backdoor Pop-up?"
Boxing Equipment Reviews
This would be a victory if it were legitimate businesses that used such tactics, but it tends to be the questionable individuals who use this the most, so it really won't have much impact, I'm afraid.
It gets even worse when you consider the fact that US law has little effect on operations from other countries. So...
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Well I guess they can't always do bad. Though this won't mean a hoot for international companies who do not reside in the US (or US extradition country) it will at least help stem (for now) this countries pop-up advertisers.
Go FTC (i feel sick now)
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Evidence:
Every major browser now blocks the web variety (including IE, thanks to XP SP2). Microsoft also finally decided disabling Messenger and adding a firewall to their operating system was a good idea. Pity it took them so long to realise this.
And now, just for good measure, they're illegal too.
I say, good riddance.
I was one of the team leaders on the Windows NT project, in fact my team was in charge of the Messenger service.
Nothing like watching an entire department power cycle their machine because they received
"An error has occured at 0x8000000C. Please reboot your system."
Ads were "an annoyance you have to deal with in a free society," lawyer Anthony J. Dain is quoted as saying.
Bearing in mind that advertising something on the TV or radio and crawling into someone's house through an open window and pinning a flyer on the fridge are not the same thing...
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
It's not about government control, it's about recourse. Without laws allowing you (either you personally, your company, or society as a whole) to punish offenders, you are powerless.
We just need to ban marketers themselves.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
My computer is broadcasting an IP address, but without ads how will I be able to stop this?
You insensitive clods! We don't have an FTC....
But seriously, legislation in the US isn't going to stop the worldwide problem of popups and spam. What's needed is better *technical* solutions (like not having loopholes in IM clients for people like D Squared to exploit in the first place.
This is completely insane. How is the FTC going to regulate this? Don't we have better things to spend our money on? I tell you who is going to be the big winner here - the legal community.
Visit Tim's Journal, yes?
Although marketers regard pop-ups as one of the most effective ways of advertising online, many surfers find them hugely annoying.
Hmmm, what's the word I'm thinking of... Oh yeah... DUH! What I cannot believe is that marketing people think that popups are effective advertising! The only way they have to measure effectiveness is by click-throughs. Of course, many of these pop-up ads are graphically designed to be so misleading (looking like a window within a window, or a dialog box) that the general public will click the ad accidentally while trying to close it. All these accidental clicks apparently add up to a "successful advertising campaign" in the eyes of a marketing bobblehead.
Now, these guys using the windows messenger service can pop up a window that IS a dialog/messagebox, no matter what browser you use. Doesn't even matter if the browser is running, as long as you're connected to the internet (and running Windows). I'm glad that they're getting slapped.
On a related note, I wonder if Microsoft considered turning off the windows messenger service by default for SP2? Not sure what kinds of apps that would break, but it seems like it would be benefical to the majority of home users.
Urge to post... fading... fading... RISING!... fading... fading... gone.
I've always found it ammusing when you see laws and rules for the Internet based on geographical location. The state of Iowa says that spam is illegal or China won't let you visit pages that bash China for example. We need a more permanant solution, and a common Internet law kind of thing.
I don't know, maybe that's a bad idea too.
You talk better than you fool!
Free speech doesn't allow you to run protection rackets, so why this? It's the same thing, if you think about it: sending popups with a promise to stop if you're paid. The only differences are in degree and scale.
Not that this is going to do anything to prevent people from sending backdoor popups; nothing ever does. However, it does allow people to drop the hammer on those who continue this practice.
Just a question, how do you stop and punish them? Especially if they are in a country that doesn't consent to our laws? "If you outlaw popups/unders, then only outlaws will use em." Does that mean that these adds will fall in the same realm as guns? Will they have to pre-register in order to use them? What if they get a concealed pupunder permit? And will M$ release an addblocking toolbar for messenger? Later
A few things:
"claiming it could send pop-ups to as many as 135,000 internet addresses each hour." Actually D squared = 250,000
A bunch of Tech Stuff
Ads were "an annoyance you have to deal with in a free society," lawyer Anthony J. Dain is quoted as saying."
Just as removal of your kneecaps with a cold chisel is an annoyance you're going to have to deal with shyster.
I hate pop-ups. As far as I'm concerned unless I _specifically_ open up something I don't want it buzzing me. Pop-ups are YOUR code running on MY computer without my authorisation. Under different circumstances that is a good way towards describing a worm.
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
How am I going to know if I won a 3 free day trip to Hawaii for being the 82,711,365th visitor?
Not to mention X-10 softcore.
Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
I bought my last back door from a pop-up add, and I have to say that its a little ripper.. swinging exit for the minature snaushzer and everything.
What I need now is a match to hang at the front of the house. So I'm just waiting for a decent front-door to popup...
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
Damn I hate government control. They'll stop me beating my wife next... Down with big government.
Laws = lawyers = spending money. Token power I think, unless there is a class action - and guess who wins here. Who backed this bill anyway?
Visit Tim's Journal, yes?
Just because you lay down laws againsts certain behaviors doesn't mean the people will obey the said laws. 419 scams, phishing are all illegal in most countries, but that has never stopped any of the scammers...
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
get a fucking clue and read the article. it wasn't a bill.
Creating a law like this is just as effective as putting a sign on your backyard gate saying beware of the dog. It just scares the innocent people away but people will still be breaking laws. The internet is way too large for piracy, spam, kiddy porn to be ended. Of course in no way do I want a big brother situation but it's just something i have observed.
This is a fake victory for the FTC. First, the company (D Squared aka guilty slimeballs) who were doing this merely promissed not to do it again. Well, its a moot point anyway because Microsoft is closing the port/turrning off the service that allowed the ads in the first place. So they won't be able to send the ads anymore regardless of this "settlement". The guilty slimeballs do not have to pay any fines. So the message here is that despite the best efforts (? - not really) of the FTC, D Squared victimized hundreds of thousands of consumers and got away with absolutley no penalty and no admission of guilt. A real victory would have punished D Squared to the point of bankruptcy so as to deter future scum bags from exhotionate "business models"
The enforcement of this will most likely be very.... ineffective, much like CAN-SPAM. Also, since many offenders based outside the U.S. anyway, this won't even apply to them.
What we REALLY need is a law making it legal to hunt do and castrate (preferably with a dull spoon) the people that send all this crap.
You know, I'd rather live in a society where businesses were properly regulated so that they weren't able to abuse and harass individuals and society in general rather than one where they were allowed to do as they please.
Would you rather live in a country where food manufacturers could sell you contaminated foods, where chemical companies could poison the land that you live on, where oil companies could turn their backs on oil spills, or fill your mailbox with thousands of unwanted sales pitches? Or one where they couldn't literally get away with murder?
Remember, the only reason why regulation is necessary is because someone always abuses the system. If everyone could be trusted to act ethically then regulation wouldn't be needed, but everyone doesn't do that, do they?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
It's not a question of what it's "about". The result is still the same, the good ol' USA is still attempting to make laws for the internet. Every day we lose more freedom.
Now if we could just get spammers to obey the law...that would be progress.
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
devise, are becoming more fact, than rumour?
OK, I agree that SOME limited government regulation is required. Are you seriously comparing popup ads to a poisoned water supply or contaminated food?
This kind of idiotic regulation is what makes government grow and your taxes go up. Give it enough time and someone will create the technology to fix this with no government intervention. Less goverment is almost always good.
nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
Yeah! More government control! This is what we always wanted!
Yeah, yeah... we all know you got your computer and instantly turned off that "messenger" service, so for you it doesn't matter if everyone in the world wants to send you this sort of spam.
But guess what? Not everyone does. The average computer user still uses internet explorer and doesn't even know what "windows update" is, let alone how to use it.
Thus, laws must be made to protect the general populace. Remember, that you and I are *exceptions* within that group. I really don't think the government should be bashed just because they try to stop things that are a nuisance, or are considered morally wrong.
-nova20
(Opera doesn't like when you 127.0.0.1 a ad website in your /etc/hosts files; it puts the advertisement URL in the address bar after a (very little) while...)
The only reason advertisers didn't hire someone to follow you around with a bullhorn was the expense. Then the internet was invented, and along with it, the pop-up ad...
if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
Requesting clarification of
1 -- It is impossible to stop spam because US laws have no effect on other countries!!
2 -- US patent and copyright laws will stifle all humankind, because they are forced on or become de-facto standards in other countries!!
Please resolve contradiction and continue posting activity.
Thank you.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Yeah, after that, they'll make us get National ID cards.
>It's not a question of what it's "about". The result is still the same, the good ol' USA is still attempting to make laws for the internet. Every day we lose more freedom.
if you had a clue you'd know this isn't about the internet.
if the back door to your house weren't locked am I allowed to barge in, knock over your tv, throw away anything you're working on and force you to see my adverts?
no? well this is just the same principle applied to computers.
indecypherable, even by the ever self-updating eyecon0meter kode.
So in other words, the laws are there to protect people who haven't take the time to ensure they've protected themselves?
Now if they could just get rid of these 30 second pop-up ads that appear on my TV 4 or 5 at a time. Like, I'll be watching a movie, it'll get to a really good part, and then BAM!, 6 pop-ads about feminine products, male enhancement pills, etc.
The worst part is they seem to get more agressive towards the end of the movie. Once I saw like 15 pop-up ads before the cliff hanger ending last scene. When is the FTC going to outlaw this madness!?
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
WinXP SP1a disabled the messenger service by default so the only sufferers left are now the neverpatched and windows 2000 users, SP2 closes this even further
it was an issue but since XPSP1a (about 6mo maybe more ago) it is no longer
This should be just as effective.
Well, I'm not saying that pop-up ads are as bad as a poisoned water supply or contaminated food. But do we have to live in a world where only the most heinous crimes are punished?
If you want to go down that road then why not just lock up mass murderers and let burglars and fraudsters go unpunished. After all, one's not as bad as the other, right?
Less government is almost always good? Yeah, in a utopian world perhaps. But in the real world it doesn't work that way, does it? Someone always comes along and abuses the system. If people didn't steal we wouldn't need laws against it, if people didn't write malicious viruses we wouldn't need laws against it, etc.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Contaminated Food
;).
You could die.
Poison the land
You could die.
Oil Spills
Lots of cute fuzzy animals could die.
Mailbox full of unwanted sales pitches
You could be inconvenienced.
Get away with murder
You could die.
Out of the above choices I think I will pick the unwanted sales pitches. The other choices are not even comparable.
Furthermore I do not need the government to spend my tax money protecting me from small annoyances I can easily take steps to prevent myself. But then again there are lots of other stupid government decisions that far outweigh this one
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
What always amazed me is the number of people who got these popups. Normal users, sure, that's understable. But I'd have friends that work in the tech dept getting these things, and complaining to ME about them.
I was even flamed a few times, on various internet forums, because I told people to, "Install a god damned firewall" to block these things. Not because of my tone, but because that obviously wouldn't work.
There are reasons why people use these tactics. There are enough idiots in the world that they work.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I am very well likely re-stating the obvious here, but so incredible many people think that they're getting web browser popups it's sick.
"According to the FTC, the pop-ups sent by D Squared could appear even when a user was not actively web browsing."
No crap? All that does in the article is confuse the user. At one point in time, because the box is labeled "Messenger", the MSN messenger site said that they were "looking into claims of users using the Messenger Sevice for advertisments." It may still be on there, but I can't find it.
Am I the only one who's annoyed by people's ignorance?
So in other words, the laws are there to protect people who haven't take the time to ensure they've protected themselves?
no, the laws are there to protect people that are too ignorant to know that what there doing is risky -- and there will *always* be ignorant people, thus laws, or "government control" is neccessary.
But my point is that he's bashing lawmakers *just* for making laws -- it's like bitching at birds for flying! I've seen legitamate arguments against this law, but bitching about a law just because it's a law is just low-class.
-nova20
I disagree - there are two reasons why regulation is necessary. The first is as you say - because someone always tries to abuse the system. The second reason, though, is that we, as consumers, don't want the responsibility of having to determine which corporations are good and which aren't.
Corporations abuse the "system", and the "system" includes the act of regulation. If regulation solely did what it was intended to do, great, but what happens in practice is that regulation becomes a tool of the (wealthy lobbying) corporation to limit consumer choice in their favor.
I can not buy an extremely low-emmission, 50mpg Volkswagen TDI in my state any more (NY) thanks to regulation, but I can buy a 7MPG heavy polluting American made SUV. How did regulation help me?
The real abusers of the system - the "original sinners", if you like - are the consumers who willing give up responsibility and decision making.
If consumers acted with responsibility and social awareness, then regulation wouldn't be needed, but everyone doesn't do that, do they?
Yeah, and so is my foot in your face, buddy.
I was using the others as examples of areas where regulation already exists and why it exists. But to say that companies should be allowed to do anything short of kill you is just as silly.
If I don't want spam filling up my inbox, junk mail filling up my post box, text spams filling up my mobile phone, or calls and messages from telemarketers hogging up my home phone line then I shouldn't have to rely solely on their ability to follow some flimsy voluntary code of practice. Like I said before, there's always someone who abuses the system and it's that someone that you need laws to protect you and everyone else against.
Self-regulation doesn't work. If you can name me one industry in which it does then I'll tip my hat to you.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Give it enough time and someone will create the technology to fix this with no government intervention.
...and the spammers will create new methods to get around that technology, costing businesses more resources to combat those methods, and so on.
If the majority of the public wants this kind of advertising stopped, then someone with authority has to step in and stop it, because the advertisers won't stop it -- because they have no ethics, or rather their ethics are defined by whatever they can get away with, as they have shown time and time again.
Yes. I don't get your point. We have lots of laws like this. If I had enough time to guard with a shotgun we wouldn't need laws against breaking and entering. Are you saying I'm lazy and such laws are bad?
What these people were doing is so clearly wrong, I can't understand all the "free enterprise" defenders.
OK, I agree that SOME limited government regulation is required. Are you seriously comparing popup ads to a poisoned water supply or contaminated food?
Yes.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Well, there's your precedent for regulating other technology, like say P2P.
By the way, that's a libertarian argument. Even those in favor of minimalist government still want to government to prevent people from infringing on the rights of others. Popup backdoor ads interfere with the use of your property, which is your computer. Hence they infringe on your rights, which makes it necessary for the government to step in.
what bill? this is an enforcement of existing law
The only way that the government could slow down the scams and spam is to punish the people that buy this crap. Stop the flow of money and spam will stop.
I however think that the government should get the hell out of the internet and let free market change thing.
As for the pollution argument, remember that the government is on of the biggest polluters. kind of like having the fox guard the henhouse.
I do not see any difference whatsoever. I didn't request the ad, I wasn't actively using my phone.. This is just another instance of laws trying to catch up to technology and the judge not understanding anything.
If I had mod points, I'd give them to you. Well, technically, I'd give ONE to you, but since we're fantasizing, I'm fantasizing about giving all five to you.
Isn't the legal community always the big winner? Either side of the legal struggle loseses, the lawyer wins (...looks a little bit like the AvP subtitle).
Ni.
With laws preventing me from punishing offenders as I see fit, I am also powerless.
I agree, self-regulation doesn't work. Unless it is in the best interest of the self.
But government regulation should only be a last resort. For when a person has no hope of protecting themselves and will suffer financially. Unsolicited faxes and cell phone calls are two examples.
Email spam, telemarketers, and junk mail are all annoyances I am willing to suffer. Lets educate society and advertisers by taking the responsibility upon ourselves to not purchase items advertised in this manner.
The messenger pop-up ads are a good example. Mildly annoying but easy to prevent, a technical problem rather than a legislative problem.
Again, I agree self regulation does not work, however peer pressure and market forces do work.
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
OK, you are a Fucktray as are your friends who keep saying the same thing... RTF'nA! The FTC has barred ONE COMPANY - D Squared from continuing the practice which it recieved consumer complaints about.
This is an agreement between the FTC and D Squared, who along with not doing this annoying shit anymore has also agreed to not send spam via IM programs, and to have it's business practices monitored by the FTC for a period of 5 years.
You see, using an OS flaw to force ads upon people who aren't even surfing the web, selling software to "Stop annoying ads like these" amounts to extortion (which is what the complaint and the FTC said about the practice) D Squared said "Uh uh, our business model is perfect, so we can fuck our customers over if we want" FTC said no, and fought D Squared, who then agreed to this settlement (they could have kept fighting and possibly won) with the FTC.
NOW HOW IS THE FTC GOING TO FUCKING REGULATE IT... they are going to monitor D Squared's future business practices AS STATED IN THE FUCKING ARTICLE ASSTARDS!
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society - M. Twain
It really is one of the fun things in Windows. Here at work, we'd find developers with weak or known sa passwords on desktop sql servers they were running. Use the stored procedure that lets you run command line stuff remotely to do net sends from thier machine hitting on same sex coworkers or to start fights. Watch the fireworks ensue. Now that is entertainment!
As much as I agree with you..
..." or a valid argument about how now the FTC regulates decency..
why even bother posting that on *this* site of all sites?
You know you're just going to nailed as a Troll and then hit with other left political stuff.
Now there won't be any "They should go after Microsoft for making crappy software!" posts.. just "You conservatives blah blah blah government control = good when it 'makes life better'
I've never even gotten one of these Windows messages so I have no idea what it's all about.. but whatever... once again the government has done something that won't change anything except increase their power.
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
Hmmm, what's the word I'm thinking of... Oh yeah... DUH! What I cannot believe is that marketing people think that popups are effective advertising!
I don't think this has any direct pertinence to the article but I just wanted to clarify the distinction between an advertising campaign and a marketing campaign.
An advertising campaign is used to promote awareness of some object or issue. A marketing campaign is used to elicit a (desired) response on the object or issue.
For example, a pop-up for Viagra appears and you close the pop-up turn to your wife and say "I don't need Viagra for the bedroom. They shouldn't waste my bandwidth with pop-ups." I would say as an advertising campaign, it was pretty successful. The company has put Viagra on your mind. As a marketing campaign, you might boycott the product resulting in a failure on the company's part.
In my mind, pop-ups are decent advertising tools. They aren't the best marketing tools but then again, I don't think the use and presentation of pop-ups have been effectively explored.
Hmmm... I think it's time to sit down and work on a business model.
If your computer's unpatchable operating system is so mission critical, you can try running all traffic through an SSL-secured tunnel to a proxy service.
Ads were "an annoyance you have to deal with in a free society," lawyer Anthony J. Dain is quoted as saying.
No.
Ads are an annoyance that you have to deal with in order to receive something else funded by those ads for free or cheaper than it would otherwise cost.
In this case, the pop-up ads were not subsidising anything else for the people that got them. They just appeared unwanted and unexpected. You expect ads on the TV, on the radio, on websites. In return you get free TV, free radio, free websites. What is the consumer gaining from these popup adverts.
Hell, even junk mail probably subsided the postal service, allowing stamps to be made a little cheaper.
The same theory should apply to spam. The recipient is not benefitting from the spam in any way. The spammers aren't subsidising their internet connection. It goes from Win-Win (free service for the consumer and products being presented to people for the company) to Win-Lose (products being presented to people, but nothing in return except a waste of time).
Mr. Goatse sheds a tear
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Exactly. Without legal (read: governmental law) recourse, individuals with diverse and conflicting interests are forced to resolve their differences through any means available.
Which is why contracts for illicate materials for example often result in the use of violance as a means of resolving differences between their individual interests.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
The lesson here is that the best solution in a situation like this is to close the goddamn port.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Any law that bans those pop up ads is ok to me. I think all pop ups should be banned and the only ads that should be alowed are small banner ads. Limit 2 per page.
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"
Does anyone know if details on FTC spending on such matters is publically available? I'm not really concerned about D Squared - since, as Paul so gently reminded us, it is only one company. I am concerned that this makes fighting spam the perogative of the FTC. How many individuals/companies exploit OS flaws to sell stuff?
Now, in this case, D Squared was able to exploit the Messenger feature (easily fixed... or turned off). Bascially no one signed up for it, it wasn't even that they clicked on a website or opened up some email.
Visit Tim's Journal, yes?
If someone abuses the system, it's time to change the system. I would most certainly say that THIS type of popup ad is the computer equivalent of a poisoned water supply.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Give it enough time and someone will create the technology to fix this with no government intervention.
Actually, somebody already did- it's called the personal broadband firewall, costs less than $100 from many companies. But that's not the point- and I most certainly consider this form of a popup- the local subnet broadcast message- to be the computer equivalent of the poisoned water supply. Buy your own filter/distillery and put it on your incoming water supply pipe and you won't have to worry about poisoned water supplies either.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I have seen computers pre-loaded with Windows XP Pro that had the messenger service disabled, but that was due to the actions of the OEM; on a default install of Windows XP the messenger service is set to automatically start. I think the FTC should consider this an enabling activity on the part of Microsoft and move to put a stop to it!
Logic is a wonderful thing but doesn't always beat actual thought. -Terry Pratchett
"'[Ads are] an annoyance you have to deal with in a free society,' lawyer Anthony J. Dain is quoted as saying."
Unfortunately, so are lawyers.
That would be the same analogy as people suing a Gun manfacture just because the gun was used in a crime. Why stop there why not sue the developer that wrote the code for Windows Messenger.
"Why is government control *always* considered a bad thing?"
Many humans are by nature, unfortunately, selfish and will take advantage of others if allowed to do so.
That's why.
This would be a victory if ...
... in a straightjacket.
It's not a victory for technology, nor for freedom.
What we have here is an network facility that was implemented badly (ie. without default access controls), and instead of the manufacturers getting their wrists slapped by the user community for inept design, the courts are brought in and it's turned into yet another thing for the state to regulate.
It happens to be an MS problem in this case, but the issue is of much wider concern. You really don't want the state brought in when the problem is just a symptom arising from a technical fault. If you do, pretty soon the nanny state is tucking you up in bed every night
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
That with the PC, they are running code that I would not chose to allow to run. Code, not data. In TV land the commercial is DATA. My TV is not changed afterwards. Also, it is well known where these commercials are, they are not trying to hide from me. I go to them *if I choose*, knowing what is coming, and I am free to avoid them *if I choose*. By and large, these popups do not afford me this choice.
.popup TLD, so I can tell before I click the link, and you have a valid point.
Make it so that web sites that have popups have a
emt 377 emt 4
Has anyone else noticed that humans get "3 strikes and you're out", "preventive detention", and various other ruthless criminal treatment, while corporations, with greater power to damage the public, get "monitored", and settle their suits with no precedent or remedies?
--
make install -not war
If it is not illegal to spam, then it should not be illegal to hunt and kill spammers for sport.
Most people view their computers with the same regard they have for their refridgerators and microwaves. You turn it on and you press the buttons. Not only should they not have to think about it, it would never even occur to the average person to do so.
OS's should ship set to auto-update, and people smart enough to not like that can turn it off.
paintball
It might be just a "midly annoying" problem to you but to someone less technically-gifted it might be the most annoying thing in the world. Similarly, telemarketers might not be the bane of your life but I'm sure there are people out there who get call after call after call from the same companies that just won't take no for an answer.
People should be able to use their PCs for the purposes that they see fit without being constantly disrupted by pop-up ads, and people should be able to enjoy the benefit of owning a phone without being constantly bombarded by companies trying to sell them their wares.
Even peer pressure and market forces go so far. Again, it all comes down to the fact that there's always someone who abuses the system.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Bearing in mind that advertising something on the TV or radio and crawling into someone's house through an open window and pinning a flyer on the fridge are not the same thing...
If you crawl into their house, you might actually get a cookie.
paintball
Yeah, because the best way to "protect consumers" is to fine a company into oblivion for something that's legal. You heard me. Legal. Morally responsible? Probably not, depending on who you speak to. But legal. I'd hate to see any sort of precedent set where the government can say "ok, now that we've made $action illegal, let's go retroactively apply fines to everyone who did it last year."
do not read this line twice.
in order to avoid all situations where a person might get frustrated that their own computer won't let them do something.
Work for more than 5 minutes without receiving a popup?
paintball
A friend of mine pointed out a case in which a pop-up/pop-under/pop-whatever redirected IE to a "legit" advertiser's site. No biggie. What was a problem was that the advertiser's site had been hacked and had some bit of malware on it, which installed bad stuff (bank info logger) on the user's computer.
Isn't that a bitch? Who's liable in this case? Mom's surfing the web, gets a pop-up, ho-hum, and winds up with her bank account drained because of spyware. Perhaps some civil litigation could be used against the pop-up providers or websites. If Ford and Firestone are sued when their vehicle/tire combination flips you upside down at 60MPH, why aren't websites and pop-up vendors sued when they lead IE users to spyware? (Yes, I understand that I pay for Ford/Firestone and don't pay for CNN... Still...)
--- Dregs
That would be the same analogy as people suing a Gun manfacture just because the gun was used in a crime. Why stop there why not sue the developer that wrote the code for Windows Messenger.
I hate to break it to you, but suing a gun manufacturer because the gun was used in a crime has been done.
I can't remember the actual case, but there was one recently where a gun maker had a model that couldn't be safely loaded: due to a design flaw, you had to take the safety off to load the weapon. This flaw was known to the gun maker who did nothing to rectify it and when the gun went off accidentally, killing (if I remember correctly) the wielder, the courts held them responsible for the consequences because they had knowingly sold an inherently flawed and unsafe product.
Now, I'm no lawyer, and if I was I wouldn't be as good as any lawyer (and lobbying firm, and campaign contributions) that Microsoft could muster, but it seems to me that you could reasonably argue that the security loopholes left wide open in the default setup of Windows XP, etc could leave Microsoft vulnerable to the same line of argument: ie, that they knowingly sell an inherently flawed and unsafe product.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Are you old enough ro be out of the creche and roaming the real Internet?
Best,
Mal the Elder
After all this time, I can't believe that the gummint hasn't figured that going after the PopUp merchants is a mugs game.
Go after the viagra retailers, fine them ten times what it would cost to print an ad, leave it to the local jurisdiction to collect, and they'll be gone in a day.
Destroy the market. Don't waste time and energy on the people trying to make a buck from it. Destroy the market...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
As usual, in spite of the headline implying that the FTC took decisive action, this does basically nothing. Look at what was actually agreed to. The perpetrators agree that "We didn't do anything wrong and we promise not to again, either".
This kind of things doesn't discourage the practice; exactly the opposite in that it shows there is no penalty for it.
As others have noticed, the practice is much more discouraged by the fact that so many people are now closing that loophole. But the FTC action achieved nothing.
"Many humans are by nature, unfortunately, selfish and will take advantage of others if allowed to do so."
RE: Many humans are by nature, unfortunately, are a prime target of which will be taken advantage. Those are the people that we as community members should be held responsible to protect and nurture. In the event they are simply plain stupid they deserve and receive their just punishment.
Give a man a fire, keep him warm a night. Start a man on fire, keep him warm the rest of his life.
Ads were "an annoyance you have to deal with in a free society," lawyer Anthony J. Dain is quoted as saying.
So, if I walk into a courtroom during this lawyer's next litigation and start shouting out an advertisement for something, the judge is going to see it as "an annoyance you have to deal with in a free society". I don't think so.
So billboards subsidize... what exactly?
Or for that matter, the ads that wallpaper telephone poles? And empty buildings? The banners pulled along by airplanes at the beach? Sidewalk chalk? Or the 1-800-get-junk signs stuck into the ground at every available point?
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
How did this get marked insightful?
It's not about government control, it's about recourse.
wtf do you call the FTC declaring anything illegal? Are you broken?
There are technological means to blocking popups. We don't need the corporate^Wgovernment bureaucracy and inefficiencies proposed here. This is a scary precedent, and requires you the programmer/websiteDesigner to go through complicated processes to ensure your design is functioning within the laws.
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
You said:
Advertisements may be a form of "speech" protected by our amendments (and I agree with you there), and paid for to promote products on television but our computers are more interactive than a remote control and for a variety of reasons.
However, computers are like our homes. You should not just walk on in and post a message on my couch, refrigerator, nightstand or bathroom mirror. They are personal, just like our homes, arranged to be just like we want them and left that way. The naivete of most computer users equals that of a new home owner, but on a longer time line. they don't know how to protect themselves all the time, or perhaps at all in the correct ways (barring the illusion of security) and it's up to many people to have some ethics not to violate others privacy, rights to a secure home (or computer) etc.
So if you know someone that' being violated, don't complain about the perpetrator(s). fix their problem and warn them about those said perpetrator(s) and tell them how to protect themselves.
OK, so they addressed Popups and Popunders. But what about those %@&# Flash ads that are atarting to appear everywhere? You know, the ones that overlay the open window and play fancy animation, music, and dialog?
I find these types of ads even more intrusive because in many cases, you have to sit through the animation and other crap BEFORE the "close" button even appears. Reminds me of being "forced" to watch certain segments on the newer DVDs. And then, because these ads don't adhere to any UI standards, the "close" button is often hard to find. Whoever came up with these nasties should be teken out and immediatly shot.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
Moron.
They're still doing it. I guess Time/Warner is still mightier than the law. But I just went to CNN, and BAM! a big fat pop-under. Wonder if they'll be compliant any time soon? (NOTE: it ain't spyware causing this, it's actual code on the CNN.com site-- turn off popup blockers and try it, it's fun!). Hey, let's all file a complaint!
did you win a free ipod? build a case for it here
I realize that this is going to be a really unpopular view, but hear me out.
My argument is that we institute legal processes to fix things only when we cannot fix them otherwise. For example, we have no way of keeping people from burning people's houses down, so we have the crime of "arson". If there was a simple spray for a house that made everything completely non-flammable, there'd be no reason to introduce the complexity and overhead of legalities.
The problem is that this is not an insoluable technical problem. (I don't think that *spam* is an insoluable technical problem either, but at least it's *harder* to solve.) It is very, very easy to stop boxes from ever popping up. Microsoft screwed up, and it'd be easy for them to provide a download from Windows Update that disables the Messenger service. Instead, they've chosen not to do so. This is an easy, easy fix. If people's computers were being *compromised* (so that by the time Microsoft's update came in, the computer was already controlled by a hacker, and nothing could be done), there would be a different issue. Pop-ups? Just disable the damned thing.
The same goes for instant messenger messages (though to a lesser extent). It is *extremely* difficult to try to slip ads past our existing messaging services, which are both (a) centralized, and (b) unencrypted. If IP Foo using account Bar is sending messages to a thousand different people in a day, something is very clearly quite dubious about that person.
I really, really, really do not think that the FTC should get involved. I can understand people being pissed off, but the person to be pissed off at is Microsoft in the case of Windows Messenger and the instant message provider in the case of the instant messaging. One of the fundamental things that you have to do when you design a system is make it reasonably unpromising to abusers. That was not done in either case. It's not something that requires intervention from the FTC (unless they want to make a statement about how people should complain to Microsoft/whatever instant messaging company is involved).
I could even see the FTC working with the industry to try to set up a mechanism for identifying people using their software that requires updates and notifying those people. But trying to stop advertising by going after one company at a time is pointless, and a waste of my tax dollars.
May we never see th
Is this a play on "I'm your back door lover"?
Hilarious!
There seems to be some misunderstanding in this thread.
Please note that we are talking about the messenger service running under Windows, not the Windows Messenger IM program or web browser popup windows.
Apparently, the President has issued a comment on Hubble maintenance. He stated:
"As part of my commitment to manned space flight, I have decided that the Hubble Space Telescope will now be know as the Hubble Space Station. We are going to send a man up to live in there. I know there's not much room, so we're looking for a small person -- a midget, or maybe a jockey."
Flash ads are the new obnoxious method. Of course they aren't exactly new. I've been seeing them for at least a few years. I think now that IE has the built-in popup blocker, we'll be seeing more and more of them, and unlike normal popup windows, they don't have to have a close button. I for one will not enjoy having to watch a full commerical in flash everytime I view a page.
It's scary being a Flash and Flex developer on Slashdot. You guys are unnaturally rabid.
Sounds like something the Ancient left behind and got incorporated by Microsoft.
It might be just a "midly annoying" problem to you but to someone less technically-gifted it might be the most annoying thing in the world.
Then maybe they should turn off the computer.
telemarketers might not be the bane of your life but I'm sure there are people out there who get call after call after call from the same companies that just won't take no for an answer
That's why I bought an answering machine. Damn telemarketers. "Buy our light bulbs", "Win a vacation to Florida", "Pay us the money you owe us or we'll send a collection agency after you." Sheesh.. You'd think they'd fucking take the hint.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
People who aren't technically-gifted should just quit using a computer? Wow, that's a narrow-sighted view if ever I've seen one: if nothing else, you forget that we were all new at this once.
And I like to know how or why an answering machine is the holy grail to telemarketing. Why should someone have to pay for an answering machine to solve a problem created by someone else? How does the answering machine help free up your phone line whilst the telemarketers are actually calling? What happens if you go away for a week and miss the message from your mother that someone's at death's door and that you should get your ass to the hospital ASAP because the entire recording length of your answering machine is taken up by sales pitches for fencing and windows?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
standard size horizontal banner ads are the single most inginious form of internet advertising, except, of course, for the strobing *you are a winner* ads. But Mozilla can take care of those pretty easy. If there were only banner ads, it would be so much better.
"In America, you can always find a party. In Russia, party always finds you."
Oh, just shut up. Completely ridiculous arguments don't become cogent just because they're directed against Microsoft. Even here.
It's comments like this that make me long for a "Weird, +0" moderation option. :)
How many non-geeky types used USENET though, as opposed to the regulars who use email, IM, etc.
The messenger server spam is a little different than email SPAM, as it's slightly easier to track as well. Email SPAM will likely be around for awhile, but eventually the profit levels should drop enough to make it dwindle - though this will probably take several years.
US gov't might not be able to do much to them out of country. However, if the spammers can be identified then they'll pay for it if they ever travel through the US.
I just installed XP SP2 on a client's XP Home machine. The FIRST WORDS out of his mouth before I even told him what I was going to do were "Well, I hope it doesn't make it any harder to use that damned computer. It took me long enough to figure it out as it is now..." and other related expressions of exasperation.
I can't wait (actually I can) to hear from him when the first SP2 pop-up question asks for permission to do something.
It is users like this that M$ sought to appease. M$ would rather open the thing up as wide as a 2 dollar whore rather than have millions of idiot lusers calling up their tech support lines asking how to answer the latest security question dialog.
Now M$ sees the egg on their face from the many security breaches as a bigger and growing problem, thus we have SP2 now. Expect the complaints from lusers over the coming months to increase exponentially.
Maybe this is the big chance for you linux sycophants to swoop down on unsuspecting Windoze lusers and lure them over?
slashdot: A failed experiment.
Benificial or not, how the hell is this even their jursdiction? Their regulating someone's technology, if you don't like it, don't install the farking software or use stuff that works with it. This is insane.
Yawn.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Flamebait, eh? What, I post something that might just suggest that the advertisers might be allowed to connect to machines that agree to be connected to, and a bunch of rabid anti-advertising slashdotters decide I'm just trying to bait them.
You guys probably use the exact same logic as the advertisers to excuse your actions when you use open wireless nodes. "They left the door open; they won't mind if I use it. If they didn't want me to use it, they'd secure the network."
How's it different? Instead of a dialog box, their throughput goes to hell for no apparent reason?
As pointed out by numerous slashdotters who don't live in the United States, this won't stop anyone anywhere else in the world. So it's really a non-solution. As I've already said in the parent, I feel it's far worse than just a non-solution.
Anti-advertising meets online freedom--that's a head-exploding notion for slashdotters.
I run a server--and I hate the huge amount of bandwidth that is used for inbound spam. I mean, it really grates me. Spamassassin is working overtime, and sometimes the machine slows considerably. I might need to upgrade hardware just to handle the spam volume. I HATE IT!
HOWEVER, I'm way short of saying Congress or the FTC should step in and do anything about it, because I realize that it won't do any good, and will likely do harm in the long run.
You people who modded me down need to realize that.
If you can cite a good reason why the messenger service should be enabled by default on a computer system designed with the ability to be connected directly to the Internet without expert technical assistance, I'll give some thought to your assertion that my argument is ridiculous.
Logic is a wonderful thing but doesn't always beat actual thought. -Terry Pratchett
Secure IE against ActiveX/JavaScript/VBScript/IFRAME exploits
Stop the 'unblockable' Messenger service
To further minimize the possibility of malware invading your system, use antivirus and firewall products. I use:
AVG antivirus by Grisoft.
Sysclean by Trend Micro
Outpost Firewall by Agnitum.
Filter spam/malware out of your email. I use CF13-POP3(TM). It is a freeware program I wrote to crush the email spam/malware menace. It is very effective.
A companion shareware program I wrote at the above URL is an all-in-one software mail server that makes it pratically impossible to accept and deliver email spam/malware.
*cough* mark of the beast *cough*
Revelation 13:16-17
He required everyone--great and small, rich and poor, slave and free--to be given a mark on the right hand or on the forehead. No one could buy or sell anything without that mark, which was either the name of the beast or the number representing his name.
Wow. What a compelling argument you've got there, Bob. "Yawn"? Yup, you really converted me with that one.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
It isn't too hard to imagine that over the course of 10 years, 3 BS lawsuits could be brought against a company. The cases have no merit, but are settled out of court because it would be more expensive to fight them (happens all the time). If those settlements were over $1 million, bam, the company is dead.
For purposes of this title,"major violation of law" means the intentional or grossly negligent violation of any federal, state or local law in the United States that results in the imposition against the corporation of a fine, civil penalty, restitution, damages, or other monetary payment of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000) or results in the death of a person.
You have a company that manufacturers fighter jets... In the course of 10 years, you lose two test pilots and one person to a slip and fall accident. This company is now dead in California.
I am obviously not a lawyer or lawmaker, but if I can come up with these two scenarios where reponsible companies can be targeted and 'killed', I'm sure real lawyers could think of a 1,000 ways to get rid of companies that have environmental or political policies they don't like. Oh yeah, every cigarette company would be banned too.
Hell, there are no rules here. We're trying to accomplish something. - Thomas Edison
I like your idea! I'm already thinking very carefully about every negative moderation that I metamoderate, with this exact problem in mind. I would personally have modded that tip +1, funny, had I the mod points; I just don't get some mods sometimes!
Cheers!
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
The Messenger service should be disabled by default. As of SP2, I believe that it is.
It is, however, completely absurd to suggest suing Microsoft for the actions of spammers. What about all of the routers used to pipe the ads to users? Should we sue Cisco for not blocking the port in firmware? Or how about the backbone providers?
Proposing that the government arbitrarily punish a company that you don't like for breaking laws that don't exist is completely asinine.
It is, however, completely absurd to suggest suing Microsoft for the actions of spammers.
Well, we're not talking about normal channels of communication where the end-user might reasonably expect to receive this kind of spam, if that's what you like to call invasive pop-up messages. It is reasonable to consider whether Microsoft acted with negligence in light of the fact that this particular method of spam requires the recipient to be running a Microsoft Windows-only service which has historically been enabled by default.
Proposing that the government arbitrarily punish a company that you don't like for breaking laws that don't exist is completely asinine.
Punishments are arbitrary when they fail to be consistent with respect to all parties. My original point was that the punishment against D Squared could actually be viewed in this light. Rendering judgement against a malicious actor without addressing the larger concern of an unnecessary vulnerability (which only invites more malicious actors!) could very easily be considered arbitrary.
Logic is a wonderful thing but doesn't always beat actual thought. -Terry Pratchett