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.
So, will this be as ineffective as the CAN-SPAM act?
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
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.
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.
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.
Or, even better, put a damn firewall between your (Windows) computer and the Internet.
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!?
Spam started out, how many years ago on Usenet(?) and despite the millions companies spend making software to block, and the millions of man hours it takes up to script them out and off our networks, that the chance of making a few hundred still shunts our efforts since these guys won't stop sending.
It'll just take time. But like the television commercial of today they'll be ranging far into the future.
We need to start stopping these guys at the gates earlier.
Let's keep in mind that patents are in place to keep lawyers employed and keep them litigating. -CatGrep
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
1. Find a link to it (SP2Torrent.com is one, IIRC)
2. Download it
3. Install it
4. Reboot
5. Curse because something broke, or it hosed your system
6. Undo the damage (ranging from uninstalling SP2, to reinstalling Windows XP and all applications, and possibly recreating documents)
Ok, I hope you're being sarcastic, but barring that, I don't care how badly service packs can break your existing system. It's one thing if you have to reinstall/reimage a working system and install all applications needed, but if you have to RECREATE documents, because you didn't back everything up BEFORE applying arbitary service packs, updates, etc., then that's your own damn fault.
Join the TWIT army now!
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
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.
>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.
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
That's like saying you authorized unwanted junk faxes when you signed up for a second phone line and attached a fax machine.
I happen to want to run messenger because software on my home network uses it to notify me of issues like UPS battery problems and the like.
I can live without messenger, but just because I choose to run software on my PC doesn't give anyone the right to abuse it.
(microsoft security failures aside)
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
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?
Yeah, and so is my foot in your face, buddy.
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.
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.
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
how many of your MSExchange server users are home users?
default all extra services to off, allow people to turn them on.
so Corp IT people will need to turn on 5-10 services for their desktop machines.
Home users still won't know whats missing, nor should they be effected by a buffer overflow is a service they don't use.
if it's off, it won't be exploited, if it's on, you have atleast a clue about where to look for information about it.
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).
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.
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
Very true, but it is pretty useless to the average home user. It would have been better to disable by default it in XP Home, at the least. If you're one of the few home users who uses it for something useful, you probably know how to turn it on :)
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
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
Ick. That's the problem right there. Ads are an annoyance you have to deal with if you want something free. I really can't complain too much about ads on TV because that's where they get their money to put the shows on. Just living in a free society, however, should not automatically require you to provide an audience to advertisers.
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.
First, the messenger service can be useful when it's not being abused, so if you have a firewall blocking incoming traffic from the Internet you can continue using the messenger service inside your network.
Second, a hardware firewall keeps unwanted traffic off of the local network.
Third, if you have the messenger service turned off, I can still send network traffic to your computer that will be received on the messenger port and will then give me total control of your system. I just made that up, but if you're using a closed OS you have no way to prove that statement false. A firewall, particularly a non-MS firewall, gives you an extra layer of security.