Slashdot Mirror
No Honor Among Malware Purveyors
metalion writes "True to the saying 'no honor among thieves,' adware company, Avenue Media, is finding that competing adware company, DirectRevenue, is detecting and deleting their software. Now Avenue Media is crying foul and have filed a lawsuit against DirectRevenue stating that DirectRevenue 'knowingly and with intent to defraud, exceeded its authorized access to users' computers.' DirectRevenue acknowledges that it may uninstall competing applications in its user license agreement. A researcher at Harvard University, Ben Edelman, reasons that 'Once the computer is infected with 10 different unwanted programs, the person is likely to take some action to address the situation.' Just how far will adware companies go to continue to attempt to bombard us with their ads?"
We all have been complaining about malware for years. . .
Now they are complaining about themselves.
When does it stop?
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Reminds me of the stories of people calling the police because someone stole their weed.
God spoke to me.
" Just how far will adware companies go to continue to attempt to bombard us with their ads?""
When ads are burned into BIOSes.
Just how far will adware companies go to continue to attempt to bombard us with their ads?
A) As far as they think they need to go
B) As far as they are allowed to go and remain on the right side of the law
C) As far as they need to go despite the law
D) All of the above
E) Profit?
F) CowboyNeal
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
great idea, put all the malware to fight, and the survivor gets to be deleted by spybot.
More fun than core wars
Now if only we could make these malware programs only target other malware programs and not the operation of the PC...
We could have a little battlebots competition! The Amazing Bonzi takes on reigning champion THE GATOR.
Sometimes you just wish that both sides can lose...
Two programs fighting for dominance on my computer? Brings me back to my AOL on Windows days.
I hope they win the lawsuit. If they were to get the courts to agree that hiding malicious wording in the EULA is fraud then that would be a nice boon to shutting some of these people down.
In fact, just about any attack on the concept of click-through EULAs is pretty good in my book. Scream "contract!" all you want, they're bad for me personally and bad for the industry. Consent and informed consent are two different things and it appears the industry has completely abandonded any pretext of the latter.
TW
www.eFax.com are spammers
I'd like nothing better than to see two spyware companies destroy one another in a glorious battle to the death, but I'd much rather they NOT do it on MY harddrive.
And is my mom and other not-so-savvy users granting said authority in the first place? This suit seems riddled with assumptions that it was legal in the first place to install such software.
And since when has malware displayed any EULA - or any UI, for that matter?
I wondered how long we would have to wait for this to happen. I always imagined it would be university students or black-hats. I never imagined it would be spammers/spyware authors trying to kill each other's programs.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Perhaps also of interest:
After DirectRevenue removes competitors' programs from users' disks, it also transmits extensive information about users' computers. Among the information: MAC address, Windows Product ID, all running tasks, and registry entrise for certain additional competitors (Gator, 180solutions) and removal programs (Ad-Aware, PestPatrol) if installed.
Nothing. Ad-Aware's advertised main function is to remove adware.
This lawsuit is about some adware going outside the boundaries of their advertised function, and removing other adware and only telling the users by the fine print of the EULA.
We have, It's called Linux.
Mozilla is the key along with a system that is better suited to internet attachment.
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
What spyware writers need to do now is add the following features to their code:
- Random mutations
- Breeding and crossover with other spyware programs so that chunks of similar malicious code are exchanged
- A fitness evaluation function
The fitness evaluation should take into account:Barring use of some Windows based Spyware prevention tools (most of which aren't free for corporate use), mirgating to some combination of Mac OS X and Linux would end virtually all of this and then I could charge them for stuff like implementing cool new tools for them to use instead of upkeep of a broken system. Of course, these are the same customers who won't try FireFox because it "just doesn't feel right"???
I'm truly torn between my ethics and the need to keep up my income in a crap economy.
A lady in El Paso gets a telemarketing call. She says no, repeatedly. Telemarketer ignores her, repeatedly. She hangs up, forcefully.
She later gets a letter saying:
So, we have:
OK, I move that we commit all advertisers to institutions for the criminally insane, right now.
Any seconds?
www.eFax.com are spammers
Wait, I have a better idea... don't do that first bit and go straight to shooting the bastards!
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Not quite. A parasite, by definiton, is an organism that harms its host. According to something I read a long time ago, there are three types of cohabitating organisms. A parasite harms its host, a symbiont benefits its host, and a commensal neither harms nor helps its host. It's the last one you were thinking of.
Not benign - there's nothing much benign about malaria, for instance. It's not about not affecting your host, it's about not killing it, and that's true of malware as much as it is of a biological parasite.
In about 1995 I worked for a telemarketer. Yeah, I know. Anyway, I sat in a meeting once with some people from a trendy ad agency. They said one of the best ways to market things on the Internet was to visit newsgroups and message boards (what we now call blogs), and ask a question as one user, then provide the answer as another. The answer, of course, would advertize Our Fine Product.
I told them that was lying, and that it was wrong. They looked at me blankly. I may as well have been speaking Latin. I then explained a bit about Internete culture, and the negative feedback of spamming newsgroups. That, they could comprehend, but they didn't think I knew what I was talking about. Their model worked - and it wasn't lying, it was just business.
The mindset of people who spam, sell banner ads, use covert marketing, and advertize on Channel One is (to overgeneralize): whatever it takes to make money.
It doesn't matter what is "right" or "wrong" - rightness and wrongness are a matter of degree, and that degree is measured by a cost-benefit equation. If the
(likely revenue) > X% + sum of (potential costs * likelihood of each)
that's good and "right", otherwise it's bad and "wrong". 'X' represents the amount of margin you could make off some other investment.
The thing that distinguishes telemarketers and spammers is that negative feedback from non-customers doesn't bother them.
sigs, as if you care.
...but this just made my christmas! Since Santa seems to think I have been a good boy, I have a few more things to ask for...
1) A video tape of rival gangs of spammers getting in knife fights over ISP bandwith 'turf'.
2) Microsoft's Yakuzza getting irritated with SCO's failures to bring down Linux, and doing drive-bys shootings to the board menbers.
3) George Bush Jr. getting in a sissy slap-fight with John Ashcroft over the pronunciation of the word 'Nucular'.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I think all the EULA's are out of control as to how much control and ownership these companies have over your PC and what right's we as owners of the PC should have reserved.
I keep hoping someday, someone, somewhere will really bring all these EULA's that we are all subjected to each and everytime we install something, under a microscope and start really questioning the legality of said EULA's.
Just my 2 cents...