Slashdot Mirror


Who Invests in Spyware Companies?

NW writes "Ben Edelman just published a list of major investors in spyware companies totaling over $139 million in venture capital." Slashdot has not verified Edelman's information, and please note that harassing the receptionist at these places is unlikely to cause any change in their investment policies.

293 comments

  1. Advertisers by DOsinga · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It doesn't really go into who actually advertises on spyware or which networks supply the ads.

    1. Re:Advertisers by krgallagher · · Score: 2, Interesting
      " It doesn't really go into who actually advertises on spyware or which networks supply the ads."

      No it lists investors. From what I see it is a bunch of venture capitol companies; companies that provide money to startup companies in exchange for a stake in the profits. It is pretty much the standard business model for a lot of startups. It is a lot easier to get money from venture capitolists than banks. In exchange you give up some (often most) ownership in the product.

      --

      Insert Generic Sig Here:

    2. Re:Advertisers by Anonymous+Luddite · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >> a stake in the profits

      These are real companies, cutting cheques for amounts in the millions. I wonder what kind of involvement their respective legal departments have in assessing the risk of fines/lawsuits to balance against the potential of profit?

      The numbers must look O.K. even if the ethics don't...

    3. Re:Advertisers by Moderatbastard · · Score: 3, Funny
      From what I see it is a bunch of venture capitol companies; companies that provide money to startup companies in exchange for a stake in the profits.
      That's not what a "venture capitol" company is. A venture capitol company supplies something that looks vaguely similar to the White House.
      --
      1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
    4. Re:Advertisers by Simonetta · · Score: 2, Funny

      "It is a testament to the quality of my opinions that people attack my grammar and spelling."

      Actually I would think that it would be a testament to the quality of the grammar and spell checker being used.

      Sarcasm aside, it seems that venture companies will throw money at any project that has a well-formatted proposal. For example, all the VCO funds that were given to Santa Cruz Operation SCO when they claimed that they owned Linux. They did this after Microsoft gave them a lot of money in the background.

  2. Weatherbug? by AtariAmarok · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wonder who invests in Weatherbug, the notorious spyware company that spams message boards saying "we are not spyware" ? (They have yet to install spyware that says "we do not spam").

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Weatherbug? by gherikill69 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft?

    2. Re:Weatherbug? by kenmtraveller · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I would love a good source to prove that Weatherbug is spyware. My parents use it (the full, paid for version). I had heard that it was spyware and told them so, but my brother in law, who is an executive in the IT department of a major corporation, told them it wasn't. Guess who they believed? -Ken

    3. Re:Weatherbug? by Maestro4k · · Score: 4, Interesting
      • I wonder who invests in Weatherbug, the notorious spyware company that spams message boards saying "we are not spyware" ? (They have yet to install spyware that says "we do not spam").
      For anyone who doubts Weatherbug's evilness, I can relate a concrete example of it. My Mom had been using Weatherbug, and I let her keep it because it seemed fairly harmless. Then one day last month I checked her computer and a box was popped up saying an update to Weatherbug was available, asking if I wanted to install it. I clicked no, it installed anyway.

      It took me a while to get rid of it as well, the remove program entry was broken, I had to download the crap again and install it again to finally get rid of it. I suspect it's left a few registry entries I haven't found yet.

      Weatherbug may or may not be spyware, but I'm inclined to believe it is. Legit companies don't install upgrades against your consent and make it hard as hell to uninstall their software. That is how spyware/malware generally works though.

    4. Re:Weatherbug? by hhawk · · Score: 1

      Doesn't AOL distribute it with AIM?

      --
      http://www.hawknest.com/
    5. Re:Weatherbug? by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Personally, I wouldn't trust Bill Gates, but your parents might. He thinks it's spyware.

    6. Re:Weatherbug? by Ham_belony · · Score: 1

      Duh! So WinXP is spyware. Some updates are installed automatically and try to uninstall it :D

    7. Re:Weatherbug? by Maestro4k · · Score: 3, Informative
      • I would love a good source to prove that Weatherbug is spyware. My parents use it (the full, paid for version). I had heard that it was spyware and told them so, but my brother in law, who is an executive in the IT department of a major corporation, told them it wasn't. Guess who they believed? -Ken
      I can't prove it's spyware, but I can prove they do things against your wishes, see my reply to the grandparent here for more info. I'd highly recommend they get rid of it, there are alternatives that aren't evil.
    8. Re:Weatherbug? by Maestro4k · · Score: 1
      • Duh! So WinXP is spyware. Some updates are installed automatically and try to uninstall it :D
      No, you can turn automatic updates off and chose not to install them even with SP2. I have mine set to download and prompt me to install, I always do custom install and I can uncheck the updates I don't want. It doesn't override my choice and install those anyway like Weatherbug did.
    9. Re:Weatherbug? by narfbot · · Score: 1

      You're right. They might be doing that now, as I've just seen that occur for the first time on a machine recently.

    10. Re:Weatherbug? by Ham_belony · · Score: 1

      Well I don't have automatic update turned on. But found one update that got installed anyhow.

    11. Re:Weatherbug? by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, they do. A few months ago, I was on vacation with my wife's family. And like a real loser, I took my laptop (What can I say, I'm a consultant, I feel naked without my laptop). My wife's stepbrother borrowed it one evening and loaded AIM on it so he could chat with his friends. After the vacation, I removed AIM, but each time I turned the laptop on, I received registry errors due to a failure in the Weatherbug startup process.

      It took me quite a while to figure out how to fix the registry. I had to search the web for the correct settings.

    12. Re:Weatherbug? by Wordsmith · · Score: 1

      Weatherbug isn't spyware. It's adaware, which in my book is almostasannoyingware.

    13. Re:Weatherbug? by narfbot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ouch. The article says that AOL complained to Microsoft over the spyware classification of WeatherBug, and Microsoft is going to remove the signatures for it now.

      Lesson learned by spyware and affliated companies: reputable companies will give in and remove you from their scanner if you pay them off.

      Our lesson: We cannot allow people to trust and buy into Microsoft AntiSpyware when it is starting to sell. (I'd say WinXP for that matter, to begin with, but that will take years to undo the damage already done)

    14. Re:Weatherbug? by discontinuity · · Score: 1

      Weatherbug wound up on my PC at home. I think it is from when my GF put AIM on the computer. If found some instructions on removing it, though I haven't had a chance to try them yet. It includes info on registry updates that Weatherbug makes and even mentions an alternative product for those who what weather updates. -R

    15. Re:Weatherbug? by Riddlefox · · Score: 1

      Can you give some links to some? I'd love to have a program that offers similar capabilities without the evilness.

    16. Re:Weatherbug? by onepoint · · Score: 1

      Well who would invest in weather bug .... Off the top of my head a vaction travel company that works the area the person is visiting. Maybe a taxicab company whom has a catchy telephone number to brand there number to the public. a hotel. Basically I would think travel firms first, then service companies that might be related to travelers.

      there are more but I'm just drawing a blank right now.

      Onepoint

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    17. Re:Weatherbug? by Maestro4k · · Score: 1
      • Weatherbug wound up on my PC at home. I think it is from when my GF put AIM on the computer. If found some instructions on removing it, though I haven't had a chance to try them yet. It includes info on registry updates that Weatherbug makes and even mentions an alternative product for those who what weather updates. -R
      That's the guide I used to finally get rid of it, I'm just suspicious that the new versions have probably changed what registry entries it makes since there's guides to remove the old ones. Basically I don't trust them at all. :)
    18. Re:Weatherbug? by Thng · · Score: 1
      Tropic Designs Weatherpulse in my experience is a good program, and doesn't seem to come w/ any spyware (scanned using adaware, spybot, and Giant/MS spyware). They have forums there and the developer(s?) is active in them. I've been testing it to quietly replace weather bug on the salesmen's desks here. I think it'd work.

      thng

    19. Re:Weatherbug? by Sheepdot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What they have to say:
      http://www.weatherbug.com/aws/NotSpyware.html

      While WeatherBug is not *technically* spyware, it does serve advertisements. But so do a lot of functional websites. Big deal.

      The problem *I* have with WeatherBug is the following:
      1) It is set to automatically come up on boot. And when it does so, it serves an advertisement. Any program that pops up an advertisement is INDEED "adware" by any definition of the term.

      2) The "Typical" installation adds MySearch Toolbar, which is known to cache search terms. Why exactly do they need to store my Internet searches? Why is this installed by default?

      3) A Desktop Icon ad for Netscape. This is pointless and worse, IMHO, than popup ads. I now have to MANUALLY DELETE the advertisement automatically placed on my Desktop

      4) Ironically, when you go to "Add/Remove Programs" they beg you to reconsider uninstalling, then beg you to keep it, they'll just remove the fullscreen pop-up on boot. Why they don't offer a choice in the first place is beyond me. This is really just a rehash of point #1.

      Maybe those of us technical support geeks that loathe the software wouldn't be so offended by it if it somehow knew we were troubleshooting the owner's PC and didn't want to hear about the latest tsumani threat to the state of Iowa, or potential blizzard in San Diego while we're clearing off all the *real* spyware.

      As I know there are WeatherBug employees who are actually paid to refute online comments on forums stating that their product is adware, I openly challenge those employee to please post their definition of "adware" in a reply.

    20. Re:Weatherbug? by Maestro4k · · Score: 3, Insightful
      • Can you give some links to some? I'd love to have a program that offers similar capabilities without the evilness.
      Weather Pulse is ad free and free (as in beer). I haven't used it myself though. Here's the info blurb from their website:
      • Display popular Satellite images and video from around the globe, share images with your friends and family, stay updated on current and expected weather conditions, it's just plain fun!

        Weather Pulse is Free for use, if you enjoy the program, just let us know by dropping by our website and using our many services and software. Please feel free to suggest anything you'd like to see in future releases, your suggestions will determine the future upgrades and software development.

    21. Re:Weatherbug? by big-giant-head · · Score: 1

      Well it would be Mal-ware, since we know Bill Gates is the Malevolent Evil Overloard and Chief Lap Dog Of Satan.

      --

      So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
    22. Re:Weatherbug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And for anyone who doubts the evilness of USVP, check out their site http://www.usvp.com/. I sure wouldn't want that guy to read me a bedtime story! (Or any guy, for that matter; it's just that he's exceptionally scary.)

    23. Re:Weatherbug? by CoffeeJedi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      not only is it hard as hell to uninstall, when you go through the process it says first:
      "Stop! Do you really want to uninstall Weatherbug? It could save your life!"
      and then:
      "Click here to stop recieving LIFE SAVING hazardous weather alerts!"

      any program that tries to scare people (probably older computer users, ie: grandparents) into keeping it, is malware in my book

      --
      May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
    24. Re:Weatherbug? by swv3752 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Weatherfox/ForecastFox works pretty well as an extension in Firefox.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    25. Re:Weatherbug? by Rycross · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I use Weather Corner Alert on my home PC. I would recommend it.

    26. Re:Weatherbug? by XorNand · · Score: 1

      WeatherWatcher is what I use. It's a lightweight piece of donationware that free from both adware and spyware.

      --
      Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
    27. Re:Weatherbug? by t_pet422 · · Score: 1

      If you're interested in a free desktop weather app for Windows that doesn't suck, check out Weather CornerAlert. It's unobtrusive and lightweight.

    28. Re:Weatherbug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Konfabulator offers several weather tracker widgets.

    29. Re:Weatherbug? by KiltedKnight · · Score: 1

      If you're using Firefox, just get the WeatherFox extension. It puts a couple of little icons in the lower right of the browser status bar, and it is entirely based on your ZIP code. Data is obtained from weather.com.

      --
      OCO is Loco
    30. Re:Weatherbug? by Maestro4k · · Score: 2, Insightful
      • not only is it hard as hell to uninstall, when you go through the process it says first:

        "Stop! Do you really want to uninstall Weatherbug? It could save your life!" and then:
        "Click here to stop recieving LIFE SAVING hazardous weather alerts!"

        any program that tries to scare people (probably older computer users, ie: grandparents) into keeping it, is malware in my book

      I had forgotten about those, they really ticked me off as well. That just adds even more proof that they're not legit. Hell, I've uninstalled spyware and malware that behaved better, at least they didn't claim I was risking my life removing them.
    31. Re:Weatherbug? by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

      It is a built in widget in the Gnome shell in Linux. Right click on the task bar at the bottom and select 'add widget' and find the weather widget. You can add more than one. I love it, wish it was available in KDE.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    32. Re:Weatherbug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Well I don't have automatic update turned on. But found one update that got installed anyhow.

      It was probably part of a bundle or "roll-up" package. Those become multiple updates once you install them.

    33. Re:Weatherbug? by emilymildew · · Score: 1

      Why are you letting people install things on your computer? That strikes me as a very bad idea, and also why they made that Java based virtual IM thing. Doesn't install anything, and he can chat with his friends.

    34. Re:Weatherbug? by Glonoinha · · Score: 2, Funny

      And like a real loser, I took my laptop

      Ouch.
      Yea, I'm on vacation.
      Reading /.
      On the laptop I brought with me.

      Guess I will be turning this thing off and going to do some vacation type things now.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    35. Re:Weatherbug? by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

      I took my laptop (What can I say, I'm a consultant, I feel naked without my laptop).

      What kind of computer nerd lets other people have root/admin/controll of their computer? While your step brother may be a nice guy, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

      I am considerably less trollish and paranoid about other people using my computers than all my fellow hyper-nerd friends, but even I wouldn't let someone install software on my machines.

      --

      HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    36. Re:Weatherbug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can uninstall Windows XP updates.

      Start > Settings > Control Panel > Add/Remove Programs

      If the updates do not appear in the window, make sure you check the box at the top that says, "Show updates"

    37. Re:Weatherbug? by screwdriver · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This can also work in reverse. Say a small company starts up that poses a threat to Microsoft. They can simply label it as "spyware" and problem solved. Since the small company doesn't likely have the revenue to attack Microsoft in court, MS wins by default.

    38. Re:Weatherbug? by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      The article describes a method for analysing what data is being sent back and forth. Note that you need an older type, non-switching ethernet hub to make it work -- one with a co-ax port is very definitely non-switching. The reason is that a non-switching hub simply repeats any packet on every port, so wherever it's meant to go it will certainly get there. Modern, switching hubs actually inspect each packet, determine the hardware address of each appliance, and send packets only to the relevant port based on the destination address. {Or, to all ports at once if the correct destination is not known; which can happen if the destination machine has not yet sent a packet.} This way you can get the machine on port 1 talking to the machine on port 2 at the same time as the machine on port 3 is talking to the machine on port 4, without causing a collision.

      Then, look for stuff being sent to Weatherbug's servers .....

      Note that packet-sniffing may violate the EULA; but as long as you are the Administrator of the computer, then legally no data entering, leaving or stored upon it is a secret from you, and you therefore have an inalienable right to inspect it -- which invokes the EULA's severability clause.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    39. Re:Weatherbug? by ChairmanMeow · · Score: 1

      There is KWeather in KDE, but IMHO, it isn't quite as good as Gnome Weather.

      --
    40. Re:Weatherbug? by Malk-a-mite · · Score: 1

      Alt to weatherbug - kinda...
      http://forecastfox.mozdev.org/ (opens in new window)

      Weather plug in for Firefox, shows forecast/temp in lower right of status bar. Highly configurable.

    41. Re:Weatherbug? by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      I know, I shouldn't have. For work, I use Lotus Sametime as my chat tool (it interfaces with the AIM server, but it doesn't load weatherbug). The problem was, by the time I figured out that he had loaded AIM, it was too late to log into Sametime. I just waited until the week ended and I did the uninstall/repair.

    42. Re:Weatherbug? by SunPin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a veteran of 4 Hurricanes in five weeks last summer, I can declare that when the weather gets to "life threatening" levels, your computer stopped working long before that point.

      --
      Laws are for people with no friends.
    43. Re:Weatherbug? by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      See my resonse here. In short, I forgot how teenagers think. When I get on the internet, I surf. When he (and many other teens) get on the internet, they chat. And, I should have logged into Sametime for him, before he started to install AIM.

    44. Re:Weatherbug? by TiggertheMad · · Score: 2, Funny

      I forgot how teenagers think.

      hehehe, Teenagers think?

      --

      HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    45. Re:Weatherbug? by Anonym1ty · · Score: 1

      I use Weather Pulse and I love it. I also recommend it to everyone. I even allows you to set your desktop as the weater radar fr your area and updates it every 5 minutes. It has many other very useful features

      My only complaints with Weatehr Pulse are minor. It does verify the graphics it downloads which means those of you using dial-up accellerators may not be able to make it work and... sometimes it seems it almost updates a little too often, but I won't hold that against them!

    46. Re:Weatherbug? by Changa_MC · · Score: 1

      If you use firefox, get forcastfox. It's mostly cloudy in the corner of my browser right now.

      --
      Changa hates change.
    47. Re:Weatherbug? by ikea5 · · Score: 1

      you?

    48. Re:Weatherbug? by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Here's a suggestion. Look out the window! If you need to know it's sunny outside! I mean really, America is the fattest nation in the world, and now they are too lazy to go to a window to look outside?

      Perhaps *gasp* we hang a thermometer outside to get the temperature?

      If you really need a weather forecast, weather.com offers it for free, and you can bookmark your weather report for your area.

      This program is stupid, and so are the users who install it. I say let them be inundated with ads. If they feel it's a small price to pay for the luxury of not having to look out the window, all the power to them.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    49. Re:Weatherbug? by danheretic · · Score: 1

      The company behind Weatherbug is AWS.

      A while ago, I authored an article on Spyware on our university website, and got a response from Weatherbug in the form of a "cease and desist" because I dared mention Weatherbug as a spyware offender.

      This is the voice mail I received:
      "On your page, you're calling our company spyware, which is 100% incorrect. I'd like to get a callback from ... somebody who is the webmaster of that webpage when that reference has been taken down. In addition, you can go to www.weatherbug.com/notspyware which is our Spyware FAQ page where you can download the very same anti-spyware programs you guys recommend on your page to download. So that would be rather masichistic of us to list the very same spyware programs that would potentially remove us. They do not remove us because we are not spyware. I'd like to get a callback as soon as possible at ... once that removal has taken place."

      According to this website, Weatherbug has previously been legitimately labeled spyware, because it has bundled the Gator program (this program is probably the most well-known piece of spyware around) and a search bar. However, the more current versions of Weatherbug do not seem to incorporate the elements of spyware that previous versions did. So I wouldn't label the MOST current version of Weatherbug as spyware, but previous versions I would.

      However, I'm concerned still with Weatherbug from a technical standpoint. Look through the pages and you'll find that Weatherbug is notoriously difficult to uninstall or disable once it's been installed. It increases Windows startup time and can cause other system issues. This echoes my personal experience with the program.

      I also still think Weatherbug is slimy. Here is an excerpt from a publication from AWS (the company behind Weatherbug) presented to the FTC:
      "AWS believes that there is nothing inherently objectionable about Adware provided that the software installation and operation is preceded by meaningful notice and consent."

      (Meaningful notice and consent, in this case, refers to the bunch of legalese that comes up with every software install, which just about every user in the world clicks "I agree" on without reading.)

    50. Re:Weatherbug? by B747SP · · Score: 1

      I use a weather plugin for the Miranda IM messaging client (win32), something called "Weather Protocol 3.3.8", though there's a whole bunch of them there. I just add locations by IATA code, and they appear on my 'buddy' list with all the other entries. Works well.

      --
      I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
    51. Re:Weatherbug? by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Stuff like this is why my computer has a Guest account.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    52. Re:Weatherbug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      any replies? -- Parkrrrrr?

    53. Re:Weatherbug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, SO? -- WinXP is doing something wrong when they install updates that aren't wanted (if indeed they do.)

      That must mean that we all want every reputable software company to follow their lead? Come on! Be real!

    54. Re:Weatherbug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some advice for you - wash your hands of them. You gave them advice and they ignored it. They obviously value your brother-in-law's judgement more than yours, so you have no obligation to help them any further.

      It's tough love. Next time they have a computer problem, tell them to go to your brother-in-law about it. Don't say anything else. Don't offer any more advice about computers to them ever again. It will save you a lot of time and grief.

      Believe me, life is too short to waste your time trying to help people who don't really want to be helped. You shouldn't have to feel like you are in some competition to prove you are better at helping; you shouldn't have to beg to help them, in the hope they will accept. You were doing them a favour, and they didn't want it, so just love them for being your parents and leave them to their own devices :)

    55. Re:Weatherbug? by strelitsa · · Score: 1

      Well, I was going to click on your ad and help pay for your wedding as you spammed in your sig. But since I'm an American, you obviously think that I am too lazy and stupid to click on a link. So I guess you're out of luck. Pay for your own damn wedding.

      --
      No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
    56. Re:Weatherbug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) The "Typical" installation adds MySearch Toolbar, which is known to cache search terms. Why exactly do they need to store my Internet searches? Why is this installed by default?

      previous search are stored so next time you search for rabbits, this term will be displayed as soon as you have typed 'ra'.

      This feature is called "type-ahead" and this info has to be stored somewhere, you know, you gutless moron.

    57. Re:Weatherbug? by DG+da+Dog · · Score: 1

      Desktop Weather http://www.weather.com/desktop

      The Weather Channel provides a free version and a paid version of Desktop Weather (disclosure: I do work for the company). All the alerts, maps, all the weather for 100,000 locations worldwide. No adware, spyware, etc.

    58. Re:Weatherbug? by Maestro4k · · Score: 1
      • Here's a suggestion. Look out the window! If you need to know it's sunny outside! I mean really, America is the fattest nation in the world, and now they are too lazy to go to a window to look outside?

        Perhaps *gasp* we hang a thermometer outside to get the temperature?

      I can't speak for others, but my Mother liked using it just because it showed her the tempature. It's not exactly lazy to walk to the other end of the house to check the temperature on the computer either, less lazy than looking out the window at a thermometer and not getting up.
    59. Re:Weatherbug? by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      The only decent one I've found in KDE requires SuperKaramba and is LiquidWeather. It displays the data on the root window though which isn't very practical since it makes looking at it complicated when all your desktops are crowded....

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    60. Re:Weatherbug? by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      While WeatherBug is not *technically* spyware, it does serve advertisements. But so do a lot of functional websites. Big deal.

      To many people, any software that shows an advertisement is "spyware". I don't understand that. To me, spyware and adware are different. Some software will do both, of course, in which case it's still spyware and should be junked. But I have no problem with ad-ware. If the ads take up too much screenspace or or too annoying, then I'll choose not to use the software.

      I'm running the free versions of Opera and Eudora right now. Both show ads. Those ads don't bother me.

    61. Re:Weatherbug? by Changa_MC · · Score: 1

      Dang, when I posted, I checked that no-one else had mentioned forecastfox. What happened here?

      --
      Changa hates change.
  3. The same list... by datadriven · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    as my list of companies to boycott.

    1. Re:The same list... by randomiam · · Score: 1

      Hey! That's just Richard Nixon's list. You just crossed out his name.

    2. Re:The same list... by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Insightful
      as my list of companies to boycott.

      Say what? Like you're going to boycott venture capital firms?

      I wish Genstar II would invest in these spyware guys, they seemed to do a fine job of running a company I worked for into the ground. Maybe they could do likewise with the spyware folks.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:The same list... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As my list of companies to blow up.

  4. 007 by wolflike · · Score: 5, Funny

    MI5, FBI, CIA, the usual dated TLA arm's of the illuminati

  5. Don't have to take my word for it -- sources by bedelman · · Score: 5, Informative

    As to "Slashdot has not verified...": I've cited sources for each report of funding of each specified spyware company. See the links within my page -- just click on the "$40 million" and similar hyperlinks to see the source (news coverage, press release) reporting that funding.

    1. Re:Don't have to take my word for it -- sources by CTalkobt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's just Slashdot's CYA for the implicit suggestion (not to) harass them.

      Of course, I'm probably just reading it wrong.

      --
      There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
    2. Re:Don't have to take my word for it -- sources by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      Ben, Thanks for providing the information. Kudos to you.

    3. Re:Don't have to take my word for it -- sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't see any link on your website labeled "40 million"

    4. Re:Don't have to take my word for it -- sources by mmkkbb · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if the recent CBS firings have somebody's knickers in a twist.

      --
      -mkb
    5. Re:Don't have to take my word for it -- sources by michib01 · · Score: 1

      Good work, Ben. Definetely interesting. VC mission is to generate money for their shareholders, and from this standpoint it's not strange they put money on these companies too: their logic is to invest money on many SW companies, hoping at least one would yield a big return on investments.

      But, how far can they go? Shouldn't exist limits to prevent anyone from putting money on companies that violate other people's privacy?

      mic.

      --
      - "Having a clean conscience is sign of bad memory"
    6. Re:Don't have to take my word for it -- sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Under 'investment amount' for 180 Solutions. It points here.

    7. Re:Don't have to take my word for it -- sources by Hulkster · · Score: 3, Interesting
      One wonders if Slashdot/OSTG/etc. might have some relationship with the investors listed in the article.

      A thread further down correctly points out that the "Slashdot has not verified Edelman's information" comment is really unneccessary (and how often do we see that?) so I'm puzzled why the /. editors added it to this article?

      Been a "fan" of Ben's stuff for a while - a real service to the Internet community - keep up the good work!!!

    8. Re:Don't have to take my word for it -- sources by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Which is actually rather refreshing... who'd have thought that we'd ever see a Slashdot article that reminds people not to be jackasses to the normal joes who work for these companies instead of harassing them with spam calls and email?

      Of course, it's posted by Michael which means the next article will probably undo all that by including some smart-ass unnecessary comment...

    9. Re:Don't have to take my word for it -- sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did the Slashduh editors ever verify the information in an article? Possibly when it's a slashvertisement, but other than that?

    10. Re:Don't have to take my word for it -- sources by babyrat · · Score: 1

      so he's saying he hasn't done that - what's wrong with that?

    11. Re:Don't have to take my word for it -- sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, how far can they go? Shouldn't exist limits to prevent anyone from putting money on companies that violate other people's privacy?

      would that not be one of the risks? a company with an unscrupulous business model simply may not have the growth potential to be one of the 'home runs' generating 100x or more returns. on top of that, what of the possibility for any future legislation/lawsuits that might stamp such sneaky practices out of existence? an investor might see his good fortune dissipate before he could withdraw.

      despite this, some of these companies are doing pretty well...

      this is a lovely quote from Claria's web page:

      Claria Corporation is a leader in online behavioral marketing, serving tens of millions of consumers and more than 1000 Advertisers to date. Claria publishes advertising messages for top tier companies and agencies to consumers who are part of the GAIN Network, Claria's network of tens of millions of consumers who agree to receive advertising based on their actual online behavior.

    12. Re:Don't have to take my word for it -- sources by superyooser · · Score: 1

      If Slashdot had a relationship with the investors listed in the article, they wouldn't have posted the article. Why do something that arouses suspicion unnecessarily?

    13. Re:Don't have to take my word for it -- sources by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Every so often, a slashdot editor wakes up and realises that they should, well, edit. Since they have no idea how, they make some bizarre attempt, and this is one example. Having done so, they go back to posting the usual round of inanities, inadvertent shills for blogs, and two-day-old dupes of stories everybody already heard.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    14. Re:Don't have to take my word for it -- sources by kaustik · · Score: 1

      I know this is an overly-extreme example, but...
      Maybe we should take it easy on the normal-Joe soldiers working under Bin Laden. Maybe we should have cut some slack to the underpaid soldiers tossing the Jews into death showers. Hell, lets buy lunch for the lawyers sending the cease and desist letters to bittorrent tracker sites, as well.
      If the "normal-Joe" workers at these companies are aware of what they are helping to provide for the world, they are also to blame.

  6. Companies... by paranode · · Score: 2, Insightful
    180solutions (Zango, n-Case), Claria / Gator (GAIN), Direct Revenue (OfferOptimizer, many aliases), eXact Advertising (BargainBuddy, BullsEye).

    Ah well that's not surprising, I was hoping to see some hidden players. A call to these people's secretary definitely wouldn't do any good. It would probably just result in more telemarketing offers.

    1. Re:Companies... by mmaddox · · Score: 3, Informative

      You didn't understand the table. The first column is NOT the investor, but the spyware company. The SECOND column is the investment firm.

      --

      What'dya mean there's no BLINK tag!?

    2. Re:Companies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too true...doh.

  7. Reads like a... by Chrontius · · Score: 5, Funny

    Reads like a hit list.

    I give it ten minutes for the DDOS to start.

    1. Re:Reads like a... by Dougie+Cool · · Score: 1

      Why wait for someone else to DDOS when you're in the army of slashdotters?

      --
      ~~Every few years or so I'm accidentally fashionable!
    2. Re:Reads like a... by adeydas · · Score: 1

      Warning, terrorists ahead...

    3. Re:Reads like a... by BadDream · · Score: 1

      Posting a link on slashdot IS a ddos attack, no need to wait.

      --
      No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.
  8. Slashdot has not verified Edelman's information... by Will2k_is_here · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does Slashdot ever verify the information it links to? As if we need the disclaimer.

  9. Re:The RIAA/MPAA 0wn you. by sjwt · · Score: 1

    RTFA..

    And jee, who would of though,
    Claria / Gator (GAIN)..

    sounds like a job for DoJ in regards to a monopoly.

    --
    You have 5 Moderator Points!
    Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
  10. Hit the investment companies with slashdot spam by Ham_belony · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why not start mass mailing email addresses at these investment companies through anonymour remailers. The really might want to reconsider their investment.

    1. Re:Hit the investment companies with slashdot spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to reconsider making that suggestion in a public forum.

    2. Re:Hit the investment companies with slashdot spam by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      I kind of doubt the cost of installing a spam filter or using a service like Spamshark will sway them one way or another.

    3. Re:Hit the investment companies with slashdot spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you support the idea of spamming people when you encounter someone you don't like?

    4. Re:Hit the investment companies with slashdot spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not until now!!! Thanks!

    5. Re:Hit the investment companies with slashdot spam by Ham_belony · · Score: 0

      My bad! These investment companies probably didn't even have a clue what they were investing in at the time beside what they were told reading the business plans like they were presented to them.

  11. 0wnership Society by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Informative

    Remeber that "investors" are the owners. They can hide behind corporations, but the owners are responsible for the actions of their companies, even if they're not legally accountable.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:0wnership Society by se2schul · · Score: 1

      The "owners" often have no say in corporations. It's the board of directors and senior management that has the say.

    2. Re:0wnership Society by Eric+Giguere · · Score: 3, Informative

      ... the owners are responsible for the actions of their companies, even if they're not legally accountable.

      There are different levels of legal accountability, actually. Courts will "pierce the corporate veil" when necessary to get at the people who are ultimately responsible for things. Regulatory bodies are getting more aggressive about this kind of stuff -- look at all the fuss over Nortel, where a bunch of board members have just quit and former senior executives are going to pay back millions in bonuses. You have to think carefully before being a company director these days.

      That said, I'm sure that these spyware companies are doing things in a legal manner and getting end users to agree to being spied on. Whether this is ethical is another matter, but I don't think VCs are generally out looking for the most ethical investments, they're looking for the ones that make them the most money.

      Eric
      On the lighter side: How the Vioxx recall reduced spam
    3. Re:0wnership Society by ooze · · Score: 1

      This is actually the main thing that is wrong with capitalism: the breakup between the connection of property and responsibility. The laws are there to make it impossible to legally take the ones into account that foster civil wars, drain chemicals everywhere, rob everyone in sight etc. It's just normal business practice. The shareholder, that actually feels responsible for things the company he co-owns does is the vast minority. And the manager can do what they want as well, the worst thing that can happen to them is getting fired, after receiving their millions, and then they either get hired to manage the next company or to consult the Bush administration.

      --
      Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
    4. Re:0wnership Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That said, I'm sure that these spyware companies are doing things in a legal manner and getting end users to agree to being spied on.

      That's the point: they're not. The final column on the website lists the illegal tactics used by the companies in question, including installation through security holes and making false claims about business practices. It doesn't list the 'legitimate' adware products, even they are unethical.

    5. Re:0wnership Society by Moderatbastard · · Score: 0
      You have to think carefully before being a company director these days.
      In stark contrast to the situation while being one.
      --
      1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
    6. Re:0wnership Society by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The Board is directly accountable to the shareholders. Shareholders elect the Board, and the Board is legally required to exercise certain "ethical" practices, including "fiduciary responsibility" (spending the money wisely). Owners with no say are either minority speculators, or foolishly silent.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:0wnership Society by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I dissagree. The problem isn't that there is a breakdown between propery and responsibility. The responsibility is held by those with power, not neccisarly property. I think you know that, so this is more of a clarification than a correction. The problem is that we haven't doen a good job holding those in power( ceo's exectuives board members) responsible. Worse things can happen to them than getting fired, but it doesn't happen often enough. Enron is one of the few cases where the execs are being punished for their wrong doing. Obviously, in that case you shouldn't punish the stockholders who were the real victums.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    8. Re:0wnership Society by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      We're dealing with a dilemma of ownership vs control, which always lurks beneath the "republic" model applied to both corporate equity and other representative governments. If the 1990s equity bubble hadn't ended in a crash, sending people fleeing from their daytrading online casinos, we'd be in a much better position to manage the ongoing governance of our equity. Shareholders who ran up hugely popular equity discussion websites in their initial entry to the market could use those exact same websites to discuss shareholder issues. We could be as organized a "public" as are the Board and execs who work against our interests. If the same equity research/messaging/publishing systems were populated with governance content, including informal (nonbinding) shareholder votes, the real promise of networked equity communities could deliver better governance. And therefore the possibility of better, more sustainable earnings, as those with a stake kept their investments alive and governed, with that value added service worth the cost of continued membership in the discussion websites.

      Though the best time, 2000, has passed, perhaps the memory of the shock of disappointment has faded. A clever entrepreneur could fire up some of those community websites wit the governance feature as linked to trading as was the research. It's still not too late to keep this ball rolling until it snowballs into increased wealth, with better community controls this time around to handle ripoffs and malfeasance.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    9. Re:0wnership Society by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nortel is a Canadian company, where people actually learn from mistakes, especially those that threaten the sustainability of the whole community. In the US, the threshold for "necessary" in "pierc[ing] the corporate veil" is usually defined as "scapegoat", or "fall guy", after vast legal wrangling and expense. Corporations are very useful organizing principles for cooperation to create wealth and accomplish complex, long-range tasks. The limited accountability that is their veil is too thick, covers too much, and ultimately costs everyone too much in limited accountability (which fosters bad decisions). But, if Nortel, Enron, Worldcom (the list goes on...) aren't enough to challenge basic corporate dynamics, they're obviously here to stay, until they destroy the system and we have to start over - perhaps with clamshells.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    10. Re:0wnership Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you Chicken Little!

    11. Re:0wnership Society by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Thank you, Anonymous denial Coward, for your content-free post.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    12. Re:0wnership Society by dusanv · · Score: 1

      Learn from mistakes? What are you talking about? Three sets of theaving management in Nortel so far. So when is John Roth (ex Nortel CEO) going to start repaying the $150 mil he stole. I haven't heard of any of them paying back anything. It's a shame that a public prosecutor from *Texas* launched a criminal investigation into Nortel's practices. As far as I know, nobody is investigating those thugs here in Canada.

    13. Re:0wnership Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice idea, however the vast majority of shares in most equities are owned by institutions, not individual investors. And, it's those institutions that get to make the decisions.

      The reason most of those websites that you speak of shut down was really more of a side-effect of the bubble. People bailed because they didn't know what they were doing, or simply couldn't handle the wild swings in prices. If you can't afford the losses, you shouldn't even be playing the market. True long term investors wouldn't have completely bailed out. My anecdotal evidence is that I regained my losses from the '87 crash in under five years, and have already recouped the losses from the bubble burst.

      Oh, and before I forget...
      As an "owner"/investor, am I hiding behind these corporations? How do you figure that I'm responsible for the decisions made inside the walls of the company that I have no access to???

    14. Re:0wnership Society by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Accountability of owners for our property is fairly proportional, though there are thresholds. Majority owners are responsible for decisions they could directly change by controlling directors they elect, who hire executives who make decisions. If either the director or exec makes a nonrepresentative decision for the corporation, that is not your immediate responsibility. But if you don't do something to correct it, your tacit complicity leaves you responsible for it.

      As for minority owners, failure in those cases to organize to take control of the corporation when it's available to a voting bloc (ie, no single majority shareholder) brings the same responsibility. Minority shareholders in the shadow of a single majority shareholder, are already getting wagged in most decisions in which they don't agree. They're the people I described as "speculators" - people who hold effectively "nonvoting" shares, since their votes can't change anything. Their responsibility is less direct, but when their investment money is spent on operations, they are culpable. They have funded actions they would not execute themselves, enabling the acts. You consider the benefits of dividends and value appreciation to be fair, even when you're not controlling the company. You have to take the blame, too, by the same token. The corporate accountability diffusion structure might make it easier to evade, and even ignore, that responsibilty, but it is just as real despite those constructs. When people find they've been exploited, used to enable actions with which they disagree, they separate themselves from the exploiters. Except when the money is worth more than their integrity.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  12. Right, demonstrating never changes anything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't tell venture capitalists that they're ruining what's left of their reputation. People don't mind being regarded as assholes, so you'd just waste your time for nothing. Oh, you mean tell the venture capitalist but don't harrass the receptionist? Nice, the shield works.

  13. Who Advertises With These Firms by bedelman · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have on hand lots of information about advertisers supporting these companies. One complication is that some of the advertisers are unintentional participants -- e.g. the ads were placed by affiliates, apparently often acting without authorization by the underlying merchants. Often, the link format makes it possible to tell the difference between an affiliate's ad and an "official" ad.

    As to Gator advertisers: See Gator advertisers as of 2003 and Gator advertisers based on data from Claria's S-1 disclosure.

    In any event, I'll be updating my site with more advertiser information in the future. It's at the top of my list of priorities.

    1. Re:Who Advertises With These Firms by dynamo_mikey · · Score: 1

      Hey, I appreciate you work. In case you haven't heard that enough.

    2. Re:Who Advertises With These Firms by DigitalCrackPipe · · Score: 2, Informative

      While we can't really control slimy VC investors, the average consumer CAN boycott companies that directly support spyware/adware with advertising dollars.

      At the very least, we can let them know we disapprove, and maybe help dry up the adware business. If there are no dollars from big corporations, maybe less VC investors will drop cash because the return potential is lower.

    3. Re:Who Advertises With These Firms by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      Thats just like Disney not being responsible for its third world sweatshops just because one of their subcontractors is actually in charge. Disney knows damn well its happening and they don't care, and its the same here.

  14. No worries; it's just Simms trolling as usual by Safety+Cap · · Score: 0, Troll
    --
    Yeah, right.
  15. Re:Slashdot has not verified Edelman's information by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 4, Funny

    When the Editors verify it, they link the story as a duplicate post.

  16. And yeah by murderator · · Score: 2, Funny

    And by the way forward-looking companies invest in parallel incremental options for years and at base level, this just comes down to facilitating third-generation processing.

  17. My company should be on that list! by dynamo_mikey · · Score: 5, Funny

    My company has been giving millions of dollars to a company in Redmond Washington and some of that cash is being redirected to support a malware product known only as "Internet Explorer."

    -dynamo

    1. Re:My company should be on that list! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you should quit your job out of protest. That'll show them.

    2. Re:My company should be on that list! by Geoff-with-a-G · · Score: 1

      yeah, that's one of the hardest ones to uninstall.
      I think the removal tool requires a Linux bootable-CD...

  18. Love Letters by AtariAmarok · · Score: 3, Funny
    "through anonymour remailers"

    Aren't anonymour remailers reserved for letters from secret admirers?

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Love Letters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you're supposed to use them for spreading rumours anonymously.

    2. Re:Love Letters by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
      "No, you're supposed to use them for spreading rumours anonymously"

      I've also downloaded many Sackett western novels from L'anonymour ftp bookz servers.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  19. harrassment... by TrebleJunkie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "please note that harassing the receptionist at these places is unlikely to cause any change in their investment policies"

    No, but harrassing the *board* members might. That's why I love the SEC's EDGAR search. Names, and in name cases, phone numbers, for company board members.

    --

    Ed R.Zahurak

    You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.

    1. Re:harrassment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of which will usually lead you back to the harassed receptionist.

    2. Re:harrassment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Which leads to the following results after playing around with the EDGAR search:

      Spectrum Equity Investors, U.S. Venture Partners, Greylock, Crosslink Capital, Garage Technology Ventures, Rosewood Stone Group???? , Investor AB, Technology Crossover Ventures, Insight Venture Partners, Technology Investment Capital Corp

      What the guy has done with his website is interesting. Though maybe this should be put into a wiki, then maybe people can sift through all this information and post back there...

  20. They talk about going after spammers.... by motherjoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They talk about going after spammers, but maybe what they need to do is go after these companies that invest in them.

    If the spammers didn't have these companies funding them, then I dare say they wouldn't last very long.

    just .02

    --
    "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy - Benjamin Franklin"
    1. Re:They talk about going after spammers.... by Mr.+BS · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah.... and don't go after the criminals.... go after the stores who sell the criminals guns.... no wait.... go after the gun companies that distribute the guns to the stores.... no wait.... go after the mining facilities that mine the ore to make the metal to make the machines to produce the guns to distribute to the stores who sell the guns to the criminals.

      Same logic here. Where does it stop? They'd find a way for funding. Obviously, they're getting a reutrn on their investement so there has to be some money coming in from somewhere.

      That .02 just turned into .04.

    2. Re:They talk about going after spammers.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      your logic is flawed.

      if the store is selling the gun knowlingly so that person can go murder someone or rob someone, they can be held responsible.

      if i invest in a company that is breaking laws, (that is their sole business) then i should be responsbile too.

      this is all about previous knowledge. if you give money to someone so they will commit a crime, you are responsible. if you give money/goods to someone, and they decide to commit a crime (without your forknowledge) you shouldnt be responsible.

      there was a case in wisconsin, a majority of guns used in murders in the states came from one single store. (and it isnt a major store either, big, but not that big).

      you think they didnt know what was going on? rightttttt.......

    3. Re:They talk about going after spammers.... by motherjoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hadn't thought about drawning a comparison between spamming and armed robbery.

      I could however see equating it with the strategy the Goverment has taken with Terrorist organizations and the charities that fund them.

      I could see the headlines now...."The Acme company has had it's assets frozen by the IRS after it was learned they invest heavily in spamming organizations."

      --
      "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy - Benjamin Franklin"
    4. Re:They talk about going after spammers.... by dAzED1 · · Score: 1
      its not the same logic. If you walk into a gun store and say "I'm going to go rob a bank - if you give me a gun, I'll give you 60% of the profits" THEN it would be the same logic.

      Without seed money, almost none of these little shops would pop up. A venture capitalist is WELL aware of what the business practices will be. They know more about your company than you do, sometimes...that's not just a cliche' saying, its often a reality.

      So if I went into that gun store and asked them to loan me a gun so I could rob a bank, and promised them a large split of the proceeds...and the gun store gave me the money...should they be held partially liable? They didn't actually rob the bank, after all...

    5. Re:They talk about going after spammers.... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      your logic is flawed.

      I think yours is..

      if the store is selling the gun knowlingly so that person can go murder someone or rob someone, they can be held responsible.

      The purpose of a gun is to kill someone. And thats exactly what I want to do if someone is breaking into my house. Robbery would be harder if all the potential victims are armed too.

      this is all about previous knowledge. if you give money to someone so they will commit a crime, you are responsible. if you give money/goods to someone, and they decide to commit a crime (without your forknowledge) you shouldnt be responsible.

      And if i tell someone to commit a crime, its my fault they did too? Wrong. I know its wrong, I may have funded it...but I'm not actually the one that went and committed the crime. It was ultimately their decision to go through with it. They could have stopped at any time.

      there was a case in wisconsin, a majority of guns used in murders in the states came from one single store. (and it isnt a major store either, big, but not that big).

      Um, so what? The people buying the guns didn't have to go commit crimes with them. Shutting him down won't stop crimes either...criminals will always have guns, no amount of wishing and legislation will change that.


      you think they didnt know what was going on? rightttttt.......


      I think everyone that sells knives should have a permit too. After all you can kill someone with a knife. Its sole purpose is to cut flesh.

      There are lots of ways to kill people, I don't know why everyone is obsessed with just one way to do it.

    6. Re:They talk about going after spammers.... by khallow · · Score: 1
      The purpose of a gun is to kill someone. And thats exactly what I want to do if someone is breaking into my house. Robbery would be harder if all the potential victims are armed too.

      There's a difference between selling a tool whose purpose is to kill someone and selling a tool that you know will be used to commit a crime.

      And if i tell someone to commit a crime, its my fault they did too? Wrong. I know its wrong, I may have funded it...but I'm not actually the one that went and committed the crime. It was ultimately their decision to go through with it. They could have stopped at any time.

      Well, you can be arrested for urging people to commit crimes. And if you actually fund it? Conspiracy to commit said crime for sure. Further, it's stupid to say that it isn't in part your fault. If more crime is commited because well, you fund it, then you are responsible for creating the excess crime.

      Um, so what? The people buying the guns didn't have to go commit crimes with them. Shutting him down won't stop crimes either...criminals will always have guns, no amount of wishing and legislation will change that.

      This argument misses one crucial thing. By making it more difficult to obtain a gun for criminal use, we can reduce the number of incidents of crimes commited with guns.

      I think everyone that sells knives should have a permit too. After all you can kill someone with a knife. Its sole purpose is to cut flesh.

      Bad analogy. Knives are also used to cut paper, twine, and vegetables. Try opening a letter or preparing a salad with a revolver. Further, guns are far more lethal than knives are. There are cases of people surviving dozens of knife wounds inflicted by an incompetent wielder. Further, accidents with knives kill far fewer people than guns do, another indication of the difference in lethality between the two tools.

      If we look at tools that actually are pretty lethal, we find that they usually require some sort of permit or license to use. For example, automobiles, planes, boats, etc all require some degree of certification and insurance. Explosives are particularly regulated. What makes guns more special?

    7. Re:They talk about going after spammers.... by m50d · · Score: 1

      The people who are selling the guns are not profiting from the crime. A better analogy would be don't go after the street pickpocket, go after the mafia boss running him. Which is fair enough imo.

      --
      I am trolling
    8. Re:They talk about going after spammers.... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between selling a tool whose purpose is to kill someone and selling a tool that you know will be used to commit a crime.

      So how do you know what the buyers intent is? Do store owners now have to be physic? Guns are not only used to commit crimes. Self defense and hunting are two other ligitimate uses.

      Well, you can be arrested for urging people to commit crimes.

      Which i believe is wrong. If i tell someone to commit a crime, they are still have the power not to. Its not mind control or anything.

      And if you actually fund it? Conspiracy to commit said crime for sure. Further, it's stupid to say that it isn't in part your fault. If more crime is commited because well, you fund it, then you are responsible for creating the excess crime.

      Thinking about doing something and actually doing it are two different things. One should not be punished, and one should. As far as funding goes, do you hold people responsible if they don't know they are funding? Could you be 'funding' by purchasing something at your local EB and one of the clecks uses his paycheck to commit crimes? If you say no, then whatever happened to 'ignorance is no excuse to break the law?' Also, please define 'excess crime.' Is there a point where we have too much? How much is too much? It seems your logic is popping up alot of absurdities and questions.

      This argument misses one crucial thing. By making it more difficult to obtain a gun for criminal use, we can reduce the number of incidents of crimes commited with guns.

      If its now no harder to get a gun after the shop is shut down, please tell me how it follows that shutting the shop down results in fewer gun crimes?

      Bad analogy. Knives are also used to cut paper, twine, and vegetables.

      Guns are used in hunting, sport shooting and self defense. All of those are legitimate uses, are they not?

      Try opening a letter or preparing a salad with a revolver.

      I never said guns are an all in one gadget; you're just being silly here. Does it matter that a gun can't open a letter? I can't listen to music with my knife either, so what?

      Further, accidents with knives kill far fewer people than guns do, another indication of the difference in lethality between the two tools.

      And I bet traffic deaths far outweigh both, but we aren't banning cars are we? Hell, we aren't even making it tougher to get a driver's license are we? As an aside, I believe I heard that far more people are attacked with knives then guns anyway. I'll see if I can find a stat later..

      If we look at tools that actually are pretty lethal, we find that they usually require some sort of permit or license to use. For example, automobiles, planes, boats, etc all require some degree of certification and insurance. Explosives are particularly regulated. What makes guns more special?

      They aren't. Most states require extra home owners insurance if you own a gun, and require a permit to own and a seperate one to carry. The only thing making them more 'special' is that people are constantly trying to take them away.

      As I said before, traffic deaths far exceed gun deaths, but no one is saying we need tougher driving tests are they?

    9. Re:They talk about going after spammers.... by matman · · Score: 1

      It is not the same logic. This would be the same logic as a person funding robbers to buy guns for a cut of the proceeds.

    10. Re:They talk about going after spammers.... by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between selling a tool whose purpose is to kill someone and selling a tool that you know will be used to commit a crime.

      So how do you know what the buyers intent is? Do store owners now have to be physic? Guns are not only used to commit crimes. Self defense and hunting are two other ligitimate uses.

      It's not that you are expected to necessarily know. It's if you do happen to know, as in I walk in ask you which gun you think would be my best choice for my upcoming bank robbery.

      Well, you can be arrested for urging people to commit crimes.

      Which i believe is wrong. If i tell someone to commit a crime, they are still have the power not to. Its not mind control or anything.

      If person A tells person B to kill someone, BOTH people are legally liable for it. You're suggesting that I could openly pay to have someone killed, but only the actual shooter is repsonsible.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    11. Re:They talk about going after spammers.... by smellygeek · · Score: 1

      I think we need to begin stressing educational programs like Spam. Don't Buy It..

    12. Re:They talk about going after spammers.... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      It's not that you are expected to necessarily know. It's if you do happen to know, as in I walk in ask you which gun you think would be my best choice for my upcoming bank robbery.

      This is typical of the anti-gun rally...as you counter their arguements, they come back with more and more absurd ones. How many people do you think would ask that? How many do you think would be serious and not joking? People can say whatever they want, you don't really know what their intentions are. Given that, how can it possibly be the shop owners responsiblity?

      If person A tells person B to kill someone, BOTH people are legally liable for it. You're suggesting that I could openly pay to have someone killed, but only the actual shooter is repsonsible.

      I realize that's how the law is now. And it is silly. You can pay someone to do a hit for you and they could even take the money. Must they still carry out the hit? Or do they still have the choice of walking off with your money and not committing murder?

      Its the person who's willing to kill for money we should be careful of, not the one that is willing only to pay someone else to. You pay someone else to do it because you can't do it yourself.

    13. Re:They talk about going after spammers.... by khallow · · Score: 1
      This is typical of the anti-gun rally...as you counter their arguements, they come back with more and more absurd ones. How many people do you think would ask that? How many do you think would be serious and not joking? People can say whatever they want, you don't really know what their intentions are. Given that, how can it possibly be the shop owners responsiblity?

      Way back when in the thread, an AC wrote:

      there was a case in wisconsin, a majority of guns used in murders in the states came from one single store. (and it isnt a major store either, big, but not that big).
      It turns out Mr. AC exaggerated significantly. In 1998, the ATF found that 1% of gun shops sold guns that were used in roughly 45% of "gun crime". A tenth of those (137 stores) were the source for roughly a quarter of all guns in "gun crimes".

      The question here is whether the shop owner knows if his customers intend to use weapons for criminal purposes. Given the lack of motion on these "problem" gun shops, the ATF clearly didn't have proof. So I'll grant that there doesn't seem to be a clear cut example of the kind bandied about.

      I realize that's how the law is now. And it is silly. You can pay someone to do a hit for you and they could even take the money. Must they still carry out the hit? Or do they still have the choice of walking off with your money and not committing murder?

      So if I pay someone $10,000 to kill you and they do, then I'm free and clear in your opinion? After all, odds are that person wouldn't ever have run into you much less killed you, if it wasn't for my incentives.

      Its the person who's willing to kill for money we should be careful of, not the one that is willing only to pay someone else to. You pay someone else to do it because you can't do it yourself.

      Well, it seems to me that if you make murder illegal, then a natural consequence is that you make paying for murder illegal as well.

    14. Re:They talk about going after spammers.... by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      Interesting that you assume I'm anti-gun. This whole discussion to me was simply using guns as an example. Substitute knife and have me asking which one is best to stab my wife with. The weapon is irrelevant. It's only when the seller is providing something that he EXPECTS to be used in a criminal manner that I feel they should be liable. Note that I'm not saying "could be", or "suspects that it could be", but that the seller actually holds the sincere belief that what they just sold will be used to commit a crime.

      I find it disturbing that you feel that only the direct perpetrator of the crime should be responsible. It allows people to be killed for $ not because someone can't or won't do it, but because they just don't want to go to jail for it, or maybe they think a professional has less of a chance of getting caught. There are so many obvious reasons for holding the funder responsible that I have to wonder if I've been trolled.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    15. Re:They talk about going after spammers.... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      So if I pay someone $10,000 to kill you and they do, then I'm free and clear in your opinion? After all, odds are that person wouldn't ever have run into you much less killed you, if it wasn't for my incentives.

      He might not have killed ME w/o your incentives...but I'd argue that someone willing to kill for money is willing to kill for other reasons as well...I might just as easly cut him off on the way to work. To say that a killer wouldn't kill w/o the money incentive I think is flawed; they already lack the conscience not to kill.

      Well, it seems to me that if you make murder illegal, then a natural consequence is that you make paying for murder illegal as well.

      It might seem nature, but its where that line of reasoning goes that I'm against. Is it now natural to ban talking about it? Thinking about it? Writing about it? How many stories here are trying to blame video games for thier kids' lack of conscience?

    16. Re:They talk about going after spammers.... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Interesting that you assume I'm anti-gun. This whole discussion to me was simply using guns as an example. Substitute knife and have me asking which one is best to stab my wife with. The weapon is irrelevant.

      You argued for allowing knives to be sold, but against guns. What did you expect me to think? If weapon is irrelevent, why did you try to point out other uses for the knife?

      It's only when the seller is providing something that he EXPECTS to be used in a criminal manner that I feel they should be liable. Note that I'm not saying "could be", or "suspects that it could be", but that the seller actually holds the sincere belief that what they just sold will be used to commit a crime.

      So now its on the whim of a sales clerk that determines if someone is fit to purchase something or not? What if his gut is wrong? You're saying he should be liable, even though his 'feelings' didn't give him any reason to worry. What if he's wrong and refuses to sell? Will that stop the buyer from going somewhere else (possibly underground, where your chances of tracing the gun are much lower)? Either way, if someone really wants something, they'll get it. Look at the failed war on drugs if you don't believe me.

      There are so many obvious reasons for holding the funder responsible that I have to wonder if I've been trolled.

      Not trolling. There are good reasons to hold the funder responsible. My problem is where that reasoning leads. You hold the shop owner liable. OK sure. Why not hold the gun companies themselves liable? They made it. Why not hold the steel / mining companies liable? If they didn't sell to the gun makers they couldn't make guns to begin with.

      So tell me, is it really some miner or mining company somewhere that is responsible for someone's death by gun? Do you honestly believe that? Where do you stop going down the chain for responsibility?

      The fact is, you could shut the gun industry down completely, and it would have no effect except to take guns away from law abiding citizens. Criminals will always get them somewhere else. They'll be smuggled into the country. Now that you've held all these other people liable, what have you really acomplished? Nothing more then just holding the shooter liable.

    17. Re:They talk about going after spammers.... by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      You argued for allowing knives to be sold, but against guns. What did you expect me to think? If weapon is irrelevent, why did you try to point out other uses for the knife?

      I think you're confusing me with a different correspondant. That argument was certainly made, but not by me.

      So now its on the whim of a sales clerk that determines if someone is fit to purchase something or not? What if his gut is wrong? You're saying he should be liable, even though his 'feelings' didn't give him any reason to worry.

      I'm not saying the seller has to be superhuman. If the seller thought a weapon used in a murder was being going to be used to hunt deer, then that's an honest mistake. And the seller may have even been correct, as maybe the weapon wasn't even intended for illegal use when it was bought. I'm not talking about tenuous cases, I'm talking about ones where a clerk thinks to himself that he'd better set this paperwork to the side so it's easier to find when the police come checking. I could also accept if a clerk sold out of fear of what might happen if he refused to sell, or any set of reasonable circumstances. Law is not absolute. Motive and mindset play a large part in guilt/innocence

      What if he's wrong and refuses to sell? Will that stop the buyer from going somewhere else (possibly underground, where your chances of tracing the gun are much lower)? Either way, if someone really wants something, they'll get it. Look at the failed war on drugs if you don't believe me.

      Saying "If I don't steal it, someone else will." doesn't make you any less guilty of theft should you take something.

      There are good reasons to hold the funder responsible. My problem is where that reasoning leads. You hold the shop owner liable. OK sure. Why not hold the gun companies themselves liable? They made it. Why not hold the steel / mining companies liable? If they didn't sell to the gun makers they couldn't make guns to begin with.

      Holding someone funding a murder responsible is a world apart from holding a clerk who knowingly sells a murder weapon to a killer. Assuming you have no problem with punishing people who directly fund crimes (correct me if that's a wrong assumption), I'll move onto the rest of your argument.

      Culpability rides alongside knowledge and expectations, for EACH SPECIFIC case. In the improbable case where an assembly line worker held the belief that a SPECIFIC gun was going to be used to kill someone, then he would be liable for assembling it.

      That's a deliberately absurd scenario. My point with it is that you very quickly and very obviously remove responsibility as you move back up the chain.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
  21. Verified? by Zebbers · · Score: 0, Troll

    Mod me down but why the disclaimer from Michael? When has Slashdot ever verified anything?

    I don't expect them too, thats not what I believe their job is, but don't act like you guys ever would or even could.

  22. Legit companies? by Tangwei · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Just glanced through, but did any notice any slightly legit companys the firms also invest in? Granted a call to thier PBX wouldn't do much, but a nice movment to stop support the legit companies might get thier attention.

  23. I disagree by Concern · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "please note that harassing the receptionist at these places is unlikely to cause any change in their investment policies."

    Don't know about that. Harassing us on an inhuman scale appears to be working for them. Frankly, harassing them back, within the limits of the law of course, probably would be quite helpful. Many lobbysts and activists do far more about much less, and achieve considerable success.

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
    1. Re:I disagree by forgetmenot · · Score: 1

      How about everyone who reads slashdot simply file a small trivial lawsuit against each one. Sure it will probably get thrown out of court, but these companies will still have to pay their lawyers and court fees simply to respond to anything at all. It might add up.

      You guys start. I'll watch and see how it turns out.

    2. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Folks, I've been a receptionist when money's been tight and programming jobs are scarce. Please don't harrass the receptionist. She may be every bit as disgusted with the company policies as you are, but she's already learned the hard way that the powers that be won't listen to her. All you'll accomplish is being the lead character in the "You won't believe the jerk who called today!" story she tells her friends that evening.

    3. Re:I disagree by FortKnox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      michael must be smiling. /. never provides disclaimers. Michael puts on there to implant the thought 'harass.' Kinda like reverse physcology. You are the exact reason that line is in the article.

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    4. Re:I disagree by Xorath · · Score: 1

      You know that's not a bad idea, instead of harassing the poor receptionist who is just doing her job harass the company and cost them money. It would be only fair since they're costing us time.

    5. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. You choose to work with villains, your reasons don't matter. Judge by results, not intentions.

    6. Re:I disagree by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but aim it at the right person. For once I agree with Michael... if you call up their 800 number, you're going to get an operator or a receptionist. The person you're talking to is NOT the person who invested in the spyware company, they're just working there to make a buck and feed their family.

      Same reason I hate fucking Michael Moore. "Oh, this company is bad, it sells guns, let's go harass their receptionists who had nothing to do with the decision to sell guns!"

    7. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Michael Moore comes into this how?

      Right wingers of many stripes have notoriously encouraged and perpetrated massive, systematic and indiscriminate harrassment against many innocents. And you single out Michael Moore?

    8. Re:I disagree by cavemanf16 · · Score: 1

      Oh I doubt michael needs to be *that* devious, although I wouldn't put it past him. Somehow I think there's yet another agreement behind the scenes at ol' /. with our venerable "editors" and one of the VC firms or marketing firms on that list. Besides, michael has never resorted to this sort of "disclaimer" on any of the other even less professional, more inflammatory story submissions that he's posted in the past.

  24. Here is the dirt on Weatherbug by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Informative
    click here for a detailed analysis.

    If it really was not spyware, they would not feel a need to spam message boards to say it.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Here is the dirt on Weatherbug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      If it really was not spyware, they would not feel a need to spam message boards to say it.


      Hello all, Mr. Coward here, just letting you know that I am not an axe murderer. Really, I'm not. Never even thought about it. I have no idea where the bodies are. Really, I'm not an axe murderer.


      In all seriousness, I tell you, I'm not an axe murderer.


      No seriously, I'm not. I don't even own an axe.


      I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. I'm not an axe murderer.


      I'm not an axe murderer. Really.

    2. Re:Here is the dirt on Weatherbug by parkrrrr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So the detailed analysis is that weatherbug starts at boot (well, duh, how useful would a program to tell you about weather alerts be if you had to remember to start it each time you logged in?), optionally installs itself in IE, and supports itself with ads and that makes it spyware? (I'm choosing to ignore the 'spybot says it's spyware so it must be' argument-from-authority at the end.)

      Yahoo Messenger does all of those things. Why isn't it spyware?

    3. Re:Here is the dirt on Weatherbug by parkrrrr · · Score: 1

      And lest I be accused of trolling or shilling for weatherbug: I don't have weatherbug installed, and I don't want it. I do use ForecastFox, though.

    4. Re:Here is the dirt on Weatherbug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it really was not spyware, they would not feel a need to spam message boards to say it.

      This is the same argument that gets refuted everytime somebody says

      "If you aren't stealing on P2P then you have nothign to worry about"

    5. Re:Here is the dirt on Weatherbug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to read. He's not calling it spyware - only saying it's annoying and definitely ADWARE. The developers claim they are not ADWARE so I find his analysis informative. I personally despise programs like this for all the havok they wreak on the un-initiated.

  25. Erm... by Dougie+Cool · · Score: 1

    The table above lists software companies meeting two criteria:

    1) I consider their products spyware, [yadda, yadda, llama, llama, duck]

    2) They have received major financial investments.


    Is that, they meet both? And are they receiving investments from the spyware companies, or for the spyware itself from non-spyware companies?

    Just a question, not a dig or anything.

    --
    ~~Every few years or so I'm accidentally fashionable!
  26. who else by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 1

    Spies, who else? Duh - they have to get their wares someplace.

  27. Q can do it by millahtime · · Score: 1

    Where is Q at when you need him? They can put a laser, saw, and cabling system in a watch but they can't put together a system to organize info on terrorists. Q could do it and make it look good.

    1. Re:Q can do it by millahtime · · Score: 1

      ok, so i followed the wrong bleeping link. i think it's time for a break.

    2. Re:Q can do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, you don't think they've updated PROMIS to install crapware on the users' machines?!!!

  28. Might not change? by TychoCelchuuu · · Score: 1

    Spamming the secretaries may not change their investment policies? Might as well try, eh?

    --
    Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
  29. Clarification on listing criteria by bedelman · · Score: 2, Informative

    Note the last word of criteria 1, following the semicolon: "and"

    Programs must meet both criteria to be listed. I do not report companies that receive major funding but do not collect sensitive information or install without proper notice and consent. And I do not report companies that collect sensitive information and install without proper notice and consent, but have received no major funding (per publicly-available sources).

  30. Weatherbug is not awadare by AtariAmarok · · Score: 2, Funny
    "Weatherbug isn't spyware. It's adaware, which in my book is almostasannoyingware"

    Weatherbug is very different from Adaware. In fact, Adaware from lavasoft.de is a program which has identified Weatherbug as spyware. While Adaware is not perfect, i don't find it to be annoying. Adaware is not to be confused with Ada software.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Weatherbug is not awadare by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      Adaware is still the best free spyware detection program there is to my knowledge. I'd be happy to accept a better free alternative.

    2. Re:Weatherbug is not awadare by cicho · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on. The poster you're replying to didn't mean Ad-Aware, he meant "adware". As in, not-quite-spyware-but-annoying-nonetheless.

      --
      "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
    3. Re:Weatherbug is not awadare by narfbot · · Score: 1

      Spybot search and destroy. I consider it to have a slight edge over Adaware in finding stuff. Although both will still find things the other may not. Spybot also has very handy tools in it to fix things that neither exactly find, and when you are in the business of removing this stuff, you will absolutely have to be able to remove stuff manually anyways. So I'd say you should use both.

    4. Re:Weatherbug is not awadare by Wordsmith · · Score: 1

      me makey typo. I meant weatherbug is Adware. Adaware is very usefull, I agree.

  31. This Should Help Some by blueZhift · · Score: 1

    The only way spyware/adware is going to be stopped is when the financial incentive is removed. Someone out there is making a lot of money with spyware. Having a list of investors is just the beginning of the list of people to sue and/or throw in jail. It's going to take some time, but my phone is definitely ringing less since the do not call list went into effect with its hefty fines and penalties. I would guess that the conservative family values anti-porn groups will be all over this soon in an unholy alliance with those...those...liberals!

    1. Re:This Should Help Some by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The only way spyware/adware is going to be stopped is when the financial incentive is removed.

      Easy. When these companies are prosecuted for their criminal behavior (e.g. installing through security holes), venture capitalists won't touch them.

  32. Would you trust Slashdot's verification anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Michael's a troll in search of a bridge, and the whole damn site has their hands so far into Roland Piquapille's wallet if he farts Cowboy Neal's fingers start to stink.

  33. Edelman is trustworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've read and used Ben's research for other projects, especially his domain name data and it's always accurate. No reason to doubt him this time unless you can find definitive contradictions. He is friendly has always responded to email if it's on topic. Nice to see his work get some attention here.

  34. One in the same by FyberOptic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And as if it weren't fairly obvious these days, many "spyware removal" companies are also likely to be partners with these spyware companies.

    There was a particularly nasty adware on my brother's PC once, and during my time trying to see where it came from, I happened to click on one of the ads, which boasted to help you "get rid of spyware and adware". The ad took me to a generic "search engine" page, filled with spyware/adware "removal" programs.

    But did I see things like Ad-Aware or Spybot listed? Why hell no. I saw a bunch of removal programs which I had never ever heard of in my life. And yes, they cost money.

    So answer me this; why would a piece of adware give you an advertisement on how to remove adware, unless the companies that sell you the removal software are in on it too?

    And you know that the companies know they're showing up on these adware "search engines", because there are referrer ID's in the urls. After confronting a company about it with my brother's infested PC, they of course pretended to know nothing about it. I find it very hard to believe that they could have a referrer ID from an adware search engine, and it be total coincidence.

    So yes, I'm 100% convinced that many adware companies are allied with adware removal ones, if they aren't in fact one in the same many times. Just think of how many people actually end up clicking those ads and buying that software, just because they don't know any better.

    Since adware companies are basically virus writers, with ads as their payloads, we can only hope that more laws will start to pop up to nip it in the bud. But in the meantime, perhaps Ad-Aware or Spybot can strike up some deal with vendors (if they haven't already) to include their software with machines. At least until Microsoft's adware removal tool starts shipping with Windows.

    1. Re:One in the same by SpongeBobLinuxPants · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Here's what I found with a little bit of work.

      On the Claria/Gator list is US Venture Partners, one of their investments is a software product called Vontu, described as "Data firewall software to detect leakage of confidential information"

      I wonder if it also blocks spyware from reporting data to its servers?

    2. Re:One in the same by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Basically virus writers? Tell me how they're different. I don't think they are, in the least.

      I've got the personal suspicion that anti-virus companies are doing the same exact thing. They're just a bit more covert about it. Though, that might not be the case nowadays, what with the prevailant virus-writer cultures.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    3. Re:One in the same by ChrisPee · · Score: 1

      If any software containing advertisements is a "virus," then so is Slashdot. Oh, and so are TV and radio, magazines and movies, ballgames, and the sides of buses, and milk cartons, and T-shirts, and bananas...yup, definititely all viruses.

    4. Re:One in the same by FyberOptic · · Score: 1

      Slashdot isn't software which is installed on your machine. Slashdot, TV, radio, magazines, movies, etc, these things are all things you choose to view. If you don't wish to see the ads these things offer, then you don't have to.

      Spyware and adware, on the other hand, behave just like a virus. They attach themselves to your machine in as many ways possible and cling for dear life, preventing themselves from being removed, and usually reinstalling themselves if you attempt to do so. They affect the normal operation of your machine, and decrease productivity as a result. Some types use loopholes and flaws in Windows to "infect" your machine, without you having the chance to refuse it. And sometimes adware/spyware scanners even have trouble removing certain types, because this kind of software is just that insidious, and gives no way to uninstall it once it's on the machine.

      So no, it's nothing like the things you mentioned, at all.

  35. 58K for Gator! by pklong · · Score: 1

    58K for Gator, the venture capitalists must be bonkers.

    --

    Philip

    Signatures are broken

  36. Real Spyware by DrinkingIllini · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wouldn't the software that real spies use be called spyware?
    Are they offended at the usurping of the spyware moniker by other, less wholesome individuals?

  37. The real question is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Are these same venture capital companies also investing in spyware removal companies?

    Just wondering.

  38. VC and their shareholders by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

    >> VC mission is to generate money for their shareholders

    May their PCs be flooed with the shit they have invested in.

    1. Re:VC and their shareholders by kaustik · · Score: 1

      It would be interesting to heard their IT policies on installing this sort of software on company machines. I wonder how many times their admins have had to clean their own crap off of a secretary's workstation...

  39. People looking for quick/easy cash. by LordRPI · · Score: 1

    I'm under the impression that this is exactly what venture capital is all about. I've had good friends look for VC in starting up engineering firms and the answers from potential investors have been, "outsource the engineering to Asia and beef up your marketing and business development." Of course there is much talent in the art of marketing and business development, but selling thin air seems to be the most profitable of anything.

  40. Only slightly off-topic by erroneus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Some time ago there was mention on Slashdot about adware/spyware/malware exploiting security holes as a means of installing itself and other software without a users approval or knowledge.

    Now that's a pretty hefty claim and while I have little trouble believing it, I'd like to see positive confirmation of that claim. What I mean to say is that perhaps someone out there with the skills could should at least one example by disassembling some of this malware to show us all exactly what exploits are being used, when, where and how. It would be nice to see evidence that cannot be denied or spun away.

    I think if it can be shown that they are indeed actively exploiting security holes and are not operating ethically as they all claim to be, then the U.S. Federal Trade Commission might be able to step in and take measures to rectify the situation. I don't think we need more laws even if they would actually serve to benefit the public a little better. I think if we can show they are intruding onto computers without permission, there are already laws against that -- both civil and criminal.

    1. Re:Only slightly off-topic by thegnu · · Score: 0

      Don't EULAs of commercial software prohibit deconstruction of code? Reverse-engineering would be possible.

      But as for fun anecdotal evidence: I fix computers for a living, and when I use windows get spyware even when there are no trojans and I haven't accepted any request for any sort of permission to do anything. Not even as much as clicking an OK box to continue.

      --
      Please stop stalking me, bro.
    2. Re:Only slightly off-topic by KiltedKnight · · Score: 1
      What I mean to say is that perhaps someone out there with the skills could should at least one example by disassembling some of this malware to show us all exactly what exploits are being used, when, where and how. It would be nice to see evidence that cannot be denied or spun away.

      Do that, and you'll have (primarily) Microsoft coming after you wielding some of these recent anti-terrorism laws becasue you'd be exposing the flaws. You'd also only further the demise of things like bugtraq.

      If Microsoft had its way, bugtraq would be outlawed. Publishing exploits, bugs, etc, that allow malicious take-overs of computers would be illegal, as would even trying to find them through any means.

      I don't know about a lot of people, but I would much rather know when someone finds a vulnerability so that I can actually take active steps to prevent someone else from using it. Good computer security isn't just a matter of making sure the latest patches are installed. The ability to block sites, turn off certain features/capabilities until a patch is released (Remember the PHP file upload bug a couple of years ago? Just turn off file uploads until the patch is done a few hours later. :) ), and just the fact that you've been forewarned all can make a huge difference whether or not malware gets on your system.

      --
      OCO is Loco
  41. Harrassing the little people by thegnu · · Score: 0

    please note that harassing the receptionist at these places is unlikely to cause any change in their investment policies.

    Yep. Also, please note that harrassing the receptionist might get you in touch with the right person. And if you don't have means to do anything other than harrass the receptionist, it'll still give you that warm and fuzzy feeling of costing that company money.

    That being said, harrass the biggest ass. ;-)

    --
    Please stop stalking me, bro.
  42. Big Money, Inc -- any surprises? by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does it come as a surprise that our business class would be interested in forcing software onto people they "have" to run so that they can collect information and enrich themselves?

    Does it come as a surprise that our business class generally believes that a removing consumer choice and privacy are a good thing?

    I'm kind of waiting for a significant investigative peice in the media spyware, spam and its relationship with more "traditional" businesses whose only real motivation for staying out of that space is their reputation.

  43. Ben Edelman is a fucking hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    for swimming with sharks for us

    collecting "information" and analysing this rather seedy market sector

    not unlike a doctor researching a disease wants to kill the disease not treat the symptoms

    props Ben and good luck to you

  44. Why Anonymous Spam ? by ntsucks · · Score: 1

    Why not have Slashdotters send real informed email from real email accounts. I for one have no problem telling these VC groups what I think of their investments in spyware AND SIGNING MY NAME TO IT.

    --
    Those who can do. Those who can't sue.
    1. Re:Why Anonymous Spam ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too!

    2. Re:Why Anonymous Spam ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you wonder why you get a lot of spam, don't you?

  45. Companies to boycott!! Thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for the list of companies and their products that I'm going to boycott. We need to get the word out on these companies and boycott them all.

  46. "Flame" them instead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Calling the secretaries might not do anything, but there is the tried-and-true method of going up to their doorstep and leaving a flaming bag of dog poo.

  47. No, that's 58M for Gator! by mccrew · · Score: 1

    Probably a typo, but that $58 MILLION(!), not 58K.

    --
    Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
    1. Re:No, that's 58M for Gator! by pklong · · Score: 1

      Typo indeed. Maybe braino would be a more exact description :)

      --

      Philip

      Signatures are broken

  48. Wow, am I naive. by java.bean · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Every time I convince myself I'm as cynical as I can be, something like this pops up, and I realize I'm still my old naive self.

    I had assumed these companies were just handfuls of unethical developers. I can't believe VC firms are putting 10s of millions of dollars into these outfits.

    That was a wakeup call.

  49. Movie Idea by linus_vp · · Score: 1

    I think that Michael Moore should make a movie, by approaching these companies managers, like he did with Roger and Me. It might make a nice expose for all of those that have unknowingly clicked on one of these so called ads.

    --
    My Journal.
    1. Re:Movie Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not Michael Moore. There's no better way to get 50% of Americans to instantly abandon your cause than for him to take it up.

    2. Re:Movie Idea by srNeu · · Score: 1

      I don't think Michael Moore could make a movie when there is no truth to distort in an effort to make a very naive and biased political statement.

    3. Re:Movie Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so long as the other 50% follow it then great, a clear mandate.

  50. Re:Stupid editors by KiltedKnight · · Score: 1

    So they change the secretary's extension, route the old one to an immediate voicemail, and that's it.

    It doesn't take that long to do.

    You would be far better off sending a written letter to the company and/or its board of directors. Of course, one could always contact that company's ISP... O:-)

    --
    OCO is Loco
  51. Trust me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's no source more credible than an anonymous Slashdot poster! (Thanks for modding this one Informative, too.)

  52. organized crime by dAzED1 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    how many people did Al Capone actually pull the trigger and kill?

    Same bit. I wouldn't be suprized to find some of these VC's are not just VC's, but sepecifically search out people to put up these little shops. That way, they are protected, as merely being someone who loaned the person money. Get most of the profits, with few of the liabilities.

    It would be beautiful to change that - to increase their liability. Like I already said in this post, its like going into a gun store and asking to borrow a gun so you can rob a bank, and promising most of the profits in return. The gun store, if they agreed to that, most certainly should be held liable.

    1. Re:organized crime by SmokeHalo · · Score: 1

      That's why the government enacted RICO -- so they could go after the mob. Maybe what we need is something similar for these VC firms that provide money to these businesses.

      --
      I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
  53. To get everyone's attention... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe we could spread some rumors that these companies are just fronts for groups trying to propogate Weapons of Mass Destruction (since the US has just quit looking for them in Iraq)...

  54. Not their fault, and I should care because?? by Seek_1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but if a company out-sources their advertising to someone who uses Spyware, I still won't buy their products.

    It's up the company to ensure that their advertising partners are behaving responsibly, no one else!

    1. Re:Not their fault, and I should care because?? by xenocide2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Its not quite outsourcing. What I believe he's referring to is referral programs. Amazon.com and others do use referral programs to boost their advertising; its certainly outside advertising, but they still manage to do a lot of advertising themselves. These programs are usually designed to include as many people as possible, so its certainly no surprise that you find people pushing their referral program over gator. While I'd appreciate a more proactive stance against the practice, I certainly wouldn't want to destroy the program; perhaps some day I'd like to participate in a revenue sharing program. I hope that doesn't make me an evil person.

      Even slashdot participates in this advertising process, so if you feel badly, perhaps you should stop visiting here?

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    2. Re:Not their fault, and I should care because?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm sorry. My last post didn't make any sense.

      Regards,

      Seek 1

    3. Re:Not their fault, and I should care because?? by jsitke · · Score: 1

      Any major company that has a presence on the Internet is tied to advertising in some way. I'm not sure you will always have the full picture of who uses Spyware purposefully or not.

    4. Re:Not their fault, and I should care because?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it results in spyware (or spamming) then the companies should be held accountable, no matter what.

      More importantly, they should be TOLD why they are being held accountable.

      In return, they will begin to hold their referral programs etc. responsible, and we'll get checks and balances put in place to provide services that don't incur the wrath of their customers.
      Feedback is a good thing.

  55. Slashdot has not verified.... by drew · · Score: 0, Troll

    well, hello...

    the editors can't even figure out if they've already already posted something (an article on the mac mini two days after the fact? how could you possibly have missed it the first time around?)

    now they're afraid that we might think they actually research and verify the articles before linking to them?

    --
    If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
  56. Example of spyware installed via security holes by bedelman · · Score: 4, Informative

    I recently made a video showing spyware installed through security holes.

    My records (packet sniffer logs, etc.) do tell me what specific exploits were used, though my public write-up doesn't include all these details. In any event, the video is certainly sufficient to validate the "hefty claim" of software installed through security holes.

    1. Re:Example of spyware installed via security holes by erroneus · · Score: 1

      That's great. There is no better proof of intent than to have the original source code of these malware programs but short of that, decompiled source of malware with comments added would also be good but proves far less. They could claim that the binary used was modified before-hand or something.

      Showing the behavior of a program is pretty convincing evidence, but again, it still allows too much wriggle room for the little bastards. I'd really like to see cold hard evidence of intent and then punishment of those responsible from the top down to the programmer(s) who made it all happen.

      I've seen some of the damndest things myself but we get nowhere as long as these asses continue to deny what they are doing and stating that their intent is completely legitimate.

    2. Re:Example of spyware installed via security holes by bani · · Score: 1

      They could claim that the binary used was modified before-hand or something.

      a search warrant and confiscation of their development workstations should be able to determine the truth of the matter. if the source code to exploit the holes is sitting in their spyware source code, along with comments by their script kiddie developers "// 1337 sploit here to install our spyware", that should be good enough.

  57. Where's SCO and Baystar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, it's a good question

  58. Actually, that is a bad example for mom by narfbot · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't use that article to try to convince mom. Bill Gates gave into AOL demands that WeatherBug isn't spyware!

  59. Re:Slashdot has not verified Edelman's information by bigberk · · Score: 1
    As if we need the disclaimer.
    We (readers) don't need a disclaimer. But slashdot does, because if there's one thing spam-like companies are good at, it's frivolous lawsuits.
  60. Receptionist by iamacat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    please note that harassing the receptionist at these places is unlikely to cause any change in their investment policies

    Of course it's pointless to be rude or demand that she personally withdraw company's investments. But you can certainly politely explain that you are a victim of their client's illegal activities and ask to contact one of the partners who has influence in decision making.

    You will not get through, but the company's management will eventually know that people keep calling and complaining about Claria. The last thing an investment company wants is a client entangled in a class action lawsuit or government investigation.

    Then again, you might be surprised. Michael Moore convinced Kmart to stop selling bullets just by talking to them - granted he brought columbine victims along. Maybe some companies don't wish to invest in scum and will turn away once the reality is fully explained to them.

    1. Re:Receptionist by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Michael Moore convinced Kmart to stop selling bullets just by talking to them - granted he brought columbine victims along.

      He also brought video cameras along.

    2. Re:Receptionist by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 1

      Michael Moores is a big fat idiot who puts people on the spot and bullys them into doing things for fear of negative propaganda spin. He puts things in a twisted perspective, one that makes the victim look purely evil if they don't comply with his threats. Plus, he is the producer. Cutting and editting to suit his selfish goals wouldn't be beneath him. Just look at Fahrenheit 911 or Bowling for Columbine. His "docu-bullcrap-mentaries" are on the same level of truth as what the Nazi's put out half a century ago, if not worse.

      --

      eTrade SUCKS
  61. Kudzuware by siskbc · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Weatherbug may or may not be spyware, but I'm inclined to believe it is. Legit companies don't install upgrades against your consent and make it hard as hell to uninstall their software. That is how spyware/malware generally works though.

    Adware (like weatherbug) has just as much reason as spy/malware to install itself never to be uninstalled. This is an important point that isn't being made enough, which is that adware is damn near as bad as spyware. The distinction lets weatherbug off the hook by claiming, probably correctly, that they aren't spyware.

    I think we need a new term to describe software - of any ilk - that refuses to uninstall, or reinstalls itself, or penetrates so much of your OS that you can't uninstall it. I nominate either "cancerware" or "kudzuware" (after that lovely plant that now covers most of the US South, and is impossible to eradicate).

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    1. Re:Kudzuware by Blnky · · Score: 1

      I agree with the need for the new term.
      I nominate "forceware" or "permaware".

    2. Re:Kudzuware by Anonym1ty · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I nominate either "cancerware" or "kudzuware"

      I've been using the term Vomitware for a while now. Not only does it make you want to vomit, but it vomits itself all over your hard drive when it installs. ---AOL is also vomitware.

      Removing it is just like making sure to check and clean behind the toilet after a night of praying to the porcelain god that the parallel is just to perfect to ignore.

    3. Re:Kudzuware by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      federal pound-me-in-the-ass-ware?

    4. Re:Kudzuware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canerware rolls better - could also be a@#ware, d&*kware, c*ntware - sorry for the crassness but I do like to cuss. I've had it.

  62. Re:Stupid editors by ihaddsl · · Score: 1

    Uhh, the receptionist answers the main incoming line, you can't just change that or route it to voicemail.

  63. Welcome To The New Millenium Folks! by Austin+Milbarge · · Score: 1

    Say goodbye to the days of the Commodore 64, school yard dodge ball, pay phone phreaking, "Good" MTV videos and hilarious saturday morning cartoons.

    and say hello to...

    big businesses, corporate scandals, small government, useless gadgets, retarted cell phone ringers, oversized SUVs, overly protective parents, obnoxious sports figures, obese children, school shootings, cyber bullies, horrible music, sucky movies, reality tv, media fear tactics, prescription drug commercials, low salaries, high insurance premiums, high oil prices, job offshoring and of course, my all-time personal favorite, ANNOYING ELECTRONIC ADVERTISEMENT!!!!!!!!!

    *God Bless America*

    1. Re:Welcome To The New Millenium Folks! by netsfr · · Score: 1

      I think I will pull out the old 64 out of the closet and avoid the New Millenium. SSH for C64 anyone?

  64. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  65. Slashdot Turning a New Leaf? by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Slashdot? Verify? Could this be the start of a new policy of accurate and responsible reporting at Slashdot? Maybe the CBS Report put things in perspective for them.

    --
    Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
  66. now which media outlets would publish that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could you tell me about these media outlets that publish investigations of the practices of this "business class"?

    1. Re:now which media outlets would publish that? by swb · · Score: 1

      Mother Jones? The Nation? On the mainstreem side, perhaps the Atlantic Monthly or the New Yorker, although the latter doesn't do that much in-depth investigative journalism.

      All cynacism aside, even the Wall Street Journal is known for occasionally biting the hand that feeds it.

      And you have to give some credit to journalists and editors; at some of the major newsweeklies and national papers, they don't have a problem with pissing off big money and take the "firewall" between the editorial side and the business side seriously.

      Plus this is one of the populist issues that really pisses people off.

      But more generally I will cede to you the idea that corporate ownership of the media generally means weak coverage of corporate America when there's any at all.

  67. Sysmetrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sysmetrix (for Windows) is a skinnable program that looks up the current weather as one of its many features. It also can check email and run a NTP client.
    http://www.xymantix.com/sysmetrix/

  68. Firefox's forecastfox/weatherfox by The+Hobo · · Score: 1

    If you're a firefox user, there's an extension called "forecastfox" (formerly weatherfox), here.

    --
    There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
  69. Firefox plugin by crunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can also download the ForecastFox plugin for Firefox.

    --
    It's the battle of the minds, and everyone's unarmed.
  70. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  71. Spamford 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Each of these VC's have contact information on their web sites. They have email addresses and they have PHYSICAL ADDRESSES. A little investigation using EDGAR should reveal the members of their boards of directors names and addresses.

    Once all of this information is compiled, I would think that requesting they be placed on mailing lists (both email and physical mail) would make life a tad inconvenient for the principles.

    This probably won't make them pull of of their current investments but perhaps it would put the off of similar investments in the future.

    Secondly, the investigative powers of the Slashdot community could probably chase down a few managers and directors of these companies and do the same things to them, taking the Spamford process to a whole new level.

  72. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  73. Interesting list, but... by writermike · · Score: 1

    I really suspect that the ongoing money behind a lot of these companies are advertisers themselves. What about Dell UK on WhenU, for instance?

    --
    If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
  74. Harassing receptionists? by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1
    ...please note that harassing the receptionist at these places is unlikely to cause any change in their investment policies.

    It is bad form and poor practice to harass the receptionist anywhere. Usually this person is underpaid and without any say in company policy. The main power receptionists have is over whether you get into the place you're trying to get into (whether it's physically or by phone). Treat them nicely, and you're more likely to get them to grant you the access you request.

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
  75. Most VC firms are quite small by winkydink · · Score: 1
    Even the big boys like Sequoia. It's not like they employ hundreds of people, just the partners and a small support staff (the better for keeping all the money for one's self).

    Not that I'm recommending it, but harrassing the receptionist will get noted and probably discussed by the partners.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  76. Easier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You can uninstall Windows XP updates.
    Start > Settings > Control Panel > Add/Remove Programs

    Better yet and more thorough:

    Format C:\

  77. Heh by delmoi · · Score: 0

    A friend of mine got a call from a spyware company a few months back, trying to get him to buy a $50k advertizing package.

    --

    ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
  78. Re:Stupid editors by KiltedKnight · · Score: 1

    In this modern day set-up, they have all of these, "If you wish to speak to X, please press N now," menus when you dial in.

    That's the set-up I'm referring to. They just change the destination of the call, then give the person in question a new extension, and hide it in the system.

    --
    OCO is Loco
  79. I'd like to see the advertisers by digitalgimpus · · Score: 1

    We should really start keeping a list of companies, and products shown in adware, and those benefiting from the resarch in spyware.

    Make people who use these techniques "labeled".

    Problem is, most people don't even know who these companies are. If you advertise in adware... or you use spyware for marketing research...

    your name should be on a virtual billboard.

    Want to take them down? Make sure they don't benefit from spyware.

  80. Less useful than it seems by ConsciousObjector · · Score: 1

    In the wake of the 2004 U.S. presidential election, a number of disgruntled lefties compiled a list of corporations and their financial contributions to either the Republicans or Democrats. http://buyblue.org/. Stores like Amazon.com contributed 60% of their funds to Republicans, and 40% to Democrats, for example, while Barnes and Noble donated 100% to Democrats.
    The theoretical point, if there is indeed any, to both of these lists is to educate consumers so that they can make informed decisions. Citizens who adhere to one political ideology can tailor their buying habits accordingly.
    But buyblue.org's list, at least, were REAL STORES. As in places people were actually likely to buy things from, and therefore ones they could also boycott. The average consumer (even ones on /.) are far more likely to buy something from B&N than 180solutions or eXact Advertising. So while this list is sort of a nice novelty, it doesn't have the same potential for activism.
    Maybe it's just me, but spyware is overhyped. I run Adaware on a regular basis and I haven't had any problems in the ten years I've been using the 'net. Pop-ups are annoying, but identity theft is the real threat, and one that can be all but eliminated by running anti-spyware programs. Essentially, the stakes for spyware support are relatively low.
    Contrast this with the relative importance of corporations funding the political process. Companies' financial contributions determine the taxes we pay, the services we receive, the attitudes we export, the ideals we defend. So while the list of companies contributing to spyware is kinda nifty, really, who cares?

  81. Re:tech companies listed by ad0gg · · Score: 2, Funny

    People don't care what tech companies are on it. People are still gonna support Apple,Palm and Sun no matter what they do. But if Microsoft did the same, people would be up in arms.

    --

    Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

  82. Capitalism vs Corporate Finance by tallbill · · Score: 1

    I maintain that Capitalism from a micro economic point of view is a description of how people behave.

    On a macro level it turns into a set of rules and regulations.

    I also think that, for the most part, the system works as well as the people who are really in charge are honest and not just out for themselves, but do their real duty and fulfill the requirements of their offices.

    I have the same kind of righteous indignation towards people who foster civil wars, drain chemicals everywhere, rob everyone in sight etc. But, honestly, doesn't this happen in any system regardless of the form of finance?

    I believe that you have issues with the way that corporate governance works. However, the controls in place are doing what they are supposed to do. If they were not we would never hear about things such as Enron, Haliburton, or whatever other finance scandal is current in the press. It would all be covered up.

    I think that there is a certain element of the super-wealthy who would love to have a return to the days of Fuedalism. In their minds they are still the ruling class. But these people want to do this without any responsibility. And the current system of corporate governance can be considered Corporate Fuedalism.

    But in terms of quid pro quo, capitalism works. I give you this, you give me that. Simple.

    The matter of corruption in corporate finance is an important concern of anyone who wants accoutability in the way things are run. I had had authored your post I would change the word capitalism in the first sentance to modern corporate finance.

    It isn't easy for these people to regulate these complex markets. And for the most part the explosion of technology has resulted from the activities of these markets. It is regretable that they have corruption. And if you have any ideas that can make them better, then I am sure that are people who will listen to you and consider what you say.

  83. Notice Guy Kawasaki's firm funds Gator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I noticed from this that Guy Kawasaki (of Macintosh fame) is one of the folks that funds Gain, which puts out gator, one of the most wide spread pieces of spyware out there. ...What a disappointment... :-(

  84. probably needs an editor by tallbill · · Score: 1


    If it is put into a wiki, then there will need to be someone who is responsible with verifying the various items. Corporations are notorious litigacious.

  85. Tell Them by cyberformer · · Score: 1

    Neither will I. But some companies might not actually know that they are advertising in spyware: The ad salesmen for spyware companies are just as deceptive as the programs themselves.

    So the best way to make a difference is to tell the companies about the spyware, and to tell them that your (and many others) are boycotting them because of it.

  86. Garage Ventures in Gator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. Now that's somewhat unexpected. Guy Kawasaki's company funding Gator? Not exactly the garage venture, tech innovation, Apple Computer headspace there?

    Or maybe so. Who could forget the 'Think Different' campaign taking down the pictures of the Dalai Lama in Asia because Big Brother in China didn't like the Tibetans wanting their freedom.

    Big Brother lives in so many guises.

    Think Different Guy!

  87. How is your statement relevant at all? by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "If you aren't stealing on P2P then you have nothign to worry about"

    I guess no p2p user has a thing to worry about then. It is quite possible to violate copyright restrictions. However, it is completely impossible to steal using p2p.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  88. Political link? by Teun · · Score: 1

    from venture capitolists
    Damn, they are everywhere!

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  89. Harrass is too strong of a word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you sure you don't want me to go have a word with the receptionist of GreyLock, a company investing in the very annoying "Gain"? The company is just 1 floor over my head. I am happy I have seen this list because I have lost all respect for the company now. I like money just as much as the next guy, but I have morals and standards and I would never knowingly make a penny off of a company as annoying as GAIN.

  90. SEC disclosure links added to my site by bedelman · · Score: 1

    Thanks. I've added those SEC disclosure links to my site.

  91. Yes, I Actually Used To Be An AOL Member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shit, I thought AOL WAS spyware!

    Between the monthly CD that arrived with the rest of my junk mail, how worthless the program was, how painfully slow it made my machine and how many ads were embedded into it...I couldn't really tell the difference between AOL and Spyware.

  92. It ain't like it used to be, back in the day by ChrisPee · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing you were one of those kids who had to walk 10 miles to school, uphill both ways, gnawing on crusts of stale bread before heading off to work the graveyard shift at the coal mine...

    1. Re:It ain't like it used to be, back in the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      school? graveyard shift? we had to walk 10 miles, uphill both ways pushing coal trucks in the coal mine 26 hours a day, after digging the coal out with our fingernails, in the snow! yes it snowed in the mine.

    2. Re:It ain't like it used to be, back in the day by Austin+Milbarge · · Score: 1

      Na, your startin to sound like my dad. He couldn't even afford arms and legs. As for myself, I just want Tom & Jerry back and the Apple IIe to come back.

  93. Investor AB: Owner of ABB, Electrolux, Ericsson... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and half of Sweden. Why on earth do they invest in a spyware company?

  94. browser hijackers by fima59 · · Score: 1

    I would like to send you some links to publications about my criminal case. I worked for Mitsubishi Electric Automation in Vernon Hills, IL, USA. My case are getting public attention now as an example of miscarriage of justice. I could not defend myself, because I did not have enough money for computer expert. I was forced to confess for possession of child porn. I got browser hijackers while browsing the web. I was redirected to illigal sites against my will. Some illigal pictures were found on my hard drive only after recovering in unallocated clusters, without dates of files creation/download. I do not know how can courts press widely on people to convict them, while whole Internet is a mess. This is my story in inquisition21.com. There is all information about case written by Irish writer Brian Rothery. http://www.inquisition21.com/article~view~7~page_n um~3.html This is publication in Wired news http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,633 91,00.html This is publication in Theregester http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/13/browser_hi jacking_risks/ Article in Globe and Mail newspaper http://ctv.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM .20040617.gttwhijac17/tech/Technology/techBN/ctv-t echnology Article in ZDnet http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5344831.html This is article in Washington Times, May 22, 2004 There is information about my case. http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/scripts/printtech.cgi/ dailys/05-30-04.html Article in Crime research center: http://www.crime-research.org/news/07.22.2004/506/ Article in Dallas, TX Newspaper http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13614767 &BRD=1426&PAG=461&dept_id=528214&rfi=6

  95. It's not hard to verify by Animats · · Score: 1
    For example, here's a press release from Technology Investment Capital Corporation boasting about it:
    • Press Release Source: Technology Investment Capital Corp.

      TICC Announces $15 Million Transaction With eXact Advertising, LLC
      Monday November 29, 8:00 am ET

      GREENWICH, CT--(MARKET WIRE)--Nov 29, 2004 --
      Technology Investment Capital Corp. (NasdaqNM:TICC - News) announced today that it has completed a $15 million transaction with eXact Advertising, LLC, an Internet advertising company. TICC's investment consists of $5 million of senior secured notes with warrants and a commitment for an additional $10 million of senior secured notes with warrants upon satisfaction of certain conditions.

      About eXact Advertising, LLC

      eXact focuses on the delivery of a suite of online solutions that provide highly targeted advertising to customers based on real-time behavior. The company provides its customers with a suite of integrated performance-based marketing solutions. eXact maximizes advertisers' Internet marketing budgets through a robust set of results-driven products and services and accompanying return on investment ("ROI") management tools. More information on eXact Advertising can be found at www.exactadvertising.com.

    These are the people behind Bargain Buddy, eXact Match, Cash Back, PhotoGizmo, etc.
  96. DO annoy the receptionist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    please note that harassing the receptionist at these places is unlikely to cause any change in their investment policies.

    First off, I call bullshit! Harassing (or at least annoying, there is a difference) is likely to cause change! I know that in every company I worked for constant complaints to the receptionist were listened to. In fact, if there were just a few calls, but it was enough to cause the receptionist to mention it, it was at least discussed.

    Secondly, vote with your feet! Find out what else these people invest in and refuse to buy anything from them! If you don't feed them money (through sales) then they can't invest in anything!

  97. Investor AB is huge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just take a look

    They have been around for a long time.

    1. Re:Investor AB is huge by winkydink · · Score: 1

      All told, I bet they have less than 100 people. You don't need much to run an ongoing VC firm beyond the partners and their contacts. A lot of stuff (like legal) is outsourced.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  98. Big Money Behind Spam by queenb**ch · · Score: 1

    Great! In addition to Joe Bob and Billy Jack sitting in the back room guzzling beer and sending out porn spam, now we have it becoming insitutionalized by the venture capitalists.

    Next thing you know, you'll be forced to accept delivery of it since they'll hire a lobbist to go to Congress and shove that legislation through like the MPAA & RIAA did with the DMCA.

    When does it end? The USA needs to make spamming illegal and make it illegal to invest in companies that spam. We should filter traffic at the perimeter and dump the traffic from any country that doesn't have laws against spam.

    2 cents,

    Queen B

    --
    HDGary secures my bank :/
  99. Look at eXact's description... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    About eXact Advertising, LLC

    eXact focuses on the delivery of a suite of online solutions that provide highly targeted advertising to customers based on real-time behavior. The company provides its customers with a suite of integrated performance-based marketing solutions. eXact maximizes advertisers' Internet marketing budgets through a robust set of results-driven products and services and accompanying return on investment ("ROI") management tools.

    Just look at all those filler words! They're all business-tech buzzwords that have little or no actual meaning, that are used to sound like they're an important company to impress their investors.

    "suite of online solutions"
    Everyone's providing 'solutions' these days

    "integrated performance-based marketing solutions"
    More 'solutions'. These are 'performance-based' solutions so they must be special.

    "robust set of results-driven products and services"
    OOH! Results-driven products!!! What the hell else drives your products?

    "accompanying return on investment ("ROI") management tools"
    This one isn't so bad, but they probably didn't have to include the ROI part.

    I would love to see how much these Investment Firms and Venture Capitalists get affected all the spyware products that they're supporting.

  100. Shouldn't be to difficult to find out.... by lucason · · Score: 1

    1)Install it.
    2)Sit back.
    3)Take notes.

    And dare I suggest... Post it so we can take a peek...