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.
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.
MI5, FBI, CIA, the usual dated TLA arm's of the illuminati
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.
Reads like a hit list.
I give it ten minutes for the DDOS to start.
Does Slashdot ever verify the information it links to? As if we need the disclaimer.
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!?
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
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.
When the Editors verify it, they link the story as a duplicate post.
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
Aren't anonymour remailers reserved for letters from secret admirers?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
"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.
They talk about going after spammers, but maybe what they need to do is go after these companies that invest in them.
.02
If the spammers didn't have these companies funding them, then I dare say they wouldn't last very long.
just
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy - Benjamin Franklin"
"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!
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.
>> 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...
http://request-header.info
1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
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.
Are these same venture capital companies also investing in spyware removal companies?
Just wondering.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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