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