Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spyware Critics Respond to iDownload/iSearch

Posted by timothy on from the pesky-vikings dept.

Paul Laudanski writes "Slashdot ran an article earlier on 'iDownload Tries to Silence Spyware Critics'. Since then, the spyware critics have responded to iDownload: CastleCops, NetRN, and Sunbelt Software. InternetWeek and BroadbandReports have picked up this story as well. Brian Livingston interviewed iDownload's CEO Arlo Gilbert, who claims the letters were a success: "The majority of sites we've contacted have taken down or properly classified iSearch" and "When asked to name some of the sites that had complied, Gilbert answered, "I'm not going to share that information. It would be shooting a gift horse in the mouth."" General overview by Kye-U and Zhen-Xjell."

12 of 253 comments (clear)

  1. Is it... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is it Spyware when you click OK?
    Is it spyware when you let it stay on your system?
    Is it spyware when you let it run?

    When does the user take responsibility over what somebody/something else does?

    Seriously, it has to do with peoples' rights and how many intentionally do not inform themselves what they do, and their repurcussions involved.

    If we applied to what normal people do online (and then blame), what would you say if somebody cashed those "Loan Checks" sent in the mail? Most people know its a acceptance of a loan. Yet, common sense is thrown out the window on the net.

    --
    1. Re:Is it... by Darthmalt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's Spyware/malware/adware when it piggybacks on your system without an easy way to keep it from installing and then resists being uninstalled. i.e. cool web search and it's ilk

    2. Re:Is it... by MindStalker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is it spyware when it called itself "Critical Microsoft Windows Media Player Update", and is nothing of the sort. Then does not appear in your add/remove programs. And in fact the only way to remove it is to use a spyware removal tool. Or how bout the people that got it bundled with the Win32.Beavis virus. They didn't agree to the EULA. Now if someone can simply prove that iDownload had this hand in the creation of this virus, we could finally put these guys behind bars where they belong. Of course getting access to secret memos before they are destroyed in another exercise entirly.

    3. Re:Is it... by timmarhy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      your wrong. plain and simple. isearch misrepresents itself in order to get installed. misrepresenting yourself in any other arena is called FRAUD. so why doesn't it apply to people who create things like isearch? spyware programs like isearch also rely on people not being tech savvy enough to know how to spot them. your arguement that someone not being tech savvy is a defense for companies like this also doesn't hold.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    4. Re:Is it... by RollingThunder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      User stupidity does not make the actions of the company OK. It just means that both parties share some of the blame.

      The company gets the bulk of the blame, they're obviously intending to trick people.

    5. Re:Is it... by cgenman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Realistically, people use their computers to do other things. If I want to chat with a co-worker online instead of going to the other building where they're located, I'll install and use aim. The average user isn't going to monitor what AIM does, or what any of the other applications say they are going to do, any more than I would go into my automobile to verify that the mechanic really did replace my spark plugs. You take the butcher's word for it. If an application represents itself as an app that can open any graphic image file, and I happen to need to see files sent to me by my family or I just worry about such things, I'll install it. I'll be buggared if I'm going to run a whois on every company and see if they have the same info as ClariaGatorInsertEvilSpywareMakerNameHere.

      Now, I actually do all of these things, because that's one of the things I'm paid to do. But the average user cannot be expected to check their task manager's list of running processes and know that while wscntfy.exe, hptskmgr.exe,wmplayer.exe, YEDIEx.exe, vmnat.exe, sshd.exe, svchost.exe, boinc_gui.exe, avgcc.exe, grxp4exe.exe, and the 64 other things currently running on their machine are benign, but that ie_32.exe is spyware. Heck, even now I only recognize *most* of what's on the list, and then in a cursory "that's usually on the list" sort of way.

      Normal people shouldn't be expected to know this. They want to interface with the computer, not program it. When I go to the store to buy a batch of oranges I expect a batch of oranges: I shouldn't need to know the finer details of modern horticultural techniques and the international fruit business to avoid getting lemons that have been painted orange.

      If somebody represents their ap as going to do something, the extent of my responsibility assumes that the ap behaves as expected. If it earnestly tries to look like an orange, it should be an orange. If I sold a painted lemon as an orange, even with a fine print disclaimer, I would be in trouble for misrepresenting the product. I don't see how software is any different.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
  2. It's all bad to me by erick99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't like any adware or spyware - period. I run three separate programs (AdAware, SpyBot, and a webroot program) to keep that stuff off of my computer. I understand folks have to make a living but do it differently. I don't mind google adsense ads within pages and stuff like that. It's upfront and a little more honest than some program hiding and collecting data or "helping" me by collecting key strokes and making sure I get the "right kind of ads." It's all bad. Period.

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
    1. Re:It's all bad to me by pipingguy · · Score: 4, Insightful


      Advertisers have to get off the pollyannish notion that they can track their ads to specific sales.

      Eyeballs impressed is useless unless the eyballs gathered are relevant to your product/service.

      What advertisers have to do is to specifically target websites that discuss things that are relevant to the readers of that website. That won't happen soon because the shotgun approach is still prevalent (a 1/4 page, one month ad in the back of a more general interest, glossy magazine is worth more than a 6 month ad on a more-specific website).

      The web has been a neophyte marketer's dream come true - lots of flash and hype.

    2. Re:It's all bad to me by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, that kind of notion is what happens when you let someone define their own criteria of doing their job well. Doubly so when we're talking someone whose job _is_ to lie, i.e., marketting.

      Actually, lemme rephrase that. Not outright "lie", but creatively mis-lead and mis-represent.

      So the marketters invented all sorts of bogus self-serving metrics to justify their job. And then worked to inflate those metrics, rather than actually sell a product.

      Probably the most insidious is the "click" as a measure of success and somehow directly equivalent to "sale". I mean, hey, if you got them to click, they're surely interested in the product, right? Wrong. Exactly in what product is someone interested when they click by mistake on a Fake-UI ad or "punch the monkey" tricks? None whatsoever.

      And the whole Internet disaster is a direct effect of these bogus metrics. People end up working to drive up the metric, not to actually do their job.

      E.g., once you define "number of ads downloaded" as a measure of advertising success, you get spyware and other software that just downloads tons of ads. It doesn't even matter if anyone sees them. They just have to show up in the logs as downloaded.

      E.g., once you define "number of clicks" as a success metric, the direct result is fake UI ads. Or with spyware that automatically redirects you to the site, basically simulating a click the obnoxious way. It's not even a slippery slope. It's a direct cause-effect situation.

      Etc.

      And just so I don't offend only the marketting people, the same happens in _every_ job where people are measured against a bogus metric of success.

      E.g., I know one PHB who demanded weekly reports from everyone of what patterns they applied, and measured a programmer's worth in how many of those they applied. That project is still not ready yet, some 3 years past the original deadline, and with a team 4 times the original size by now. It's also _the_ most baroque architecture I've ever seen, because _everything_ goes through every pattern ever invented, to match the boss's metric. E.g., no object is ever just passed around as it is, it's first wantonly wrapped in a "decorator", obtained from a "factory", which is a "singleton", etc, etc. And I mean so baroque, you can _literally_ fill a whiteboard with only the _layers_ an object has to go through. Sad.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  3. Not that it matters by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You could have 'iDownload is selling your credit card information to people who want to rip you off' in 5 mile high letters created by manipulating the Northern Lights and there would still be people who downloaded and ran it just to see what all the fuss was about.

    --
    Beep beep.
  4. Heres what i dont want... by SteveXE · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I dont want any software i cant remove 100% without it coming back and no more then a few clicks to remove it. I dont want software that tracks what websites i visit, or files i download, whether anonymous or not. I dont want software that can read my cookies, email, keystrokes, or any of my data whether it reports it or not. I dont want software sneaking onto my system, whether its concealed in a 1000 page EULA or not unless i say specificly install this it doesnt belong on my pc. I dont want ant software that can edit any data and transmit data over a network without my permission I consider that spyware/malware, if your software does this stuff it shouldnt be allowed to exist. Unless the user is informed upfront on what it is, what it does, what it modifys, reads, sends, and how to uninstall it in big bold letters.

  5. Bad bad software by Blitzenn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was INFECTED by this stuff recently. I had an extremely difficult time removing it from my machine. It would reinstall itself continuiously and had so many roots in my registry it took me hours to weed it all out. When I wrote a letter to the manufacturer. They told me that I should not try to uninstall their software. If I insisted, They would send me an uninstall 'package' taht I could install to remove the installation. The really pissed me off as they wanted me to install more of their software in order to remove the first software.

    I didn't bite.

    I replied to them that their software had been installed on my machine without my permission and without my knowledge, took over my machine settings and that was wrong. Because of those properties, it was spyware. They got pissy and told me that I was wrong. That it was not spyware and that not utility that I could get off the market could remove their product successfully. They seemed quite proud of that fact.

    THe only way I found to successfully remove the infectious dlls and such was to change the security settings on the target executables so that they did not have enough permission to run on a reboot and then reboot the machine and delete all of the dll's and executable you otherwise could not because they were already being actively used.

    We pass laws to stop people like this and all they do is find a new way to skirt the law, while the boy down the street, who was just goofing around and made a mistake, gets arrested and sent to jail under that same law. Our approach to fixing these problems is obviously not working. Why does everyone insist on continuing down that road? We write laws that contain templates to check to see if someone is 'bad'. If you fit the template, you are bad and go to jail. The problem is that the bad guys you are really after simply alter themselves just enough, so they no longer fit the template, and skate free. We need to target these people SPECIFICALLY not generically as we are doing now. We are harming people who don't deserve it and curtailing our own freedoms with this method. It is not showing ANY results that matter. Stop the nonsense, PLEASE!