Slashdot Mirror
Spyware Critics Respond to iDownload/iSearch
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."
"Specifically, a recent review of materials disseminated by your company, via the Internet, revealed that your company is falsely disparaging iDowload's [sic] product, iSearch...
....
...
"As we all know, Malware is a phrase within the public conscience [He means 'consciousness.' Ed.] that has a specific meaning.
"Continuing, unlike Malware, iSearch does not gather any personally identifiable information about end users, does not collect data about the user's web usage, does not collect any information entered into web forms, does not share information with third parties, does not send or cause to be sent unsolicited e-mail, and does not install items such as dialers on the end user's computer.
"To the extent you fail to remedy your improper disparagement of the iDownload brand on or before February 15, 2005, we will take all necessary action against your company to protect iDownload from your continuing tortuous conduct [He means 'tortious' or injurious conduct. Ed.]."
Although the writer of the article goes into detail, frankly, iDownload is using semantics to hide the true purpose. Spyware, is software that is installed on a consumer's computer, WITHOUT that consumer's explicit, knowledgeable consent, and DOES NOT serve a proper, useful service for that consumer.
On another note, if they're c-ding people because of 'disparagement' issues, perhaps instead anti-adware vendors simply have a 'suggestion' about the adware in question. Would that change any legal issues?
Those people aren't the problem. The people who are the problem are the ones who insist on clicking every flashing 'hit the screensaver'type ad. I've even heard some of these people say 'oh, I don't mind spyware, it helps pay for the internet'.
iDownload's business model is wholly dependant on idiots. Lucky for them, there's no shortage of those on the internet.
"Your admirers in the street
Got to hoot and stamp their feet
in the heat from your physique" -King Crimson
Yes. In my brain, iDownload is now no longer classified as Spyware. It is now Shitware. Please address complaints to brain@luigi30.fl.us.
Seriously. What did they hope to achieve by this? Common people have figured out that "spyware" == "bad" so they have to make up their own terms to get around that? Who do they think they are, Gato^H^H^H^HClaria?
503 Sig Unavailable
The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
Google search for idownload and spyware : 23,100 hits.
Google search for isearch and spyware: 82,400 hits.
Google search for isearch and malware: 17,000
Google search for isearch and shit: 14,900 hits.
Looks like someone shot this dead horse out the barn door, and it is too late to look it in its mouth.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
click here, an account of where iSearch forced pr0n links on a family computer used by kids.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Now, I'm not in the habit of installing programs of ill repute just so I can examine their legality and morality, so bear with me and correct me if I'm in error on any of this.
According to their user agreement, Isearch does some things I would definitely describe as "malware," but does not appear to send personal information to a third party without notice, which I would say is a fairly safe definition of "spyware." It's actions include pop-ups, pop-unders, interstitial ads, redirection of certain URLs and "conveniently without your input" installs additional software (Section 2). The next section states explicitly states that iSearch does not collect personal information, but they and their affiliates may collect anonymous info.
It's clear this program is crap. You are right that users need to take responsibility for what they install. However, while iSearch is truthful about what their program does, they are also attempt to be misleading. They aren't doing anything (as far as I can tell) that is illegal, but it is slimy, lowdown, and rotten and totters on the edge of unethical. They are playing with words and hiding the truth in the abundance of words typical of EULA's to fool users into installing a product they do not want.
Furthermore, the fact that iSearch is not breaking the law does not change the fact that neither are these anti-malware companies. They simply compile lists of distasteful programs and label them as they see fit: adware, malware, spyware, etc. If they're careful to present clear definitions of those terms, they shouldn't even have to worry about iSearch's claim that spyware is a loosely defined term. Then iSearch wouldn't even really have a slander case against them.
a) [my least intelligent/valid point] until now, I assumed that Austin had a higher percentage of computer literate legal professionals. Thanks for destroying that Mark.
b) their webpage is frontpage'd. Not even "well" frontpage'd. Yet another company that has their secretary "whip out" something for that internet thing "no-one ever looks at." highly unproffesional in appearance.
c) I couldn't find any partner, much less the attorney in question having any experience or training in internet/software law. and again, the appearance of the site kinda would lead one away from having them involved in such things.
d) I hate pointing it out.. but the lawyer in question looks to be relatively very young. I'd hate to imagine one of the partners handing it off to him as either a "disposal client" (after this client, his career's in the disposal) or equally bad, if they've got a senior partner with any common sense- that someone let him take it to these extremes, destroying their firm's image/reputation.
He was pointing out the co-responsibility of the fools who run zombies because they won't pay attention or try to learn. It takes both parties to create machines where the best/simplest/cheapest solution is reformat/re-install.
When you explain the cause of the problem and give them tools to keep it fixed, when they come back and Ad-Aware hasn't been updated in 63 days and they have 4 - 7 toolbars, I just ad 15% to the price of doing it all over again. Call it a stupidity tax.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
webmaster@idownload.com
abuse@idownload.com
postmaster@idownload.com
Free of charge, no logging, no IP information logged, you will completely anonymously delivered. I want to make sure the fine folks at the non-spyware idownload website can get the proper feedback on their wonderful something-ware programs. This is for real, all e-mails sent to idownload@knightmb.dyndns.org will auto-forward to those addresses. I consider it a way of saying thanks to the idownload people and I want to connect them with the people that have a word or two to say to them :-)
We also need to find a way to get companies like Thawte to stop issuing certificates to shitware companies.
"The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
Well, the general idea here is that large numbers of people download and run software specifically designed to find and remove software like iDownload/iSearch.
It doesn't matter really how it got on there or why, the idea is that the users didn't want it on there, and they don't want it on there badly enough they're running software like adaware to make it go away.
iDownload/iSearch is trying to stop such tools from working by abusing our legal system to prevent their software from being classified as what it is; spyware, or malware, or "trojan horse" software, or some other word designed to describe the concept of software which gets installed on your computer but you didn't want it there and you don't want it there now. Totally aside from the question of whether the users should have taken more steps to prevent the spyware from getting installed on their computer in the first place, this is a problem.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
iDownload claims that their C&D letters were a success. But all these links responding to the C&D letters look like rejections. Is there any evidence that any website anywhere actually responded to iDownload's cease and desist letters by ceasing or desisting anything at all?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I didn't care about spyware. Since I use Linux and Firefox, what do I need to worry about. So I didn't really worry. Let the Windows lusers have their popups and misdirected browsers. I didn't really care. Besides, I've been getting $500 a pop for coming in and re-installing people's Windows machines for them (after extracting their important data they never backed up). So why should I have cared about making this illegal.
But once these people go so far as to have lawyers make threats against people exercising the right of free speech to reveal the truth that in many cases the big media will completely miss (look how often they are led to their stories now due to a blog), now I'm pissed off. So now I fully favor the law being passed against spyware. I just hope they don't screw it up like they did with the law against spam.
But I also favor the idea of creating a SLAPP/CE blacklist. Or maybe there is one already I don't know about. In any case, the idea is to block the bastards right at the router. Obviously the first places to block are their web sites and mail servers found in DNS. But being spyware, it most likely is trying to communicate with home base in other ways, too, and may be doing it without the use of DNS. In such cases, the only way to block it is to put in an access-list or null route it. If it is being directed to do things from home base (once it knows you are infected), then null routing may not be enough and an access-list is needed (either deny or use route maps to redirect the traffic). These people need to be cut off at the jugular.
BTW, the biggest reason I want to see this practice be illegal is so in future cases where they try a SLAPP lawsuit, their lawyers can be taken down with them for failure to properly advise their clients. Getting lawyers disbarred, or even jailed, is one of my favorite hobbies I don't get to enjoy anywhere near enough.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars