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."
Talk about mixing metaphors! "Shooting a gift horse in the mouth"?? It should be either "looking a gift horse in the mouth", or "beating a dead horse", but neither of those matches what he's trying to say...
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.
I personally would have gone with something from Back to the Future. He could have said that he told the companies to make like a tree and get out of here.
> "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."
Yeah, and all the lurkers send me supporting e-mail when I'm the only person taking one side in an argument on Usenet.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"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?
He went on to say, "I can tell you that we've got positive engagement in critical areas. We're definitely going to grab this bull by the horns of the dilemma, and leverage our synergies with a focus on the future. It's a win-win situation."
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/
how listing the empty set is like shooting a gift horse in the mouth.
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.
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.
Maybe he meant to say that it would be like beating a dead gift horse... after, of course, shooting it... in the mouth.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
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
Postal Mail:
iDownload.com
1180 Avenue of the Americas
14th Floor
New York, NY 10036
For toll free billing support or if you know your party's extension dial: 1-800-844-5919
AND the leech lawyers
http://www.ssjmlaw.com
4330 South Mopac, Suite 150
Austin, Texas 78735
(Travis & Williamson Cos.)
Telephone: 512-347-1604
Dallas: 214-800-2898
Fax: 512-347-1676
Tell em what you think, IANAL but I think free speech applies to private phone calls.
If in doubt, don't do it. But I am going to tell them what I think.
I bet if they named their product 'iBeEvil' they'd have the same number of installations.
How many joe-blow users read these pop-up install dialogs. "What? iBeEvil? Oh - a security fix from Micrsoft. Yes, install, if it lets me get to what I clicked on."
I get the impression you don't like Microsoft Internet Explorer very much, do you?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Tell me where I can download ShitAware and Shitbot-Search-And-Destroy? or ShitBlocker? I'll be the first there to download it.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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.
I think he really meant tortoise conduct. My system has really been running slow since I installed the thing.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Here is a frightening account of iSearch's damage to someone's computer: click here. "Spyware" is too innocuous a term for this. It's not a spy: it is a file assassin.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Why wouldn't it? However, what you cannot do is threaten them, espically with physical force. You are free to tell them their products suck, etc, but don't make any threats. Also, if they hang up on you, respect that and don't call back. If you call repeatedly, that can be harassment.
Funny how he left 'stooge for scumware authors' out of his specialities...
Markie works at the Austin office. You can contact him here: Telephone: (512) 347-1604, Fax: (512) 347-1676, The Overlook at Gaines Ranch, 4330 S. Mopac, Ste. 150, Austin, Texas, 78735
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Some people call that "telemarketing".
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.
59,000 hits.
Don't cross the plot streams. It'd end with the last Ent being knocked down by a Delorean.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
http://www.ahbl.org/notices/isearch.php
It's a second-level link from here. I'm putting the link in this post because some people may not see it and it's definitely worth reading like all good horror stories are.
Does anybody else remember how Diebold Election Systems had to pay over six figures to a group of ISPs/webhosts who they sent fraudulent cease'n'desists to in order to shut down public debate?
0 04 /10/11/online-policy-group-v-diebold-decision/
e bo ld/
http://blog.jimmywales.com/index.php/archives/2
http://www.eff.org/legal/ISP_liability/OPG_v_Di
This strikes me as being VERY similar to both the Diebold case and various "SLAPP suits" (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). It's all about fraudulently using the courts or threats of same to halt public discussion and debate.
The courts DO NOT like that shit at all.
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
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
California is a SLAPP (stategic lawsuits against public participation) state. I read somewhere that CastleCop is considering a SLAPP counter claim which would result in the original suit getting tossed and costs awarded. SLAPP legislation is intended to protect speech on matters of public interest in circumstances such as this.
I am not saying a SLAPP counter claim would be easy or cheap for CastleCop, but as I understand it SLAPP counterclaims are almost always successful, especially when the SLAPP action concerns pure speech.
We have to INSTALL porn now? I miss the old days when you could just pop it in the VCR.
paintball
Found this Cease & Desist Order against iSearch/iDownload!!
. ht ml
n de x.php/t10973.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/mm24Feb5/petition
Aswell I found this interesting post and picture of Idownloads Search bar trying to install itself as a Media Player Browser update.... grrr
http://forums.scotsnewsletter.com/lofiversion/i
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!
Please refrain from calling iDownload "shit-eaters". Several species of bacteria use organic waste as their nutrition source. This causes said waste to be decomposed to soil, which is then used by plants as their source of nutrition.
Several species of backteria also live in the human gut, eating the "proto-shit" found there. This is vital for the correct functioning of human digestive system, and the reason why antibiotics can cause stomach problems if measures are not taken to prevent them: they kill not only the disease-causing backteria, but the "shit-eater" bacteria as well.
So, as a summary, shit-eaters are absolutely vital to the correct functioning of both the biosphere and your own body. They perform their dirty job quietly, efficiently and without complaint. They do not deserve to be likened to a bunch of vicious, vile, harmfull parasites like iDownload.
iDownload doesn't eat anyone's shit; they forcibly feed their shit to anyone whey can.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.