Slashdot Mirror


FTC Shuts Down Fraudulent Antispyware Company

spewey writes "The Federal Trade Commission has shut down MaxTheater, Inc., alleging the company participated in fraudulent practices with its Spyware Assassin site, which purportedly scanned user machines for spyware and reported infections, even though no scan was done and in most cases, the user machine was clean. The site then offered the user a $30 product to remove the spyware, which the commission reports 'didn't do a thing.'"

198 comments

  1. Down by maotx · · Score: 5, Informative

    with its Spyware Assassin site

    I'm getting a blank page with the title "New Page 1"
    Here is a google cache.

    --
    I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
    1. Re:Down by Neophytus · · Score: 4, Funny

      The clue was in the tagline "The FTC has shut down...". Seemingly, they've gone back to the same site they had in Feb 04.

    2. Re:Down by TheSpoom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I bet they change their name and resurface.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    3. Re:Down by pjotrb123 · · Score: 1

      The best part is: we can now sue Google as well.

      Why? Because this google cache page shows the same "ALERT" without performing a system scan!

      --
      I liked my next sig a lot better
  2. Clean Machines? by multipartmixed · · Score: 5, Funny

    > in most cases, the user machine was clean.

    Yeah, right. Where the hell did they get clean windoze boxen from??

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    1. Re:Clean Machines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "windoze boxen"?

      You're thirteen, right?

    2. Re:Clean Machines? by thesnarky1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      After I do a sweep of my system using McAffe, Zone Alarm, and Ad-aware, mine's pretty sqeeky clean. At least enough to know the 121 infections it reported had to be false.

    3. Re:Clean Machines? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Probably my house.

    4. Re:Clean Machines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Where the hell did they get clean windoze boxen from?

      The trash ?

    5. Re:Clean Machines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thirteen, right?

      Yes, so what? Are you trying to pick up kiddies on the internet or something?

    6. Re:Clean Machines? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Where did they get clean Windows boxes? Fresh installs, of course.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    7. Re:Clean Machines? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 0

      You're thirteen, right?

      It's funny how you pedophiles pick up on that.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    8. Re:Clean Machines? by blanks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My business laptop which I only use for work and development has never had any type of infection on it.

      I dont download freeware, or any software really, everything is installed from cd.

      I dont use p2p, torrents etc. dont need it so I dont use it.

      I only visit about 30 websites, all of which I trust, everything else is set to be un trusted.

      anti virus, firewall, and security permissions set to high.

      Its really simple to keep your machine clean, as long as you keep the idea of infections at the top of your list of what to watch for.

    9. Re:Clean Machines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny how you'd be a pedophile if you were old enough.

    10. Re:Clean Machines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lighten up! Who modded this over-rated and a troll? It was a clever tongue-in-cheek joke.

    11. Re:Clean Machines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, as long as you don't use your computer, you probably won't have any spyware on it.

      Wouldn't it be nice if your computer was immune to it by *design*?

    12. Re:Clean Machines? by blanks · · Score: 1

      I don't think its a design issue so much as a user internaction problem.

    13. Re:Clean Machines? by greppy · · Score: 3, Funny

      He can tell because real geeks spell it: W1nd0z3 B0x3N

    14. Re:Clean Machines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      if(site==slashdot) {
      language=l4nGu4g3;
      iq=40;
      }

    15. Re:Clean Machines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're here. Do you really, really, really trust slashdot?

    16. Re:Clean Machines? by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      It's kinda funny to sit there and watch something scream for a "chmod 755" in my inbox and then wonder where all the DLL's are...

      --
      C|N>K
    17. Re:Clean Machines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He'll be 25 in 12 years, he's not so young. ;p

    18. Re:Clean Machines? by rob_squared · · Score: 1

      Obviously they weren't connected to the internet. Wait a minute...

      --
      I don't get it.
    19. Re:Clean Machines? by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but 10% of the moderation is secret:
      50% Funny
      30% Overrated
      10% Flamebait

      probably not really, but that's a huge rounding error.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    20. Re:Clean Machines? by anagama · · Score: 1

      Wow - the things people go through. I just use my computers. But then, I don't use windows.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    21. Re:Clean Machines? by cgenman · · Score: 1

      As the best browsers are download-only, you're still using Internet Explorer, right?

      And as you can't get I.M. systems on CD, you use MSN, right?

      Can I assume that when you want to edit small config files, you open Notepad and struggle through the interface?

      And you must be using Outlook or outlook express, as all of the good alternatives are download. Except for Lotus, which I've never had the pleasure of using but others assure me is great.

      Face it, going no-downloaded software is unrealistic for most people. The first thing I do on most client's machines is install AVG antivirus (freeware, online only), and Kerio Personal Firewall (free for personal use, online only). Then install AdAware (free, online) and SpyBot (free, online). If they want e-mail it's either Thunderbird, K4, or PegasusMail, depending upon their needs. If they're really hardcore I recommend The Bat!, but that's just if they want more power in their filtering than an e-mail client should have.

      If they have any really sensitive data, I recommend Dekart Private Disk... a convienient download-only encrypted volume creator.

      For telnet and FTP there is Filezilla and Putty, which are far more secure than the command-line equivalents because sftp and ssh don't send passwords in plaintext.

      And of course browsing is all Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape, or Opera (again, my choice if they have the chops for the interface).

      Add in iZarc (free, download only) for compression / decompression, and the Folder Size windows extension because, well, Microsoft should have shipped with that functionality in the first place, and you have a system that is more secure, more functional, and faster than a retail CD - only system could be, for a lot less money.

      Oh, and Psi (free, download only) for chatting. If they refuse Jabber, then Trillian (free, download only).

      There are a lot of great ways to make your computing platform more secure / faster / easier through applications you find online. And there are a whole lot of holes in applications that are CD only. But saying that the route to security is by staying in your sandbox is not terribly helpful. This kind of abstinence is neither enlightening, nor realistic, nor very fun.

    22. Re:Clean Machines? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      ZERO infections here as well:

      System history goes back thru Win98/95/3.1, online an average of 140 hrs/month since 1996. NO patches except for the con/con bug. I run an old version of ZoneAlarm set variously to medium or high (high doesn't always play nice). I visit a LOT of, um, dark corners, and download tons of shit (which I scan later with FProt for DOS; I don't run a resident AV), but I don't use P2P, and I tend not to install much noncommercial software, because frankly too much of it sucks (clean or not). Once in a while I run AdAware or Spybot, but they never find anything.

      But I don't use IE/Outlook, WSH is disabled, and I don't visit iffy places with javascript active. I use a mail client that doesn't autoexecute anything. And I don't open spam attachments.

      And that's all the precautions that are truly necessary.

      I've taught my clients to follow these simple rules (primarily "beware of attachments and downloads of unknown provenance" and "always run your firewall"), and my regulars likewise have ZERO infections. The only ones I ever have to clean up anymore are the first-time clients.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    23. Re:Clean Machines? by blanks · · Score: 1

      Yeah I know its very unrealistic for most people, but like I side, this is my business laptop. I owe it to my company to keep my data as secure as possiable (which means 99% of my files are stored else where accessable via vpn).

      My personal computers at home are a different story natuarlly, they are my entertainment, and if something happens to them they get reformatted.

    24. Re:Clean Machines? by Xerp · · Score: 1
      So none of these sites have banner ads then?

      They only way to be sure is to airwall your machine... and even then they guys from Mission Impossible could break in ;)

    25. Re:Clean Machines? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      OMG, i actualy understood your piece of idiot code.

      does this mean, i'm getting smarter or is it that my iq is reletive to 40? Maybe i'm just gettign as analy retentive as others here?

  3. I'm Confused, Tell Me what to Think by X43B · · Score: 0, Redundant

    FTC: bad
    Spyware: bad
    FTC's action to shut down spyware: ????

    I can't wait to hear the conspiracies on this one. :)

    1. Re:I'm Confused, Tell Me what to Think by jonklem · · Score: 0

      It's stuff like this that's slowly strengthening my faith in the people that are in charge.

    2. Re:I'm Confused, Tell Me what to Think by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're confused. The FTC is probably one of the most useful and generally non-sucky government agencies. It's like the various state attorney generals offices on a larger scale. Bascailly all they do is shut down scams and the like. You're thinking of the evil that is the F*C*C. No relation, other than both being government agencies.

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    3. Re:I'm Confused, Tell Me what to Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when has the FTC been bad?

    4. Re:I'm Confused, Tell Me what to Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's covenient to make assertions claims in order to be a Troll but get modded insighful.

    5. Re:I'm Confused, Tell Me what to Think by tyleroar · · Score: 2, Informative

      The FTC did not try to shut down spyware. They shut down a site that pretended to clean people's computers of spyware.

      --
      Portland, North Dakota Puppies
    6. Re:I'm Confused, Tell Me what to Think by LostCluster · · Score: 0

      two bads make a good...

    7. Re:I'm Confused, Tell Me what to Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So true, so true...

    8. Re:I'm Confused, Tell Me what to Think by Ucklak · · Score: 0, Redundant

      What has the FTC ever done that's bad?

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    9. Re:I'm Confused, Tell Me what to Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FTC is only bad if you're a libertarian who thinks that companies should be allowed to kill babies and get away with it (aka "The customers should take the time to educate themselves about the products and decide if they want to purchase products from a company whose business practices they find deplorable. And if the company hides their real business practices from the consumer, LOOK A UFO! *runs*")

    10. Re:I'm Confused, Tell Me what to Think by rideaurocks · · Score: 1

      Perhaps two wrongs do make a right?

    11. Re:I'm Confused, Tell Me what to Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell is a "cockmuffin?" It sounds derogatory.

    12. Re:I'm Confused, Tell Me what to Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, it's just a weather balloon.

    13. Re:I'm Confused, Tell Me what to Think by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      >You're thinking of the evil that is the
      >F*C*C. No relation, other than both being
      >government agencies.

      Yeah. The FCC is currently controlled by the Servants of Cthulhu, while the FTC is run by the Bavarian Illuminati. Completely different.

      (Note to self: Stop visiting sjgames.com just before posting to Slashdot....)

    14. Re:I'm Confused, Tell Me what to Think by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      So when are they going to send those scumbags from ISTBar to the electric chair?

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  4. Interesting to note... by yuriismaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FTA:

    "[MaxTheatre's Media] represent that they have "scanned" or otherwise examined the consumer's computer and have detected that spyware already resides on it."

    I smell precedence!

    Almost every single pop-up ad proclaims to have found spyware on my machine, and not all of them are SpywareAssassin. Can we use this to take down other phony antispyware companies?

    1. Re:Interesting to note... by saskboy · · Score: 1

      Virtual Bouncer comes to mind. I removed that peice of spy-payware crap from a computer yesterday

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    2. Re:Interesting to note... by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hmm... Taking this a step further, wouldn't this also apply to those banner ads that look like a Windows dialog box saying that "viruses / spyware / adware / slowness / ... have been found on your machine, click here to remove / speed up"?

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    3. Re:Interesting to note... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      I believe the company doing these ads was already sued and forced to stop. I haven't seen one in a while.

    4. Re:Interesting to note... by ornil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Almost every single pop-up ad proclaims to have found spyware on my machine

      Look at them carefully. Most of them say something like, "Your machine may be infected by spyware". Or even "is likely to". Which is perfectly true, given the statistics for this sort of thing.

    5. Re:Interesting to note... by rikkards · · Score: 1

      Can't remember where but I saw one a couple days ago. I think it was off a Fark link

    6. Re:Interesting to note... by Agent__Smith · · Score: 0

      "wouldn't this also apply to those banner ads that look like a Windows dialog box saying that "viruses / spyware / adware / slowness / ... have been found on your machine, click here to remove / speed up:"

      Those always crack me up when I get them as a pop-under on my MAC running OSX.

      --
      "It seems that we are at the age where life stops giving us things, and starts taking them away..." Indiana Jones
  5. Oh this is... fun! by The-Bus · · Score: 5, Funny
    Why not these?

    "The Federal Trade Commission has shut down 3DRealms alleging the company participated in fraudulent practices with its Duke Nukem Forever game, which purportedly rehashed the bawdy actionated adventures of Duke Nukem, even though no game was done and in most cases, the user looked at shoddily put together "screenshots" which seemed to promise an actual game. The site then offered the user a 3D game product, which the commission reports 'doesn't exist.'"
    ...

    "The Federal Trade Commission has shut down Microsoft, alleging the company participated in fraudulent practices with its Windows and Office software, which purportedly gave the illusion of an operating system and/or increased productivity at work, even though no improvement was done and in most cases, the user machine would stop working correctly after a day. The company's site then offered the user a $30 product to enhance security, which the commission reports 'didn't do a thing.' At this time, the only customer that had accepted such a product was the U.S. Air Force, which spent over $30,000,000 allegedly 'securing' its systems."
    ...

    And so on... Any others?
    --

    Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    1. Re:Oh this is... fun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "The Federal Trade Commission has shut down Slashdot, alleging the site participated in fraudulent practices with its user comment forum, which purportedly gave the illusion being a font of insightful, and informative information, even though no valid information was ever conveyed and in most cases, users were posting at the site while giving their employers the false impression that they were working day after day. The site offered nothing in the way of journalistic content or insight employing its user base to do the dirty work of finding stories and then simply posting links and paragraph-long summaries of someone elses journalistic efforts and purporting this to be content while collecting add revenue. The site even went so far as to repeat some links multiple times with slightly different descriptions, to pass these off as new content, which the commission reports wasnt worth a thing.' At this time, the only user that had continuously fallen for this clever ruse was a citizen of the former Soviet Russia, who, in virtually discussion added valuable insights and contrasts to the way things were in his homeland in the good old days."

    2. Re:Oh this is... fun! by plague3106 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Actually most people outside of politics that know what they are talking about know that privitizing SS will destroy the retirement income for people. SS is in no danger...the banks want the money so they can get rich, but ultimately we are the ones that would be screwed.

      As another related question...why is it more expensive to be poor than rich?

    3. Re:Oh this is... fun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hooray!

    4. Re:Oh this is... fun! by Math,+The+Ancient · · Score: 1

      You realize that "congress" actually does the spending, right? (even the war, yes...look it up at who approves such spending).

      --
      If I really am talking out of my ass...explain it to me with respect so I'll at least pull my ears out to listen.
    5. Re:Oh this is... fun! by demachina · · Score: 1

      Uh, you do realize that the President's party controls both houses of congress so he can pretty much tell them to jump and they jump. I think you are picking a nit whether its the Republican President or the Republican Congress spending us in to benkruptcy, it appears to be a great team effort. It wouldn't be so bad were it not for all of those decades of the Republicans ranting about the Democrats fiscal irresponsibility and as soon as they have total power they started spending like drunken sailors. How do you spell hypocrisy?

      The only check the Democrats have over anything is they can, as a last ditch measure of desperation fillibuster in the Senate. The Democrats in the House are completely powerless as long as the Republicans hold a party line vote. In the last couple of years most important legislation is being authored in closed door, Republican only conference committees where they throw out what was passed in the House and Senate, rewrite it under the direction of Dick Cheney and then ram it through both houses again on a party line vote. Its turned Congress in to a bad joke.

      Now if the Democrats do fillibuster something, that matters, the Republicans have already made it clear earlier this year they will exercise the "nuclear option" and just change the Senate rules on closure, so closure can be voted with a simple majority instead of the 60 votes. At that point we are in a one party state and the Democrats don't even need to bother showing up. It appears the Democrats are to spineless to filibuster anything at this point but if they do it will sure be interesting to see if the Republicans take the opportunity to sieze absolute power.

      --
      @de_machina
    6. Re:Oh this is... fun! by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Government has always spent the SS surplus - ever since the SS program was implemented. There is no SS "trust fund." There never has been, and there never will be.

      SS has always been a sham and a pyramid scheme. The reason SS is going to fail is because the top of the pyramid is about to be bigger than the bottom, and it will fall over. SS depends on the population growth rate increasing monotonically over time. If it does not, the cash flow goes negative.

      Bush has nothing to do with the fact that this is the way FDR implemented SS. He wanted a huge tax increase, and disguised it as this ridiculous scam to get people to support it.

      Let me make this perfectly clear - every administration since FDR, including FDR, has spent every penny of the SS surplus. It's not a Bush thing or a Clinton thing, it is just the way the program works.

    7. Re:Oh this is... fun! by demachina · · Score: 1

      No arguement that they all do it, the Bush administration is just doing it vastly worse than any previous administration and is th emost cynical because they are doing it and then turning around and then saying the system is in crisis precisely because they are stealing our money. They also came in with budget surpluses and turned them in to a flood of red ink as far as the eye can see. Some of the surplus was due to the bubble but most of the red ink is entirely due to tax cuts for the rich and out of control spending on defense, intelligence and homeland security.

      The Bushites are using regressive payrolls taxes, and stealing our wages, to subsidize tax cuts for the rich. Its the absolute worst form of class warfare by the rich on the poor and middle class.

      Social Security is enormously easy to fix, but neither party wants to fix it because they both want to tax working people to pay for pork they dole out to their friends and campaign contributors.

      Here is the trivial fix, change the tax rate every year so that income approximately matches benefits paid out, so it is truly a pay as you go system. The surplus is then gone so politicians can't squander it. You also eliminate the situation we've been in for the last 20 years where workers are being grossly overtaxed and politicians are stealing our money. Sure the taxes are going to be steep during the baby boomer retirement years and maybe you will need to raise the retirement age to compensate for people living way longer than they probably should, but barring medical miracles they will eventually die and social security taxes will decline somewhat.

      --
      @de_machina
    8. Re:Oh this is... fun! by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      The part that you are not understanding is that there is no "doing it worse" or "doing it better."

      Every penny of social security revenue that the government collects that it does not immediately pay out in benefits is funneled immiediately to pay for other things. It is not saved and has never been saved. The amount of social security money spent would not change if income taxes were increased.

      Again, it has nothing to do with Bush. It has to do with FDR and how the system works. If there actually were a net surplus in the budget, which has not happened since the implementation of social security, that money would find a way to be spent.

      Fixing social security involves a very trivial fix, I agree. That fix is to get rid of it alltogether and make people responsible for themselves. I can do MUCH better than social security, which returns at a rate less than inflation. Hell, the average money market account with a 2.5% APY pays better than social security.

      Another couple of trivially incorrect points you make are that a) taxes are somehow equivalent to stealing and b) politicians are "stealing" our money...

    9. Re:Oh this is... fun! by demachina · · Score: 1

      "That fix is to get rid of it alltogether and make"

      Wont get any argument from me, I'd prefer that too but it ain't gonna happen. Both parties are addicted to all the extra money this regressive payroll tax is bringing in for them to steal, redirect and/or squander. If it were gone tomorrow the budget deficit would be so astronomical they couldn't find any buy the debt, a run on the dollar would ensue.

      Noone wants to go back to a time when large numbers of old people,who hadn't been responsible, were destitute. There is a pretty steep cost there too.

      And the Republican's now LOVE the idea of Social Security as long as they can do private accounts and forcibly extract money out of people's paychecks and force them to hand it over to their rich banker friends. They are so desperate to do it now because they want to take that big Social Security surplus we have now and instead of squandering on government spending instead put it in to the hands of their rich banker friends and the stock market, which will lead to a windfall profit for all the people who own the stock before the big influx of new capital.

      I'm just pointing out it would be trivial to save and retain the current system, and be fairer to worked if they just start taxing at just what is needed to support the program. If it was pay as you go it would be dramatically fairer to all involved, and it would never go bankrupt. Again the only problem is:

      A. The slush fund Congress and the President are squandering would be gone
      B. The Republican's wouldn't have a "crisis" to solve and they wouldn't be able to redirect all the money to their rich banker friends and the stock market which is their one and only true goal.

      "I can do MUCH better than social security, which returns at a rate less than inflation."

      Uh, you contradict yourself. There is NO investment of Social Security money and there is NO return on the investment. The rate of return on what you put in is completely arbitrary because the government is stealing everything that isn't being paid out. By the time I retire chances are high Social Security and the U.S. government will be bankrupt so all of the money I've put in will be gone. Alternately they will jack taxes up a few more times before I get there and slash benefits so chances are I will be losing money not getting a %1 return on it.

      "Another couple of trivially incorrect points you make are that a) taxes are somehow equivalent to stealing and b) politicians are "stealing" our money..."

      Uh, setting a payroll tax rate that is grossly in excess of what is needed to support the entitlement, and then using the money for programs that have nothing to do with the entitlement is stealing. Its a blatantly regressive tax scheme because it hits the poor and middle income disproportionately hard. Politicians do steal our money. They tax us in to the ground and then frequently redirect the money to their big campaign contributors in pork.

      Now if the surplus money were there in 2018 when the surplus turns in to a deficit it wouldn't be stealing. But I assure all the surplus is already gone and by then they will either jack up payroll taxes, slash benefits, or try to borrow there way out of it and chances are by 2018 U.S. credit will be so bad they wont be able to borrow a plug nickel.

      --
      @de_machina
  6. No message? by caryw · · Score: 5, Funny

    The FTC should have put up an 0WN3D message explaining why the site was taken down, and what to do if you were defrauded by the company in the past.
    Much more informative than a blank page, and it's what the MPAA does for sites it takes down (ie. lokitorrent.com)

    Then again spywareassassin.com still resides at the same IP address (66.172.78.113) that it did before, so the order was probably to remove all content. Perhaps an A record change or domain transfer to an FTC controlled server (with informational message) is iminent.
    - Cary
    --Fairfax Underground: Where Fairfax County comes out to play

    1. Re:No message? by Silverlancer · · Score: 0

      As it would happen, Lokitorrent's closing by the MPAA was a hoax.

    2. Re:No message? by PedanticSpellingTrol · · Score: 0

      In case you haven't heard yet, the lokitorrent shutdown was a fraud and the owner ran off with the "legal defense fund"

    3. Re:No message? by freshman_a · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since some people seem to take everything posted on /. as 100% fact, I'd like to point out (as many other's did in that articles' comments) that it probably wasn't a hoax.

      a) The MPAA said themselves that they were taking action again LokiTorrent. Google cache here.

      b) I've also read that there was an entry in PACER about the lawsuit as well.

    4. Re:No message? by dosius · · Score: 5, Informative

      Look at the hosts surrounding 66.172.78.113...

      [%] resolved [66.172.78.105] to (www.xxxpersonals-london.co.uk)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.106] to (www.xxxpersonals-southwest.co.uk)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.107] to (www.hotadultcams.com)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.108] to (www.getitspot.com)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.109] to (www.crowgod.com)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.110] to (www.iber-hosting.com)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.111] to (www.topxxxdvdsites.com)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.112] to (www.toppornstarsites.com)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.113] to (www.spywareassassin.com)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.114] to (www.auctionprofit.net)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.115] to (www.advancedonlinemarketing.com)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.116] to (www.smutdollars.com)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.117] to (www.cheapestadultscripts.com)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.118] to (www.scifiworld.us)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.119] to (www.memscenter.com)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.120] to (www.equivista.com)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.121] to (www.orbz.org)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.122] to (www.myseries60.net)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.123] to (www.furaddicted.net)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.124] to (www.animalhackerz.com)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.125] to (www.crazedmodding.com)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.126] to (www.free-adult-cartoons-x.com)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.127] to (www.ovrimos.com)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.128] to (www.interracialdirectory.com)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.129] to (www.knoxvilleareapsychology.org)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.130] to (www.lucent-inferno.com)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.131] to (www.basd-action.net)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.132] to (www.can-online.org)
      [%] resolved [66.172.78.133] to (www.masspersonalinjurylawyer.com)

      Sense a pattern? That whole chunk of IP addresses seems to be owned by a shyster.

      Moll.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    5. Re:No message? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      come on... you really think furaddicted.net is owned by a shyster?! you've obviously got a thing or two to learn about the Internet..

    6. Re:No message? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could probably get that from scanning any given range of IP addresses.

    7. Re:No message? by Elminst · · Score: 1

      [%] resolved [66.172.78.124] to (www.animalhackerz.com)

      WTF is this? A site for underground genetic engineers? Training ground for young "Dr. Moreau's"?

      "D00d! I totally haxz0red this cat together with this fish!!"

      --
      No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
    8. Re:No message? by cgenman · · Score: 1

      It's the white hat version of animalcrackerz.com

    9. Re:No message? by jackbird · · Score: 1

      It's Napoleon Dynamite's web comic.

    10. Re:No message? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1
      "The FTC should have put up an 0WN3D message"

      ... my head hurts...

      T3h F+C ha$ r0x0rd th1$ b0x0rd! PWN3D! Ph3ar 0ur 1337 f3d3ra1 sk!llz!

  7. Re:Spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, thanks, because people reading an article called "FTC Shuts Down Fraudulent Antisypware Company" obviously need your comment telling them not to use this product.

  8. "Shut down" is not enough by sdo1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There needs to be SEVERE penalties to discourage others from picking up where this left off. I vote for jail time for the company executives AND those developers who knew exactly what they were doing (or in this case, weren't doing).

    The risk/reward ratio is still tilting too far toward reward for those who would defraud others using the internet.

    -S

    --
    --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
    1. Re:"Shut down" is not enough by JNighthawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Jail time for writing software. Jail time for falsely marketing software. Jail time for downloading software. Jail time for cracking software.

      Jail time is *never* the answer here. It's ridiculous to send someone to jail for a long time for selling snake oil. Fine them, ok. Jail them for a few months, ok. 10 years for false advertising? 10 years for cracking copy protection? They're both ridiculous.

      --
      Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
    2. Re:"Shut down" is not enough by ocbwilg · · Score: 1

      No kidding. If they can rack up a couple million in sales and abscond with the cash, it does no good to have shut the site down. If they are merely forced to repay all the money that they fraudulently obtained then there still isn't a penalty because they wound up back where they started. In cases like this the responsible party needs spend some time in jail, and they need to pay fines that go beyond simply returning what they took. If there's no risk of losing something then it will just happen again.

    3. Re:"Shut down" is not enough by sdo1 · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse the issue. This has nothing to do with software, or copyright infringement, or cracking. It has to do with fraud and actively participating in that fraud. And yes, the answer to intentionally and purposefully committing fraud is jail time.

      -S

      --
      --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
    4. Re:"Shut down" is not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jail time for egregious fraud. Tho I agree, forcing them to pay treble damages to every customer defrauded would be more appropriate. Shit, now we're paying to put them in jail.

    5. Re:"Shut down" is not enough by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      You think anything short of jail time will actually deter people like this? Fine them and they will only figure out a new way to scam money out of people. There is a reason major fraudsters go to jail instead of mere fines.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    6. Re:"Shut down" is not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not check to see if MaxTheater violated its corporate charter, and, as it probably did, dissolve the company (which should make the company executives [and their assets] personally liable)?

      Seems a lot easier than trying to convince the legislator to pass another camp cupcake bill.

      Might make for a nice clarion call to other businesses as well.

    7. Re:"Shut down" is not enough by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I'm on your side. Jail is for dangerous people. However, you will find that you're "talking to the hand". 90% of the people here are going to flame the hell out of you. The taste for vengence is just too desirable for anybody to let go. Justice has no place here. We want our revenge. Soon our prisons will be completely filled with non-violent offenders. They'll have to release the really nasty people to make more room for them. It will soon be safer on the inside. If you want to make a fast buck, and if you have no conscience, invest in the the prison construction and infrastructure industry.

      --
      What?
    8. Re:"Shut down" is not enough by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      It's ridiculous to send someone to jail for a long time for selling snake oil.

      If you are a low class thief, and break into 7-11s or houses, you can get decades. Why should upscale thieves, who take the same money, get any less time?

    9. Re:"Shut down" is not enough by anagama · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The jail time would not be for writing software. That would be silly. However, FRAUD does warrant jail time. The method is mere detail and ultimately unimportant.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    10. Re:"Shut down" is not enough by thynk · · Score: 1

      Jail time is *never* the answer here.

      You are correct. Jail time is not fitting for this crime.

      I'm thinking more along the lines of an overvoltage cattle prod, tube of KY and prime time tv...

      but then again I've also spent 3 days running different spy sweepers on my wife's laptop (where does she find this crap?). Now, where did I put that slackware install CD?

      What is really sad about this, is that it's general populas who buys stuff from spam, who buys stuff from pop ups, these are the root of the problem. As soon as these l/users stop buying stuff from these sources, they will fade away.

      --

      Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
  9. Well what do they expect? by LordPhantom · · Score: 1

    From the website (google cache):

    SpywareAssassin creates an iron clad line of defense that protects your computer in multiple ways. Not only will it scan your entire system and remove all spyware programs and files, but it will continually monitor your computer in the background and prevent any future breaches.

    IRON CLAD? Iron-Clad in ANY software description makes me run for the hills!

    1. Re:Well what do they expect? by Mishura · · Score: 1

      IRON CLAD? Iron-Clad in ANY software description makes me run for the hills!

      Of course, I would too. You need Mithril-clad spyware protection. Hey, it protected Frodo against a freakin' 10-foot spear.

    2. Re:Well what do they expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, where would they put the iron?

    3. Re:Well what do they expect? by fenris_23 · · Score: 1



      I still prefer my naquada-clad protection. If it can deflect a direct blast from jaffa staff weapons, it should be able to shield me from that purple monkey that showed up on my desktop one day.

  10. Great, now for ad destroyer by iamlucky13 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm glad to see spyware assassin gone, but the extortionware I see most on computers I work on is ad destroyer. Let's hope the FTC b!tch slaps them next.

  11. What is that I hear? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What is that I hear? I think I hear a choir of angels singing exultations and glory to the FTC on high. Worthy worthy is the man who kiled that company.

    1. Re:What is that I hear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtmkf
      foad
      stfu
      lol
      rotflmao
      !!!!!!!!!1111111

      and lastly...

      you
      fail
      it

  12. Spyware warrior lists numerous similar products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    for adding to your hosts file (if you havent already)

    http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.h tm

  13. More like this by northcat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Don't all those ads saying "Your computer is infected! Clean it now!" (or something like that) and "Windows is running slow! speed it up Blah blah blah bullshit bullshit" fall into this same category?

    1. Re:More like this by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't all those ads saying "Your computer is infected! Clean it now!" (or something like that) and "Windows is running slow! speed it up Blah blah blah bullshit bullshit" fall into this same category?

      I would think so. I like to visit those sites and have those messages appear and "we have scanned you and found...." on my Mac. Yeah, right. You got a bridge to sell me, too.

  14. Ooh, google cache time! by F3u3r-Fr3i · · Score: 0, Redundant

    http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:X4Tox_tOdDAJ: www.spywareassassin.com/+spywareassassin&hl=en

  15. Great news! by Phidoux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hopefully this will have a positive affect for those of us who develop free software but have to constantly deal with the paranoia of malware and spyware.

  16. Where's the unsubmit button? I meant: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's covenient to make false assertions in order to be a Troll but get modded insighful

  17. Re:Spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ooh another site to add to our DNS blacklist, keep those spam ip's coming

  18. So why can't the FTC go after... by jasonmicron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    CoolWebSearch / Adzilla / Look2Me / Miraclesearch?

    Personally I see this as doing really nothing for (or against) spyware.

    1. Re:So why can't the FTC go after... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're right.. I dont think their intent was ever to do anything to help the problem of spyware. Just to shutdown a fraudulent company to prevent more people from being frauded.

    2. Re:So why can't the FTC go after... by Pinkfud · · Score: 1

      It's a start. If it establishes a precedent that can be used against others, it's well worthwhile.

      --
      The world is my oyster. That's why it's always in a stew.
    3. Re:So why can't the FTC go after... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There must be more under the hood of this case than meets the eye. Considering folks like WhenU can PAY OFF the Lavasoft folks to remove their stuff from Ad-aware, Claria/Gator can PAY OFF Yahoo to remove them from their anti-spyware toolbar.

      I'm figuring that someone wanted a payoff from these people, and they didn't comply, so they turned them in to the FTC.

      After all, if they went after fraudlent software, they'd have to take down Norton Internet Security.

    4. Re:So why can't the FTC go after... by vrmlknight · · Score: 1

      because these companies aren't fraudulent... they clearly (in font size 2) state they you are installing 'ad/spy/crap ware'
      as much as you don't want to admit you did click something saying you wanted ad's

      this company was lying to customers by saying they had things installed that were not present (or put there by the scanner) and you need to pay $30 to get it off your system.

      --
      This must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
    5. Re:So why can't the FTC go after... by jasonmicron · · Score: 1

      Not really.

      CoolWebSearch has a ton of variants that never even give you an ActiveX tool to install, they are just encoded into certain pages to automatically load onto a machine. Others might have an Active X tool pop-up but it just asks if the user wants to install this tool. Others even tell them that they HAVE to install this tool. Yet if you try to view the license you get a nice "404".

  19. Government interferes with business yet again by Stiletto · · Score: 0, Troll


    If someone wants to buy a "spirit healing rock" from me, why shouldn't he be able to? If he's dumb enough to buy it, well, what do they say about a fool and his money?

    1. Re:Government interferes with business yet again by Chasuk · · Score: 1

      I'll be willing to answer your question, but first I need to know whether you are a troll, or just stupid. If the latter, I am willing to spend the time to enlighten you. If the latter, fuck off.

      Which is it?

    2. Re:Government interferes with business yet again by chrispl · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except there is no way of PROVING that the "healing rock" does NOT actually heal some people.

      As far as I know with software it is a little easier to test it to see exactly what it does and does not do. If it claims to "remove spyware" and does not, it is a pretty open and shut case that the company selling it is misrepresenting what it does.

      --
      What post? The one you're carrying inside your rusty innards!
    3. Re:Government interferes with business yet again by blew_fantom · · Score: 1

      there's being "dumb enough to buy it", then there is due diligence said consumer should have used before making a purchse. having said that, on the part of the company claiming to sell a 'spirit healing rock', they are not allowed to fradulently misrepresent the product they sell or service they offer. in spyware assassin's case, they misrepresented the product and knowingly profited from selling a bad product, regardless of a dumb consumer.

    4. Re:Government interferes with business yet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they were marketing New Age disinfection or religious exorcism of spyware, yes, they can do so, as that realm of productizing is still unproven and based on feeling rather than "reality".

      If they are marketing a software that does something when it clearly does not do so, that is false advertising and they must be penalized.

    5. Re:Government interferes with business yet again by m50d · · Score: 1

      How can you prove that this scan does not remove some spyware from some people?

      --
      I am trolling
    6. Re:Government interferes with business yet again by JonKatzIsAnIdiot · · Score: 1

      As long as you don't lead people to believe that it actually heals anything, go ahead. You can't lie in order to make a sale. See: False Advertising
      That's not government interference, that's enforcement of basic standards. That's best for everybody.

    7. Re:Government interferes with business yet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This falls under using paranoia to create revenue. In all types of media you are told you need to protect your computer from adware and spyware. This company used that to create their business model without supplying any actual working product.
      If the media suddenly said everyone needs a "spirit healing rock" and you go out there selling some with promises that it will do something that it does not, while at the same time another persons "spirit healing rock" does in fact do what it promises then you would also be on a list of those to be investigated.
      You would be selling a product that does not work and after enough people bought it and reported it, you would be in the same boat.

      I guess also, it comes down to how many "spirit healing rocks" you sold. The more you sell the more you reputation grows the more likely you need to either change your product to actually work or leave town while you still can.

      This post was brought to you from work, and work does not allow me to think clearly at all times, sorry.

    8. Re:Government interferes with business yet again by ocbwilg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If someone wants to buy a "spirit healing rock" from me, why shouldn't he be able to? If he's dumb enough to buy it, well, what do they say about a fool and his money?

      There's a difference between making vague, general, or unproveable claims (one way or another) and outright fraud. A "spirit healing rock" can't be tested to prove what it actually does. You could advertise the rock as "using mystical powers to make you feel better" and probably get away with it. But the moment you slap on a claim that is demonstrably false like "this rock uses mystical powers to cure cancer" then you are committing fraud and will likely get busted.

      And while it's awfully popular right now to complain about "government interfering with business", I think that most people realize that a certain amount of "interference" (Republican-speak for "oversight") is desirable to protect the populace from criminaly fraudulent behavior. I don't recall anybody complaining about government interfering with business in cases like Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, Healthsouth, Global Crossing, etc. Neither do I recall much complaining when the government bailed out the airlines after 9/11 to keep them in business.

    9. Re:Government interferes with business yet again by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Actually you are wrong.

      Typically you'll see 'these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA and are not intended to cure, prevent or treat any disease.'

    10. Re:Government interferes with business yet again by man_ls · · Score: 1

      No API calls that modify the registry, or to unlink files?

      no filesystem activity at all while scanning?

      that sort of thing.

    11. Re:Government interferes with business yet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! I bought that Spirit Rock! Some of us prefer illusion to despair you insensitive clod!

    12. Re:Government interferes with business yet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither do I recall much complaining when the government bailed out the airlines after 9/11 to keep them in business.

      Uhm, you would've heard it from me, and lots of other free-marketers.

      If people don't fly as much due to fears, then we don't need as many airlines. A few should go out of business.

      If it costs more to secure an airplane, then the costs should be passed to the consumer.

      Let supply and demand work their magic. If you need to mitigate risk, we have a whole industry that will take some of your risk for a small monthly fee: the insurance industry.

      But yes I agree that the government's job *should* involve making sure that citizens can make their own decisions. If a product claims to remove spyware or cure cancer, and it doesn't, then the company should be punished. Otherwise opportunity costs go up and people will stop participating in the free market.

      Enron, etc., same deal. They lied. However, this doesn't excuse people from learning how to diversify their portfolios. Keeping all of your holdings in one company, even if it's the company you work for, is pretty stupid.

    13. Re:Government interferes with business yet again by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Well, spirit healing rocks fall under the general category of religion. There are special exceptions in the constitution to specifically allow religious fraud.

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    14. Re:Government interferes with business yet again by wkitchen · · Score: 1
      How can you prove that this scan does not remove some spyware from some people?
      In this particular case, you don't need to. The publisher claims that it removes ALL spyware.
    15. Re:Government interferes with business yet again by anagama · · Score: 1


      Amen Brother

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    16. Re:Government interferes with business yet again by Nasarius · · Score: 1
      Except there is no way of PROVING that the "healing rock" does NOT actually heal some people.

      Of course there is. How do you think new drugs are teseted by the FDA? You seem to be jumping ahead to the "how" instead of the "if". Use a random rock as your placebo in a double-blind study, and do a chi-square analysis of the result. It's really very simple.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    17. Re:Government interferes with business yet again by Jafar00 · · Score: 1

      Once, when I was a working as one of those door to door salesmen, I picked up a interesting rock and proceeded to sell it to this guy for $10. I gave him all the benefits of this amazing rock and a detailed history behind it. He looked a little confused as to why this guy was trying to sell him a rock until I told him I would throw in a free torch! (which is what I was selling in the first place)
      So, you see, selling rocks isn't that bad ;)

      --
      RebateFX.com - Spread rebates for Forex traders
    18. Re:Government interferes with business yet again by ocbwilg · · Score: 1

      Typically you'll see 'these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA and are not intended to cure, prevent or treat any disease.'

      Or the ever-popular "intended only for entertainment purposes" on the phone-psychic commercials. That doesn't mean that the product is any more or less legitimate. That just means that the person selling it is willing to tack on a short disclaimer at the end that invalidates most of what they claimed previously in the hopes that a lot of people will believe the advertising and igonore the disclaimer.

    19. Re:Government interferes with business yet again by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Yes, and if the consumer chooses to ignore said disclaimer (which isn't hard to find in my experience), well...they're stupider then i thought.

    20. Re:Government interferes with business yet again by alc6379 · · Score: 1
      What the hell area of the world did you work in, where interesting rocks and torches are hot commodities?

      I'd like to know: Ug need fire, because rival caveman stole his.

      --
      I don't moderate anymore. Karma penalty for 90% fair mods? Can I mod that unfair?
    21. Re:Government interferes with business yet again by ocbwilg · · Score: 1

      Yes, and if the consumer chooses to ignore said disclaimer (which isn't hard to find in my experience), well...they're stupider then i thought.

      Right. But the problem here is that there wasn't a disclaimer. It was all advertising saying that SpywareAssasin offered "iron-clad" protection. Then a fake scan saying that you were infected, then a $30 fee to "clean" the infection that never existed in the first place. There's a huge difference there.

    22. Re:Government interferes with business yet again by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      There...but way up the line, I was responding to the posters comments that spirit rocks are sold for healing purposes and it was legal to do so.

      I was arguing the point that there are companies allowed to sell products with false advertising; I was mearly point out that healing rocks are not exempt.

  20. Fallback... by jemenake · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I guess it's back to the automotive repair buisiness for *those* guys.

    Honestly, when I read this, I had flashbacks to all of those TV news investigative reports of mechanics, exterminators, plumbers, etc. who climb under/behind your car/sink/house and come back with "evidence" of a problem that you need to pay them $$$ to fix.

    So... back to the auto shops with the bums! That's what I say! :)

    1. Re:Fallback... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "So... back to the auto shops with the bums!"

      I'm not sure if you misspelled "chop shop" or "Lincoln Park Pirates" ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  21. Let me see if I got this right... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    Buy anti-spyware software and get a product that does nothing.

    Use free anti-spyware software and get something that works.

    On a risk level, is it worth spending the money?

    Now I know there was research done between Free and commercial anti-spyware that showed that free software worked better, but ......

    I guess this is a real strong statement regarding obvious motives between the two...

    Besides, should anyone have to pay for protection against thse with intents to invade privacy?

    What a racket.... Now If I can just convince someone to turn off the MS anti-spyware update notices intrupting my work flow.

    1. Re:Let me see if I got this right... by ocbwilg · · Score: 1

      Buy anti-spyware software and get a product that does nothing.

      Use free anti-spyware software and get something that works.


      OK, I think you're reading way to much into this. People weren't buying anti-spyware software, they were being tricked into paying for smoke and mirrors. If they had bought an actual anti-spyware application (like Giant's AntiSpyware, which is now part of Microsoft) then they would have gotten a working product that is generally regarded as one of the better in the category. There are quite a few commercial anti-spyware applications that are effective. Even some of the best known "free" spyware is still supported in part by sales to corporate entities (Ad-Aware and SpyBot S&D come to mind) because it is only free for personal use.

      I know that it's popular on Slashdot to bash people who pay for any software, but only a fool would try to turn this situation into a demonstration of "free" software being better than a "non-free" product.

  22. Put these people in prison by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    Everyone responsible needs to be put in prison. We need to send a message that you can't hide criminals behind a corporate logo.

    1. Re:Put these people in prison by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      What we need is to remove the personhood status from corporations.

    2. Re:Put these people in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about holding corporations responsible when they commit a crime.

      The only punishment would be capital punishment. abolish the corporation & its assets distributed to the victims.

  23. mandrake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the FTC has shut down mandrake because on
    the box it gives the impression that it runs
    windows games

  24. We need a new software category by mabu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd call it "moronware". It's designed to troll for idiot users who believe everything they see and fall for stupid schemes. We can lump the Nigerians into this category too, with their stupid cashier's check and phony inheiritence schemes.

    I've said before, I really have less of a problem with these types of unscrupulous operations. They're like financial darwinism, and anyone stupid enough to fall for them deserves to be separated from their money.

    Ironically, there are lots of other schemes that defraud the populace that are based on deception that are protected by the government. I look at this crackdown as the government protecting idiots from small-time operators so that big corporations can continue to prey on them.

    Wake me up when the FTC starts cracking down on the overwhelming deceptive ad practices of all the major U.S. corporations.

    1. Re:We need a new software category by agraupe · · Score: 1

      Well, the local TV news where I live (Calgary, Alberta, Canada) could be seen as helping them along, because they ran a story about how important it is to run a spyware cleaner. Although the claim does seem fairly full-of-shit, I can see how a non-savvy user would get tricked very easily. The Nigerians, though, are doing us a public service by seperating fools from their money... the difference between the two is one targets oblivious people (those who just don't know about computers: trust me, there's some in your family too I bet) and the other targets stupid people who think that other people are altruistic enough to give them 30 million dollars, in exchange for their bank account information.

    2. Re:We need a new software category by binaryspiral · · Score: 1

      mabu nailed it - this is just another "snakeoil" scam that has been around for thousands of years - now just logically moving to another medium.

      In the 1800's the cure-all was sold from the back of a horse pulled wagon. Now it's just grabbing suckers using pop-up advertisement.

    3. Re:We need a new software category by WWWWolf · · Score: 1
      I'd call it "moronware". It's designed to troll for idiot users who believe everything they see and fall for stupid schemes. We can lump the Nigerians into this category too, with their stupid cashier's check and phony inheiritence schemes.

      Fine with me, except that I usually keep idiotic software and idiotic social engineering far separate issues. Annoyware is one thing, 419 scams are another.

      By the way, if you really want to combine best of the both worlds, you may want to read on how people used (reverse) "moronware" to fool 419 scammers! Hilarity ensues! Screenshots included! =)

    4. Re:We need a new software category by jcocomo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, yes, little old ladies who don't understand technology deserve to be fleeced out of their savings.

      Civilized societies attempt to protect the weak from the unscrupulous. The fact that a person, for whatever reason, is too weak in comprehension of the way computers work to protect him or her self from a scam like this does not make that person a "moron." It simply means that person doesn't understand how computers work.

      If you wish to invoke Darwinism, remember that that means survival of the fittest, lex talonis. Otherwise, consider yourself lucky that you live in a society where the weak are not allowed to prey on the strong, because we are all weak at some times and in some ways, and the ultimate implication of any sort of social Darwinism, financial or otherwise, is that if I am stronger than you I can overpower you and take from you what I want.

      Furthermore, the deceptive advertizing practices of many U.S. corporations do not bear on the fact that this was an outright scam which preyed upon people who didn't know any better.

    5. Re:We need a new software category by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Grandparent shouldn't forget, Civilized societies don't just attempt to protect the weak from the unscrupulous, they attempt to protect everyone from the unscrupulous. One may know how a computer works, but that doesn't mean they're not going to fall for a tax scam, a photographic equipment scam, or a scam lawsuit. Or an extortion scheme, a protection racket, one of those unscrupulous shipping companies, construction companies, overpriced medicines with generic equivalents...

      There are enough things going on in life that no one person can keep track of it all. We're all weak in some area.

    6. Re:We need a new software category by mabu · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree with you, but as I said, which apparently escaped you, I think the government's priorities are screwed up. There are a lot worse transgressions going on that cause more damage than a small time internet scammer who probably didn't con more than a few dozen people.

  25. Mr. Nice Guys by caferace · · Score: 2, Interesting

    These are the guys that made Spyware Assassin. Their other products should be next...

    1. Re:Mr. Nice Guys by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Check out http://www.profitinstaller.com/! These guys are some slimey goddamn crooks. Just reading it, I feel like I was molested by an Amway salesman.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Mr. Nice Guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That 2Templates.com site looks like a cheap ripoff of another site 4Templates.com.

    3. Re:Mr. Nice Guys by KontinMonet · · Score: 1

      "I'm Convinced! How can I get MY copy of ProfitInstaller?"

      Scroll down fifteen feet or so to see this. Why do all these shyster sites have the same format? Is it a 'secret method' for getting idiots to buy?

      --
      Did he inhale?
    4. Re:Mr. Nice Guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am i the only one wo say Mr Nice and thought of the movie "Half Baked"

  26. Outrageous claims by v1 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    How could even a huckster be so foolish as to make such outrageous, "100%" guarantees? From their (cached) web page:

    Not only will it scan your entire system and remove all spyware programs and files...

    ... which will locate any and all spyware currently residing on your system.

    Once SpywareAssassin is installed, your computer is completely guarded against spyware!

    ...will ensure no spyware is installed without your knowledge.

    twits. But then again it's handy that criminals are stupid by default, it makes them easier to catch.
    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:Outrageous claims by wkitchen · · Score: 1

      Hey, at least they used the word "ensure" correctly.

  27. Whois Netblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    OrgName: Sunwave Communications
    OrgID: SUNWA-1
    Address: 895 B Street
    Address: Suite 509
    City: Hayward
    StateProv: CA
    PostalCode: 94541
    Country: US

    NetRange: 66.172.64.0 - 66.172.95.255
    CIDR: 66.172.64.0/19
    NetName: SUNWAVE-BLOCK-1
    NetHandle: NET-66-172-64-0-1
    Parent: NET-66-0-0-0-0
    NetType: Direct Allocation
    NameServer: NS1.SUNWAVE.COM
    NameServer: NS2.SUNWAVE.COM
    Comment:
    RegDate: 2003-07-31
    Updated: 2003-07-31

    OrgAbuseHandle: DM1084-ARIN
    OrgAbuseName: McCole, Donna M
    OrgAbusePhone: +1-510-889-5200
    OrgAbuseEmail: mccole@prado.com

    OrgTechHandle: DM1084-ARIN
    OrgTechName: McCole, Donna M
    OrgTechPhone: +1-510-889-5200
    OrgTechEmail: mccole@prado.com

    # ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2005-03-11 19:10
    # Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

  28. Wow thanks! by Clay_Culver · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow, that's a hellova pr0n list there. You've just made my saturday night!

  29. They also "make" ProfitInstaller by hot_Karls_bad_cavern · · Score: 1

    Go ahead and read the 'sales pitch' on this pig and try to keep a straight face. Bottom feeders here, folks. i love me some generalized, buzzword-ridden, sales pitches for junks that will:

    Exponentially explode your online sales like you have never imagined!

    Well damn, who could pass that up eh? Shady-tree ops indeed.

    Coupla solid Ben'$ on a bet you will be sorry for doing "biz" with these fools.

    1. Re:They also "make" ProfitInstaller by WWWWolf · · Score: 1

      Holy whatever. Possibly the slimiest yet most hilarious thing I've seen in... days or so.

      A brief analysis of the software's capabilities, employing a few different hats:

      ::puts on "user" hat:: Right, why would anyone download an application to download anything? ::puts on "web developer" hat:: Why can't you do this in plain old JavaScript? I mean, it works for File Planet? ::puts on "windows user" hat:: this sucks, it doesn't even seem to grab its cache settings from IE's settings. ::puts on the "manager" hat:: And thanks for the idea, I'll code the same application over the lunch break in Visual Basic.

  30. ProTGP.com by hot_Karls_bad_cavern · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that's who these ho'tards appear to be DNSed from - looks like my profits and penis will be larger "within minutes"!!!!

    Hot Damn! Call the bank, i can cover my overdue loans now!!!!

    w00tz!

  31. Re:why doesn't the FTC go after Micro$soft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sure, mod me as flamebait and then slashdots very next post is about microsoft doing the same fucking thing.... imagine that.

  32. re: personhood of corporations by bryanpas · · Score: 1

    But....but....but...what about the double-taxation that people with standard corporations have to pay (if they're not smart enough to plan around it)? Isn't that worth any number of scams? Ok, I'll be back later, time to pry my tongue out of my cheek.

  33. My personal favorite... by BillX · · Score: 1

    "Your Computer Is Broadcasting An IP Address!!"

    "Your House Is Broadcasting A Street Address!!"

    --
    Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
    1. Re:My personal favorite... by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      Apparently my computer is not only broadcasting an IP address, but is also broadcasting data about my browser!

      According to various sites I'm running IE 3.0 (I'm running Firefox), my resolution is 640x480 (It's 1600x1200) and I only have 32mb of RAM (2gb). And they can sell me some software to fix it.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
  34. Textbook Confirmation Bias by Mateorabi · · Score: 1

    But then again it's handy that criminals are stupid by default, it makes them easier to catch.

    No, its just the stupid (and unlucky) criminals that get caught. You never hear about the smart ones, almost by definition.

    --
    "You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8

    1. Re:Textbook Confirmation Bias by v1 · · Score: 1

      You're probably right. I recall hearing somewhere a bit of classic advice for that sort... "Do it once, do it big, and never tell anybody." Not that I'm headed down that path, but if I were, that would seem like very sage advice.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  35. economic bigotry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not everyone got to go to college. everyone has to scam in their own special way. and sorry, but there are few bigger scam industries than the computer business, its no more 'noble' than any other

  36. The Libertarian Response by Cruxus · · Score: 1

    This is exactly the kind of anti-market government regulation we don't need! If customers don't like the service Spyware Assassin is providing, they can consider the alternatives made available to them in a purported free market. With a Republican administration in power, I would have hoped for better.

    --
    On vit, on code et puis on meurt.
    1. Re:The Libertarian Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding? Republicans love to con people out of their money every day. We live in a Republic, not a democracy.... Doesn't really matter what the majority thinks.. Just those with money as usual...

    2. Re:The Libertarian Response by rokzy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      are you taking the piss? I guess so. the problem with Americans (my assumption is you are) is that when you think "no one could the THAT stupid" you often turn out to be wrong.

    3. Re:The Libertarian Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. There should be no law against stealing. After all, if "customers don't like the service" of the thieves, they can build and stay in steal-proof buildings.

    4. Re:The Libertarian Response by itchy92 · · Score: 1

      That's total bullshit.

      Republican or democrat, the government's job is to protect and serve the people. Regardless of how-incredibly-much they've overstepped that boundary, this definitely falls into that definition.

      Spam Assassin was deliberately marketing a product that did not do what it advertised to do. That is false advertising, and depending on the specific claims, probably fraud though IANAL, and IMBTOOMA (I may be talking out of my ass).

      At any rate, I think this is clearly a case of people being scammed, and the government has a responsibility to interject.

      --
      Slashdot: News for nerds. Stuff tha-- MICRO$OFT IS THE DEVIL!!1
    5. Re:The Libertarian Response by linuxdoctor · · Score: 1

      It doesn't really matter what system of government there is, it always boils down to government of special interests, by special interests, for special interests.

  37. Any F/OSS anti-spyware? by Mishura · · Score: 1

    I'm curious whether there is any good Open Source anti-spyware. Personally whenever I use windows, I go with Spybot, but I'd feel much more confortable with a OSS one, instead of one that is proprietary.

    P.S.: I know "Linux" is a F/OSS anti-spyware. Save it, you'd be speaking to the converted anyway. :)

  38. OT: More expensive? by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

    As another related question...why is it more expensive to be poor than rich?

    Actually, it's more expensive to be rich. Most people incur expenses that are outside their ability to afford, and they do it roughly proportional to their incomes. As a function of dollars per capita, it's much more expensive to be rich.

    (Note: "Poor" = 15,000-30,000 gross income, "Rich" = 60,000-500,000 gross income. People who make more or less than that skew the results.)

    --
    I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    1. Re:OT: More expensive? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Sorry...don't buy it.

      Rich people get all kinds of benefits; no intrest cards with no limits and not set time to repay, when they call to complain about fees they usually get them waived (banks don't want to lose thier million dollar customers).

      For a while banks were cashing checks for politicians even though the accounts were negative for long streaches of time.

  39. yes, I remember trying it ... by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

    and the feeling I had - there was something fishy about it. Even if I've cleaned my machine with several freeware utilities, it has reported about 20 potential problems. It has pointed on one file, as infected with virus which was a text file, one of the info files for GNU Emacs. So I have deleted whatever I've downloaded and forgot the whole story - till I saw this news.

  40. It's a good thing it did nothing... by MadAnthony02 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sure, Spyware Assasian did nothing, but there are even worse pseudo-anitspyware products out there. The article links to this chart, where PC Mag found spyware removal tools that added additional spyware or did things that aren't real good for Windows, like delete one of the driver folders.

    So it looks like there are even shadier companies out there

  41. Hello? by abb3w · · Score: 2, Informative
    That's total bullshit. Republican or democrat, the government's job is to protect and serve the people.

    Was that falling for a troll, or a counter-troll? Perhaps you might have noticed that this was titled "The Libertarian Response"? Libertarians are neither Republicans nor Democrats. They're a different political party entirely, generally agreeing with liberals on issues pertaining to the individual (such as drugs, abortion, and so on), and agreeing with the conservatives on economic issues (such as fiscal responsibility (Bush aside), corporate regulation, and the minimum wage).

    Commonly, libertarians make a distinction between the personal and economic aspects of liberal thought; the popular Nolan Chart makes the political spectrum a plane, rather than a line.

    Or, as I usually put it: in legislative sessions, the Conservatives sit to the right, the Liberals sit on the left, and the Libertarians are the baboons swinging from the chandeliers. (And it's suprising how many Libertarians will cheerfully agree with that description when asked....)

    The libertarian position stated was a trifle extreme... but does thus highlight the problems with the libertarian's more extreme free-market faction.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    1. Re:Hello? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Libertarians usually have the attitude of live and let live, hands off, and let it be. Until it's their ox that's being gored. Then they want the gubmint to step in with guns ablazing.

    2. Re:Hello? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoops, someone confused Libertarian with Liberal.

  42. Re:Spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Microsoft's Anti-Spyware (formally giant)"

    formally or formerly?

    Which one? You decide.

  43. Nonsense! by bluGill · · Score: 1

    This is one of the few areas where libertarians want the government to get involved. It is a clear cut case of contract violation. They promised to remove spyway, and didn't do it. Simple violation of contract.

    Libertarians are not anarchists. There is a time and place for government. Libertarians want government to deal with crimes against people (murder and other assult), property. (theft, vandalism), and enforcement of contracts. (This is not a complete list)

    1. Re:Nonsense! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately Libertarians tend to go some rather absurd extremes on this one. This is why, you will note, they are a rather small element in the Western world. Simply put, the majority don't actually agree with them. Of course social conservatives will sometimes make believe that they're libertarians.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Nonsense! by anagama · · Score: 1

      Here's my simplified definition of libertarianism: do you want you want as long you don't harm someone else. Being a libertarian is not the same as advocating "do what you want" -- that would be anarchy.

      So, these guys harmed their customers -- lower the boom. It's simple really.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  44. Such great comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Posted by Mark on Saturday, March 12, 2005, 02:15 AM (PST)

    NO ADAWARE put PORN on My Computer Deleted my WINDOWS COMM FILES and Destroyed my computer,and sent the info to Bank OF American which didnt do a thing, except say I got the program and it didnt work. I filed a Paper with the FTC about NO ADAWARE A disabled veteran

    I think some people can't be saved.
  45. Enforcement of contracts.. by MadAnthony02 · · Score: 1

    Yes, Libertarians believe in the enforcement of contracts. But I would guess most of them would rather see that enforcement take place through civil rather than criminal courts. They would argue that those wronged should sue the company (using the court to enforce the outcome of their lawsuit) rather than criminal penalties from a federal agency.

  46. My favorite line... by MadAnthony02 · · Score: 1

    One of the greatest viral tools for distributing your digital products.

    Wow, I've never seen a spyware maker admit they make a virus before!

    I'm guessing this is supposed to be some sort of reference to viral marketing (word of mouth type thing), but you have to be a moron to include the word "viral" when you are describing a software product

  47. Ohhhhh by I+kan+Spl · · Score: 1

    They have a web-forum!

    Perhaps we could ./ it?

    --
    My UID is prime and so is this number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
  48. Re:Sickening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm guessing a moderator failed to recognize humor.

  49. Do not feed the trolls.... by abb3w · · Score: 1
    Libertarians usually have the attitude of live and let live, hands off, and let it be. Until it's their ox that's being gored. Then they want the gubmint to step in with guns ablazing.

    Er, not in my experience. Libertarians, big fans of the 2nd that they are, generally say "If anything calls for guns ablazing, it's going to be my guns ablazing."

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  50. But at the very least, there's a gap by fizbin · · Score: 1

    Ok, I'll grant that there might be some unseen criminal mastermind class that we never hear about because they never get caught - anything's possible, I guess. However, presumably then there'd also be people who almost didn't get caught - people who were caught only because law enforcement worked really, really hard or was lucky a few crucial times.

    Where are those stories? Are they just not reported? (Or is this where we bring in the story of Al Capone, who beat every rap except tax evasion?)