Slashdot Mirror
Spitzer Sues Intermix Media for Bundling Spyware
CousinLarry writes "Attorney General and corporate watchdog Eliot Spitzer has filed suit against Intermix Software, alleging that the company deviously and deceptively bundles spyware with its 'free' screensaver and game products. 'Spyware and adware are more than an annoyance,' Spitzer said. 'These fraudulent programs foul machines, undermine productivity and in many cases frustrate consumers' efforts to remove them from their computers.'"
We really need these kinds of guys in our government. They honestly go after company deviousness, and are willing to prosecute them (and without being paid off).
I hate having to spend hours a week cleaning people's dying machines of these damned things, they can completely make a system useless in less than a month with some of the less intelligent users out there.
I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
'Spyware and adware are more than an annoyance,' Spitzer said. 'These fraudulent programs foul machines, undermine productivity and in many cases frustrate consumers' efforts to remove them from their computers.'"
There are still people who have power in this country that are still sane.
Red Bull gave me wings and I flew into the ceiling fan.
Now this is the government I want.
Sweet, this guy is an example of what politicians should be like!
--
I do agree with this one. I find it completely unfair that I have to run Adaware Pro, Microsoft Antispyware, and Spybot just to get around the internet. We as the consumer should be treated with more respect. Buying a program with spyware in it is almost as bad as if one were to go to buy a sandwich and it had the cold virus in it. I am sure the government would have a problem with that. Why not take more initiative with this too?
The real question is whether or not they get convicted. Yay for spitzer having the cojones, but there's still the whole legal portion to get through. Notwithstanding i hope they go bankrupt, i'm tired of running adaware on my parents computer...
Bullshit, that is not how all the spyware out there gets on a system. It isn't all IE's fault, people downloading shitty flash, screensavers and games are how most spyware get's on a person's system.
I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
He's the only politician that makes headlines that I've liked in more than a decade.
fifth sigma, inc.
While I think Splitzer can be a bit overzealous and grandstanding (plus laying groundwork for his run for political office),
All of that may be true, however he is also doing a lot of good in the process. As far as I am concerned we could use a few more like him.
I'm surprised nowhere in the writeup does it mention that Spitzer works for the New York State government, not the US Federal Government. There is a difference.
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/
The Attorney General of the US would never stand up for citizens.
Whenever a hacker (or cracker, distinction here http://searchwindowssecurity.techtarget.com/tip/1, 289483,sid45_gci998037,00.html.) breaks into corporate networks, he's a CRIMINAL, and his purpose is evil. Even if he does not do anything that damages productivity, purported "loss of funds" can get him imprisoned.
Contrarily, when a corporation with no morals or respect for users releases a spyware program for research/marketing with illegal methods, Advertisement, Data mining, etc., no one tends to lift a finger. I salute Spitzer, and hope that this sets some sort of precedent to protect consumers and businesses from these sorts of programs that waste productivity and generally piss people off.
Do, do not, or delegate to someone else: there is no try.
There have been several instances where I have "wiped" a company computer over spyware. Sometimes it is faster to nuke it (especially if you have an image backup) than it is to fix the problem. We do regular backups of all files neccessary to conduct business. I can completely redo a machine and have that employee ready to work at full capacity in about 30 minutes. If it looks like investigating and removing the spyware will take longer than that, the user gets a reinstall. Their work material will be completetly unaffected. A better idea would be to lock down these boxen a bit more but company politics prohibit such a move.
Poor practice to respond to one's own post, but there are a few more details further into the article.
Spitzer's civil suit accuses Intermix of violating state General Business Law provisions against false advertising and deceptive business practices. He also accuses them of trespass under New York common law.
Ok, that's better but could still use a little clarification. Trespass? Is that the closest approximation NY law has to hacking into someone's computer? Usually it's some sort of wiretapping law that gets called into play.
Still would like to know why he's not prosecuting instead of arresting. We're always howling about how vague the DCMA and laws like it are...how vague they are and how they can nail anyone because they're so broad.
So...can't we use these rotten open-ended anti hacking ??AA laws to nail some actual criminals, rather than teenagers with big MP3 collections?
It'd be a great way to at least use these lousy laws to our advantage a bit before they go away. And they will too, once it gets demonstrated that they can be used to bust businessmen as well as teenagers.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I'm in NYC and Spitzer is real bulldog. This guy will go after any corporation for any bullshit they try to pull. He's the real deal.
Now if we could just unleash him on Wal-Mart...
Transistors and Beer!!
In my neck of the woods (SF bay area), the goal seems to be writing up parking violations.
While fighting crime is worthy of mention, it generates no income for anybody. On the contrary. It ends up costing money.
Now compare that dumb restore to a manual repair. You have to be very well versed in spyware removal and must know where all the latest tripwires are installed (like the grandparent says.) I have more important things to do than to learn about malicious software, about every release of it. Also when you start you have no idea how long it will take and whether you will succeed, completely or partially. Also if there are many different spyware programs the repair time also grows - and finally how do you know that at some point no spyware is left? Only because you can't find any?
If you are at home and have nothing else to do - sure, read about the spyware until your eyes start falling out, and then try to remove the thing - and once you fail, try and try again. But if you are in a business setting, just reimage the box in half an hour and be done with it.
winlogon.exe
Getting rid of the latest variants of the VX2 type spyware is a non-trivial process. These variants attach themselves to processes that run even in safe mode.
From a time efficiency standpoint, nukes from orbit look awefully attractive.
He is what I view as the embodiment of what it means to be a TRUE American. A genuine good-guy who isn't afraid to stand up for what's right...
Ah, yes. So, say, attempting to use lawsuits to enforce policy you can't pass legislatively (probably because it infringes upon fundamental human rights) is what a TRUE American does? Hint: check out http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Sty le=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS /2003/06/30&ID=Ar00601 for the story.)
Including the legislature, and, presumably, the constituency that elected them, right? In fact, the legislature is so appalled at his idea that they're considering legislation to make what he did illegal.
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
He is using the legal system to carry out his convictions. What's wrong with that?
evil is as evil does
I'm sorry I don't regularly get my news from that bastion of journalistic integrity the NY Sun *cough tabloid*cough*
Spitzer is the ATTORNEY GENERAL of NY. It is not his job to write and push bills through the legistlature. It IS his job to enforce the laws of NY state and he is doing a damn good job if you ask me. Also, if "the legislature is so appalled at his idea", why have I heard absolutely nothing to that effect in the past two years since that particular issue has even been talked about?
A visit to your website reveals your One True Righteous Crusade to apparently be concealed carry gun laws and their preservation. Aparently when you saw Spitzer took some action which was even remotely anti-gun, you decided he must be evil. You offer an interesting study on the irrational, complete black or white mindset of so many people. Do I completely agree with every last syllable uttered by the guy? No certainly not. But, shockingly enough, I am able to make the rational, sane assessment that he's doing a lot of good and is therefore worthy of my support even though he may not agree with me on the minutia of every last issue I'm interested in. See how that works? It's what we call a small logical compromise. Furthermore I actually live in New York, YOU seem to live in Oklahoma. Why do you even care? Ohhh right, because you're irrationally fixated with single issue zealotry. shame, that.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
'Spyware and adware are more than an annoyance,' Spitzer said. 'These fraudulent programs foul machines, undermine productivity and in many cases frustrate consumers' efforts to remove them from their computers.'
Why do I so often see spyware being framed like this? I've read many articles in the popular press about spyware. They always say that you should remove spyware because such software can make your computer slower.
Hello? It's called spyware. It's sitting there spying on you, for God's sake, and your only worry is supposed to be that your computer is slower than it should be? Are people really that indifferent to their personal privacy these days? Why aren't people outraged that some program has sneaked itself into their system and is now sniffing all of their network traffic?
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
Thank God for unregulated free enterprise. Bring back lead-based paint and cars that explode when you rear-end them!
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
why have I heard absolutely nothing to that effect in the past two years since that particular issue has even been talked about?
I would guess that it's because those issues aren't your particular field of interest. There's so much going on that it's impossible to keep up with everything; this happens to be one of my particular interests. The bill numbers are H.R. 800 and S. 397, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act, and you can find them on http://thomas.loc.gov. Your accusation of zealotry is misguided, BTW; you might be surprised to learn that I actually argued against the act, because I believe that it represents an improper intrusion of the Federal government into state matters, specifically the states' right to sue whom they choose. As usual, Dr. Ron Paul expresses my objections more eloquently than I can. You can read his explanation--and the NRA's disapproval--at http://www.inlibertyandfreedom.com/rp1036.htm. That said, I do think such suits are without merit (as has every single court that has heard one, I might add).
I care not because of single-issue zealotry; while his actions actually could affect me (by driving up costs), that's not the primary reason for my concern. I care because I'm opposed to government using the courts to achieve those ends which it cannot achieve legislatively. I am particularly concerned where such ends are achieved by lawsuit and driving companies out of business (or making continued operations economically unviable); typically, when such measures are taken, it is because there is no justification in legislation, or because such legislation would be either unconstitutional, or rejected by constituents. His job being the enforcement of existing law, it is inappropriate for him to be engaging in lawsuits against lawful manufacturers of lawful products because of the unlawful actions of end users. As a parallel, would it be appropriate if he filed suit against Ford for the actions of drunk drivers?
As for your crusade comment: I'm going to let that one stand, because it's pretty close. I do take exception to the "one true righteous" part, though. My crusade, my passion, is not concealed carry, or even gun rights in general; rather, it's my right to live without unnecessary meddling or interference from my government. I speak out not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of anybody who has been abused at the hands of government. I am a frequent critic of President Bush, AG Gonzales (I swear, I never though I'd actually miss Ashcroft, but Gonzales is actually worse), the DEA, ONDCP, FBI, and pretty much every other government agency. Mr. Spitzer's lawsuits represent an intrusion into lawful commerce that serves as an unwelcome precedent: that the government can hold producers accountable for the actions of end-users, actions over which they have no control. See also: filesharing software. I have consistently opposed RIAA/MPAA efforts, along with the DMCA (and similar), to hold the software authors and service providers accountable for the actions of their users. Why? Because the authors have no control over who uses their software to do what; without control, neither can there be responsibility. Mr. Spitzer is a particularly apropos target for criticism in this matter, though, because these lawsuits were his brainchild--he is, effectively, the leader of that effort, and just as President Bush is the leader of many of our truly offensive policy decisions ("enemy combatants" and the USA PATRIOT Act being perhaps two of the most egregious), and therefore deserving of extra criticism, so does Mr. Spitzer deserve the criticism on this issue.
Single-issue zealotry? The issue is freedom, and I don't think it's irrational at all. My comment was not to paint Mr. Spitzer as a villain, but rather to respond to your (apparent) characterization of him as a hero. I appreciate what he's done for us--for all of us, even those of
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
I do hope you are right but I have doubts for the political career of anyone that pisses off the banks as much as Spitzer did.
A major investment bank does not just through that kind of money away if they don't have a damn good reason to believe that they lose if it ever goes to court.
Mr. Spitzers motives might be of dubious nature, but it's undeniable that he's responsible that wrongdoers, frauds, cheats and other vermin on a very large corporate scale paid major money due to his efforts.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
I care because I'm opposed to government using the courts to achieve those ends which it cannot achieve legislatively.
Well, oppose whatever you want, and I'll sit here feeling sick and tired of folks who think that the courts are somehow a "lesser" branch of government. I don't remember reading that anywhere in the Constitution.
What I do remember are checks, balances, and whatnot. You say the state legislature is now considering changing the law? Good. That's how it's supposed to work.
"UNIX" is never having to say you're sorry.
One of the things that caught my attention was that Spitzer was charging them with trespass, under the common law definition. This has two interesting ramifications. First, that programs running on your computer are considered to be on your property. The precedent that this sets is non-trivial. Does it mean that damage to data on your computer can be covered by your homeowner's insurance? Is it still considered to be trespass when it's on a laptop, connected at a hotspot outside your home? And, what ramifications does that have for your online presence? If the spyware is trespassing on my property, am I considered to be on a business' property when I'm visiting their site? Can I sue the business for giving me the spyware, in the same way you can sue someone for inadequate physical safety precautions? Also, the application of common law to spyware is interesting. Essentially, that's saying, "This is obviously against the spirit of the law, even though it isn't covered by a specific law to date." (Yes, the concept of common law is significantly more complex, but I'm a geek, not a lawyer.) Given that online threats are evolving far faster than any legislature can keep up with, this might be an interesting precedent for still prosecuting, or at least suing, those who perpetrate such threats.