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.
Now this is the government I want.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!