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.
Mark my words Spitzer: I will bury you!
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 goverment accually does something to protect our rights online
us 3
them 834
I hope that they prosecute them for fraudulent business practices... nothing else really.
If they are prosecuted for frustrating users, and causing machines to perform poorly, woe be unto the poor programmers of the world...
hey.. wait a min, if they did that, then Gill Bates if phuqued!!!
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
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.
As a matter of fact, I once had a run-in with exactly one of those spyware programs that frustrate your efforts to remove it from your computer. Mind you, this wasn't on any of my computers, which are Linux, FreeBSD, or Mac boxes. It was a secretary's computer at work, running Windows XP. Unfortunately, they still haven't listened to me about migrating away from that.
Turns out, this secretary went to some website using Internet Explorer, which we constantly tell people not to use. The site automatically installed some software without her knowledge. The complaint was that her computer was lagging and running significantly slower than normal. I checked the Registry, which should be called the Madnesstry, and found under various Startup locations that there were some ten similar programs running. I deleted all of the associated keys. Turns out, the software installs a daemon that watches the registry and reinstalls the key the instant you remove it. Trying to shut down that daemon or delete the actual EXE files from the computer is a futile effort. The damn thing monitors its own existance in every way that you can imagine.
Finally, I blew everything off the computer, installed Windows from CD, and personally locked down that box as far as you can say that Windows can be locked down, which isn't very far. Internet Explorer is hidden everywhere, and I actually put Internet Explorer icons that simply launch a window that says this computer is not authorized to launch internet explorer. Instead, there is Firefox and Opera to choose from. I also went ahead and created a blacklist of sites from here to Timbuktu. That solved most of the problems.
While I think Splitzer can be a bit overzealous and grandstanding (plus laying groundwork for his run for political office), I can't think of a better group of companies to go after than *&^%$#@! spyware companies. For those interested in some great detailed info about these cockroaches, take a look at Ben Edelman's web site ... where he also indentifies the folks who finance 'em.
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
Uh, isn't that the point of their business? They're a REPAIR shop. Next thing you know they're going to complain about "lost business" resulting from the suit.
Seems like Intermix's stock took a hard hit due to this news today.
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.
Nuking the site from orbit is not the only option.
Great. There goes Minesweeper.
its high time we had a hangin!
/rant
seriously though, Perhaps it's fate that today, Arpil the Twenty ninth, we will once again fight for our freedom. Not from tyranny, persecution or oppression. But from assholes that bundle spyware with free screensavers. We're fighting for our right to live, to exist. From this day on, the twenty ninth day of April will no longer be remembered as an American holiday (not that it ever has) but as the day that all of mankind declared we will not go quietly into the night. We will not vanish without a fight. We will live on. We will survive.
serenity now!
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.
He'll most likely be running for governor of New York state.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
It's worth noting that Intermix also runs the popular "networking" website MySpace. This site is used by lots of people, and many bands have pages set up on there. Billy Corgan of Smashing Pumpkins fame even has a profile on there.
Makes you wonder what they're doing with the information people put on there.
First off, I'm as happy as everyone else someone is finally going after these scumbags.
But at the risk of casting a dark cloud over the whole affair, Mr. Spitzer is sueing Intermix, not arresting them.
So...anyone know exactly what they're exactly being sued for? "Secretly installing software" is a little vague for a legal charge.
Another question. Why sue? He's the Attorney General. Why not prosecute instead?
So can anyone with some legal insight shed a little light here, so we know how happy to be?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
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.
http://castlecops.com/article-5943-nested-0-0.htm
TIAA-CREF
CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS RET SYS
NEW YORK ST TCHR RTRMT
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!!
Can't we do something about the people who advertise through spyware? If no one pays the spyware companies, the whole thing falls through. Plus the advertisers might have a reputation to maintain, unlike spyware companies who no one knows about.
Believe me it's not all porn sites and such that dish out the spyware. :) ).
I've cleaned it off machines that got infected because a 12year old Wrastling fan VISITED some 'fan' site.
I watched the re-infection try to happen, his mom had heard the same story it was all from porn sites and figured her son had hit 'that age' (peuberty to ten minutes after death for most of us
To prove to his mom that's not what he was doing he showed us each of the sites he went to. When he hit this fan site the blocker I was using at the time went nuts with about 8 attempts to infect, two of them would have worked without any further action than simply viewing the site in pre-sp2 xp.
These days it's more often the aforementioned smilies and cursors and some simular crap.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
I seriously hope this is the first in a long series of lawsuits against companies that pull this kind of shit. FunWebProducts should be the next on the list, I've heard more complaints against their crapware than nearly anything else.
<inflamatory sentence> FunWebProducts, if you don't know, are the makers of those Smiley Central things you see ads for plastered on every site using bottom feeder ad-sales services.</inflamatory sentence>
Aside from being spyware and hard for the average user to remove, their apps also pollute the hell out of my [company's] logs and their toolbar plugin makes corrupt requests to pages we don't even have. The best we can figure is that some mechanism is "guessing" what URLs would be the best for the user. That or it's trying to spider our site following the user's trails.
I admit I have a personal bias in case you couldn't figure that out
R(k)
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!
Ever wondered why you see so many banners for screensavers wherever you go on the Internet?
These people pour in several hundreds thousand dollars per month into advertisement for "free" screensavers! Even though the cost of acquisition may be up to $2-3 per installation, they can still make a couple of million a month from selling the souls and registration data of the poor gullible old ladies installing these things. Not to mention giving them a healthy does of adware/spyware for additional profit.
Unfortunately, Intermix is not even the worst, there are bigger players on the market. This kind of heavy marketing makes it quite tough for us honest small developers to compete, and it even hurts us by scaring away people who got their fingers burnt already.
Go on Spitzer!
www.oceandive.com
A hand up and a foot on every chest...
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.